IO 1 RESEARCH STUDY: Waste Management Problems in Europe

The waste cycle in Europe is based on 3 fundamental principles: waste prevention, re-use and recycling and improvement of final disposal and monitoring.

How much waste Europe produces !

In 2012, 2515 million tonnes of waste were produced in Europe in the 28 member countries (special editions, or non-urban waste), estimated at a per capita production of 4948 kg per inhabitant. Estimation to be taken with springs if we analyze the differences between the various member countries: this special ranking is led by Bulgaria with 20 million tonnes per capita per year, followed by Finland, Estonia, Sweden and Luxembourg. Croatia, Montenegro, Norway and Portugal are among the most virtuous countries in terms of production (and therefore to be praised according to the principle of prevention).

The European statistical average is increasing compared to 2008 and 2012, but the Eurostat justifies this upward trend with the economic crisis of those years and with the consequent lower productivity. If we compare it with the early 2000s, the trend is indeed clearly improving.

Of the 2515 million tons of waste in Europe, in 2012 around 2,303 million were treated.

None of the 28 member countries succeeded in achieving the arduous goal of total recycling of waste. Almost half of these were landfilled (48%) or treated by other methods than incineration. 45.7% of the waste was destined for recovery operations, the most virtuous, those which should be aimed at in a zerowaste perspective (together with the reduction in production): among these, recycling reaches a percentage equal to 36%. Still too little.

The incinerators have met with great success: a total of 6% of the total waste in Europe was treated with this technique, but only 4.4% of this percentage contributed to the supply of electricity. Romania, Malta, Greece and Bulgaria are among the least virtuous countries, therefore mostly recurring to landfills.

The goal set by the European commission is to reach a recycling threshold of 70% by 2030.

According to the latest report prepared by the same and published in March this year, the recycling threshold reached in 2014 amounts to 28% . Each person according to estimates would produce 475 kg of urban waste per year, a much smaller amount than the 527 kg of 2002. Merit to EU policies, but separating the ranking of the various countries we realize that in Europe those who recycle and perform more operations than composting is Germany (64%), followed by Slovenia (61%), Austria (58%) and Belgium (55%).

The countries in which more waste is burned in the waste-to-energy plants deserve special mention: Denmark, Finland, Estonia and Sweden. Paradoxically, Denmark is the European state with the highest production of urban waste, but with the lowest presence of landfills on the territory: thanks to these plants useful for the production of electricity.

These states even import large quantities of waste from other member countries, to then incinerate them and obtain useful energy for heating.

 However, the question of health risks arising from these machines remains open, so much so that they have been classified as “first-class unhealthy factories that must be isolated in the countryside and kept away from homes.

Systems and management of separate waste collection in the main European countries.

The European Commission report “Assessment of separate collection schemes in the 28 capitals of the EU ” identifies the five European capitals on the basis of a series of specifically designed evaluation indicators (Ljubljana, Helsinki, Tallinn, Dublin and Vienna), with the best results also identifying common elements that could be its success factors.

The analysis considers the legal framework and the practical implementation of separate collection systems at national level and in individual capitals. The first three positions on separate waste collection are occupied by Ljubljana (Slovenia) with 55.4%, Tallinn (Estonia) at 47.2% and Helsinki (Finland) with38.6%.

In Finland it works like this: private is beautiful !

In Finland, garbage is a private thing. It is not possible to see bins around the streets, you forget the dirt and if there is a waste truck it is certainly sober and odorless. In Finland, for example, the presence of the voids of bottles from daily garbage has been completely eliminated. All the plastic and glass bottles are reusable, in the sense that when I buy the orange juice I pay the drink plus the vacuum, the latter is returned in special automatic machines at the supermarkets, which issue a receipt with the value of the voids I can use to go shopping or get your cash back. This greatly reduces the volume of the garbage bag and also reduces the use of raw material. When a void costs 50 cents, people bring it back. Obviously the final bag is also reduced thanks to the differentiation of organic waste and the recycling of paper, cardboard and newspapers. All this only by having at home a bucket divided into three compartments and under the house the buckets that are emptied twice a week. The containers are not exposed to public view but are located in special rooms where you enter with the key of the building, so everyone is responsible for their own room. Once diligently separated, the garbage is collected by the trucks that enter the garages or in the back of an apartment building on certain days of the week, and taken to an incinerator or transformed, recycled, reused. In short, they are our old condominium garbage dumpsters that disappeared in the early eighties to make way for the containers we now have on the streets.

In Slovenia, instead, the focus is on “zero waste”

Ljubljana aims to become a “zero waste society”. Ljubljana is in fact the only European capital to have adhered to the Zero Waste strategy, with a separate collection level of 63%. In ten years Ljubljana has changed its face: today it boasts a completely pedestrianized historic center, 220 km of cycle paths, green areas that cover 75% of the surface. And over 35% of Ljubljana happen to buy second-hand stuff. In the series: reuse (and repair) is better than recycling. In the last 10 years the amount of separate collection has increased from 16 to 145 kilos per citizen and the goal is to reach 75% by 2025. In large green areas there is also room for urban agriculture: 46 hectares of land are intended for vegetable gardens in 23 different areas. Citizens can rent a plot of land on communal land, and the city also helps put land owners in contact with aspiring gardeners.

