waste management technology in regions … approach...prevention in the eu. the directive introduces...

The EU’s Approach to Waste Management

1

Waste Management Technology in Regions (WMTR)

Program


February 20, 2015

This document has been prepared for USAID for discussion purposes.


2

USAID Cooperative Agreement AID-114-LA-14-00001

Prepared for:

Environmental Office of the Mission

Economic Development Office

USAID | Caucasus

Prepared by:

International City/County Management Association

777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002-4201

The Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)

27 Betlemi str., 0105, Tbilisi, Georgia

Together with National Expert Tamar Gugushvili

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the USAID or the U.S. Government.


3


Content Chapters Pages Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

1. The EU’s Waste Policy ........................................................................................ 4

2. Waste Management Trends in the EU Member States ..................................... 6

2.1 Prevention .......................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Waste Management Methods ............................................................................... 10

2.3. Waste Policy Instruments ..................................................................................... 13

2.4. Municipal Waste Collection Systems ................................................................... 16

3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 19

References: .................................................................................................................. 20

Annexes ........................................................................................................................ 22


4

Introduction

Waste is a global environmental, social and economic issue. Waste can negatively affect both the environment and human health through releases into the ambient air, soils, surface and ground waters. Waste landfills occupy large areas and cause serious problems, especially for land-scarce countries. Waste can also be considered a loss of potential materials and energy. Waste treatment is associated with considerable social and economic benefits, including the recovery of resources, promotion of innovations and creation of new jobs. Waste generation increases with population growth, economic development and consumption growth. There is also a positive correlation between the volumes of generated waste and GPD per capita. However, the countries with the highest GDP use more sophisticated and efficient waste management systems and technologies. While landfilling was the main method of waste management in the past, waste is currently seen as a valued resource, influencing the evolution of waste management methods. Specifically, a shift from landfilling methods to recycling and recovery is observed. The Waste Hierarchy, in which prevention is the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery is widely used in developed countries.

1. The EU’s Waste Policy

The EU’s waste policy has evolved over the last 30 years through a series of environmental action plans and a framework of legislation that aims to reduce negative environmental and health impacts and create an energy and resource-efficient economy. The EU’s Sixth Environment Action Program (2002-2012) identified waste prevention and management as one of its top four priorities. Its primary objective was to ensure that economic growth would not lead to more and more waste. This led to the development of a long-term strategy on waste. The 2005 Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling resulted in the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, the cornerstone of EU waste policy. The revision brings a modernized approach to waste management, marking a shift away from thinking about waste as an unwanted burden to seeing it as a valued resource1. The Waste Framework Directive2 provides a general framework for waste management and prevention in the EU. The Directive introduces the main concept and principles of waste management such as a waste hierarchy where prevention is the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery (e.g. energy recovery), with disposal in landfill a last resort (Pic. 1).

1 European Commission, Being Wise with Waste: the EU’s Approach to Waste Management, 2010 2 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2009 on Waste


5

Pic. 1. Waste hierarchy

The Waste Framework Directive focuses on waste prevention and puts in place new targets that will help the EU move towards its goal of becoming a “recycling society”. It includes targets for EU Member States to recycle 50% of their municipal waste and 70% of construction waste by 2020. The Directive obliges Member States to take measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, set up separate collections for at least the following materials: paper, metal, plastic and glass. The Directive also obliges the Member States to establish waste prevention programs not later than December 12, 2013. Moreover, the EU legislation, specifically The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC, The Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC and The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU set strict requirements for landfills and incinerators. Recycling and recovery targets are also set for specific wastes (e.g. packaging materials, car waste, electrical and electronic equipment waste, etc.). The Landfill Directive sets landfilled biodegradable waste reduction targets, specifically, it obliges Member States to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste they landfill to 35% of 1995 levels by 20163.

Annex 1. Landfill facts4

The latest EU policy is oriented at transforming its economy, namely turning the EU into a

3 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of Waste, Article 5 4 European Commission: Being Wise with Waste, the EU’s Approach to Waste Management, 2010

Prevention

Re-use

Recycling

Recovery

Disposal

The airtight conditions of landfill sites mean that materials, in particular biodegradable waste, cannot decompose fully and, in the absence of oxygen, give off methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas which is 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide

The methane produced by an average municipal landfill site, if converted to energy, could provide electricity to approximately 20,000 households for a year.

An average municipal landfill site can produce up to 150 m³ of leachate a day, which equates to

the amount of fresh water that an average household consumes in a year.

It is estimated that the materials sent to landfill could have an annual commercial value of around €5.25 billion.


6

smart, sustainable, inclusive and resource effective economy 5 . The General Union Environment Action Program to 20206, sets 9 priority objectives, including turning the Union into a resource-efficient economy. The Action Program pays special attention to transforming waste into a resource and reducing the environmental impacts of consumption through the introduction of a Waste Hierarchy.

2. Waste Management Trends in the EU Member States

According to the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe7 by 2020, waste shall be managed as a resource. Waste generated per capita shall be in absolute decline. Recycling and re-use of waste shall be economically attractive options for public and private actors due to the widespread separate collection and development of functional markets for secondary raw materials. Energy recovery shall be limited to non-recyclable materials, landfilling shall be virtually eliminated and high quality recycling shall be ensured.

