Report Recycling in Balkan Region

HSWMA & SeSWA
July 2013
Aida Anthouli, Konstantine Aravossis, Rozy Charitopoulou, Bojana Tot, Goran Vujic
[OPPORTUNITIES & BARRIERS OF RECYCLING IN BALKAN COUNTRIES: THE CASES OF GREECE AND SERBIA]
OPPORTUNITIES & BARRIERS OF RECYCLING IN BALKAN COUNTRIES: The cases of Greece and Serbia
Authors
Aida Anthouli D-Waste Expert, Member of the Board of HSWMA Konstantine Aravossis Assistant Professor, N.T.U.A, President of HSWMA Rozy Charitopoulou, Dr. - Ing. Director of Hellenic Recycling Agency, Member of the Board of HSWMA Boana Tot Master in Environment Engineering, General Secretary of SeSWA Goran Vujic Professor, University of Novi Sad, President of SeSWA
Contributors & Reviewers

We would like to thank the contributors and reviewers for their constructive, valuable support and helpful suggestions: Antonis Mavropoulos, Elias Ordolis - AFIS S.A., Panagiota Vagena - "FOTOKIKLOSI S.A., Sofia Houma Re-Battery AE, and Marios Skarvelakis. Websites: www.eedsa.gr, www.seswa.rs E-mails: info@eedsa.gr, office@seswa-srbija.com
With the support of
Financed under the ISWA Project Grant 2012.
LEGAL NOTICE
Reproduction, photocopying, unauthorized selling or transmission by magnetic or electronic means of this publication in whole or parts are strictly prohibited. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use must be prior granted by HSWMA, SeSWA, and ISWA. Violation of copyright will result in legal action, including civil and/or criminal penalties, and suspension of service.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction: A Recycling World ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. Recycling in the Region ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Recycling in EU .................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Recycling in Balkan Countries (Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro) ................................................... 7 2.2.1 Bosnia & Herzegovina ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Croatia ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Montenegro .............................................................................................................................................. 11 3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework ............................................................................................... 12 3.1 The EUs Waste Management Policy ................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 Legal Framework for Waste Management and Recycling in Greece and Serbia .............................................. 15 3.2.1 Overall strategy, Policy & Legal Framework in Greece .............................................................................. 15 3.2.2 Overall strategy, policy & Legal Framework in Serbia ............................................................................... 18 4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................ 21 4.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Greece ................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Serbia ................................................................................................. 26
5. Production & management of Recycling Streams ................................................................................................... 37

5.1 Management of Recycling Streams in Greece ................................................................................................. 37 5.5.1 Package and Packaging Waste ................................................................................................................... 39 5.5.2 Motor oil residues ..................................................................................................................................... 50 5.1.3 End of Life Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 52 5.1.4 Portable batteries & accumulators ............................................................................................................ 54 5.1.5 WEEE - Waste of Electronic and Electrical Equipment .............................................................................. 58
5.1.5 Used Tires .................................................................................................................................................. 62

5.1.6 Construction & Demolition Waste Systems............................................................................................... 64
5.2 Management of Recycling Streams in Serbia .................................................................................................... 65 5.2.1 Actors in the national-private sector ......................................................................................................... 71 6. Stakeholders in Recycling ........................................................................................................................................ 84 6.1 Recycling Stakeholders in Greece ..................................................................................................................... 84 6.2 Recycling Stakeholders in Serbia ....................................................................................................................... 86 7. Preconditions for Successful Implementation of Recycling Policies ....................................................................... 89
7.1 Challenges, Problems, Gaps and Barriers of the Recycling in Greece ............................................................... 89
7.2 Challenges, Problems, Gaps and Barriers of the Recycling in Serbia ................................................................ 92 Gaps for Policy and Policy and Policy Implementation Measures ...................................................................... 93 8. Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry ....................................................................................................... 96 8.1 Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry in Greece ................................................................................ 96 8.2. Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry in Serbia ................................................................................ 97 9. Recommendations for Policy & Mechanisms in the Financial Crisis Situation ........................................................ 99
9.1 Recommendations and Important Measures for Policy in Greece ................................................................... 99

9.2 Recommendation and Important Measures for Policy in Serbia .................................................................... 101 10. Success Stories/Good Practices in the Region ..................................................................................................... 104 10.1 Success Stories - Good Practices in Greece ................................................................................................... 104 Afis .................................................................................................................................................................... 104 10.2 Success Stories - Good Practices in Serbia .................................................................................................... 104 Cluster "Recycling South" ................................................................................................................................. 105 Recycling and Service Coverage in Belgrade .................................................................................................... 106 11. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................... 109 Greece ................................................................................................................................................................... 109 Serbia .................................................................................................................................................................... 109 12. Sources/References ............................................................................................................................................. 113
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT IN EU (2011) ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: TREND IN GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN EUROPE .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT EUROPE ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Recycling Performance in Europe (% of the total MSW Generated), Source: Eurostat, 2012 ............................................ 6 Figure 5: Packaging Recycling Rate (2010) ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 6: Total turnover of recycling of seven key recyclables in the EU. Source: EEA ..................................................................... 7
Figure 7: GDP and residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 8: European legislation on waste management ................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9: Waste hierarchy pyramid ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 10: Country and waste profiles of Greece & Serbia .............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 11: MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATED IN GREECE .................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 12: Municipal waste in Greece by treatment ....................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 13: Average Greek MSW composition (YPEKA, 2011) .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 14: Geographical and temporal variation of MSW composition in GREECE , ........................................................................ 24 Figure 15: Uncontrolled active dumpsites in Greece (2011) ........................................................................................................... 25 Figure 16: Map of identified landfills in Serbia ................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 17: Quantity of municipal solid waste, expressed in kg capita-1 day-1 ................................................................................ 29
Figure 18: Influence of seasonal variation on generated waste quantities ..................................................................................... 29

Figure 19: Daily amount of municipal solid waste expressed in kg per capita ................................................................................ 32 Figure 20: Municipal waste morphological composition for Republic of Serbia ............................................................................. 32 Figure 21: The role of PROs (adapted from [29]. ............................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 22: Organogram of HRA........................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 23: HERRCO Recycle bin ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 24: Material Recovery Facility .............................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 25: Number of bins and corresponding tonnage collected packaging waste from 2005 - 2009 .......................................... 40 Figure 26: Location of the 24 Recycling facilities in Greece as of 2009 ........................................................................................... 40 Figure 27: Percentage of the different producer categories ........................................................................................................... 41 Figure 28: Composition of recovered materials of the Attica recycling plant ................................................................................. 43 Figure 29: The number of registered producers of packaging and packaging waste, 2002-2011 ................................................... 44 Figure 30: Packaging waste collected in Greece, 2009-2011, per material and totally. .................................................................. 44 Figure 31: Total packaging waste and printed paper collected, 2006-2011. ................................................................................... 45 Figure 32: Collection centre ANTAPODOTIKI ANAKYKLOSI .............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 33: Collection centre AB Vassilopoulos ................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 34: The number of registered producers of oil packaging waste, 2003-2011 ...................................................................... 46 Figure 35: Put on the market and collected quantities for each material of oil packaging, 2011 ................................................... 46 Figure 36: Recycling of paper in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ................................................................................ 47 Figure 37: Recycling of plastic in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ............................................................................... 47 Figure 38: Recycling of glass in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) .................................................................................. 48 Figure 39: Recycling of wood in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ................................................................................ 48 Figure 40: Recycling of aluminium in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ........................................................................ 49
Figure 41: Recycling of steel in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) .................................................................................. 49
Figure 42: Recycling of packaging waste in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ............................................................... 50 Figure 43: Composition (average) of collected packaging waste .................................................................................................... 50 Figure 44: The number of registered producers of motor oil residues, 2004-2011. ....................................................................... 51
Figure 45: Put on the market and collected quantities of motor oil, 2004-2011 ............................................................................ 52 Figure 46: Treatment site of EoLV ................................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 47: Typical collection site of EoLV ........................................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 48: Collection of wastewater separately .............................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 49: EoLV collected for 2004-2010. ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 50: Percentage of reuse, recovery and recycling of end of life vehicles ............................................................................... 54 Figure 51: AFIS collection point ....................................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 52: The number of registered producers of batteries, 2005-2011 ....................................................................................... 55 Figure 53: Put on the market and collected quantities of batteries, 2005-2011 ............................................................................. 55 Figure 54: Percentage of Recycling of Portable batteries in Greece in the period 2006-2011 (in tons) .......................................... 56 Figure 55: Site DYDESIS.................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 56: Pb-oxide batteries .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 57: The number of registered producers of batteries, 2004-2011. ...................................................................................... 57 Figure 58: Put on the market and collected quantities of batteries, 2005-2011. ............................................................................ 57 Figure 59: Treatment facilities for WEEE ......................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 60: Collected quantities over the period 2006-2009 (kg). .................................................................................................... 58 Figure 61: Appliance Recyclings collection points .......................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 62: Number of registered producers in the years from 2004-2009...................................................................................... 59 Figure 63: The number of registered producers of WEEE, 2004-2011 ............................................................................................ 60 Figure 64: Put on the market and collected quantities of WEEE, 2005-2011 .................................................................................. 60 Figure 65: Quantities of WEEE treated, and collected from householdes, 2005-2010 ................................................................... 61 Figure 66: Bin for the collection of lighting fittings ......................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 67: Bin for the collection of bulbs......................................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 68: The number of registered producers of WEEE, 2009-2011 ............................................................................................ 62 Figure 69: Put on the market and collected quantities of WEEE, 2009-2011 .................................................................................. 62 Figure 70: Put on the market and collected quantities of used tires, 2004-2011. .......................................................................... 63 Figure 71: Destinations of tires collected in Greece 2006-2011 ...................................................................................................... 64 Figure 72: Packaging & packaging waste management system in accordance with the Law on waste management .................... 71 Figure 73: Inija has an effective collection system with high participation rates .......................................................................... 72 Figure 74: arket share of the biggest companies (2010) .............................................................................................................. 96 Figure 75: Collected tonnes of portable batteries from AFIS ........................................................................................................ 104 Figure 76: Containers for different types of waste ........................................................................................................................ 107
TABLES
Table 1: Waste Management Data - Estimated Overview ................................................................................................................. 8 Table 2: Share of Recycled waste .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Targets of the Waste Framework Directive ....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Recycling and recovery targets under Serbian legislation ................................................................................................. 19 Table 5: General information on waste management in the Republic of Serbia ............................................................................. 27 Table 6: Number of identified landfills in Serbia by criteria ............................................................................................................ 27 Table 7: Daily and annually projections of generated municipal waste quantities per capita ........................................................ 28 Table 8: Composition of MSW based on housing conditions (as % of total category weight)......................................................... 30 Table 9: Morphological analysis results projected on the municipality of Novi Sad ....................................................................... 33 Table 10: Municipal collection programs ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 11: Operating PRO systems in Greece during 2012 ............................................................................................................... 38

Table 12: Results of the blue bin projects in Greece ....................................................................................................................... 41 Table 13: Development in the years 2008200920102011 ........................................................................................................... 42
Table 14: Results of the collection system ELTEPE in the years 2006-2007 .................................................................................... 51 Table 15: AFIS collection points ....................................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 16: Collection points in all Greece ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 17: Quantities of WEEE treated, and collected from householdes, 2005-2010 ..................................................................... 61 Table 18: Collection amounts of tires in Greece.............................................................................................................................. 63 Table 19: Destinations of tires collected in Greece 2006-2011 ....................................................................................................... 63 Table 20: Estimated quantities of packaging waste ........................................................................................................................ 66 Table 21: The total amount of recovered packaging waste again by the operators ....................................................................... 66 Table 22: Amount of recovered packaging waste by type and operators ....................................................................................... 66 Table 23: Total generated MSW / Total generated special waste streams ..................................................................................... 69 Table 24: Estimated amount of collected waste ............................................................................................................................. 74 Table 25: "Recycling Backyards" National Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 76 Table 26: Plastic Processors and Recyclers Comparison Summary ................................................................................................. 82 Table 27: Recyclables redeemed by Public Utility Company "Gradska istoa" at the recycling centre ....................................... 106
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Notwithstanding their many differences, countries of the Balkan region share some similar characteristics, especially regarding the culture of their inhabitants, as well as problems and experiences deriving from a longstanding neighbouring and a common history. These common features can be met as well in local recycling policies and their application. Relative experiences, successes, problems, and questions are worth a closer and more serious investigation in order to help recycling in the area, and promote environmental protection. Especially countries that recently have started their recycling efforts, and have little experience from local projects, can greatly benefit by paradigms, success stories and failures identifying in that way their own sustainable recycling solutions that truly apply to related countries. Moreover, it can strengthen cooperation between neighbouring countries in the spectrum of interconnectivity and globalisation, and bring financial, environmental, and social benefits in the Balkan area. A common perception of the situation in recycling, and conclusions deriving from such investigation, could empower, in a European framework, proper environmental policy making, and later application, in its foundations. For the reasons above, this report takes a closer look in recycling in the Balkan region, focusing in Greece and Serbias current status, and suggests useful examples and successful case studies. Initially, this report presents the reason why recycling is a major issue globally, and describes the EU framework under which Balkan countries establish their recycling future. After a short description of recycling status in other Balkan countries like Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, the current waste and recycling situation is elaborated in next chapters. Finally, opportunities and barriers are elaborated, while successful case studies and conclusions are presented in the final chapters. More in particular the report focuses in the below Greeces and Serbias recycling key-areas: Analysis of Policies and Legal Framework Performance targets and current results in recycling Identification of the relative recycling markets and stakeholders Challenges, Problems, Gaps and Barriers of Recycling in the countries Opportunities and Recommendations Successful applications and case studies
1|P a g e
Opportunities & barriers of Recycling in Balkan Countries: The cases of Greece and Serbia
1. INTRODUCTION: A RECYCLING WORLD

Recycling by definition is to use discarded and unwanted products to create new products. Recycling has the dual benefit of saving scarce landfill space and limited natural resources. Recycling is a weapon in the battle for saving the environment. Recycling can be considered to be any action which collects, separates or processes solid waste or materials that would otherwise become solid waste; and processes or returns them to use either as raw materials or products. Through recycling, natural resources and energy can be saved and pollution reduced. It is virtually impossible to give a decisive answer to question whether recycling is more important in the sphere of industrial or municipal waste, since in both cases significant technical, environmental and economic effects are obtained. The most important effects out of them are certainly: drastic reduction of quantities of industrial and municipal waste that must be disposed to sanitary waste areas, by which the period of waste area use is prolonged and the process of exploitation of natural resources and emissions from waste area is slowed down. When individuals, institutions and businesses recycle, less trash is disposed of in landfills. Waste reduction and recycling activities help to extend the lifespan of landfills. More importantly, recycling also helps to save energy and natural resources which would otherwise be needed to create new products out of virgin materials. There are energy, pollution reduction and natural resource benefits associated with recycling which are evident in all of the stages of consumer product development. Recycling works best if a market for the recycled materials exists or can be created, and had been favoured by rising prices for many secondary and primary materials in recent years. It was evident though that recycling markets seems to suffer in times of economic crisis.
R ECYCLING IN A GLOBALISED WORLD

Never was the world so interconnected, and in such framework, recycling has become a globalised business with environmental, societal, and health parameters. Recycling characterises an era of different thinking about what is considered waste, with both positive and some negative aspects. Today there is an increased demand on materials especially due to rising of the developing world. As a consequence recycling, as a provider of valuable materials, is playing a more significant role, and the need for 1 recycling materials is increasing . Of course recycling practices do not bring only positive results; negative effects of illegal shipping of waste, and poor environmental framework in countries/receivers exist in a great degree. Also there is the phenomenon of immigration of scavengers, where people from less developed countries enter the informal sector in progressed countries, particular in recycling, increasing in many cases recycling rates. But on the same time there are putting further health, environmental, and financial burden and risk in the recycling chain. Recycling is also favoured by the increase of global environmental awareness & implementation of international treaties that support environmental protection & recycling.
ISWA Presidential Advisory Committee, C. Scharff & E. Antreich TRENDS IN THE EU PACKAGING MARKET, 7 June 2013
2|P a g e
1. Introduction: A Recycling World
Today there are also human & international networks that facilitate information sharing and organisation of systems for exchanging and selling of materials. Strong drivers make recycling an important issue in the global economies. Such drivers are for example the increasing waste volumes, which demand efficient solutions of treatment, while at the same time it is important to save the contained precious materials. Last years there has been improved regulatory implementation, there is a shift away from landfill towards recycling and recovery, and there are regulatory pressures and legislative support for recycling. Also there is a growing public concern, a need for a clean image, and of course there is the economic value of recycling. Lately there has started the discussion on the importance of ensuring the quality of recycling products , and not only quantities. It is not irrelevant the recent decision of China to raise environmental standards of recycled materials imported, it indicates a trend that should be considered.
2
C ONSTRAINTS
As all business recycling encompass various constrains. Recycling is not an easy case and this because of the different parameters that have to be considered when applying the business scenario. First of all is a relative new business in such an organised form. Secondly, the materials themselves are many and in many forms. There are various stakeholders, many legal, many illegal and the managing chain may change many countries, material can change forms, legislation status in countries involved probably is different, and there are many parameters to be considered including, social, environmental, and economic. Some more constraints include: Varied interpretations of legislation Weak implementation of legislation in some countries Continued dependence on landfill, which is also the characteristic of Balkan countries, including Greece up to today Recycling is expensive for certain types of waste Problems deriving from financial crisis - Economic downturn affects market prospects Illegal waste dumping Downcycle of materials
3
In the above framework cooperation between nations and exchange of experiences and transfer of knowhow is essential for the successful implementation of national and global policies on the recycling field.
C. Velis and P. Brunner, "Recycling and resource efficiency: it is time for a change from quantity to quality", Waste Management Research,
June 2013
3
D-Waste, European Recycling Performance: Drivers, Barriers and Lessons Learnt, 2012
3|P a g e
2. RECYCLING IN THE REGION

