jessica instruments for solid waste management in greece · 2017-12-11 · jessica instruments for...

JESSICA

JOINT EUROPEAN SUPPORT FOR

SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT IN CITY AREAS

JESSICA Instruments for Solid Waste Management in Greece

STUDY

Final Report - Part 1

Analysis of Solid Waste Management in Greece

March 2010

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the

European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.

EIB Study: JESSICA instruments for SWM in Greece: FINAL Report - Part 1

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................................. 8

1.1. Country Presentation..............................................................................8

1.2. Climate..................................................................................................9

1.3. Administrative Areas - Population ............................................................9

1.4. Population ...........................................................................................12

1.5. Solid Waste Management Over the Past Few Years ................................15

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREECE...............17

2.1. Introduction.........................................................................................17

2.2. Historical Background...........................................................................17

2.3. Basic Legal Instruments on Waste Management in Greece......................19

2.3.1. Solid Waste Management Planning.................................................20

2.3.2. Non Hazardous Solid Waste...........................................................22

2.3.3. Packaging Waste and Special Streams............................................24

2.3.4. Hazardous Waste..........................................................................32

2.3.5. Medical Waste ..............................................................................33

2.4. Actors Involved in the Waste Management Sector ..................................34

2.4.1. Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change......................34

2.4.2. Waste Management Inter-ministerial Committee.............................35

2.4.3. Funding........................................................................................36

2.4.4. Public Works.................................................................................36

2.4.5. Municipalities and Waste Management Authorities ..........................37

2.4.6. Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation ........................................38

2.4.7. Environmental Permit ....................................................................39

2.5. Maturity Plan & Environmental Licensing Procedure................................40

3. FUNDING OF WASTE MANAGEMENT INVESTMENTS ..........................46

3.1. NSRF 2007-2013 & Urban Development ................................................46

3.1.1. General Description of NSRF 2007-2013 .........................................46

3.1.2. Sectoral Operational Programmes ..................................................47

3.1.3. Regional Operational Programmes .................................................50

3.1.4. European Territorial Cooperation Programmes ................................51

3.1.5. Financial Framework – European Funds for Cohesion Policy.............53


3

3.1.6. Environment & Sustainable Development .......................................54

3.2. Public – Private Partnerships (PPP) framework .......................................58

3.2.1. General Description.......................................................................58

3.2.2. SWM projects approved by PPP Committee.....................................59

3.2.3. Proposal to PPP Unit .....................................................................61

4. MSW GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT IN GREECE ..........................64

4.1. Introduction.........................................................................................64

4.2. MSW Current Generation and Composition.............................................64

4.2.1. MSW composition .........................................................................64

4.2.2. MSW Generation ...........................................................................66

4.3. Prediction of MSW future generation .....................................................68

4.3.1. Correlation between income and MSW generation...........................69

4.3.2. 3 Scenarios Analysis......................................................................76

4.4. Current MSW Management in Greece ....................................................80

4.4.1. Waste collection and transport.......................................................80

4.4.2. Waste Treatment and Disposal ......................................................80

4.5. Secondary Product Market ....................................................................86

4.5.1. Compost market ...........................................................................86

4.5.2. RDF- SRF market ..........................................................................88

4.5.3. Recyclable materials......................................................................89

4.6. MSW management tariff system............................................................92

5. MSW MANAGEMENT FUTURE PLANNING ...........................................94

5.1. Impact of EU Legislation.......................................................................94

5.2. Planned Facilities..................................................................................97

6. APPENDICES .....................................................................................100


4

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Greek Prefectures ..................................................................................10

Table 2: Greek Population over time ....................................................................12

Table 3: Greek Population for every Prefecture in 2001.........................................13

Table 4: Prediction of Greek Population growth until 2028 (Eurostat - convergence

scenario)............................................................................................................14

Table 5: Funding from structural funds for waste management facilities in Attiki and

Central Macedonia* ............................................................................................57

Table 6: MSW composition in Greece (J.M.D 50910/2727/03)................................65

Table 7: Composition of packaging waste in MSW in Greece..................................66

Table 8: Annual total MSW generation in Greece from 1995 until 2007 (Eurostat)...66

Table 9: Annual MSW generated quantities in Attiki and Thessaloniki.....................68

Table 10: MSW generated quantities per unit of income in EU (2007) ....................71

Table 11: Real GDP growth rate - Growth rate of GDP volume percentage change on

previous year (Eurostat)......................................................................................73

Table 12: Average Annual Growth of GDP in EU 2000-2009...................................75

Table 13: Central Scenario ..................................................................................77

Table 14: Min Scenario........................................................................................77

Table 15: Max Scenario.......................................................................................78

Table 16: MSW generation and treatment in Greece (1995 – 2007) .......................81

Table 17: Existing MBT Facilities in Greece (MRFs not included).............................84

Table 18: MSW Operating Results of the national packaging WM system................85

Table 19: Secondary products market average prices in Greece (2009)..................92

Table 20: Financial contribution to Municipalities for the collection of packaging

waste.................................................................................................................93

Table 21: Existing and Planned Waste Treatment Facilities in Greece (MRFs not

included)............................................................................................................98


5

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Greek Regions........................................................................................9

Figure 2: Geographical allocation of the Greek Prefectures ....................................10

Figure 3: Geographical allocation of the Greek R.O.Ps...........................................11

Figure 4: Schematic representation of the licensing process steps..........................44

Figure 5: Flow chart of the maturity procedure in case of project approval through

PPP Law (source: Ministry of Economy and Finance).............................................45

Figure 6: Allocation of the National Strategic Reference Framework funds..............56

Figure 7: MSW composition in Greece in 2007 (J.M.D 50910/2727/03)...................65

Figure 8: Annual total generation of MSW in Greece (Eurostat)..............................67

Figure 9: Annual generation of MSW per capita in Greece and EU-27 (Eurostat) .....67

Figure 10: Correlation between per capita income and MSW generation in EU (2000 –

2007).................................................................................................................70

Figure 11: Correlation between per capita income and MSW generation in Greece

(2000 – 2007) ....................................................................................................71

Figure 12: Average Annual Growth of GDP in EU from 2000 until 2009 (Data sourced

from Eurostat) ....................................................................................................76

Figure 13: MSW Total Generation in Greece from 2008-2028 assuming 3 different

scenarios (min, central and max).........................................................................79

Figure 14: Management of MSW in Greece, from 1995 until 2007 (Eurostat) ..........81

Figure 15: Existing treatment facilities in Greece (2009)........................................85

Figure 16: Future quantities and management of BMW in Greece ..........................96

Figure 17: Existing and planned treatment facilities in Greece (2009).....................99


6

ABBREVIATIONS

ACMAR Association of Municipalities and Communities in the Attiki Region

ALAPT Local Authorities of Prefecture of Thessaloniki

AUTH Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

BMW Biodegradable Municipal Waste

C&D Construction and Demolition Waste

CEB Council of Europe Development Bank

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC European Commission

EEA European Environment Agency

EFF European Fisheries Fund

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIB European Investment Bank

ELV End of Life Vehicles

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

EU European Union

GET Greek Environmental Technology S.A.

HERRCO Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation

HF Holding Fund

J.M.D. Joint Ministerial Decision

JESSICA Join European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas

L.R. Legislative Regulation

MA Managing Authority

MBT Mechanical & Biological Treatment

MBT Mechanical and Biological Treatment

MD Ministerial Decision

MRF Materials Recovery Facilities

MS Member State


7

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

NSWMP National Solid Waste Management Plan

NTUA National Technical University of Athens

OP Operational Programme

OP Operational Programmes

OPESD operational program ‘’Environment and Sustainable Development’’

PD Presidential Degree

PEIA Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

PFI Private Finance Initiative

PPC Public Power Corporation

PPP Public and Private Partnership

RDF Refuse Delivered Fuel

ROP Regional Operational Programmes

RSWMP Regional Solid Waste Management Plans

SOP Sectoral Operational Programmes

SRF Energy-rich solid recovered fuel

SWM Solid Waste Management

TCG Technical Chamber of Greece

UDF Urban Development Fund

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WMA Waste Management Authorities

WtE Waste to Energy Plant


8

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1. COUNTRY PRESENTATION

Greece (and the Greek Islands) is a peninsular and mountainous country located in

Southern Europe, on the Mediterranean, between Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey and the

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The country dominates the Aegean and

Ionian Sea. It has a total area of 131,940 square km of which land represents

130,800 square km and water 1,140 square km. Greece has a coastline of 13,676 km

and is divided in regions and islands groups which are organized, for administrative

purposes, into prefectures. The mainland consists of the following regions: Central

Greece, Peloponnese, and Thessaly (east/central), Epirus (west), Macedonia

(north/northwest), Thrace (northwest). Capital city of Greece is Athens located in the

Attiki basin, in the centre of the Greek territory. The Peloponnese peninsula is

located in the southern part of Greece. It is separated from the mainland by the

artificial Isthmus of Corinth. The northern mainland is dissected by high mountains

that extend southwards towards a landscape of fertile plains, pine-forested uplands

and craggy, scrub-covered foothills. One of the characteristics of Greece is the large

amount of islands. There are more than 2000 islands scattered both in the Aegean

and Ionian Seas. The majority are located in the Aegean between the mainland and

Turkey.

Aegean Sea includes the regions of the Saronic, the closest islands from Athens, the

Cyclades, with 39 islands such as Santorini, Mykonos, Paros and Naxos, the

Dodecanese which lies off the Turkish coast, of which Rhodes is the best known,

Crete the largest island, the Sporades near the city of Volos and the Northeast

Aegean group which includes Lemnos, Lesvos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria. The Ionian

Sea includes the islands of Corfu, Kefalonia, Lefkada, Ithaki, Zakynthos and Kithira.

Greece is a mountainous country. The lowest point is the Mediterranean Sea, at 0m

of height, and the highest point is the Mount Olympus, at 2,917 m. The country is

quite rich in natural resources providing magnetite, lignite, bauxite, hydropower and

marble.


9

1.2. CLIMATE

Greece has a Mediterranean climate with plenty of sunshine, mild temperatures and

a limited amount of rainfall. Due to the country's geographical position, its rugged

relief and its distribution between the mainland and the sea, there is a great

variation in Greece's climate. In summer, the dry hot days are cooled by seasonal

winds, while mountainous regions have generally lower temperatures. The winters

are mild in lowland areas, with a minimum amount of snow and ice, yet, mountains

are usually snow-covered. Moreover, a common phenomenon is the occurrence of

different climactic conditions during the same season (for instance, mild heat in

coastal areas and cool temperatures in mountainous regions).

1.3. ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS - POPULATION

Greece is divided into 13 Regions, of which nine are located in the mainland and four

in the islands. The Regions are further divided into 51 prefectures. The division into

Regions was established through Article 61 of the Law 1622/1986 «Local Authorities

– Regional Development – Democratic Programming». Later on, the Law 2503/97

«Regional administration, organization, personnel and regulations concerning local

authorities» granted Regions the role of a decentralized administrative unit with their

own personnel, departments and budget. The geographical allocation of the Regions

can be seen in the picture below.

Figure 1: Greek Regions

1.Attiκι 2.Central Greece 3.Central Macedonia 4.Crete 5. Eastern Macedonia & Thrace 6. Epirus 7. Ionian Islands 8. Northern Aegean 9. Peloponnese 10. Southern Aegean 11. Thessaly 12. Western Greece 13. Western Macedonia


10

The above-mentioned regions, are further divided into 51 prefectures which are

listed in the following table.

Table 1: Greek Prefectures

1 Attiκι 27 Kerkyra (Corfu) 2 Evya 28 Kefallonia 3 Eurytania 29 Leukada 4 Fokida 30 Zakynthos (Zante) 5 Fthiotida 31 Chios 6 Voiotia 32 Lesvos 7 Chalkidiki 33 Samos 8 Imathia 34 Arkadia 9 Kilkis 35 Argolida

10 Pella 36 Korinthia 11 Pieria 37 Lakonia 12 Serres 38 Messinia 13 Thessaloniki 39 Cyclades 14 Chania 40 Dodecanese 15 Herakleio 41 Karditsa 16 Lasythi 42 Larisa 17 Rethymno 43 Magnisia 18 Drama 44 Trikala 19 Evros 45 Achaia 20 Kavala 46 Aitoloakarnania 21 Rodopi 47 Ilya 22 Xanthi 48 Florina 23 Arta 49 Grevena 24 Ioannina 50 Kastoria 25 Preveza 51 Kozani 26 Thesprotia (a) Aghio Oros

The geographical allocation of the prefectures can be seen in the picture below.

Figure 2: Geographical allocation of the Greek Prefectures


11

The Prefectures are further subdivided into 900 municipalities and 133 communities.

Moreover, according to Regional Solid Waste Management Plans (RSWMP), each

Region is divided into Administrative Areas, which sometimes happen to have the

same geographical borders as the Prefectures. In most cases though the

Administrative Areas and Prefectures are not in alignment. For example the Region

of Central Greece consists of five Prefectures, but the total number of the

Administrative Areas is eleven. In total, Greece is divided into 104 Administrative

Areas in relation to RSWMPs.

In addition to the above, for the implementation of the country’s development

planning during programming period 2007-2013, Greece was divided into five

Regional Operational Programmes (R.O.P.), based on the 13 Regions as follows:

a) R.O.P. of Western, Central Macedonia & Easter Macedonia-Thrace

b) R.O.P. of Western Greece, Peloponnese & Ionian islands

c) R.O.P. of Northern, Southern Aegean & Crete

d) R.O.P. of Thessaly, Central Greece & Epirus

e) R.O.P. of Attiki

The geographical allocation of the above-mentioned R.O.Ps can be seen in the

picture below.

Figure 3: Geographical allocation of the Greek R.O.Ps

1. R.O.P. of Attiki

2. R.O.P. of Macedonia & Thrace

3. R.O.P. of Thessaly, Central

Greece & Epirus

4. R.O.P. of Western Greece,

Peloponnese & Ionian islands

5. R.O.P. of Aegean & Crete


12

1.4. POPULATION

Population censuses in Greece take place the first year of every decade. According to

the 2001 census (data sourced from National Statistical Service of Greece) the

population of Greece was 10,964,020, around 675,000 more than the 1991 census

(6.56 % increase). Greece has received a large number of immigrants since the early

1990s. More specifically, the 2001 census revealed that 797,091 foreigners lived

permanently in the country and comprised 6.95% of the total population, while their

number in 1990 was 142,367. During that time period (1991 -2001), the population

increase due to births was around 20.000.

Greek population in 2008 was estimated to 11,216,717 inhabitants, 43,300 more

than the 1st of January 2007, according to data published by Eurostat (2009). The

population increased again mainly due to immigration. The total number of

immigrants was 41,000 while the population increase due to births was around

2,300.

According to Eurostat estimations as of January 2009 gave the number of

11,263,216 inhabitants in the Greek peninsula.

In the next table, the total population for Greece is presented.

Table 2: Greek Population over time

Year Population 1981 9,740,417 1991 10,258,364 2001 10,964,020 2009* 11,263,216

Source: National Statistical Service of Greece 1 – *Eurostat estimation2

In the next table, the total population for every Prefecture is being presented for

2001.

1 www.statistics.gr 2 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu


13

Table 3: Greek Population for every Prefecture in 2001

Prefecture Population 2001 Prefecture Population 2001 Attiki 3,761,810 Grevenon 37,947

Aitolokarnanias 224,429 Dramas 103,975 Voiotias 131,085 Imathias 143,618 Evoias 215,136 Thessalonikis 1,057,825

Eurytanias 32,053 Kavalas 145,054 Fthiotidas 178,771 Kastorias 53,483 Fokidas 48,284 Kilkis 89,056

Argolidas 105,770 Kozanis 155,324 Arkadias 102,035 Pellas 145,797 Achaias 322,789 Pierias 129,846 Ileias 193,288 Serron 200,916

Korinthias 154,624 Florinas 54,768 Lakonias 99,637 Chalkidikis 104,894 Messinias 176,876 Agion Oros 2,262 Zakynthoy 39,015 Evrou 149,354 Kerkyras 111,975 Xanthis 101,856

Kefallonias 39,488 Rodopis 110,828 Leukadas 22,506 Dodekanisou 190,071

Artas 78,134 Cykladon 112,615 Thesprotias 46,091 Lesvou 109,118 Ioanninon 170,239 Samou 43,595 Prevezis 59,356 Chiou 53,408 Karditsas 129,541 Herakleiou 292,489 Larisas 279,305 Lasithiou 76,319

Magnisias 206,995 Rethymnou 81,936 Trikalon 138,047 Chanion 150,387

TOTAL 10.964.020

*Source: National Statistical Service of Greece

Generally, future population growth is difficult to predict. Nevertheless, according to

Eurostat, hypothesizing a convergence scenario, Greek population over the next 20

years (starting from 2008) is predicted as follows:


14

Table 4: Prediction of Greek Population growth until 2028 (Eurostat - convergence scenario)

Year Eastern

Macedonia & Thrace

Central Macedonia

Western Macedonia Thessaly Epirus Ionian

Islands Western Greece

Central Greece Peloponnese Attiki Northern

Aegean Southern Aegean Crete Greece

2008 606,902 1,936,198 293,622 736,275 351,948 228,607 739,148 555,154 593,468 4,062,263 200,582 306,068 606,482 11,216,717

2009 605,769 1,949,478 293,235 736,537 352,136 230,335 740,839 554,968 595,078 4,087,256 198,403 307,584 611,598 11,263,216

2010 604,175 1,962,236 292,800 737,023 352,303 232,033 742,533 554,912 596,712 4,110,730 195,976 308,824 616,501 11,306,758

2011 601,995 1,974,447 292,354 737,628 352,437 233,755 744,270 554,983 598,508 4,132,720 193,231 309,826 621,239 11,347,393

2012 599,314 1,986,276 291,855 738,343 352,586 235,559 746,145 555,301 600,574 4,153,127 190,217 310,601 625,931 11,385,829

2013 596,434 1,997,116 291,323 738,978 352,723 237,286 747,904 555,611 602,654 4,171,410 187,267 311,230 630,375 11,420,311

2014 593,551 2,006,734 290,747 739,469 352,810 238,897 749,487 555,907 604,680 4,187,146 184,572 311,742 634,511 11,450,253

2015 590,626 2,015,188 290,126 739,762 352,847 240,417 750,862 556,178 606,632 4,200,438 182,065 312,145 638,387 11,475,673

2016 587,306 2,023,185 289,468 740,101 352,887 242,057 752,387 556,716 608,948 4,212,117 179,427 312,439 642,227 11,499,265

2017 584,025 2,029,945 288,765 740,251 352,851 243,596 753,680 557,214 611,175 4,221,476 177,026 312,656 645,785 11,518,445

2018 580,688 2,035,807 288,015 740,246 352,753 245,083 754,831 557,736 613,413 4,228,802 174,765 312,790 649,145 11,534,074

2019 577,419 2,040,722 287,251 740,061 352,605 246,475 755,783 558,190 615,590 4,234,022 172,715 312,893 652,279 11,546,005

2020 574,182 2,045,066 286,495 739,763 352,487 247,869 756,716 558,733 617,905 4,237,515 170,823 312,939 655,318 11,555,811

2021 571,019 2,048,954 285,776 739,310 352,373 249,243 757,604 559,315 620,309 4,239,458 169,098 312,960 658,258 11,563,677

2022 568,024 2,052,266 285,079 738,633 352,232 250,496 758,312 559,816 622,597 4,239,849 167,603 312,945 661,036 11,568,888

2023 565,142 2,055,257 284,423 737,764 352,097 251,678 758,895 560,264 624,839 4,239,100 166,287 312,916 663,682 11,572,344

2024 562,459 2,057,904 283,788 736,704 351,947 252,778 759,330 560,671 626,963 4,237,328 165,162 312,893 666,197 11,574,124

2025 559,953 2,060,402 283,210 735,465 351,802 253,841 759,730 561,058 629,082 4,234,888 164,158 312,868 668,639 11,575,096

2026 557,572 2,063,013 282,683 734,219 351,700 254,957 760,177 561,535 631,338 4,232,182 163,231 312,846 671,135 11,576,588

2027 555,478 2,065,111 282,178 732,798 351,550 255,892 760,343 561,825 633,311 4,228,604 162,528 312,838 673,413 11,575,869

2028 553,581 2,067,154 281,713 731,361 351,411 256,800 760,420 562,102 635,258 4,224,777 161,933 312,835 675,668 11,575,013 Rate over 20 years -8.79% 6.76% -4.06% -0.67% -0.15% 12.33% 2.88% 1.25% 7.04% 4.00% -19.27% 2.21% 11.41% 3.19%


15

According to that scenario, it is expected a 6.76 % population growth in Central

Macedonia, mainly due to rapid development of Thessaloniki, and a 4.00 %

population growth in Attiki.

1.5. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS

Waste management has been recognized as one of the most severe problems within

European Union. Greece, until early nineties was relying only on semi-controlled

landfills. Nevertheless, during the last two decades the solid waste management in

Greece has been remarkably upgraded. While it is still generally considered a major

problem, now it is increasingly becoming a well-structured, organized and

environmentally responsible activity with specific goals, mostly in urban areas.

Regarding solid waste management it must be noted that general planning is carried

out through the National Solid Waste Management Plan (NSWMP). The first waste

management planning introduced in the early nineties. Next, the 1998 intermediate

National Planning promoted the construction of 75 landfills in order to accept waste

from 75% of the total population. Around 85% of those landfills had capacity of less

than 50 tonnes per day. Moreover, in the 2000 National Planning main priority was

to close down semi and uncontrolled landfills without considering the fact that waste

treatment facilities would be necessary in the near future in order to divert part of

the waste stream from landfills.

The requirements for recycling, processing and landfilling of solid waste increased

the need of an integrated planning in national and regional level, thus the need for

regional planning was highlighted by the Ministry of Environment (Circular

11836/1951/27.6.2002) and was included in the 2003 NSWMP, where it was stated

that RSWMP should be established by 22/12/2005. As a result, all targets set in the

2003 NSWMP, based on EU Directives, are apportioned into the 13 aforementioned

Regions through the RSWMP.

Nevertheless, most of the waste management systems operated in Greece are still

not in full compliance with the requirements of Landfill Directive, which establishes

diversion rates of biodegradable municipal waste from landfills, and the revised

Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, which encourages the separate collection of


16

bio-waste with a view to the composting and digestion of bio-waste. This is mainly

duo to the fact that in the last two decades, and especially during the 1994-1999 and

2000-2006 Programming Periods, priority was given to the construction of compliant

infrastructure and therefore most of the 13 Regions still lack in waste processing

infrastructure. At present, there is a note of relative optimism, since most of the

waste treatment facilities foreseen in RSWMPs are under planning; however funding

needs are greater than the allocated funds in 2007-2013 Programming Period.


17

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN

GREECE

2.1. INTRODUCTION

Most of waste management law in Greece follows the development of European

waste management law. Next, basic legal instruments on waste management in

Greece, main actors and competent authorities are presented.

2.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first waste management related legislation in Greece was the Ministerial Decision

(M.D.) EIB/301/64 «on collection and disposal of waste» where the technical

guidelines for collection and disposal were set. According to article 7 the provisions

of the Decision could be bypassed with a Decision issued by the Prefecture.

Some years later with the Legislative Regulation (L.R.) 703/1970, Law 25/1975, Law

429/1976 and Law 1080/1980 sanitary fee was based on the household surface in

sq. meters, and this has not changed until today. In 1985, Law 1650 «on the

protection of the Environment» established a framework of sanctions and liabilities

for the protection of the environment. According to Article 12 the regional waste

management (collection, temporary storage, treatment and disposal) was placed

under the jurisdiction of Municipalities and Waste Management Authorities (WMA).

The EU Waste framework Directive was transposed into domestic law in 1986,

through the Joint Ministerial Decision (J.M.D.) 49541/1424/1986 (not valid) on «Solid

waste in conformity with Directive 75/442/EEC…» and for the first time the basic

principles for environment and public health protection together with the necessity

for waste management plans were introduced in the legislative framework. The

J.M.D. also:

• Contained definitions for waste management relevant terms

• Named the competent authorities for waste management

• Regulated solid waste management permissions for legal or natural persons

(apart from municipalities)

• Contained regulations for industrial waste


18

In 1996, J.M.D. 49541/1424/1986 was replaced by J.M.D. 69728/824/1996 (not

valid) on «Solid Waste Management» was published were the responsible parties for

issuing and implementing waste management plans were named. Those were the

Prefectures or the Region, if the Prefecture could not fulfill that task. Great

importance was given to sanitation of disposal sites and to the restoration of

uncontrolled dumpsites. The European Waste Catalogue was attached to the J.M.D..

In the same year the Ministry of Environment issued a circular that explained in

detail what the contents of the application file, concerning the use of a location for

the construction of a waste management facility, should be.

One year later with the J.M.D. 113944/97 (not valid) «on National Waste

Management Planning» and the J.M.D. 114218/97 «on technical specifications and

general plans for solid waste management», the legal framework concerning solid

waste became more specific.

Some years later the Law 2939/2001 «οn packaging and recycling of packaging and

other products - Establishment of the National Organization for Recycling of

Packaging and other Products» sets the legal framework for recycling of packaging

waste and other products and the Direction 94/62/EEC is transposed into national

Law. Presidential Decrees (P.D.) were issued that set management targets for every

waste stream. So far the P.D.’s 82/2004, 109/2004, 115/2004, 116/2004. 117/2004

και 15/2006 for used oils, tires, batteries, end of life vehicles and waste electrical and

electronic equipment have been issued. In 2003 J.M.D. 37591/2031/2003 concerning

healthcare waste was published. Accordingly healthcare units have to issue rules of

procedure concerning hazardous medical waste.

In the same year the J.M.D. 50910/2727/2003 «on measures and terms for solid

waste management - national and regional planning management», in complete

compliance with the European Waste Framework Directive 91/156/EEC is issued.

Basic principles and targets for solid waste management together with the

specifications for national and regional planning are set there.

The most recent legislative regulations are J.M.D. 13588/725/2006 for hazardous

waste, the MD 8668/2007 on the approval of Hazardous Waste National Planning


19

and the Law 3536/2007 were the legal form of Waste Management Authorities is

defined. During 2009 the M.D. 8111.41/09/2009 on measures and terms on port

reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues in compliance with

the provisions of the Directive 2007/71/ΕC was published.

2.3. BASIC LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

The basic current acts in force on Waste Management in Greece are:

1. Solid Waste Management Planning

J.M.D. 50910/2727/2003 on «measures and conditions on solid waste

management - National and Regional Management Plan»

2. Non Hazardous Solid Waste (includes MSW)

J.M.D. 114218/1997 «Establishment of a framework of technical

specifications and of general plans of solid waste management »

M.D. 29407/3508/2002 «On measures and terms for landfilling of waste»

J.M.D. 22912/1117/2005 «On measures and terms for the prevention and

reduction of environmental pollution and the incineration of waste»

J.M.D. 4641/232/2006 «Establishment of technical specifications of small

landfill sites on small islands and isolated settlements»

3. Packaging waste and other special streams

Law 2931/2001 «Οn packaging and recycling of packaging and other

products - Establishment of the National Organization for Recycling of

Packaging and other Products» and associated Presidential Decrees.

J.M.D. 9268/469/2007 «Amendment of 2931/2001 about quantitative

national targets for recover and recycling of packaging waste»

4. Hazardous waste

M.D. 8668/2007 «Approval of the hazardous waste national plan»

J.M.D. 24944/1159/2006 «Concerning the establishment of general

technical specifications of hazardous waste management».

J.M.D. 13588/725/2006 «On measures, terms and restrictions concerning

hazardous waste management»


20

5. Medical Waste.

J.M.D. 37591/2031/2003 «on measures and terms concerning healthcare

waste management».

Next, the key points of the aforementioned acts, are briefly presented.

2.3.1. Solid Waste Management Planning

As stated, planning operates at two levels. Firstly, the National Waste Management

Plan, annexed to the 50910/2727/2003 Joint Ministerial Decision on «measures and

conditions on solid waste management - National and Regional Management Plan»,

which sets out the general priorities in relation to waste management. The

operational plan, however, is set at the regional level.

J.M.D. 50910 on the management of waste, transposed Directive 2006/12/EC

(replaced by the Directive 2008/98) into the national legislation. It comprises to the

following basic axes:

• Adaptation and approval of the National Solid Waste Management Planning

so as to incorporate the major principles, goals, policies and actions for the

rational management of urban wastes, according to the community legal

framework and arising national obligations;

• Establishment of the Regional Solid Waste Management Planning as the

executive action plan in the area of solid waste management, with

specifications and goals in consistency with those of the National Planning.

The objective of the RSWM Plan is to specify the general directions of the

National Plan and identify priorities and measures to be taken at the regional

level by Regions, Prefectures and WMAs.

In the aforementioned J.M.D. the national targets regarding solid waste

management are set in order:

To ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health

To conserve natural resources, water, energy and earth surface

To reduce the air emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect


21

To expand the life span of sanitary landfills

To ensure that final disposal of waste will not pose a threat to future

generations

Solid waste management is governed by the following principles:

Prevention of waste.

The polluter pays.

Proximity of disposal sites to the sites/sources of waste generation.

The hierarchy in the waste management sector according to the NSWMP consists of

three actions, as following:

1. Prevention or minimization of waste production (quantitative minimization) as

well as the minimization of the waste content in hazardous substances

(qualitative minimization)

2. Utilization of waste (recycling and energy recovering)

3. Safe final disposal of residues

According to the J.M.D., the NSWMP will be revised every five years and will be

published after common approval from the Ministries of Interior, Environment,

Health and Agriculture, after consulting with the Central Unions of Municipalities &

Communities of Greece (Greek abbreviation: KEDKE) and the Central Union of

Prefectures of Greece (Greek abbreviation: ENAE). If necessary the revision can

occur earlier than the five years in order to confront with urgent changes in the

waste management sector. Those can be changes due to:

a) the promotion or implementation of European or international programs,

b) to legislation amendments,

c) natural or other disasters or

d) unforeseeable problems during the construction of MSW facilities.

Moreover, J.M.D. 50910 sets the targets for diversion of biowaste, in accordance

with the Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999. More specifically the J.M.D.

50910 sets the following targets:


22

In 2010, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 75 % of the total amount of

BMW produced in 1995, for which standardised Eurostat data are available;


BMW produced in 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data are available;


BMW produced in 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data are available.

Regarding packaging waste, J.M.D. sets quantitative national targets based on Law

2931/2001, however these were amended by J.M.D. 9268/469/2007.

Finally, the J.M.D. determines the obligations of the WMA and the Regions, regulates

the permits of waste management operators and sets a time limit for the eradication

of uncontrolled dumping.

2.3.2. Non Hazardous Solid Waste

Regarding non hazardous waste (that includes MSW) treatment and disposal, the

most important statutes and the way they affect strategic decisions in handling solid

waste are described in this section

J.M.D. 114218/1997 on Technical Specifications

«Establishment of a framework of technical specifications and of general plans of

solid waste management »

J.M.D. 114218 determines the technical specifications regarding the appropriate

systems, means and procedures for each of the available waste treatment methods

(like temporary storage, collection and disposal, collection at source, recycling etc.)

and it also specifies the criteria for the selection of landfills, as well as for the

planning, design and function of “Sanitary Legal Waste Disposal Sites”, mechanical

sorting plants and composting facilities. Specifications on compost products are also

included.

J.M.D 29407/3508/2002 on Landfilling of Waste

«On measures and terms for landfilling of waste»


23

Through the aforementioned J.M.D., the Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste

was transposed into the Greek legislative framework. The main elements introduced

with the J.M.D. are:

• Waste must be treated before landfilled,

• Stricter operational rules for sanitary landfills

• Changes regarding gate fee for landfilling were introduced,

• Requirements for the landfill operating authorities where established

• Planning and permitting procedure were changed

Those requirements aim to promote the construction of high standard landfills which

will gradually be turned into residue landfills. Regarding gate fee, costs of financial

security, final closure and after-care have to be included.

Moreover, Article 12 of J.M.D 29407 requires that the costs for operation and

extension works of landfills is covered by the price charged by the Waste

Management Authorities (via Municipalities) for the disposal of waste.

J.M.D. 22912/1117/2005 on Waste Incineration

«On measures and terms for the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution

and the incineration of waste»

The J.M.D. was published in order to transpose Directive 2000/76/EG on waste

incineration into national legislation. The J.M.D. aims to reduce and prevent

environmental impacts deriving from waste incineration.

In order to achieve that:

• Certain technical specifications for the design, construction and equipment of

incineration facilities are given;

• Emission limits for certain pollutants released into air or waster are set;

• The procedure for waste acceptance in the facility is defined;

• Equipment needs to be installed in order to monitor operating parameters,

flue gas emissions, and heavy metals;

• The conditions in order to approve the environmental terms of the facility are

defined.


24

J.M.D. 4641/232/2006 on Small Landfills

«Establishment of technical specifications of small landfill sites on small islands and

isolated settlements»

This J.M.D. sets the technical specifications for landfills usually found in small islands

or small settlements.

2.3.3. Packaging Waste and Special Streams

Regarding special streams, Law 2931/2001 «on packaging and recycling of

packaging and other products - Establishment of the National Organization for

Recycling of Packaging and other Products» and associated Presidential Decrees for

the recycling of packaging waste, transposing Council Directive 94/62/EC on

packaging waste and related Directives on other wastes, i.e. used tyres, end-of-life

vehicles, waste oils, electrical and electronic waste, waste batteries and demolition

and construction waste.

For the above waste streams, the following Presidential Decrees have been issued:

Oil wastes (Presidential Decree 82/ O.J.G. 64A/02-03-2004);

Used batteries and accumulators (Presidential Decree 115 / O.J.G. 80A/05-03-

2004);

Used vehicle tires (Presidential Decree 109 / O.J.G. 75A/05-03-2004);

Used electric and electronic equipment (Presidential Decree 117 / O.J.G. 82A/05-

03-2004);

End-of-life vehicles (Presidential Decree 116 / O.J.G. 81A/05-03-2004);

Excavation, construction and demolition wastes (Presidential Decree under

publication).

The Law obligates the economic actors (producers, importers) to organize or

participate in collective (or individual) recycling schemes (i.e. return, collection,

transportation and recovery systems) in order to achieve specific quantitative

targets. Schemes, have to be approved by the Ministry of Environment and are

funded through the corresponding producers.


25

Responsible for the monitoring of the management of specific waste streams is the

National Organization for Alternative Management of Packaging and other Products

(Greek abbreviation: EOEDSAP). In 2008, P.D. 99/2008 on «establishment, structure

and operation of the National Organization for Recycling of Packaging and other

Products - Financial Management and Procurements of the Organization» which

describes the exact operation terms of the Organization, was adopted. The

management board consists of 15 persons and is established by a Decision issued by

the Minister of environment. The responsibilities of the board are laid down in this

Decree. The Organization is divided in the Directorate of Finance and Administration

and in the Directorate of Recycling. The terms for tender procedures and

procurements of the Organization are also contained in the Decree.