2.1 Prevention

The EU’s waste policy is oriented towards waste prevention, which considers altering the positive relationship between waste generation on one hand, and economic growth and negative environmental impacts on the other. The Waste Hierarchy, the guiding framework in EU and national waste policies, gives the highest priority to waste prevention. The legal instruments ensuring the implementation of the EU’s waste policy include the Waste Framework Directive, Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling and the EU’s Seventh Environment Action Program. The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe8 states that by 2020 waste generation should be in decline. The recent Communication from the European Commission, Towards a circular economy: A zero waste program for Europe9, goes further. It proposes a non-binding target for a reduction in food waste of at least 30% by 2025, in addition to the development of, inter alia, national food waste prevention strategies. The Waste Framework Directive set a legal obligation for European Union (EU) Member States to adopt waste prevention programs by December 12, 2013. In 2013 the European Environment Agency (EEA) released the first status report of the implementation of waste prevention programs in the EU10, covering the 28 EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. According to the report, twenty national and regional waste prevention

5 European Commission, Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 6 Decision 1386/2013 EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ 7 European Commission, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, 2011 8 European Commission, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, 2011 9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe 10 According to the requirement of the Article 30 of the Waste Framework Directive, The European Environment Agency includes a review of progress in the completion and implementation of waste prevention programs in its annual report.


7

programs in 18 countries were adopted by the end of 2013. Waste prevention programs vary by sector and the coverage of waste types. E.g. all cover households and the public service sector, a majority of programs cover construction and infrastructure, private services, industry, sale and transport sectors, whereas only eight and six programs accordingly include the agriculture, and mining and raw material sectors. In terms of waste types, municipal/household waste, food waste, construction and demolition waste, electrical and electronic equipment waste (WEEE), packaging waste and hazardous waste are covered by a majority of the programs. The programs include reduction targets for different waste types as well as relevant waste prevention measures and policy instruments. Waste prevention has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. Quantitative prevention considers reduction of the volumes of waste, while qualitative prevention is defined as reducing its hazardous content. This helps reduce human and environmental exposure to hazardous materials. Quantitative waste prevention occurs in production, distribution and consumption phases. In the production phase quantitative waste prevention can be achieved by reducing the quantity of material used in the manufacture of products and increasing the efficiency with which products, once manufactured, are used, using processes that generate less waste and product and service innovations. In the distribution phase, waste can be prevented by good planning of supply and stocks, through waste-reducing marketing and by choosing less waste-intensive packaging options. In the consumption phase waste can be prevented by choosing products that are less waste intensive over their life cycle; keeping products in use for a longer periods; repairing, sharing or hiring products; and by reducing consumption levels. Annex IV of the Waste Framework Directive categorizes the examples of waste prevention measures into 16 measures addressed in three areas:

• Measures that can affect the framework conditions related to the generation of waste, including the use of planning measures, or other economic instruments promoting the efficient use of resources; the promotion of research and development into the area of achieving cleaner and less wasteful products and technologies and the dissemination and use of the results of such research and development; etc.

• Measures that can affect the design, production and distribution phases, including the promotion of eco-design (the systematic integration of environmental aspects into product design; the provision of information on waste prevention techniques with a view to facilitating the implementation of best available techniques by industry; training of competent authorities as regards the insertion of waste prevention requirements in environmental permitting systems; etc.)

• Measures that can affect the consumption and use phase, including economic instruments such as incentives for clean purchases; the use of awareness campaigns; the promotion of creditable eco-labels; the promotion of the reuse and/or repair of appropriate discarded products; etc.

Analysis shows that all programs include at least one measure for each of the three areas. The majority, 51%, focus on the design, production and distribution phase; 39% relate to the consumption and use phase; and 10% focus on the general framework of waste generation.

The existing waste prevention programs contain a great variety of policy instruments, the review identified four main types:

• information instruments;


8

• regulatory instruments;

• economic instruments;

• voluntary agreements. 60% of all waste prevention programs are information/promotion instruments. Labels, awareness-raising campaigns and pilot projects fall into this category. Regulatory instruments account for about 17% of policy instruments. Typically, regulatory instruments set binding standards and norms. Economic instruments such as tax incentives, green public procurement and direct subventions represent around 16% of all policy instruments. Voluntary agreements are the least represented category, with about 7% of the total. Nevertheless, voluntary agreements, mainly initiated by the business sector, seem to be a preferred instrument in some countries and regions (Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Wales). Overall, from 2004–2012, EU-2811 Member States have reduced their waste generation by 6% in absolute terms and by 8% per capita12. In 2003-2012 EU-27 Member States have reduced municipal waste generation by 2% in absolute terms and by 4% per capita. In 1995-2012 municipal waste generation in EU-27 Member States increased by 9%, however, the increasing trend of municipal waste generation observed in 1995-2002 (during this period municipal waste generation increased by 13%, from 226 million tons to 256 million tons) turned into a declining trend in 2003 and 2004, followed by small increase in 2005, 2006 and 2007, then further decline. Between 2007 and 2012 EU-27 Member States reduced municipal waste generation by 5% (13 million tons), generating 247 million tons of municipal waste in 2012. Until 2002, increases in waste generation in EU-27 Member States exceeded population growth. Accordingly, population-related indicators of municipal waste generation also increased. The indicator grew from 474 kg per capita in 1995, to 527 kg per capita in 2002. In 2003 the indicator decreased. The subsequent increase between 2005- 2007 did not raise the indicator above 2002 levels. In 2012, waste generation per capita reached 492 kg, 1997 levels. Decreased waste generation in 2009, in some countries, can be explained by the economic crisis. However, at the EU-27 level, GDP shows an increasing trend with an annual growth rate of 1.7 % during the period from 1995 to 2012. Annual economic growth therefore clearly exceeded that of municipal waste generation in the same period (Diagram 1).