Tallin: single waste stream

In Tallinn, Estonia, there are different models of waste management for the separate collection of waste managed by the municipality and private actors. Tallinn collects about 53% of urban waste separately. Almost 100% of families are covered with a door-to-door system of paper, organic waste, mixed waste and packaging. The various producers of domestic or non-domestic waste can choose from whom to collect their waste whether from the municipality or from private companies. In the city there are also widespread waste collection centers organized by the municipality and including private homes, businesses and condominiums. This has resulted in the reduction of containers along the roads and in the green areas as well as an optimization of the collection rounds. In Estonia, waste is not separated into domestic or non-domestic waste, but constitutes a single flow of urban waste.

Waste collection in Dublin: the key to success was privatization

The waste collection process in Dublin is very different from the other reality. In fact, unlike what happens in the main cities of some european countries  in the Irish capital there are no classic medium / large bins located in the streets and ecological stations for collecting particular products can be counted on the fingertips. In Ireland, the garbage management service is private and you need to organize it yourself by contacting specialized companies.

Once the registration procedure has been finalized, just wait a few days to receive the bins or buy the special bags for waste collection.

The collection with the bins system is offered only in certain areas or districts of the city at the company’s discretion. This is the most economical, immediate and easy to manage option. The company in fact delivers to the user 3 bins of different colors: Black Bin = Common Waste; Brown bin = Organic waste; Green bin = Waste to be recycled.

Prices are based on weight and more information will be provided upon registration. In the case of a house with 5 rooms, the monthly cost is approximately € 20. The other option available for waste collection in Dublin is the use of special bags provided by the company itself. This system is much more expensive than the previous one and the prices applied are as follows: Common waste bag = € 10.95 for a total of 3 yellow bags; Waste bag to be recycled = € 9.00 for a total of 6 transparent bags.

Privatizing the service has pushed urban hygiene companies to compete with each other to have an excellent quality of household waste. And as such communication to families is very clear about what can and cannot be included in each container, as well as providing additional network services such as text messages, online reminders on account withdrawal days and feedback on collected waste.

Families also have an interest in choosing the best service provider for their services.

Reducing contamination is the biggest challenge. Waste collection companies monitor the performance of households and the types of waste entering the recyclable waste container. Some companies have performed tests with cameras mounted on collection vehicles to identify the addresses that deliver unsorted waste contaminated with recyclable waste. In this way, they can identify the source of contamination and take appropriate measures.

Vienna: everything is centralized and controller

In the city of Vienna, waste management is entirely municipal. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the main disposal and recovery plants are all (directly or indirectly) owned by the municipality. The bins are placed in the house for paper and undifferentiated. In the neighboring areas there are the other bins for glass, damp, plastic, cans and metals and often, but not always, old clothes, shoes and bags for the various associations that deal with the needy. There is also the collection of tetrapaks that are left in front of the front door and are picked up every two weeks. The main success factors of recycling in Vienna are the long tradition of separate waste management; the waste collection system completely owned by the municipality, as well as important recovery and disposal plants; obedience to the “quality rather than quantity” principle; awareness raising and effective communication have played a key role in the success.

A possible conclusion is that at the moment there is no optimal model for the management and recovery of differentiated waste.

The European Commission study presents a series of recommendations, elaborated on the model of best practices, which range from the introduction of mandatory separate collection systems to the definition of quality standards for recycling and waste treatment, highlighting the need to invest in the systems of collection and treatment. The report concludes with an invitation to the European Community to clarify and standardize the methods for calculating the production of solid urban waste, household waste and its recycling.

–  Eurostat

–  EU Commission 2018



Romania: report- Study- internet

The soil pollution is caused by (pag 50):

Extractive industry

  • Extracitve industry
  • Mine activity
  • Wood working activity
  • Storage of the municipal waste

Storage problems of the municipal waste in Romania

  • Storage of waste in non-compliant locations
  • Uncontrolled waste disposal
  • Land damage while constructing waste facilities

Environmental National Report November 2017 –pp50

Only 13% of the waste in Romania is recycled.

Environmental National Report November 2017 –pp66

The main reasons for such a poor waste management are:

  • separate collection of recyclable and biodegradable waste is done only in big cities and not in small town and countryside.
  • Dangerous waste is not separated;
  • Large waste articles are not separately collected;
  • Waste is accepted without being treated.

Environmental National Report November 2017

Austria: report- Study- internet

Packaging

The impact of waste especially on the climate is a big factor in Austria. Especially through the recycling of packaging like paper, glas, metal and light packaging like plastic Austria could save in 2016 500.000 tons of CO2-eq. This is approximatly the off-gas-volume of 6 % of Austrians passenger cars (Ara 2018).

1,3 Mio. tons were the total packaging volume in Austria in 2015. From this around 550.000 tons were paper and cardboards, around 300.000 tons plastic and 270.000 tons glas (BMNT 2018, 36).

The recycling rate was in 2015 around 85% for paper and cartons, 34% for plastic, 86% for glas and 87% for metal (BMNT 2018, 38).