Balkan countries are either already part, or future members of the EU. In this sense they are all aiming in becoming part of the vision of o European recycling society. Some are closer to this target; some have a long way to cover, either way recycling efforts have already started in the region and there are numerous challenges to be addressed. Before investigating in details the recycling situation in Greece and Serbia lets first have a short view of the recycling state in EU and some of the Balkan countries like Romania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro.
2.1 RECYCLING IN EU
Rapid increase in volume and types of solid and hazardous waste as a result of continuous economic growth, urbanization and industrialization, is becoming a burgeoning problem for national and local governments to ensure effective and sustainable management of waste. Waste generation in the European Union, as in the most of the world, is still increasing. Regarding waste treatment, although recycling and diversion from landfilling is increasing the latest years, Municipal waste Treatment in several countries of the EU-27 still relies in a great degree on landfills. However trends show that landfilling will be further reduced in the future, and recycling and composting of waste will be covering a great degree of the waste practices.
FIGURE 1: MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT IN EU (2011)
Europe, like much of the industrialized world, is using an increasing amount of materials. The average annual use of material resources in EU-27 is around 16 tons/person. Regarding other figures, the overall trend in waste generation, including hazardous waste, is upwards. The total waste generation in EU-27, including Turkey, Norway, Iceland, and Croatia reaches 3 billion tons (2006), while total hazardous waste generation reaches 88 million tons (2006). The total municipal waste generation accounts for 260 million tons (2008), while the per capita municipal 4 generation is about 524 kg/cap (2008), while there are large differences between countries .
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics
4|P a g e
2. Recycling in the Region
FIGURE 2: TREND IN GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN EUROPE
FIGURE 3: MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT EUROPE
Recycling has numerous environmental benefits including diverting waste away from landfill, thereby avoiding pollutant emissions. It also helps meet the material demands of economic production, preventing the 5 environmental impacts associated with extracting and refining virgin materials .
EEA, Earnings, jobs and innovation: the role of recycling in a green economy, 2008
5|P a g e
2010
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
0% 14% 24%
45%
43%
37% 32% 26% 23% 20% 18% 17% 16% 15% 12% 9% 3%
1%
36% 30% 28%
34%
27% 25% 20%
18% 15% 11% 7% 4%
3%
Luxembourg
Greece
Austria
Ireland
Netherlands
Romania
Slovenia
Belgium
EU (27 countries)
United Kingdom
FIGURE 4: RECYCLING PERFORMANCE IN EUROPE (% OF THE TOTAL MSW GENERATED), SOURCE: EUROSTAT, 20126
Czech Republic
FIGURE 5: PACKAGING RECYCLING RATE (2010)
Apart from environmental benefits, recycling brings also economic and social benefits. Revenues from recycling are substantial and growing fast. From 2004 to 2008 the turnover of seven main categories of recyclables (glass, paper & cardboard, plastics and the above mentioned metal groups) almost doubled to more than 60 billion in the EU. Due to a reduced demand for r aw materials and a decline in
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastemanagement/recycling
6|P a g e
Switzerland
Estonia
Lithuania
Portugal
Bulgaria
Denmark
Germany
Hungary
Slovakia
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Croatia
Cyprus
France
Latvia
Malta
Italy
Poland
Spain
commodity prices during the economic downturn the turnover of recycling declined sharply at the end of 2008 and 7 in the first half of 2009 but seems to have recovered somewhat since then .
FIGURE 6: TOTAL TURNOVER OF RECYCLING OF SEVEN KEY RECYCLABLES IN THE EU. SOURCE: EEA8
Also employment linked to material recovery has also increased. People working in the recycling sector reached from 422 inhabitants per million in 2000, to 611 in 2007. With recycling, there is less use of virgin materials, and there is an opportunity for decoupling of material use from economic growth. Also, resources are kept in a close-loop process and represent a more circular, instead of a linear economy, where resources are depleted & wasted. Finally there is less use of virgin non-renewable resources. Through recycling EU maintains secure supplies of rare or precious metals that are necessary for the production of new technologies, (ex. e-mobility, information & communication technologies & renewable energy). Important also is the creation of green job, through recycling. 301,000 people were employed in the recycling sector in EU in 9 2007 versus 174,000 in 2000 .
2.2 RECYCLING IN BALKAN COUNTRIES (BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, MONTENEGRO)

Initiatives are under way in Croatia, Romania, Serbia and BiH to reduce waste in landfills. Much of the region's waste ends up in landfills. While governments across the region have not established integrated systems of waste management, they are working to implement recycling programmes and are researching ways to use waste for energy production or biowaste composting.
7 8
ETC/SCP, "Green economy and recycling in Europe", June 2011 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/total-turnover-of-recycling-of EEA, Earnings, jobs and innovation: the role of recycling in a green economy, 2008
7|P a g e
Croatia is doing better with waste management than some EU countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, but it must achieve better results. Country has not developed a national strategy, obligating municipalities to establish waste sorting systems that will meet the demanding European objectives. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), just 5 percent of waste is recycled. According to the Statistic Agency of BiH, around 67 percent of the population makes use of public municipal waste services, while the rest, settled in rural areas, do not have any waste management. Last year BiH deposited 1.4 million tonnes of waste in landfills. There are no economically viable systems for their collection. An overview of the amount of waste generated (including specifically for PET and Plastic Bags) is given in the table below.
TABLE 1: WASTE MANAGEMENT DATA - ESTIMATED OVERVIEW10
Croatia 2008 Population Quantity rMSW Quantity rMSW Quantity of PET [tonne] [kg/inhab] [tonne] [kg/inhab] [pcs/inhab] PET Collection PET Recycling PET Recycling Plastic bags Plastic bags Plastic bags [tonne] [kg/inhab] [pcs/inhab] [tonne/yr] 4,417,000 1,800,000 408 44,000 10 332 22,000 18,200 41%
BiH 2009 3,840,000 1,493,000 388 50,000 13 434
Montenegro 2009 620,145 193,000 311
EU 27 2009 493,000,000 167,000,000 338 3,018,600 6 200
500 1% 2,200 0.6 29
1,360,000 48 3,400,000 7 338
10
Anonymous, 2012
8|P a g e
FIGURE 7: GDP AND RESIDUAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) 11
The development of waste from beverage packaging as well as from plastic bags is different from other municipal wastes. While the quantity of municipal waste is more or less connected to the economic situation of a national economy measured in GDP the quantity of one way beverage packaging (mostly PET and metal cans) has increased rapidly even in regions where GDP remains low. Despite these low figures for total MSW generation, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina generate large quantities of PET-bottle waste, estimated to range between 7 to 13 kg/inhab/yr which amounts to more than 300 bottles per resident per year. In comparison Austria, Germany and Europe as a whole generate approximately half this amount of PET bottle waste at 5 to 6 kg/inhab/yr respectively less than 200 bottles. In addition to the high amount of PET waste generated, the amount of plastic bags is also very high, which would correspond to approximately 900 bags per resident per year. For Bosnia & Herzegovina a quantity of 21,600 tonnes of PE plastic bags is reported which corresponds to approximately 600 bags per resident per year. Reuse of packaging material has been encouraged in Croatia since the recent introduction of a tax system imposed on producers and importers of packaging waste. Otherwise the reuse of packaging material such as glass bottles is not reported in SEE. It seems that most of the refillable glass bottles have been replaced by one-way-plastic-bottles in recent years. The recycling of waste is not widely practiced in the SEE region only around 5-15% of MSW is recycled. This is significantly lower than the average reported across the EU27 of 60.5%. The table below gives an overview of the 12 relative amounts of the different materials that are recycled .
11
Anonymous, 2012 Anonymous, 2012
12
9|P a g e
TABLE 2: SHARE OF RECYCLED WASTE13
Croatia (2008) Proportion of Municipal Waste Recycled Paper/cardboard Plastic packaging Aluminium Glass 14% 67% 9.4% 0.5% 22%
Bosnia & Herzegovina (2007) <5% 10-25% 1% >60% <1%
Serbia (2010) 7-8% 75% 10-15% 3% (metal) 2%
EU 27 (2008) 60.5% 80.8% 30.3% 67.7% (metal) 66%
2.2.1 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA

The waste legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is complex and further complicated by its separation into 2 separate legal entities, making it difficult to harmonise the legislation across BiH. BiH has begun steps to transpose EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Legislation with local legislation, however due to numerous harmonisation problems this regulation has not been implemented yet. No economic incentives exist to promote the adequate treatment and waste management of waste in general, let alone for recycling of PET and Plastic Packaging waste. There is no Landfill tipping fee or tax, which means there is no incentive to reduce the waste sent to landfill or for the establishment of alternative waste treatment options, such as recycling. This also means that the cost of waste disposal and the environmental impacts are not covered 14 by the system. For the year 2012 a packaging law has been announced. For the recycling of MSW just a limited number of activities involving about 100,000 residents (less than 3% of the population) are in operation. Recyclables separated from the mixed municipal waste amount to less than 5 % of the total municipal waste mass where 20-25 % of waste paper, 1 % of plastics, and less than 1 % of glass is actually segregated and collected. At least 95 % of the collected mixed municipal waste is thus landfilled, mostly at non-sanitary disposal sites
2.2.2 CROATIA
EU Waste laws have been transposed into legislation however it is not certain that standard waste management practise is compliant with the legislation. The Croatian Waste Management Plan for the Period 2007 to 2015 describes clearly what needs to be achieved to fulfil EC-legislation. The plan describes goals and gives a wide overview of activities needed for different types of waste to reach the set goals. In total in 2004, 4.9% of MSW was separately collected. The target is to increase this amount to 23% by the year 2015. Croatia is one of a few countries in SEE that has implemented steering tools to force the use of refillable bottles and to force the separate collection and the recycling of one-way-bottles as well as beverage cans.
13
14
10 | P a g e
Each producer/importer of beverages must fulfil targets for the share of refillable packaging, depending on the type of product. The target is 25% for alcoholic beverage containers (excluding beer which is 75%), wine bottles, 15 juice and water bottles.
2.2.3 MONTENEGRO
Even though waste data in Montenegro is not well developed, it is clear that waste is a significant problem. Improper disposal, usually at simple waste dumps (both legal and illegal) is a significant source of air, soil, and surface and groundwater pollution. Recycling is not typically carried out, with a few small exceptions, and there are no proper waste recycling facilities. However for the year 2006 a quantity of 49 tonnes of separate collected plastics is reported. A projection of future waste quantities forecasts about 10,000 tonnes per year of plastic packaging waste which 16 includes PET beverage bottles as well as other plastic packaging like foils, bottles, buckets, etc.
15
16
11 | P a g e
3. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING POLICIES & LEGAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 THE EUS WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY
EU 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 resourceefficient economy. The EUs Sixth Environment Action Programme (2002 -2012) identified waste prevention and management as one of four top priorities. Its primary objective is to ensure that economic growth does 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. Waste Framework Directive regulates waste management in the EU along with a number of subordinated and complementary laws related to treatment methods or waste streams.
FIGURE 8: EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
The revision brings a modernised approach to waste management, marking a shift away from thinking about waste as an unwanted burden to seeing it as a valued resource. The Directive focuses on waste prevention and puts in place new targets which 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.
A) L ANDFILL D IRECTIVE
Article 5 of the Landfill Directive states that Member States should set up a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills by means of recycling, composting, biogas production or materials/energy recovery. This strategy should ensure that not later than five years after the date of implementation biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 75% of the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995. After eight years this must be reduced to 50% of this 12 | P a g e
3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework
amount, and after 15 years to 35%. Member States that landfilled more than 80% of their collected municipal waste in 1995 may postpone the attainment of the targets by a period not exceeding four years. Municipal waste is defined in the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) as "waste from households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from household". However, the precise definition of biodegradable municipal waste varies from Member State to Member State. The main motivation for these targets and measures was to reduce the production of methane gas from landfills, inter alia, in order to reduce global warming. And they should also aim at encouraging the separate collection of biodegradable waste, sorting in general, recovery and recycling. The Report from the Commission on the national strategies for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills points out that all the strategies promote composting, recycling of paper and energy recovery. Most strategies stress the importance of using source segregated organic waste to obtain good quality compost.
B) T HEMATIC S TRATEGY ON THE P REVENTION AND R ECYCLING OF W ASTE

The Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste refers to the report on national strategies, and points out that there is no single environmentally best option for the management of biowaste that is diverted from landfill. It concludes that management for this type of waste should be determined by the Member States using life-cycle thinking. It expressed the intention to produce guidelines on applying life-cycle thinking to the management of biowaste, to communicate these guidelines to Member States and to invite them to revisit their national strategies. It also announced the adoption of compost quality criteria under the end-of-waste provision proposed for the Waste Framework Directive and to bring the biological treatment of waste under the scope of the IPPC Directive when it is revised. Finally, it foresees a revision of Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture.
C) W ASTE F RAMEWORK D IRECTIVE

The Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC has been revised. On 17 June 2008, the European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution in which it approved the Council's Common Position as amended. This step marks the adoption of the revised Directive in second reading and the end of the negotiations.
R ECYCLING T ARGETS
The New Waste Framework Directive sets new targets for recycling, and expects Member States to set up separate collection to ensure high quality recycling. By 2015 separate collection should be set up at least for paper, metal, plastic and glass. In particular the new targets of the Waste Framework Directive are described in the following table:
TABLE 3: TARGETS OF THE WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
New targets
2015 2020 2020
Separate collection: At least for paper, plastic, metal and glass Recycling rates of 50% for household and similar wastes (at least for paper, plastic, metal & glass) 70% for construction and demolition waste
13 | P a g e
According to the Directive Reuse and Recycling should reach the minimum of 50% by 2020, for household and possibly for similar waste. This concerns at least paper, metal, plastic and glass. Other targets include the Landfill diversion for biodegradable waste, as well as packaging recovery and recycling The Directive introduces a five-step waste hierarchy where prevention is the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery, with disposal such as landfill as the last resort. EU waste legislation aims to move waste management up the waste hierarchy.
B IOWASTE TREATMENT
The new Waste Framework Directive foresees in its article 22 specific provisions on biowaste. Member States are obliged, as appropriate, to encourage the treatment of biowaste following the waste treatment hierarchy by promoting separate collection with a view to the composting and digestion of bio-waste, by taking measures for the treatment of bio-waste in a way that fulfils a high level of environmental protection, and by stimulating the use of environmentally safe materials (e.g. composts) produced from biowaste. In a crucial clause, the Commission is asked to carry out an assessment on the management of bio-waste with a view to submitting a proposal if appropriate. In this assessment the opportunity should be examined of setting minimum requirements for biowaste management and quality criteria for compost and digestate from bio-waste. It is envisaged that this could end up in a Communication or in a specific bio-waste Directive or Regulation. It is clear that this constitutes the point of departure for this study. Article 11 introduces reuse and recycling targets. Bio-waste however is not included in the waste types that are to be collected separately or for which recycling targets have been established. However, Member States are allowed and encouraged to include more waste streams, to promote high quality recycling. To this end they can set up extra separate collection schemes of waste where this is technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors. By 31 December 2014 at the latest the Commission itself shall examine the existing measures and targets and shall consider setting targets for other waste streams. The new Waste Framework Directive introduces an important new element on energy recovery through anaerobic digestion of biodegradable waste. Article 2 point 1 f extends the exclusion of other natural non -hazardous agricultural or forestry material from the application of the Waste Framework Directive. In the old Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC this was limited to application of this waste for use in farming. The new Waste Framework Directive foresees an exclusion for the production of energy from such biomass. This means that installations for composting for this material do fall under the restrictions and obligations of the environmental permit for recycling activities while competing installations for bio-methanisation and energy recovery are exempted.
E ND - OF - WASTE C RITERIA
Article 6 specifies that certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery, including recycling, operation and complies with specific criteria to be developed in accordance with the following conditions: the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes ; a market or demand exists for such a substance or object; the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products; and, the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.
14 | P a g e
The measures relating to the adoption of such criteria and specifying the waste shall be adopted using the comitology procedure. End-of-waste specific criteria should be considered, among others, at least for aggregates, paper, glass, metal, tyres and textiles.
FIGURE 9: WASTE HIERARCHY PYRAMID
Where criteria have not been set at Community level, Member States may decide case by case whether certain waste has ceased to be waste taking into account the applicable case law.
D) P ACKAGING D IRECTIVE
The Packaging Directive (94/62/EC as amended by 2004/12/EC) among other provisions sets minimum recycling targets for paper and board packaging waste. Compliance with the Packaging Directive thus directly affects the amounts of biodegradable waste landfilled or incinerated, and thus also compliance with the Landfill Directive. However, it does not affect recycling of bio-waste as defined in the Waste Framework Directive. In other words, compliance with the Packaging Directive makes it easier to comply with the Landfill Directive without having to increase the amounts of bio-waste that are recycled. All other things being equal, it can be concluded that the Packaging Directive provides a negative incentive for the recycling of bio-waste as defined in the Waste Framework Directive. However, the Packaging Directive does provide some positive incentive as well, to the extent that some countries include cardboard packaging within the management of biowaste through composting and anaerobic digestion. For example, some anaerobic digestion plants treat a waste stream which includes dirty card, whilst some composting plants treat card which is collected alongside biowaste. If there are increasing returns to scale in biowaste treatment, this lowers the average costs. This is not, however, mainstream activity, either for card or for biowaste management.
3.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING IN GREECE AND SERBIA
3.2.1 OVERALL STRATEGY , POLICY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN GREECE
Greece is a full member of the European Union and therefore has to adjust its legislative framework to comply with the European legislation. In most environmental issues, including waste management, the drive to implement new stricter laws stems from the EU. To a large extent, European legislation is incorporated well to the national law and the legislative framework for waste management can be considered sufficient and well elaborated. Problems usually arise at the level of implementation. Waste planning started in 1996 in a Regional Level (Nomarchies) ( 69728/824), with an aim to eliminate illegal dumping. At that point there was not taken into consideration the future need for waste treatment facilities, in 15 | P a g e
order to move from sanitary landfills to integrated waste management solutions, and as a consequence the creation of numerous sanitary landfills was planned. In 2000, National Planning (... 14312/1302 723 /9.6.2000 and 26469/1501/103 864 /1.7.2003) involved the creation of 124 Sanitary La ndfills (70 in mainland, 11 in Crete and 43 in rest of the islands). During realisation of the works the planning was proven inefficient, and new plans took place in level of Prefectures, initially with decisions () of the relevant Ministry (), and afterwards through laws (... 50910/2727 1909/22.12.2003). So Regional Plans for Solid Waste Management (RPSWM - ) were obligatory until the end of 2005. RPSWM specify the objectives of the National Planning, set targets at a regional level, and reveal SWM projects for the coming years. RPSWM define the Operational Modules through which relevant bodies (FoDSA and Municipal Authorities) will be called to manage projects of collection and integrated solid waste management. Countrywide, the overall projected Managing Units amount to 81. Since 2005 some RPSWM have been reviewed, but their application has encountered problems as a whole, both in terms of financing and in terms of social opposition and appeals. The Law 3852/2010 known as "Kallikratis" anticipates the combination of FoDSA of each region on a single Association. Today there are 79 Landfills (XYTA) in Greece; most of them will be considered illegal after 2012, as they cannot be turned into Sanitary Landfills (XYTY), and many are in construction phase. National Planning was aiming in the closure of all illegal sites in Greece, and the coverage of all population with Sanitary Landfills, until 21/12/2008. This was the date given by the European Court that condemned Greece for its negative environmental results of insufficient waste management. But this deadline was not reached. In December 2010, Greek authorities brought a plan to the European Commission, stating that all illegal landfills will be closed by June 2011, and will be decontaminated within 2012. Today (July 2013) most of the targets are met with a small number of illegal landfill sites (10-20) operating until the end of the year The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change as it has been renamed and restructured in 2010, (MEECC, KA in Greek) is charged with environmental protection and provides co -ordination and advice on the main environmental policy areas. Also, the Ministry of the Interior has particularly important responsibilities regarding solid wastes and local solid waste management (SWM), as part of its role in supervising local authorities. Regarding the diversion of Biological Municipal Waste (BMW) from landfilling, ten years after the adoption of the EU landfill directive (99/31/EEC) Greece still relies on landfills for the disposal of over 80% of its waste. The Directive sets stringent standards on the design, construction, operation and aftercare of landfills and introduces a compulsory framework for the calculation of landfill costs and charges, based on full cost accounting, including the costs for restoration and monitoring after the end of the useful life of the landfill. These provisions are defined in the Ministerial decree 29407/3508 (JMD 1572B, 16-12-2002) which transposed, practically through an exact translation, the directive into national law. Very recently, in 2012 the European Waste Framework Directive (98/2008) was introduced in National Law (Law 4042/2012) and regulated many topics of national concern, as will be analyzed further in the following Chapters. Also following the EU legislation, which sets as a major goal the Waste Prevention and Recycling in the last few decades, recycling processes become more and more important due to increase of waste production. At the same time, waste hierarchy which guides European Union (EU) waste management policy and innovative approaches concerning waste management, like polluter pays or Extended Pr oducer Responsibility - EPR have raised high expectations for solving waste management problems. As a matter of fact, EPR is considered by scholars, as an extension of polluter pays principle. The main difference among them is that EPR as a policy inclu des all the phases of a product and the disposal phase as well, while polluter pays principal concerns, mainly, its manufacturing phase and its impacts. 16 | P a g e
The EPR concept is incorporated in Greece into the Law 2939/2001, which sets the legal framework for recycling of packaging waste and other products and transposes the EU Directive 94/62/EEC.
L EGAL F RAMEWORK FOR W ASTE M ANAGEMENT AND R ECYCLING