11 The EU is comprised of 28 Member States since 2013, however some available statistical information covers only 27 countries. 12 EEA, Waste Prevention in Europe – the Status in 2013, 2014


9

Diagram 1. Municipal waste generated, population and GDP in the EU-27 from 1995 to 2011, 1995=100 Source: Eurostat, 2012, European Environmental Agency (EEA)

However, the trend of improved waste prevention across countries is not as clear as in the case of recycling. The Diagram below shows reduced waste generation in the period from 2003 to 2012 in 16 countries (Austria, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Bulgaria, Belgium, Hungary, Cyprus, Luxemburg, Ireland, Turkey, Slovenia, Iceland, Latvia and Estonia).

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Municipal waste Population Municipal waste per capitaGDP Municipal waste per EURO


10

Diagram 2. Municipal waste generated in the EU (kg per capita), 2003 and 201213

Source: Eurostat, 2012, European Environmental Agency (EEA)

2.2 Waste Management Methods

According to the Eurostat data, landfilling of municipal waste in the EU during the period of 1995-2012 has considerably decreased on the back of constant growth in alternative waste management methods. In 1995-2012 recycling and composting in the EU-27 increased by 162% and 149% accordingly. However, there are still large differences between the countries in terms of their waste management performance.14

13 see Annex 1 – Table 2 14 European Environmental Agency (EEA) Well-Being and the Environment, Building a Resource-Efficient and Circular Economy in Europe, 2014

-50

50

150

250

350

450

550

650

750

27

Co

un

try

Swit

zerl

and

De

nm

ark

Cyp

rus

Luxe

mb

ou

rgG

erm

any

Mal

taIr

ela

nd

Au

stri

aTh

e N

eth

erla

nd

sFr

ance

Ital

yFi

nla

nd

Gre

ece

No

rway

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

Latv

iaSp

ain

Swed

en

Bu

lgar

iaB

elg

ium

Po

rtu

gal

Hu

nga

ryC

roat

iaTu

rke

yR

om

ania

Mac

ed

on

iaSl

ove

nia

Ice

lan

dSl

ova

kia

Po

lan

dC

zech

Rep

ub

licLa

tvia

Esto

nia

2003 2012


11

Diagram 3. Municipal waste recycling in the European countries15, %


Diagram 4. Landfilled municipal waste in the European countries


15 EU-27 + Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey

64

5957

50 49 48 47 46 45 44 4340 40 39 38

33 32

27 26 25 2523

21 20 2017 16 15

13 12

1 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ge

rman

y

Au

stri

a

Bel

giu

m

Swit

zerl

and

The

Net

her

lan

ds

Swed

en

Luxe

mb

urg

Gre

at B

reat

en

Dan

mar

k

Irla

nd

Icel

and

No

rway

Slo

van

ia

Fran

ce

Ital

y

Fin

lan

d

Esto

nia

Spai

n

Po

rtu

gal

Bu

lgar

ia

Hu

nga

ry

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Cyp

rus

Lith

uan

ia

Po

lan

d

Gre

ece

Latv

ia

Cro

atia

Slo

vaki

a

Mal

ta

Ro

man

ia

Turk

ey

%

34

0.00.40.71.2 2 2 3 3

17

2833 35 36

39 41 42

5054 57

5963 65

69 7074

77 79 79 81 82 82 83 84 84

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

28

Co

un

try

Swit

zerl

and

Ge

rman

y

Swed

en

Bel

giu

m

The

Net

her

lan

ds

No

rway

Den

mar

k

Au

stri

Luxe

mb

urg

Fran

ce

Fin

lan

d

Esto

nia

Gre

at B

rita

in

Irel

and

Ital

y

Slo

ven

ia

Icel

and

Po

rtu

gal

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

po

lon

eTi

esp

ane

Ti

un

gre

Ti

bu

lgar

eTi

serb

eTi

slo

vake

Ti

litva

kvip

rosi

rum

ineT

i

sab

erZn

eTi

alb

aneT

i

mal

ta

xorv

atia

Turq

eTi

latv

ia

mak

edo

nia

%


12

Diverting waste from landfill is an important element in EU policy. The share of landfilled waste is an indicator of waste management practices. In 1995-2012 the amount of landfilled waste in EU-27 Member States fell by 62 million tons (43%), however this index varies greatly among the Member States, specifically, the share of landfilled waste varies between 0-3% in Switzerland (0.0%), Germany (0.4%), Sweden (0.7%), Belgium (1.2%), The Netherlands (1.5%) Norway (1.8%), Denmark (2.5%), and Austria (3.2%), and exceeds 80% in Greece, Albania, Malta, Croatia, Turkey, Latvia and Macedonia. At the EU-27 level, the share of landfilled waste was decreased from 63% in 1995 to 34% in 2012.

Diagram 5. Landfilled, incinerated, recycled and composted municipal wastes in EU-27,

million tons


50

100

150

200

250

300

mln

to

n

Other

Composting

Recycling

Incineration

Landfill

100

200

300

400

500

600

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

kg p

er

cap

ita Other

Composting

Recycling

Incineration

Landfill


13

Diagram 6. Landfilled, incinerated, recycled and composted municipal wastes in EU-27, kg per capita16 Source: Eurostat, 2012, European Environmental Agency (EEA)

At the EU-27 level the share of municipal waste in total generated wastes is 10%. In 2012, 48% of total wastes generated in the EU-27 member states were landfilled, 37% were recovered (without energy recovery and backfilling17), 9% were used for backfilling, 4% were used for energy recovery and 2% were incinerated18. However, these figures vary greatly among the Member States. Specifically, Belgium landfills 7.6% and recovers (without energy recovery and refilling) 73.1% of total generated waste, while Bulgaria landfills 98% of its waste.