Ara 2018: Wie Klima und Umwelt von der Kreislaufwirtschaft profitieren. https://www.ara.at/kreislauf-wirtschaft/umweltauswirkungen/[26.10.2018].

BMNT – Bundesministerium für Nachhaltigkeit und Tourismus (2018): Die Bestandsaufnahme der Abfallwirtschaft in Österreich. Statusbericht 2018.

Turkey : report- Study- internet

In Turkey, various kinds of wastes are produced as a result of industrial and vital activities, consumption of raw materials and production and consumption activities.

Municipal wastes generally consist of non-hazardous wastes that mostly come from houses and that are similar in terms of content or structure.

Wastes were dumped into unorganized storage areas in an uncontrolled way in previous years, today, organized storage areas are constructed rapidly and set into operation. Yet, It hasn’t been possible to provide many district municipalities with sufficient number and capacity of disposal facilities.

According to survey results, rate of population provided with material recovery and waste disposal facilities in municipal population is % 65.

One of the most crucial features of waste management strategy in Turkey is “prevention of waste” and “recovery of wastes” if prevention is not possible.

According to report, it is claimed that Turkish people are the most wasteful people when compared to any other European countries,  they are also known to have bad practical attitudes like throwing their small garbages like water bottles, tissues, cigarette stub into streets.

In the report, it is also mentioned that Turkey is the  ”biggest  waster” for landfilling of the wastes and is in the lead for wasting the Mediterranean in whole Europe.It is reported that these problems need comprehensive consciousness-building steps and regulations that will deter people from throwing away their garbage in the streets and encourage them to recycle with the participation of all actors, including citizens, non-governmental organizations and state institutions.

c) https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1876610217321549/1-s2.0-S1876610217321549-main.pdf?_tid=830aae86-9787-421c-aedc-a0c23853af22&acdnat=1551310662_280deef73c79208e6fc4a5eb2ce98f52

c) http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/gunes-komurculer/mountains-of-waste-across-turkey-have-become-a-big-problem-136201

a) a Report

b) State of the Environment Report for Republic of Turkey – REPUBLIC OF TURKEY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND URBANISATION

c) https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/editordosya/tcdr_tr_2015.pdf

c) https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1876610217321549/1-s2.0-S1876610217321549-main.pdf?_tid=830aae86-9787-421c-aedc-a0c23853af22&acdnat=1551310662_280deef73c79208e6fc4a5eb2ce98f52

Slovenia: report- Study- internet

In Slovenia the biodegradable waste are the greatest environmental burden.

We are producing app. 7 million tons of waste annualy and 70% of them was previous deposited in dumping grounds.

In Slovenia was until the new legalislation, 83 dumping grounds, with new laws we started to built the Waste Management Centers.

In 2018 we have had 8 Waste Management centers and only 17 dumping grounds, which are still open.

In Slovenia we collect annually 900 thousand tons of municipal waste – 450 kg on inhabitant.

The enviroment burden is high, also because of  illegal waste dumps. Yearly we process 70% of manufacturing and service waste and 30% of municipal waste.

http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/odpadki/

Regulation on waste.

Waste prevention program.

Operational Program of Municipal Waste management.

Operational Program of waste management.

The Environmental Protecting Act.

Croatia : report- Study- internet

In 2012, municipal waste amounted to 390 kg/per capita (below EU-27 averages). The share of the population with access to organized waste collection is 99%. Since 2006 there have been improvements in special category waste management, but for some categories (e.g. construction and biodegradable waste) there is still a need to ensure better management. Landfilling is still the prevailing type of waste treatment. Croatia, like most other new member states, does not have a tradition of recycling comparable with its Western European counterparts. Especially in municipal area’s and cities, waste management is based on older systems which are not very productive.

The European Enviroment Agency – Croatia Country

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer- 2015/countries/croatia

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer- 2015/countries/croatia

Italy: report- Study- internet

In 2016, the quantity of urban waste collected is 496.7 kg per inhabitant (+ 2.2% compared to 2015); the percentage of separate collection of total waste is 52.5% (+5 percentage points on the previous year).

The highest levels of urban waste production are found in Emilia-Romagna (653.0 kg per inhabitant) and Tuscany (616,26,2). Molise (387.0) and Basilicata (353.0), on the other hand, are the regions in which less is produced.

“The frequency of differentiated collection of urban waste varies in the territory: very high levels are recorded in the autonomous province of Trento (74.3%), in Veneto (72.9%), Lombardy (68.1%), Friuli- Venezia Giulia (67.1%) and in the autonomous province of Bolzano (66.4%). In these same areas the quantity of urban waste per capita is below average.

In 2017 it is estimated that 85.0% of families regularly carry out separate collection of plastics (39.7% in 1998), 74.6% of aluminum (27.8%), and 84 , 8% of the paper (46.9%) and 84.1% of the glass (52.6%).

Famiglie Families living in the North differentiate waste more than in other parts of the country. The record belongs to families in the North-West: glass 91.8%; aluminum containers 81.0%, those in plastic 91.1% and paper 91.4%.

Always in 2017, 69.9% of families believe that they bear a high cost for waste collection, 25.6% consider it appropriate. It is estimated that the families living in the islands are the most dissatisfied: they consider the cost high in 83.4% of the cases, a share that drops to 61.1% in the North-East regions.