The first Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC) in Greece was adopted in 1975 and established general rules for the management of waste. It was amended in 1991 by Directive 91/156/EEC, and has been incorporated into Greek Legislation, through three Joint Ministerial Decisions (JMDs), which: defined the terms and measures for Solid Waste Management (SWM) (69728/824); provided detailed technical specifications for SWM facilities (114218/97), equipment and procedures; and outlined the general directions of SWM policy in Greece (113944/97). In 2000, the National Plan for SWM became a legal text, as a JMD, which sets the priorities and gives directions for the sustainable management of solid wastes of the country. In 2002, initiated the update of the National Plan, aiming at: the redrafting of the Prefectural Waste Strategies according to the Regional Strategies that where developed for promoting integrated SWM; the elaboration of integrated SWM systems for the 13 Regions of Greece; the management of Uncontrolled Waste Disposal Sites (UWDSs) and their gradual elimination and restoration; and the development of modern sanitary landfills, covering the entire country by the end of 2008. This goal is still not achieved, since some of the Regional Strategies have not been conducted (eg for Peloponnese) yet, due to changes in the local government. During the period of 2002 2003, the MEECC focused also on the transposition of the EU Legislation on waste management into the National Legal System and, thus, issued new JMDs, including JMD 29407/3508/2002 on measures and terms for sanitary disposal (harmonization with the EU Directive 99/31/EC) and JMD 50910/2727/2003 on measures and terms for SWM. Still, there is more to be done, since only recently the new Strategic Planning for Waste Management for Greece is tendered. The application field of Law 2939/2001 (harmonization with the EU Directive 94/62/EEC) on Packaging and the Alternative Management of Packaging and other Materials extends to packaging wastes, end -of-life vehicles, waste batteries and accumulators, catalysts, used tyres, wastes from electrical and electronic equipment, oils and waste oils, and demolition and construction wastes. This law obligates the economic actors to organize or participate in systems of alternative waste management, in order to achieve specific quantitative recycling and recovery targets. During 2004-2005 the establishment and the operation of individual Recycling Systems for different byproducts (tyres, electrical supplies, batteries etc) were introduced by Presidential Decrees. So far the P.D.s 82/2004, 109/2004, 115/2004, 116/2004. 117/2004, 15/2006 for used oils, tires, batteries, end of life vehicles and waste electrical and electronic equipment have been issued. The last waste stream that was introduced in an Extended Producer Responsibility - EPR System is the Construction Waste (J.M.D. 3 6259/2010). In 2003 J.M.D. 37591/2031/2003 concerning healthcare waste was published. Accordingly healthcare units have to issue rules of procedure concerning hazardous medical waste. In the same year the J.M.D. 50910/2727/2003 on measures and terms for solid waste management - national and regional planning management, in complete compliance with the European Waste Framework Directive 91/156/EEC is issued. Basic principles and targets for solid waste management together with the specifications for national and regional planning are set there. The last amendment for the management of waste from hospitals and other hygienic interest was published in 2012 (J.M.D. 146163/2012). The most recent legislative regulations are J.M.D. 13588/725/2006 for hazardous waste, the MD 8668/2007 on the approval of Hazardous Waste National Planning and the Law 3536/2007 were the legal form of Waste Management Authorities is defined. During 2009 the M.D. 8111.41/09/2009 on measures and terms on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues in compliance with the provisions of the Directive 2007/71/C was published.
17 | P a g e
3.2.2 OVERALL STRATEGY , POLICY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN SERBIA

Long-term strategy of Republic of Serbia in the area of environment protection shall mean the improvement of populations living quality by providing desirable conditions of environment and conservation of nature based on sustainable environment management. Key steps shall include strengthening of the existing and development of new measures for establishment of integrated waste management system, further integration of environmental policy into other sector policies, acceptance of extended individual responsibility for environment and more active participation of public in decision making processes. The National Waste Management Strategy shall be a fundamental document providing requisites for rational and sustainable waste management at the Republic of Serbia level. The Strategy has to be supported by large number of implementation plans for management of specific waste streams (biodegradable, packaging and other). Establishment of economic instruments and financial mechanisms shall be necessary in order to provide for the system for national and international investments into long-term sustainable activities. Also, the Strategy shall consider needs for institutional strengthening, legislation development, regulations implementation at all levels, education and development of public awareness.
L INKS TO OTHER STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

The Government adopted the National Program of Integration (NPI) in October 2008, which is a basis of legislative work plan of the Government till 2012, which the Strategy on the EU Accession of Serbia marked as the year when Serbia is ready to take over obligations emanating from the EU membership. The National Sustainable Development Strategy (Official Gazette of RS, no. 57/08) was adopted by the Government in May 2008. The aim of the Republic of Serbia Sustainable Development Strategy is to balance three pillars, three key dimensions economic growth, environment protection and social balance creating one coherent entity supported by corresponding institutional framework. In March 2009, the Government adopted also the Action Plan for implementation of National Sustainable Development Strategy. The Strategy of Energy Development in the Republic of Serbia by 2015 (Official Gazette of RS, no. 44/05) and Regulation on the establishment of a Programme for implementation of the Strategy of Energy Development of the Republic of Serbia by 2015 in the period 2007-2012 (Official Gazette of RS, no. 17/07, 73/07 and 99/09) define energy development priorities. The Regional Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia for period 2007-2012 (Official Gazette of RS, no. 21/07) was adopted in January 2007. This document treats regional development in Serbia, for the first time in a comprehensive and consistent manner all created problems and disparities and suggests a series of measures for their mitigation and solution. Strategy of Cleaner Production Introduction (Official Gazette of RS, no 17/09) was adopted by the Government in March 2009, and it is the elaboration of strategic documents, especially of the National Sustainable Development Strategy and National Environmental Protection Programme.. The Decision on the Establishment of the National Environmental Protection Programme (Official Gazette of RS, no. 12/10) defines strategic objectives of the environmental protection policy, as well specific objectives for protection of environmental media (air, water, soil) and influence of certain sectors on environment (industry, energy, agriculture, mining, traffic, etc.) L EGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING New legal framework for waste management was established by the enforcement of a set of laws in the area of environmental protection (2004), including new laws which regulate waste, i.e. packaging and packaging waste management (2009). These laws provide conditions for establishment and development of integral waste, i.e. 18 | P a g e
packaging and packaging waste, management system. Basic regulations which govern waste management in the Republic of Serbia are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Law on Ratification of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and its Disposal (Official Gazette of FRY, International Agreements, no. 2/99 Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 135/04 and 36/09) Law on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette of RS, no. 135/04) Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette of the RS, no. 135/04 and 36/09) Law on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Official Gazette of RS, no. 135/04) Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of the RS, no. 36/09) sets forth types of waste and its classification, waste management planning, stakeholders, obligations and liability with regard to waste management, specific waste streams management, requirements and procedures for the issuance of permits, transboundary waste movement, reporting, waste management financing, supervision and other relevant aspects of waste management. Waste management consists of a set of activities of joint interest which comprise implementation of prescribed action plans to be carried out within waste collection, transport, storing, treatment and disposal, including supervision of the aforesaid activities and responsibility for waste management facilities upon closure thereof. Law on Packaging and Packaging Waste Management (Official Gazette of RS, no. 36/09) sets forth environmental requirements which packaging must meet in order to be marketed; packaging and packaging waste management, reporting on packaging and packaging waste, economic instruments, as well as other relevant issues with regard to packaging and packaging waste management. The Law also regulates imported packaging, produced, i.e. marketed packaging, as well as packaging waste generated in the course of business activities on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, regardless of its origin or purpose, and used packaging material.
7.
The Decree on establishing a plan to reduce packaging waste for the period 2010-2014 (Official Journal RS 88/2009) defines the targets for recovery and recycling.
TABLE 4: RECYCLING AND RECOVERY TARGETS UNDER SERBIAN LEGISLATION
General targets Recovery Recycling Specific recycling targets Paper / cardboard Plastic Glass Metal Wood [%] [%] 2010 5,0 4,0 2010 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2011 10,0 8,0 2011 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2012 16,0 13,0 2012 14,0 7,5 7,0 9,5 2,0 2013 23,0 19,0 2013 23,0 9,0 10,0 13,5 4,5 2014 30,0 25,0 2014 28,0 10,5 15,0 18,5 7,0
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
M ANAGEMENT OF O THER P RODUCTS ( OLD VEHICLES , TYRES , CONSTRUCTION WASTE ETC ) Rulebook on the manner and procedure of end-of-life vehicle management ("official gazette of the republic of Serbia", no. 98/2010). This Rulebook shall apply to vehicles and end-of-life vehicles, including built-in components and materials regardless of the manner in which the vehicle is serviced or repaired during its use and whether or not the vehicle is equipped with components that the manufacturer shipped or other components installed as spare parts. Rulebook on manner and procedure of waste tires management Management of waste tires is a set of measures that include collection, transportation, storage, and treatment of waste tires. Management of waste tires is conducted in such manner as to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. Waste tires may not be disposed of in landfill. For 2010 the recycling of waste tires shall comprise 70% and use for energy purposes 30% of the total quantity of waste tires collected in the previous year. 19 | P a g e
The recycling of newly-created waste tires from this Rulebook's entry into force to 31 December 2010 shall comprise 70% and use for energy purposes 30% of the total quantity of waste tires collected in the previous year. Rulebook on manners and procedures of used batteries and accumulators management ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", No. 86/2010). This Rulebook shall set forth the content and appearance of labels on the batteries, button cell batteries and accumulators according to the content of hazardous material, manners and procedures for waste management of batteries and accumulators, as well as devices with built-in batteries and accumulators.
20 | P a g e
4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste
4. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

In the tables below the country and waste profiles of Greece & Serbia are presented, in order to provide with a fast comparison of the national status focused in waste management.
FIGURE 10: COUNTRY AND WASTE PROFILES OF GREECE & SERBIA17
4.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

Greece is a member of the European Union (EU) since 1981. Since then, the country has to meet great challenges in order to confront problems of insufficient waste management, and reach the same level of environmental protection as the most progressed EU member-states. Waste management in Greece is one of the most complicated problems the country has to face. Several parameters make decision making, planning and implementation a difficult task, both from environmental, 18 political, legal and social perspective .
17
Waste Atlas. Access July 2013, http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/ Sifakis & Haidarlis, Waste Management in Greece, 2006
18
21 | P a g e
Also the European Court of Justice has condemned Greece several times for not succeeding to meet the 19 requirements set by the EU . Nevertheless Greece has done some positive steps during the last decades in matters of environmental protection and sustainable waste management. First of all there has been the integration of EU legislation in the Greek laws. Secondly, in matter of strategy, there has been the adoption of the Green Growth Strategic Action Program (2010-2015). Also there has been a successful operation and established experience of 9 recycling systems, most of which have brought satisfactory results. Due to the operation of the systems, there has been an increase in the recycling rates, even though still there are low in comparison to other EU countries and refer mostly to the material recycling (In Greece organic recycling is still very low, about 1%). Among other actions, Greece has straggled to close its illegal landfills. Some pilot projects on Pay As You Throw (PAYT) schemes exist, and there are currently industry initiatives to reduce packaging material. Regarding expected actions in the field of waste management, several waste facilities have entered in tendering phase which are in Peloponnese, Western Macedonia, Serres, Ilia & Aetoloacarnania, and 2 more have been announced in Attica and Patra. Regarding biowaste management, there is a target of 5% separate collection of biowaste by 2015, which by 2020 will increase to 10%. Also there has been an introduction of landfill tax of untreated waste which will take effect from 1.1.2014. The tax is set at 35/t of waste and will increase annually by 5/t until 60/t. Of course there are still remaining many issues to be solved and improved. In spite the efforts still some illegal landfills exist, and Waste Management in the Greek islands is not considered satisfactory, as there is lack of infrastructure, as well as lack of recycling programmes. Waste management responsibility and liability in Greece is at local level and lies within the competence of the Municipalities. They are responsible for the collection, transport, temporary storage, reload, recovery and disposal of waste. Generated household waste in Greece was reported to be near 5,197,519 tonnes/year . In Greece there is not yet a strategy for the prevention of waste, and the amount of municipal waste generated per capita in Greece increased between 1995 and 2009. After 2009, due to the economic crisis, it is experiencing a decline. Until 2009, Greece had one of the highest annual growth rates, of municipal waste generated, reaching 21 3.3% . Below there are the figures presented by Eurostat, as from 2013.
20
19
Abeliotis, K., Karaiskou, K., Togia, A., Lasaridi, K., 2009. Decision support systems in solid waste management: a case study at the national
and local level in Greece. Glob. Nest J. 11, 117126.