For the time being (2009) monitoring of Recycling Systems is assigned to the

Direction of Recycling of the Ministry of Environment.

Packaging Waste

According to Law 2939/01 «packaging is every product, manufactured by any kind of

material raw or secondary that is used to contain goods in order to protect, move

and distribute them from the producer to the final consumer». Moreover, the

packaging waste management responsibility lies with producers according to the

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) strategy. EPR uses political means to hold

producers liable for the costs of managing their waste and end of life products.

More specifically, Law 2939/01 obligates the economic actors (producers, importers)

to organize or participate in collective (or individual) systems of alternative waste

management (i.e. return, collection, transportation and recovery systems) in order to

achieve specific quantitative targets.

As a result, the Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation (HERRCO) was founded in

December 2001 by industrial and commercial enterprises which, either supply

packaged products to the Greek market, or manufacture different packaging items.

The Central Union of Municipalities & Communities in Greece (Greek abbreviation:

KEDKE) has a shareholding of 35% in the System’s share capital. In compliance with

the provisions of Law 2939/01 and in seeking to fulfill the obligations of packaging

operators in an effective and cost-efficient way, HERRCO has developed and


26

implemented the Collective Alternative Management System – “RECYCLING”

(C.A.M.S. – RECYCLING) and has come to an arrangement with packaging producers

as stated in the legal framework, in order to ensure that packaging waste is being

collected and recycled. At the same time contracts have been signed with several

municipalities in order to install and expand the separation at source system of

packaging material.

Apart from HERRCO the following recycling systems from private companies have

been also approved:

Recycling system for used oil packaging (Greek abbreviation: KEPED). This

system aims to collect and recover used waste oil packaging waste. During

2007 3.900 tonnes where recovered and recycled.

Packaging waste management system of the Vasilopoulos S.A. (M.D. 106156 ,

OJG 1108Β/22.7.2004). This system has recovered and recycled 1.240 tonnes

of private label packaging waste and an additional 2.450 tonnes of other

packaging waste.

Collection system based on the establishment of «Refund Recycling Centers».

Those centers accept and sort the materials and provide a small financial

compensation. The Central Union of Municipalities and Communities of Greece

is also participating in that system and it will function in a supplementary way

to the system of HERRCO.

In January 2007 the J.M.D. 9268/469/2007 (harmonization with Directive

2004/12/EC) adopted new recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste as

following:

No later than 31 December 2011, 60% as a minimum by weight of packaging

waste will be recovered or incinerated at waste incineration plants with energy

recovery

No later than 31 December 2011, the following minimum recycling targets for

materials contained in packaging waste will be attained:

(i) 60% by weight for glass;


27

(ii) 60% by weight for paper and board;

(iii) 50% by weight for metals;

(iv) 22,5% by weight for plastics, counting exclusively material that is recycled

back into plastics;

(v) 15% by weight for wood.

Special Streams

Special streams include, Batteries, End of Life Vehicles (E.L.V.), Waste Electrical and

Electronic Equipment (W.E.E.E.), Used Tires and Used Oils. Extended producer

responsibility schemes have been set-up in Greece for special waste streams, an

overview of which is provided in the paragraphs below.

End of Life Vehicles (ELV)

The term of End of Life Vehicle refers to every vehicle that can be classified as waste

meaning that its owner is willing or intends or is obligated to dispose it. The

following categories of vehicles can be defined as End of Life Vehicles:

Vehicle that its owner intends to dispose

Abandoned vehicle that has been declared as waste

Vehicle that is partially or totally destroyed

Vehicle that does not fulfill legal and technical requirements

P.D. 116/2004 «On measures and terms for recycling of end of life vehicles»

describes the operation of ELV management schemes and the obligations of owners,

producers, collectors and other persons involved in the ELV market.

According to the P.D. 116/2004 following targets are set:

No later than 1 January 2015, for all end-of life vehicles, the reuse and recovery

shall be increased to a minimum of 95 % by an average weight per vehicle and

year

Within the same time limit, the re-use and recycling shall be increased to a

minimum of 85 % by an average weight per vehicle and year.


28

The national management scheme for ELV (Greek abbreviation: EDOE) was

approved by the Ministerial Decision (M.D.) 105136/10.06.04 (907Β/17.06.04) and

its operation is governed by the regulations of Law 2939/2001 and Presidential

Degree (P.D.) 116/2004. Owners of E.L.V. are obliged to hand them in designated

collection points or authorized treatment facilities without being charged since there

is no market value for the vehicle. Given that many E.L.V. owners abandon their cars

in parking places, EDOE is cooperating with local authorities who collect these

vehicles.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (W.E.E.E.)

W.E.E.E. management in Greece is governed by the regulations of Law 2939/01 and

P.D.s 117/2004 and 15/2006. With these Decrees the Directives 2002/96/EC on

waste electrical and electronic equipment and 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the

use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment were

transposed into the national legislation framework. The term electrical and electronic

waste refers to a wide spectrum of materials and is one of the most complicated

solid waste streams due to the variety of raw materials it contains and to the many

different types of electrical devices that be found in the market. P.D. 117/2004

classifies W.E.E.E. according to its origin source in the following categories (based on

Directive 2002/96/ΕC):

Large household appliances

Small household appliances

IT and telecommunications equipment

Consumer equipment

Lighting equipment

Electrical and electronic tools

Toys, leisure and sports equipment

Medical devices

Monitoring and control instruments

Automatic dispensers

The recycling/recovery targets set for each category are:

(a) For W.E.E.E. falling under categories 1 and 10 of Annex IA,


29

the rate of recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 80 % by an average

weight per appliance, and

component, material and substance reuse and recycling shall be increased to

a minimum of 75 % by an average weight per appliance;

(b) For W.E.E.E. falling under categories 3 and 4 of Annex IA,





(c) For W.E.E.E. falling under categories 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Annex IA,





(d) For gas discharge lamps, the rate of component, material and substance reuse

and recycling shall reach a minimum of 80 % by weight of the lamps.

Producers of Electric and Electronic equipment sign the Entry Agreement, regularly

declare the quantities of products marketed in Greece and pay the legally required

financial contribution to "Appliances Recycling S.A.". The scheme also cooperates

with local authorities in order to set collection points for citizens. W.E.E.E. can be

transferred directly to the Corinth processing facility or stored temporarily. It must be

mentioned that local collectors are trading useful materials contained in W.E.E.E. and

an initiative should be taken in order to associate them to the scheme.

Used Tyres

Current legislative statutes forbid the landfilling of used tires. According to Law

2939/01 and P.D. 109/04 «on measures and terms for recycling management of

used tires», tire producers are obligated to create or participate in recycling schemes

for used tires. The operation of those schemes together with the obligations of all

stakeholders involved in tire management is described in the P.D.

Owners or final users of used tires are obliged to hand them to collection points or

approved management schemes.



30

no later than July 2006 to recover 65% of the total amount of used tires

produced

no later than July 2006 to recycle 10% of the total amount of used tires

produced

Current legislative statutes forbid the landfilling of used tires. According to Law

2939/01 and P.D. 109/04 tire producers are obligated to create or participate to

recycling schemes for used tires. Owners or final users of used tires are obliged to

hand them to collection points or approved management schemes. The competent

scheme called Ecoelastika S.A. begun its operation in 1-11-2004 in the Prefectures of

Voiotia and Fthiotida. In Greece recycled tires are used mainly for construction of

sport facilities and construction of rubber wheels for waste bins.

Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D)

The term construction and demolition waste refers to a wide variety of materials that

can be divided into four main categories depending on their source of origin:

Excavation materials

Road construction waste

Demolition waste

Construction – Site waste

No organized network for the management of construction and demolition waste

exists in Greece. Actions towards recycling and recovery are not frequent and

depend totally on the site manager. Mainly useful materials like cables and glasses

are recovered while the inert waste is used for the restoration of old quarries. A

Presidential Decree that will regulate C&D waste is under publication.

Batteries

P.D. 115/2004 «on measures and terms for recycling of batteries and accumulators»,

sets the measures, terms and general directions for the operation of recycling

schemes for batteries and accumulators. It aims to:

Prevent environmental pollution


31

To reduce the hazards due to the heavy metal content of batteries and

accumulators

To reduce the amount of batteries and accumulators in household waste

To promote recovery and recycling

To inform the public opinion

To give directions regarding separate collection, temporary storage and

transportation of used accumulators

To collect 30% of all used batteries and accumulators and to recycle 80% of the

amount collected.

The competent management scheme for batteries AFIS S.A. started its operation in

March 2004. AFIS has come to an agreement with importers/producers of batteries,

which contribute a fee for every battery sold in the Greek market in order to cover

the costs for collection, transportation, recycling and dissemination activities.

Used Oils

Article 17 of Law 2939/2001 describes the creation of recycling schemes for used

oils. The specifications and requirements for the operation and creation of the

management scheme are described in the P.D. 82/2004 «On measures and terms for

the recycling of used oils »

The P.D. was the driving force behind the establishment of the competent authority

Greek Environmental Technology S.A. (GET) which is subsidized by the producers of

lube oil in Greece according to the ‘polluter-pays-principle’. There are three

responsible parties regarding used oil management:

Producers of lubricant oils

Importers of lubricant oils

Distributors lubricant oils

Those are obligated to create or to participate in recycling schemes like GET and to

collect used lubricant oils in order to be processed in authorized facilities. Distributors

should not distribute lubricant oils brands that are not participating in management

schemes.


32


no later than 2006 to collect 70% of the total amount of used lubricant oils

produced

no later than 2006 to regenerate 80% of the total amount of used lubricant oils

produced

The company is also cooperating with major oil consumers like the Army and the

Public Power Corporation (P.P.C.) and has focused in promoting cooperation with

municipalities. The producers of waste oils are obliged to hand the waste to

approved collectors.

2.3.4. Hazardous Waste

Regarding hazardous waste, M.D. 8668/2007 «Approval of the hazardous waste

national plan» is in force. The purpose of the present ministerial decision is to

implement the provisions of articles 11 and 12 of law 1650/1986, as well as to

implement the provisions of article 5 (par. A) of the Joint Ministerial Decision

13588/725/2006, which adapted the relevant Greek legislation to the provisions of

Directive 91/156/EEC, so as to succeed in an environmentally rational and

sustainable management of hazardous waste, in order to achieve a high level

protection of the environment, through an environmentally complete national

strategy in the sector of hazardous waste. The National Plan for the Management of

Hazardous Waste is hereby approved.

The National Plan for the Management of Hazardous Waste was created pursuant to

article 5 (par. A) of the Joint Ministerial Decision 13588/725/2006 and includes the

following units: description of the existing situation in Greece, as regards the sources

of origin, the categories, the quantities produced, the used practices for the

management of hazardous waste, as well as the forecasts for the production of

hazardous waste in the state, a description of the goals of the National Plan, a

description of the actions which must be undertaken in the future, in order to

achieve these goals, a description of the stages of realization of the National Plan,

including the criteria for finding and making available the appropriate areas or

installations for the disposal of hazardous wastes, a description of the requisite

actions for the constant monitoring and updating of the National Plan, a plan for the


33

management of small quantities of hazardous waste in urban wastes, financial

resources for the realization of the National Plan ( Article 2 ).

Article 3 of the present decision amends articles 7, 11, 19 of the Joint Ministerial

Decision 13588/725/2006 (B´ 383), whereas article 4 includes an Annex, which

forms an integral part of the present decision and contains the National Plan for the

Management of Hazardous Waste.

The technical specifications for transportation, storage, operations in waste transfer

stations, treatment and landfilling of hazardous waste are given in J.M.D.

24944/1159/2006 «Concerning the establishment of general technical specifications

of hazardous waste management».

Moreover, J.M.D. 13588/725/2006 «On measures, terms and restrictions concerning

hazardous waste management», sets out among others, the obligations of all

operators involved in the management of hazardous waste and includes provisions

for pollution prevention and remediation and contaminated sites due to improper

management of hazardous wastes.

According to Article 11 of J.M.D. 13588/2006, every producer of hazardous waste

must keep records with data and submit annual report to the competent regional

authority, as well as to the competent authority for granting the environmental

permit. The standard forms of both the before mentioned records and annual report

are set in J.M.D 24944/2006. Moreover, as set in J.M.D 24944/1159/2006, hazardous

waste should be properly UN classified, packaged and labeled according to the

respective international and community standards of waste transport.

2.3.5. Medical Waste

J.M.D. 37591/2031/2003 «on measures and terms concerning healthcare waste

management», implements the provisions of article 12 of Law 1650/1986 in

conformity to the provisions of Directive 91/689/EEC, in order to ensure, through the

determination of directions, measures and procedures, a high-level of protection of

the environment and public health, especially through the prevention and/or

reduction of the production and of the hazardous effects of waste, or/and through


34

their recovery, by means of the development and use of clean technologies, which

do not entail excessive costs.

J.M.D. 37591/2003, categorizes the medical wastes and sets out the technical

specifications for collection, transfer, treatment and final disposal of hazardous

medical waste. Moreover, the waste management license procedures is given, while

a monitoring system is set.

In addition to the J.M.D. 37591/2003, it must be noted that the National Medical

Waste Plan (NMWP) is under publication by the Ministry of Environment and Ministry

of Finance.

2.4. ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTOR

In this section, the main actors which are involved in waste management in Greece

are described.

2.4.1. Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change

At national level, J.M.D. 49541/1424/86, placed the overall responsibility for the

formulation of general policy directions in the hands of the Ministry of Environment,

Energy and Climate Change (until Sept 2009: Ministry of Environment, Spatial

Planning & Public Works). The Ministry of Environment, however, should act “in

cooperation with the other responsible Ministries, the Central Association of

Municipalities and Communities (KEDKE) and the Association of the Local Authorities

of Greek Prefectures (ENAE)”.

The Ministry of Environment is responsible for policy making, national planning,

technical matters, as well as licensing and regulating the financing of large waste

treatment and disposal facilities. More specifically:

Defines waste management policy

Prepares the legislative framework and proposes the issuing of legislative

regulations (Laws, Presidential Decrees, Join Ministerial Decisions, and

Ministerial Decisions) and issues circulars for the implementation of the

legislation.


35

Prepares the National Planning of non hazardous Solid Waste and the

National Planning of hazardous Solid Waste, which contains the goals and

actions regarding waste management.

Evaluates and approves proposals for the funding of waste infrastructure

according to the regional and national planning in case of funding through

OPESD (see chapter 3).

Delivers opinion on whether the planned actions of the regional plan should

be included in Regional Operational Programmes (R.O.P.).

Is responsible for the environmental license of certain project categories (see

section 2.4.6)

2.4.2. Waste Management Inter-ministerial Committee

Special mention should be made of the inter-ministerial committee for integrated

waste management which was established during March 2008 according to the M.D.

325/14.03.08 on «Establishment of a Waste Management Inter-ministerial

Committee». The committee consists of the following:

a) the Vice Minister for Interior responsible for regional and local government as

well as for Development Programs in the role of the President,

b) the Vice Minister for Economy and Finance responsible for investment and

development issues, and

c) the Vice Minister for Development responsible for industrial and environmental

issues as well as for quality policy.

Main responsibilities of the committee are:

a) To issue and monitor an integrated plan that includes all activities related to

collection, recovery, storage, transportation, treatment, reuse and final

disposal of solid waste.

b) To issue and submit operational plans, programs and other actions involved

in the solid waste management sector and moreover to evaluate, approve

and finance those, with national or EC Funds and to monitor their

implementation.


36

c) To monitor the implementation of waste management plans and the

coordination of the WMAs.

d) To coordinate and monitor suggestions and other actions for the sanitation

and later on the utilization of restored uncontrolled dumpsites and landfills.

Also to survey the works and the authorities responsible for their

implementation in order to impose penalties according to the law.

e) To comment on suggestions submitted to the committee responsible for

Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) projects and are relevant to solid waste

management.

f) To contribute towards campaigns aiming to inform and mobilize the public

opinion towards an environmental friendly solid waste management.

g) To represent the country in European and international level for issues

concerning solid waste and to submit financing requests, for some or all the

programs, actions and plans described in the Integrated Solid Waste

Management Plan.

2.4.3. Funding

The Ministry of Finance is involved in the funding of waste management

infrastructure projects through:

national funds, via the Ministry of Interior

national & EC structural funds, via the National Strategic Reference Framework

and more specifically via the R.O.Ps

national funds – complementary to private funds, via the PPP model, for

projects approved by the Inter-Ministerial PPP Committee, within the

framework of PPP Law 3389/2005.

2.4.4. Public Works

Since September 2009, Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Communication is

responsible for the following:

curve out the National policy and develop the appropriate legal framework as

well as the implementation of the policy in the sector of public works (including

waste processing facilities).

elaborate long-term and annual programmes of public works to be constructed


37

set the national framework for the development of the technical, organizational

and economic capabilities of the constructing companies that undertake the

construction of public works.

2.4.5. Municipalities and Waste Management Authorities

According to the NSWMP , the operation of transfer stations, the processing and

disposal of waste lies within the jurisdiction of Waste Management Authorities

(WMA), while the Ministry of Interior is responsible for the establishment of the

registry of WMA. For waste streams apart from MSW, the management responsibility

lies with producers. Especially for the special waste streams that are included in Law

2939/01 (electrical waste, tires, vehicles etc), as stated above, recycling is carried

out by producer responsibility schemes created and financed by the producers.

Regarding WMA, according to Law 3536/2007 «on migration policy and other issues

falling into the competence of the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and

Decentralization», can be Associations of Municipalities or S.A. of Municipalities,

while Ministry of Interior is responsible for organizing and monitoring the WMA

(registry, operational plans, etc). Moreover, WMA’s the legal form must be decided

within the date stated in the RSWMP. Otherwise the General Secretary of the Region

can impose the obligatory formation of the association, in which case all

Municipalities of the Administrative Area have to join.

Newly introduced J.M.D. 2527/2009 «on waste management authorities», describes

the competence field of the authorities. More specifically it is stated that they are

responsible for the operation of waste transfer stations, temporary storage,

transshipment, processing, recycling and disposal of waste as well as for the

implementation of the RSWMP . WMA are obliged to prepare a 4 year operational

plan which should contain a description of the Administrative Area, the pricing policy

and the monitoring procedure. WMA have to publish waste management results and

to send reports to the competent authorities of the Region and Ministry of

Environment.

As stated, J.M.D. 50910/2727/2003, «on measures and terms for solid waste

management» names the Municipalities as the competent authorities for the

collection and transfer of waste. The municipalities reserve the right not to collect


38

waste that does not resemble household waste and cannot be collected for technical

reasons. In that case the producer is responsible for the collection.

According to the Ministerial Decision No. 2527 O.J.G. B 83/21.1.2009 it is possible for

WMA to take over collection of waste instead of the municipalities. A programme

contract between the WMA and the municipality can be signed towards that

direction.

2.4.6. Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation

Regarding recycling, as stated, Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation (HERRCO) is

the main competent authority for managing packaging waste. HERRCO was founded

in December 2001 by industrial and commercial enterprises while the Central Union

of Municipalities & Communities in Greece (KEDKE) has a shareholding of 35% in the

System’s share capital. HERRCO has developed and implemented the Collective

Alternative Management System – “RECYCLING” (C.A.M.S. – RECYCLING) in Greece

and organizes the municipal and industrial recycling program according to the

provisions of packaging directive.

HERRCO has come to an arrangement with packaging producers as stated in the

legal framework, and manage packaging waste produced directly from industries, in

order to ensure that packaging waste is being collected and recycled. Packaging

importers and packagers pay a financial contribution to the approved collective

alternative management systems, determined by their share of the packaging

market, which contributes to the costs of collection, transport, recovery, recycling

and information dissemination amongst users and consumers.

At the same time contracts have been signed with several municipalities in order to

install and expand the separation at source system of packaging material. Packaging

waste is temporarily stored in blue bins (source separation) that are provided by

HERRCO and afterwards transferred to Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) under the

responsibility of Municipalities, using special waste collection vehicles made available

by HERRCO. MRFs operate under the responsibility or funding of HERRCO. Moreover,

HERRCO is responsible for the promotion of the separation at source system


39

Following its first six-year period of operation (2003-2009), the renewal of the

system’s operation was ratified for the 2nd six-year period, namely 2009-2015, by

means of Ministerial Decision 118019/18-3-09. Furthermore, C.A.M.S.- RECYCLING is

the main Alternative Packaging Management System serving the packaging of all

non-hazardous products; in addition, following related audits, the competent

authorities have proposed that an Alternative Management Certificate (AMC) be

administered, thereby releasing affiliated enterprises from their legal obligation,

pursuant to the existing legal framework.

2.4.7. Environmental Permit

It must be noted that during the issuing of permission of solid waste management

infrastructure numerous authorities are involved as stated in the national and EU

legislation. For example, Regions and Prefectures are responsible for the

environmental license of certain project categories, while Forest and Archeological

authorities and the Ministries of Health and Culture need to deliver an opinion on the

Environmental Impact Assessment studies. Project categories and competent

authorities are briefly described next.

Categorization of Projects and competent authorities

According to J.M.D. 15393/2332/2002, public and private projects are classified into

different categories depending on the size, type and population covered by the

facility. Depending on the category there is a different procedure and competent

authority. The different categories are:

Category A includes works and activities, which may cause severe environmental

impact because of their nature, size or location and required both Preliminary

Environmental Impact Assessment (PEIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA). Category A is divided into subcategories 1 and 2. The competent authorities

are:

• The Special Environmental Authority of Ministry of Environment for projects

under A1 category

• The Regional Environmental Authority for projects under A2 category

Category B includes projects, which do not cause severe environmental impact, but

terms and limitations should be set for ensuring environmental protection. Category


40

B is also divided into subcategories 3 and 4. Projects under subcategory 4 required a

simple Environmental Study Report (ESR), while projects under B3 category after a

screening procedure are subsumed either into category A2 (PEIA and EIA) or B4

(ESR). The competent authorities are:

• The Regional Environmental Authority is screening the project under B3

category. After the screening procedure the project is subsumed either into

category A2 or B4

• The Prefectural Environmental Authority for projects under B4 category

Annex I of the J.M.D. 15393/2002 provides a list of 10 main groups of projects

categorized into A and B categories and their subcategories, taking into account their

size: motorways-roads, hydraulic projects, ports, infrastructure projects, mining

industry, tourism installations, stockbreeding and poultry installations, sea farm

installations, industrial installations and special projects.

2.5. MATURITY PLAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING PROCEDURE

One of the most critical parameter for case study selection is the maturity level of

each one, which is mainly based upon the current phase of the licensing process. All

major waste management units (Landfills, MBTs, MRFs, Transport Stations etc) are

subject to the same steps of environmental licensing. J.M.D. 11014/703/2003

regulates the procedure and evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment, as well

as the Approval of Environmental Agreements Conditions, for works and activities of

subcategories 1 and 2 of class A and subcategories 3 and 4 of class B.

The maturity plan (not in case of PPP) and the environmental licensing process of all

major waste management units is divided into the next steps:

Step 1: Project Idea - Concept

Competent waste management authorities (WMA) assign to consultants the

preliminary assessments (feasibility and techno-economic studies) in order for the

final concept and idea to be established.

Step 2: Assignment and Preparation of the Preliminary Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA Screening / Scoping Study Report)


41

After the concept has been established, WMA assign the preliminary environmental

impact assessment to private engineering consultants. The preparation of a

Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Study is necessary according to Article

7 of J.M.D. 50910/03 for all projects. Assignment can be done through open

competition which lasts approximately 1 month or direct commission, while

preparation usually lasts 1-2 months, depending on the special characteristics of the

project under examination.

The EIA Screening / Scoping Study shall cover all aspects and matters that must be

evaluated and assessed on the basis of existing Greek and Community legislation.

The Study must be submitted for approval.

Step 3: Approval of Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

The Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Study has to be submitted to the

competent Prefecture, Region or Department of the Ministry of Environment, and

must include specific information, such as the position and size of the work, the use

of natural resources and the production of waste. The competent authority, following

an examination of the PEIA and a conclusion as to its completeness, and prior to

rendering an advisory opinion as to its content, transmits the file to the relevant

Ministries, bodies and entities within ten (10) days from the filing date. These

authorities shall render their advisory opinions within fifteen (15) days from the

receipt of the file. The competent authority, which receives the aforementioned

advisory opinions, shall proceed to an evaluation, which will be either a positive

Advisory Opinion or a negative decision on the PEIA.

Step 4: Assignment and Preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA

Report)

The next step is the assignment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study from

the WMA to private engineering consultants. Assignment can be done through open

competition which lasts approximately 1 month or direct commission, while

preparation usually lasts 1-2 months, depending on the special characteristics of the

project under examination. The ΕΙΑ along with the positive Advisory Opinion from

step 3 must be submitted for approval.


42

Step 5: Approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment and publication of

Environmental Agreements.

The next step which is submitted to the competent Prefecture, Region or Department

of the Ministry of Environment depending on the population covered and the type of

the facility. The competent authority shall examine the file, decide upon whether it is

complete or not and, if it considers it expedient, shall subsequently transmit the file

to the competent Ministries and other bodies within ten (10) days from the filing

date. These public bodies shall transmit to the competent service any observations

they may have within thirty five (35) days from the receipt of the file. Following the

receipt of these advisory opinions, the decision approving (or not) the Environmental

Agreements shall be issued within fifteen (15) days.

By virtue of the decision approving the Environmental Agreements, certain measures,

conditions and limitations are imposed as regards the performance of the works or

the activity. These measures, conditions and limitations shall refer principally to the

kind, the size and basic technical characteristics of the work or the activity, the

emission limit values, the monitoring of the observance of environmental conditions

from the matter of the work or the activity, the environment of the area, and,

possibly, to the specially protected zones and the determination of the necessary

measures and works for their preservation.

Step 6: Assignment and Preparation of Technical Engineering Studies and Tender

Documents

In this step, the preparation of all the appropriate technical engineering studies and

tender documents are assigned by WMA to private engineering consults, in order for

all the necessary information about the implementation of the project to be identified

and assessed.

The Tender Documents, among others, include:

Technical Specifications for all construction works / equipment

Preliminary design / studies and drawings

Bills of quantities with pre-measurements


43

Step 7: Application for Funding

In this step WMA, usually with the assistance of the aforementioned consulting

engineers, prepare and submit a complete application file for co-funding of the

Project by either the Cohesion Fund (OPESD) in accordance with the European Union

requirements (application only to “Major Projects”), or R.O.P funds (Special

Management Agent).

Step 8: Project Tender

In this step candidates (constructors) submit their tenders, and WMA, usually with

the assistance of the aforementioned consulting engineers, evaluate the tenders and

prepare an evaluation report.

Step 9: Assign and Construction

The final step involves the contract assignment and construction of the project based

on the above-mentioned evaluation report.

Next a schematic representation of the above steps is presented.


44

Figure 4: Schematic representation of the licensing process steps


45

The total estimated time from the assignment of the EIA Screening / Scoping Study

to project tendering, under normal circumstances (i.e. no social objections etc) varies

approximately from 17 to 34 months.

In terms of licensing and permitting, the most critical stages are highlighted in red in

Figure 4, and include both the approval of the Preliminary Environmental Impact

Assessment Study and the Environmental Impact Assessment Study, with respect to

obtaining approval of competent authorities and regulatory agencies. Moreover,

during these stages, the community has the largest opportunity to access the

information and raise any objections to the projects. In case of PPP (Law) a flow

chart of the maturity procedure is presented next.

Figure 5: Flow chart of the maturity procedure in case of project approval through

PPP Law (source: Ministry of Economy and Finance)


46

3. FUNDING OF WASTE MANAGEMENT INVESTMENTS

3.1. NSRF 2007-2013 & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

3.1.1. General Description of NSRF 2007-2013

The National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007–2013 constitutes the

reference document for the programming of European Union Funds at national level

for the 2007–2013 period. The NSRF targeting was structured over 4 levels:

the NSRF strategic objectives level,

the thematic (5) and spatial (3) priorities level, as required by the General

Regulation of the Funds,

the level of the General Objectives, in which each thematic priority is

subdivided,

the level of special targets and of main means of achievement.

The architecture of the NSRF 2007-2013 Operational Programmes (OPs) was

formulated in such a way as to implement the country's strategic choices in the best

possible manner, whilst also taking into account new data for the programming

period 2007–2013 (63% of the country's population in a state of transitional

support).

The new scheme is characterised by a smaller number of Operational Programmes in

relation to the previous 2000–2006 period, leading to a more flexible management

scheme, while the number of programmes was reduced from 25 to 14. The country’s

strategic planning for the 2007 - 2013 period will be implemented through eight (8)

Sectoral OPs, five (5) Regional OPs and twelve (12) European Territorial Cooperation

OPs. Thus, during the 2007–2013 period, all accessibility infrastructure projects will

be implemented through a single OP, while there will no longer be a distinct OP for

the sectors of health and culture and the relevant actions will be carried out through

Regional and Sectoral OPs. Furthermore, one programme is for a national

contingency reserve under the Convergence Objective.


47

Three of the Sectoral programmes and the contingency reserve are co–funded by the

European Social Fund (ESF), while the rest 5 sectoral programmes and all regional

programmes are funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The

Cohesion Fund (CF) provides additional funding for the accessibility and

environmental programmes.

3.1.2. Sectoral Operational Programmes

The Sectoral Operational Programmes are the following:

S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development» (co-funded by Cohesion Fund

& ERDF)

S.O.P. «Accessibility Improvement» (co-funded by Cohesion Fund & ERDF)

S.O.P. «Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship» (co-funded by ERDF)

S.O.P. «Digital Convergence» (co-funded by ERDF)

S.O.P. «Human Resources Development» (co-funded by ESF)

S.O.P. «Education and Lifelong Learning» (co-funded by ESF)

S.O.P. «Public Administration Reform» (co-funded by ESF)

S.O.P. «Technical Support for Implementation» (co-funded by ERDF)

S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development»

The main developmental aspiration of the programme concerns the protection,

upgrading and sustainable management of the environment, so that it may

constitute the foundation for the protection of public health, the improvement of

citizens’ quality of life, as well as contribute to the enhancement of the

competitiveness of the Economy. Some of the major interventions that will take place

in the context of the Operational Programme are the integrated management of solid

and hazardous waste and the protection of the soil, the management of urban

waste, the application of action plans for the limitation of air pollution, pollution of

the marine environment and the coasts. It also aims at the integrated protection and

management of biotopes, the establishment of infrastructure for large scale anti-

flood protection and the prevention and effective mitigation of natural and

technological disasters.


48

S.O.P. «Accessibility Improvement»

The program focuses on the following:

Development and modernisation of the country’s transportation infrastructure

Completion of the construction and upgrade of road axes, railway network,

port facilities and airports.

Completion of the construction of Athens Metro projects and urban road

works in the Attica and Central Macedonia Regions. Special emphasis is

placed on transport safety.

S.O.P. «Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship»


Improvement of the competitiveness and outward orientation of the country’s

businesses and production system, placing special emphasis on the

innovation factor.

Promotion of the country’s Research, Development and Innovation (RDI)

system and its interconnection with the productive fabric. Qualitative upgrade

of products, promotion of corporate networking, improvement of market

supervisory mechanisms. Ensuring adequate energy capacity for the country,

including through the use of Renewable Energy Sources.

S.O.P. «Digital Convergence»

The program aims at promoting the use of Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) by enterprises, streamlining procedures in the Public Sector,

promoting entrepreneurship in sectors making use of ICTs, increased utilisation of

digital applications in State administration for the benefit of the citizen and improved

quality of life achieved through ICTs.

S.O.P. «Human Resources Development»


strengthening the adaptability of human resources and enterprises

Assist access to employment.


49

Establishment of reforms in the Mental Health sector, development of Primary

Healthcare and promotion of Public Health.

Supporting employment of women and youth, mature employees and

vulnerable social groups. Promotion of equal access to the job market, as well

as alleviating social isolation and boosting social cohesion.

S.O.P. «Education and Lifelong Learning»


Upgrade of the quality of education and promotion of social integration.

Upgrade of initial vocational training and vocational educational systems and

linking education with the job market.

Strengthening human capital in order to promote research and innovation.

Reforms in the educational system so that lifelong learning will become a

reality for all.

Revision of study programmes, acceleration of the pace of adoption of new

technologies, restructuring vocational training in various sectors, including the

maritime professional sector etc, expansion of Second Chance Schools, Adult

Training Centres and the Open University and reinforcement of Lifelong

Learning Institutes, training educators and boosting specially-targeted

teaching addressed at minorities.

S.O.P. «Public Administration Reform»

Creation of a citizen-centred, effective, open and flexible governance model,

for the transition from role and procedural-based management to

management by results-oriented policies and services rendered.

Reconfiguration, application and evaluation of public policies and

programmes, streamlining administrative procedures, organisational and

functional reorganisation and administrative restructuring, coverage of the

needs of public administration in training and upgrading the quality of service

provision in practice.


50

S.O.P. «Technical Support for Implementation»

The Operational Programme “Technical Support for Implementation 2007-2013” was

designed with the purpose of boosting the executive bodies and supporting

structures of the management and coordination system of the OP, as well as the

beneficiary bodies, through the funding of preparatory, management, monitoring,

evaluative, informative and control activities of Operational Programmes, as well as

activities aiming at improving administrative functionality, for the realisation of the

activities included under the Funds, which cover both priority codes of thematic

priority "Technical Assistance" foreseen under Implementation Regulation (Article 11

and Annexes II and III), namely under no. 85 "Preparation, application, monitoring

and inspections" and no. 86 "Evaluation and studies, information and publicity”.

National Contingency Reserve

The National Contingency Reserve, pursuant to the provisions of Article 51 of Council

Regulation 1083/2006, is a form of intervention designed to meet unforeseen local or

sectoral crises linked to economic and social restructuring or to the consequences of

the opening up of trade. The structure and content of the OP «National Contingency

Reserve 2007-2013» are designed so as to cover the funding of a complex of actions

that serve the aforementioned objectives through 2 Priority Axes, titled:

Priority Axis 1: «Medium- and long-term support of human resources affected

by the consequences of unforeseen local or sectoral crises linked to economic

and social restructuring or to the consequences of the opening up of trade in

the “Convergence” Objective regions.

Priority Axis 2: «Immediate tackling of the direct consequences affecting the

human resources due to unforeseen local or sectoral crises linked to

economic and social restructuring or to the consequences of the opening up

of trade in the “Convergence” Objective regions.