2.3. Waste Policy Instruments

Different regulatory and incentive mechanisms are used in the EU Member States to ensure the implementation of Waste Hierarchy principle. These include landfill taxes - a levy charged by public authorities for the disposal of waste in a landfill site based on the weight and volume of landfilled waste. The aim of this tax is to increase landfill costs and encourage diversion of waste from landfill. The level of landfill taxes ranges very widely, from 3 euro per ton in Bulgaria to up to 107 euro per ton in the Netherlands19. Often some portion of revenues generated from these taxes is used for waste reduction and other environmental activities. Landfill taxes increase landfill operation costs and so-called gate fees - charges set by the operators of the landfills for the provision of their services. The total cost to landfill one ton of municipal waste in the EU appears to range from 17.5 euro to up to 155.5 euro.20 Landfill tax, gate fee and other regulatory restrictions prevent landfilling and encourage recycling. A fairly clear and linear correlation is observed between the total landfill charge and the percentage of municipal waste recycled and composted in the Member States 21 . Other regulatory mechanisms used to encourage recycling include: prohibition of landfilling biodegradable waste; prohibition of landfilling municipal wastes without pretreatment; obligatory separate collection; incineration charge; charge for mixed waste streams; etc. Countries that use a wide range of instruments are characterized by a higher rate of recycling. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is widely used in the EU Member States. It makes the manufacturer of a product responsible for the environmental impact of the product and its packaging during the entire life-cycle, including its final disposal. This system is used in many EU countries that require manufacturers to pay for collection and recycling of corresponding amounts of waste. These mechanisms force manufacturers to consider the entire life-cycle of their product in the process of its manufacturing. Both society and individuals play an important role in waste management. Households in many EU countries sort and collect waste (paper, plastic, metal, garden waste, etc.) in

16 see Annex 1 – Diagrams 4-7, Table 3 17 Backfilling is a recovery operation implying permanent disposal of materials without diverting back to economic cycle. Backfilling is used for e.g. melioration purposes, trench backfilling, or engineering purposes during landscaping and other processes when waste can substitute other materials. 18 Eurostat online data code: env_wastrt 19 European Commission, DG Environment, Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances, 2012 20 same 21 EEA, Managing Municipal Solid Waste , a review of achievements in 32 European countries, 2013


14

different containers. Separate collection increases the quality and the cost of received materials and the potential amount of products manufactured from these materials. The process of diverting biodegradable municipal waste from landfill commenced at different times in EU countries, and has proceeded at varying speeds. Nonetheless, the findings show that the Landfill Directive has been effective, advancing the closure of landfills and increasing the use of alternative waste management options22. Member States can be categorized in three waste management 'groupings', clustered according to their strategies for diverting municipal waste away from landfill:

1. The first grouping comprises of countries that maintain high levels of both material recovery and incineration, where the levels of both material recovery and incineration exceed 25% (Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Luxemburg, France, Finland);

2. The second grouping brings together countries with high (>25%) material recovery

rates and low (<25%) levels of incineration (Estonia, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Iceland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria);

3. The third grouping contains those countries whose material recovery and incineration

levels are both low (<25%) (Serbia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Romania, Greece, Albania, Malta, Croatia, Turkey, Latvia, Macedonia).

Most of the countries in the first group introduced a landfill tax and a ban on landfilling specific types of waste (biodegradable waste). The ban encouraged separate collection of organic waste and recyclable waste and the incineration of biodegradable waste. Extended producer responsibility, packaging material collection systems and other mechanisms were also applied. Denmark additionally introduced packaging taxes, (packaging) collection and delivery systems, etc. Some countries in this group also introduced policy instruments early, often before the adoption of the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste and the Landfill Directive. Denmark has the longest history of waste incineration. The first incinerator in Denmark was built in 1903. Heat and electricity generated through waste incineration made 4% of energy consumption in Denmark in 2005. The highest rates of municipal waste recycling are observed in Germany (64%), Austria (59%) and Belgium (57%). In 2007 Austria and Germany were in the second grouping, however, as a result of an increase in the share of material recovery and incineration, facilitated by the introduction of a ban on landfilling of biodegradable waste in 2004 and 2005 accordingly, these countries shortly joined the first grouping. The rate of composting and recycling has been always high in these countries. Recycling is preferable in Germany, while Austria is characterized by the highest rate of composting among EU countries.

In general, countries in the second grouping introduced policy instruments after adopting the Packaging Directive in 1994 and the Landfill Directive in 1999. In a majority of this group’s collection systems for packaging materials were introduced in the 1990s. The ban on landfilling specific waste fractions was introduced later. Mechanical biological treatment as an alternative to incineration was also introduced in these countries. Other instruments include: landfill tax, packaging tax (Hungary, Estonia), plastic bag tax (Ireland), obligatory