20
Hellenic Statistical Authority, http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-
themes?p_param=A1501&r_param=SOP06&y_param=2010_00&mytabs=0
21
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_statistics#Municipal_waste_generated_by_country
22 | P a g e
FIGURE 11: MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATED IN GREECE22
MSW quantities in Greece grew from 3.9x106 tonnes in 1997 (the first year for which relatively reliable data exist) to appr. 5.3x106 tonnes in 2011, at a rate of 3.4% annually (estimation YPEKA, 2011). The BMW content is estimated at 60%, comprising of 40% putrescibles (dropping in urban areas) and 20% paper, with an increasing tendency (Figure 1). Data illustrating the temporal and geographical variation of waste composition in the country, according to the few studies carried out up to now, are summarised in Figure 2. The lack of accurate waste data, as well as the different methodologies used to define the waste composition, is a basic problem complicating any Municipal waste in Greece by treatment SWM planning in the country.
500 450 400 350
kg per capita
Recycling and composted Incinerated
300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2004 2006 2008 2010
Landfilled
Source: Eurostat, 2012
FIGURE 12: MUNICIPAL WASTE IN GREECE BY TREATMENT
Currently Greece has no incineration capacity, neither source separation of biowaste. The country relies heavily on landfilling for the disposal of about 81.1% of its waste, the rest being recycled by both the formal and informal sector (18.9%) and MBT treated in the Ano Liossia plant, in Athens.
22
Source: Eurostat 2011 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasmun&lang=en
23 | P a g e
MSW Composition - Greece, 2011
Inert material Wood 3% Metals 2% Glass 3% 3% Plastics 14%
Other 6% Putrescibles (organic) 40%
Putrescibles (organic) Paper Paper 29% Plastics Glass Metals Wood Inert material Other
FIGURE 13: AVERAGE GREEK MSW COMPOSITION (YPEKA, 2011)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Putrescible Paper Glass Plastics Metals Other Athens -1984 Heraklion -1987 Athens -1991 Kos -1991 Naxos -1993 Athens -1997 Thessaloniki -1998 Thessaloniki -1987 Rhodes -1989 Chania -1991 Kalamata -1992 Xanthi -1993 Pilea -1998 Crete -2004
Fraction (% by weight) (%ti
Waste category
FIGURE 14: GEOGRAPHICAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION OF MSW COMPOSITION IN GREECE23,24
For the main calculations as used in many studies for the Recycling sector the following basic data are used: Collection coverage reaches 100 % Generation of MSW was increasing, until 2009. Currently, a significant decrease in generation per capita, due to financial crisis. The annual per capita MSW production is taken as 457 kgr
23
Gidarakos, E., Havas, G., Ntzamilis, P., 2006. Municipal solid waste composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste
management system in the island of Crete. Waste Management 26, 668679.

24
Papachristou, E., Ntarakas, E., Mpellou, A., Sfetkos. Ioannidou, Alivanis, K., Petridis, G., Savvidis, I., 2002. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis
of Municipal Solid Waste of Thessalonica. In: Proceedings, 1st Congress of Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association, Athens, 28/2/2002 2/3/2002. YPEXODE, 2003
24 | P a g e
The MSW production in the Attica Prefecture accounts for 39% of the total produced MSW in the country, followed by the 16% production in the Prefecture of Central Macedonia (9% in the Thessaloniki area) The highest percentage (40%) of MSW accounts for putrescibles The main recycling actions aim at a) the reduction of the overall waste volume that is landfilled and b) reduction of the CO2
The existing MSW treatment facilities (2012) include: 79 landfills in operation, some Regions either have no landfill, or their number is not enough 4 landfills to be completed 28 Materials Recovery Facilities for packaging waste (covering 80% of population) - export of sorted recyclables due to limited capacity 4 MBT plants of approximately 580.000 t/y 6 Plants for recycling of used motor oils 8 plants for the treatment and recycling of WEEE (one of them for refrigerators) 6 plants for treatment of Pb-batteries 115 facilities for the treatment of end of live vehicles and collection points 5 plants for the recycling of used tyres
So far, the main pillars of waste management include the actions to optimize the landfill capacity in the country (there are still 20-30 uncontrolled dumpsites reported, February 2012), expand the MBTs and enforce the recycling activities. Furthermore, the new Regional Waste Management Plans are scheduled and tendered with unspecified technical references in order to allow the use of other treatment methods (like th ermal treatment) as well as the use of new financial instruments (PPP-Public Private Partnerships). According to the data presented in 2011, there had been in 2011 in Greece still 395 uncontrolled dumpsites, of which 90 active and 305 inactive (not used). The 90 sites are listed in the map below.
FIGURE 15: UNCONTROLLED ACTIVE DUMPSITES IN GREECE (2011)
25 | P a g e
4.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SERBIA

Serbian government and the professional public community are under constant pressure concerning how to achieve goals for waste management as soon as possible and harmonize policy with official policy. Many experts from the European Union state that mistakes made by developed countries in waste management should not be repeated by developing countries, and that developing countries must make their on way to develop waste management systems bearing in mind the mistakes that the mentioned developed countries experienced. The basic mistake was the opinion that it is necessary to avoid the waste management system based on landfills and apply an advanced 3R system as soon as possible as well as other WTE and so on. The question is whether it is possible. Is it possible to achieve the goals of waste management at an affordable cost, or whether it is possible to develop a modern waste management system without landfills that represents the basis of every waste 25 management system? As a country in transition with 3582 landfills and a production of 0.87 kg capita 1 day1, and very austere economic situation, Serbia seeks for a solution of its waste problem. Tax in Serbia, in the city of Novi Sad, increased from 25 /hh/year to 30 in 2003, while in 2010 it was 36 Euro/hh/year. Statistics suggest that Serbia recycles nearly ten times less waste than EU member states, but officials say recycling is on the rise. Now that the situation is more stable and Serbia is fighting for EU membership candidate status, more attention is being paid to the environment. The state has adopted a national waste management strategy, which is to fully introduce European standards in waste recycling by 2019. Serbia currently recycles 7% to 8% of communal waste -- glass, wood, paper, plastic, and metal. In the EU, depending on the type of material, between 60% and 80% of waste is recycled. According to European standards, four kilos of electronic waste per capita should be recycled, whereas in reality 0.5 kilos is recycled. We have made progress in recycling car batteries. About 80% of them are recycled, but on the other hand, batteries used by households are practically not recycled at all. According to EU standards, 95% of unusable vehicles should be recycled. There is no precise data on how many of such vehicles are recycled in Serbia, but we are most certainly far from the European norm. The quantity of packaging waste in the Republic of Serbia is neither measured nor recorded systematically. The quantity of packaging waste is estimated to over 334,500 t p.a., based on the measuring in several municipalities, i.e. it includes around 30% of the population. It is estimated that the share of the packaging waste in the municipal waste is around 14%. Serbia needs a packaging waste management system, since the quantity of this waste is constantly increasing due to the growing share of the disposable packaging, especially PET packaging and cans. The greatest part of it is collected with municipal waste and disposed in the dumps. Primary selection of packaging waste is organized in some cities (aak). That Serbia has much more to do in terms of waste management is also evidenced by the fact that there are 3,582 uncontrolled landfills, predominantly in rural areas. The public needs to be told more about recycling for the situation to improve, while local governments must provide people with more recycling containers, to sort various kinds of waste.
25
Goran Vuji, Dejan Ubavin, Duan Milovanovi,EU HIERARCHY IN WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SERBIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT
CHALLENGES, REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
26 | P a g e
The data for the qualitative and quantitative composition of waste in Serbia are not sufficient since until recently waste was disposed in uncontrolled landfills. Serbia annually produces over two million tonnes of municipal waste.
TABLE 5: GENERAL INFORMATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
Population 7.498.001
Number of households 2.677.857
Percentage of collection coverage (%) 62
Total waste generated (t/year) 2.380.990
Daily waste generated per capita (kg/capita/day) 0,87
Number of main / illegal dumps 158 3.302
Number of Regions 28
According to the data in Serbia are 3582 identified landfills in Serbia, 165 of them are municipality landfills, 5 are sanitary landfills and rest are wild dump sites. There are 5 more regional sanitary landfills in construction progress, as well as closure and sanitation and/or recultivation of some municipality landfills.
TABLE 6: NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED LANDFILLS IN SERBIA BY CRITERIA
3 3
Criteria (m ) to 1.000 from 1.001 to 10.000 from 10.001 to 100.000 from 100.001 to 500.000 from 500.001 to 1.000.000 Over 1.000.000 Total
Number of landfills 2.702 698 131 37 7 7 3.582
Total area (ha) 154,50 480,04 313,11 199,24 62,59 131,98 1.341,46
Total volume (m ) 604.628,93 2.251.995,18 4.087.590,55 8.693.492,43 5.296.214,07 23.123.124,56 44.057.045,71
27 | P a g e
FIGURE 16: MAP OF IDENTIFIED LANDFILLS IN SERBIA
M UNICIPAL SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES

Quantities of MSW generated in Serbian municipalities were measured within the 7-day period. Exceptions represent municipalities Belgrade, Novi Sad and Kragujevac, since they have weighbridges on the municipal landfills and measurement of disposed waste are performed every day. Using demographic data of the participating municipalities, quantity of annually generated waste per person was obtained. This is shown in Table 2.3.
TABLE 7: DAILY AND ANNUALLY PROJECTIONS OF GENERATED MUNICIPAL WASTE QUANTITIES PER CAPITA26
* **
Municipality Inija Sombor Novi Kneevac abac Topola Kragujevac Bor Ni Novi Sad Belgrade
Inhabitants
49,258 56,734 9,648 123,155 25,292 185,000 55,817 239,596 314,192 1,392,691
Quantity of collected -1 waste (tones week ) 396 267 39 528 49 1,018 119 1,320 2,323 15,032
Projection of generated waste quantity -1 -1 -1 (tones year ) (kg capita year ) 20,588 417 13,873 244 2,026 209 27,465 223 2,543 100 52,945 286 6,215 111 68,656 286 120,773 384 781,692 561
26
Anonymous. 2012c
28 | P a g e
* Include number of inhabitants under the waste collection system ** Average quantity for three different seasonal measurements
FIGURE 17: QUANTITY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, EXPRESSED IN KG CAPITA-1 DAY-127
Belgrade, as the capital city, generates over 15000 tonnes per week, followed by Novi Sad, Ni (2323 and 1320 tonnes respectively), and other regional centres. Expressed as daily quantity per person, the variation from 0.28 kg for Topola to 1.54 kg for Belgrade clearly shows the correlation between economic prosperity and waste quantity (Figure 16). It can be noticed that waste generation rate is higher during summer comparing to winter season (Figure 17).
FIGURE 18: INFLUENCE OF SEASONAL VARIATION ON GENERATED WASTE QUANTITIES
Organic waste which include garden and other biodegradable waste is the dominant sample fraction (40% to 60% of total sample weight), followed by plastics (10%) and its subcategory - plastic bags (4%-7%). Paper, glass and cardboard contribute by 2% to 10%. Morphological MSW analysis results are shown in Table 8. For Topola, with an even mix of households (urban and rural), only one (rather than three) waste sample was classified.
27
Goran Vujic, 2010
29 | P a g e
TABLE 8: COMPOSITION OF MSW BASED ON HOUSING CONDITIONS (AS % OF TOTAL CATEGORY WEIGHT)
Waste category biodegradable and
Plastic packaging waste
Al-coated cardboard
Inija
Sombor
Novi Kneevac abac
Topola Kragujevac
S b S c S a S b S c S a S b S c S Sa Sb Sc S Sa Sb Sc Sa Sb Sc
22.2 17.9 40.1 23.7 1.9 22.1 27.1 11.2 25.8 26.5 5.4 22.4 6.4 1.6 13.7 33.3 8.4 0.6 11.0
40.6 25.3 20.5 36.7 63.3 34.4 19.2 26.7 18.2 27.7 52.1 27.6 52.3 27.9 29.3 29.1 48.3 45.5 51.6
3.8 6.9 3.06 0.6 5.0 3.8 6.4 15.0 5.5 6.4 6.9 2.4 6.1 7.5 7.3 1.9 3.4 5.2 2.2
2.6 6.2 6.6 1.6 2.2 3.0 10.9 3.8 7.1 5.1 3.7 1.8 2.2 2.3 12.4 1.3 1.1 4.3 2.2
2.3 5.8 2.7 2.1 0.9 4.5 12.5 1.5 2.8 2.1 3.9 7.2 3.9 9.7 15.5 5.8 10.2 5.4 2.9
1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.7 1.5 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.7 1.4 0.7
0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.8
0.7 1.1 2.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.8 5.1 1.7 0.4 1.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2
0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
1.1 3.3 1.8 4.5 2.8 4.9 5.0 7.0 4.5 3.2 1.6 4.3 1.9 3.7 2.2 3.5 2.4 3.0 2.3
4.7 6.0 4.3 5.4 9.6 3.1 5.4 2.4 8.2 3.3 3.4 2.9 6.8 7.6 5.5 3.9 5.4 9.4 3.3
1.7 3.3 3.1 1.8 2.1 3.1 0.9 2.4 2.8 6.1 3 4.3 2.3 4.2 4.3 5.2 2.7 2.9 2.7
1.6 3.7 3.9 12.9 4.5 10.2 0 2.6 5.7 6.9 3.3 14.8 6.0 8.4 1.1 2.6 2.9 2.2 4.9
0.6 0 0.4 0.1 0.9 5.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.8
5.2 3.1 5.64 / / / 0.3 6.5 2.8 1.4 2.8 3.3 1.6 8.4 1.9 2.6 4.7 7.1 4.7
11.4 15.7 4.5 9.1 4.9 5.0 10.4 17.7 9.9 8.7 11.8 6.8 8.6 15.8 4.3 7.4 7.0 9.8 8.6
Bor
30 | P a g e
Fine waste particles
Housing conditions
Waxed cardboard
packaging
Metal- Al cans
Garden waste
Hard plastics
Municipality
Plastic bags
Cardboard
Nappies
Leather
Textiles
Metalother
Other waste
Paper
Glass
Ni
Novi Sad
Belgrade
Sa Sb Sc Sa Sb Sc Sa Sb Sc
16.4 5.3 4.4 16.2 5.2 17.2 4.1 3.6 19.4
37.8 33.7 36.0 40.4 39.5 44.8 41.6 41.4 39.1
2.8 2.5 0.9 6.0 10.3 4.5 5.5 5.5 8.3
0.6 6.4 1.2 2.7 15.3 3.5 11.6 4.7 0.5
4.2 3.2 1.9 3.3 7.0 5.7 5.2 6.8 6.2
0.5 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.9 4.3 0.9
0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.2 2.8 0.5
1.6 1.6 0.6 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6
0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1
3.6 3.3 5.9 3.9 4.9 3.8 5.3 5.0 3.7
6.3 11.6 10.6 4.0 3.8 3.7 6.1 4.8 5.1
2.7 6.6 2.7 5.1 3.5 3.1 1.5 3.5 2.7
3.7 15.0 6.8 8.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 5.8 1.9
0 0 0.7 0.2 0 0 0 0.5 0
1.6 3.7 12.5 3.1 0.3 3.2 4.1 4.7 4.1
17.5 5.8 14.3 2.4 4.9 5.5 7.2 5.2 6.8
Sa -Urban area - individual housing Sb -Urban area - collective housing and commercial zones Sc -Rural areas within the municipality
31 | P a g e
FIGURE 19: DAILY AMOUNT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE EXPRESSED IN KG PER CAPITA28
In Novi Sad, the most of waste was generated, over 2323 tons of waste a week. Expressed in per capita daily quantity, the variation of 1.15 kg in Indjija to 0.58 kg in the New Knezevac clearly shows a correlation between economic prosperity and waste (Figure 18). The final projected value of 2.374.375 tonnes of waste is generated annually by 7.443.183 inhabitants of Serbia, yields the average 0.87 kg capita-1 day-1. The total yields participation (in %) of all waste categories on the national level are shown in figure 19. At the national level, organic waste with its two sub-categories takes up almost 50% of total municipal waste. Other biodegradable material with 37.62% is three times heavier than garden waste. Plastics take up 12.73%, while paper and cardboard contributes by 13.57%. Values of other fractions are shown on Figure 19.
FIGURE 20: MUNICIPAL WASTE MORPHOLOGICAL COMPOSITION FOR REPUBLIC OF SERBIA29
28
Goran Vujic, 2012
32 | P a g e
The example of calculated results for municipality of Novi Sad is shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9: MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS PROJECTED ON THE MUNICIPALITY OF NOVI SAD30
Waste category Garden waste Other biodegradable waste Paper Glass Cardboard Waxed cardboard Al-coated cardboard Metalpackag. and other Metal- Al cans Plastic packag. waste Plastic bags Hard plastics Textiles Leather Nappies Fine waste particles
Novi Sad 9.17% 40.73% 8.57% 11.19% 6.06% 0.72% 0.91% 0.98% 0.43% 4.57% 3.85% 3.66% 3.09% 0.03% 1.29% 4.73%
In most municipalities in Serbia generated waste is mostly not sorted at the source, but collected in the same waste bins. The main source of information on the amount of waste generated is Public Utility Company, which deals with information of the total quantity of the waste collected and land filled by this company and some other companies that are paying for disposal of their waste to the official landfill. Another limitation factor should be considered when speaking about the quantities of waste collected by the existing system is the activity of the waste pickers, which collect a considerable amount of the recyclables from the containers and they sell it on the market. Also, an amount of waste is still disposed on open dumps, mostly along the roads or on some undeveloped area. That is because of the lack of implementation of the national policy, integrated system of waste management and adequate technologies. There is no brief study on optimization of dynamic and routing of the collection system and is rather done by operators estimation. Small hanging waste bins and small bins are used for collection of small parts of waste thrown by people when in the street. Usually small bins are placed along the sidewalk and other areas for public use. While doing the street cleaning, workers are emptying those bins into the curbside containers. The house-to-house collection system is implemented in specific parts of the municipalities where the structure consists mostly of individual houses. Plastic waste bins of 240 l are distributed to each household. Transportation vehicles visit houses, once a week, at a specific day and time for waste collection. Waste collection vehicle collects the waste positioned on defined territorial block on each tour, or collects the waste from individual households on each tour. It is necessary to mention that solid, non-household waste, construction-demolition waste, discards generated by industries, workshops is handled through agreements with some private collection services, or by using the special service provided by Public Utility Company.
29
MOPRORK, 2012 Goran Vujic 2012
30
33 | P a g e
Another generated waste stream is not controlled. It is the waste that ends on open dumps that are formed on inappropriate area, along the roads, rails, river flows etc. The open dumps of mixed and demolition waste are formed by some citizens who throw their waste irregularly. Due to the different way of collection, mechanization used, transportation and the characteristics of the waste collected from open dumps, bulky waste, green waste and other types of waste (mostly demolition waste). Waste volume in the Republic of Serbia is hard to estimate. The main reason is lack of information on waste qualitative and quantitative analysis, i.e. data base of quantities, characteristics, especially content, and classification of waste. Table 10 presents municipal collection programs summary in Serbian cities which include recycling.
TABLE 10: MUNICIPAL COLLECTION PROGRAMS31
Municipality
Materials
Collection Wet-dry model; dry waste collection bag system. ton/month useful dry collected; detailed records maintained all materials. JKP & municipality manage and finance collection. Participating citizens exempt from future landfill fees. Pilot agreement with Seko-Pak to support non-profitable aspects of collection.
Sorting/Separation Municipal-owned Waste Management Incubator with fiveyear, rent-free agreements for private partners. Local private partners: Pima (nonmetal), Scholz (metal). Pima-managed sorting line. JKP Javna Zelenila .manages pilot compost operation. Secondary separation facility planned at Duboko landfill. PP caps separated from PET bottles; PET sorted by color and baled. Temporary workers through a Republicfinanced social employment program (subsidy). PET pressed and baled together with PP caps. Sorting facility located 10 km from city. Umka provided press for cardboard.
Markets/Buyers
aak
Plastic (all types) Paper (all, including Tetra Pak) Metal Tires Glass Compost
Various buyers for different materials; private operators manage all sales and transactions. Symbolic fee paid to JKP based on quantities of materials.
Kragujevac
Plastic (PET, PP) Paper
2009: >100 tons plastic. Began with USAID assistance. 200 wire containers; 200 large canvas bags. Stable management (no political influence). Suburbs served (no villages). Public awareness campaigns. 2009: 100 tons PET. Paper: 200-240 tons/year. Bag collection for households. Business obligated to buy two 140L containers. Public containers. Bag collection in 11 villages. Bag system nearly prohibitively expensive.
PET: Saniplast, 12 RSD/kg clear; 8 colored. PP: Various small plastic producers, 12 RSD/kg
Indjija
Plastic (mainly PET, LDPE) Paper Electronic Waste Tires (planned) Glass (none)
Paper: Umka. PET: Probably Greentech, but not positive.
31
Anonymous, 2010
34 | P a g e
Krusevac
Plastic (mixed) Paper/Cardboard Glass
Nis
PET Metal
Kraljevo
Plastic (mixed)
2008: 50 tons total Plastic: 750 kg/month. Started in 2006; USAID supported expansion. JKP management changes with political party. Wire containers with few (early) closed containers. Expanded to several villages. PET: 8 tons/month Preparing for PPP. 250 PET containers, plan to add 50. Plan to add 50 metal containers. Municipality buys scrap metal from local industry. Planning recycling yard and islands. 3 tons PET since 2008. Began in cooperation with Ministry of Economy & Regional Development, Ministry of Tourism. 50 containers. Concede paper collection to Roma and private collectors. PET: 1.0-1.5 tons/month. Paper: 15 tons before stopping. Wire containers with canvas liners added later. Began with USAID donation of 60 wire containers & press. Good example of collection efficiency and source separation. 3-4 nearby villages served. PET: 1 tons/month. Cardboard: 3 tons/month. Began with USAID assistance. 120 wire containers (50 from USAID). separation. Plastic: 750 kg/month. Began with USAID assistance 70 wire containers (50 from USAID). Media campaign. Good participation and source separation. Villages served. Received USAID donation, started, then later stopped activity. Closed containers. Private communal collector, wire containers. Received USAID donation, started, then later stopped activity. 5m3 compartmentalized
PET pressed and baled together with PP caps. Five workers collection and processing. Recycling Center likely planned for future. PP caps separated from PET bottles; PET sorted by color and baled. PET, sorted by color, pressed and baled. PP caps separated from PET bottles; PET sorted by color and baled. 55 temporary workers under Eko Brigad social employment program.
PET: Saniplast, 150/ton, 2008. Paper: Umka, 4.8 RSD/kg, 2008; currently YuKarton in Nis.
PET & PP: Greentech.
PET: 85/ton PP caps: 150/ton
Raska
PET Paper (started and later stopped)
Pressing, baling & accumulating PET.
Until time of interview had only stockpiled material.
Zitoradja
PET LDPE Cardboard
PET pressed and baled together with PP caps.
PET: Greentech, 16 RSD/kg, 2008. Paper: Umka, 3 RSD/kg, 2008.
Blace
Plastic (mixed) Cardboard
PET pressed and baled together with PP caps.
Plastic: Greentech.
Ivanjica Priboj
No current activities. No current activities.
N/A N/A
N/A All collected materials sold to Novak, 1000 total.
35 | P a g e
Nova Varos
No current activities.
Tutin
No current activities.
containers. Collected 20 tons before stopping. Private communal collector, wire containers. Received USAID donation; not utilized at time of interview. 20 5m3 compartmentalized containers. Received USAID donation of 50 containers and press; not utilized at time of interview. Privatized (contracted) JKP.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
36 | P a g e
5. Production & management of Recycling Streams
5. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF RECYCLING STREAMS