6,3 26.3% of Italian households (35.2% in the North-west and 31.9% in the North-east) are defined as very satisfied on the door-to-door waste collection service. Below the national average, the other geographical divisions: 17.6% in the South, 19.9% in the Center and 20.6% in the Islands.

The reasons for dissatisfaction of the door to door are mainly linked to the waste collection times (94.3%) and to the belief that it is not useful to collect waste separately (89.6%).

To improve, in quantitative and qualitative terms, participation in separate waste collection, 93.4% of families would like more information on how to separate waste; the most numerous and efficient 93.3% recycling and composting centers; 83.3% deductions and / or tax or tariff concessions, already existing in some areas of the country

Among the policies of prevention and reduction of urban waste in the provincial capitals or metropolitan cities, the most widespread concern the implementation of good practices in offices, schools and municipal nests, adopted by 60% of the administrations in 2016. Beyond the 50% of the municipalities promote the supply of quality drinking water in public spaces and carry out awareness campaigns on the topic.

In 2016, a widely implemented policy on recycling concerns the application of benefits for domestic composting, adopted by more than 7 cities out of 10.

In 2016 the policies of correct waste disposal are widespread: 32 provincial capitals exceed the target of 65% of separate waste collection on total urban waste (21 in 2015).

28 There are 28 chief towns that apply at least half of the prevention and reduction policies considered. The best performances are those of Parma, Ferrara and Rimini, beyond that of the metropolitan city of Turin. Compared to the correct conferral policies, 107 are those that implement at least half of them. Among the metropolitan cities there are: Turin, Genoa, Venice and Bari.

Ando Considering the management of separate waste collection, inside the structures of the administrations of the provincial capitals, it appears that in 2015, 98% of the municipalities collected paper and toner in different ways (respectively in 87% and 68% of local units); 96% of the cities differentiate plastic (in almost 80% of the structures), 93% glass in more than half of their local units. In sustainable management, Reggio di Calabria, Monza, Perugia, Trento and Forlì stand out in particular.

Rapporto sui rifiuti urbani – 2018 –Ispra



Romania:

Separate Waste collection – is a real problem in Romania. The system is implemented only in big cities and in few towns. It is not implemented at all in the countryside. The population is not educated to collect separately.

Environmental National Report November 2017 pp 68-71

Ministry of Environment in Romania

http://www.mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/RM_SEA_PNGD_v4.pdf

Austria:

Electronic Scrap:

Through reusing secondary resources out of electrics and the recycling of FCKW-containing cooling units Austria saved in 2016 around 300.000 tons of CO2-eq

Ara 2018: Wie Klima und Umwelt von der Kreislaufwirtschaft profitieren. https://www.ara.at/kreislauf-wirtschaft/umweltauswirkungen/ [26.10.2018].

Turkey:

According to survey results, rate of population provided with material recovery and waste disposal facilities in municipal population is % 65. In Turkey one third of the population still don’t even know the recycling of wastes. Half of the population practically use recycling wastes bins but nearly 30 % of the them haven’t experienced recycling notion in their lives. 

Mountains of Waste across Turkey have become a big problem – Güneş Kömürcüler

Disposal of the solid wastes in Turkey is a significant problem. For instance, open dumping which is very commonly applied in respectively smaller habitats in Turkey causes some environmental risks like groundwater and air pollution with blockage problems in sewer system and also reveals health risks for the population living nearby.

Review of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Turkey with a Particular Focus on Recycling of Plastics – Nesli Aydin

One of the most crucial features of waste management strategy in Turkey is “prevention of waste” and “recovery of wastes” if prevention is not possible.

https://tr.euronews.com/2018/02/17/turkiye-de-toplumun-yuzde-30-u-geri-donusum-kutusunu-hic-duymam-s

Slovenia:

Temporary the biodegradable waste are the biggest environmental burden in Slovenia. The average family (2 adults and 2 children) produce yearly appr. 2,000 kg of municipal waste.

We are still in EU average, but we still produce too much of it.

Statistical the Eu countries with less municipal waste are Czech and Poland.

  • In 2004 was established first scheme for separate waste collection.
  • In 2016 67% of municipal waste was collected separatley.
  • In towns and vilages are established ecological islands – containers for different types of waste.
  • All households must collect waste separately – waste disposal is organized on various days, also we have different containers for different types of waste.
  • Hazardous waste is collected on ecological islands.
  • In 2007 has been recycled 47% of packing waste.
  • From 2010 there was established few Centers of reuse – mostly this are social enterprises.
  • Temporary there are popular companies for reuse of clothing – some of them have already renome: for exemple Puppa design from Murska Sobota.

http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/odpadki/pogosta_vprasanja_in_odgovori/#c18398

Croatia:

The separately collected municipal waste consisted mainly of bulky waste (38%), organic waste (20%), and paper (8%) in 2010 (CEA, 2012a).

The separated collected municipal waste adds up to 227,651 tonnes in 2010. However, a large part of it was  landfilled, some landfill operators separate recyclables from municipal waste and forward them to recycling. Those quantities are not included in the reported amount of recycled waste due to the lack of reported data  (CEA, 2012a).