3.1.3. Regional Operational Programmes

For the implementation of the country’s development planning during programming

period 2007-2013, Greece was divided into five regions, which correspond to five

Regional Operational Programmes (R.O.P.), as follows:


51

R.O.P. of Macedonia & Thrace

R.O.P. of Western Greece, Peloponnese & Ionian islands

R.O.P. of Aegean & Crete

R.O.P. of Thessaly, Central Greece & Epirus

R.O.P. of Attiki

ROP will contribute towards meeting the national strategic goals, in conjunction with

the sectoral programmes, with an emphasis placed on the distinct characteristics and

needs of each Region. In any case, ROP for all the Regions will cover a common core

of interventions, as follows:

sustainable urban development policies

social infrastructure

health and social solidarity (infrastructure for hospitals and social welfare

facilities, special units, healthcare and open-care centres, specialised

equipment, measures for the promotion and protection of Public Health)

culture (reinforcing basic cultural infrastructure, safeguarding and

enhancement of cultural heritage)

accessibility and environmental projects on a local scale

policies in support of mountainous, underdeveloped and island areas.

The regional operational programmes formulate priority axes dedicated to

sustainable urban development while, additional funding mechanism such as the

global grants (article 42 & 43 Of Regulation 1083/2006) are foreseen. Additionally,

all the regional operational programmes make a reference to potential JESSICA

usage, in order to achieve the objectives. Furthermore it must be noted that Athens

belongs to the O.P. of Attiki, while Thessaloniki to the O.P. of Macedonia – Thrace.

3.1.4. European Territorial Cooperation Programmes

During the new programming period, the Community Initiative Programmes are

replaced by the Programmes of Goal III "European Territorial Cooperation". The total

budget of Goal III programmes amounts to EUR 8.7 billion, of which EUR 210 million


52

from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) have been earmarked for

Greece. Νearly EUR 300 million of Community and national resources will be

allocated to European Territorial Cooperation Programmes.

Cross-border Programmes

In this framework and in regard to the Cross-border Cooperation Programmes,

Greece participates in six Programmes, with a total budget that exceeds EUR

320,000,000, for which it retains the Managing Authority.

The Programmes are as follows:

“Greece-Bulgaria” Programme, with a budget of EUR 110,735,958

“Greece-Italy” Programme, with a budget of EUR 88,955,170

“Greece-Cyprus” Programme, with a budget of EUR 41,633,290

“Greece-Albania” Programme, co-funded by the Instrument for Pre Accession

Assistance (IPA) with a budget of EUR 22,143,015

“Greece-FYROM” Programme, co-funded by IPA with a budget of EUR

24,810,005

“Greece-Turkey” Programme3, co-funded by IPA with a budget of EUR

34,088,992

Greece also participates in three (3) multilateral cross-border cooperation

Programmes:

Adriatic Programme, with eligible territories being those of the Prefectures of

Corfu and Thesprotia in Greece, as well as regions in Italy, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Serbia and Slovenia. The Programme is

co-funded by IPA, while Greece contributes EUR 5,659,992.

Mediterranean Sea Basin, with eligible territories being those of all countries

located around the Mediterranean Sea. The total programme Budget exceeds

EUR 170,000,000.

Black Sea, with the Regions of Central and Eastern Macedonia–Thrace in

Greece, as well as regions in Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan,

3 Under Suspension


53

the Ukraine, Georgia, Romania and Moldavia as eligible territories. The

contribution of Greece amounts to EUR 1,132,000 and will have a reinforced

role, as it has been decided that it will designate the First Consultant of the

Managing Authority, which is being hosted in Romania.

Transnational Programmes

Greece participates in two transnational programmes. These are:

MEDA Programme, in which Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, United

Kingdom–Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia–Herzegovina

participate. The Programme resulted from the merger of the INTERREG

ARCHIMED and MEDOCC Programmes. One of the Programme’s two Liaison

Offices will be located in Thessaloniki, which will be responsible, among

others, for supporting candidate partners and Final Beneficiaries from among

the candidate and potential candidate countries for accession to the European

Union participating in the Programme. The Programme Budget amounts to

EUR 193,191,331.

Southeast Europe Area, in which eight (8) E.U. Member States participate

(Italy, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece),

as well as Moldavia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Albania, FYROM and the Ukraine. The Programme resulted from the division

of the CADSES programme into two different zones, north and south. Its

budget amounts to EUR 206,691,645.

Interregional Programme

Greece participates in the INTERREG IV C interregional programme, in which all E.U.

Member States –with the exception of Germany– participate, as well as Norway and

Switzerland. Its Budget amounts to EUR 321,321,762.

Networks

Greece also participates in the INTERACT, ESPON and URBACT networks.

3.1.5. Financial Framework – European Funds for Cohesion Policy

The allocation of Community resources for Cohesion Policy of period 2007-2013, was

decided at the session of the European Council held in December 2005. Greece is


54

allocated EUR 20.4 billion in current values (including national match funding). These

resources will be used to finance interventions through the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.

The total amount of funding, as well as its annual allocation, is separately designated

for each type of Region. Thus, a total amount of EUR 9.4 billion is allocated to the 8

Regions classified under Objective Convergence. EUR 6.5 billion is allocated to the 3

Statistical phasing out Regions (Attiki, Central and Western Macedonia). In the 2

Phasing In Regions (Mainland Greece, Southern Aegean) are allocated EUR 0.63

billion. Additionally, for the Programmes falling under Objective 3, there are

Community funds available in the amount of EUR 0.21 billion. As laid down in the

Greek National Strategic Reference Framework, from the total amount of the

aforementioned amounts, namely EUR 16.7 billion, EUR 12.36 billion is channelled to

the new Operational Programmes through the European Regional Development Fund

(ERDF) and the remaining EUR 4.36 billion will be channelled thereto through the

European Social Fund (ESF). Additionally, Community funds of EUR 3.7 billion are

earmarked for Greece through the Cohesion Fund.

Finally, EUR 3.9 billion, are invested to Greek regions, through the Programmes of

the Ministry of Rural Development and Food. These resources are part of the

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European

Fisheries Fund (EFF).

3.1.6. Environment & Sustainable Development

As stated, there is no sectoral operational programme dedicated to urban

development. However, all sectoral programmes comprise of priority axes that

directly or indirectly promote the target of sustainable urban development. The most

relevant ones are as follows:

S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development», priority axis 4 - soil

protection and solid waste management.

S.O.P. «Accessibility Improvement», i.e. priority axes of transport

infrastructure, means of public transport etc.


55

S.O.P. «Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship», priority axis that ensure the

adequate energy capacity for the country through the use of Renewable

Energy Source.


The operational program ‘’Environment and Sustainable Development’’ (OPESD 2007-

2013), was submitted during September 2007 and was approved during October –

November 2007. The program consists of eleven priority axis. As stated, solid waste

management is included in Axis 4 (Soil Protection and Solid Waste Management)

which aims to protect public health, soil and underground water from the pollution

caused by uncontrolled dumping of solid waste.

Together and in accordance with the regional operational programs, the necessary

infrastructure in order to divert the biodegradable fraction of MSW from landfills

towards treatment facilities that are described in the Regional Plan will be financed.

The OPESD through the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Operational Programmes

through the ERDF will cover the costs for the construction of transfer stations,

treatment units and landfills including the costs for rehabilitation of all uncontrolled

dumpsites throughout the country.

Priority will be given to actions described in the regional solid waste management

plans. The total budget of Axis 4 for Soil Protection and Solid Waste Management in

the OPESD reaches 288,995,000 €. This amount consist of 179,380,000 € from

Cohesion Funding, € 44,845,000 from National Funding and 65,770,000 € from other

sources (e.g. private investments). OPESD has already distributed the total amount

to certain Regions for regional solid waste management plans. In the region of Attiki,

the total funding that have beet committed for waste management from OPESD

(Cohesion Fund) is € 72 Mio.

In the following diagram, the allocation of the above-mentioned funds is outlined.


56

Figure 6: Allocation of the National Strategic Reference Framework funds

At this point, shall be mentioned that only ERDF and ESF streams are eligible for

JESSICA instruments, while, although according to Art. 34 of 1083/2006 a major

project could be fund jointly from Cohesion Fund and from ERDF, this has to be

clarified with the European Commission.

The following table summarizes the funding from structural funds (OPESD - Cohesion

Fund and ROPs - ERDF) for waste management in Attiki and Central Macedonia.


57

Table 5: Funding from structural funds for waste management facilities in Attiki and Central Macedonia*

MSW and Industrial Solid Waste Management and Treatment

S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development» Regional Operational Programme

Region Cohesion

Fund

National and/or Private

matching funds SUM ERDF

National and/or Private

matching funds SUM

Region of Attiki € 72 M € 11 M € 83 M € 41 M € 9 M € 50 M

Region of Central

Macedonia € 0 M € 0 M € 0 M € 65 M € 15 M € 80 M

* Details about funding from structural funds in Attiki and Central Macedonia are presented in Part 2


58

3.2. PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PPP) FRAMEWORK

3.2.1. General Description

Law 3389/2005 establishes a new legal framework for the implementation of Public -

Private Partnerships in Greece. This legal framework aims to promote the

implementation of PPP projects, taking into consideration the experience gained from

concession agreements that were successfully implemented in Greece, especially for

large scale projects in transportation sector (i.e. new Athens Airport, Attiki Odos

motorway, Rio-Antirrio bridge), but also the important attempts over the last years to

implement privately funded projects in other sectors.

The implementation of PPPs has been the issue of consultation for many years in

Greece. It was necessary to overcome a legal gap in Greece, which led each

contractual agreement for a project co-financed by the private sector for ratification

by the Parliament. Furthermore, lot of issues, hindering the negotiations for the

financing of the projects and causing delays in their implementation, had to be

settled.

It was also necessary to create a framework, through which private entities would be

able to implement projects and services, without imposing indirect / shadow

charging schemes for end users.

The time required to tender a PPP project depends on its maturity and the actions

already taken by the Contracting Authority (the public institution) to ensure the

successful implementation of the project. The main characteristic of this procedure,

according to the international practice and given the lack of internal capacity in PPP

projects, is the recruitment of external, financial, technical and legal advisors. These

advisors assist the authorities to prepare projects faster and more effectively, since

the tender documents and procedures differ from those of traditional Public

Procurements. The new tasks needed In the PPP tenders and provided by the

external advisors, are: Project Financial Model, Risks allocation matrix, Payment

mechanism model, Public Sector Comparator - VfM, market sounding survey,

financial advise to the Public Entities, till the SPV financing is definitely ensured and

the relevant loan contracts are signed. Also, in PPP tenders, emphasis is given in the


59

project operation and maintenance requirements, instead of the detailed technical

design – as it is usually the case for traditional Public Procurements.

PPP schemes are complementary not only to traditional public works, but also to

other forms of partnerships between the public and the private sector, such as the

concession agreements or collaborations between Local Authorities and private

partners. Anyhow, the Ministry of Finance intends to offer to Public Authorities a new

additional mechanism & financial tool (PPPs though the Law 3389/2005), the use of

which is upon them. To choose between the two options (concession or PPP through

the new Law), the Local Authorities should take into consideration the benefits and

setbacks of each procedure:

Concession through existing Public Procurement Law: More familiar procedure and

tender documents, shorter tender procedure, but tighter legal environment of

contract implementation

PPP through the new law 3389/2005: accelerated approval of project permits /

licenses, supplementary public financing, more effective legal provisions for possible

disputes between Contracting Authority and SPV, but lengthy procedures for project

approval and tendering.

3.2.2. SWM projects approved by PPP Committee

So far (Oct 2009) the following two SWM projects have been approved by the Joint

Ministers’ Committee for PPPs:

Project 1: “Implementation of an integrated waste-management system in the

Prefecture of Thessaloniki”

Contracting Authority: Union of Municipalities of the Greater Thessaloniki area

Date of approval: 30 Jan 2008

Indicative Budget 242 million euros (+20% insurance cost and heavy

maintenance cost)

Project Duration: 29 years

Construction Period: 4 years

Operation Period: 25 years

Forecasted period of SPV selection: mid 2010


60

Project Details:

This PPP project involves the design, financing, construction, maintenance, facility

management and operation of the new infrastructure of the integrated waste

management system in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki for a period of 29 years.

More specifically, the private partner will undertake the design, construction,

maintenance and operation of a plant that will treat solid waste of the North-western

unit of the Prefecture of Thessaloniki. This plant will be composed of a treatment and

exploitation unit and a compliant residual waste landfill. This unit will be constructed

upon any proven technology that can meet the targets set by the Community

Directives and the output specifications set by the Contracting Authority. The unit will

have a capacity of 400.000 tons per year. Moreover the private partner will be given

the right to commercially exploit the output of the unit (such as recyclable products,

biogas, RDF, energy, etc.)

Project 2: “Implementation of infrastructure for the Integrated Waste Management

System in the Region of Western Macedonia”

Contracting Authority: DIADYMA S.A.

Date of approval: 02 Aug 2007

Indicative Budget 97 million euros (+20% insurance cost and heavy

maintenance cost)





Project Details:

This PPP project involves the design, construction, financing, maintenance, facility

management, and operation of the new infrastructure, aiming at covering the waste

management requirements imposed by the Community Directives. Contracting

Authority of this project is DIADYMA SA (Local Authorities’ Development Agency,

responsible for the design development and operation of the Integrated Waste

Management System of Western Macedonia).

More specifically, the SPV that will be selected will undertake the following:


61

The design, construction, maintenance and operation of the central integrated

waste management installations, which will be composed by a treatment and

exploitation unit and a compliant residual waste landfill. This unit will be

constructed upon any proven technology that can meet the targets set by the

Community Directives and the output specification set by the Contracting

Authority. Moreover the SPV will be given the right to commercially exploit the

output of the unit (such as recyclable products, biogas, RDF, SRF , etc.)

The maintenance and operation of the existing network of waste transfer

stations, when the treatment unit begins its operation. This network consists of

ten transfer stations and their mobile equipment.

The capacity of the above mentioned unit starts from 120.000 tons per year,

reaching 152.000 tons per year by the end of the partnership, the operational period

of which is 25 years.

This PPP project is a part of the strategic plan of the Region of Western Macedonia.

The construction and operation of the treatment comes to integrate the existing

integrated waste management system of the Region, thus creating a waste

management model, completely compatible with the environmental strategy of the

European Union. The implementation of this project ensures that the amount of

waste to landfill decreases, the environmental impact of treating biodegradable

waste is minimized, and that commercially exploitable products are produced.

Moreover, the construction and operation of the treatment unit results to doubling

the life cycle of the existing landfill and maximizing the impact of the investment

made during the 2002 - 2004 period, financed by the Cohesion Fund.

3.2.3. Proposal to PPP Unit

In case of PPP (Law 3389/2005), the Public Entity (e.g. WMA) wishing to implement

a PPP project may submit a proposal to the PPP Unit, which then evaluates the

feasibility of the specific project under a PPP scheme. This proposal should include

the following:

Detailed description of the project that will be provided as a PPP, and its

technical characteristics,


62

Indicative budget of the proposed PPP project,

Operation and maintenance cost,

Schedules,

Presentation of the proposed PPP scheme,

Value for Money (VfM) evaluation, which justifies the implementation of the

project under a PPP scheme,

Other issues that influence the implementation of the project, such as legal

and environmental.

The PPP unit analyses the public entity's proposal and determines whether it can be

implemented as PPP under the provision of Law 3389/2005. In case that the

proposal in positively evaluated, as it was initially submitted or was finally amended

with necessary modifications, the PPP unit includes it in the "List of Proposed

Partnerships" and notifies the public entity of this decision. If the involved Public

Entity decides to submit an "Application for Inclusion" within no more than two

months after the date of notification the Minister of Economy, acting as the President

of the IM PPP Committee, sets this application as an item of the agenda of the next

meeting of the IM PPP Committee and invites all regular members and the Minister

that supervises the involved Public Entity.

In this meeting, the report drafted by the PPP Unit is presented to the Ministers, and

all necessary and additional information and clarifications are provided, so as to help

Ministers to reach a decision. After that, the IM PPP Committee announces its

decision, to either approve or reject this application. If the IM PPP Committee

decides to approve a partnership, the PPP Unit has to coordinate and monitor all

contract award procedures, as defined in Law 3389/2005, so as to select the Special

Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that will participate in the partnership.

Beyond specific regulations with the award of PPP contracts, it must be noted that

Law 3389/2005 is in line with the general principles of both national and Community

law (equal treatment, transparency, protection of public interest etc), regulating the

contract award procedures and the relations of the Contracting Authorities with

candidates. The procedures for contract award are either open or restricted. In the

case of complex contracts, the process of the competitive dialogue or the negotiated

procedure may be applied.


63

Contracts will be awarded by the Public Entity acting as Contracting Authority either

on the criterion of the tender being the most economically advantageous or on the

criterion of lowest price. The minimum qualifications and abilities of the tenders who

participate in the contract procedure are clearly defined by the Invitation to Tender.


64

4. MSW GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

4.1. INTRODUCTION

The waste quantity and composition directly influence the functioning of and capacity

required for waste collection and treatment/disposal systems and facilities. In

planning an upgrade of existing or development of new systems/facilities it is

therefore of utmost importance to as accurately as possible determine the current

waste quantity and composition.

In planning and executing a waste quantity and composition survey, it shall be

considered that the waste generation varies between waste generators, between

days in the same period and between seasons. Therefore, careful planning and

execution is required to achieve representative and correct results.

In this chapter, existing and future quantities of MSW generate in Greece, existing

waste management and future planning according to National and Regional Solid

Waste Management Plans are described.

4.2. MSW CURRENT GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

4.2.1. MSW composition

According to Eurostat and the European Environment Agency (EEA), Municipal Solid

Waste (MSW) includes predominantly household waste (domestic waste) with the

addition of commercial waste (waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the

purposes of a trade or business or for the purpose of sport, recreation, education or

entertainment), non hazardous waste from industry and waste from clinics and

hospitals, which are similar in nature and composition to household waste, collected

by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed of through the waste

management system.

In summary MSW includes:

Household waste;

Garden (yard) and park waste; and

Commercial/institutional waste similar in nature and composition to household

waste.


65

The composition of municipal waste may vary from municipality to municipality,

depending on the local waste management system. Generally MSW consists of

putrescibles, paper, plastics, glass, metals, wood, textiles and other materials such

as rubber and leather. MSW includes also green waste from garden or parks, such as

grass, flower cuttings and hedge trimmings.

In the following table, composition of MSW in Greece is presented, according to

J.M.D 50910/2727/2003 data.

Table 6: MSW composition in Greece (J.M.D 50910/2727/03)

Type of Waste Percentage Putrescibles 47.00% Paper 20.00% Plastic 8.50% Metals 4.50% Glass 4.50% Wood - Green Waste 4.00% Other4 11.50%

Total 100,00

The corresponding diagram is presented next.

Putrescibles47,00%

Paper20,00%

Plastic8,50%

Metals4,50%

Glass4,50%

Wood - Green Waste4,00%

Other11,50%

Putrescibles

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Wood - Green Waste

Other

Figure 7: MSW composition in Greece in 2007 (J.M.D 50910/2727/03)

4 Other types include inert, textile, leather, fine material etc


66

According to HERRCO5, 20% of the total MSW amount comprises of packaging waste (packaging material from consumer products)

In the following table, composition of packaging waste in MSW in Greece is

presented, according to J.M.D 50910/2727/2003 data.

Table 7: Composition of packaging waste in MSW in Greece6

Type of Waste Percentage

Paper 65.00%

Plastic 3.00%

Metals 10.00%

Glass 19.00%

4.2.2. MSW Generation

According to Eurostat data published on March 9 2009, in 2007, the annual MSW

generation in Greece is estimated around 5 million tonnes. The following table

outlines the annual generation of MSW in Greece from 1995 until 2007.

Table 8: Annual total MSW generation in Greece from 1995 until 2007 (Eurostat)

MSW Generation

('000 tn)

1995 3,154 1996 3,530 1997 3,806 1998 3,974 1999 4,264 2000 4,447 2001 4,559 2002 4,640 2003 4,710 2004 4,781 2005 4,853 2006 4,927 2007 5,002

5 www.herrco.gr 6 Source: J.M.D 50910/2727/03


67

The following figure depicts the annual generation of MSW in Greece from 1995 until

2007.

Annual Total MSW Generation in Greece

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Tota

l MSW

pro

duct

ion

('000

tn)

Figure 8: Annual total generation of MSW in Greece (Eurostat)

According to the same study, in 2007 the annual MSW generation per capita in

Europe lied between 294 kg in the Czech Republic and 801 kg in Denmark, with an

average of 522 kg per cap - year. In Greece that number reaches up to 448 kg per

capita (see Annex 1). The following figure depicts the annual generation of MSW per

capita in Greece from 1995 until 2007.

Annual MSW Generation (per capita) in Greece and EU-27

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

kg p

er c

apita

EU27Greece

Figure 9: Annual generation of MSW per capita in Greece and EU-27 (Eurostat)


68

Per capita waste generation is strongly correlated with income and social

development but also affected by waste awareness and education. Figure 5 shows

an increase of just over 33% in the period 1995-2000, but with a tendency to level

off from 2001 onwards. However, annual MSW generation per capita is still

increasing, and unless a national strategy for waste prevention and reduction is

successfully developed and implemented, the upward trend seen over the last 14

years is expected to continue.

In general, nowadays it is estimated that more than 5.2 million tones of MSW are

produced annually in Greece, 39% of which are produced in the area of Attiki and

16% are produced in the region of Central Macedonia that includes the prefecture of

Thessaloniki (11%). In other words, the total annual production of municipal solid

waste in these two areas exceeds 2.600.000 tonnes per year, as it is outlined in the

following table.

Table 9: Annual MSW generated quantities in Attiki and Thessaloniki

Prefecture MSW 2001 (tn) MSW 2009 (tn) Attiki 7 1,775,000 2,000,000

Thessaloniki8 450,000 640,000

Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) can be commonly found in municipal solid

waste and generally, is defined as waste that may undergo aerobic or anaerobic

degradation, such as: food wastes, gardening wastes, paper and cardboard wastes,

and biomass. According to J.M.D 50910/2727/2003 data, MSW in Greece contains

around 70% BMW.

4.3. PREDICTION OF MSW FUTURE GENERATION

Prediction of the quality and quantity of MSW is crucial for designing and

programming municipal solid waste management system. However, predicting the

amount of generated waste is a difficult task because various parameters affect it

and its fluctuation is high. Several methods of estimating waste generation have

been applied so far. Various analyses conducted in several cases, have shown high

correlations of the generation of Municipal Solid Waste to the total GDP, per capita

7 According to RSWMP of Attiki 8 According to Waste Management Authority of Thessaloniki


69

income, and the population. Thus, predictions of future MSW amounts in this study

is based on the correlation between average per capita income (based on the GDP

and population) and waste generation.

The method focused on EU-27 and went through the following steps.

1. Making use of Eurostat data, the average per capita income was estimated based

on the total GDP at current prices, and population.

2. The total amount of MSW generated was analyzed, and the relationship between

waste generation and per capita income was estimated.

3. Finally, 3 scenarios were developed , namely min max and central scenario.

At this point, it must be stressed that the scenarios are no prediction, but just give

an impression of what could happen. All Eurostat data are outlined in Annexes 3,4

and 5.

4.3.1. Correlation between income and MSW generation

Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the correlation between unit of per capita income and

per capita MSW generation in EU from 2000 until 2007.


70

Annual MSW generation per capita in relation to average income

0,000

0,050

0,100

0,150

0,200

0,250

0,300

0,350

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

kg M

SW /

€ in

com

e

EU-27EU-15BulgariaCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaIrelandGreeceSpainFranceItalyCyprusLithuaniaLuxembourgHungaryNetherlandsAustriaPortugalRomaniaSloveniaSlovakiaFinlandSwedenUnited KingdomTurkeyIcelandNorwaySwitzerland

Figure 10: Correlation between per capita income and MSW generation in EU (2000 – 2007)


71

Figure 11 shows a steady decrease of the MSW amount generated per unit of income

in Europe and the downward trend seen over the last 7 years is expected to

continue.

MSW generated in relation to average income in Greece

0,010

0,015

0,020

0,025

0,030

0,035

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Year

kg M

SW /

€ in

com

e EU-15

Greece

Linear (EU-15)

Figure 11: Correlation between per capita income and MSW generation in Greece

(2000 – 2007)

Generally, Greece has followed the general European pattern as far as generation of

MSW is concerned. Table 10 shows the MSW generated quantities per unit of income

in EU in 2007.

Table 10: MSW generated quantities per unit of income in EU (2007)

MSW Generated / Income (kg/€) in 2007 Country MSW Generated /

Income (kg/€) in 2007 Country

0.1244 Bulgaria 0.0211 Italy 0.0655 Romania 0.0209 EU-27 0.0635 Turkey 0.0192 Denmark 0.0474 Lithuania 0.0183 Austria 0.0460 Estonia 0.0182 France 0.0454 Hungary 0.0181 Netherlands 0.0368 Cyprus 0.0179 Ireland 0.0307 Portugal 0.0171 Switzerland 0.0304 Slovakia 0.0170 United Kingdom 0.0256 Slovenia 0.0149 Finland 0.0248 Spain 0.0143 Sweden 0.0238 Czech Republic 0.0136 Norway 0.0221 Greece 0.0117 Iceland 0.0215 EU-15 0.0088 Luxembourg


72

As for Greek GDP, it presented a constant increase over the last decade, but

estimations for the future are not easy. Despite last decade’s dynamism, the Greek

economy seems to be following EU towards a period of uncertainty. Table 11 shows

the real GDP growth rate in EU, for the past few years.


73

Table 11: Real GDP growth rate - Growth rate of GDP volume percentage change on previous year (Eurostat)

geo\time 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (f) 2010 (f) 2011 (f) EU-27 3.9 2.0 1.2 1.3 2.5 2.0 3.2 2.9 0.8 -4.1 0.7 1.6 EU-15 3.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.8 3.0 2.6 0.6 -4.1 0.7 1.5

Belgium 3.7 0.8 1.4 0.8 3.2 1.8 2.8 2.9 1.0 -2.9 0.6 1.5 Bulgaria 5.4 4.1 4.5 5.0 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.0 -5.9 -1.1 3.1

Czech Republic 3.6 2.5 1.9 3.6 4.5 6.3 6.8 6.1 2.5 -4.8 0.8 2.3 Denmark 3.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 2.3 2.4 3.4 1.7 -0.9 -4.5 1.5 1.8 Germany 3.2 1.2 0.0 -0.2 1.2 0.8 3.2 2.5 1.3 -5.0 1.2 1.7 Estonia 10.0 7.5 7.9 7.6 7.2 9.4 10.0 7.2 -3.6 -13.7 -0.1 4.2 Ireland 9.4 5.7 6.5 4.4 4.6 6.2 5.4 6.0 -3.0 -7.5 -1.4 2.6 Greece 4.5 4.2 3.4 5.9 4.6 2.2 4.5 4.5 2.0 -1.1 -0.3 0.7 Spain 5.0 3.6 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.6 0.9 -3.7 -0.8 1.0

France 3.9 1.9 1.0 1.1 2.5 1.9 2.2 2.3 0.4 -2.2 1.2 1.5 Italy 3.7 1.8 0.5 -0.0 1.5 0.7 2.0 1.6 -1.0 -4.7 0.7 1.4

Cyprus 5.0 4.0 2.1 1.9 4.2 3.9 4.1 5.1 3.6 -0.7 0.1 1.3 Latvia 6.9 8.0 6.5 7.2 8.7 10.6 12.2 10.0 -4.6 -18.0 -4.0 2.0

Lithuania 3.3 6.7 6.9 10.2 7.4 7.8 7.8 9.8 2.8 -18.1 -3.9 2.5 Luxembourg 8.4 2.5 4.1 1.5 4.4 5.4 5.6 6.5 0.0 -3.6 1.1 1.8

Hungary 4.9 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.9 3.5 4.0 1.0 0.6 -6.5 -0.5 3.1 Malta : -1.6 2.6 -0.3 0.4 4.1 3.8 3.7 2.1 -2.2 0.7 1.6

Netherlands 3.9 1.9 0.1 0.3 2.2 2.0 3.4 3.6 2.0 -4.5 0.3 1.6 Austria 3.7 0.5 1.6 0.8 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 -3.7 1.1 1.5 Poland 4.3 1.2 1.4 3.9 5.3 3.6 6.2 6.8 5.0 1.2 1.8 3.2

Portugal 3.9 2.0 0.8 -0.8 1.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 -0.0 -2.9 0.3 1.0 Romania 2.4 5.7 5.1 5.2 8.5 4.2 7.9 6.3 6.2 -8.0 0.5 2.6 Slovenia 4.4 2.8 4.0 2.8 4.3 4.5 5.8 6.8 3.5 -7.4 1.3 2.0


74

geo\time 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (f) 2010 (f) 2011 (f) Slovakia 1.4 3.4 4.8 4.7 5.2 6.5 8.5 10.4 6.4 -5.8 1.9 2.6 Finland 5.1 2.7 1.6 1.8 3.7 2.8 4.9 4.2 1.0 -6.9 0.9 1.6 Sweden 4.4 1.1 2.4 1.9 4.1 3.3 4.2 2.5 -0.2 -4.6 1.4 2.1

United Kingdom 3.9 2.5 2.1 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.9 2.6 0.6 -4.6 0.9 1.9 Croatia 3.0 3.8 5.4 5.0 4.2 4.2 4.7 5.5 2.4 -5.8 0.2 2.2 Turkey 6.8 -5.7 6.2 5.3 9.4 8.4 6.9 4.5 0.9 -5.8 2.8 3.6 Iceland 4.3 3.9 0.1 2.4 7.7 7.5 4.3 5.6 1.3 -9.8 1.9 2.9 Norway 3.3 2.0 1.5 1.0 3.9 2.5 2.1 2.7 1.8 -2.2 0.6 2.0

Switzerland 3.6 1.2 0.4 -0.2 2.5 2.6 3.6 3.6 1.8 -2.4 -0.1 1.1


75

Table 12 shows the average annual growth of GDP in EU from 2000 until 2009.

Table 12: Average Annual Growth of GDP in EU 2000-2009

State Average Annual Growth 2000-2009

Italy 0.68 Germany 0.91 Portugal 0.97 Denmark 1.06 Malta9 1.58 EU (15 countries) 1.60 Netherlands 1.66 France 1.67 Belgium 1.72 EU (27 countries) 1.74 Switzerland 1.86 Austria 1.88 United Kingdom 2.00 Norway 2.07 Sweden 2.12 Finland 2.32 Hungary 2.80 Spain 2.90 Iceland 3.03 Slovenia 3.50 Croatia 3.60 Czech Republic 3.67 Cyprus 3.69 Greece 3.86 Luxembourg 3.87 Turkey 4.10 Ireland 4.19 Poland 4.32 Romania 4.83 Bulgaria 4.93 Lithuania 4.96 Slovakia 5.06 Latvia 5.28 Estonia 5.50

The corresponding diagram is presented next.

9 2001-2009


76

Average Annual Growth of GDP (2000-2009)

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

Italy

Japa

n

German

y

Portug

al

Denmark

Malta*

EU - 15

Netherl

ands

France

Belgium

EU - 27

Switzerl

and

Austria

United

Kingdo

m

Norway

United

States

Sweden

Finlan

d

Hunga

rySpa

in

Icelan

d

Sloven

ia

Croatia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Cyprus

Greece

(p)

Luxe

mbourg

Turkey

Irelan

d

Poland

Roman

ia

Bulgari

a

Lithu

ania

Slovak

iaLa

tvia

Estonia

Country

Ann

ual G

row

th o

f GD

P (%

)

Figure 12: Average Annual Growth of GDP in EU from 2000 until 2009 (Data

sourced from Eurostat)

4.3.2. 3 Scenarios Analysis

Taking into consideration various combination of GDP Growth and MSW generation

per unit of income rates, 3 scenarios for estimating waste growth from 2008 until

2028 were finally formed and evaluated. Next, these scenarios are briefly outlined.


77

Table 13: Central Scenario

Year

Gross domestic product

at market prices - Millions of euro

Municipal waste generated Total (tns)

Gross domestic product (PPP)

Municipal waste

generated / GDP (kg/€)

2008 239,141 5,213,280 21,320 0.0218 2009 240,421 5,217,136 21,345 0.0217 2010 242,997 5,248,729 21,491 0.0216 2011 250,180 5,378,874 22,047 0.0215 2012 255,184 5,460,933 22,412 0.0214 2013 260,287 5,544,123 22,792 0.0213 2014 265,493 5,628,456 23,187 0.0212 2015 270,803 5,713,945 23,598 0.0211 2016 276,219 5,800,602 24,021 0.0210 2017 281,744 5,888,440 24,460 0.0209 2018 287,378 5,977,471 24,916 0.0208 2019 293,126 6,067,708 25,388 0.0207 2020 298,988 6,159,163 25,873 0.0206 2021 304,968 6,251,849 26,373 0.0205 2022 311,068 6,345,780 26,888 0.0204 2023 317,289 6,440,966 27,418 0.0203 2024 323,635 6,537,422 27,962 0.0202 2025 330,107 6,635,160 28,519 0.0201 2026 336,710 6,734,192 29,085 0.0200 2027 343,444 6,834,532 29,669 0.0199 2028 350,313 6,936,191 30,265 0.0198

20-years Growth

Rate 46.49% 33.05% 41.95% -9.17%

Table 14: Min Scenario

Year





Municipal waste generated / GDP

(kg/€)

2008 239,141 5,213,280 21,320 0.0218 2009 240,421 5,193,094 21,345 0.0216 2010 242,997 5,248,729 21,491 0.0214 2011 250,180 5,353,856 22,047 0.0212 2012 255,184 5,409,897 22,412 0.0210 2013 260,287 5,466,037 22,792 0.0208 2014 265,493 5,522,259 23,187 0.0206 2015 270,803 5,578,544 23,598 0.0204 2016 276,219 5,634,871 24,021 0.0202 2017 281,744 5,691,219 24,460 0.0200 2018 287,378 5,747,568 24,916 0.0198 2019 293,126 5,803,894 25,388 0.0196 2020 298,988 5,860,175 25,873 0.0194 2021 304,968 5,916,384 26,373 0.0192 2022 311,068 5,972,499 26,888 0.0190


78

Year





Municipal waste generated / GDP

(kg/€)

2023 317,289 6,028,491 27,418 0.0188 2024 323,635 6,084,334 27,962 0.0186 2025 330,107 6,139,999 28,519 0.0184 2026 336,710 6,195,457 29,085 0.0182 2027 343,444 6,250,677 29,669 0.0180 2028 350,313 6,305,628 30,265 0.0178

20-years Growth

Rate 46.49% 20.95% 41.95% -18.35%

Table 15: Max Scenario

Year





Municipal waste

generated / GDP (kg/€)

2008 239,141 5,213,280 21,320 0.0218 2009 240,421 5,241,178 21,345 0.0218 2010 242,997 5,297,328 21,491 0.0218 2011 250,180 5,453,928 22,047 0.0218 2012 257,686 5,617,546 22,632 0.0218 2013 265,416 5,786,073 23,241 0.0218 2014 273,379 5,959,655 23,875 0.0218 2015 281,580 6,138,444 24,537 0.0218 2016 290,027 6,322,598 25,221 0.0218 2017 298,728 6,512,276 25,935 0.0218 2018 307,690 6,707,644 26,677 0.0218 2019 316,921 6,908,873 27,449 0.0218 2020 326,428 7,116,139 28,248 0.0218 2021 336,221 7,329,624 29,076 0.0218 2022 346,308 7,549,512 29,934 0.0218 2023 356,697 7,775,998 30,823 0.0218 2024 367,398 8,009,278 31,743 0.0218 2025 378,420 8,249,556 32,693 0.0218 2026 389,773 8,497,043 33,669 0.0218 2027 401,466 8,751,954 34,681 0.0218 2028 413,510 9,014,513 35,724 0.0218

20-years Growth

Rate 72.91% 72.91% 67.56% 0.00%


79

In particular, these three scenarios (central, min and max) for estimating waste

growth assume different growth rates in waste production;

Min scenario: Waste grows by 1% yearly – “Optimistic” scenario

Central scenario: Waste grows by 35% in the 20-year period 2008-2028 (by

1.5% yearly) – “Realistic” scenario

Max scenario: Waste grows by 3% yearly – “Pessimistic” scenario

The following Figure depicts MSW Total Generation in Greece from 2008-2028

assuming 3 different scenarios (min, central and max).