5.1 MANAGEMENT OF RECYCLING STREAMS IN GREECE
In Greece, the Extended Producer Responsibility EPR concept, although not named as such, was incorporated to the national legislative framework via the Law 2939/2001 (amended by Law 3854/2010 and 4042/2012). The Law 2939/2001 had a farsighted perspective, which facilitated the further adoption of the different EPR EU Directives through Presidential Decrees (PD) after the Law 3854/2010, through Ministerial Decisions (MD). In fact, other waste streams (e.g. used tires, used oils and Construction and Demolition waste - C&D) which are not specifically under the EPR policy in the EU legislation were put under the EPR umbrella. The main idea behind EPR is that producer that design products and place them on consumption should have a part of responsibility for the end of life treatment of his product. Thus producers ought to fulfil their responsibility in any way the can, either in an individual or a collective way. If they choose the first option, they bear responsibility only for the products that they put on market. However, bearing the responsibility may be proved extreme costly. Instead, the producers can join together and form collective compliance schemes (or collective take back systems), in order to be in line with EPR requirements. The role of the aforementioned schemes, which are known as Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), are pivotal in the EPR implementation for two reasons. Firstly, PROs take care of the overall practical implementation of the take-back obligation. Specifically their activities include: organization of collection from predetermined points, processing and transportation to recycling facilities, informing about their results the appropriate national authority. Secondly, they provide an important interface for organizing nancial transactions, collections, and communicatio ns among national authorities, producers, waste companies, retailers, and local authorities. Eventually, despite the possible differences among PROs, in terms of operational structure, costs and standards they all execute the same flow chart presented in Figure 20. In the following figure the main principles of the EPR system are presented.
FIGURE 21: THE ROLE OF PROS (ADAPTED FROM [29].
37 | P a g e
Among others, EPR Directives, Laws PD and MD gave producers of waste the responsibility to form PROs operate and finance them. Moreover, as in all m-s of EU, they set several compulsory quantitative targets for the separate collection of waste streams or products at the end of their lives. Currently, all aspects of EPR policy and PROs licensing and operation are regulated by the Hellenic Recycling Agency (HRA), former National Organisation for the Alternative Management of Packaging and Other Waste (NOAMPOW) (Law 4042/2012). At this time, eighteen PROs operate in Greece (see Table 1), four of which for packaging waste, one for motor oil residues, one for EoLV (End of Life Vehicles), four for batteries and accumulators, two for WEEE, one for used tires and five for C&D waste.
TABLE 11: OPERATING PRO SYSTEMS IN GREECE DURING 2012
Waste stream and legal approval Package and packaging waste, L. 2939/2001
Type C C I C
Range N N N N N N N N R N N N
Name of PRO HERRCO REWARDING RECYCLING ** VSLPLS KEPED (oil packaging only) ELTEPE EDOE AFIS SYDESIS SEDIS-K*** Re-Battery APPLIANCES RECYCLING S.A. FOTOKIKLOSI S.A (lighting equipment and light bulbs only) ECOELASTIKA ANABE S.A SANKE CHALKIDIKI* SEDPEKAT ANAEKK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Motor oils residues, PD 82/2004 EoLV, PD 116/2004 Portable batteries and accumulators, PD 115/2004, amended by MD 41624/2057/103/2010
C C C C C C
WEEE, PD 117/2004 and PD 15/2006
C C
Used tires, PD 109/2004 C&D waste, MD 36259/1757/103/2010
C C C C C C
N R R R R R
13 14 15 16 17 18
*Approval is expected by HRA, **Temporary withdrawal licence, *** from 2011 not operating, C=Collective, I=Individual, R=Regional, N= Nationwide
The main characteristics and key results achieved by nine of sixteen PROs per ERP waste stream in Greece are 32 presented next. Data were extracted from the annual reports of the PROs submitted to the HRA . The HRA is a private entity with public character supervised by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, with administrative and financial independence and is organised as follows:
32
Statistical data, HRA website www.eoan.gr
38 | P a g e
FIGURE 22: ORGANOGRAM OF HRA
The HRA is financed partly by the contributions of the PROs and partly by other programmes (Operational Programme for Environment and Sustainable Development). Its main task is to approve, supervise and control the operation of the PROs and coordinate the strategy for recycling activities in the country.
5.5.1 PACKAGE AND PACKAGING WASTE

H ELLENIC R ECOVERY AND R ECYCLING C OMPANY (HERRCO)
During the last decade the necessary infrastructure has been developed for the collection and processing of recyclable packaging waste. This infrastructure is best known as the blue bin system and has been established by HERRCO, currently there are 108.000 blue bins all over the country. The term blue bin comes from the blue colour of the bins (photograph below) in which all packaging material can be disposed of without further separation. This packaging material includes aluminium, tinplate, plastic, glass, paper and composites like Tetra Pak, while the system also accepts printed paper. The system (HERRCO) has been developed in cooperation with the Municipalities (the Central Organisation of the Municipalities is participating with 35% in the SA) and FIGURE 23: HERRCO RECYCLE BIN cooperates in different ways with municipalities: a) HERRCO provides the municipalities with equipment (bins and vehicles) b) the municipalities are responsible for the collection of the packaging material c) the municipalities have in some cases a profit when operating the recycling centres. The collected material is sorted in material recovery facilities, which are either owned by HERRCO or by private or municipal entities. To date, 28 material recovery facilities are in operation all over the country processing the collected recyclable materials and some more are designed (photograph below from the recycling facility in Patra. The main characteristics of the projects carried out by HERRCO include: 39 | P a g e
Coverage of > 79% of the population in Greece Especially in islands, separate projects have been developed in 22 islands, corresponding to 350.000 inhabitants and visitors During 2011 15.000 blue bins have been handed out to the participating municipalities as well as 11 collection vehicles Every day 273 collections have been carried out by the participating municipalities At the end of the year 27 Recycling Facilities are operating all over the country (most of them listed in the following map). Especially the municipalities of Athens and Thessaloniki show overbooked capacity FIGURE 24: MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY There was a significant increase in the glass recycling rate compared to 2010 (+54%), due to the expansion of the system to specific collection sites (restaurants, touristic places etc)
Increase in number of bins and corresponding tonnage collected packaging waste from 2005 - 2009.
FIGURE 25: NUMBER OF BINS AND CORRESPONDING TONNAGE COLLECTED PACKAGING WASTE FROM 2005 - 2009
FIGURE 26: LOCATION OF THE 24 RECYCLING FACILITIES IN GREECE AS OF 2009
40 | P a g e
At the end of 2011, 28 Recycling plants are operating.
P ARTICIPATION OF P RODUCERS
From the site of the producers the participation of the responsible producers accounts is as follows: The total number of the participating firms has increase by 3% and accounts 1.703 companies The average annual contribution (fee) for each new contract has been reduced by 18% compared to 2010 and accounts now for 900. The total participating packaging volume has been reduced by 7% and is estimated to be 445.000 tons. The main reason for this is the economic crisis leading to a significant reduction of the production of packaging waste (decrease in sales) For the same reasons the input from fees in 2011 is expected to be 22,6 Mio., reduced by 7% compared to 2010. In the following graph the percentage of the different producer categories are listed, indicating that the main producers originate from the food and beverage sector (62% in total)
FIGURE 27: PERCENTAGE OF THE DIFFERENT PRODUCER CATEGORIES
C OOPERATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES

By the end of 2011 there have been 241 municipalities cooperating with the System either direct with contracts or indirect through municipal taxes, accounting for ca. 8 Mio. Inhabitants In the following table the recovered and recycled tons of packaging waste in each one of the Recycling facilities is shown.
TABLE 12: RESULTS OF THE BLUE BIN PROJECTS IN GREECE
Quantities of packaging waste recovered/recycled in the Recycling facilities (in tons) Project / location Athens area (Attica Prefecture) total Thessaloniki (total) oannina Patras Thessaly Kalamata 2010 82.109 16.188 4.214 7.460 5.370 4.180 2011 67.176 15.809 4.207 5.298 5.067 4.036 2010/2011 (%) -18% -2% 0% -29% -6% -3% 41 | P a g e
Lamia Kerkyra (Corfu) Eastern Crete Alexandroupolis Chania (Crete) Pieria Schimatari Magnisia Serres Larisa Tripolis Korinthos Rest of Greece Total in Recycling facilities
3.828 2.899 8.353 828 8.397 1.873 5.649 5.212 3.485 2.073 2.529 1.761 10.239 176.285
2.805 4.097 7.545 1.909 6.772 1.939 6.443 4.570 3.359 2.031 2.893 10.808 162.135
-27% 41% -10% -19% 4% 14% -12% -4% -2% 14% 6% -8%
Final results for the year 2011 (Annual Report of HERRCO) In addition to the packaging waste collected and recycled in the Recycling facilities, there has also been 80.000 tons of printed paper (newspapers, magazines, books, brochures etc) recycled separately, although the corresponding producers do not participate in the costs for the treatment of this product, due to the lack of the legal framework. HERRCO develops, beyond the blue bin collection system, in different occasions flexible projects aiming at the maximization of the recovery and recycling of packaging waste from municipal waste like the separate collection of glass from professional sites (restaurants, hotels etc), the collection of multiple packaging streams on islands (4 different materials), the collection with bags door-to-door etc. Summing up, the quantities of packaging waste that have been recycled from HERRCO for 2011 account for: 194.000 tons of packaging waste 274.000 tons of recyclables (including printed paper) Apart from the figures reported above, the collection of a special category of packaging waste, the industrial and commercial packaging waste that includes also the Plastic Packaging Waste, which is based on the certified quantities delivered separately by private companies-collectors, have shown the following results: 189.000 tons of packaging waste.
It should be noted at this point, that there is an economic incentive (paid by the Systems) that is given to all collectors in order to collect and deliver packaging waste to recycling facilities for collecting this type of waste. That instrument allows the monitoring of each stream separately.
TABLE 13: DEVELOPMENT IN THE YEARS 2008200920102011
Indicator Population served (Mio) Percentage of population covered (%) Municipalities (in total) (2) Recycling facilities in operation Bins delivered (thousands) Collection vehicles 42 | P a g e
2008 6,6 64% 610 18 77 236
2009 7,6 74% 648 22 98 327
2010 8,1 79% 679 28 111 359
2011 8,1 79% 241 * 27 126 370
Bags for collection (total, Mio) Working places Operation costs HERRCO (Mio. ) Capital investments (Mio. ) Sum of costs (Mio. ) Quantities of packaging waste recycled (thousands tons) Quantities of printed paper recycled (thousands tons)
1,7 1.052 24,0 25,9 49,0 400 57
2,1 1.578 31,2 4,6 35,9 433 79
2,3 1.893 27,1 2,3 28,6 424 95
2,6 1.870 24,4 7,9 27,7 398 80
The main categories and percentages of the recycled waste streams (as collected and treated in the Recycling facility of Athens area) are listed in the graph below:
FIGURE 28: COMPOSITION OF RECOVERED MATERIALS OF THE ATTICA RECYCLING PLANT
According to the graph, the main packaging material is paper packaging/printed paper with almost 70%, PET 2,9%, Plastic 20% (almost 11% PE film), 1% aluminium, 2,7% metal, 4,2% glass. In the following figures the development of the Collective System HERRCO measured as the number of registered producers and collected quantities are indicated. Figure 28 presents the number of registered producers of packaging and packaging waste for the period 20022011. Next Figures, Figure 29 and Figure 30, give information about the quantities of each packaging material and printed paper collected for the periods 2009-2011 and 2006-2011 respectively.
43 | P a g e
NUMBER OF REGIST ERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR
2000 1500 1000 460 500 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 107 247 826 1293 1078 1420 1552
1651
1703
2010
2011
FIGURE 29: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE, 2002-2011
COLLECTED QUANTITIES
500 433 300 263 61 38 28 24 2010 plastic metals glass w ood 414 219 61 32 43 28 2011 total packaging 383
*1000 tn
400 300 200 100 0
51 40 22 20 2009 paper/cardboard
FIGURE 30: PACKAGING WASTE COLLECTED IN GREECE, 2009-2011, PER MATERIAL AND TOTALLY.
Regarding the destination of material recovered, there is export of a large part of the materials, while some are recycled in the country. The glass quantities are treated by YIOULA Glassworks Company in its factories in Greece and Bulgaria.
44 | P a g e
COLLECTED QUANTITIES
500 400 400 344 267 433 414
383
*1000 tn
300 200 100 0
20 2006
35 2007
57
79
95
80
2008
2009
2010
2011
packaging w aste collected
printed paper collected
FIGURE 31: TOTAL PACKAGING WASTE AND PRINTED PAPER COLLECTED, 2006-2011.
A NTAPODOTIKI A NAKIKLOSI
Another collection system based on Refund Recycling Centers is the Rewarding Recycling (Antapodotiki Anakiklosi - AA). This Collection system is based on the establishment of refund recycling centres and operates from 2009, on a supplementary basis to the HERRCO System. Those centres (approx. 80 all over Greece) accept and sort the materials and provide a small financial compensation (www.antapodotiki.gr). It is noted though that the operating license of that system is temporarily suspended.
AB V ASSILOPOULOS
Another PRO is operating as an individual System, collecting and recycling the packaging material that is produced in the super market chain AB Vassilopoulos. It is also based on the collection of packaging material in refund recycling centres.
FIGURE 32: COLLECTION CENTRE ANTAPODOTIKI ANAKYKLOSI
In addition to these Systems, there are also several pilot projects that promote separate collection of packaging waste streams. For instance, an initiative introduced by DEDISA (Trans-Municipal Enterprise of Solid Waste Management) in the city of Chania, Crete delivered separate bins to households in order to foster the separate FIGURE 33: COLLECTION CENTRE AB VASSILOPOULOS collection of recyclable material. Another pilot program that was funded by European Commission took place in the municipality of Elefsina, Attica that examined and implemented in a pilot scale a PAYT system.
45 | P a g e
KEPED (O IL P ACKAGING W ASTE O NLY )