The 4%recycled waste includes only waste for which there is sound evidence that the recovery took place (this was requested for the purpose of reporting to Eurostat). For example, this figure does not include temporarily stored quantities at the exporters destined for recovery, usable components separated from municipal waste at landfills later submitted to recovery, for which landfill operators usually do  not report data. Furthermore, some quantities are incorrectly reported as waste from businesses instead of municipal waste (which is the case for part of packaging paper waste for example) etc. Therefore, the recycling rate is at least 4%(CEA, 2012a).

The yearly increase rate of recycling of MSW . In order to assess the prospects for Croatia to meet the 50% recycling target as set out in the Waste Framework Directive a scenario has been calculated. Figure 2.2 focuses on how the recycling level of MSW would increase in Croatia until 2020 if the development trend continues. The trends are related to the increase rate based on a linear regression of the recycling rates from the years 2006 to 2010. EU’s updated Waste Framework Directive from 2008 (EU, 2008) includes a new 50% recycling target for waste from households, to be fulfilled by 2020. In 2011, the European Commission decided that countries can choose between four different calculation methods to report compliance with this target. One of these methods is to calculate the recycling rate of MSW as reported to Eurostat (EC, 2011).

In 2010, the collection of packaging waste added up to 187,631 tonnes. The main part was paper and cardboard (124,476 tonnes) followed by glass (37148 tonnes) and plastic (24,127 tonnes) (CEA, 2012a). A part of the collected packaging is collected in the business and service sector. However, some of the collected packaging waste is collected from households. Assuming that  50% of the packaging waste is collected from households and could be added to municipal waste, the MSW recycling rate in 2010 would increase from 4% to 10%. Important initiatives taken to improve MSW management. The adoption of the waste act in 2004, the waste management strategy from 2005 and the waste management plan from 2007 are all important initiatives taken in Croatia in the last ten years in order to improve municipal waste management.

Another important initiative in Croatia was the establishment of the Environmental Protection Programmes and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF) in 2004. It is a fund established by a decision of the Government of Croatia in order to ensure additional resources for financing projects, programmes and similar undertakings in the field of preservation, sustainable use, protection and improvement of the environment (ETC/SCP, 2011).

Among other initiatives, it co-finances projects on waste prevention, projects for improving separate collection, re-use and recovery of certain waste types, remediation of landfills and building infrastructure (recovery and waste management centres) (ETC/SCP, 2011). The EPEEF collects different environmental fees, which includes fees for burdening the environment with hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste (ETC/SCP, 2011). Moreover, the EPEEF collects the fees from producers/importers of products within specific waste streams collection/recovery schemes such as waste oil, WEEE, waste tyres, packaging, batteries/accumulators, and ELVs. The EPEEF also compensates municipalities and regions for expenses to collection, treatment or recovery for the mentioned waste streams (ETC/SCP, 2011;CEA, 2011a).

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer- 2015/countries/croatia

Italy:

The growing interest in the issue of waste, as well as from the point of view of prevention (that is, of all those measures to be taken before a material becomes waste), also concerns all activities related to the treatment of waste produced, starting from recycling.

Separate collection is a rapidly evolving phenomenon. In fact, almost everywhere there is an increase in the percentage of separate collection of urban waste in the cities. In 2016, 32 municipal capitals exceeded the target of 65% of separate waste collection on total urban waste, while there were 21 in 2015. In addition, there are 13 capitals with over 60% and close to reaching the target.

In 2016 there are numerous initiatives implemented by the cities to encourage active user collaboration (Figure 10). Some of these are widespread in almost all the capitals, such as the on-call collection service for bulky waste and other types of waste (eg mowing and twig, toner, …) and the collection of abandoned waste ( implemented by around 97% of administrations), with the exception of some municipalities in the South.

To improve, in quantitative and qualitative terms, participation in separate waste collection, 93.4% of families would like more information on how to separate waste; the most numerous and efficient 93.3% recycling and composting centers; 83.3% deductions and / or tax or tariff concessions, already existing in some areas of the country.

All the administrations of the municipalities in the center of the metropolitan area and the municipalities with more than 200 thousand inhabitants also apply them.

The door-to-door collection service16 and the presence of ecological islands are also widespread (in 93% and 92% respectively of the municipalities). Among the municipalities with more than 200,000 inhabitants, only Trieste does not provide door-to-door due to the peculiarities of its urbanization, while Palermo and Cagliari do not have active ecological islands. The reasons for dissatisfaction of the door to door are mainly linked to the waste collection times (94.3%) and to the belief that it is not useful to collect waste separately (89.6%).

Separate collection of waste in schools and awareness-raising campaigns are largely implemented by around 84% of municipal administrations. All municipalities with more than 200,000 inhabitants have carried out awareness-raising campaigns while separate collection in schools is not yet present in Florence, as well as in Verona and Trieste.

The mobile ecological islands are scarcely used, present in 45% of the municipalities of the North, while in the South and the Center in just over 40%. These are present in all the municipalities of the central metropolitan area, except Catania.