22 EEA, Diverting Waste from Landfill, Effectiveness of Waste Management Policies in the European Union, 2009


15

separate collection of recyclable materials (packaging), collection and delivery systems, etc. In 2007 the new Member State of the group: Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovenia as well as Portugal and the UK, were grouped under the third grouping. At that time the new Member States were in the process of implementing EU policy, the UK started the implementation of the Landfill Directive 4 years later, Portugal started the implementation of the Packaging Directive after a 4 year delay. In 2005 the UK introduced a Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme to provide local authorities with some flexibility in meeting targets set for biodegradable waste by the Landfill Directive. Specifically, the local authorities were allocated annual allowances for landfilling municipal waste until 2020. The allowances were allocated in a way to reduce total amounts of landfilled municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020. According to the requirements of the Landfill Directive, local authorities have the right to trade allowances, specifically, if a local authority manages to divert more waste from landfill through e.g. recycling, it can sell the right on landfilling. Local authorities may “save” unused allowances and use them in the future. The third grouping consists of Greece, new Member States and candidate countries. Greece started implementation of the Landfill Directive and the Packaging Directive after a 4 year delay. Landfill tax was introduced only in Latvia. Some countries introduced packaging taxes, a (packaging) collection and delivery system also exists in Lithuania. None of these countries have introduced a ban on landfilling certain types of waste, packaging collection systems exist in all countries, separate collection systems have been introduced in Latvia and Slovenia. The results of the analysis show that the introduction of a ban on landfilling certain waste streams in the countries of the first grouping – with a high rate of recovery and incineration - led to the reduction of landfilled waste. In Germany, Sweden and Austria a reduction in the amounts of landfilled waste was observed one year after the introduction of the ban. A similar result, but at a slower rate, was achieved in Denmark. Diversion of waste from landfills in all these four countries was also facilitated by the introduction of other measures such as separate collection of packaging materials and landfill taxes. These measures, along with the ban on landfilling biodegradable waste, led to positive results in Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovenia. The introduction of a system of separate collection of packaging materials in countries with low rates of material recovery and incineration – Czech Republic, Poland and Latvia appeared to be effective in terms of reducing the volumes of landfilled waste after one year. As of 2012, the Czech Republic and Poland are among the countries in the second grouping. The requirement of separate collection for at least two types of recyclable waste, along with the introduction of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme, led to a reduction in the volumes of landfilled waste in the UK. The studies show that high landfill tax is an effective measure for diverting waste from landfill and especially for encouraging recycling of heavier waste streams. However, this measure is less effective for waste prevention. Landfill tax in the EU-27 is euro 80 per ton on average.23 Along with landfill taxes bans on landfilling different waste streams, including household waste, combustible waste, biodegradable waste, untreated waste, unsorted waste, tires and rubber waste, etc. are introduced in different countries. The ban on landfilling waste with TOC> 5% has been applied in Austria since 2008, while Norway has banned landfilling all waste

with TOC> 10% since 200924.

23 Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP), Landfill Taxes and Bans, 2015 24 same


16

2.4. Municipal Waste Collection Systems

Collection systems Waste collection and transportation are large cost elements in municipal solid waste management. In countries with sophisticated waste incineration and sanitary landfilling, waste collection and transportation accounts for about half of the total waste disposal costs. In developing and transition countries with less sophisticated waste dumping, the collection and transportation costs may account for up to 90 percent of the total disposal costs. A container system of waste collection in which the population dispose of their waste in shared containers is widely used in EU countries. For separate collection separate containers for recyclable waste are used. There exist different waste collection systems based on the population density and other factors. E.g. within certain systems the population delivers recyclable waste, especially hazardous and bulk waste to recycling stations. In case of the low population density recycling stations can be placed near markets or retail stores, or at crossroads in the case of villages. In certain cases people are awarded for their delivery. E.g. the population of Forli (Italy) is rewarded with tickets for local public transport or stationery25. Often, people can deliver waste to recycling stations free of charge, however they are charged if waste is collected by a waste management company. Such incentives are used to encourage citizen participation in the separate collection of waste. In some cases the population disposes of waste not in shared but in individual containers placed at their houses, or puts waste wrapped in plastic at gates to be picked up by a waste collection company. Such individual containers, or so-called kerbside collection methods, are used in settlements characterized by low population density. Individual collection methods include door-to-door waste collection systems, where a waste collector collects waste from individual residents, or yard collection, where a waste collector enters property to remove waste. The practice of hazardous waste collection in the city of Copenhagen (Denmark) is notable for its comfort level. There are a number of multi-storey dwellings in the city that employ a caretaker. These caretakers are the local contacts for household hazardous waste collection and inhabitants can hand their household hazardous wastes directly to their caretaker, who places them in suitable interim storage until collection by a dedicated company.26 Waste collection systems include underground waste collection systems as well. Underground waste collection systems can operate as separate collection points or include underground automated vacuum (pneumatic) waste collection systems. The automated vacuum waste collection system consists of underground canals conveying waste to collection points. Both systems allow residual and recyclable waste to be collected. The advantages of the use of underground storages include: avoidance of containers, improved hygienic and aesthetic conditions, low operational costs and increased collection interval due to increased capacity and the compaction mechanism. The above features can lead to a reduction in collection and transportation costs ranging from 5% to 30%. 27 Automated vacuum (pneumatic) waste

25 ISWA Working Group of Collection and Transport Technologies, Overview of Household Collection Systems in Different Cities and Regions, 2004 26 same 27 ISWA, National Solid Waste Association, Underground Solutions for Urban Waste Management: Status and Perspectives, 2013