For 2011, RPO for oil packaging waste had 466 collection points and developed cooperation with 3 treatment facilities for plastic, 3 treatment facilities for stretch film, 3 treatment facilities for paper, 9 treatment facilities for metal and 5 treatment facilities for wood, while 5 companies were responsible for collection and transportation of waste. Figure 33 presents the number of registered producers of oil packaging waste for the period 2003-2011, while Figure 34presents data on the quantities of oil packaging put on the market and collected for 2011.
NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR 200 150 100 57 50 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
FIGURE 34: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF OIL PACKAGING WASTE, 2003-2011
125 84
137
148
161
170
178
12
QUANTITIES PER MATERIAL FOR 2011

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1600
1500
1410
tn
450 280 190 150 150
plastic
metal put on the market
paper collected
w ood
FIGURE 35: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES FOR EACH MATERIAL OF OIL PACKAGING, 2011
P ACKAGING RECOVERY RESULTS

An important progress is being made in the area of packaging recovery, which currently consists solely of materials recycling. At the administrative level, the establishment of the National Organisation for the Alternative Management of Packaging and Other Products (EOEDSAP), renamed now in Hellenic Recycling Agency (HRA) under the auspices of MEECC, has taken place in 2011. The HRA is expected to greatly contribute to the formulation and implementation of the national strategy for the prevention and recycling of waste, along the lines of the relevant EU Thematic Strategy. According to the data collected by the HRA and the responsible Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) or Alternative Management Systems (translated from Greek) the recycling rates for the different waste streams collected separately are listed below. For each waste stream (paper, plastic etc) two figures are listed: a) the waste amount produced and the b) waste recycled. 46 | P a g e
a) Paper
Recycling of paper in Greece in the period of 20062010 (in tons)
83% 79,5% 70% 73,6%
94,1%
2006 Waste (produced) Recycling 400.000 280.000
2007 400.000 318.000
2008 440.000 324.056
2009 430.000 357.000
2010 392.900 369.780
Reference: Annual Reports to the EC

FIGURE 36: RECYCLING OF PAPER IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
b) Plastic
Recycling (%) of plastic in Greece in the period from 2006-2010 (in tons)
10%
13,7%
26,7% 11,9%
2008 240.000 28.605 2009 237.000 63.200
30,1%
2007 295.000 40.500
2010 221.500 66.730

FIGURE 37: RECYCLING OF PLASTIC IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
c) Glass
47 | P a g e
Recycling (%) of glas in Greece in the period 20062010 (in tons)
25,3% 18% 15% 15,2%
21,4%
2007 150.000 27.000
2008 160.000 24.000
2009 155.000 23.500
2010 135.100 28.923
FIGURE 38: RECYCLING OF GLASS IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
d) Wood
Recycling (%) of wood in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons)
75% 58% 50,1% 30,8% 37,3%
2007 60.000 45.000
2008 65.000 20.002
2009 54.200 20.200
2010 50.500 25.287
Reference: Annual Reports to the E.C.

FIGURE 39: RECYCLING OF WOOD IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
e) Aluminium
48 | P a g e
Recycling (%) of aluminium in Greece in the period 2006-2010 (in tons)
33%
34%
2007 25.000 8.500
34%
2008 25.000 8.500
37,6%
2009 22.600 8.500
37,2%
2010 21.500 8.000

FIGURE 40: RECYCLING OF ALUMINIUM IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
f) Steel
Recycling (%) of steel in Greece in the period 20062010 (in tons)
50%
54,2%
45,8%
50,4% 42,8%
2007 120.000 65.000
2008 120.000 55.000
2009 109.200 55.000
2010 105.900 45.360

FIGURE 41: RECYCLING OF STEEL IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
g) Packaging waste
49 | P a g e
Recycling (%) of packaging waste in Greece in the period 2006-2010 (in tons)
42,8%
48%
43,8%
52,3%
58,7%
2006 Packaging waste (produced) Recycling 1.056.000 451.500
2007 1.050.000 504.000
2008 1.050.000 460.163
2009 1.008.000 527.400
2010 927.400 544.080
Reference: Annaual Reports to the E.C.
FIGURE 42: RECYCLING OF PACKAGING WASTE IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
GLASS 8% METALS 7%
WOOD OTHER 3% 5%
PAPER BOARD 63% PLASTIC 14%
FIGURE 43: COMPOSITION (AVERAGE) OF COLLECTED PACKAGING WASTE
5.5.2 MOTOR OIL RESIDUES

ELTEPE
The collection and treatment of motor oil residues is organized through the PRO - Collective System of ELTEPE (Hellenic Technology of Environment) which is organised by one of the biggest motor oil producers in Greece (Cyclon). The present PRO was approved in 2004. In its current form it provides 24.446 collection points and 7 collection centers. Moreover, is cooperating with 27 collection and transportation companies and 6 treatment and recovery facilities.
50 | P a g e
In the following table, a list with the results of the collection system ELTEPE in the years 2006-2007 is presented (Eurostat), showing that the collected quantities of motor oil residues are recovered by 100% (re-refining) in the corresponding treatment facilities.
TABLE 14: RESULTS OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM ELTEPE IN THE YEARS 2006-2007
Figure 42 presents the number of registered producers of motor oil residues for the period 2004-2011 and Figure 43 presents data on the quantities of motor oil put on the market and collected between 2004 and 2011.
NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR 200 150 100 55 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 84 136 147 160 178
170
124
FIGURE 44: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF MOTOR OIL RESIDUES, 2004-2011.
51 | P a g e
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

120000 99343 100000 80000 98684 98052 92340 79167 65774 51818 29943 11761 36029 36440 38890 32923 32500 55000
tn
60000 40000 20000 0
27492
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
oil residues collected
motor oil put on the market
FIGURE 45: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF MOTOR OIL, 2004-2011
5.1.3 END OF LIFE VEHICLES

EDOE
The PRO for EoLV was approved in 2004. Till today 36 companies are registered as waste producers that consist about 85% of the total vehicle importers. Furthermore, the PRO is cooperated with 20 collection companies, 82 processing centers and 7 shredder facilities. So far the Prefectures (Nomoi) covered by the System account for 46 (out of 52), corresponding to >95% of the population, showing a geographic coverage of > 90% in 91 different collection sites.
FIGURE 46: TREATMENT SITE OF EOLV
FIGURE 47: TYPICAL COLLECTION SITE OF EOLV
52 | P a g e
FIGURE 48: COLLECTION OF WASTEWATER SEPARATELY
As it is shown, in Figure 46, most of the vehicles collected originate from individual owners. The system peaked in 2009 due to a government supported initiative for the replacement of older vehicles.
NUMBER OF ITEMS
160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2004 2005 2006 Individuals 2007 Municipalities 2008 Total 2009 2010 1181 6584 29240 49798 62696 68665 146540
FIGURE 49: EOLV COLLECTED FOR 2004-2010.
53 | P a g e
Percentage of reuse, recovery and recycling of End of life vehicles in Greece in the period 2006-2010 (in tons)
86,5%87,4%
86,5% 84,5%
85,7% 85,7% 84,1%84,1% 82,3%82,3%
2006 End of life vehicles (tons) Reuse + Recovery (tons) Reuse + Recycling (tons)
Reference: Annual reports to the E.C.
2007 41.733 35.104 35.104
2008 51.828 44.434 44.434
2009 115.849 100.184 101.216
2010 92.158 77.867 79.722
23.952 19.714 19.714
FIGURE 50: PERCENTAGE OF REUSE, RECOVERY AND RECYCLING OF END OF LIFE VEHICLES
5.1.4 PORTABLE BATTERIES & ACCUMULATORS

AFIS
Currently, the present PRO has 56.125 collection points and is cooperating with 8 collection companies and 4 treatment facilities, 2 of which are located in Greece, 1 in France and 1 in Belgium. Figure 11 presents the number of registered producers of batteries for the period 2005-2011, while in Figure 12 are shown the quantities of batteries collected in Greece for the period 2005-2011 and the put on market quantity for 2011.
TABLE 15: AFIS COLLECTION POINTS
Points Municipalities and Public Bodies Schools Supermarkets Telecommunication stores Commercial stores Companies TOTAL
Number 8400 12500 3200 2500 10400 11000 48000

FIGURE 51: AFIS COLLECTION POINT
54 | P a g e
NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 91 149 152 156 166 172 180
FIGURE 52: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1850
tn
1000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 81 218 442 497 629 712 657
batteries collected
batteries put on the market
FIGURE 53: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011
55 | P a g e
Percentage of Recycling of portable batteries in Greece in the period 2006-2011 (in tons)
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
23,1%
500
25,5%
31,9%
32,3%
35,6%
9,9%
2006 2.197 218
2007 2.051 474
2008 1.951 497
2009 1.970 629
2010 2.205 712
2011 1.850 658
Put in the market Recycling
Reference: Annual reports of the Collective PRO "AFIS"
FIGURE 54: PERCENTAGE OF RECYCLING OF PORTABLE BATTERIES IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD 2006-2011 (IN TONS)
SYDESIS
The present PRO has 6445 collection points and is cooperating with 43 companies for the collection and transportation of collected batteries. Furthermore, it has developed collaboration with 18 companies for temporary storage of the waste, 6 treatment facilities and 2 companies for cross border transfer. In this PRO there are 95% of the producers participating (some of them are also shareholders of the PRO). Main figures of the operation of the System SYDESYS: 254 companies / producers are registered There are 25 collection companies cooperating with the System 6.500 collection sites all over Greece 887 collection points on the islands
The treatment facilities for Pb-oxide batteries are all-over Greece and are recycling/recovering the batteries producing recyclables (Pb, plastics, etc) at an overall percentage of 60-75% for all materials and 95% for Pb. The process includes 3 main stages: a) the dismantling and storage of the batteries, b) the recycling/recovery process of the metal and c) the final production.
56 | P a g e
FIGURE 55: SITE DYDESIS
FIGURE 56: PB-OXIDE BATTERIES
Figure 13 presents the number of registered producers of batteries for the period 2004-2011, while in Figure 14 are shown the quantities of batteries collected, for the period 2004-2011 and the put on market quantity for 2011.
NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 110 173 208
255
252
231
232
241
FIGURE 57: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF BATTERIES, 2004-2011.
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

25000 21046 20000 15000 18035 13008 8884 7110 17977 20250 17174
tn
10000 5000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
batteries collected
batteries put on the market
FIGURE 58: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011.
Recently another PRO has been approved, called Re-Battery in order to meet the objectives for better functioning of the collection and treatment 57 | P a g e
R E -B ATTERY
Re-Battery is a PRO Scheme that has received approval from HRA in November 2011. It operates all-over Greece, although it organizes the collection mostly in remote areas (islands). So far there are 17 registered producers participating, 21 collection companies, 6 treatment facilities. In the first year of its operation (2012) the PRO has achieved its targets for the collection of batteries (2.000 t) and also for the registration of the quantities in remote areas. In the years to follow the PRO aims at expanding its operation by collecting more batteries and registering more producers.
SEDIS-K
It is currently out of operation.
5.1.5 WEEE - WASTE OF ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

APPLIANCES RECYCLING S.A
In order to fulfil the requirements of the aforementioned WEEE Directive, the first PRO for WEEE has been established and operated in 2004, by the major players of EEE equipment trade in Greece, called Appliance Recycling S.A. At this time the system is affording 9.023 collection points and is coopera ting with 3 facilities for temporary storage and 7 treatment facilities (shown in the map below).
FIGURE 59: TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR WEEE
FIGURE 60: COLLECTED QUANTITIES OVER THE PERIOD 2006-2009 (KG).
58 | P a g e
TABLE 16: COLLECTION POINTS IN ALL GREECE
FIGURE 61: APPLIANCE RECYCLINGS COLLECTION POINTS
By the end of 2006, there were 392 collection points in all Greece.
FIGURE 62: NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS IN THE YEARS FROM 2004-2009
In the above figure the number of the registered producers in the years from 2004 - 2009 are listed. In 2011, 1134 producers are registered as shown in the figures below. Figures 15 and 16 present data on the number of registered producers of WEEE for the period 2004-2011 and on the quantities they put on the market and collected by themselves between 2005 and 2011 correspondently.
59 | P a g e
NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR 1200 1021 1000 860 800 619 600 400 200 15 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 355 748 936 1134
FIGURE 63: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF WEEE, 2004-2011
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

250000 212194 200000 150000 141083 177189 206392 172887 143273 119355 66012 50000 763 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 11341 47142 31406 46527 42309
tn
100000
WEEE collected
WEEE put on the market
FIGURE 64: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF WEEE, 2005-2011
60 | P a g e
70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FIGURE 65: QUANTITIES OF WEEE TREATED, AND COLLECTED FROM HOUSEHOLDES, 2005-2010 TABLE 17: QUANTITIES OF WEEE TREATED, AND COLLECTED FROM HOUSEHOLDES, 2005-2010
Treated WEEE (tonnes) Collected WEEE from households (tonnes)
Treated WEEE (tonnes) Collected WEEE from households (tonnes)
2005 239 100
2006 9,356 9,599
2007 24,236 28,733
2008 39,044 44,305
2009 55,883 62,847
2010 45,598 44,552
Regarding Recycling of light bulbs Recycling Appliences S.A has increased collected quantities in 2012, although there was a significant drop in the sales of new ones. In 2012, 763,000 bulbs were recycled, instead of 626,000 in 2011, which meant an increase of 22%. This increase was caused due to the expansion of the collection network of 33 629 means of collection in all Greece reaching 2,788 collection points .
FOTOKIKLOSI S.A ( LIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND LIGHT BULBS ONLY )

In 2009 was approved the collective alternative management system for lighting fittings and bulbs named Fotokiklosi S.A.. At the present time it has 5500 collecting points in the 13 regions of the country. Waste lighting fittings transferred to Belgium and waste bulbs delivered to affiliated domestic recycling.
33
http://www.electrocycle.gr/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235:ianouarios2013-proodo-simeionei-i-anakiklosi-
lamptiron&catid=1:latest&Itemid=124
61 | P a g e
FIGURE 66: BIN FOR THE COLLECTION OF LIGHTING FITTINGS FIGURE 67: BIN FOR THE COLLECTION OF BULBS
Figures 17 and 18 present data on the number of registered producers of WEEE for the period 2009-2011 and on the quantities they put on the market and collected by themselves between 2006 and 2011 correspondently.
NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR 140 120 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 2009 2010 2011 85 130
FIGURE 68: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF WEEE, 2009-2011
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

3500 2.995 3000 2500 2000 2.145 2.684 3.078 2.528 2.700
tn
1500 1000 500 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 94 190 255
WEEE collected
WEEE put on the market
FIGURE 69: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF WEEE, 2009-2011
5.1.5 USED TIRES

ECOELASTIKA
62 | P a g e
The present PRO was approved in 2004. In its current form has 2800 collection points, is cooperating with 21 collection and transportation companies and 9 tire management sites, 7 of which are located in Greece while the rest of them in Bulgaria. At the present time the participants of the PRO are: 94 tire importers and 71 vehicle importers. Figure 19 presents the results for the collection of tyres in Greece for 2004-2011 and the put on the market quantities for 2004-2009.
TABLE 18: COLLECTION AMOUNTS OF TIRES IN GREECE
Tires (pieces) A passenger tires B truck tires C moto tires Tires (tonnage) A passenger tires B truck tires C moto tires Total Tonnage % Collection
2007
2008
2009 3,244,011 375,460 112,889 2009 25,952 18,773 282.22 2009 46,884 97.30%
2007
2008
2007 46,697 85.46%
2008 52,229 99.26%
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

60000 50000 40000
tn
54196 48244 41380
54638 46697
5223052620 4636748442 41520 33182
30000 20000 10000 0
27047
2004-2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
used tires collected
tires put on the market
FIGURE 70: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF USED TIRES, 2004-2011. TABLE 19: DESTINATIONS OF TIRES COLLECTED IN GREECE 2006-2011
Destination Energy recovery Recycling Exports Stock Total
2006 3,742 30,277 323 7,038 41,380
2007
2008 8,067 43,958 282 -77 52,230
2009 8,335 29,976 6,861 1,195 46,367
2010 6,660 26,711 8,703, 4 42,078
2011 3,045 23,423 8,118 -1,402 33,184
43,288 262 3,147 46,697
63 | P a g e
60.000 50.000 40.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 0 2006 -10.000 Stock Exports Recycling Energy recovery 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
FIGURE 71: DESTINATIONS OF TIRES COLLECTED IN GREECE 2006-2011
5.1.6 CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION WASTE SYSTEMS