Even less ample is the use of collection methods aimed at applying the punctual tariff, based on the quantities actually delivered by users17: only about 28% of the municipalities use them, especially in the Center-North, a little less in the South . Venice and Bari, between the municipalities of the central metropolitan area, use a collection method aimed at punctual pricing. In light of recent legislation (Decree of 20 April 2017), punctual pricing is going to be a technological innovation that all administrations will have to adopt. Finally, about 82% of the administrations, including all the municipalities in the metropolitan area and those with more than 200,000 inhabitants, provide penalties for breaches of the management regulation.

E.E.A-2019



Romania:

Simple and practical idea of organic waste recycling:

Pig-feeding in Metro Manila In the outlying urban areas of Manila, backyard pig- rearing has long been a traditional source of income. Commercially produced feed for this activity is expensive and pig raisers often turn to organic scraps to supplement or replace the commercial product. A network of collectors has developed that collects organic waste from restaurants in the city centre, and then distribute it amongst the backyard farmers. The farmers can purchase the scrap at about half the price of the commercial feed. A cost comparison carried out under the WAREN project (cited in a report titled ‘Recycling activities in Metro Manila’) shows that profit is more than doubled by feeding the pigs on organic scraps, even after all other costs, such as veterinary costs, transport, fuel, etc., are taken into consideration.

http://www.worldwidehelpers.org/wwhweb/uploads/files/KnO-100395_Recycling%20organic%20waste.pdf

Austria:

Biological waste contents a lot of nitrogen and phosphor, which are important resources and can nowadays only be partly recyclied and reused. It is however important to integrate those resources back into the cycle of materials (Umweltbundesamt 2014).

While countries like Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and France rely heavily on incineration to reduce waste in landfills, Austria, as well as Germany, Italy and Spain have a high material recovery rate and relativly low incineration. New EU-Memberstate rely in comparision still mainly on landfilds.

Austria, as well as Germany, Sweden, parts of Belgium, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands support bio-waste recycling, includin both composting and anaerobig digestion. In 2016 in Austria around 1 million tons (116 kg/inhabitant) of bio-waste were collected from households (BMNT 2018, 28) as well as around 470.000 tons from green areas (BMNT 2018, 33) and 113.400 tons of foodwaste from gastronomy and Co (BMNT 2018, 34).

Bio Intelligence Service (2011): Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth, Final Report prepared for European Comission DG ENV.

BMNT – Bundesministerium für Nachhaltigkeit und Tourismus (2018): Die Bestandsaufnahme der Abfallwirtschaft in Österreich. Statusbericht 2018.

Umweltbundesamt (2014). Ressource Bioabfall optimal nutzen. http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/aktuell/presse/lastnews/news2014/news_140819/ [26.10.2014].

Turkey:

South Korean government applied a volume-based food waste fee system for its citizens. According to the system households are required to pay based on the amount of food waste they generate. Municipalities can choose among three “pay-as-you-throw” solutions. First, there are paid standard plastic bags. Secondly, attaching paid stickers to food-waste bins (which are not emptied without stickers). The third includes a high-tech solution: operating food-waste bins with magnetic card-readers that households must use when disposing of their waste. The weight of the waste is measured on a scale at the bottom. Monthly data serves as a basis for charging fees to households

http://www.innovationseeds.eu/policy-library/core-articles/south-koreas-food-waste-reduction-policies.kl

Slovenia:

The share of biodegradable waste in municipal waste is in Slovenia 2 times larger in relation to the set goals. The amount of biodegradable waste can be reduced primarily through intensive separate collection of such waste at the source. The simplest way of treating separately collected biodegradable waste is composting, in order to obtain new, useful organic substances – compost. Unfortunatly, there is still small amount of comsposts in Slovenia.

http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/odpadki/pogosta_vprasanja_in_odgovori/#c18398

Croatia:

Croatia  is only just beginning its transition to a circular economy. Due to suboptimal planning of waste management, insufficient incentives to manage waste according to the waste hierarchy, insufficient (door-to- door) separate collection of waste.

Croatia was late in adopting the national waste management plan and the waste prevention programme which are the necessary tools to reflect the existing policies  and   to  develop      a strategy to achieve EU waste management targets.

Even though the implementation of the Decree on the management of municipal waste was to begin in Croatia on February 1, it has not yet been fully implemented. Some cities have been classifying waste for several years now, while others are not ready yet – Zagreb, for example.

The decree came into force on November 1, 2017, meaning that separate collection of waste and the charging of waste collection services by amount became mandatory in Croatia. Local governments were given a three-month period, until February 1, 2018, to decide on how to implement it.

Although the concept of Circular Economy has received plenty of attention in Croatia’s academic community (M Matešić, B Ribić et al, A Erceg & B Erceg, etc), and policy makers have implemented some circular initiatives, a platform which connects private and public  actors comparable to the Dutch ‘Netherlands Circular Hotspot’ is still lacking. There are (European) programs, initiatives and platforms for circular efforts in which Croatian initiatives participate. An example is the Circular Industry Platform, a best practice platform on which circular initiatives (including three Croatian initiatives) share their experiences, but nothing purely focussed on the Croatian context.

Croatia might fulfil the criteria stated in Article 11 (3) of the EU Waste Framework Directive in order to get a derogation period for fulfilling the 2020 target of 50% recycling of MSW as the recycling of municipal  waste  in  2010  was  4%  (figure  2.1).  As  indicated  in  Figure  2.2  a  fulfilment  of  the  50% recycling target by 2020 would require extraordinary efforts.