17

collection systems provide not only the temporal storage but also the transportation of waste through underground pipeline network to a waste collection terminal. These systems provide an attractive alternative to conventional vehicle-operated waste collection, as they offer advantages in terms of reduced traffic-related problems, such as noise, accidents, CO2 emissions, congestion and improve overall safety and hygienic levels. This speeds up the whole waste collection process and is not dependent on weather conditions or other external events. Major benefit from the usage of automated vacuum (pneumatic) waste collection systems is the minimized operating cost for the waste handling, 2 to 3 times lower than conventional collection methods. The drawbacks are related to the initial investment required for the setting up of the system, which can be substantially higher (30%-50%) than of a respective surface collection scheme. Also, currently through this system is problematic collection of certain fractions of municipal waste such as cardboard, glass, electrical and electronic equipment waste (WEEE) or other bulky waste types. Nevertheless, the reduced operation cost can result in a viable investment scenario, which, in the long run, can counterbalance the high capital expenditure. Cost recovery Cost recovery of waste management is very important in Member States. The Waste Framework Directive requires that the costs of disposing of waste must be borne by the holder of waste, by previous holders or by the producers of the product in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. Moreover, the Member States may decide that the costs of waste management are to be borne partly or wholly by the producer of the product from which the waste came and that the distributors of such products should share these costs28. All Member States have introduced charges for waste management services based on the polluter pays principle. There is a broad range of both the basis for charging and the amounts charged by Member States. In some countries the amounts of fees are based on volumes of generated wastes, while other countries use fixed or general municipal fees, where waste management fees are included. Fixed annual fees per household in the EU Member States range from euro 40 (Catalonia, Spain) to up to euro 2,415 (for a large 1,100l bin in Stuttgart, Germany). Fees per kg range from euro 0.17 (Slovakia) to euro 0.36 (Sweden)29. Fees can be based on volumes of bins, or refuse bags. Also, fees can vary based on the frequency of waste collection and other parameters. In Vienna (Austria) a tax on residual waste has been introduced. The annual fee is calculated by multiplying the number of residual waste containers, the number of annual pick-ups and a basic amount (dependent on the container size). The basic amount for a single pick-up of a 110/120 liter residual waste bin is determined to euro 3.16 (incl. 10% VAT), larger containers are calculated in relation to the 110/120 liter bin. Beside waste collection and treatment, the residual waste fees finance the collection and treatment of all recyclable wastes except package wastes, which are financed through another system. For additional services, such as bulky waste, non-household waste, etc. collection and transportation there exist additional tariffs from individual charges. It is only the collection of hazardous waste and bulky waste that is done in recycling stations, established for people to deliver their waste free of charge. Waste management in Tampere (Finland) is financed by waste producers (except for part of the producer responsibility waste) using the polluter pays principle. The households are billed

28 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2009 on Waste, Article 14 29 European Commission, DG Environment, Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances, 2012


18

according to the volume of waste they produce and they can decide the volume and the collection interval to suit their needs. The regional household waste regulation orders the type of waste bins, maximum collection interval and the requirements to separate collection (degree of separation). The waste fees also covers domestic hazardous waste management and part of the collection costs of recyclables. In Copenhagen (Denmark) a waste collection fee is calculated for each individual household, based on the nominal volume of the containers for residual waste and the frequency of collection. There is an additional fee for distances exceeding 15 meters from the vehicle stop (kerbstone) to the container stand. All other services: bulky waste, garden waste, hazardous waste collection as well as recycling schemes, and the use of recycling centers, are “free” – i.e. included in the fee for collection of residual waste. Waste collection fees in the EU countries are based mainly on the volumes of waste and number of waste containers. A dynamic system based on the volume of waste, allowing the population to change the volume of their containers on a daily basis, exists in Copenhagen. Waste weighing systems are introduced in a number of countries where waste trucks are equipped with weighing machines and waste producers pay based on the weight of generated waste. Therefore those who produce more waste pay more. This system requires sophisticated waste trucks, which are not affordable for many countries. It should also be considered that fees based on the weight of waste increases the risk of illegal dumping. Operational safety The EU countries pay great attention to operational safety within waste collection systems. Specifically, the rules for storage, washing and placement of containers are established to ensure health and safety of workers. Extensive analysis and evaluation of possible risks and unhealthy working conditions, provision of protective clothing for all workers, continuous instructions to all employees on operational safety, continuous analysis of all accidents and “near accidents”, occupational medicinal care, inclusive preventive medical checkups, and technical improvement of equipment and collection trucks are undertaken on a regular basis. Since the 1990s, new working environment regulations of Denmark forbid the carrying of waste bins and sacks. To overcome staircases, steps etc. a large number of electric lifts, ramps, etc. have been fitted to old buildings, vacuum systems have also been installed. Waste sorting methods Municipal waste sorting can occur in two manners. Sorting at the point of origin means separate collection of recyclable waste, including paper, metal, plastic, glass, etc. by waste producers in specially allocated, different bins. In the case of centralized sorting, all waste streams are placed in one bin to be transported to waste treatment plants for further sorting and recycling. Other waste streams are combusted for energy recovery. Ashes are buried at the landfill. Many waste experts consider separate collection – the sorting of recyclable and reusable waste at the point of their origin – to be a more viable option both economically and environmentally.30 A system of waste sorting at the point of origin incurs low initial setup and moderate operational costs. This system delivers materials of higher quality and costs, saves energy and creates more jobs per unit material as compared to centralized sorting plants, landfills and incinerators. Soring at the pint of origin is associated with limited air and water pollution. This method also facilitates waste reduction and recycling, and public awareness raising.

30 Miller, Living in the Environment, 2005


19

Construction and operation of centralized waste sorting plants requires substantial investments, which often become a reason for their closure. In cases of improper operation, these plants generate highly toxic ashes that have to be disposed of safely. They are economically feasible only if large amounts of waste are being treated. This can encourage the generation of larger amounts of waste, contradicting modern approaches to waste management.31 The studies show that sorting at the point of origin is beneficial not only in terms of quality of materials and high rates of prevention and recycling, but also in terms of cost effectiveness e.g. to re-melt a new glass container to high clarity requires sorting by color. Mixed glass or glass grit is unsuitable. Generally they are sold as aggregates at lower prices. There is also a big environmental benefit to recycling glass - each tonne re-melted glass in the UK saves 314kgs of CO2, helping to prevent climate change. The use of glass grit has no climate related benefits32. Therefore, glass waste has to be sorted by color at the point of origin. Due to these reasons, the Waste Framework Directive requires the sorting of wastes at the point of their origin wherever technically, environmentally and economically practicable33. The comparison of collection systems used in EU countries34 shows that all cities and regions covered by the study are aware of the advantages of waste separation at the point of origin. Waste separation programs at the point of origin exist in all cities and regions covered by the review. Although separated collection systems and scales vary, a majority of cities and regions have established separate collection of organic waste, paper, glass, metal, light plastic, as well as bulk waste and electrical and electronic equipment waste (WEEE).