MSW Total Generation - 3 Scenarios Analysis

0

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

7.000.000

8.000.000

9.000.000

10.000.000

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

Year

tn o

f MSW

Central ScenarioMin ScenarioMax Scenario

Figure 13: MSW Total Generation in Greece from 2008-2028 assuming 3 different

scenarios (min, central and max)

Central scenario is closer to the Greek reality, because the

increase of 35% in waste during the 2008-2028 period is

constituent to the previous decade pattern.

Any projections made so far into the future should be considered with care. While

population and waste growth rates in the near term are likely to be reasonably

representative, there is greater uncertainty when timelines are pushed far into the

future.

Central Scenario

2010 5.2 mio tn MSW

2013 5.5 mio tn MSW

2020 6.1 mio tn MSW


80

4.4. CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

Waste management has become a progressively more difficult issue in developing

and transition countries over recent years while the environmentally sustainable

strategy of waste management procedures constitutes a major goal for all European

countries.

A significant improvement can be seen in the development of treatment facilities,

collection and recycling. At the same time, it is obvious that management of MSW in

Greece needs a continuous improvement, while a considerable management

reorganization is also required in order to achieve EC goals.

4.4.1. Waste collection and transport

For the collection of MSW rolling bins with capacities from 80 to 1700 lt are used.

The collection and transport is carried out by the municipalities using mainly press

and mill type vehicles.

4.4.2. Waste Treatment and Disposal

In the last two decades, and especially during the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006

Programming Periods, priority was given to the construction of compliant

infrastructure and therefore most of the 13 Regions lack in waste processing

infrastructure. Therefore, despite of the NSWMP that was introduced in 2003, most

of the waste management systems operated in Greece are not in full compliance

with the requirements of Landfill Directive, which establishes diversion rates of

biodegradable municipal waste from landfills, and the revised Waste Framework

Directive 2008/98/EC, which encourages the separate collection of bio-waste with a

view to the composting and digestion of bio-waste.

More specifically, according to Eurostat data (2009), in 2007 landfilling rate in Greece

lied at 84%, the recycling rate at 14% (62.7 kg per capita out of 450kg generated)

and composting at 2% (8.96 kg per capita - year). With 84% of its municipal solid

waste sent to landfill in 2007, Greece landfilled much more than the 42% recorded

across the EU as a whole (see Annex 2). Particularly low levels of landfilling were

recorded by Germany with just 1% of MSW being disposed of in this way, the

Netherlands (3%), Belgium (4%) and Sweden (also 4%).


81

The following table outlines the total amounts of MSW that were treated and

disposed in Greece, from 1995 until 2007, according to Eurostat data.

Table 16: MSW generation and treatment in Greece (1995 – 2007)

MSW Generation

('000 tn) Recycling Composting Landfill

('000 tn)

1995 3,154 0 0 3,154 1996 3,530 0 0 3,530 1997 3,806 328 32 3,446 1998 3,974 331 32 3,611 1999 4,264 346 32 3,886 2000 4,447 359 32 4,056 2001 4,559 370 32 4,157 2002 4,640 375 32 4,233 2003 4,710 382 32 4,328 2004 4,781 440 48 4,294 2005 4,853 510 58 4,285 2006 4,927 576 69 4,282 2007 5,002 700 100 4,201

Source: Eurostat

The following figure depicts the aforementioned data.

MSW Generation and Management in Greece (1995-2007)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

MSW

trea

tmen

t ('0

00 tn

)

Recycling

Composting

Landfill

Figure 14: Management of MSW in Greece, from 1995 until 2007 (Eurostat)


82

4.4.2.1. Disposal Facilities

Regarding disposal facilities, there are in operation 65 Landfills; among others, one

compliant landfill is currently in operation in Attiki (Fyli), and one in Thessaloniki

(Mavrorahi). Moreover 32 are under construction and 41 are in preparatory phase

(environmental and technical studies are being conducted). Regarding the illegal

landfills according to the responsible ministerial Commission, until the end of 2007,

492 small uncontrolled landfills across the country received municipal solid waste.

However, during the last two years, significant steps have been made towards

closing and restoration of these uncontrolled landfills. Restoration measures include

mainly sealing the landfill surface, continuation of leachate collection and treatment,

construction, if not existing, of a gas collection system and soil covering and

appropriate planting. The after-care period lasts around 30 years

Control of landfill gas

Measures for the control of landfill gas are described in Annex 1, bullet 4 of J.M.D.

29407/3509/2002. Out of the 41 municipal waste landfill sites in operation, 16 sites

collect gas using an active pump system, while 9 collect gas using a passive pump

system. 4 landfill sites burn the gas they collect, so far only 2 landfill site, one in

Athens and one in Thessaloniki, uses gas for energy production. The energy

produced is supplied to the Public Power Corporation (PPC) of Greece.

Leachate management

The technical measures for water control and leachate management, are laid down

in the Environmental Permit of each landfill. The common measures taken include

the control of precipitation entering the landfill body via compaction of wastes and

soil covering, the prevention of surface waters entering the landfill body by the

construction of a peripheral drainage trench system, the collection of contaminated

water and leachate through the construction of leachate collection network and the

treatment of leachates.

Gate fee

The gate fee for the waste disposal facilities in Greece is relatively low, varying from

20€ - 30€ for the most landfills, as most of them are operated by the public

authorities themselves. The new waste treatment plants, which will involve the

private sector not only in the construction but also in operation, it will increase


83

significantly the gate fee, depending on the funding mechanisms and type of

technology selected.

Uncontrolled landfills rehabilitation

According to Waste Management Inter-ministerial Committee (section 2.4.2.) until

2006 were in operation more than 1000 uncontrolled landfills in Greece. However,

during 2007 and 2008, most of them were closed and in February 2009 was reported

that only 404 were still in use. Generally, there are many potential problems related

to the closing of uncontrolled landfills and several key questions typically arise, such

as what method to use to minimize impacts in progress. One problem that always

occurs is the difficulty in overcoming old habits and introducing new technology.

Furthermore, it is impossible to properly close a site that continues to be used as a

dump site. This has to be addressed by providing a new waste disposal facility that

can accept the waste and enable the old site to be completely closed. There are in

principle 3 methods available to close an uncontrolled landfill:

1. Closing by covering the waste (in-place method)

2. Closing by removing the waste from the site (evacuation/mining method)

3. Closing by upgrading the dump to a controlled dumping site or sanitary landfill (upgrading method)

In-place method is the most commonly used option. The solid waste is left at the site

and covered with a layer of local soil and re-vegetated. The function of the cover

layer is to:

• Reduce waste exposure to wind and vectors

• Prevent people and animals from scavenging

• Control odour

• Minimise the risk of fires

• Stop people from using the site

• Control infiltration of rainwater / surface water

• Control migration of landfill gas

• Serve as growth medium for vegetation

• Support suitable post-closure activities


84

The ability of the cover layer to limit infiltration of water into the dump is an

essential environmental protection measure. This is achieved through a suitable

combination of cover soil type, thickness, slope and vegetation.

4.4.2.2. Waste Treatment Facilities

Currently, in Greece, only five Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plants

have been constructed, as outlined in the following table.

Table 17: Existing MBT Facilities in Greece (MRFs not included)

Location Capacity [tn MSW per yr]

Beginning of operation Technology / Funding (allocated only)

Attiki (Ano Liosia) 450,000 2004 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

Chania (island of Crete) 70,000 2005 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

(EU Cohesion Fund: € 16.5 million) Kalamata

(Peloponnese) 32,000 1997 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

Heraklion (island of Crete) 70,000 2010 MBT, biodrying

Kefalonia 10,000 2010 MBT, biodrying

The unit in Attiki, which is one of the biggest MBT plants in Europe, treats mixed

municipal waste, produces Refuse Delivered Fuel (RDF) good quality compost and its

annual capacity reaches 450,000 tonnes. The waste treatment plant in Chania, has

an annual capacity of 70,000 tonnes, treats mixed municipal waste and recyclable

materials that are separated collected and produces only low quality compost. The

treatment plant in Kalamata is the oldest, has a capacity of 32,000 tonnes per year

but is now temporarily non operational due to a legal battle between its constructors

and operators. Moreover in Heraklion (island of Crete) and Kefalonia (one of the

Ionian Islands) two MBT plants started recently trial operation.

The recyclables collected through the separation at source scheme of packaging

materials are being processed in material recovery facilities. There through

handpicking and mechanical sorting the packaging waste is sorted into materials for

recovery and recycling purposes. The total number of MRFs in operation is 23 while

more will be constructed in order to achieve the national targets. The following

figure depicts existing treatment facilities in Greece (2009).


85

Figure 15: Existing treatment facilities in Greece (2009)

In the next tables some data from the collection and processing of packaging waste

are presented (source: HERRCO).

Table 18: MSW Operating Results of the national packaging WM system

Location Population Covered

Number of Bins

Number of Vehicles

Annual Total Packaging Waste & Print Paper Recovery (tones)10

Attiki - Fyli N/D N/D N/D 45,000 (nominal capacity) Attiki - Elefsina N/D N/D N/D 25,000 (nominal capacity) Attiki - Marousi 287,493 5,761 20 18,129

Attiki - Aspropyrgos 2,743,062 30,051 95 77,968 Thermi 208,473 5,271 11 8,429

Kallithea 250,848 3,043 13 3,352 Tagarades 776,881 3,845 12 8,995 Heraklion 292,311 5,271 18 12,123 Chania 176,874 3,090 11 8,154

Kalamata 161,071 1,938 6 4,333 Patra 341,304 4,130 12 6,936 Lamia 214,640 3,155 10 2,187

Karditsa 199,500 3,517 8 5,897 Katerini 251,703 3,139 9 4,641 Corfu 103,459 1,309 4 3,300

Schimatari 62,743 718 4 1,152 Volos 121,992 1,689 N/D N/D

Ioannina11 57,347 751 3 196 Larisa N/D N/D N/D N/D

10 Data from 31/12/08 - The results refer to all Municipalities served by the MRF concerned 11 11/2008 – 12/2008


86

No Incineration Plants are currently in operation. The environmental impact

assessment studies for a plant in the island of Rhodes and another one in Thiva

(Viotia) are in progress. Considering the fact that the issuing of an operating

permission is a time-consuming procedure, its not expected that it will start

operating before 2013.

4.5. SECONDARY PRODUCT MARKET

The viability of any investment in solid waste processing depends on the optimisation

of the available waste streams, the plant capacity and the existing and future

markets for the materials produced (e.g recyclables, compost, energy etc). The

latter, is a key parameter in the evaluation of the viability of any such investment,

and an area where many unsuccessful ventures have paid insufficient attention.

Market analysis is as important for products where markets exist but are vulnerable

to fluctuations (such as recyclables or energy) as for products where markets are not

developed yet (such as compost). For example compost utilisation, is affected by and

would benefit from several activities where further analysis in the Greek market

context would be beneficial. Examples of these include the development and formal

adoption of quality standards for domestic, agricultural, soil enrichment etc, use of

compost, public attitude surveys on the use of compost, evaluation of factors

affecting compost quality etc. In the following sections, a brief description of the

compost and RDF/SRF market is outlined.

4.5.1. Compost market

Compost is a unique product which can improve the physical, chemical (nutritional)

and biological properties of soil and plant growth media. These characteristics make

compost a valuable product which can be used in a variety of applications. High

quality composts have been produced from leaf and yard debris, biosolids, municipal

solid waste, animal manures, agricultural by-products, food and a variety of industrial

by-products. Generally a cleaner separated at source bio-waste fraction allows to

produce high quality compost. Moreover the residue from anaerobic digestion (the

digestate) can be composted and produce also good quality compost. According to

EU Green Paper “on the management of bio-waste in the European Union”, compost

in EU is used in agriculture (about 50%), for landscaping (up to 20%), to produce


87

growing media (blends) and manufactured soil (around 20%), and by private

consumers (up to 25%). Countries which produce compost predominantly from

mixed waste and have undeveloped compost markets tend to use it in agriculture,

for land restoration or landfill cover. The demand for compost varies in Europe

depending mostly on soil improvement needs, and consumer confidence. EU soil

policy calling on the Commission and the Parliament to act against the degradation

of soil, as well as increasing consumer confidence in relation to the safe use of

composts from waste, could enhance demand significantly. Nowadays, in Greece, the

price of compost varies from 2.50 up to 15.00 € / tonne (bulk) depending on its

properties and quality. The price of bagged, high quality compost in Europe reaches

up to 100.00 € / tonne, however, at this point, the market for high quality compost

in Greece it is estimated to be very limited, due to the low price of competitive

fertilizers.

For the compost produced in the Athens M.B.T. a study was issued in order to

examine the available options for its utilization. The study investigated the possibility

to utilize the compost in Municipalities with park areas, in the gardening sector and

in the Public Power Corporation Plant of Megalopolis. In case compost is utilized as a

soil improver following requirements should be met:

Zero content of heavy metals

Moisture content: 30%

pH: 6.5-7

Grain size: fine

Total N Content: 80-90%

NH4 Content: 75%

Impurities (glas,plastic): 1%

Zero content on enterobacteriaceae

Agricultural and fertilizer firms are mainly interested in specific chemical and physical

characteristics when evaluating the quality of a compost product. The products

quality should remain constant throughout the year. Typical requirements are:

Moisture content: 40%

pH 6.5-7.0

C/N ratio: 15

Grain size: fine


88

Total N Content: 1.5%

Impurities (glass, plastic): 1%

Zero content of heavy metals

A six month testing in order to assess its contribution to the growth rate of

the plants

When the aforementioned requirements are met, gardening businesses are

interested in the use of compost, especially if its price is lower than other fertilizers

and soil improvers.

The Public Power Corporation was interested in using compost as a restoration

material in order to compensate its mining activities. The company expressed its

reservations regarding how suitable the material for the restoration of the mining

sites is. For that reason it requested an initial five month trial period in order to

assess the situation. At the time being the compost from existing MBT in Athens

(Ano Liosia) is only used for restoration and landfill works, and the average price is

2.5 €/tn.

4.5.2. RDF- SRF market

RDF consists largely of organic components of municipal waste such as plastics and

biodegradable waste. RDF processing facilities are normally located near a source of

MSW and, while an optional combustion facility is normally close to the processing

facility, it may also be located at a remote location. SRF can be distinguished from

RDF in the fact that it is produced to reach a standard such as CEN/343 ANAS.

RDF can be used in a variety of ways to produce electricity. It can be used alongside

traditional sources of fuel in coal power plants. In Greece the RDF produced in the

M.B.T. of A. Liossia it is either stored or used in landfilling operations. The WMA of

the Attica Region issued a market study in order to find a way to utilize the RDF

produced in the Athens treatment unit. The study included two big cement industries

(AGET IRAKLIS and Titan A.E.) and other types of industry where big amounts of

energy are required (Public Power Corporation, Steel Industries and Lime Industries)

but there was no correspondence. The cement industries didn’t provide data relating

to the fuel type they are using and gave the following specifications regarding the

characteristics of the RDF in order to accept it as a fuel:


89

Moisture Content: 3-10%

Chlor Content: 15%

Low bulk density

A comparatively high calorific value (15−18 MJ/kg)

Some of the issues brought to the table by the industry (low facility performance,

odor emissions while handling RDF which might affect personnel, need of storage

capacity, RDF production rate, modification of the facility’s environmental permission

terms) should be examined closely and solutions should be provided. Assuming that

the RDF qualitative requirements are met then the perspectives for the acceptance of

RDF will be given since the interest in using alternative fuels is constantly increasing.

A contract has been signed between AGET IRAKLIS and the W.M.A. which states that

initially 35,000 tn/year will be co incinerated in the AGET plant and that amount will

increase to 75,000 tn/year. According to the contract AGET will receive 10 € per tone

of RDF co incinerated. Totally 750,000 €/year will be required, while for less amount

the price could reach 20 € per tone (-20 €/). The contract was signed during

February 2007 and has a five year duration. Nevertheless the total amount of RDF is

still being landfilled. Construction and operation of Waste to Energy plants are

expected to enhance demand and thus selling price significantly.

4.5.3. Recyclable materials

The main recyclable materials produced during the mechanical sorting of MSW are

metals. As mentioned before, in 2007, the recycling rate in Greece was 14% (62 kg

per capita - year). Depending on the desired recovery rates, other recyclables such

as plastic, paper and glass can be recovered as well. Those materials are not pure

since they derive from commingled waste and contain a big proportion of impurities

mainly organic waste. The impurities cause those materials to have a lower

commercial compared to recyclables originating from source separation schemes.

Ferrous Metal

Ferrous metals recovered originate from packaging waste and consist of steel with a

thin internal layer of tin. The requirements set by companies in order to absorb the

recycled metals are the following:


90

Metals should be separated and free from impurities (plastic, wood, earth)

Sorting into categories is usually a necessary requirement and increases

commercial value

No significant problems have been identified in selling the recovered metals. Prices

achieved lie around 120-140 €/tn.

Non Ferrous metal

The main fraction of non ferrous metals comprises of aluminium originating from

beer and refreshment cans. Scrap aluminium can achieve high prices that encourage

high recovery rates. It can be reused many times without loosing in quality.

Requirements in order to sell the non ferrous metals are:

Metals should be sorted and free from impurities

High compression isn’t wanted in order to be able separate the metals easily.

Selling prices for aluminimium vary a lot depending on the market needs. Usually it

can be sold for 700 €/tn.

Paper

Paper can be classified in different categories depending on quality and the presence

of impurities. Paper originating from commingled waste has for example low

commercial value due to a big amount of impurities found such as:

plastic films that cause problems to the paper recycling equipment

organics attached that cause high moisture levels

small metal pieces like paper clips

Paper is the fastest developing market for recycled products. According to market

studies that have been issued the need for recovered paper is constantly increasing.

In order to be accepted it needs to be free from impurities and high levels of

moisture. Prices are influenced by the fluctuations in the international market.

Typically it can be sold for 35 - 80 € / tone depending on the quality.

Glass

Glass can be recycled many times without any negative impact in the final quality.

For that reason it is considered as one of the most environmental-friendly materials.


91

Glass components in M.S.W. consist of bottles, broken glassware, light bulbs and

other items. Restraining factors for glass recycling are the different quality and

colour and the collection cost. In Greece there is only one facility that can absorb

glass scrap. The main requirements are:

Glass should be free from impurities

It should be sorted by color

Glass products should have the same quality meaning no porcelain or

crystals.

Average prices reach up to 3-7 € / tone depending on the degree the

aforementioned requirements are met.

Plastic

In Greece plastic recycling rate is low compared to other recyclables for the following

reasons:

There are many different qualities and types of plastic with various physical

characteristics and chemical composition

It is difficult to recognize the different types of plastic resins

Plastics contain a lot of impurities since most of the packaging is used for

food.

High recovery cost

Mainly PET and PE plastics are being recycled. Products are geotextiles, ropes, bins,

pots and other. There is no interest for mixed plastic waste since there is no

possibility to utilize it in Greece. The requirements for plastic are:

To be sorted by type

To be free from impurities like organic waste

The price per tone varies depending on the quality of the material and lies in the

range of 30 - 150 € per tone, with an average price of 65 € per tone.

The following Table depicts the secondary products market average prices in Greece

in 2009.


92

Table 19: Secondary products market average prices in Greece (2009)

Product Price Unit Glass 3 € / tn Paper 50 € / tn Plastic (average) 65 € / tn Metals Fe 130 € / tn Metals Non Fe (Al etc) 700 € / tn Compost 2.5 € / tn SRF -20 € / tn RDF -20 € / tn Electricity 80.14 € / kwh Heat 30 € / kwh

4.6. MSW MANAGEMENT TARIFF SYSTEM.

Another important consideration is the impact the gate fees have on waste

management tariffs and tariff evolution. This is especially important because the

issue of affordability and willingness to pay is an area that needs to be evaluated

carefully to ensure that the main beneficiaries of the solid waste services (private

households, businesses, public institutions, etc.) will accept, participate and

contribute constructively to the proposed investments.

As stated, municipalities are responsible for waste collection and street sanitation. In

order to finance those activities, fees are imposed to the citizens. However there is

not a specific fee related to waste generation. Fees are part of the Municipal Fees

system and are based on the surface area (m2) of professional and residential

buildings (and is included in the electricity bill). The fee’s level is set by the municipal

council and it varies from city to city. In most cases, the fees for waste management

are a fixed amount of money related to the services provided by the municipality.

Because of that the revenues from the fees are not used only for waste management

but also for other municipal services. The fee is usually set to such a level, as to

cover the expenses for all the services provided by the municipality. Thus,

municipalities very rarely differentiate between waste management expenses and

other services, since they mainly aim to balance the projected overall municipal

expenses (Ministry of National Economy, 2000). As a result citizens cannot evaluate

the quality of the services provided by the municipality and no motive to reduce the

waste quantities is being offered.


93

Collection, treatment and disposal costs are depending on the geographical data and

the equipment used. In Attiki the average annual unit waste management cost is

€42/cap-year with minimum value at €11/cap-year and maximum at €130/cap-

year12. The new waste treatment plants, which will involve the private sector not

only in the construction but also in operation, it will increase significantly annual unit

waste management cost, depending on the funding mechanisms and type of

technology selected. This will be a good opportunity to change the way fee for solid

waste is allocated and a “Pay as You Throw” strategy to be introduced by Waste

Management Authorities (WMA). Nevertheless, taking into consideration that MSW

generation in Greece lies around 448 kg per capita, it is expected that the annual

expenses per person for MSW management, will reach an average of 80 €/cap-year.

Regarding recycling, since the beginning of 2009, Municipalities receive an extra

financial aid for the collection of recyclables by HERRCO. The amount scales

according to the quantity of packaging waste collected per inhabitant, and is shown

in the following table.

Table 20: Financial contribution to Municipalities for the collection of packaging

waste

Collected Waste per capita Financial Aid

From (kg) To (kg) € / tn 0.0 8.0 30 8.1 15.0 40 15.1 20.0 50 20.1 25.0 60 25.1 30.0 65 30.1 -- 70

12 Katia Lasaridi et al, Comparative analysis and geographic differentiation of solid waste management costs in urban and rural municipalities, 2008


94

5. MSW MANAGEMENT FUTURE PLANNING

5.1. IMPACT OF EU LEGISLATION

Greece, as any other Member State (MS), is under the obligation to meet certain

targets regarding material recycling and the diversion of biodegradable waste.

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 refers to the disposal of waste to

landfills. The aim of the Directive is to define measures, directions and guidance, in

order to prevent or reduce, as far as possible, the adverse effects of the landfill of

waste on the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and

human health, by providing stringent operational and technical requirements on the

waste and landfills.

The Directive requires from the MS to set up a national strategy for the

implementation of the reduction of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to

landfills in a specific interval of time by means of recycling, composting, biogas

production or materials/energy recovery, and notify the Commission of this strategy.

More specifically the Directive sets the following targets:


BMW produced in 1995, for which standardised Eurostat data are available;


BMW produced in 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data are available;


BMW produced in 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data are available.

Countries, such as Greece and United Kingdom, where more than 80% of the waste

ended up at landfills in the reference year gained a 4-year extension in order to

reach the aforementioned targets. Greece is formulating its strategies by placing

targets for the years 2010, 2013 and 2020. This requires the adoption of treatment

technologies that results in either the recycling of the material (such as composting)

or the recovery of energy (such as thermal treatment).


95

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. As for MSW composition, data from

field measurements exist for only a few areas such as Athens, Creta, Thessaloniki,

etc. Official data on national level were firstly published in the M.D. 14312/1302 (not

valid) and then in J.M.D. 50910/2727/2003 that reported a total quantity of 3.9

million tones in 1997 of which 2.6 million tonnes are biodegradable (67.0%). Based

on the above, year 1997 was chosen as a basis for calculations, and the targets for

Greece are:

In 2010, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 1.95 million tonnes;


In 2020, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 0.91 million tonnes.

Regarding packaging materials which are collected separately through the competent

scheme HERRCO, as stated, the following targets have been set (J.M.D.

9268/469/2007):

No later than 31 December 2011 60 % as a minimum by weight of packaging


recovery

No later than 31 December 2011 the following minimum recycling targets for


(i) 60 % by weight for glass;

(ii) 60 % by weight for paper and board;

(iii) 50 % by weight for metals;

(vi) 22,5 % by weight for plastics, counting exclusively material that is recycled

back into plastics;

(vii) 15 % by weight for wood.


96

The following figure depicts future quantities and management of BMW in Greece, in

accordance with the landfill targets established by EU Legislation, assuming a BaU

scenario (Business as Usual) and waste growth of 1.5% yearly (“realistic” scenario).

Figure 16: Future quantities and management of BMW in Greece

(waste growth: 1.5% yearly)

The BMW amounts must be diverted from landfills either via recycling (60% by

weight for paper and board until 31 December 2011) or other treatment (i.e.

composting)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra13) in UK (which also

gained a 4-year extension) estimates that England will need to be diverting between

8.4 and 14.4 million tonnes of BMW away from landfill. Failure to meet the targets

could result in the UK incurring fines and the Government has confirmed that it

would impose penalties on local authorities of £100 to £150 for every tonne of

biodegradable waste sent to landfill in excess of their individual targets. A report by

the National Audit Office (www.nao.org.uk) which scrutinises public spending, says

the penalties imposed on local authorities could amount to £40 million in 2010 and

£205 million in 2013. In accordance with the above, it is estimated that in Greece the

13 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/residual/newtech/documents/trif-criteria.pdf


97

financial penalty could reach up to €150/tonne for each tonne of BMW landfilled in

excess of the landfill allowance limit.

5.2. PLANNED FACILITIES

In line with EU and international best practice, the hierarchy in the waste

management sector according to the NSWMP is based on the following three

principles.

1. Prevention or minimization of waste production (quantitative minimization) as

well as the minimization of the waste content in hazardous substances

(qualitative minimization)

2. Utilization of waste (reuse, recycling and energy recovering)

3. Safe final disposal of residues

In accordance with the above, several compliant residual waste landfills and

treatment units are foreseen by RSWMPs for the next years across the country, in

order to promote sustainability and achieve the targets for diversion of

biodegradable waste and recycling. RSWMPs establish integrated waste management

systems by taking into consideration the environmental impacts, in particular the

waste hierarchy (promote waste prevention, recycling and processing), social and

economical costs and benefits and the best environment practices option, seeing

responsible waste management as part of sustainable development. Moreover, in

each RSWMP local needs and conditions are evaluated, and then a combination of

the most appropriate waste management activities for those conditions is selected.

In the following table, the major existing and planned facilities for waste treatment in

Greece are outlined.


98

Table 21: Existing and Planned Waste Treatment Facilities in Greece (MRFs not

included)

Location

Capacity

tn MSW per

yr

Capacity

tn BMW per

yr

Beginning of

operation Technology / Funding (allocated only)

Existing facilities (Plants)

Ano Liosia 450,000 200,000 2004-2006 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

Chania 70,000 53,600 2005 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

(EU Cohesion Fund: € 16.5 million)

Kalamata 32,000 21,440 1997 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

Heraklion 70,000 46,900 2010 MBT, biodrying

Kefalonia 10,000 6,700 2010 MBT, biodrying

Facilities (Plants) under planning

Hmathia 70,000 50,000 2012 - 2013 MBT, biodrying and AD

Serres N/D N/D 2013 MBT, Technology not selected yet

Zante Island N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Aitoloakarnania N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Fokida N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Corfu Island N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Rhodes Island N/D N/D N/D WtE

ILIA N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Thiva 350,000 - N/D WtE

Ahaia (Patra) 120,000 80,400 2013 MBT (EU Cohesion Fund: € 55 million)

Thessaloniki_1 400,000 301,500 2014 Mixed waste - All options open

(PFI14: € 290 million)

Thessaloniki_2 350,000 N/D 2015 Mixed waste - All options open

Attiki Fyli_1 700,000 402,000 2013 - 2014 Mixed waste - MBT, Biological Drying

Attiki Fyli_2 400,000 280,000 2013 - 2014 Mixed waste - Mechanical Treatment

Attiki Keratea_1 127,500 90,000 2013 Mixed waste - MBT, Anaerobic Digestion

Attiki Grammatiko_1 127,500 90,000 2013 Mixed waste - MBT, Anaerobic Digestion

Attiki Fyli_3 80,000 53,600 2013 Source Separated Biowaste, Composting

Attiki Keratea_2 40,000 26,800 2013 Source Separated Biowaste, Composting

Attiki Grammatiko_2 40,000 26,800 2013 Source Separated Biowaste, Composting

14 Private Finance Initiative


99

The following figure depicts existing and planned treatment facilities in Greece

(2009).

Figure 17: Existing and planned treatment facilities in Greece (2009)

Regarding planned disposal facilities, among others, one compliant residual waste

landfill is in preparatory phase in Thessaloniki, and two compliant residual waste

landfills are under construction in southeast and northeast Attiki. In addition to the

above, several central transport stations are also foreseen for both areas. In general,

transport stations are used for the temporary deposition of waste and function as a

supplementary infrastructure. Transfer stations are typically used to enhance

efficient operation of a comprehensive solid waste management system, however in

some cases are considered to be mandatory for the whole process.

Specific technical and economical data for the projects in Attiki and Thessaloniki,

such as type and level of technology, nominal capacity, investment and process

costs, revenues from material and potential energy recovery etc, are presented in

Part 2.