It would require an increase of the MSW recycling rate of at least 4.6 percentage points per year from 2010 to 2020. It is possible that part of the  increase needed can  be  fulfilled  by  including  some  of  the  recycling  of  packaging  waste  from MSW sources systematically in the reporting of recycling of MSW, cf. section 2.2.

The  national  waste  management  strategy  sets a  target  of  18%  for  separate  collected  and  recycled municipal waste in 2020 and 25% in 2025 (EEA, 2010). In addition, it is planned to treat municipal waste  by  MBT  plants  and  one  incineration  plant.  The  aim  is  to  reduce  landfilling  to  only  residual waste (EEA, 2010;CEA, 2011a).

Under  all  circumstances,  the  necessary  increase  in  recycling  will  require  an  exceptional effort  from the Croatian government, the local authorities and a good co-operation between the public and private sector in order to secure sufficient treatment capacity.

A  number  of  waste  management  centres  are  planned  in  counties  or regions. The  waste  management centres are plannedto be constructed before the end of 2018. They will be co-financed by EPEEF and other funds (CEA, 2011a).

Examples  of  finished  projects:  Funds  for  construction  of  the  Bakarac  County  Waste  Management Centre, Šibensko-Kinska  County  were  provided  with  EUR 6  million  from  the  ISPA  (Instrument  for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) program. The  IPA  Program had  assigned EUR  24.5  million for  construction  of  county waste centres  in  the Primorsko-Goranska,  Istarska  and  Splitsko-Dalmatinska  counties  for  the  period  2007-2009  (EEA, 2010).Construction  has  already  started  in  three waste management  centres and  another  three  waste management centres are in the phase of preparing for construction. Locations are still to be identified for the other planned waste management centres(CEA, 2012a).

The City of Zagreb has planned a waste-to-energy incineration plant which should make a significant contribution, along with the planned mechanical and biological waste treatment plants, to reduce the landfilling of biodegradable waste by 2018-2020 (EEA, 2010)

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer- 2015/countries/croatia 

https://balkangreenenergynews.com/municipal- waste-management-croatia-race-time/ [On Internet -Title of the article “Municipal waste management in Croatia – race against time” [Date: February 7, 2018; Author: Balkan Green Energy News]

https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2018/07/circular- economy-and-waste-management-in-croatia.pdf  [On Internet Title of the Study:”Waste management and circular economy  efforts in Croatia”; Date: 13-06-2018 Commissioned by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.]

Italy:

In 2016, a widely implemented policy on recycling concerns the application of benefits for domestic composting, adopted by more than 7 cities out of 10.

Among the policies of prevention and reduction of urban waste in the provincial capitals or metropolitan cities, the most widespread concern the implementation of good practices in offices, schools and municipal nests, adopted by 60% of the administrations in 2016. Beyond the 50% of the municipalities promote the supply of quality drinking water in public spaces and carry out awareness campaigns on the topic.

In 2016 the policies of correct waste disposal are widespread: 32 provincial capitals exceed the target of 65% of separate waste collection on total urban waste (21 in 2015).

There are 28 chief towns that apply at least half of the prevention and reduction policies considered. The best performances are those of Parma, Ferrara and Rimini, beyond that of the metropolitan city of Turin. Compared to the correct conferral policies, 107 are those that implement at least half of them. Among the metropolitan cities there are: Turin, Genoa, Venice and Bari.

And Considering the management of separate waste collection, inside the structures of the administrations of the provincial capitals, it appears that in 2015, 98% of the municipalities collected paper and toner in different ways (respectively in 87% and 68% of local units); 96% of the cities differentiate plastic (in almost 80% of the structures), 93% glass in more than half of their local units. In sustainable management, Reggio di Calabria, Monza, Perugia, Trento and Forlì stand out in particular.

Home composting: composting of organic waste from its urban waste, carried out by domestic users, for the purpose of using the material produced on site (Legislative Decree 152/2006 Article 183 letter e). It takes place with a technique that controls, accelerates and improves the natural process of organic matter, such as garden cuttings and food waste with the aim of obtaining products based on humus to be reused directly in domestic activities such as horticulture, floriculture and hobby gardening.

Compost: product, obtained from the composting of separately collected organic waste.

Composter: container suitable for accommodating the organic fraction of solid urban waste and favoring the aerobic decomposition process that transforms it into compost.

Organic fraction: includes wet waste and green collected separately.

Report statistiche – Istat 2017 – http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/207482

Municipal waste recycling target: 44 % today, 55% by 2025, 65% by 2035

No more than 10% landfilling by 2035

Separate collection of textiles and hazardous waste

  • Landfillng is the worst option for managing waste, on both environmental and economical terms
  • recycling targets, under legislation on waste and the circular economy, adopted .
  • Improving waste management will not only benefit the environment, climate, and human health.

The four pieces of legislation are also part of a shift in EU policy towards a circular economy, i.e. a system where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible. 