In order to fulfil the assignments of the recently adopted Joint Ministerial Decree for the Alternative Management of Construction & Demolition Waste (36259/2010), the HRA has evaluated and given the approval to 5 Systems for Recycling Waste from Construction Activities, in order to implement the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme to the producers of construction waste. The main pillars of this systems are: the producers (in this case the technical companies, the excavating companies etc) have to participate in a EPR System, in order to allow the management of their construction waste produced in private and public works. These Systems have to cooperate with a Treatment facility for Construction and Demolition Waste, which will have to certify the recycling or recovery (e.g. in reforestation projects or restoration of queries) of the delivered construction waste. Generated waste quantities of construction waste; according to the Hellenic Statistical Authority , in the year 2010 was 2,086,080.0 tonnes
34
C ONCLUSIONS
Greece as a Member State of EU has adopted the key pillars of EPR and implemented them in the corresponding waste streams. Currently, under the EPR context management system, PROs are operating for WEEE, packaging waste, portable batteries and accumulators, used tires, oils residues, EoLV and C&D wa ste. In general, PROs material recycling output had a rising trend until 2009, when the effect of the financial recession in Greece became apparent. At that time, or a little later in a part of the market, the rising trend is stopped or reversed, when the results of the financial recession became evident in this market sector. For the streams of WEEE and packaging waste in particular, this is the result of both the financial crisis that Greece is facing but also it is attributed to the activity of scavengers, which has been increased, also as a result of the general economic and social decline in Greece. Furthermore, a significant challenge for all PROs is imposed by the free rider problem, which is intensified due to the financial crisis. However, it should be noticed that the results and achievements of the nine largest PROs in Greece for the year 2011, in the light of the national targets requirements, indicate that a lot of progress has been made in the recycling field, for several materials. The latest recycling results of the PROs in the country demonstrate that targets have been achieved for most material streams regulated under EPR policies.
34
http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-themes?p_param=A1501&r_param=SOP06&y_param=2010_00&mytabs=0
64 | P a g e
5.2 MANAGEMENT OF RECYCLING STREAMS IN SERBIA

Municipal Solid Waste: The diagram below presents a summary of municipal solid waste streams, breaking the overall waste stream into three major classifications: communal waste, industrial & commercial waste, and construction waste. Communal Waste: Communal waste constitutes an estimated 63% of all waste; it is generally uneconomical to collect and recycle. At present most communal waste collection is managed by municipalities and JKPs, and a number of municipalities already manage recycling programs. There is a recent trend in Serbian municipalities and regions to contract landfill and waste collection services to independent international operators in 25-year publicprivate partnership (PPP) agreements. Industrial & Commercial Waste: Industrial and commercial waste (i.e. factories, supermarkets, public facilities such as hospitals, and warehouses) is the most desired and demanded waste on the market. It can probably be said that without industrial or commercial waste, a private-sector operator cannot survive; all of the private collectors and recyclers interviewed in this assessment rely to some extent (in some cases exclusively) on industrial or commercial waste. Packaging Waste: There are an estimated 334,000 tons of packaging waste generated in Serbia per year. Packaging waste is covered under the Law on Packaging & Packaging Waste and has recovery targets established for coming years, beginning with 5% recovered and 4% recycled in 2010, increasing to 30% recovery and 25% recycling in 2012. PROEurope (Packaging Recovery Organization Europe) is the umbrella organization for European packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling schemes; National PRO-Europe organizations like Seko-Pak essentially relieve industrial companies and commercial enterprises of their individual obligation to take back used packaging through the operation of a scheme that fulfils these obligations on a national basis on behalf of their member companies. The aim is to ensure the recovery and recycling of packaging waste in the most economically efficient manner. The Green Dot trademark is a financing symbol that indicates companies have signed a license agreement with a packaging recovery organization. Construction Waste: Recycling of construction waste falls into two categories: i) construction material salvaging; and ii) concrete (and other materials) recycling. Salvaging (undamaged and reusable materials) is typically handled by the owner; if left to the construction contractor, materials are typically disposed of in the landfill. The recycling of concrete waste, including reinforcement metal, bricks and stones, is typically not an economical process except on very large demolitions. In this case, the materials are pulverized, often together; the metal is removed; and the chunks are sorted by size and used as aggregate base gravel. Typically, the chunks cannot be added to new concrete mixes. The state of waste management and recycling in Serbia is far below EU targets. Only about 60 % of municipal solid waste is collected in Serbia, and less than 10 % recycled. However the recycling sector, yet young in Serbia, displays a fairly vibrant level of activity, especially in the private sector. Collectors and small-scale recyclers operate in many municipalities; recycled consumer goods are being successfully marketed; and actors are networked and cooperative. Public recycling programs are being managed in some municipalities, all of which show potential for improvement in volume, outreach and efficiency. While collection of most recyclables remains low, there appears to be additional demand for recyclables, showing that there exists potential for growth and outreach. Packaging waste is any package or packaging material which cannot be used for the primary purpose, except for the residues generated during the production process. According to the Waste Catalogue, packaging waste is defined under the index number 15 00 00. Packaging is the product made of materials with different features, used for placing, keeping, maintaining, delivery, goods presentation and protection of its contents, and it includes the
65 | P a g e
objects used as additional means for packing, wrapping, tying, impermeable sealing, preparation for consignment and marking of the goods.
TABLE 20: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF PACKAGING WASTE35
Waste type Glass packaging Plastic packaging Paper/cardboard Composite packaging Aluminium packaging Iron packaging TOTAL
th
Quantity, t p.a. 90,000 88,000 115,000 17,300 5,200 19,000 334,500
The total quantity of the packaging waste in the 2012 year, according to data 49.987.6 tons, submitted by the operator, submitted for re-use, which is given in Table.
TABLE 21: THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RECOVERED PACKAGING WASTE AGAIN BY THE OPERATORS36
Operator SEKOPAK EKOSTAR PAK DELTA PAK BB MINAQUA Total
The amount of recovered packaging waste (t) 22 494,1 23 557,3 3 713,4 222,8 49 987,6
TABLE 22: AMOUNT OF RECOVERED PACKAGING WASTE BY TYPE AND OPERATORS37
Types of packaging waste PE Plastic Glass Metal Paper/ cardboard Wood Other plastics Total Total Iron Aluminum Total Paper and cardboard Total Pallets
Recovered packaging waste SEKOPAK EKOSTAR-PAK Amount (t) Amount (t) 3 441,9 1 234,7 501,9 2 600,7 3 812,1 6 042,6 5 548,7 4 234,6 2 629,3 215,3 452,9 54,4 180,9 269,7 633,8 11 212,7 13 505,3 11 212,7 14 245,9 734,5 499,6
DELTA-PAK Amount (t) / 205,8 205,8 1,7 6,0 / 6,0 3 499,9 3 499,9 /
UKUPNO Amount (t) 4 676,6 7 120,5 11 797,1 6 865,6 674,2 235,3 909,5 / 28 958,5 1 234,1
35
National waste management strategy, 2010 Anonymous, 2012b Anonymous, 2012b
36
37
66 | P a g e
Other Total
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ 1 234,1
Packaging waste collecting is performed within the activity of certain number of mainly privately owned business operators.Some public utility companies (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Sombor, Kruevac, Smederevo etc.) are registered for the activity of recycling, among other things, packaging waste, mainly plastic, paper and metal. Plastic: The term plastic is broad and it should be noted that the marketability and values of different types of recycled plastic vary widely. Some plastics have higher values and are reprocessed locally into new consumer products by a number of Serbian recyclers; PET on the other hand is typically collected, pressed, baled and consolidated where it ultimately ends up at one of two large plastic processors in Serbia where it is subsequently exported. The price for plastics mirrors that for petroleum. The international financial crisis and the drop in petroleum prices adversely affected many recyclers as the price for virgin material dropped to levels near those for recycled plastic. LDPE plastic folio and hard plastics of the type used in beer cases and fruit trays, plus other plastics like polypropylene are recycled in Serbia by a number of small-scale producers of consumer plastic goods. No appreciable quantities of PET, if any, are recycled in Serbia; rather they are consolidated, baled or shredded, then ultimately sold to a large collector in Romania for sale to international markets, mainly China. Addressing PET waste is important due to its sheer volume and generally negative environmental impact. Though PET can be recycled, it is more difficult and generally feasible only on a large scale; its value is low, local markets are essentially nonexistent, and its use is widespread and growing. As a result, it is one of the most visible, and 38 unfortunately enduring, forms of litter . Paper: Paper includes all types of paper and cardboard; cardboard in particular has value and is recycled in varying levels of efficiency in most cities. Roma collect much of the communal paper waste, and other private and individual collectors collect industrial cardboard waste. The waste paper is consolidated by regional buyers in towns and cities, where it is ultimately resold to Umka. In general, communal waste paper (mainly cardboard) has value as a recyclable and is collected in varying levels of efficiency in most cities in Serbia. In many cases, Roma collect cardboard waste from nearby shops and other trash containers, consolidate it through small local buyers (also often Roma) who in turn sell it to larger private sector city or regional buyers, where it is ultimately resold to Umka, the Belgrade-based paper company. Glass: There are limited opportunities for glass collection and recycling in Serbia; the sole glass factory in Paracin reportedly does not recycle. One Krusevac recycler buys unbroken glass containers and then sells them through a network of users and other traders. Used batteries and accumulators: Around 27,000 t of waste lead accumulators is generated in the Republic of Serbia per year, and the entire quantity is recycled. There is no precise data on the quantities of generated waste batteries. Used batteries usually end up in municipal waste landfills. There is no organised system for used batteries management. In some locations the soil is contaminated with acid and waste plastic, which is the result of illegal decomposition of waste lead accumulators. There is a facility which performs organized collecting and handing over of hazardous lead accumulators and provides services to third parties. After handing over, it is recycled completely. Total installed capacities are 25,000 t per year. There is one more facility, which is now in the 39 process of verification of the necessary documents, and its capacity will also be 25,000 t per year .
38
National waste management strategy, 2010 National waste management strategy, 2010
39
67 | P a g e
Waste tyres: In the Republic of Serbia, around 1.4 million pieces of new tyres are placed on the market annually, on the basis of which it was estimated that about 18,000 waste tyres are generated annually. One part of the said quantity comes from domestic production, and other part is imported. It is estimated that the existing quantities of waste tyres in Serbia are around 50,000 t, taking into consideration only stocks bigger than 500 t. Increase is expected for 2010 to approximately 26,000 t of waste tyres due to the adoption of new Traffic Safety Law. It is estimated that the problem of the existing waste tyres quantities will be solved by 2014. Organised legal collection and final disposal for energy recovery (co-incineration) is performed by cement plants, which have the permit for use of maximum 15.000 t. There is also organized collecting and export of rubber dust which is generated in the process of protection of spent tyres. In Serbia, there are installed capacities for recycling of waste tyres of different dimensions, currently amounting to 18,000 t p.a. In compliance with the prescribed waste tyres management hierarchy, a proportion of 70:30 % was prescribed for 2010, or 80:20 % from 2011 and on, which gives advantage to recycling compared with use of waste tyres for energy recovery. End-of-life vehicles: There are no exact data on the quantities of end-of-life vehicles which are generated during one year. In the Republic of Serbia there are around 1 million vehicles whose average age is more than 10 years. Collection and management of end-of-life vehicles depends mostly on supply and demand. Hazardous substances and components are not extracted before the recycling process of end-of-life vehicles. Parts with use value are extracted in smaller amount, depending on their age and condition. A certain number of operators which are registered for metal waste recycling can meet the legal regulations for end-of-life vehicles recycling. These 40 operators have the capacity to recycle end-of-life vehicles in accordance with regulations . Waste electric and electronic equipment: Waste electrical and electronic equipment is composed of waste household devices (TV sets, radios, refrigerators, freezers, etc.), personal computers, telephones, cassette recorders, etc. Most of this waste is hazardous waste because of the components it contains. There are no exact data on the quantities of the electrical and electronic waste generated during one year it is estimated that the quantity generated amounts to 30,000 t per year, while around 40,000 t of the old waste is located in the dumps, various storages and wild dumpsites. 85,600 t of new electrical and electronic devices are annually imported and placed on the market in Serbia. It is not allowed to import used personal computers, i.e. electrical and electronic equipment, except for private use. Collection and management of WEEE is only present in the biggest urban areas. Mainly, waste computer equipment is collected. There are three operators in Serbia that perform organised collection and recycling. Recycling is performed by manual disassembling and separating different types of waste, or mechanically, with manual selection. There are no operators that perform previous extraction of refrigerants from the electrical and electronic waste household devices (refrigerators, freezers, air conditioning units). The management system for electrical and electronic waste is missing. In the Republic of Serbia, only small percentage 41 of electronic waste is recycled per year . Construction and demolition waste: It has been estimated that about 1 million tons of construction and demolition waste are generated in the Republic of Serbia annually. In Serbia, construction waste ends up at landfills for municipal waste and is also used as inert material to cover waste at the landfill. Recycling of construction waste 42 does not exist (asphalt is recycled in small quantities), although about 80% of construction waste can be re-used.
40
41
42 National waste management strategy, 2010
68 | P a g e
The following table shows the analysis and projections for specific waste streams in the Regions of Serbia.
TABLE 23: TOTAL GENERATED MSW / TOTAL GENERATED SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS43
Categories of special waste streams (t/year) Total generat ed MSW (t/year) Total generated special waste streams (t/year) Electrical and electronic waste
Composite packaging
Paper and cardboard
Aluminum packaging
Total medical waste
Metal packaging
Glass packaging
Region
Region Subotica Region Sombor RegionNovi Beej Region Novi Sad Region Kikinda Region Zrenjanin RegionSr.Mitrovica Region Panevo Region Vrac Region Inija Region Kragujevac Region Vranje Region Kruevac Region Pirot Region Ni Region Leskovac
101626 67112 18073 188081 30780 74124 66360 55850 35306 83807 76190 52364 51781 23704 95259 55844
64648 42692 11497 119645 19580 47153 42214 35528 22459 53313 48467 33311 32940 15079 60598 35524
3843 2538 683 7112 1164 2803 2509 2112 1335 3169 2881 1980 1958 896 3602 2112
3762 2484 669 6962 1139 2744 2456 2067 1307 3102 2820 1938 1917 877 3526 2067
4918 3247 875 9101 1489 3587 3211 2703 1708 4055 3687 2534 2506 1147 4609 2702
740 489 132 1370 224 540 483 407 257 610 555 381 377 173 694 407
223 147 40 413 68 163 146 123 77 184 167 115 114 52 209 123
811 536 144 1501 246 592 530 446 282 669 608 418 413 189 760 446
14317 9454 2546 26496 4336 10442 9349 7868 4974 11806 10733 7377 7295 3339 13420 7867
2139 1413 380 3959 648 1560 1397 1176 743 1764 1604 1102 1090 499 2005 1176
1156 763 206 2139 350 843 755 635 402 953 867 596 589 270 1083 635
933 616 166 1726 283 680 609 513 324 769 699 481 475 218 874 513
1278 844 227 2364 387 932 834 702 444 1054 958 658 651 298 1198 702
2048 1353 364 3791 620 1494 1337 1126 712 1689 1536 1055 1044 478 1920 1125
42798 28263 7611 79207 12962 31216 27946 23520 14868 35294 32086 22052 21807 9982 40117 23518
43
Anonymous. 2012d
69 | P a g e
Construction waste
TOTAL PACKAGING
Plastic packaging
Batteries and accumulators
Waste oil
Tires
Region Kraljevo Region Prokuplje Region Lapovo Region Uice Region Loznica Region Zajear Region Jagodina Region Smederevo Region Nova Varo Region Beograd Grad
49392 18932 21561 78483 25117 68745 55844 56689 19121 553204 33886 104368
31420 12043 13716 49926 15978 43731 35524 36062 12164 351913 21556 66392
1868 716 815 2968 950 2599 2112 2144 723 20918 1281 3946
1828 701 798 2905 930 2545 2067 2098 708 20477 1254 3863
2390 916 1043 3798 1215 3326 2702 2743 925 26769 1640 5050
360 138 157 572 183 501 407 413 139 4029 247 760
108 42 47 172 55 151 123 124 42 1214 74 229
394 151 172 626 200 549 446 452 153 4415 270 833
6958 2667 3037 11056 3538 9685 7867 7986 2694 77933 4774 14703
1040 399 454 1652 529 1447 1176 1193 403 11646 713 2197
562 215 245 893 286 782 635 645 217 6292 385 1187
453 174 198 720 231 631 513 520 176 5078 311 958
621 238 271 987 316 864 702 713 240 6954 426 1312
995 382 435 1582 506 1385 1125 1142 385 11149 683 2103
20801 7973 9080 33052 10578 28951 23518 23874 8052 232972 14270 43953
Region Poarevac Region Valjevo
70 | P a g e
FIGURE 72: PACKAGING & PACKAGING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW ON WASTE MANAGEMENT44
5.2.1 ACTORS IN THE NATIONAL-PRIVATE SECTOR

P UBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
All municipalities have adopted local waste management plans or are in the process, where in cooperation with public utility companies define requirements for waste collection. In addition to the Local Plans were established and waste management regions, which are required to prepare and adopt a regional plan. Plans for waste management define a form of collection programs. Each program is unique in some way and adapted to the specific conditions of municipality, but there are generally three types of programs: 1) collecting in containers, 2) collecting the bags (household), and 3) the wet-dry model system (two cans). Possible combinations of these programs depending on the needs of municipalities. Thirteen JKPs and municipalities were interviewed in this assessment (including those in the Treehouse Recycling Assessment for South-Central Serbia); of those, nine had received a USAID donation to start or expand a recycling program. Of the nine, five currently manage a recycling program; two started and discontinued their efforts (Ivanjica, Priboj); and two never utilized their donations (Nova Varos, Tutin). Municipalities typically focus on plastic (PET) collection, to a lesser extent on paper and cardboard, and a few on all kinds of materials; few collect glass. The accompanying chart shows the average monthly collection of plastic and paper among the 13 45 municipalities surveyed
44
"Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 36/09 Anonymous , 2010
45
71 | P a g e
Of the municipalities who manage a collection program, each program is unique in some way, but in general three types of programs, or some combination, emerge: i) container collection, ii) bag (household) collection, and iii) wet-dry model.
T RADITIONAL CONTAINER COLLECTION