3 Conclusions

Although the EU Member States are at different levels in terms of the application of modern waste management methods and technologies, the progress of European countries up the Waste Hierarchy is evident. Specifically, the amount of recycled waste is increasing and the amount of landfilled waste is decreasing. This is facilitated by a combination of strategies, regulations and policy instruments oriented towards establishing a ‘recycling society’ that is aware of the need for resource conservation through waste reuse and material recovery. Current trends in the EU are oriented towards a ‘circular economy’ where reusing, repairing and recycling is a rule and ‘waste’ is an outdated concept. This is a system that conserves resources, prevents waste landfilling and saves materials to the greatest possible extent. This system gives the opportunity to change economic driving forces in such a way as to make them environmentally friendly and able to improve the quality of life for citizens. The existing regulations and targets set in European legislation have been crucial drivers of improved waste management: they stimulate innovation in recycling and reuse, limit landfilling, reduce losses of resources and create incentives for behavioral change. Despite

31 same 32 Zerowaste Europe, Closing the Loop of Materials, Phasing Out Toxics and Emissions 33 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2009 on Waste, Article 11 34 ISWA National Solid Waste Association, Working Group of Collection and Transport Technologies, Overview of Household Collection Systems in Different Cities and Regions, 2004


20

this, the EU still generates about five tons of waste per capita per year on average, and little more than a third of that is effectively recycled. Therefore, the EU continues to modernize its waste policy and targets35 to reduce waste generation, recycle waste into a major, reliable source of raw materials for the Union, recover energy only from non-recyclable materials and virtually eliminate landfilling. Taking waste policy further will bring significant benefits for growth and job creation at relatively low or no cost, while contributing to a better environment.

References:

Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants, CEWEP, Landfill Taxes and Bans, 2015

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of Waste

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 November 2009 on

Waste

Decision 1386/2013 EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013

on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of

our planet’

European Commission, Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020 A strategy for

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

European Commission, Being Wise with Waste: the EU’s Approach to Waste Management,

2010

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions “Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe

European Commission, EU Waste Policy, The Story Behind the Strategy

European Commission, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, 2011

European Commission, Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances, 2012

European Environmental Agency, EEA, Waste Prevention in Europe – the Status in 2013, 2014

European Environmental Agency, EEA, Managing Municipal Solid Waste, a review of achievements in 32 European countries, 2013

European Environmental Agency, EEA, Diverting Waste from Landfill, Effectiveness of Waste

Management Policies in the European Union, 2009

European Environmental Agency, EEA, The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes, 2007

35 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe


21

European Environmental Agency, EEA, Waste Prevention in Europe – the Status in 2013,

2014

European Environmental Agency, EEA, Well-Being and the Environment, Building a

Resource-Efficient and Circular Economy in Europe, 2014

Eurostat, online data code: env_wastrt

ISWA National Solid Waste Association, Working Group of Collection and Transport

Technologies, Overview of Household Collection Systems in Different Cities and Regions,

2004

ISWA, National Solid Waste Association, Underground Solutions for Urban Waste Management: Status and Perspectives, 2013 Miller, Living in the Environment, 2005

Zerowaste Europe, Closing the Loop of Materials, Phasing Out Toxics and Emissions


22

Annexes

Diagram 1. Municipal waste generated in the EU (kg per capita), 2003 and 2012


-50

50

150

250

350

450

550

650

750

27

Co

un

try

Swit

zerl

and

Den

mar

k

Cyp

rus

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Ger

man

y

Mal

ta

Irel

and

Au

stri

a

The

Net

he

rlan

ds

Fran

ce

Ital

y

Fin

lan

d

Gre

ece

No

rway

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

Latv

ia

Spai

n

Swed

en

Bu

lgar

ia

Bel

giu

m

Po

rtu

gal

Hu

nga

ry

Cro

atia

Turk

ey

Ro

man

ia

Mac

edo

nia

Slo

ven

ia

Icel

and

Slo

vaki

a

Po

lan

d

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Latv

ia

Esto

nia

2003 2012


23

Table 1. Municipal waste generated, population and GDP in EU-27, 1995-2012

Municipal waste generated, population and GDP in EU-27, 1995-2012

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Change (%)

1995-2012

Municipal waste mln ton 226 232 239 239 246 253 252 256 251 252 254 258 260 259 255 254 251 247 9%

Municipal waste kg per capita 474 485 499 497 511 523 521 527 514 514 516 522 523 520 511 506 500 492 4%

Municipal waste kg per 1 euro 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 24 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 21 21 -19%

Population mln 477 478 479 481 482 483 484

486 488 490 492 494 496 498 500 501 503 501 5%

GDP (1012 EUR) 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 34%



24

Table 2. Municipal waste generation by countries, kg per capita

Municipal waste generation by countries, kg per capita

1995 1999 2003 2006 2009 2012

Change (%)