  • By 2025, at least 55% of municipal waste (from households and businesses) should be recycled, says the text, as agreed with Council of Ministers. The target will rise to 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035. 65% of packaging materials will have to be recycled by 2025, and 70% by 2030. Separate targets are set for specific packaging materials, such as paper and cardboard, plastics, glass, metal and wood.

Landfilling to become an exception

  • The draft law also limits the share of municipal waste being landfilled to a maximum of 10% by 2035. In 2014, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden sent virtually no municipal waste to landfill, whereas Cyprus, Croatia, Greece, Latvia and Malta still landfill more than three quarters of their municipal waste.
  • Textiles and hazardous waste from households will have to be collected separately by 2025. By 2024, biodegradable waste will also have to be either collected separately or recycled at home through composting

Reduce food waste by 50 %

  • In line with the UN sustainable development goals, member states should aim to reduce food waste by 30% by 2025 and 50% by 2030. In order to prevent food waste, member states should provide incentives for the collection of unsold food products and their safe redistribution. Consumer awareness of the meaning of “use by” and “best before” label dates should also be improved, say MEPs.
  • “The circular economy is not only a waste management policy, but is a way to recover raw materials and not to overstretch the already scarce resources of our planet, also by profoundly innovating our production system”.

“This package also contains important measures on waste management, but at the same time goes further, by defining rules taking into account the entire life cycle of a product and aims to change the behaviour of businesses and consumers.

For the first time, Member States will be obliged to follow a single, shared legislative framework”.

The text now goes back to Council for formal approval before publication in the Official Journal of the EU, the official record of all EU legal acts.

Background: what is a circular economy? 

  • A circular economy implies reducing waste to a minimum as well as re-using, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products. Moving towards a more circular economy will reduce pressure on the environment, enhance security of supply of raw materials, increase competitiveness, innovation and growth, and create jobs.

EU Commission communication at end of this document.

  • Unlike the traditional linear economic model based on a ‘take-make-consume-throw away’ pattern, a circular economy is based on reuse, repair, refurbishment and recycling, in an (almost) closed loop.
  • Although waste management in the European Union (EU) has improved considerably in the past decades, almost a third of municipal waste is still landfilled and less than half is recycled or composted, with wide variations between Member States. Improving waste management could deliver positive effects for the environment, climate, human health and the economy. As part of a shift in EU policy towards a circular economy, the European Commission made four legislative proposals introducing new waste-management targets regarding reuse, recycling and landfilling. The proposals also strengthen provisions on waste prevention and extended producer responsibility, and streamline definitions, reporting obligations and calculation methods for targets.
  • Plastic Oceans: MEPs back EU ban on polluting throwaway plastics by 2021
  • single-use cutlery, cotton buds, straws and stirrers to be banned
  • MEPs added oxo-plastics, certain polystyrenes
  • reduction measures for plastics where no alternatives available
  • measures against cigarette filters and lost fishing gear
  • Single-use plastic items such as plates, cutlery or cotton buds, making up over 70% of marine litter, will be banned under plans backed in the Environment Committee.
  • Single-use plastic products such as cutlery, cotton bud sticks, plates, straws, beverage stirrers and balloon sticks will be banned from the EU market from 2021, under draft plans approved by the Environment and Public Health Committee.
  • MEPs added to this list: very lightweight plastic bags, products made of oxo-degradable plastics and fast-food containers made of expanded polystyrene.

National reduction targets

  • The consumption of several other items, for which no alternative exists, will have to be reduced by member states in an “ambitious and sustained” manner by 2025. This includes single-use burger boxes, sandwich boxes or food containers for fruits, vegetables, desserts or ice creams. Member states will draft national plans to encourage the use of products suitable for multiple use, as well as re-using and recycling.
  • Other plastics, such as beverage bottles, will have to be collected separately and recycled at a rate of 90% by 2025.
  • Cigarette butts and lost fishing gear
  • MEPs agreed that reduction measures should also cover waste from tobacco products, in particular cigarette filters containing plastic. It would have to be reduced by 50% by 2025 and 80% by 2030.
  • One cigarette butt can pollute between 500 and 1000 litres of water, and thrown on the roadway, it can take up to twelve years to disintegrate. They are the second most littered single-use plastic items.
  • Member states should also ensure that at least 50% of lost or abandoned fishing gear containing plastic is collected per year, with a recycling target of at least 15% by 2025. Fishing gear represents 27% of waste found on Europe’s beaches.

Extended producer responsibility

  • Member states would have to ensure that tobacco companies cover the costs of waste collection for those products, including transport, treatment and litter collection. The same goes for producers of fishing gear containing plastic, who will need to contribute to meeting the recycling target

According to the European Commission, more than 80% of marine litter is plastics. Together they constitute 70% of all marine litter items. Due to its slow decomposition, plastic accumulates in seas, oceans and on beaches in the EU and worldwide. Plastic residue is found in marine species – such as sea turtles, seals, whales and birds, but also in fish and shellfish, and therefore in the human food chain.

While plastics are a convenient, adaptable, useful and economically valuable material, they need to be better used, re-used and recycled. When littered, the economic impact of plastics encompasses not just the lost economic value in the material, but also the costs of cleaning up and losses for tourism, fisheries and shipping.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180411IPR01518/circular-economy-more-recycling-of-household-waste-less-landfilling

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0029&from=IT