100

6. APPENDICES

Annex 1: Generation of municipal waste in the EU 27, 1995 and 2007 (Eurostat,

2009)


101

Annex 2: Municipal Waste Landfilled per Capita (Eurostat, 2009)


102

GDP at market prices; Mio Euros 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009*

EU-27 9.201.599 9.580.280 9.942.036 10.109.207 10.606.787 11.061.212 11.681.281 12.357.562 12.506.082 12.167.820 EU-15 9.147.243 9.519.674 9.876.798 10.038.864 10.525.848 10.959.527 11.558.292 12.204.817 12.334.928 11.999.234 Bulgaria 13.704 15.250 16.623 17.767 19.875 21.882 25.238 28.899 34.118 33.416 Czech Republic 61.495 69.045 80.004 80.924 88.262 100.190 113.696 127.331 147.879 134.653 Denmark 173.598 179.226 184.744 188.500 197.070 207.367 218.747 227.025 233.027 224.910 Estonia 6.160 6.971 7.776 8.719 9.685 11.182 13.229 15.627 16.073 13.849 Ireland 104.830 116.931 130.258 139.763 149.098 162.091 176.759 189.751 181.815 164.211 Greece 137.930 146.428 156.615 172.431 185.813 195.366 210.460 226.437 239.141 240.421 Spain 630.263 680.678 729.206 782.929 841.042 908.792 984.284 1.052.730 1.088.502 1.049.052 France 1.441.373 1.497.187 1.548.559 1.594.814 1.660.189 1.726.068 1.806.429 1.894.646 1.950.085 1.943.436 Italy 1.191.057 1.248.648 1.295.226 1.335.354 1.391.530 1.429.479 1.485.377 1.544.915 1.572.243 1.533.800 Cyprus 10.079 10.801 11.170 11.785 12.728 13.659 14.673 15.951 17.248 17.558 Lithuania 12.377 13.577 15.052 16.497 18.158 20.870 23.979 28.577 32.203 26.029 Luxembourg 22.001 22.572 23.992 25.834 27.455 30.281 34.149 37.464 39.347 37.530 Hungary 51.320 59.584 70.874 74.186 82.666 88.646 89.894 101.087 105.536 91.988 Netherlands 417.960 447.731 465.214 476.945 491.184 513.407 540.216 568.664 595.883 574.826 Austria 207.529 212.499 218.848 223.302 232.782 243.585 256.162 270.782 281.868 275.538 Portugal 122.270 129.308 135.434 138.582 144.128 149.123 155.446 163.051 166.429 162.336 Romania 40.651 45.357 48.615 52.577 61.064 79.802 97.751 124.821 137.035 117.655 Slovenia 21.435 22.707 24.527 25.736 27.136 28.758 31.056 34.568 37.135 35.476 Slovakia 22.036 23.542 25.980 29.486 34.032 38.490 44.567 54.857 64.884 66.262 Finland 132.198 139.789 143.808 145.795 152.151 157.070 167.009 179.659 184.728 175.758 Sweden 266.422 251.340 264.244 275.657 287.689 294.674 313.450 331.147 328.088 293.808 United Kingdom 1.602.240 1.643.154 1.710.421 1.647.056 1.772.546 1.833.954 1.944.751 2.044.133 1.818.524 1.590.692 Turkey 289.933 217.905 243.440 268.331 314.584 386.937 419.232 471.972 498.373 442.295 Iceland 9.421 8.830 9.474 9.709 10.660 13.124 13.311 14.851 10.265 9.684 Norway 182.579 190.956 204.074 199.146 208.256 242.935 268.363 283.366 309.251 261.755 Switzerland 270.918 284.886 296.018 287.754 292.382 299.554 311.873 317.202 341.330 357.744

Annex 3: GDP at market prices (Mio Euros) in the EU 27 MS (Eurostat, 2009)


103

Total population 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

EU-27 482.767.710 483.797.218 484.613.561 486.617.424 488.756.726 491.023.535 492.975.207 495.305.423 497.663.397 499.723.520 EU-15 452.121.349 453.217.293 454.888.983 456.998.809 459.244.201 461.603.958 463.646.244 466.061.013 468.494.527 470.618.353 Bulgaria 8.190.876 8.149.468 7.891.095 7.845.841 7.801.273 7.761.049 7.718.750 7.679.290 7.640.238 7.606.551 Czech Republic 10.278.098 10.266.546 10.206.436 10.203.269 10.211.455 10.220.577 10.251.079 10.287.189 10.381.130 10.467.542 Denmark 5.330.020 5.349.212 5.368.354 5.383.507 5.397.640 5.411.405 5.427.459 5.447.084 5.475.791 5.511.451 Estonia 1.372.071 1.366.959 1.361.242 1.356.045 1.351.069 1.347.510 1.344.684 1.342.409 1.340.935 1.340.415 Ireland 3.777.763 3.832.973 3.899.876 3.963.665 4.027.732 4.109.173 4.209.019 4.312.526 4.401.335 4.450.014 Greece 10.903.757 10.931.206 10.968.708 11.006.377 11.040.650 11.082.751 11.125.179 11.171.740 11.216.785 11.263.402 Spain 40.049.708 40.476.723 40.964.244 41.663.702 42.345.342 43.038.035 43.758.250 44.474.631 45.283.259 45.828.172 France 60.545.022 60.979.315 61.399.344 61.831.779 62.251.817 62.637.596 62.998.773 63.623.209 63.982.881 64.350.759 Italy 56.923.524 56.960.692 56.993.742 57.321.070 57.888.245 58.462.375 58.751.711 59.131.287 59.619.290 60.045.068 Cyprus 690.497 697.549 705.539 715.137 730.367 749.175 766.414 778.684 789.269 796.875 Lithuania 3.512.074 3.486.998 3.475.586 3.462.553 3.445.857 3.425.324 3.403.284 3.384.879 3.366.357 3.349.872 Luxembourg 433.600 439.000 444.050 448.300 454.960 461.230 469.086 476.187 483.799 493.500 Hungary 10.221.644 10.200.298 10.174.853 10.142.362 10.116.742 10.097.549 10.076.581 10.066.158 10.045.401 10.030.975 Netherlands 15.863.950 15.987.075 16.105.285 16.192.572 16.258.032 16.305.526 16.334.210 16.357.992 16.405.399 16.485.787 Austria 8.002.186 8.020.946 8.065.146 8.102.175 8.140.122 8.206.524 8.265.925 8.282.984 8.318.592 8.355.260 Portugal 10.195.014 10.256.658 10.329.340 10.407.465 10.474.685 10.529.255 10.569.592 10.599.095 10.617.575 10.627.250 Romania 22.455.485 22.430.457 21.833.483 21.772.774 21.711.252 21.658.528 21.610.213 21.565.119 21.528.627 21.498.616 Slovenia 1.987.755 1.990.094 1.994.026 1.995.033 1.996.433 1.997.590 2.003.358 2.010.377 2.010.269 2.032.362 Slovakia 5.398.657 5.378.783 5.378.951 5.379.161 5.380.053 5.384.822 5.389.180 5.393.637 5.400.998 5.412.254 Finland 5.171.302 5.181.115 5.194.901 5.206.295 5.219.732 5.236.611 5.255.580 5.276.955 5.300.484 5.326.314 Sweden 8.861.426 8.882.792 8.909.128 8.940.788 8.975.670 9.011.392 9.047.752 9.113.257 9.182.927 9.256.347 United Kingdom 58.785.246 58.999.781 59.217.592 59.437.723 59.699.828 60.059.900 60.393.100 60.816.701 61.193.524 61.634.599 Turkey 66.889.425 67.895.581 68.838.069 69.770.026 70.692.009 71.610.009 72.519.974 69.689.256 70.586.256 71.517.100 Iceland 279.049 283.361 286.575 288.471 290.570 293.577 299.891 307.672 315.459 319.368 Norway 4.478.497 4.503.436 4.524.066 4.552.252 4.577.457 4.606.363 4.640.219 4.681.134 4.737.171 4.799.252 Switzerland 7.164.444 7.204.055 7.255.653 7.313.853 7.364.148 7.415.102 7.459.128 7.508.739 7.593.494 7.701.856

Annex 4: Total population in the EU 27 MS (Eurostat, 2009)


104

Total MSW generated (tonnes) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

EU-27 252,970,280 252,542,148 255,875,960 251,094,591 251,220,957 253,859,168 257,826,033 258,549,431 EU-15 257,257,048 259,240,292 262,470,943 258,204,327 259,013,729 257,575,009 261,496,482 261,926,290 Bulgaria 4,226,492 4,001,389 3,945,548 3,915,075 3,674,400 3,686,498 3,442,563 3,593,908 Czech Republic 3,432,885 2,802,767 2,847,596 2,856,915 2,838,784 2,953,747 3,034,319 3,024,434 Denmark 3,544,463 3,519,781 3,569,955 3,617,717 3,756,757 3,988,205 4,021,747 4,363,114 Estonia 603,711 508,509 552,664 566,827 606,630 587,514 626,623 719,531 Ireland 2,277,991 2,702,246 2,722,113 2,917,257 3,000,660 3,040,788 3,384,051 3,398,270 Greece 4,448,733 4,558,313 4,639,763 4,710,729 4,780,601 4,854,245 4,928,454 5,004,940 Spain 26,512,907 26,633,684 26,421,937 27,289,725 25,745,968 25,693,707 26,211,192 26,151,083 France 31,241,231 32,197,078 32,664,451 31,719,703 32,557,700 33,323,201 33,893,340 34,420,156 Italy 28,974,074 29,391,717 29,864,721 30,036,241 31,143,876 31,686,607 32,489,696 32,522,208 Cyprus 469,538 490,377 500,227 517,759 539,741 553,640 570,978 587,128 Lithuania 1,274,883 1,314,598 1,393,710 1,326,158 1,261,184 1,287,922 1,327,281 1,353,952 Luxembourg 285,309 285,350 291,297 306,637 310,738 312,714 320,855 330,474 Hungary 4,548,632 4,600,334 4,649,908 4,695,914 4,593,001 4,644,873 4,715,840 4,590,168 Netherlands 9,772,193 9,832,051 10,017,487 9,877,469 10,161,270 10,174,648 10,159,879 10,305,535 Austria 4,649,270 4,636,107 4,911,674 4,934,225 5,046,876 5,088,045 5,397,649 4,944,941 Portugal 4,812,047 4,841,143 4,534,580 4,652,137 4,566,963 4,696,048 4,798,595 5,002,773 Romania 8,151,341 7,738,508 8,362,224 7,620,471 7,490,382 8,165,265 8,384,763 8,173,180 Slovenia 1,019,718 953,255 811,569 833,924 832,513 844,981 865,451 886,576 Slovakia 1,371,259 1,285,529 1,522,243 1,597,611 1,474,135 1,556,214 1,622,143 1,666,634 Finland 2,601,165 2,414,400 2,384,460 2,426,133 2,453,274 2,508,337 2,601,512 2,675,416 Sweden 3,792,690 3,926,194 4,169,472 4,211,111 4,164,711 4,343,491 4,496,733 4,720,667 United Kingdom 33,977,872 34,927,870 35,530,555 35,246,570 36,118,396 35,135,042 35,450,750 34,787,153 Turkey 30,635,357 31,028,281 30,977,131 31,047,662 29,761,336 31,365,184 30,095,789 29,966,380 Iceland 130,037 132,896 136,983 139,908 147,028 152,954 170,938 174,142 Norway 2,754,276 2,859,682 3,062,793 3,168,367 3,314,079 3,496,230 3,679,694 3,857,254 Switzerland 4,707,040 4,769,084 4,919,333 4,900,282 4,875,066 4,916,213 5,303,440 5,436,327

Annex 5: Total MSW generated in the EU-27 MS (Eurostat, 2009)


105

JESSICA




STUDY

Final Report – Part 2

Analysis of SWM Case Studies for Jessica funding

March 2010




2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. REGION OF ATTIKI ............................................................................... 7

1.1. Background Information .........................................................................7

1.1.1. Location and Population ..................................................................7

1.1.2. Waste Management Authority..........................................................9

1.2. Waste Generation and Composition .........................................................9

1.2.1. Waste Generation ...........................................................................9

1.2.2. Waste Composition .......................................................................11

1.3. BMW Diversion and Recycling Targets ...................................................13

1.4. Current MSW Management ...................................................................16

1.4.1. Collection .....................................................................................17

1.4.2. Transfer .......................................................................................17

1.4.3. Disposal .......................................................................................18

1.4.4. MSW Treatment............................................................................18

1.5. MSW Management Future Planning .......................................................23

1.6. Regional Operational Programme of Attiki..............................................25

1.7. Project Analysis....................................................................................25

1.7.1. General Information......................................................................26

1.7.2. Mechanical Treatment (Sorting) Plant – Mixed Wastes – West Attiki.27

1.7.3. MBT Plant – Mixed Waste – Biological Drying – West Attiki .............30

1.7.4. MBT Plants – Mixed Waste – Anaerobic Digestion – East Attiki........33

1.7.5. Composting Plants – Biowaste – Composting – East Attiki ...............37

1.7.6. MBT Plant – Biowaste – Composting – West Attiki...........................39

1.7.7. General design parameters and BMW diversion targets coverage .....41

1.7.8. Timetable .....................................................................................43

1.8. Critical overview...................................................................................43

2. REGION OF THESSALONIKI ................................................................45

2.1. Background Information .......................................................................45

2.1.1. Location and Population ................................................................45

2.1.2. Waste Management Authority........................................................45

2.2. Waste Generation and Composition .......................................................46

2.2.1. Waste Generation .........................................................................46

2.2.2. Waste Composition .......................................................................47


3

2.3. BMW Diversion and Recycling Targets ...................................................49

2.4. Current MSW Management ...................................................................50

2.4.1. Collection .....................................................................................50

2.4.2. Transfer .......................................................................................50

2.4.3. Disposal .......................................................................................51

2.4.4. MSW Treatment............................................................................51

2.5. MSW Management Future Planning .......................................................52

2.6. Regional Operational Programme of Macedonia – Thrace........................54

2.7. Project Analysis....................................................................................55

2.7.1. MBT Plant – Mixed Waste – Mavrorachi ..........................................55

2.7.2. Timetable .....................................................................................57

2.8. MATURE SWM PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR JESSICA FUNDING ................57

3. APPENDICES .......................................................................................59


4

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Attiki (RSWMP, 2006) .......................9

Table 2: MSW composition over time in Attiki (ACMAR – NTUA, 2008) ..................11

Table 3: MSW composition and humidity in Attiki (ACMAR) ..................................13

Table 4: MBT Plant in Ano Liosia operation results in 2008 (ACMAR) ....................21

Table 5: Results of MRFs operation in Attiki (2008)..............................................22

Table 6: Planned Waste Treatment Facilities in Attiki ...........................................24

Table 7: Funding from structural funds for Solid Waste Management in Attiki ......25

Table 8: Recovery and Diversion Rates - MT Sorting............................................28

Table 9: Projected Annual Amounts of MT Sorting Plant in West Attiki (Fyli)..........29

Table 10: Projected Capital Costs of MT Sorting Plant in West Attiki (Fyli).............29

Table 11: Projected Process Costs - (Fixed) of MT Sorting Plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

.........................................................................................................................29

Table 12: Recovery and Diversion Rates – MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki

(Fyli)..................................................................................................................32

Table 13: Projected Annual Amounts of MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki (Fyli)

.........................................................................................................................32

Table 14: Projected Capital Costs of MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki (Fyli) ..33

Table 15: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki

(Fyli)..................................................................................................................33

Table 16: Recovery and Diversion Rates – each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki .............36

Table 17: Projected Annual Amounts of each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki .................36

Table 18: Projected Capital Costs of each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki ......................36

Table 19: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki ........37

Table 20: Projected Annual Amounts of each Composting plant in East Attiki........38

Table 21: Projected Capital Costs of each Composting plant in East Attiki .............38

Table 22: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of each Composting plant in East Attiki

.........................................................................................................................39

Table 23: Projected Annual Amounts of Composting plant in West Attiki (Fyli) ......40

Table 24: Projected Capital Costs of Composting plant in West Attiki (Fyli) ...........40

Table 25: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of Composting plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

.........................................................................................................................40

Table 26: Estimated population and municipalities served by MBTs under planning

in Attiki ..............................................................................................................41


5

Table 27: BMW diversion targets coverage from waste processing facilities under

planning in Attiki.................................................................................................42

Table 28: Indicative timetable for planned projects in Attiki .................................43

Table 29: Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Prefecture of Thessaloniki (ALAPT

2008).................................................................................................................46

Table 30: MSW composition in Thessaloniki (ALART – AUT, 2007) .......................48

Table 31: Results of MRFs operation in Thessaloniki (2008) .................................52

Table 32: Funding from structural funds for Solid Waste Management in Central

Macedonia..........................................................................................................54

Table 33: Recovery and Diversion Rates - MBT Biological Drying in Mavrorachi .....55

Table 34: Projected Annual Amounts of MBT Biological Drying in Mavrorachi ........56

Table 35: Projected Capital Costs of MBT (Biological Drying) in Mavrorachi...........56

Table 36: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of MBT (Biological Drying) in Mavrorachi

.........................................................................................................................57

Table 37: Indicative timetable for the MBT plant in Mavrorachi ............................57

Table 38: Matured Facilities for Waste Processing under planning in Attiki and

Thessaloniki .......................................................................................................58


6

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Region of Attiki and area of Athens........................................................8

Figure 2: Population distribution in metropolitan area of Athens.............................8

Figure 3: MSW Total Generation in Attiki from 2008-2028 assuming 3 different

scenarios (min, central and max).........................................................................10

Figure 4: MSW composition in Attiki in 2008 (ACMAR – NTUA, 2008) ...................12

Figure 5: Annual production of MSW in Greece ...................................................14

Figure 6: Geographical distribution of MSW production in Greece.........................14

Figure 7: Future quantities of BMW generation and disposal in Attiki (waste growth:

1.5% yearly) ......................................................................................................15

Figure 8: Location of central transfer station in Attiki Region ...............................17

Figure 9: Location and aerial photograph of MBT Plant in Ano Liosia (source: Google

Earth) ................................................................................................................20

Figure 10: Process Block Diagram of MBT Plant in Ano Liosia (Adopted by ACMAR)

.........................................................................................................................21

Figure 11: Locations of the existing facilities in Attiki...........................................22

Figure 12: Locations of the existing and under planning plants in Attiki ................24

Figure 13: Indicative process diagram of the Mechanical Treatment (Sorting) Plant

.........................................................................................................................28

Figure 14: Indicative process diagram of the MBT (Biological Drying) plant in West

Attiki (Fyli). ........................................................................................................31

Figure 15: Indicative mass balance of each Composting plant in East Attiki ..........38

Figure 16: Prefecture of Thessaloniki .................................................................45

Figure 17: MSW Total Generation in Thessaloniki from 2008-2028 assuming 3

different scenarios (min, central and max) ...........................................................47

Figure 18: MSW composition in Thessaloniki in 2007 (ALAPT , 2007) ...................48

Figure 19: Future quantities of BMW generation and disposal in Thessaloniki (waste

growth: 1.5% yearly)..........................................................................................49

Figure 20: Locations of existing transfer stations in Prefecture of Thessaloniki......51

Figure 21: Locations of the existing and under planning facilities in Thessaloniki ..54


7

1. REGION OF ATTIKI

In this chapter is provided a complete picture of the existing situation in Attiki, by

reviewing the location and sites of the facilities in use, the relevant technical

parameters such as waste generation rates, anticipated collection and recycling rates

etc. Moreover investment needs in the sector of MSW management are identified

and evaluated, by analyzing the potential future treatment sites in terms of

environmental, economical and social issues.

Indeed, the environmental and economic benefits of different treatment methods

depend significantly on local conditions such as population density, infrastructure etc,

as well as on markets for associated products (energy, recyclables and composts). In

addition, the proposed management services have to keep pace with demand, be

appropriate to needs, be cost-effective and optimize the environmental and social

profit, thus in the study the main beneficiaries of the solid waste services, as well as

costs and revenues, including gate fees and third party incomes, such as electricity

selling, recyclables, compost etc. are identified and analyzed.

1.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1.1. Location and Population

Attiki is located in the south of the country, covers about 3,808 square kilometers,

and contains Athens, the capital of Greece. Attiki is subdivided into the prefectures of

Athens, Piraeus, East Attica and West Attica, as well as a small part of the

Peloponnese peninsula and the islands of Salamis, Aegina, Poros, Hydra, Spetses,

Kythira, and Antikythera.

The location of Attiki Region and Athens are given in the following figures.


8

Figure 1: Region of Attiki and area of Athens

The municipality of Athens has an official population of 745,514 (2001 census) with a

metropolitan population of 3.2 million (population including the suburbs). The actual

population, however, is believed to be higher, because during census-taking some

Athenian residents travel to their birthplaces, and register as local citizens there. It is

estimated that nowadays, more than 4,000,000 people live in the Region, of which

more than 95% are inhabitants of the Athens metropolitan area (white frame on the

figure above).

Next figure depicts the population distribution in metropolitan area of Athens based

on the data of the Greek 2001 census.

Figure 2: Population distribution in metropolitan area of Athens


9

1.1.2. Waste Management Authority

According to the Regional Plan that was revised during 2006, the region of Attiki is

divided in 2 Management Areas (M.A.). First M.A. comprises all the municipalities of

the whole Region except from the islands of Kithira and Antikithira, and the second

M.A. the two aforementioned islands. The competent authority for waste

management in the 1st M.A. is the Association of Municipalities and Communities in

the Attiki Region (ACMAR), while the corresponding Association of Municipalities of

Kithira and Antikithira islands is responsible for the 2nd M.A. 1st M.A. is further

subdivided into 3 areas, West, Northeast and Southeast Attiki.

1.2. WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

Indeed, MSW quantity and composition influences directly the functioning and

capacity required for waste collection and treatment/disposal systems and facilities.

In planning an upgrade of existing or development of new systems/facilities it is

therefore of utmost importance to as accurately as possible determine current and

future waste quantity and composition.

1.2.1. Waste Generation

In the following table waste quantities generated in Attiki in 2001, as well as

estimations for future quantities according to revised RSWMP of Attiki (2006) are

outlined.

Table 1: Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Attiki (RSWMP, 2006)

Year MSW (tn/y)

West Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

NE Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

SE Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

TOTAL 2008 1,687,092 141,470 141,470 1,970,030 2009 1,712,399 143,592 143,592 1,999,580 2010 1,738,085 145,746 145,746 2,029,574 2011 1,764,156 147,932 147,932 2,060,018 2012 1,790,618 150,151 150,151 2,090,918 2013 1,817,478 152,403 152,403 2,122,282 2014 1,844,740 154,689 154,689 2,154,116 2015 1,872,411 157,010 157,010 2,186,428 2016 1,900,497 159,365 159,365 2,219,224 2017 1,929,004 161,755 161,755 2,252,513 2018 1,957,940 164,182 164,182 2,286,300 2019 1,987,309 166,644 166,644 2,320,595 2020 2,017,118 169,144 169,144 2,355,404 2021 2,047,375 171,681 171,681 2,390,735 2022 2,078,086 174,256 174,256 2,426,596


10

Year MSW (tn/y)

West Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

NE Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

SE Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

TOTAL 2023 2,109,257 176,870 176,870 2,462,995 2024 2,140,896 179,523 179,523 2,499,940 2025 2,173,009 182,216 182,216 2,537,439 2026 2,205,604 184,949 184,949 2,575,500 2027 2,238,688 187,723 187,723 2,614,133 2028 2,272,269 190,539 190,539 2,653,345

According to the RSWMP, in 2006 the annual MSW generation per capita in Attiki lied

between 456 kg in the urban areas and 416 kg in rural areas, with an average of 449

kg per cap - year. As stated. according to Eurostat, in 2007 the annual MSW

generation per capita in Greece that reached up to 448 kg per capita (see Annex 1),

which is very closed to the number estimated by the RSWMP. Moreover, in the

RSWMP of Attiki, in order for future quantities to be estimated, it is assumed a

“Realistic” scenario, where waste grows by 35% in the 20-year period 2008-2028

(1.5% yearly). As stated, and in accordance to previous 3-scenarios analysis, this

scenario is closer to the Greek reality, because the increase of 35% in waste during

the 20082-2028 period is constituent to the previous decade pattern. Nevertheless,

in the following Figure MSW a prediction of total generation in Attiki from 2008-2028

assuming 3 different scenarios (min, central and max) based on correlation between

income and MSW generation, is depicted.

MSW Total Generation in Attiki - 3 Scenarios Analysis

0

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

3.000.000

3.500.000

4.000.000

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

Year

tn o

f MS

W


Figure 3: MSW Total Generation in Attiki from 2008-2028 assuming 3 different

scenarios (min, central and max)


11

In 2007, ACMAR two years ago, commissioned a specialized study on MSW

generation rates in Attiki (Ziogas, 2007), where the average annual MSW generation

per capita in Attiki is estimated to be 485 kg per capita. At this point it must be noted

that these data were based on weight of wet waste. Wet waste is collected directly

from the disposal bins and are not treated before measuring. Sampling that is

conducted at the treatment or disposal facility (MBT, MRF or Landfill) after transfer,

is not consider to be entirely on wet basis, since during transfer waste are

compressed and most of the moisture is left.

1.2.2. Waste Composition

Municipal Solid Waste composition studies are essential to proper management of

waste. Effective waste management through MSW composition studies is important

for a variety of reasons including a need to estimate material recovery potential, to

identify sources of component generation, to facilitate design of processing

equipment, to estimate physical, chemical, and thermal properties of the wastes and

to maintain compliance with local, state, and national regulations. The composition of

generated waste is extremely variable as a consequence of seasonal, lifestyle,

demographic, geographic, and local legislation impacts. As stated, in Greece,

composition of MSW was presented in J.M.D 50910/2727/2003 data (Putrescibles –

47.00%, Paper – 20.00%, Plastic – 8.50%, Metals – 4.50%, Glass – 4.50%, Wood/

Green Waste – 4.00% and Other – 11.50%). In Attiki, four composition studies have

been conducted by ACMAR in conjuction with the National Technical University of

Athens (NTUA) in the last 25 years. In the following table, the change of composition

of MSW over time in Attiki is presented, based on these detailed studies.

Table 2: MSW composition over time in Attiki (ACMAR – NTUA, 2008)

Type of Waste 1985 1991 1997 2008

Putrescibles 56.50 % 48.50 % 46.50 % 43.60% Paper 20.00 % 22.00 % 23.44 % 28.20% Plastic 7.00 % 10.50 % 10.80 % 12.50% Metals 4.00 % 4.20 % 3.74 % 3.20% Glass 2.70 % 3.50 % 3.42 % 3.20% W-L-R-T1 4.30 % 3.50 % 4.25 % 4.20% Inert 1.00 % 3.30 % 3.58 % 1.20 % Other2 4.50 % 4.50 % 4.27 % 3.90 % Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

1 Wood – Leather – Rubber - Textile 2 Other types include batteries, fine material etc


12

In addition, MSW composition from the latest study (2008) is depicted next.

Putrescibles43,60%

Paper28,20%

Plastic12,50%

Metals3,20%

Glass3,20%

Other9,30%

Putrescibles

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Other

Figure 4: MSW composition in Attiki in 2008 (ACMAR – NTUA, 2008)

In the latest MSW composition study in Attiki, the samples for sorting and analyses

were collected in sampling areas representing different socio-economic population

groups believed to display different waste generation patterns, e.g.:

high income area

medium income area

low income area

sub-urban/rural area

commercial area

market area

tourist (hotel) area

Waste sampling and sorting were carried out during each of the four seasons to

capture related seasonal variations while events, such as Christmas and other

festivities, leading to abnormal patterns were avoided. For each of the four sampling

events, 20 samples were analysed and at least two samples were taken and

sorted/analysed in each sampling area for each of the four sampling events. One of

these samples were taken from waste collected during a week day and the other

during a weekend day. At this point it must be noted that these data were based on

weight of wet waste, collected directly from the disposal bins and are not treated

before measuring. After collecting the waste from the bin using big-bags, transfer


13

them to a laboratory, and to facilitate the sorting a representative sub-sample of

about 150 kg was selected from the mixed waste using the coning and quartering

technique. Since the objective of the study was to determine the waste composition

it was also taken into account the amount of recyclable waste that was collected

separately with different kinds of collection systems, e.g. bring banks, recyclables

collection bags etc.

Nowadays, ACMAR, taking into account measurements from the MSW feedstock in

MBT Plant in Ano Liosia, estimates the composition of MSW in Attiki as presented in

the following table (data not published).

Table 3: MSW composition and humidity in Attiki (ACMAR)

TYPE Percentage (wet basis) Humidity of each type Total Humidity

Putrescibles 41.0% 60.0% 24.60% Paper - Cardboard 29.0% 17.0% 4.93% Metals Fe 2.6% 0.0% 0.00% Metals Non Fe 0.9% 0.0% 0.00% Plastic 14.0% 1.1% 0.15%

PP-PE 7.9% 2.0% 0.16% PVC 1.8% 2.0% 0.04% PET 4.3% 2.0% 0.09%

Glass 3.5% 2.0% 0.07% Inert 3.5% 6.0% 0.45% W-L-R-T3 4.0% 6.0% 0.24% Other 1.5% 6.0% 0.09%

Sum 100.0% 30.29%

From the above table, the BMW fraction is estimated 71% (Putrescibles,

Paper/Cardboard and Wood).

1.3. BMW DIVERSION AND RECYCLING TARGETS

As sated, based on Eurostat, official data for Greece exist for years 1985, 1990,

1991, 1992, 1997 and 2001, however the majority of the data reported to Eurostat

are based on estimations. Official data on national level were published in the M.D.

14312/1302 that reported a total quantity of 3.9 million tones in 1997 of which 2.6

million tonnes are biodegradable (67.0%).

3 Wood – Leather – Rubber – Textile, Wood = 1%


14

In the following figures, data from the M.D. 14312/1302 are presented.

Figure 5: Annual production of MSW in Greece4

Figure 6: Geographical distribution of MSW production in Greece5

The main portion of the produced quantities is concentrated in the two biggest Greek

cities, Athens and Thessaloniki. In M.D. 14312/1302 (and later in J.M.D.

50910/2727), it is estimated that the Region of Attiki is accounting for the 39% of

4 Adopted from M.D. 14312/1302 5 Adopted from M.D. 14312/1302


15

total MSW generation. Taking into consideration that year 1997 was chosen as the

basis for calculations, the regional targets (note that EU Directive mentions only

National Targets) for Attiki are:




Based on the above, the following figure depicts future quantities and management

of BMW in Attiki, in accordance with the landfill targets established by EU Legislation,

assuming a BaU scenario (Business as Usual) and waste growth of 1.5% yearly

(central scenario).

Figure 7: Future quantities of BMW generation and disposal in Attiki (waste growth:

1.5% yearly)

Regarding recycling, as stated, the following targets have been set (J.M.D.

9268/469/2007):

No later than 31 December 2011 60 % as a minimum by weight of packaging


recovery


16

No later than 31 December 2011 the following minimum recycling targets for


(i) 60 % by weight for glass;

(ii) 60 % by weight for paper and board;

(iii) 50 % by weight for metals;

(iv) 22,5 % by weight for plastics, counting exclusively material that is recycled

back into plastics;

(v) 15 % by weight for wood.

As for MSW, according to HERRCO, around 160,000 tones of total packaging waste &

print paper were recovered by MSW in Attiki in 2009. Taking into account that

recyclable materials contained in the MSW reaches an average of 50%, and the MSW

generation in 2009 in Attiki was around 2,000,000, it is estimated that recycling rate

of MSW reached an average of 1,000,000160,000 = 16%.

However, HERRCO mentions that the total amount of packaging materials produced

(from municipal and private waste) in 2008, is estimated around 1,000,000 tonnes,

out of which 504,000 tonnes (50%) where recycled. Apart form packaging waste,

estimations about the quantities of other waste streams (mainly private) kin this

category are highly uncertain as no sufficient quantity and quality data are available.

Nevertheless, all targets set by EU Directives are percentages of recyclable waste

generation, thus since all MSW treatment plants under planning will have very strict

recyclable sorting requirements, will be more convenient for the aforementioned

targets to be met.

1.4. CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT

Generally, waste streams begin at the point of generation, flow through collection

and transportation, separation for resource recovery, treatment for volume

reduction, detoxification, stabilisation, recycling and/or energy recovery and

terminate at Sanitary Landfills. It is worth to be mentioned that recycling is

considered as a preferable process in comparison with incineration or mechanical

treatment, because higher quality products and therefore higher resources savings

can be achieved. However, recycling usually needs a very well organized and


17

efficient separation at source scheme, which in most cases demands plenty of time

and resources to function properly.

1.4.1. Collection

As stated, for the collection of MSW rolling bins with capacities from 80 to 1700 lt are

used. The collection and transport is carried out by the Municipalities using mainly

press and mill type vehicles.

1.4.2. Transfer

In general, transfer stations are used for the temporary deposition of waste and

function as a supplementary infrastructure, used to enhance the operation of the

integrated waste management system, although in some cases they are considered

to be mandatory for the whole process. In Attiki nowadays are in operation 10 local

transfer station and only one central (Transfer Station in Schistos), out of a total 5

that are foreseen by RSWMP. Transfer Station in Schistos started its operation in

1991, and ever since operates in full capacity and nowadays covers 19 municipalities

of Attiki Region. The location of the central transfer station is shown in the following

figure.

Figure 8: Location of central transfer station in Attiki Region

LEGEND

Landfill (Fyli)

Central Transfer Station (Schistos)


18

1.4.3. Disposal

In the 1st M.A., nowadays there is only one landfill operating at the area of Fyli (an

extension is under construction), where daily are being disposed more than 6,000 tn

of Municipal Solid Waste, including commercial waste. Additionally, it is estimated

that more than 10 uncontrolled landfill sites are still operating only in eastern part of

Attiki. In the 2nd M.A., 2 Sanitary landfills are under construction for the disposal of

Municipal Solid Waste, one for the island of Kithira and one for the island of

Antikithira.

1.4.4. MSW Treatment

Mechanical and Biological Treatment Plants

In Attiki, only one Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plant in Ano Liosia has

been constructed, which is one of the biggest MBT plants in Europe. The plant

started in 1997, was put in operation initially in 2004 and cost 64 mio Euros. The

MBT plant faced several operational problems and it started working at full capacity

of 1,200 tn/day in 2007. During 2009 it closed down due to administrator difficulties,

however it is expected to start operation again in early 2010. Generally, it treats

mixed municipal waste, produces Refuse Delivered Fuel (RDF), good quality compost

and its annual capacity can reach up to 400,000 tonnes.

More analytically, the Ano Liosia MBT plant comprises of a waste mechanical

separation unit and a composting unit. The plant receives waste from the Attiki

Region and its capacity is:

1,200 tonnes of mixed domestic waste/day

300 tonnes/day of sewage sludge generated from the Wastewater Treatment

Plant of the Attica Prefecture

130 tonnes/day of green waste

The products from the operation of the plant are refused derived fuel (RDF), ferrous

metals, aluminium and compost. The mechanical sorting unit consists of the

following components:

Three waste reception compartments.

The main compartment of mechanical separation


19

Three lines of mechanical sorting process. Each line is fed with mixed waste from

the respective receptor

Line for the dry fraction of waste

One Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) line

One Residuals Line

One Aluminium Line

One homogenization line

Furthermore, the mechanical sorting unit is equipped with anti-pollution system

which includes cyclones, air ducts and air ventilators.

The composting unit is based on tunnel composting technology and receives the

organic waste that is separated through the mechanical sorting unit, sludge and

green waste. The compost from the tunnels is fed to the refinery unit through the

conveyor belts. The compost is received at the reception unit, where is agitated and

grinded. Two rotating drum screens are used for the separation of three different

streams of output material. The finest material is led through a conveyor belt to the

waste residuals. The coarser material, which is mainly comprised of material that has

not been fully composted is transferred to a density separation table. The middle

sized stream is led to another density separation table. The screening unit has in

total 3 density separation tables. Finally, the screening unit has a vibrating screen

that produces two streams, the coarse stream is directed to the waste residues while

the finer one is led for maturation after magnetic separation.

The maturation unit consists of an open-air system and a warehouse where the

process takes place as follows: In the open-air system, the screened fresh compost is

placed into windrows by using loaders. The maximum height of the windrows is 3.5

m. The residence time of the compost in the windrows is 1 month. 85% of the

produced fresh compost is get matured in this facility. The other 15% is subjected to

maturation inside the warehouse where the compost is placed in windrows. The

warehouse protects the compost from the outside environmental conditions. The

windrows have a maximum height of 3.5 m. The residence time is 1 month. Then,

the mature compost is led to the packaging unit.


20

Also, the plant includes the appropriate systems for the management of the

generated wastewater and air emissions, the latest of which treats the air emissions

generated from the mechanical sorting unit and consists of 3 biofilters which use end

compost as air emissions adsorbent.

Furthermore, the plant has supplementary facilities (e.g. fire fighting facilities, water

and acid reservoirs etc), road network, and operation control buildings. Each building

is controlled through its Local Control Building, while the entire operation of the plant

is controlled from the Main Administration Building.

Figure 9: Location and aerial photograph of MBT Plant in Ano Liosia (source: Google

Earth)

Next the process block diagram of MBT Plant in Ano Liosia is presented.


21

Figure 10: Process Block Diagram of MBT Plant in Ano Liosia (Adopted by ACMAR)

In the next table, plant’s operation results during 2008 is presented.

Table 4: MBT Plant in Ano Liosia operation results in 2008 (ACMAR)

Type of By-Product Recovery Rate (% of feedstock on wet basis)

Glass 5% Metals Fe 1.92%

Metals Non Fe (Al) 0.03% RDF 39.21%

Compost 9.84% Humidity 21.20%

Waste to Landfill 22.80% Total 100%

Material Recovery Facilities

In Attiki, the total number of MRFs in operation is 4 while more will be constructed in

order to achieve the national targets. The recyclables collected through the

separation at source scheme of packaging materials are being processed through


22

handpicking and mechanical sorting the packaging waste is sorted into materials for

recovery and recycling purposes. In the next tables, operation results for the MRFs

are presented, according to data from HERRCO.

Table 5: Results of MRFs operation in Attiki (2008)


Number of Bins

Number of Vehicles

Annual Total Packaging Waste & Print Paper Recovery

(tones)6 Attiki - Fyli N/D N/D N/D 45,000 (nominal capacity)

Attiki - Elefsina N/D N/D N/D 25,000 (nominal capacity) Attiki - Marousi 287,493 5,761 20 18,129

Attiki - Aspropyrgos 2,743,062 30,051 95 77,968

The MRF of Fyli started its operation in November 2008. Following a testing period it

was set into full operation in April 2009. According to the existing planning, it will

annually manage approximately 45,000 tones of incoming materials from the blue

bin network of Attica. MRF of Elefsina started its operation also in 2009 and serves

the Local Authority of Western Attica. Its capacity reaches 30,000 tones annually.

The following figure depicts existing treatment and disposal facilities in Attiki (2009).

Figure 11: Locations of the existing facilities in Attiki

6 Data from 31/12/08 - The results refer to all Municipalities served by the MRF concerned


23

1.5. MSW MANAGEMENT FUTURE PLANNING

According to the Regional Plans several treatment units are foreseen for the next

years in Attiki, in order to achieve the quantified targets for diversion of

biodegradable waste shown on the above-mentioned figure. ACMAR has recently

commissioned a study in order to evaluate the most appropriate technology for the

treatment of the amounts of MSW that are still being disposed directly to Fyli Landfill.