1995-2012

EU27 474 511 514 522 511 492 4%

Belgium 451 465 468 485 467 456 1%

Bulgaria 694 598 599 570 598 460 -34%

Czech Republic 302 327 280 297 317 308 2%

Denmark 521 577 598 666 693 668 28%

Germany 623 638 601 564 592 611 -2%

Estonia 371 412 416 398 338 279 -25%

Ireland 512 577 730 792 656 570 11%

Greece 301 392 427 443 461 503 67%

Spain 510 613 646 590 542 464 -9%

France 475 507 506 536 535 534 12%

Croatia : : : 384 405 391

Italy 454 498 521 552 533 529 17%

Cyprus 595 620 670 694 729 663 11%

Latvia 264 256 304 425 352 301 14%

Lithuania 426 351 389 405 381 469 10%

Luxemburg 587 646 678 683 679 662 13%

Hungary 460 483 464 468 430 402 -13%

Malta 395 476 580 624 649 589 49%

The Netherlands 539 582 586 597 589 551 2%

Austria 437 563 607 640 588 552 26%

Poland 285 319 260 321 316 314 10%

Portugal 384 433 449 465 520 453 18%

Romania 342 314 353 396 381 389 14%


25

Slovenia 596 550 418 516 524 362 -39%

Slovakia 295 261 298 302 324 324 10%

Finland 413 484 466 494 480 506 23%

Sweden 386 428 470 496 482 462 20%

UK 498 569 591 583 522 472 -5%

Iceland 426 454 484 563 355 338 -21%

Norway 624 594 402 459 470 477 -24%

Switzerland 594 635 667 709 702 694 17%

Macedonia : : : : 354 381

Serbia : : : 233 360 364

Turkey

441 459 443 412 419 390 -12%

Bosnia and Herzegovina : : : : 328 346



26

Diagram 2. Municipal waste generated, population and GDP in the EU-27 from 1995 to 2011, 1995=100


80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Municipal waste Population Municipal waste per capita GDP Municipal waste per EURO


27

Diagram 3.Muncipal waste recycled in European countries 36 %


36 EU-27 + Croatia, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey

64

5957

50 49 48 47 46 45 44 4340 40 39 38

33 32

27 26 25 2523

21 20 2017 16 15

13 12

1 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%


28

Diagram 4. Waste Management in EU-27, kg per capita


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Other Composting Recycling Inceneration landfill


29

Table 3. Landfilled, incinerated, recycled and composted municipal wastes in EU-27, 1995-2012

Landfilled, incinerated, recycled and composted municipal wastes in EU-27

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Change (%)

1995-2012

million ton

Landfilled 143 140 142 140 139 139 134 131 124 117 109 109 106 99 96 93 86 81 -43%

Incinerated 32 33 35 35 36 39 40 41 41 44 48 51 52 55 56 57 60 58 81%

Recycled 25 28 32 35 40 40 42 46 47 49 52 54 59 60 61 63 65 66 162%

Composted 14 16 17 18 19 24 24 26 26 28 29 31 32 35 35 34 34 36 149%

other 12 14 13 11 12 11 12 12 12 13 16 13 11 10 7 7 6 6 -50%

kg per capita

Landfilled 300 294 297 290 289 288 278 269 255 239 221 220 213 199 192 186 171 162 -46%

Incinerated 67 69 72 74 75 80 82 85 85 90 98 104 105 110 111 114 119 116 72%

Recycled 53 59 66 72 82 83 88 95 97 99 105 109 119 120 122 125 129 132 150%

Composted 30 34 36 37 40 49 50 53 54 58 60 63 64 71 70 68 68 71 137%

other 24 30 27 24 25 24 24 24 24 27 33 27 22 20 15 13 13 11 -53%



30

Diagram 5. Share of landfilled municipal waste in the European countries


34.1

0.0 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.5 3.2

17.5

28.4

32.934.8

36.439.340.7

42.3

49.5

54.456.5

59.2

63.365.4

69.169.8

74.177.1

78.879.480.782.282.382.783.884.2

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%


31

Diagram 6. Waste management in the EU countries in 2012


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%2

8 C

ou

ntr

y

Swit

zerl

and

Ge

rman

y

Swed

en

Bel

giu

m

The

Net

her

lan

ds

No

rway

De

nm

ark

Au

stri

a

Luxe

mb

urg

Fran

ce

Fin

lan

d

Esto

nia

Gre

at B

rita

in

Irel

and

Ital

y

Slo

ven

ia

Icel

and

Po

rtu

gal

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Po

lan

d

Spai

n

Hu

nga

ry

Bu

lgar

ia

Serb

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Lith

uan

ia

Cyp

rus

Ro

man

ia

Gre

ece

Alb

ania

Mal

ta

Cro

atia

Turk

ey

Latv

ia

Mac

edo

nia

Other

Composting

Recycling

Incineration

Landfill


32

Diagram 7. Waste management in the EU countries in 2012, kg per capita


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

28

Co

un

try

Swit

zerl

and

Ge

rman

y

Swed

en

Bel

giu

m

The

Net

her

lan

ds

No

rway

De

nm

ark

Au

stri

a

Luxe

mb

urg

Fran

ce

Fin

lan

d

Esto

nia

Gre

at B

rita

in

Irel

and

Ital

y

Slo

ven

ia

Icel

and

Po

rtu

gal

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Po

lan

d

Spai

n

Hu

nga

ry

Bu

lgar

ia

Serb

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Lith

uan

ia

Cyp

rus

Ro

man

ia

Gre

ece

Alb

ania

Mal

ta

Cro

atia

Turk

ey

Latv

ia

Mac

edo

nia

Other

Composting

Recycling

Incineration

Landfill

waste management technology in regions … approach...prevention in the eu. the directive introduces...

Documents