According to the results of the aforementioned study, the construction of the

following waste treatment units has been proposed:

West Attiki

A MBT plant (biological drying) in Fyli, with annual capacity of 700,000 tones per

year and the ability to treat mixed waste and produce S.R.F. (budget

153,510,000 €).

A Mechanical Treatment plant with annual capacity of 400,000 tones for the

treatment of mixed solid waste in Fyli (84,430,500 €)

A Biological Treatment plant (composting) for separated at source organic waste

(biowaste) in Fyli, with annual capacity of 80,000 tones per year (budget

39.329.262 €).

Northeast Attiki

One Landfill in the area of Grammatiko, which is under construction, with annual

capacity of 125,000 tn per year.

A MBT Plant (anaerobic digestion) with annual capacity of 127,500 tn/year for

the treatment of mixed solid waste in Grammatiko (budget 89,083,400 €)


(biowaste) in Grammatiko with annual capacity of 40,000 tones per year (budget

26,403,720 €).

Southeast Attiki

One Landfill in the area of Keratea, with annual capacity of 125,000 tn per year.

A MBT Plant (anaerobic digestion) with annual capacity of 127,500 tn/year for

the treatment of mixed solid waste in Keratea (budget 89,083,400 €)


(biowaste) in Keratea with annual capacity of 40,000 tones per year (budget

26,403,720 €).


24

In summary, the plants under planning in Attiki are outline in the next table.

Table 6: Planned Waste Treatment Facilities in Attiki

Location Capacity (tn MSW per yr)

Beginning of operation Budget Technology (According to ACMAR)

Athens Fyli_1 700,000 2013 - 2014 153,510,000 € Mixed waste - MBT, Biological Drying

Athens Fyli_2 400,000 2013 - 2014 84,430,500 € Mixed waste - Mechanical Treatment

Athens Keratea_1 127,500 2013 89,083,400 € Mixed waste - MBT, Anaerobic Digestion

Athens Grammatiko_1 127,500 2013 89,083,400 € Mixed waste - MBT, Anaerobic Digestion

Athens Fyli_3 80,000 2013 39.329.262 € Source Separated Biowaste, Composting

Athens Keratea_2 40,000 2013 26,403,720 € Source Separated Biowaste, Composting

Athens Grammatiko_2 40,000 2013 26,403,720 € Source Separated Biowaste, Composting

The locations of the above-mentioned plants, as well as the existing facilities, are

depicted on the following map.

Figure 12: Locations of the existing and under planning plants in Attiki

Furthermore the following Central Transfer Station are under planning:

Under Construction 1 Landfill

Under Planning

1 MSW Treatment Plant (127,500 tn/year) 1 Biowaste Treatment Plant (40,000 tn/year) 1 MRF

In Operation 1 Landfill (an extension is under construction) 1 MBT - Composting (400,000 tn/year) 1 MRF (45,000 tn/year)

Under Planning

1 MSW Treatment Plant ( 700,000 tn/year) 1 MSW Sorting Plant (400,000 tn/year) 1 Biowaste Treatment Plant (80,000 tn/year)

Under Construction 1 Landfill

Under Planning

1 MSW Treatment Plant (127,500 tn/year) 1 Biowaste Treatment Plant (40,000 tn/year) 1 MRF


25

Transfer Station in Eleonas (Athens).

The construction of this stationit is expected to start in 2010, and upon

completion will cover Municipality of Athens and 5 neighbouring

municipalities.

Transfer Station in Southwest Attiki (site under examination).

Transfer Station in Northwest Attiki (site under examination).

Transfer Station in Central Attiki (site under examination).

1.6. REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF ATTIKI

The Attiki Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 consists of 5 priority axes and

MSW management is included in Axis 2, “Sustainable Development and Improvement

of the Quality of Life” (thematic priority 44 - “MSW and Industrial Waste

Management”). This is funded only by ERDF, and the allocated EU fund is

41.000.000 €. The strategic objective of the ROP is targeted towards the treatment

of 75% of generated MSW in the Region until 2013 (baseline percentage is 25% in

2006). According to the ROP, it is estimated that the remaining percentage will be

covered from the Cohesion Fund. The following table summarizes the funding from

structural funds (OPESD - Cohesion Fund and ROPs - ERDF) for solid waste

management in Attiki.

Table 7: Funding from structural funds for Solid Waste Management in Attiki


Axis 4 (Soil Protection and Solid Waste Management)

R.O.P. - Axis 2 Thematic priority 44 (MSW and Industrial

Waste Management)

Cohesion Fund

National and/or Private matching

funds SUM ERDF

National and/or Private matching

funds SUM

€ 72 M € 11 M € 83 M € 41 M € 9 M € 50 M

1.7. PROJECT ANALYSIS

In this section, design parameters of each project (population to be served,

quantitative and qualitative waste feedstock data, BMW diversion rates etc.) are

described, and a short technical description of each type of project is given.


26

1.7.1. General Information

According to ACMAR, the aforementioned technology methods that will be integrated

to the mixed waste processing MBT plants in Attiki will not be mandatory in the

procurement process (technology will be open, either biological drying or anaerobic

treatment). However, all MBT plants, should be able to meet the needs of EC

Legislation and the goals that will be set by the contracting entity (ACMAR). As a

result, at this point a detailed technical description of each project cannot be given.

Nevertheless, technical and financial (capital cost) data were sourced from a

preliminary study conducted by ACMAR in 2008 (“Evaluation of Treatment Methods

of MSW in Attiki Region”, ACMAR, 2008) where all possible options were analyzed

and evaluated, and the specific combination of facilities and proposed technologies

were selected.

Regarding operational expenditure (Opex), it must be noted that the acquisition of

detailed cost data regarding waste treatment facilities is a very difficult task, since

operational expenditures are strongly depending upon the complexity of the

technology, the degree of mechanisation and automation employed and more

importantly the stability of the secondary products market. More specifically, factors

than can affect the final output, among other are, revenues from secondary products

(as mentioned, MBT systems are sensitive to the markets and outlets for recycled

materials, RDF and soil conditioners that are produced by different processes),

labour costs (employing significant amounts of manual hand-picking could greatly

increase overall operating costs), pollution control systems (i.e. biological drying,

even thought is generally a proven process applied in numerous mechanical

biological treatment plants in Europe, needs extensive control equipment in order to

steer the process effectively), fuel and electricity prices, competition from other

treatment facilities (e.g. recycling), the waste that are sent to landfill, landfill tax, the

quality and quantity of material being presented, energy costs, the final size of the

facility and the number of shifts operated at a given facility.

Generally, typical MBT Opex (including fixed and variable costs) using anaerobic

process varies from £16 to £59 per tonne, while Opex for aerobic processes may


27

vary from £20 to £59 per tonne7 (2007 prices). Fixed Opex (i.e. labour, maintenance,

insurance and environmental monitoring) are analysed for each plant separately in

the following sections. Variable costs such as those that are affected by tonnage of

feedstock (e.g. water, wastewater treatment, fuel and electricity expenditures etc),

are very difficult to be estimated in detail, thus in the financial model, cost data were

based upon European examples. At this point should also be noted that the MBT –

biological drying in Fyli (nominal capacity of 700.000 tn/year) upon completion would

be the largest MBT facility worldwide, thus no previous data about cost for a plant of

this size are available today.

1.7.2. Mechanical Treatment (Sorting) Plant – Mixed Wastes – West Attiki

Capacity: 400,000 tones/year

Feedstock: Mixed Waste

Location: Fyli

Budget: 84,430,500 €

The mechanical element is usually an automated mechanical sorting stage. This

either removes recyclable elements from a mixed waste stream (such as metals,

plastics, glass and paper) or processes them. It typically involves factory style

conveyors, industrial magnets, eddy current separators, trommels, shredders and

other tailor made systems, or the sorting is made by hand. The mechanical element

has a number of similarities to a materials recovery facility (MRF). MBT can

alternatively process the waste to produce RDF. This depends strictly on system

configurations. Next, an indicative process diagram of Mechanical Treatment

(Sorting) Plant is presented.

7 Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste, DEFRA, 2007


28

Figure 13: Indicative process diagram of the Mechanical Treatment (Sorting) Plant

Organics will be sent to the existing MBT facility in Ano Liosia for composting. The

minimum recovery and diversion rates for this plant are presented in the next table.

Table 8: Recovery and Diversion Rates - MT Sorting

Type of Waste Minimum Recovery Rate Unit

Glass 75% w recovered / glass in feedstock on wet basis Paper - Cardboard 50% w recovered / paper in feedstock on wet basis

Plastics 55% w recovered / plastics in feedstock on wet basis Metals Fe 85% w recovered / metals Fe in feedstock on wet basis

Metals Non Fe (Al) 75% w recovered / metals non Fe in feedstock on wet basisOrganic 73% w recovered / putrescibles in feedstock on wet basis

Humidity 30.3% w recovered / total feedstock on wet basis Waste to Landfill 12% w waste / total feedstock on wet basis

Biowaste to Landfill 10% w biowaste / waste to landfill on wet basis

Based on the above, the projected annual amounts of the plant are given next.


29

Table 9: Projected Annual Amounts of MT Sorting Plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

MT - Sorting - Annual Quantities Feedstock Input 400,000

Glass 10,500 Paper - Cardboard 58,000 Plastics 30,800 Metals Fe 8,840 Metals Non Fe (Al) 2,700 Organics 114,560 RDF 5,440 Humidity 121,160 Waste to Landfill 48,000

Total 400,000 Biowaste Treated8 (wet basis) 275,200

Biowaste to Landfill 4,800

Building and operational costs of the plant are estimated and outlined in the next

tables.

Table 10: Projected Capital Costs of MT Sorting Plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

Capital Costs Type Percentage Amount

Civil Eng. (Buildings) 16,000,000 € Mech. Eng (Machinery) 28,000,000 € Electr. Eng (Electrical) 5,500,000 € Plant's Mobile Equipment 800,000 € Various - Studies - Consulting 4,700,000 € Subtotal 1 55,000,000 €

General Expenses 18% 9,900,000 € Unforeseeable 9% 4,950,000 €

Revision 2% 1,100,000 € Subtotal 2 70,950,000 €

VAT (19%) 19% 13,480,500 € TOTAL 84,430,500 €

Table 11: Projected Process Costs - (Fixed) of MT Sorting Plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

Annual Process Costs - (Fixed)

TYPE Quantity Unit Average

Unit Value Final Cost

Staff Key Staff 2 person 55,000 € 110,000 € Various Staff 40 person 28,000 € 1,120,000 €

Subtotal 1,230,000 € Annual Maintenance

Building Maintenance (Annualy) 2% of relevant capital cost 320,000 €

8 Organic fraction in RDF is not included


30

Machinery Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 1,400,000 € Mobile Eq. Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 40,000 €

Subtotal 1,760,000 € Insurance and Environmental

Monitoring 5‰ of subtotal 1

275,000 €

Heavy Maintenance

(every 5 years) 5% of subtotal 1 2,750,000 €

1.7.3. MBT Plant – Mixed Waste – Biological Drying – West Attiki


Biological Treatment: Biological Drying


Location: Fyli

Budget: 153,510,000 €

MBT is a term used to describe a particular waste treatment concept for the

management of municipal and non-hazardous industrial and commercial waste. This

MBT plant will combine mechanical processes to separate out the dry recyclables

such as glass and metals, with biological drying to drive out moisture and to stabilize

the organic fraction of the incoming waste. In addition to the separation of dry

recyclables from the incoming waste stream, the plant will be designed to produce

an energy-rich solid recovered fuel (SRF) comprising organic matter, paper, plastics

and other combustible fractions, that can be combusted in energy from waste plant

or in an industrial furnace. The main activities involved are:

Shredding and pelletizing of feedstock mixed wastes

Crushing and milling

Screening and other mechanical waste classification processes

Magnetic separation of metals, and ballistic sorting systems

Biological drying

In addition to the above the plant will include wastewater and emissions treatment

units, as well as monitoring works. The main technical characteristics of the facility

are:

Waste reception and grinding

Biological drying. This process part aims to separate the highest water

quantities in the least possible time through an exothermic bio-reaction. The


31

system will be entirely sealed and automated, especially regarding air

provision, transportation of material in process as well as of processed

material. Processing time will not be less than 7 days.

Mechanical separation and refinement of bio-stabilized product, where there

is retrieval of ferrous and non-ferrous metals as well as non-combustible

materials. Particularly, the stabilized material will be directed to a system of

densometric, size, magnet and eddy-current separators for the retrieval of

ferrous and non-ferrous metals and the removal of heavy materials, such as

pebbles and other inert contents.

Gas waste treatment (dust, odors, volatile organic compounds) downstream

the above-mentioned processes. Such treatment will entail waste oxidation.

Gaseous waste will become odorless compounds plus moisture. Oxidation will

take place in 850 oC minimum, with reaction time at least 2 sec.

Dust and odor exhaust section through use of bio- and bag-filters

The Unit also includes a drying section for secondary fuel (SRF) production

from mixed urban wastes. Particularly, incoming urban waste will be directed

to the Reception section and subsequently to SRF production and recovery of

metals and inert residuals.

Next, is presented an indicative process diagram of the Sorting and Biological Drying

plant in West Attiki (Fyli).

Figure 14: Indicative process diagram of the MBT (Biological Drying) plant in West

Attiki (Fyli).


32

Biological drying of municipal solid waste is generally a proven process applied in

numerous mechanical biological treatment plants in Europe. Nevertheless, modern

drying plants need extensive control equipment in order to steer the process

effectively. Furthermore it is very important to stress that there is not any other MBT

of that capacity in Europe in order for comparisons to be made.

The minimum recovery and diversion rates for this plant are presented in the next

table.

Table 12: Recovery and Diversion Rates – MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki

(Fyli)

Type Minimum Recovery Rate Unit

Glass 75% w recovered / glass in feedstock on wet basis Paper - Cardboard 50% w recovered / paper in feedstock on wet basis

Plastics 55% w recovered / plastics in feedstock on wet basis Metals Fe 85% w recovered / metals Fe in feedstock on wet basis

Metals Non Fe (Al) 75% w recovered / metals non Fe in feedstock on wet basis SRF 30% w recovered / total feedstock on wet basis




Table 13: Projected Annual Amounts of MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki (Fyli)

MBT - Biological Drying - Annual Quantities Feedstock Input 700,000

Glass 18,375 Paper - Cardboard 101,500 Plastics 53,900 Metals Fe 15,470 Metals Non Fe (Al) 4,725 SRF 210,000 Humidity 212,030 Waste to Landfill 84,000

Total 700,000 Biowaste Treated (wet basis) 481,600



33

Table 14: Projected Capital Costs of MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki (Fyli)

Capital Costs Type Percentage Amount Civil Eng. (Buildings) 25,000,000 € Mech. Eng (Machinery) 36,500,000 € Biological Treatment (Machinery) 23,000,000 € Electr. Eng (Electrical) 8,500,000 € Plant's Mobile Equipment 1,200,000 € Various - Studies - Consulting 5,800,000 € Subtotal 1 100,000,000 €

General Expenses 18% 18,000,000 € Unforeseeable (9%) 9% 9,000,000 €

Revision 2% 2,000,000 € Subtotal 2 129,000,000 € VAT (19%) 19% 24,510,000 €

TOTAL 153,510,000 €

Table 15: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of MBT (Biological Drying) in West Attiki

(Fyli)

Annual Process Costs - (Fixed) TYPE Quantity Unit Average Unit Value Final Cost Staff

Key Staff 2 person 55,000 € 110,000 € Various Staff 55 person 28,000 € 1,540,000 €


Building Maintenance (Annualy) 2% of relevant capital cost 500,000 € Machinery Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 2,975,000 € Mobile Eq. Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 60,000 €


Monitoring 5‰ of subtotal 1 500,000 €

Heavy Maintenance


1.7.4. MBT Plants – Mixed Waste – Anaerobic Digestion – East Attiki

Capacity: 127,500 tones/year each plant

Biological Treatment: Anaerobic Digestion


Location: Grammatiko and Keratea

Budget: 89.083.400 € each plant


34

Two identical MBT plants are foreseen in Northeast and Southeast Attiki. The plants

will treat mixed MSW, and will apply anaerobic digestion technology for the biological

treatment of waste.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is a process whereby organic waste is broken down in a

controlled, oxygen free environment by bacteria naturally occurring in the waste

material. Methane rich biogas will be produced thus facilitating renewable energy

generation. The produced methane will be treated and provide energy for the plant

and to the grid. The residual nutrient rich liquor and digestate will be composted and

then will be suitable for use as fertiliser.

The main compartments of the anaerobic digestion plant are:

Receiving hall: quality control and initial preparation of the incoming

biowaste)

Pre-treatment compartment: process water is added

Anaerobic digestion chamber: The biowaste (organic) is fed directly into

the digester and the process is developed under controlled conditions

Biogas production compartment: The main air product of the process

(biogas) is collected

Digestate compartment: Separation and handling of the stabilized

products into a solid and a liquid fraction

Air emissions control system: The generated air emissions are treated in a

water scrubber and in a biofilter in order to eliminate odour problems

The facility will include an anaerobic digestion plant and a gas engines system which

will produce electricity by the combustion of the biogas produced by the anaerobic

digestion plant. The solid waste will be deposited in a bunker which can be closed in

order to minimize odour emissions. A pushing floor at the bottom of the bunker will

transfer the waste to the pre-treatment station which consists of a cascade mill, a

screen of 40 mm and an over-belt magnet. The oversize screened materials will be

disposed to the landfill. The remaining materials of low size, will be sent to a buffer

compartment. The buffer allows the feeding of the digester during the weekend so

that a continuous operation of the anaerobic digester and continuous gas production

are achieved. The material, before being pumped into the anaerobic reactor, will be


35

mixed with digested residues and a low quantity of steam, in order to heat up the

substrate to about 50 °C.

The digestion process will take place under thermophilic conditions, in the range of

50-55 °C. The reactor will be heated by a hot water spiral in order to minimise the

amount of steam needed for maintaining the operation temperature in the optimum

range. The mean retention time of the substrate in the reactor varies from 20 to 30

days. The waste heat is usually used to evaporate the produced wastewater. As a

result, the installation could operate free of any effluent.

The expected gas production is about 110 Nm³ per ton of waste fed to the digester.

The collected gas is stored in a gas bag and will be used, as fuel in engines. The

surplus of electrical energy will be sold to the grid. A high temperature torch will be

installed in order to flare off excess biogas. The digester will have a semi-conical

bottom with a sliding frame of 3 m diameter. The digested product will be extracted

and either recycled together with fresh substrate back into the reactor or pumped to

a buffer in order to be dewatered. Before the dewatering process, the stabilised

product will be transferred to a mixing unit and mixed with a polymer solution in

order to improve dewatering. A screw press is dewatering the residue to 50% total

solids.

The produced press cake will be sent to a post-composting system in order to

produce mature compost. The water effluent from the press will be centrifuged and

the effluent is stored into a buffer before being evaporated by utilising the waste

heat of the gas engines. The concentrate of the evaporator is mixed with the press

cake and the centrifuge cake in order to be stabilised aerobically. The steam is sent

to an acid scrubber which captures the evaporated ammonia, producing an

ammonium sulphate solution. After the scrubber the steam is mixed with process air

and clean air, and then treated in an insulated container passing through a biofilter.

Each plant is expected to generate around 20,000 MWh electricity per year derived

from the biogas. The plant consumption is estimated around 5,000 MWh per year

resulting in an electricity production of 15,000 MWh per year.

The minimum recovery and diversion rates for this plant are presented in the next

table.


36

Table 16: Recovery and Diversion Rates – each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki

Type Minimum Recovery Rate Unit Glass 75% w recovered / glass in feedstock on wet basis

Paper - Cardboard 50% w recovered / paper in feedstock on wet basis Plastics 55% w recovered / plastics in feedstock on wet basis

Metals Fe 85% w recovered / metals Fe in feedstock on wet basis

Metals Non Fe (Al) 75% w recovered / metals non Fe in feedstock on wet basis

Compost 15% w recovered / total feedstock on wet basis Humidity 30.3% w recovered / total feedstock on wet basis

Waste to Landfill 12% w waste / total feedstock on wet basis Biowaste to Landfill 10% w biowaste / waste to landfill on wet basis

Based on the above, the projected annual amounts of the plants are given next.

Table 17: Projected Annual Amounts of each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki


Glass 3,347 Paper - Cardboard 18,488 Plastics 9,818 Metals Fe 2,818 Metals Non Fe (Al) 861 Compost 19,125 Humidity 38,620 Electricity (to National Grid) 15,000 MWh Waste to Landfill 15,300 Biowaste Treated (wet basis) 87,720


Table 18: Projected Capital Costs of each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki

Capital Costs for each plant Type Percentage Amount Civil Eng. (Buildings) 14,500,000 €Mech. Eng (Machinery) 18,000,000 €Biological Treatment (Machinery) 10,500,000 €Electr. Eng (Electrical) 6,000,000 €Plant's Mobile Equipment 1,500,000 €Various - Studies - Consulting 7,500,000 €Subtotal 1 58,000,000 €

General Expenses 18% 10,440,000 €Unforeseeable (9%) 9% 5,220,000 €

Revision 2% 1,160,000 €Subtotal 2 74,820,000 €VAT (19%) 19% 14,215,800 €

TOTAL 89,035,800 €


37

Table 19: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of each MBT (A.D.) in East Attiki

Annual Process Costs - (Fixed) for each plant



Staff Key Staff 2 person 55,000 € 110,000 € Various Staff 35 person 28,000 € 980,000 €





290,000 €

Heavy Maintenance


1.7.5. Composting Plants – Biowaste – Composting – East Attiki

Capacity: 40,000 tones/year each plant

Biological Treatment: Composting

Feedstock: Source Separated Biowaste

Location: Keratea and Grammatiko

Budget: 26,403,720 €

Two identical composting plants are foreseen in Northeast and Southeast Attiki,

which will treat separated at source bio-waste.

During the mechanical stage the waste will be broken down into smaller parts by

shredding and recyclable material will be removed, since the feedstock is not

expected to be pure bio-waste. The biological stage will include composting of the

material. Composting is a natural biological process that is carried out by various

natural microbes, including bacteria and fungi that break down organic material into

simpler substances. These microorganisms require air and water; therefore, it is

necessary to maintain proper environmental conditions for microbial life within the

compost pile. The time window to produce compost depends on the composting

process. In-vessel composting can produced compost in 7 to 10 days, while other

composting systems may take more than 20 days to produce a mature compost.


38

Composting has the potential to manage organic material in the waste stream which

cannot otherwise be recycled.

An indicative mass balance of the plant is presented next.

Figure 15: Indicative mass balance of each Composting plant in East Attiki


Table 20: Projected Annual Amounts of each Composting plant in East Attiki

Composting Plant - Annual Quantities Feedstock Input (total)9 44,000 tn

Compost 14,000 tn Humidity 20,000 tn Waste to Landfill 10,000 tn Biowaste Treated (wet basis) 36,000 tn

Biowaste to Landfill 8,000 tn

Table 21: Projected Capital Costs of each Composting plant in East Attiki

Capital Costs Type Percentage Amount Civil Eng. (Buildings) 4,200,000 €Mech. Eng (Machinery) 7,600,000 €Biological Treatment (Machinery) 3,000,000 €

9 Includes extra amounts of green waste from gardens and parks that will be added during biological

treatment


39

Electr. Eng (Electrical) 1.200,000 €Plant's Mobile Equipment 400,000 €Various - Studies - Consulting 800,000 €Subtotal 1 17,200,000 €

General Expenses 18% 3,096,000 €Unforeseeable (9%) 9% 1,548,000 €

Revision 2% 344,000 €Subtotal 2 22,188,000 €VAT (19%) 19% 4,215,720 €

TOTAL 26,403,720 €

Table 22: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of each Composting plant in East Attiki





Subtotal 755,000 € Annual Maintenance

Building Maintenance (Annualy) 2% of relevant capital cost 84,000 € Machinery Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 530,000 € Mobile Eq. Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 20,000 €

Subtotal 634,000 € Insurance and Environmental


86,000 €

Heavy Maintenance

(every 5 years) 5% of subtotal 1 860,000 €

1.7.6. MBT Plant – Biowaste – Composting – West Attiki


Biological Treatment: Composting

Feedstock: Source Separated Biowaste

Location: Fyli

Budget: 39.329.262 €

This plant will be similar to the composting plants in East Attiki, thus the same

technology description is applying. Based on the above, the projected annual

amounts of the plant are given next.


40

Table 23: Projected Annual Amounts of Composting plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

Composting Plant - Annual Quantities Feedstock Input (total)10 88,000 tn

Compost 30,000 tn Humidity 35,000 tn Waste to Landfill 23,000 tn Biowaste Treated (wet basis) 72,000 tn

Biowaste to Landfill 15,000 tn

Table 24: Projected Capital Costs of Composting plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

Capital Costs Type Percentage Amount Civil Eng. (Buildings) 6.500.000 €Mech. Eng (Machinery) 7.850.000 €Biological Treatment (Machinery) 6.400.000 €Electr. Eng (Electrical) 1.850.000 €Plant's Mobile Equipment 1.200.000 €Various - Studies - Consulting 1.820.000 €Subtotal 1 25.620.000 €

General Expenses 18% 4.611.600 €Unforeseeable (9%) 9% 2.305.800 €

Revision 2% 512.400 €Subtotal 2 33.049.800 €VAT (19%) 19% 6.279.462 €

TOTAL 39.329.262 €

Table 25: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of Composting plant in West Attiki (Fyli)

Annual Process Costs - (Fixed) for each plant




Subtotal 895,000 € Annual Maintenance

Building Maintenance (Annualy) 2% of relevant capital cost 120,000 € Machinery Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 652,500 € Mobile Eq. Maintenance (Annualy) 5% of relevant capital cost 40,000 €

Subtotal 812,500 € Insurance and Environmental

Monitoring 5‰ of subtotal 1 113,900 €

Annual Total Heavy Maintenance


10 Includes extra amounts of green waste that will be added during biological treatment


41

1.7.7. General design parameters and BMW diversion targets coverage

MBT processes have the potential to divert BMW from landfill, since any outputs

which are not landfilled but are recycled, used as soil conditioner or burnt as

SRF/RDF will count directly towards diversion targets. However, the ability of MBT to

meet a high level of landfill diversion depends highly upon the availability of markets

for the outputs, and thus the quality of the process outputs. The next tables, outline

the estimated population and municipalities served by each MBT plant, as well the

BMW diversion targets coverage, assuming that all outputs are diverted from landfill.

Table 26: Estimated population and municipalities served by MBTs under planning

in Attiki

Indicator

MBT

[700.000] -

WEST

MT

[400.000]

- WEST

MBT

[127.500]

NE

MBT

[127.500]

SE

MBT

[40.000]

SE

MBT

[40.000]

NE

MBT

[80.000]

WEST

Population 1,300,000 800,000 300,000 300,000 350,000 350,000 700,000

Municipalities 59 59 29 17 17 29 59


42

Table 27: BMW diversion targets coverage from waste processing facilities under planning in Attiki

BSW Treatment

Year

BSW

Generation

in Attiki

EMAK

[400.000] -

WEST

MBT

[700.000] -

WEST

MT

[400.000] -

WEST

MBT

[127.500]

NE

MBT

[127.500]

SE

MBT

[40.000]

SE

MBT

[40.000]

NE

MBT

[80.000]

WEST

MRF (Total)

2008 1,398,114 246,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

2009 1,419,086 246,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

2010 1,440,372 246,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

2011 1,461,978 246,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

2012 1,483,908 246,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

2013 1,506,166 246,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000

2014 1,528,759 246,640 0 175,200 87,720 87,720 36,000 36,000 72,000 85,000

2015 1,551,690 246,640 481,600 275,200 87,720 87,720 36,000 36,000 72,000 85,000

Percentage of

BSW divertion

participation

18% 34% 20% 6% 6% 3% 3% 5% 6%


43

1.7.8. Timetable

Next, an estimated timetable for aforementioned projects in Attiki is presented.

Table 28: Indicative timetable for planned projects in Attiki

Procedure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MBT (biodrying) 700.000 tn/a West Attiki

T C T.O. Op.

MT (sorting) 400.000 tn/a West Attiki

T C T.O. Op.

MBT (A.D.) 127.500 tn/a SE Attiki

T C T.O. Op.

MBT (A.D.) 127.500 tn/a NE Attiki

T C T.O. Op.

Composting Plant 80.000 tn/a SE Attiki

T C P.P. Op.

Composting Plant 40.000 tn/a SE Attiki

T C P.P. Op.

Composting Plant 40.000 tn/a NE Attiki

T C P.P. Op.

Project Maturation

T Tendering

C Construction

T.O. Trial Operation

P.P. Pilot Program & Trial Operation

Op. Operation

1.8. CRITICAL OVERVIEW

As stated, costs and revenues that affected by plant performance (e.g. costs of

residues disposal to landfill, and revenues from output) are very difficult to be

estimated in detail at this point, primarily because there is no stable market for SRF

and RDF. Moreover, the MBT (biological drying) plant in West Attiki (Fyli) has a very

large capacity, and consequently will produce a large amount of SRF, something which

could prove challenging. Regarding residue rate, European examples show that it

maybe higher than 20%, and even could reach up to 40% of input.


44

Generally, the application of all waste treatment technologies has been fraught with

problems that have often arisen because of over-optimistic assessments of technical,

institutional and financial feasibility. Overestimations of the calorific value of the waste

in case of incineration projects, market demand for compost and recyclables, technical

skills and available operation and maintenance budgets, has been a major cause of

failure of investments in waste treatment technology. All these risk factors have to be

taken into consideration during the evaluation of each project from the contracting

authority and probably incorporated into the procurement documents.

The most important issue that have to be addressed prior to the operation of each

plant is the market demand risks. The viability of MBT plants rests on the availability of

outlets for the principal products and residues. In the case of MBT plants that create

RDF and SRF, the main barriers to development are the planning problems associated

with the construction of dedicated Waste to Energy plants to receive the fuel, and the

lack of secure long-term markets for the fuel in the cement, power and other energy-

intensive industries that could try alternatives to fossil fuel. In the case of MBT plants

that create a biologically stable product for landfill the main uncertainty relates to

whether the product complies with the requirement of the Landfill Directive for the

diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills. In cases where an MBT plant produces

a recyclable or marketable product (compost etc) the issue of product quality and

consistency is paramount if a long-term market is to be secured. Products developed

from mixed waste inputs are generally too contaminated to permit uses other than in

low value applications.


45

2. REGION OF THESSALONIKI

2.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1.1. Location and Population

Prefecture of Thessaloniki is locating north of the country, covers about 4,200 square

kilometers, and contains Thessaloniki, which is the second-largest city in Greece and

the capital of the Greek Region of Central Macedonia. Thessaloniki is Greece's second

major economic, industrial, commercial and political centre, and a major transportation

hub for the rest of southeastern Europe.

The location of Prefecture of Thessaloniki and the city of Thessaloniki are given in the

following figures

Figure 16: Prefecture of Thessaloniki

According to the 2001 census, the municipality of Thessaloniki had a population of

363,987, while the entire Prefecture had a population of 1,057,825.

2.1.2. Waste Management Authority

The competent authority for waste management in the region of Thessaloniki is the

Association of Local Authorities of Prefecture of Thessaloniki (ALAPT), which is a legal

entity of public law that was established in 1971 and consists of 47 municipalities of

the prefecture of Thessaloniki. The Association is responsible for the waste


46

management facilities, the application of Recycling Programs, the rehabilitation of

previous waste disposal sites and the development of advanced research and

awareness programmes, aiming at the environmental protection and sustainable and

viable development.

2.2. WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

As stated, MSW quantity and composition influences directly the functioning and

capacity required for waste collection and treatment/disposal systems and facilities.

2.2.1. Waste Generation

In the following table waste quantities generated in Thessaloniki in 2001, as well as

estimations for future quantities according to ALAPT are outlined.

Table 29: Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Prefecture of Thessaloniki (ALAPT

2008)

Year MSW (tn/y)

2008 620,000 2009 640,200 2010 678,553 2011 707,061 2012 721,727 2013 732,553 2014 743,541 2015 754,695 2016 766,015 2017 777,505 2018 789,168 2019 801,005 2020 813,020 2021 825,216 2022 837,594 2023 850,158 2024 862,910 2025 875,854 2026 888,992 2027 902,327 2028 915,861

According to the ALAPT, in 2006 the annual MSW generation per capita in Thessaloniki

lied between 575 kg in the urban areas and 530 kg in rural areas, with an average of

565 kg per cap - year. As stated. according to Eurostat, in 2007 the annual MSW

generation per capita in Greece that reached up to 448 kg per capita (see Annex 1).


47

Moreover, in the RSWMP of Macedonia-Thrace, in order for future quantities to be

estimated, it is assumed a “Realistic” scenario, where waste grows by 35% in the 20-

year period 2008-2028 (by 1.5% yearly). As stated, and in accordance to previous 3-

scenarios analysis, this scenario is closer to the Greek reality, because the increase of

35% in waste during the 2008-2028 period is constituent to the previous decade

pattern (47%). Nevertheless, in the following Figure MSW total generation in

Thessaloniki from 2008-2028 assuming 3 different scenarios (min, central and max)

based on correlation between income and MSW generation, is depicted.

MSW Total Generation - 3 Scenarios Analysis

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028

Year

tn o

f MSW


Figure 17: MSW Total Generation in Thessaloniki from 2008-2028 assuming 3

different scenarios (min, central and max)

2.2.2. Waste Composition

As stated, in Greece, composition of MSW was presented in J.M.D 50910/2727/2003

data (Putrescibles - 47,00%, Paper - 20,00%, Plastic - 8,50%, Metals - 4,50%, Glass -

4,50%, Wood/ Green Waste - 4,00% and Other - 11,50%).

In the following table, the composition of MSW in Thessaloniki (2007) is presented,

based on a detailed study conducted by ALART (Research on quality and quantity

composition of Thessaloniki's urban solid waste, using the European methodology

MODECOM) and the Aristotele University of Thessaloniki (A.U.T.).


48

Table 30: MSW composition in Thessaloniki (ALART – AUT, 2007)

Type of Waste Composition (%) 2007Putrescibles 26,70% Paper 29,20% Plastic 17,90% Metals 4,40% Glass 3,60% W-L-R11 6,20% Inert 4,00% Textile 3,00% Other 5,00%

Total 100%

Next, the corresponding chart is presented.

Putrescibles26,70%

Paper29,20%

Plastic17,90%

Metals4,40%

Glass3,60%

Other18,20%

Putrescibles

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Other

.

Figure 18: MSW composition in Thessaloniki in 2007 (ALAPT , 2007)

At this point it must be noted that these data were based on sampling that was

conducted at the disposal facility (Landfill) after transfer, hence the difference

between average values in Greece (including Attiki) and Thessaloniki.

According to the above table, the BMW fraction is estimated 59% (Putrescibles, Paper

and Wood). However, due to the fact that the sampling conducted under different

conditions, and that the targets set by EC Directives are national, in this study was

used the average value in Greece, that is 70%.

11 Wood – 3,2%


49

2.3. BMW DIVERSION AND RECYCLING TARGETS

As stated, the main portion of the produced quantities is concentrated in the two

biggest Greek cities, Athens and Thessaloniki. In the J.M.D. 50910/2727/2003, it is

estimated that 16% are produced in the region of Central Macedonia that includes the

prefecture of Thessaloniki. Taking into consideration that year 1997 was chosen as the

basis for calculations, the regional targets (note that EU Directive mentions only

National Targets) for prefecture of Thessaloniki are:




Based on the above, the following figure depicts future quantities and management of

BMW in Thessaloniki, in accordance with the landfill targets established by EU

Legislation, assuming a BaU scenario (Business as Usual) and waste growth of 1.5%

yearly (central scenario).

Figure 19: Future quantities of BMW generation and disposal in Thessaloniki (waste

growth: 1.5% yearly)


50

As for MSW, according to HERRCO, around 40,000 tones of total packaging waste &

print paper were recovered by MSW in Thessaloniki in 2009. Taking into account that

recyclable materials contained in the MSW reaches an average of 50%, and the MSW

generation in 2009 in Thessaloniki was around 640,000, it is estimated that recycling

rate of MSW reached an average of 320,00020,000 = 6.25%. All targets set by EU

Directives are percentages of recyclable waste generation, thus since all MSW

treatment plants under planning will have very strict recyclable sorting requirements,

will be more convenient for the aforementioned targets to be met.

2.4. CURRENT MSW MANAGEMENT

2.4.1. Collection

As stated, for the collection of MSW rolling bins with capacities from 80 to 1700 lt are

used. The collection and transport is carried out by the Municipalities using mainly

press and mill type vehicles.

2.4.2. Transfer

In Thessaloniki nowadays are in operation 3 transfer station out of a total of 7 that are

foreseen by RSWMP. The existing station are in Kalochori, Pylea and Michaniona.

During the next 2 years, the most mature project out of the remaining 4 stations

foreseen by RSWMP, is in Efkarpia (EIA submitted for approval - budget: 6,800,000 €).

The locations of the existing transfer stations are depicted in the next figure.


51

Figure 20: Locations of existing transfer stations in Prefecture of Thessaloniki

2.4.3. Disposal

In Thessaloniki, nowadays there is only one landfill operating at the area of

Mavrorachi, where daily are being disposed more than 1.400 tn of Municipal Solid

Waste, including commercial waste. Additionally, it is estimated that more than 4

uncontrolled landfill sites are still operating.

2.4.4. MSW Treatment

Mechanical and Biological Treatment Plants

As for now, no MBT Plant is in operation yet.

Material Recovery Facilities

In Thessaloniki, the total number of MRFs in operation is 3 while at least one more is

foreseen by RSWMP in order to achieve the national targets. The recyclables collected

through the separation at source scheme of packaging materials are being processed

through handpicking and mechanical sorting the packaging waste is sorted into

materials for recovery and recycling purposes. In the next tables, operation results for

the MRFs are presented, according to data from HERRCO.

LEGEND

Landfill (Mavrorachi)

Transfer Stations


52

Table 31: Results of MRFs operation in Thessaloniki (2008)


Number of Bins

Number of Vehicles

Annual Total Packaging Waste & Print Paper Recovery (tones)12

Thermi 208,473 5,271 11 8,429 Kallithea 250,848 3,043 13 3,352

Tagarades 776,881 3,845 12 8,995

2.5. MSW MANAGEMENT FUTURE PLANNING

According to the Regional Plan two treatment units are foreseen for the next years in

Thessaloniki, in order to achieve the quantified targets for diversion of biological

(organic) waste.

MBT – 400,000 tones / annum in Mavrorachi

The first facility under planning is a MBT plant, with a nominal capacity of 400,000

tones / annum. The plant will be constructed near the landfill of Mavrorachi, while the

technology is not selected yet. The project will be financed thought PFI (290,010,000

€). This PPP project involves the design, financing, construction, maintenance, facility

management and operation of the new infrastructure of the integrated waste

management system in the Prefecture for a period of 29 years (4 years construction

and 25 years operation).

More specifically, the private partner will undertake the design, construction,

maintenance and operation of a plant that will treat solid waste of the North-western

unit of the Prefecture. This plant will be composed of a treatment and exploitation unit

and a sanitary landfill. This unit will be constructed upon any proven technology that

can meet the targets set by the Community Directives and the output specifications

set by the Contracting Authority (ALAPT). Moreover the private partner will be given

the right to commercially exploit the output of the unit (such as recyclable products,

biogas, RDF, energy, etc.)

According to the international practice for tendering such projects, the indicative

budget of a waste management PPP project is set at the lower end of the

12 Data from 31/12/08 - The results refer to all Municipalities served by the MRF concerned


53

technological solution that according to available data fulfils the national and

community Directives.

It must be noted that the amount of the maximum fee to be imposed to the end users

has been estimated after taking into consideration the public affordability levels. Given

that this amount is not sufficient for the total reimbursement of the project, the State

will undertake the repayment of the remaining part through the Public Investments

Program.

Date of approval by the IM PPP Committee: 30 Jan 2008

Indicative Budget: 242 million euros

(+20% insurance cost and heavy maintenance cost)





MBT and Waste to Energy (WtE) – 350,000 tones / annum in Aghios Antonios

In Aghios Antonios, a MBT facility (technology in not decided yet) and a Waste to

Energy plant are under planning. MBT plant will treat 350,000 tones per annum and

will produce SRF, which will be burnt in the WtE plant. The budget for both plants,

according to ALAPT is estimated to be 270,000,000€.

MRF – 28,000 tones / annum in Efkarpia

The fourth MRF plant, will be located in Efkarpia and will have a nominal capacity of

28,000 tones per annum. The Environmental Conditions have been recently issued,

while the budget, according to preliminary data is estimated to be 6,000,000 €.

Landfill in Aghios Antonios

Finally, one Landfill in the area of Aghios Antonios, is also under planning (EIA

submitted - estimated budget 9,510,000 €).

The locations of planning, as well as the existing facilities, are depicted on the

following map.


54

Figure 21: Locations of the existing and under planning facilities in Thessaloniki

2.6. REGIONAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF MACEDONIA – THRACE

The Macedonia – Thrace Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 consists of 9

priority axes and MSW management of Central Macedonia is included in Axis 7

“Sustainable Development and Improvement of the Quality of Life” (thematic priority

44 - “MSW and Industrial Waste Management”). This is funded only by ERDF, and the

allocated EU fund is 65.000.000 €. The strategic objective of the ROP is targeted

towards the treatment of 75% of generated MSW in the Region until 2013. The

following table summarizes the funding from structural funds (OPESD - Cohesion Fund

and ROPs - ERDF) for waste management in Central Macedonia.

Table 32: Funding from structural funds for Solid Waste Management in Central

Macedonia.


Axis 4 (Soil Protection and Solid Waste Management)

R.O.P. - Axis 2 Thematic priority 44 (MSW and Industrial

Waste Management)

Cohesion Fund National and/or Private matching

funds SUM ERDF National matching

funds SUM

€ 0 M € 0 M € 0 M € 65 M € 15 M € 80 M

In Operation 1 Landfill

Under Planning

1 MSW Treatment Plant (400,000 tn/year)

Under Planning 1 MRF (28,000 tn/year)

Under Planning 1 MSW Treatment Facility (MBT and WtE) (350,000 tn/year) 1 Landfill


55

2.7. PROJECT ANALYSIS

The most matured project in Thessaloniki is the MBT plant in Mavrorachi. The

technology that will be integrated to the plant is not yet defined. Nevertheless, it

should be able to meet the needs of EC Legislation and the goals that will be set by

the contracting entity (ALAPT). As a result, at this point detailed technical description

of the project cannot be give.

Taking into consideration the preliminary analysis that was conducted in previous

reports, it will be examined the case of biological drying. Finally, the project is

evaluated based on preliminary data given by ALAPT.

2.7.1. MBT Plant – Mixed Waste – Mavrorachi


Biological Treatment: All option open – Case of biological drying


Location: Mavrorachi

Budget: PFI 242 million euros (+20% insurance cost and heavy maintenance cost)

for 25 operation

Construction Budget: 143,071,320 €

According to the Special Secretariat for PPPs, the evaluation of the plant was based on

the fact that it will be treating 40% of the total MSW generated in Prefecture of

Thessaloniki.

Based on this, the minimum recovery and diversion rates for this plant are presented

in the next table.

Table 33: Recovery and Diversion Rates - MBT Biological Drying in Mavrorachi

Type Minimum Recovery Rate Unit Glass 75% w recovered / glass in feedstock on wet basis

Paper - Cardboard 50% w recovered / paper in feedstock on wet basis Plastics 55% w recovered / plastics in feedstock on wet basis

Metals Fe 85% w recovered / metals Fe in feedstock on wet basis

Metals Non Fe (Al) 75% w recovered / metals non Fe in feedstock on wet basis

SRF 30% w recovered / total feedstock on wet basis


56




Table 34: Projected Annual Amounts of MBT Biological Drying in Mavrorachi


Glass 10,500 Paper - Cardboard 58,000 Plastics 30,800 Metals Fe 8,840 Metals Non Fe (Al) 2,700 SRF 120,000 Humidity 121,160 Waste to Landfill 48,000

Total 400,000 Biowaste Treated (wet basis) 275,200


Table 35: Projected Capital Costs of MBT (Biological Drying) in Mavrorachi13

Capital Costs Type Percentage Amount Civil Eng. (Buildings) 24,000,000 € Mech. Eng (Machinery) 34,000,000 € Biological Treatment (Machinery) 22,000,000 € Electr. Eng (Electrical) 7,500,000 € Plant's Mobile Equipment 1,000,000 € Various - Studies - Consulting 4,700,000 € Subtotal 1 93,200,000 €

General Expenses 18% 16,776,000 € Unforeseeable (9%) 9% 8,388,000 €

Revision 2% 1,864,000 € Subtotal 2 120,228,000 € VAT (19%) 19% 22,843,320 €

TOTAL 143,071,320 €

13 Data derived from similar capacity MBT Plants


57

Table 36: Projected Process Costs - (fixed) of MBT (Biological Drying) in Mavrorachi




Staff Key Staff 2 person 55,000 € 110,000 € Various Staff 40 person 28,000 € 1,120,000 €





466,000 €

Heavy Maintenance


2.7.2. Timetable

Next, an estimated timetable for the MBT plant in Mavrorachi is presented.

Table 37: Indicative timetable for the MBT plant in Mavrorachi

Procedure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MBT - Mavrorachi P.M. T C T.O. Op.

P.M. Project Maturation

T Tendering

C Construction

T.O. Trial Operation

Op. Operation

2.8. MATURE SWM PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR JESSICA FUNDING

Taking into consideration maturity level, population coverage and waste diversion

rates, in the next table, the proposed specific projects (in accordance with RWMPs of

Attiki and Central Macedonia) which promote the sustainable development of the

waste management in these two urban areas, and could be included and benefited

from JESSICA are outlined.

EIB Study: JESSICA instruments for SWM Management in Greece: FINAL Report - Part 2

58

Table 38: Matured Facilities for Waste Processing under planning in Attiki and Thessaloniki

Location Plant Feedstock Technology Capacity Estimated Budget Funding Maturity Estimated Time for Tendering

THESSALONIKI

1 Mavrorachi All options open Mixed MSW All options

open 400.000 PFI - 292 million euros ( for 25 yrs operation)

Not Commited ToE issued 1st Quarter 2011

ATTIKI

2* Fyli Complex MBT Mixed MSW Biological Drying 700.000 € 153 M Not

Commited EIA14 ready to be submmited 2nd Quarter 2010

3* Fyli Complex MT Mixed MSW Mechanical Treatment 400.000 € 85 M Not

Commited EIA ready to be

submmited 2nd Quarter 2010

4* Grammatiko Complex MBT Mixed MSW Anaerobic

Digestion 127.500 € 90 M Not Commited

EIA ready to be submmited 2nd Quarter 2010

5* Keratea Complex MBT Mixed MSW Anaerobic

Digestion 127.500 € 90 M Not Commited

EIA ready to be submmited 2nd Quarter 2010

*According to ACMAR, Projects 2,3,4 and 5 will be procured as ONE Project

14 In case the technology will change, the PPP proponent will have to amend the environmental licence (ToE).


59

3. APPENDICES

Annex 1: Generation of municipal waste in the EU 27, 1995 and 2007 (Eurostat,

2009)


60

Annex 2: Municipal Waste Landfilled per Capita (Eurostat, 2009)

JESSICA




STUDY

Final Report - Part 3

JESSICA SWM Financial Model & Implementation Plan

March 2010



EIB Study: JESSICA instruments for SWM Management in Greece: Final Report – Part 3

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. FINANCIAL MODEL ANALYSIS – PROJECT LEVEL.................................................... 6

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6 1.2. General Assumptions................................................................................................. 7 1.3. Economic Considerations .......................................................................................... 9 1.4. Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis: JESSICA without Grant instruments..................... 10

1.4.1. Summary – Scenario 1 .......................................................................................... 11 1.4.2. Project 1 – Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 12 1.4.3. Project 2 – Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 14 1.4.4. Project 3 – Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 16 1.4.5. Project 4 – Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 18 1.4.6. Project 5 – Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 20 1.4.7. Combined Projects 1-4 – Financial Analysis.......................................................... 22 1.4.8. Conclusion............................................................................................................. 23

1.5. Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis: JESSICA together with Grant instruments............ 30 1.5.1. Summary ............................................................................................................... 32 1.5.2. Project 1 – Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 33 1.5.3. Project 2 – Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 35 1.5.4. Project 3 – Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 37 1.5.5. Project 4 – Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 39 1.5.6. Project 5 – Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 41 1.5.7. Combined Projects 1-4 – Financial Analysis.......................................................... 43 1.5.8. Conclusion............................................................................................................. 44

1.6. Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis: Grant instruments only ......................................... 48 1.6.1. Summary ............................................................................................................... 49 1.6.2. Project 1 – Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 49 1.6.3. Project 2 – Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 52 1.6.4. Project 3 – Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 54 1.6.5. Project 4 – Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 56 1.6.6. Project 5 – Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis........................................................... 58 1.6.7. Combined Projects 1-4 – Financial Analysis.......................................................... 60 1.6.8. Conclusion............................................................................................................. 61

1.7. Main Conclusions from Scenario Analysis ............................................................... 64

2. JESSICA LEGAL & MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ................................................... 66

2.1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................................. 66 2.1.1. EU Regulations...................................................................................................... 66 2.1.2. NSRF 2007-13....................................................................................................... 67 2.1.3. Equity Fund Legal Framework............................................................................... 67

2.2. UDF MANAGEMENT............................................................................................... 69

3. JESSICA INTRODUCTION TIMETABLE ...................................................................... 72


3

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: General representation of the parties and scenarios involved in JESSICA financing.. 7

Figure 2: Cash Flow - Scenario 1 - Case 1 - Projects 1-4 & 5 - Private Investor Perspective .. 25

Figure 3: Cash Flow - Scenario 1 - Case 1 - Projects 1-4 & 5 - JESSICA Perspective ............ 25

Figure 4: Overview of the expected impact through the implementation of Capital Preservation options ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 5: Overview of the financial models been analyzed for the UDF fund structure in Scenario 1 – Case 1................................................................................................................. 28





Figure 10: Cash Flow - Scenario 2 - Case 2 - Projects 1-4 & 5 - Private Investor Perspective 47

Figure 11: Cash Flow - Scenario 2 - Case 2 - Projects 1-4 & 5 - JESSICA Perspective .......... 47

Figure 12: Cash Flow - Scenario 3 - Base Case - Projects 1-4 & 5 - Private Investor Perspective .............................................................................................................................. 63

Figure 13: Proposed UDF Management Organisation ............................................................. 70

Figure 14: Timetable of actions for JESSICA introduction in SWM sector in Greece............... 72


4

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Selected Projects for implementation in Attiki and Thessaloniki Regions..................... 8

Table 2: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 & 5 – Project Perspective .................................................. 12

Table 3: Scenario 1 – Project 1 – Project Perspective ............................................................. 12

Table 4: Scenario 1 – Project 1 – Stakeholder Perspective ..................................................... 13






Table 10: Scenario 1 – Project 4 – Stakeholder Perspective ................................................... 19

Table 11: Scenario 1 – Project 5 – Project Perspective ........................................................... 20


Table 13: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 – Project Perspective ...................................................... 22

Table 14: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 – Stakeholder Perspective .............................................. 23

Table 15: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 & 5 – Stakeholder Perspective ........................................ 24

Table 16: Scenario 2 – Projects 1-4 & 5 – Project Perspective ................................................ 32














Table 30: Scenario 3 – Projects 1-4 & 5 – Project Perspective ................................................ 49




5













6

1. FINANCIAL MODEL ANALYSIS – PROJECT LEVEL 1.1. Introduction

In this chapter we present, a Financial Modeling exercise based on realistic project cases and analysis that could be selected for the initial implementation of the JESSICA Solid Waste Management UDF in Greece. The main objective of this case study is to exemplify different approaches for implementing JESSICA and the UDF, while presenting with actual figures the potential of this initiative and the benefits for the stakeholders on each level. The Financial Modeling logic covers two different levels of JESSICA: Project level and UDF level. Three potential options exist regarding the way that a UDF - Project (SPV) relationship could be established regarding Project funding: (i) JESSICA Equity participation, in the funding of Projects, (ii) JESSICA Loan participation and (iii) and JESSICA Loan + JESSICA Equity participation. This means that the funds provided from the ERDF to the UDF could be used as an equity or loan or equity + loan participation to the projects. A financial institution (bank) will co-finance the projects through a commercial loan along with the UDF and the private investors. A graphical representation of the parties involved is given in Figure 1. According to the above options, financial simulations were performed under three general scenarios: Scenario 1: JESSICA without Grant instruments, Scenario 2: JESSICA together with Grant instruments and Scenario 3: Grant instruments only. Within each scenario, three cases have been simulated: Base Case: no JESSICA involvement, Case 1: JESSICA Equity + Loan participation and Case 2: JESSICA Equity only participation. For Case 1 an extra investigation is carried out referred to as the “Capital Preservation Option”. This has to do with returning the capital (through dividends) to the JESSICA fund involved as soon as that is possible in order to minimize the fund’s exposure and ready new funds for further applications (revolving funding); however, this is achieved to the cost of future earnings for the fund and a lower internal rate of return for JESSICA. At Project Level, 5 different projects that could be implemented through JESSICA participation are examined: Projects 1 – 4 for the Attiki region and Project 5 for the Thessaloniki region. The financial model used here is based on inputs and assumptions. It produces intermediary outputs and (final) results. Inputs: Project inputs are: investment cost, capacity, construction period, types of revenues and operating costs and their respective schedule. Specific UDF perspective inputs mainly concern the management fees and management costs. Intermediate Outputs: The Inputs generate pro-forma Profit & Loss, Cash Flow and Sources & Uses tables which are analyzed for each of the 5 Projects separately and for the UDF Portfolio (5 Projects) as a whole; an intermediary portfolio including only the four projects in Attiki is considered also. Profitability and sustainability from the perspective of the


7

project and all stakeholders involved is given in terms of IRR, NPV and Payback period. Stakeholders are the UDF, the private investor, a public entity and the bank.

Figure 1: General representation of the parties and scenarios involved in JESSICA financing

1.2. General Assumptions

Following the project description and analysis, the following assumptions are defined and applied in constructing the financial model supporting the relative Scenario Analysis:

Life cycle for each project is 25 years plus 3 years construction (investment) period. Total estimated investment is € 559 M Main sources of Revenue:


8

o Gate Fee: € 51/tonne for Projects 1 – 4 (Attiki Region) and € 61 /tonne for Projects 5 (Thessaloniki Region), which can be taken into account as a conservative estimation

o Sale of Recovered Material o Electricity generation (for projects 3 and 4 only)

Tax rate is 25% Dividends to shareholders are only considered after the repayment of the loans

(commercial and JESSICA) and Debt Repayments are made at the end of each year The spread been calculated for the JESSICA Loan is 100 basis points (BPS) lower than

the commercial loan with a total spread of 1% instead of 2% for the commercial loan, giving better financing possibilities for the projects and increasing the IRR for the private partner while reducing the payback period

There is a possibility for the participation of EIB to the financial structure of the projects. Especially in the case where the projects will be implemented with the participation of JESSICA, EIB could finance the projects through a project loan with favorable terms. Although this alternative has not been analyzed thoroughly, there are important indications that this kind of EIB contribution will provide a significant support for the successful financing of the projects, especially during the current period of economic crisis

During the investment period, financial costs related with debt obtained are been capitalized and repaid during the operating period

All partners are paid proportionally and at the same time (save for the capital preservation case)

In the last year of the Project, all the remaining cash available is distributed to the equity partners and the project is closed

Project No. Location Plant Feedstock Technology Capacity Estimated Budget

1 Fyli Complex MBT Mixed MSW Biological Drying 700.000 € 153,5 M

2 Fyli Complex MT Mixed MSW Mechanical Treatment 400.000 € 84,4 M

3 Grammatiko Complex MBT Mixed MSW Anaerobic Digestion 127.500 € 89 M

4 Keratea Complex MBT Mixed MSW Anaerobic Digestion 127.500 € 89 M

5 Mavrorachi All options open Mixed MSW All options open 400.000 €143,07 M

TOTAL € 558,97 M

Table 1: Selected Projects for implementation in Attiki and Thessaloniki Regions


9

1.3. Economic Considerations Overall, the acquisition of detailed cost data regarding MBT facilities is a very difficult, since there is a wide range of capital and operational costs dependent upon the complexity of the technology, the degree of mechanisation and automation employed and more importantly the stability of the secondary products market. Both capital and operating costs were included, based upon specific technologies which may be used in Attiki and Thessaloniki facilities; however there is a variety of factors than can affect the final output such as:

revenues from secondary products (as mentioned, MBT systems are sensitive to the markets and outlets for recycled materials, RDF and soil conditioners that are produced by different processes)

labour costs (employing significant amounts of manual hand-picking could greatly increase overall operating costs)

pollution control systems (i.e. biological drying, even thought is generally a proven process applied in numerous mechanical biological treatment plants in Europe, needs extensive control equipment in order to steer the process effectively)

fuel and electricity prices, competition from other treatment facilities (e.g. recycling) the landfill tax the quality and quantity of material being presented energy costs the final size of the facility and the number of shifts operated at a given facility

Accordingly, gate fees for similar treatment options can vary substantially, both across and within regions. According to WRAP (2008), in the UK the gate fee for an anaerobic digestion plant may vary from £30 to £65 (2008 prices). Furthermore, according to DEFRA (2007), typical MBT operating expenditures using anaerobic process varies from £16 to £59 per tonne, while operating expenditures for aerobic processes may vary from £20 to £59 per tonne (2007 prices). At this point should be also noted that the MBT in Fyli (nominal capacity of 700.000 tn/year) would be the largest MBT facility worldwide, thus no previous data about cost for a plant of this size is available today. Taking all the above into consideration, it is possible that the gate


10

fee could reach more than 60 € per tonne, however, despite these variations and difficulties, the ranking of gate fees for all scenarios analyzed in this study was in line with expectations.

1.4. Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis: JESSICA without Grant instruments As far as the Base Case considered, the following assumptions are made:

Funding: o No grant o Equity (25%):

o Public Entity (5%) o Private partner (95%)

o Commercial loan (75%): with a 6% interest rate Case 1 differs from the base case through the use of a JESSICA fund providing both equity and a (somewhat cheaper) loan. In more detail the assumptions made are the following:

Funding: o No grant; o Equity (25%):

o Public Entity (5%) o Private partner

Projects 1 – 4 (67%) Project 5 (60%)

o JESSICA Equity participation Projects 1 – 4 (28%) Project 5 (35%)

o Loan (75%): o Commercial loan with a 6% interest rate

o Project 1 (95%) o Project 2 (93%) o Projects 3 - 4 (92%) o Project 5 (88%)

o JESSICA loan with a 4,5% interest rate o Project 1 (5%)


11

o Project 2 (7%) o Projects 3 - 4 (8%) o Project 5 (12%)

An additional Case 2 is considered, where the following adjustments to the assumptions made are undertaken:

Funding: o No grant; o Equity (30%):


Projects 1 – 4 (55%) Projects 5 (51%)

o JESSICA Equity participation Projects 1 – 4 (40%) Projects 5 (44%)

o Loan (70%): o Commercial loan with a 6% interest rate o No JESSICA loan

1.4.1. Summary – Scenario 1

The specific assumptions regarding the funding structure and project perspective results are summarized, for each case of the Scenario 1, in the following table:


12

Base Case Equity & Loan(Case 1)

Equity(Case 2)

Debt no yes noEquity no yes yesIRR 10,8% 10,8% 10,8%NPV 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 €Payback 8 8 8TotalFunds 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 €

Equity 139.770.855 € 139.770.855 € 167.725.026 €Public Entity 5,00% 5,00% 5,00%Private Investor 95,00% 65,21% 53,98%Jessica 0,00% 29,79% 41,02%Debt 419.312.565 € 419.312.565 € 391.358.394 €Financial Institution 100,00% 91,95% 100,00%Jessica 0,00% 8,05% 0,00%Grant 0 € 0 € 0 €Total Jessica 0 € 75.389.529 € 68.806.866 €

Jessica Participation

Project

Funding

SCENARIO 1: Projects Portfolio (1-4 & 5)

(Project Perspective)

Jessica

Table 2: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 & 5 – Project Perspective

A detailed breakdown of how the numbers work for the individual projects is as follows.

1.4.2. Project 1 – Scenario 1 – Financial Analysis


Equity(Case 2)



Funding

SCENARIO 1: Project 1(Project Perspective)

Jessica


Project

Table 3: Scenario 1 – Project 1 – Project Perspective


13

Base CaseEquity & Loan

(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:75 25:75 30:70

0 € 0 € 0 €IRR 14,82% 14,82% 14,82%NPV 64.262.027 € 64.262.027 € 64.262.027 €Payback 6 6 6TotalFunds 153.510.000 € 153.510.000 € 153.510.000 €

IRR 37,49% 37,54% 33,32%NPV 103.494.282 € 73.150.688 € 58.674.465 €Payback 2 2 3Funds 36.458.625 € 25.712.925 € 25.329.150 €IRR n/a 84,72% 78,78%NPV n/a 88.314.353 € 73.838.130 €Payback n/a 1 1Funds n/a 25.712.925 € 25.329.150 €IRR 37,49% 37,54% 33,32%NPV 5.447.067 € 5.459.007 € 5.334.042 €Payback 2 2 3Funds 1.918.875 € 1.918.875 € 2.302.650 €IRR n/a 24,59% 28,72%NPV n/a 24.381.131 € 36.292.693 €Payback n/a 4 3Funds n/a 16.502.325 € 18.421.200 €IRR n/a 28,51% 33,32%NPV n/a 28.992.191 € 42.672.338 €Payback n/a 3 3Funds n/a 16.502.325 € 18.421.200 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20Funds 115.132.500 € 109.375.875 € 107.457.000 €

Gearing (Equity:Debt)Grant

Project

Private Investor

Private Investor (inc. construction)

Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs

Jessica Gross retunrs

Financial Institution

SCENARIO 1: Project 1(Stakeholder Perspective)

Jessicawithout Capital Preservation

Table 4: Scenario 1 – Project 1 – Stakeholder Perspective


14



Equity(Case 2)



Project

Funding


Jessica




15


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:75 25:75 30:70






Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





16



Equity(Case 2)

Debt no yes noEquity no yes yesIRR 2,3% 2,3% 2,3%NPV -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 €Payback 18 18 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 €



Project

Funding


Jessica



17


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:75 25:75 30:70

0 € 0 € 0 €IRR 2,31% 2,31% 2,31%NPV -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 €Payback 18 18 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 €

IRR n/a n/a n/aNPV -17.859.076 € -12.459.932 € -11.158.053 €Payback 51 51 51Funds 21.146.003 € 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR n/a n/a 3,73%NPV n/a -3.633.533 € -2.331.653 €Payback n/a 51 23Funds n/a 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR n/a n/a n/aNPV -939.951 € -929.846 € -1.014.368 €Payback 51 51 51Funds 1.112.948 € 1.112.948 € 1.335.537 €IRR n/a n/a n/aNPV n/a -9.916.289 € -11.815.142 €Payback n/a 51 51Funds n/a 11.574.654 € 10.684.296 €IRR n/a -1,23% n/aNPV n/a -6.682.113 € -8.114.948 €Payback n/a 51 51Funds n/a 11.574.654 € 10.684.296 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20Funds 66.776.850 € 61.434.702 € 62.325.060 €




Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





18



Equity(Case 2)



Jessica


Project

Funding




19


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:75 25:75 30:70

0 € 0 € 0 €IRR 2,31% 2,31% 2,31%NPV -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 €Payback 18 18 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 €

IRR n/a n/a n/aNPV -17.859.076 € -12.459.932 € -11.158.053 €Payback 51 51 51Funds 21.146.003 € 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR n/a n/a 3,73%NPV n/a -3.633.533 € -2.331.653 €Payback n/a 51 23Funds n/a 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR n/a n/a n/aNPV -939.951 € -929.846 € -1.014.368 €Payback 51 51 51Funds 1.112.948 € 1.112.948 € 1.335.537 €IRR n/a n/a n/aNPV n/a -9.916.289 € -11.815.142 €Payback n/a 51 51Funds n/a 11.574.654 € 10.684.296 €IRR n/a -1,23% n/aNPV n/a -6.682.113 € -8.114.948 €Payback n/a 51 51Funds n/a 11.574.654 € 10.684.296 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20Funds 66.776.850 € 61.434.702 € 62.325.060 €




Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





20



Equity(Case 2)



Funding


Jessica


Project



21


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:75 25:75 30:70






Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





22

1.4.7. Combined Projects 1-4 – Financial Analysis


Equity(Case 2)



Project

Funding

SCENARIO 1: Projects 1-4(Project Perspective)

Jessica


Table 13: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 – Project Perspective


23

with Capital Preservation


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)Equity & Loan

(Case 1)25:75 25:75 30:70 25:75

0 € 0 € 0 € 0 €IRR 10,99% 10,99% 10,99% 10,99%NPV 45.483.416 € 45.483.416 € 45.483.416 € 45.483.416 €Payback 7 7 7 7TotalFunds 416.012.100 € 416.012.100 € 416.012.100 € 416.012.100 €

IRR 26,09% 26,17% 23,28% 27,36%NPV 151.508.915 € 107.479.279 € 84.506.348 € 145.787.844 €Payback 3 3 4 4

Funds 98.802.874 € 69.682.027 € 68.641.997 € 69.682.027 €IRR n/a 63,78% 59,50% 57,02%NPV n/a 148.732.875 € 125.759.945 € 187.041.440 €Payback n/a 1 1 2Funds n/a 69.682.027 € 68.641.997 € 69.682.027 €IRR 26,09% 26,17% 23,28% 27,36%NPV 7.974.153 € 8.020.842 € 7.682.395 € 10.879.690 €Payback 3 3 4 4Funds 5.200.151 € 5.200.151 € 6.240.182 € 5.200.151 €IRR n/a 15,12% 18,80% 0,59%NPV n/a 25.176.169 € 44.170.323 € -12.410.424 €Payback n/a 6 5 17Funds n/a 49.994.369 € 49.921.452 € 49.994.369 €IRR n/a 18,80% 23,28% 8,26%NPV n/a 39.145.536 € 61.459.162 € -2.021.877 €Payback n/a 5 4 6Funds n/a 49.994.369 € 49.921.452 € 49.994.369 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20 20Funds 312.009.075 € 291.135.553 € 291.208.470 € 291.135.553 €

SCENARIO 1: Projects Portfolio 1-4

(Stakeholder Perspective)



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs



Table 14: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 – Stakeholder Perspective

1.4.8. Conclusion

This Scenario (especially Case 1) possibly offers the most advantageous combinations of benefits. The results obtained for the portfolio of the 5 selected projects, for each stakeholder, are presented in the following table:


24



(Case 1)Equity


(Case 1)25:75 25:75 30:70 25:75

0 € 0 € 0 € 0 €IRR 10,78% 10,78% 10,78% 10,78%NPV 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 €Payback 8 8 8 8TotalFunds 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 €

IRR 25,43% 25,59% 22,74% 26,69%NPV 193.561.940 € 134.428.241 € 106.182.425 € 185.510.132 €Payback 3 3 4 4Funds 132.782.312 € 91.142.725 € 90.531.908 € 91.142.725 €IRR n/a 65,58% 60,49% 57,34%NPV n/a 189.813.541 € 161.567.725 € 240.895.432 €Payback n/a 1 1 2Funds n/a 91.142.725 € 90.531.908 € 91.142.725 €IRR 25,43% 25,54% 22,71% 26,20%NPV 10.187.471 € 10.266.589 € 9.807.501 € 13.686.644 €Payback 3 3 4 4Funds 6.988.543 € 6.988.543 € 8.386.251 € 6.988.543 €IRR n/a 14,06% 18,18% 1,09%NPV n/a 30.270.711 € 56.330.840 € -18.831.501 €Payback n/a 7 5 16Funds n/a 75.389.529 € 68.806.866 € 75.389.529 €IRR n/a 17,74% 22,67% 8,26%NPV n/a 51.335.964 € 80.160.091 € -3.165.983 €Payback n/a 5 4 6Funds n/a 75.389.529 € 68.806.866 € 75.389.529 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20 20Funds 419.312.565 € 385.562.624 € 391.358.394 € 385.562.624 €

SCENARIO 1: Projects Portfolio 1-4 & 5




Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs



Table 15: Scenario 1 – Projects 1-4 & 5 – Stakeholder Perspective

Conclusions of Scenario 1 - Base Case (no JESSICA involvement)

The return for the projects portfolio on the UDF Level is medium and satisfactory with an IRR of 10,78% and a medium to small payback period of 8 years.

One of the main Benefits from a possible JESSICA participation is based on the shareholding position that the Public Sector will obtain in the SPV of the project, in order to secure dividends from the satisfactory returns of the project and funding new future projects through the available accumulated revolving funds of the UDF

Conclusions of Scenario 1 - Case 1 (JESSICA Equity & Loan) As far as Case 1 of this scenario is concerned the evolution of cash flows, for both the private investor and the JESSICA fund, is illustrated in the graphs below:


25

Scenario 1 - Case 1 - Projects 1-4&5 - Private Investor Perspective

-200000000

0

200000000

400000000

600000000

800000000

1000000000

1200000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

Agg. Cashflow (excl. Construction) - w/o CP Agg. Cashflow (incl. Construction) - w/o CPAgg. Cashflow (excl. Construction) - with CP Agg. Cashflow (incl. Construction) - with CP

Figure 2: Cash Flow - Scenario 1 - Case 1 - Projects 1-4 & 5 - Private Investor Perspective

Scenario 1 - Case 1 - Projects 1-4&5 - Jessica Perspective

-150000000-100000000-50000000

050000000

100000000150000000200000000250000000300000000350000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

Gross Agg. Cashflow - w/o CP Net Agg. Cashflow - w/o CPGross Agg. Cashflow - with CP Net Agg. Cashflow - with CP

Figure 3: Cash Flow - Scenario 1 - Case 1 - Projects 1-4 & 5 - JESSICA Perspective

The main points noted for this case are:

Investor Perspective: the combined return for the portfolio of the 5 projects is satisfactory with an IRR of about 25% and a small payback period of 3 - 4 years and allows an appropriate returns sharing between the Private Sector and the JESSICA participation

JESSICA Perspective: the 5 projects’ combined return is satisfactory:


26

o Without Capital Preservation (wo CP) option been followed: IRR is around 17,7% gross (without subtracting management fees and costs) and around 14% net

o WITH Capital Preservation option: IRR is around 8,3% gross and around 1,1% net The combined participation of JESSICA Equity and Loan appears to be the best case for

maximizing the benefits that the initiative could bring to the implementation of the projects: o Private party returns are increased and risk is lower for the other parties o The JESSICA loan participation enables the UDF to obtain long term returns and

offer more flexibilities for selecting improved strategic directions o An alternative Strategy which the JESSICA Fund could follow is that of the Capital

Preservation Option According to the Capital Preservation option, the dividends of the project are distributed

during the initial operating years exclusively to the UDF, in order to obtain an accelerated return of its equity participation in the fastest possible way. This means that the target return comes earlier for the JESSICA participation, compared with that of the Private Investor, however this return is lower than the one that could be obtained without following this (Capital Preservation) option; in addition, it is much lower than the Private Investor’s return

The main Significant Benefit that Capital Preservation Option brings is the early availability of the equity participation of UDF, with an agreed return, within the first 5 years of the UDF operations (3 years for the investment to be completed and 2 years for an initial operating period of the project) o This gives a flexibility to choose either an earlier (revolving) fund availability (within

the first 5 years: 2 operating years of the project plus 3 years for the construction) with a lower return or a later availability (within the first 7 years: 4 operating years of the project plus 3 years for the construction) with a higher return

o This actually means that the participation of JESSICA will enable an early return of revolving funds in order to fund future UDF projects in a Second (2nd ) UDF Cycle within the first 5 years of UDF’s life

o In order to implement successfully a Capital Preservation Strategy, an Equity & Loan participation of the UDF is proposed to be followed. This kind of participation will assure future loan returns and will cover satisfactory its long term life cycle period and its engagement with the selected projects


27

o The Capital Preservation option could possibly be acceptable without any problems from the Private Partner side, as it enables an improvement - increase to his total returns (IRR increase: about 1,1%, and NPV increase: about € 51 M). Before implementing this option, additional issues have to be finally reviewed (e.g. additional issues regarding state aid rules and regulations).

The Effect of implementing a Capital Preservation option will enable an early return of revolving funds in order to fund future UDF projects in a Second (2nd ) UDF Cycle within the first 5 years of UDF’s life (2 operating years plus 3 years for construction) as it is depicted in the following diagram.

Figure 4: Overview of the expected impact through the implementation of Capital Preservation options


28

The JESSICA participation with Equity and Loan is more flexible than the commercial loan

and the private investor. Through the JESSICA loan participation different levels of seniority could be established

(lower for JESSICA Seniority) in order to improve the bankability of the project. In the following diagram we can see the total presentation of the UDF fund in Scenario 1 – Case 1.

Figure 5: Overview of the financial models been analyzed for the UDF fund structure in Scenario 1 – Case 1

Conclusions of Scenario 1 - Case 2 (JESSICA Equity) As far as Case 2 of this scenario is concerned the evolution of cash flows, for both the private investor and the JESSICA fund, is illustrated in the graphs below:


29


-200000000-100000000

0100000000200000000

300000000400000000500000000

600000000700000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

Agg. Cashflow (excl. Construction) - w/o CP Agg. Cashflow (incl. Construction) - w/o CP



-100000000

0

100000000

200000000

300000000

400000000

500000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

Gross Agg. Cashflow - w/o CP Net Agg. Cashflow - w/o CP


The main points noted for Case 2 are:

This option appears to be able to be implemented successfully only in the case that the UDF will follows an operating Strategy without adopting a Capital Preservation option.

Due to the higher percentage of the JESSICA Equity Participation, in comparison with the lower participation in Case 1 (Equity & Loan), JESSICA return is increasing (from 17,3 % to 23% net) and Private Partner’s IRR is decreasing (from 32,3% to 28,6%).


30

However, this advantage that appears for the JESSICA perspective (return increase) is counterbalanced due to the later availability of revolving funds that could be obtained in order to create a second cycle of a UDF, in comparison with the case 1 (with or without the Capital Preservation option): o indicative availability period is increased to 5 operating years instead of 4 years that

was in Case 1 or 2 years that can be obtained through a Capital Preservation Strategy (in Case 1).

1.5. Scenario 2 – Financial Analysis: JESSICA together with Grant instruments

In this Scenario we take into account a Grant Contribution of 14,4% for Projects 1 - 4 from the Cohesion Fund, in addition to JESSICA Funding.

Funding (ERDF & Cohesion Fund)

Budget

Grant from

Cohesion Fund (and National and/or

Private matching

funds)

JESSICA from

ERDF (and National and/or

Private matching

funds) Project 1 € 153,5 M € 22,1 M € 18,18 M

Project 2 € 84,4 M € 12,1 M € 10 M

Project 3 € 89 M € 12,8 M € 10,54 M

Project 4 € 89 M € 12,8 M € 10,54 M

Project 5 € 143,07 M ---- € 25,39 M

SUM € 558,97 M € 60 M € 74,67 M

All other things being equal with Scenario 1 discussed previously, the assumptions differentiating Scenario 2 are discussed here. For the Base Case considered the following assumptions are made:

Funding: o Grant 14,42% (from the Cohesion Fund for projects 1-4); o Equity (25%):


31

o Public Entity (5%) o Private partner (95%)

o Commercial loan (60,58%): with a 6% interest rate; Once more, Case 1 differs from the base case through the use of a JESSICA. In more detail the assumptions made are the following:

Funding: o Grant 14,42% (from the Cohesion Fund) o Equity (25%):




o Loan (60,58%): o Commercial loan:with a 6% interest rate

o Projects 1 - 4 (92%) o Projects 5 (88%)

o JESSICA loan with a 5% interest rate o Projects 1 - 4 (8%) o Projects 5 (12%)

In addition as Case 2 is considered, the following adjustments to the assumptions made are undertaken:

Funding: o Grant 14,42% (from the Cohesion Fund) o Equity (30%):




32


o Loan (75%): o Commercial loan with a 6% interest rate o No JESSICA loan

1.5.1. Summary

The aforementioned assumptions regarding the funding structure are summarized, for each case of the Scenario 2, in the following table:


Equity(Case 2)


Equity 139.770.855 € 139.770.855 € 167.725.026 €Public Entity 5,00% 5,00% 5,00%Private Investor 95,00% 65,21% 53,98%Jessica 0,00% 29,79% 41,02%Debt 359.323.620 € 359.323.620 € 331.369.449 €Financial Institution 100,00% 90,81% 100,00%Jessica 0,00% 9,19% 0,00%Grant 59.988.945 € 59.988.945 € 59.988.945 €Total Jessica 0 € 74.677.617 € 68.806.866 €

Funding

SCENARIO 2: Projects Portfolio (1-4 & 5)


Jessica


Project



33



Equity(Case 2)




Project

Funding


Jessica



34


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:61:14 25:61:14 30:56:14

22.136.142 € 22.136.142 € 22.136.142 €IRR 14,82% 14,82% 14,82%NPV 64.262.027 € 64.262.027 € 64.262.027 €Payback 6 6 6TotalFunds 153.510.000 € 153.510.000 € 153.510.000 €


Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity



Gearing (Equity:Debt:Grant)Grant



35



Equity(Case 2)



Jessica


Project

Funding




36


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:61:14 25:61:14 30:56:14

12.174.878 € 12.174.878 € 12.174.878 €IRR 16,68% 16,68% 16,68%NPV 51.014.568 € 51.014.568 € 51.014.568 €Payback 5 5 5TotalFunds 84.430.500 € 84.430.500 € 84.430.500 €


Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity






37



Equity(Case 2)



Funding


Jessica


Project



38


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:61:14 25:61:14 30:56:14

12.838.962 € 12.838.962 € 12.838.962 €IRR 2,31% 2,31% 2,31%NPV -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 €Payback 18 18 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 €

IRR 2,71% 2,84% 3,08%NPV -11.195.340 € -7.740.067 € -7.055.433 €Payback 22 22 22Funds 21.146.003 € 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR n/a 11,84% 13,73%NPV n/a 1.086.332 € 1.770.966 €Payback n/a 9 7Funds n/a 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR 2,71% 2,84% 3,08%NPV -589.228 € -577.617 € -641.403 €Payback 22 22 22Funds 1.112.948 € 1.112.948 € 1.335.537 €IRR n/a 0,23% n/aNPV n/a -7.396.450 € -8.920.841 €Payback n/a 25 51Funds n/a 10.547.537 € 10.684.296 €IRR n/a 3,52% 3,08%NPV n/a -4.426.043 € -5.131.224 €Payback n/a 19 22Funds n/a 10.547.537 € 10.684.296 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20Funds 53.937.888 € 49.622.857 € 49.486.098 €

Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity






39



Equity(Case 2)



Project

Funding


Jessica




40


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:61:14 25:61:14 30:56:14

12.838.962 € 12.838.962 € 12.838.962 €IRR 2,31% 2,31% 2,31%NPV -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 € -38.094.569 €Payback 18 18 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 € 89.035.800 €

IRR 2,71% 2,84% 3,08%NPV -11.195.340 € -7.740.067 € -7.055.433 €Payback 22 22 22Funds 21.146.003 € 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR n/a 11,84% 13,73%NPV n/a 1.086.332 € 1.770.966 €Payback n/a 9 7Funds n/a 14.913.497 € 14.690.907 €IRR 2,71% 2,84% 3,08%NPV -589.228 € -577.617 € -641.403 €Payback 22 22 22Funds 1.112.948 € 1.112.948 € 1.335.537 €IRR n/a 0,23% n/aNPV n/a -7.396.450 € -8.920.841 €Payback n/a 25 51Funds n/a 10.547.537 € 10.684.296 €IRR n/a 3,52% 3,08%NPV n/a -4.426.043 € -5.131.224 €Payback n/a 19 22Funds n/a 10.547.537 € 10.684.296 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20Funds 53.937.888 € 49.622.857 € 49.486.098 €

Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity






41



Equity(Case 2)




Project

Funding


Jessica



42


(Case 1)Equity

(Case 2)25:75 25:75 30:70



Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity






43



Equity(Case 2)



Jessica


Project

Funding

SCENARIO 2: Projects 1-4(Project Perspective)



44



(Case 1)Equity


(Case 1)25:64:11 25:64:11 24:65:11 25:64:11

59.988.945 € 59.988.945 € 59.988.945 € 59.988.945 €IRR 10,99% 10,99% 10,99% 10,99%NPV 45.483.416 € 45.483.416 € 45.483.416 € 45.483.416 €Payback 7 7 7 7TotalFunds 416.012.100 € 416.012.100 € 416.012.100 € 416.012.100 €

IRR 29,06% 29,13% 25,89% 30,63%NPV 183.718.164 € 130.173.513 € 103.133.133 € 177.107.003 €Payback 3 3 3 3

Funds 98.802.874 € 69.682.027 € 68.641.997 € 69.682.027 €IRR n/a 69,12% 64,40% 62,85%NPV n/a 171.427.109 € 144.386.730 € 218.360.599 €Payback n/a 1 1 2Funds n/a 69.682.027 € 68.641.997 € 69.682.027 €IRR 29,06% 29,13% 25,89% 30,63%NPV 9.669.377 € 9.714.441 € 9.375.739 € 13.216.940 €Payback 3 3 3 3Funds 5.200.151 € 5.200.151 € 6.240.182 € 5.200.151 €IRR n/a 17,22% 21,26% 0,51%NPV n/a 34.952.018 € 57.299.256 € -11.896.356 €Payback n/a 5 4 17Funds n/a 49.282.457 € 49.921.452 € 49.282.457 €IRR n/a 21,00% 25,89% 8,47%NPV n/a 48.830.990 € 75.005.915 € -1.604.999 €Payback n/a 4 3 5Funds n/a 49.282.457 € 49.921.452 € 49.282.457 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20 20Funds 252.020.130 € 231.858.520 € 231.219.525 € 231.858.520 €

Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity






1.5.8. Conclusion

In the following table the results obtained for the 5 projects combined and for each stakeholder are presented:


45



(Case 1)Equity


(Case 1)25:64:11 25:64:11 24:65:11 25:64:11

59.988.945 € 59.988.945 € 59.988.945 € 59.988.945 €IRR 10,78% 10,78% 10,78% 10,78%NPV 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 € 52.041.777 €Payback 8 8 8 8TotalFunds 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 € 559.083.420 €

IRR 27,69% 27,90% 24,77% 29,20%NPV 225.771.189 € 157.122.475 € 124.809.210 € 216.777.005 €Payback 3 3 3 3Funds 132.782.312 € 91.142.725 € 90.531.908 € 91.142.725 €IRR n/a 69,91% 64,39% 61,93%NPV n/a 212.507.775 € 180.194.510 € 272.162.305 €Payback n/a 1 1 2Funds n/a 91.142.725 € 90.531.908 € 91.142.725 €IRR 27,69% 27,79% 24,70% 28,67%NPV 11.882.694 € 11.960.188 € 11.500.845 € 16.019.993 €Payback 3 3 3 3Funds 6.988.543 € 6.988.543 € 8.386.251 € 6.988.543 €IRR n/a 15,47% 19,97% 1,06%NPV n/a 39.990.636 € 69.301.710 € -18.287.391 €Payback n/a 6 4 16Funds n/a 74.677.617 € 68.806.866 € 74.677.617 €IRR n/a 19,23% 24,61% 8,42%NPV n/a 61.021.417 € 93.706.844 € -2.692.918 €Payback n/a 4 3 6Funds n/a 74.677.617 € 68.806.866 € 74.677.617 €IRR 6,00% 6,00% 6,00% 6,00%Payback 20 20 20 20Funds 359.323.620 € 326.285.591 € 331.369.449 € 326.285.591 €

Jessica Net retunrs



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity



SCENARIO 2: Projects Portfolio 1-4 & 5



The evolution of the cash flows for Case 1 towards the Private Investor and the JESSICA Fund are illustrated below.


46


-200000000

0

200000000

400000000

600000000

800000000

1000000000

1200000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25


Agg. Cashflow (excl. Construction) - with CP Agg. Cashflow (incl. Construction) - with CP



-150000000-100000000-50000000

050000000

100000000150000000200000000250000000300000000350000000400000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25


Gross Agg. Cashflow - with CP Net Agg. Cashflow - with CP


The evolution of the cash flows for Case 2 towards the Private Investor and the JESSICA Fund are illustrated below.


47


-200000000-100000000

0100000000200000000300000000400000000500000000600000000700000000

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

years




-100000000

0

100000000

200000000

300000000

400000000

500000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

years



The main points to be noted for this scenario are the following:

In this Scenario (2) all the conclusions are similar to the previous Scenario 1 with the deference that all the parties are better off due to the 14,4 % Grant that is coming from the Cohesion Fund


48

A hypothetical discount on the Gate-Fee cost that could be possible obtained in order to have similar (lower) returns as the ones that we had in the 1st Scenario is only about 5% which is not a significant percentage

This means that the participation of a Grant from the Cohesion Fund in the implementation of the selected UDF projects doesn’t seem to play a critical role and doesn’t create any significant change comparing to the conclusions that we have from the implementation of Scenario 1.

As it appears in the analysis of the 2nd Scenario, in the case that the ERDF funds will be committed for the JESSICA implementation then the Cohesion Funds could be used more effectively for funding other SWM projects in the region of Attiki, through Grants.

1.6. Scenario 3 – Financial Analysis: Grant instruments only In this Scenario we take into account a Grant Contribution of 26,4% for Projects 1 - 4 and 17,5 % for project 5

Funding (ERDF & Cohesion Fund)

Budget

Grant from

Cohesion Fund &

ERDF (and National

and/or Private

matching funds)

JESSICA from

ERDF (and National and/or

Private matching

funds)

Project 1 € 153,5 M € 40,52 M -----

Project 2 € 84,4 M € 22,3 M -----

Project 3 € 89 M € 23,5 M -----

Project 4 € 89 M € 23,5 M -----

Project 5 € 143,07 M € 25 M -----

SUM € 558,97 M € 134,8 M -----

As far as the Base Case which is the only applicable one for this scenario, the following assumptions are made:


49

Funding: o Grant (from the Cohesion Fund and ERDF)

o Projects 1 - 4 (26,4%) o Project 5 (17,5%)

o Equity (25%): o Public Entity (5%) o Private partner (95%)

o Commercial loan: with a 6% interest rate o Projects 1 - 4 (48,6%) o Projects 5 (57,52%)

1.6.1. Summary

The structure of the funding as it may be seen in an overview of all projects is given by the following table.

Base Case

Debt noEquity noIRR 10,8%NPV 52.041.777 €Payback 8TotalFunds 559.083.420 €Equity 139.770.855 €Public Entity 5,00%Private Investor 95,00%Jessica 0,00%Debt 284.476.504 €Financial Institution 100,00%Jessica 0,00%Grant 134.836.061 €Total Jessica 0 €


Project

Funding

SCENARIO 3: Projects Portfolio (1-4 & & 5)





50

Base Case

Debt noEquity noIRR 17,9%NPV 107.279.196 €Payback 5TotalFunds 153.510.000 €

Equity 38.377.500 €Public Entity 5,00%Private Investor 95,00%Jessica 0,00%Debt 74.605.860 €Financial Institution 100,00%Jessica 0,00%Grant 40.526.640 €Total Jessica 0 €



Project

Funding



51

Base Case

25:49:2640.526.640 €

IRR 14,82%NPV 64.262.027 €Payback 6TotalFunds 153.510.000 €

IRR 41,83%NPV 124.587.211 €Payback 2Funds 36.458.625 €IRR 66,81%NPV 139.750.876 €Payback 1Funds 36.458.625 €IRR 41,83%NPV 6.557.222 €Payback 2Funds 1.918.875 €IRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR 6,00%Payback 20Funds 74.605.860 €



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





52


Base Case




Project

Funding



53

Base Case

25:49:2622.289.652 €





Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





54


Base Case

Debt noEquity noIRR 4,3%NPV -28.889.102 €Payback 14TotalFunds 89.035.800 €Equity 22.258.950 €Public Entity 5,00%Private Investor 95,00%Jessica 0,00%Debt 43.271.399 €Financial Institution 100,00%Jessica 0,00%Grant 23.505.451 €Total Jessica 0 €



Project

Funding



55

Base Case

25:49:2623.505.451 €

IRR 2,31%NPV -38.094.569 €Payback 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 €

IRR 6,50%NPV -4.984.473 €Payback 14Funds 21.146.003 €IRR 13,46%NPV 3.841.926 €Payback 7Funds 21.146.003 €IRR 6,50%NPV -262.341 €Payback 14Funds 1.112.948 €IRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR 6,00%Payback 20Funds 43.271.399 €



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





56


Base Case

Debt noEquity noIRR 4,3%NPV -28.889.102 €Payback 14TotalFunds 89.035.800 €Equity 22.258.950 €Public Entity 5,00%Private Investor 95,00%Jessica 0,00%Debt 43.271.399 €Financial Institution 100,00%Jessica 0,00%Grant 23.505.451 €Total Jessica 0 €



Project

Funding



57

Base Case

25:49:2623.505.451 €

IRR 2,31%NPV -38.094.569 €Payback 18TotalFunds 89.035.800 €

IRR 6,50%NPV -4.984.473 €Payback 14Funds 21.146.003 €IRR 13,46%NPV 3.841.926 €Payback 7Funds 21.146.003 €IRR 6,50%NPV -262.341 €Payback 14Funds 1.112.948 €IRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR 6,00%Payback 20Funds 43.271.399 €



Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





58


Base Case




Project

Funding



59

Base Case

25:58:1725.008.867 €





Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs





60


Base Case


SCENARIO 3: Projects Portfolio 1-4(Project Perspective)


Project

Funding



61

Base Case

25:49:26109.827.194 €



IRR 51,84%NPV 251.620.618 €Payback 2Funds 98.802.874 €IRR 31,39%NPV 11.071.948 €Payback 3Funds 5.200.151 €IRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR n/aNPV n/aPayback n/aFunds n/aIRR 6,00%Payback 20Funds 202.181.881 €




Project

Private Investor


Public Entity

Jessica Net retunrs




1.6.8. Conclusion

In the following table the results obtained for the 5 projects combined and for each stakeholder are presented:


62

Base Case

24:51:25134.836.061 €



SCENARIO 3: Projects Portfolio 1-4 & 5 (Stakeholder

Perspective)


Jessica Net retunrs



Projects Portfolio (1-4 & & 5)

Private Investor


Public Entity


As far as the Base Case of this scenario is concerned the evolution of cash flows for the private investor is illustrated in the graph below:


63

Scenario 3 - Base Case - Projects 1-4&5 - Private Investor Perspective

-200000000

0

200000000

400000000

600000000

800000000

1000000000

1200000000

1400000000

-2 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25

years


Figure 12: Cash Flow - Scenario 3 - Base Case - Projects 1-4 & 5 - Private Investor Perspective

Taking into consideration that JESSICA is a new financial instrument created to complement the traditional grant model, in this section we present a comparison between the two models. In order to develop this comparison the Base Case project presented in the previous Scenario 1 is used. In this analysis, we assume a total non-repayable grant of €134,8 M for the 5 projects been studied. The Equity: Debt: Grant ratio is 24% Equity / 51% debt / 25% Grant.

The result obtained is an increase of more than 4% to the IRR for each stakeholder. The benefit resulting from a Grant Participation doesn’t appear to be significantly high. In

order to compare these two alternatives (Grant Instrument implementation and JESSICA implementation), we could say that the benefit stemming from the Grant Instruments is similar to this of a respective discount around 10% - 12% to the Gate Fee prices, comparing with the prices that we have to have (with the JESSICA implementation Scenario), in order to have similar IRRs between these two alternatives.

This IRR increases benefit project implementation and stakeholders enrolment, but is obtained at the expense of the non-revolving funds given.

Using JESSICA to leverage urban development initiatives can result to the same amount of structural funds having a multiplier effect, being invested more than once, while the costs of using a grant will not generate any return, being only applied once. In this perspective, grants are more expensive and less effective than JESSICA.


64

On a public perspective, an economic and social benefit deriving from the projects implementation itself and from the public economic gains should be compared with the opportunity costs of using structural funds that could be returned and re-used if these were applied through a JESSICA instrument.

With JESSICA Participation, as we have seen in the previous Scenarios, an increase of stakeholders interest in the project is expected; namely from the financial institutions.

1.7. Main Conclusions from Scenario Analysis

Significant contribution to satisfy Financing needs for the Implementation of large SWM

projects JESSICA –UDF contribution to a better Risk allocation regarding the initial SWM projects

which are going to be implemented in Greece through a Concession / PPP contract JESSICA –UDF contribution to a better distribution of satisfactory economic benefits –

dividends and Investment returns to Stockholders Option for a return of invested Capital back to the JESSICA –UDF in a period of 5 – 7

years (construction period of 3 years included), with a significant possibility for reinvesting – financing new sustainable urban development projects for covering relative needs after the current ERDF period

With the implementation of JESSICA mechanism, the funds will return to the UDF, either on a dividends basis, or on a loan basis (with interest), in order to create a revolving funding system (reinvestment on other projects)

From a public perspective, the examined projects that have serious revenue generating characteristics compensate totally the public investment made

With JESSICA, various inefficiencies could be solved; an advanced mechanism and an efficient system of assuring a proper and most effective use of public funds and resources will be established and more permanent multiplying effect of funds can be expected as a result

This means that, from a public sector perspective, the predominant culture will be transformed from a "giving away" funds culture without any effective control of the final outcome, into a culture of investing public funds more efficiently, where effective outcome control mechanisms will be implemented.


65

Through the implementation of JESSICA instruments not only a risk buffer for the financial institution perspective is created which acts as a leverage force (similar to the one created through the use of Grants), but also an improved project governance and Risk Management mechanism is established; This has a very positive impact on the overall and effective control of project risk and will also improve project quality

Saving Resources from the Public Investments Program; Available resources for other projects

Enhanced leverage of Private Investments in ths SWM Sector Optimization of the medium – long term benefit and the value added that is achieved, for

the Public Sector and the Citizens, through the utilization of Public (EU and National) resources. Avoidance of constrains coming from focusing on short term benefits only (through the participation of Grant instruments only)

Less bureaucracy and time spent by Managing Authority (Ministry) on monitoring and every-day document processing due to the delegation of project selection and fund management from the Managing Authority to external body. Possibility of implementation of the selection procedure from an independence authority - HF Manager (e.g EIB)

Variety and elasticity of financial instruments (loans, equity, guarantees, mezzanine), quicker payment from EC and greater availability of funds

Financial institutions which have the appropriate & significant experience - know how (e.g. relative fund management experience and financing of relative urban development projects), might show interest in undertaking UDF Management

Little chance to build leverage for UDFs or HFs with banks Significant possibility for attracting financial institutions interest to leverage projects

selected by JESSICA, on a project base (e.g. SPVs), particularly in the case of a Bank that will undertake the Management of the Fund

An immediate creation – operation of the JESSICA UDF is needed in order for it to have the possibility of participating in mature SWM projects which are ready to be tendered; appropriate projection of JESSICA participation needed to be included in the Tender Documents


66

2. JESSICA LEGAL & MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

2.1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2.1.1. EU Regulations Regulation 1083/2006 encloses the general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. Article 44 of the Regulation provides for financial engineering instruments giving structural funds the opportunity, “as part of an operational program, to finance expenditure in respect of an operation comprising contributions to support financial engineering instruments for enterprises, guarantee funds, loan funds and for urban development funds”. According to the regulation, urban development funds are defined as funds investing in public-private partnerships and other projects included in an integrated plan for sustainable urban development. Regulation 1828/2006 is setting out the rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 and Regulation (EC) 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund Of particular interest in the context of the current study are articles 43-46 (section 8) which provide for :

• The general provisions applicable to financial engineering instruments (specifications of the business plan submitted by the co-financing partners or shareholders of funds, legal status of funds, management costs, specifications of the funding agreement between the MAs and financial engineering instrument) – article 43

• Additional provisions of the holding funds (funding agreement specifications, evaluation studies) – article 44

• Additional provisions applicable to urban development funds. Article 46 provides for the following :

- Where structural funds finance urban development funds, those funds shall invest in public- private partnerships or other projects included in an integrated plan for sustainable urban development. Such public-private partnerships or other projects shall not include the creation and development of financial instruments such as venture capital, loan and guarantee funds


67

- Urban development funds shall invest by means of equity, loans and guarantees. Urban projects receiving grant assistance from an operational program may also be supported by urban development funds - Where structural funds finance urban development funds, the funds concerned shall not re-finance acquisitions or participations in projects already completed.

2.1.2. NSRF 2007-13

The administration, management and implementation of development interventions in the context of the programming period 2007 – 2013 are regulated by the Law 3614/2007. Regarding financial engineering tools, there is a relative provision in Article 24 of Law 3614/2007, based on the Regulations (EC) 1083/2006 and 1828/2006. More specifically, in Article 24 – paragraph 1 of the Law 3614/2007 there is a provision for the establishment of Funds, or Funds of Funds, which will be financed through Operational Programs of NSRF. The establishment of the above financial engineering instruments is activated via a joint ministerial decision (Minister of Economy and Finance and the competent minister according to the funds’ objectives), which will also provide for the specifications, requirements and appropriate details for the organization and operation of the funds. In addition, in Article 24 - paragraph 3 of the Law 3614/2007 there is provision for the existing state owned financing institution “Consignment & Depository Trust (CDT)” to undertake the management of separate financing entities serving as Urban Development Funds. The operation framework of the UDFs and the responsibilities of the CDT will be determined by a Presidential decree, after a relative joint proposal of the Ministry of Interior & the Ministry of Economy & Finance. Finally in Article 24 - paragraph 4 of the Law 3614/2007 there is a provision for Local Authorities (Municipalities & Prefectures) to associate with Financial Institutions in order to establish UDFs.

2.1.3. Equity Fund Legal Framework The Greek Venture Capital (VC) & Private Equity (PE) industry has been active in Greece and in the South East European Region since the early ‘90s. The Greek Venture Capital market starts to develop and acquire considerable size after 1997. At that point a significant


68

percentage of the investment capitals are raised and two major funds are established by the foreign firm Parthenon Trust, in 1998 (350 million euro) and in 2001 (750 million euro). Since then private and semi-public financing institutions for high-technology ventures were developed to satisfy a slowly emerging demand (i.e. TANEO). A few private VCs emerged either as affiliates to large banks or as initiatives of other financing institutions. Foreign VCs funding research-intensive start-ups were identified. The commercial banks have acted as intermediaries in the flow of small volumes of funding from the Operational Programmes to SMEs and microenterprises, thus reducing the administrative burden of the managing authorities of the programmes and facilitating access to the funds for the beneficiaries. The first attempt to set a legal framework which will give incentives for the growth of the VC industry was made with the enforcement of Law 1775/88. The aforementioned law introduced the Venture Capital Provision Firms (EPEK). These structures were obliged to have the legal form of a Greek Société Anonyme (S.A.). and 51% of the firms’ portfolio should consist of investments in high technology companies. A new legislative regulation was introduced in 2002, by Law 2992/2002 aiming to further support the growth of the Venture Capital Industry. The law foresees the establishment of AKES which is a closed-end venture capital mutual fund, formed as a partnership. The structure is tax transparent for domestic and non-domestic investors with the ability to be exempted from having a permanent establishment when investing through the fund. Both management fees and carried interest are not liable to VAT. AKES pay corporate income taxes at a rate of 20% of profits distributed to shareholders. Corporate income tax does not apply to corporate profits which are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the company for reinvestment. However, the AKES is not free from undue restrictions and can only invest in non-listed Greek Société Anonyme and Limited Liability Companies. The law enables the transformation of EKES operating under Law 2367/1995 to AKES without any tax (article 7). In 2000 Law 2843/2000 established the New Economy Development Fund S.A. (TANEO). TANEO is a Greek government backed Fund-of-Funds. Initially the government was the only investor, but later on the fund raised also private capital. Based in Athens, the fund has 150 million euro under management, 105 of which come from foreign investment institutions and Greek investors and 45 million euro from the Greek government. The fund was structured by the UK fund of funds group Westport Private Equity. TANEO’s mission is to produce financial returns at the same time as jump-starting the venture capital industry and boosting the Greek


69

economy by investing in Greek private equity funds. TANEO invests in all types of funds from buy-outs to earlystage venture capital (venture funds, mutual funds etc). TANEO offers investors government guarantees, but the small size of the Greek market dictates an opportunistic strategy in the allocation of capital. At present TANEO holds a share of 49,99% in eleven VCs of the following SMEs sectors:

IT- Computer Related Biotechnology - Health Industrial products – Materials Eco-Business Agro - Business - Beverages Services

Another state sponsored Fund is the Digital Leap Fund (AKES - based on Equity Fund Law and EC State Aid Decision N 568/2005) for the Information Society sector. The fund was expected to invest 100 million EURO in 30-50 companies for a period of 10 - 12years. A procedure for the selection of the Fund Manager commenced two years ago, but was cancelled. The Fund Manager’ fee was determined as 2%-3% of the Fund’s budget, with additional fee of Fund’s carried interest at 20% of capital gain. In addition to Fund Manager, there is provision for Fund Treasurer (bank or other financial institution). Conclusively, the most relevant legal framework for JESSICA UDF implementation in Greece is the Law 2992/2002 – Article 7, which provides for the establishment of closed-end venture capital mutual fund – AKES. AKES is not a legal entity, but it is a partnership of Fund Shareholders, Fund Manager and Fund Treasurer. Fund Manager should be Société Anonyme Company, with exclusive activity the management of venture capital funds. Fund Treasurer should be an existing financing institution (e.g. bank). The selection of the Fund manager will be via an open tender procedure of which the criteria will be capacity to secure the success and the deal flow of the Fund, the objectives of the Fund and the timing of the investments.

2.2. UDF MANAGEMENT According to the above legal restrictions, the proposed UDF management organization is described in the following picture:


70

Figure 13: Proposed UDF Management Organisation

Key issues Options / Recommendations

Number of UDFs:

(a) One UDF for all types of projects (solid waste management, energy efficiency, urban “green” renovation) (b) Two or more sectoral UDFs The decision will be made taking in account the management restrictions of NSRF / OPs and the administration - management procedures workload in relation to the number of candidate investments.

UDF shareholders and size:

The initial and sole – in short / medium term - UDF shareholder is the Ministry of Economy & Finance, with capital of 250 M € originated from NSRF 2007 – 2013. Private banks and other investors should be invited to contribute to the UDF funds at a later stage, because at the present, the main objective of the UDF is to speed up the revolving character of funds speed, which counteracts the return on investment and therefore, we anticipate low interest by private investors.

Shareholders: MoEc&Fin

Banks / other investors

JESSICA UDF

SPV proj1

SPV proj2

SPV proj3

Investment Committee

Fund Manager

UDF capital Capital

Returns

SPV Applicationsapprovals

Fund Treasurer

equity / loans

Returns


71

Fund Treasurer:

It should be a Financing Institution, selected through an open tender. It is recommended that the Consignment & Depository Trust (CDT) could be assigned as UDF Treasurer. (In that case, there is no need for an open tender selection procedure, since CDT is a public entity).

Fund Manager / Investment Committee

The Fund Manager should be suitably competent, experienced, authorised and qualified company. The Investment Committee will consist of members that will appointed by the MoEcon&Fin. as well as members (directors) of the Fund Manager. It is recommended that the Fund Manager should have decision making authority in investment strategy and proposals selection.


72

3. JESSICA INTRODUCTION TIMETABLE The Timetable of actions for introduction of JESSICA for SWM projects in Greece is presented afterwards. Attention should be taken on the fact that the major Attiki & Thessaloniki SWM projects - candidate for JESSICA funding – are already in the final stage of tender documents completion. Therefore, there is an urgent need for JESSICA - UDF Agreement finalization, in order to meet the deadlines for inclusion optional UDF funding in the projects tender documents.

Figure 14: Timetable of actions for JESSICA introduction in SWM sector in Greece