With containers designated for specific materials, was the most common approach, implemented solely or with other initiatives in eight of the nine collecting municipalities (aak uses the wet -dry model). Most commonly, municipalities designated plastic containers, and to a lesser extent paper; in a few cases containers for other materials are also placed. In Indjija, all businesses are required to purchase two 140 L containers for plastic and 46 paper
B AG (H OUSEHOLD ) C OLLECTION
Inija and aak manage collection programs where they distribute recycling bags to households in targeted areas. In houses, the bags are placed in front of the house on pickup day; in apartment buildings, the bags are picked up door-to-door. In both programs full bags are replaced with new bags at pickup. While these two programs do rank among the highest in terms of quantities collected (though not necessarily per capita) they are also the most management-intensive and probably costly to manage as well. Businesses are required to purchase containers for plastic and paper; homes and apartments in both the city and 11 villages receive bags. In the figure, JKP placed an empty blue bag (for paper) on the lawn of this user after picking up a full bag. Later in the day, JKP will pick up the 47 yellow bag (plastic) and provide a replacement.
FIGURE 73: INIJA HAS AN EFFECTIVE COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH HIGH PARTICIPATION RATES
W ET -D RY M ODEL
Of the municipalities surveyed, only aak relies on the wet -dry model for recyclable collection. In this system, wet waste is placed in one bag or container, and dry waste is placed in a separate one (of different color). Wet waste is disposed of at the landfill (aak JKP Javna Zelenila also operates a pilot composting facility w here a small
46
47
72 | P a g e
amount of the wet waste is sent); dry waste is sent for sorting (in the case of aak, to a privatelymanaged line at 48 the municipal waste management complex). Seko-Pak seems to endorse the wet-dry model. Given the high number of private collectors and recyclers throughout Serbia and the number of JKPs starting or managing a recycling program, there is minimal cooperation between the public and private sectors. Many private collectors and recyclers cite repeated and failed attempts at gaining approval or agreement to manage a collection initiative or scheme targeting specific materials or areas. At the same time, many municipalities are entering into 25-year contacts for an international company to manage their waste collection and/or landfill. In terms of this, Cacak is an excellent example of a strong and effective local public-private partnership that could be considered by more municipalities. None of the municipalities/JKPs surveyed are able to cover their expenses by recycling, but hey state that reduced landfill demand is a benefit. Brdja in Trstenik is a company that in part serves the role of JKP through communal collection, but does so profitably with no local government subsidy or assistance. Brdja succeeds by collecting recyclable materials in public containers in addition to purchasing commercial and industrial waste. Bra also attributes their profitability to better separation by their workers than by public employees, as well as to general private sector efficiencies not achievable in the public sector. Data are collected from available sources and waste management practice analyzed by common indicative performances. Population covered with the municipal waste collection system in the region. Organized collection of the municipal waste covered 155 943 inhabitants (or 67.72%) out of the total 230 279 inhabitants living in the region which included 100% inhabitants of urban and 34,8% inhabitants of rural settlements. Organized waste collection covered all urban settlements, while coverage of the rural settlements was significantly bad with different results for included municipalities. Amount and composition of the collected municipal waste. Companies having the duty of waste collection and its transport to the disposal site do not perform measuring procedure of waste quantities, nor do they have proper 49 equipment for performing this procedure. Since there is no data on the amount of waste in the region, estimation of the amount of generated waste was performed taking into account all significant criteria which affect the level of waste generation. The amount of the waste per inhabitant for the urban settlements of Sombor, Apatin, Kula and Crvenka, which account for the most significant share of the industrial production, was estimated at the level of 1.3 kg daily or 474.5 kg annually. The same measure for the urban settlements of Odzaci and Bac was estimated to be 1 kg per inhabitant daily or 365 kg per inhabitant annually, while for rural settlements with dominant agricultural production the same measure was estimated to be 0.6 kg per inhabitant daily or 219 kg per inhabitant annually. Estimation of the amount of waste generated in the region during 2007 was performed based on the previously specified coefficient values for average daily waste production and the data on population covered with the services of organized waste collection (Table 4.1).
48
49
73 | P a g e
TABLE 24: ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF COLLECTED WASTE50
Estimated amount of collected waste in 2007 Sombor Annually collected waste [t] 25.576 Urban areas [t] 24.423 Rural areas [t] 1.153 Apatin 10.214 9.167 1.047 Kula 18.118 13.981 4.137 Odzaci 4.889 3.628 1.261 Bac 4.452 2.222 2.230 Region 63.249 53.421 9.828
Present state of the equipment for waste collection and transport. Municipal waste is most often collected in the containers of 1100 dm3 and 5000 dm3 of volume or in the cans of 120 dm3 and 140 dm3 of volume, though; a lot of different untypical tanks are used for this purpose. The waste collection equipment is not on the satisfactory level for various reasons: there are not enough containers in the most of the inhabited places; in the most of the rural settlements there are no receptacles at all; existing receptacles are mostly worn out and it is necessary to replace them, etc. Obsolete machinery used for waste transport is also a significant problem. Most of the vehicles are more than 10 years old and the vehicles that are not envisaged for this purpose are often used for it, which largely minimizes the effect of the public municipal enterprises and the frequency of municipal waste removal [Anonymous, 2010].
S EKO -P AK (PRO-E UROPE )

Pro-Europe System: PRO-Europe (Packaging Recovery Organization Europe), founded in 1995, is the umbrella organization for European packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling schemes that use the "Green Dot" trademark as a financing symbol. It acts as the common policy platform representing the interests of all packaging recovery and recycling organizations founded and run by or on behalf of industry. These national organizations essentially relieve industrial companies and commercial enterprises of their individual obligation to take back used packaging through the operation of a scheme which fulfils these obligations on a national basis on behalf of their member companies. The aim is to ensure the recovery and recycling of packaging waste in the most economically efficient and ecologically sound manner. Apart from requiring the coordination and alignment of individual members, they safeguard common interests and project a coherent, unified policy and image to the outside world. PRO-Europe is a limited liability company registered in Belgium. Seko-Pak: Seko-Pak is currently the sole national recovery organization in Serbia (most countries have multiple providers; Austria, with whom Seko-Pak seems to be working most closely, has only one). As Seko-Pak is just beginning operations (Jan. 10), many of the details related to their operations in Serbia have not been defined and released. There are currently nine industry stakeholders in Seko-Pak (e.g. Coca-Cola, Ball Metal, Tetrapak, Calsburg), though Seko-Pak is not limited to the beverage sector and will represent any company, offering solutions for all packaging waste. Seko- Pak is intended to be non-profitable with all income used to subsidize and facilitate collection (less an administrative fee); potential surpluses will be used for further reinvestment or to lower founder/client fees. It should be noted that Seko-Pak is a limited liability company; and that they will not be owners of waste. Recycling Investments: Revenues are collected through a price per ton of waste paid by founders and clients (specificdetails are still not defined). Subscribing to Seko-Paks services is voluntary and may be through ownership shares in the DOO company (founders) or as a client. Seko-Pak is currently planning to enter 7-10 municipalities,
50
Anonymous, 2010
74 | P a g e
helping them to establish primary collection programs. According to Seko-Pak, their short-term goal is to stabilize collection through subsidies and investments targeting collection. Preparing citizens through education campaigns is seen as a constraint, since communal waste accounts for a high percentage of packaging waste, but it is not clear if Seko-Pak intends to finance public education campaigns. Policy Influence: Seko-Pak provided input into the Law on Waste Management and By-Law on Packaging & Packaging Waste, which essentially put the obligation on the generator to treat their waste. Seko-Pak opposed a deposit system on the basis that only 5-12% of waste is accounted for by beverage containers, and they believe that consumers are hurt by deposit systems. Seko-Pak also opposed individual targets for different materials (the by-law specifies 5% recovered, 4% recycled for 2010) since some materials will be more difficult, and they can therefore focus on the difficult targets in the short term while being relieved of increasing collection of materials that are currently recycled at high levels. They are using these early years to construct a plan to meet more 51 ambitious 2012 targets: 30% recovery, 25% recycling.
S ERBIA P LASTIC R ECYCLING A SSOCIATION

The Serbia Plastic Recycling Association, founded in 2006, is a citizens association aimed at promoting and undertaking recycling initiatives in cooperation with the private sector, Government and donors. The goals of the association are to i) organize recyclers so they can better cooperate and have opportunities to work toward common goals, and ii) provide non-profit opportunities through access to public and international resources. The main founder of the association is Brzanplast and the association is supported financially by the company (rent and other expenses). The association employs five to ten employees who work voluntarily. There is no membership fee, and it has around 50 members. The association is a member of the European Association for Recycling and has received technical assistance and advice on collection methods and planning. Projects: The recycling association is a partner in the Clean up Serbia campaign, a 4 million RSD project financing a public campaign and recycling equipment. They cooperated with the IFC Recycling Linkages project and together completed a business plan of recyclers and a feasibility stud y for one member, Eva in Kladovo. ACDI/VOCA, through the USAID CRDA project, procured some containers and milling and baling equipment from the association or Brzanplast; municipal/JKP clients contributed a matching contribution in recyclable materials equal to 30% of the project value. The association also provided input into the Law on Waste Management and had some contact with UN and World Bank. Recycling Backyards: The Recycling Backyards concept aims to cover the territory of Serbia with recycling containers and strategically-located sorting lines for separating recyclable waste, relying on existing Serbian companies as markets for the collected materials. The concepts developers are promoting it to the Eco -Fund and advocating MESP to procure 7,500-11,000 containers, presses for each municipality (150); and around 27 sorting lines in major Serbian municipalities. According to Brzanplast, financing the concept would cost 2 million and would be sufficient to collect 20,000 tons/year of baled, recycled plastic, reaching a target of 20-30% recycled plastic, plus other materials. The current concept and earlier versions are presented in a series of short 52 publications prepared by Brzanplast.
51
52
75 | P a g e
TABLE 25: "RECYCLING BACKYARDS" NATIONAL STRATEGY53
Recycling Backyards National Strategy (Presented by Brzanplast & Serbian Plastic Recycling Association) Collection Serbia Population 7,500,000 Containers (1 7,500 containers container/1000 citizens) Collection per Container 150 kg/month Total Collection Serbia 1,125 tons/month Sorting Sorting Lines (1 75 sorting lines line/100,000 citizens) Sorted PET per Month 15,000 kg/month/line Expense Summary Pickup & Transport to 38.9 M RSD/year Sorting Line Sorting & Pressing 247.5 M RSD/year Transport to Recycling 45.0 M RSD/year Center Total Expenses (annual) 381.4 M RSD/year Cost Analysis Cost per kg PET 24.5 RSD/kg Cost per Citizen 44.2 RSD/kg Recycled Quantity per 1.8 kg/citizen (roughly Citizen 47 2-L bottles) Cost per Bottle (26 2-L 0.94 RSD/bottle bottles/kg) This diagram and data show the Recycling Backyards concept and financial analysis; the diagram shows a schematic of the sorting and separation line. The intent is to collect and manage communal recyclables in regional facilities, and then sell the various materials to Serbian businesses. The figures are taken from an original, and slightly older, version of the sell the various materials to Serbian businesses. The figures are taken from an original, and slightly older, version of the concept than the one currently proposed, but nevertheless highlight the developers proposal for financing the investment and operation. The effort should include a recycling media 54 campaign and government support at national and local levels. These yards will facilitate collection and recycling of huge amounts of waste (glass bottles, paper, aluminium cans), which will increase the number of employees. This is supposed to be the first step to recycling industry development. The above mentioned recycling yards could be one possible solution to the problem that concerns waste management coverage. However, what needs to be changed is the awareness of the population about the importance of the collection, selection and recycling of waste, which represents the second step to recycling industry development. Lack of Government assistance, lack of a defined national strategy, and competing interests in waste and recycling were identified as the main obstacles; at present, the association says that the majority of problems are currently being solved piece-meal by the private sector. With respect to the association itself, some members dont fully
53
Brzanplast and Serbia Plastic Recycling Association Anonymous, 2010
54
76 | P a g e
understand, and perhaps expect too much, from the association in terms of donations and assistance; the association should increase its profile and visibility; and members are unwilling to contribute [Anonymous, 2010].
KOMDEL, A SSOCIATION OF JKP S

KOMDEL, founded in 1998, is the national association of JKPs; membership is voluntary and includes 94, or roughly half, of JKPs. Its interests are not limited to waste management but also include cemeteries, water and heating companies, plus 24 industry members. The association receives no public funding; there is a small token annual membership fee. According to KOMDEL, less than 20% of Serbian municipalities have some form of communal recycling program, though there are some good examples and citizens are becoming increasingly aware of the need. Since KOMDEL is essentially not financially sustainable, the association is affiliated with a private consulting group, TTI Group; the management of KOMDEL and the consultants of TTI Group are the same individuals. KOMDEL and TTI Group together provide consulting services for communal infrastructure and waste management; they share information and resources, including the website: http://ttigroup.co.rs. KOMDEL/TTI has produced a number of documents and resources addressing waste management issues and advocating at the national level for planning and implementation of a waste management strategy [Anonymous, 2010].
R ECYCLING COMPANIES FOR DIFFERENT WASTE STREAMS W ASTE T IRES

Auto Mirko is the contracted supplier for Ecorec (Holcim) covering southern Serbia. Auto Mirko collects 5-12 tons of used tires per week from vulkanizers and auto repair shops; from this collection he uses some tires to produce retreads (his main business) and transports the remainder to Holcim. He typically organizes one shipment per week, traveling to one city or region and picking up all of the tires available. In the past, tire companies paid 30/tire for disposal, but when the cement companies obtained permits to co -process tires the tire and auto shops could then transfer the tires to the cement factories and not pay a collector. Mirko transports the tires to Holcim, who covers his fuel cost. In exchange, he is also able to sort through the tires at Holcim and take some for retreads [Anonymous, 2010].
C ONSTRUCTION W ASTE
ua, a large company specializing in demolition, site clearance and re mediation, landfill closure and remediation, hydro-technical works, and oversized and heavy equipment transportation. Susa demolished a Lafarge cement production plant (see inset), the Hotel Yugoslavia, and numerous other large structures. Most of the demolition work is done with modern mechanized demolition equipment, though some particular structures, such as the chimneys of the Lafarge plant, were demolished with explosives. Stevanovic Invest is one of the largest construction companies in southern Serbia, and they have projects throughout Serbia. Stevanovic Invest employs 230 workers. Construction Material Salvaging: Few materials are salvaged from demolished buildings, homes and other structures by construction companies. Many construction materials are reused but it appears to be the responsibility of the owner to do so. In actuality, if nothing else workers would probably organize salvaging rather than simply sending to the landfill. The companys involvement is limited to selling metal to collectors, and at times reusing a very small percentage of roof tiles. Concrete Recycling: Construction waste is the second largest waste stream behind municipal solid waste; according to estimates concrete and by-product waste consumes 17% of worldwide landfill space. Most countries do not have a concerted solution for its management and disposal, in part due to efforts on the part of construction companies to prevent mandatory recycling. Concrete recycling is, however, gradually becoming more common due 77 | P a g e
to improved environmental awareness, governmental laws, and economic benefits. Concrete is recycled by separating the softer materials and then passing it through a crushing machine, often along with asphalt, bricks, and rocks. Rebar and metallic reinforcements are removed with magnets and recycled through traditional metal recycling supply chains. The remaining aggregate chunks are sorted by size, with larger chunks sometimes being reprocessed. The resulting pieces are reused as aggregate base gravel, with fresh concrete or asphalt placed over it. Crushed recycled concrete can sometimes be used as the dry aggregate for new concrete if it is free of contaminants, though this affects the strength and properties of the concrete and is therefore prohibited in many jurisdictions. In the case of the Lafarge factory, ua recycled or disposed of 30,000 m3 of waste in a process similar to that just described. The resulting chunks of concrete were either used as aggregate on Susa construction sites or sold as a gravel substitute. Steel was sold to metal recyclers. ua recently purchased a 2 ha site where they wish to build a recycling yard. The company recognizes the need for recycling on large-scale demolition projects, both for the economic benefit and for reducing unnecessary demands on landfill and other disposal methods. Susa wants to position itself as a leader in demolition and construction waste recycling. Stevanovic Invest is interested in two segments of construction waste recycling. The first is traditional crushing and pulverizing of demolished concrete; the separated metal is sold to US Steel and the concrete is crushed to 30 mm and used as a gravel substitute. The second is concerned with recycling excess concrete and wash water from concrete mixing and equipment/vehicle washing; the system collects the water, cement and aggregate in pools and reuses it in the production of new concrete. The necessary investments are 250,000 and 100,000, respectively. The motivation for the investments is to be positioned to more successfully compete on large demolition projects [Anonymous, 2010].
E LECTRONICS RECYCLERS
Bozi i Sinovi in Pancevo (visited), Eko Metal in Vrdnik and CE Trade in Belgrade. There is only one licensed lead battery recycler in Serbia: Farma Kom (Galenit Cluster, visited), the automotive battery manufacturer in Zajeca near Sombor. Due to the specialized nature (in the case of electronics recycling) and the sole source (in the case of battery recycling) the discussions below are based on information provided in the two interviews (condensed from the profiles in Part 2 of this assessment). Related to electronics recycling it is likely that the three recyclers operate considerably different from one another, so the explanation below applies only to Bozic i Sinovi. BiS (Bozi i Sinovi) has two core businesses: IT recycling and software development. They recycle all electronic and electrical equipment and waste, plus magnetic tape and fluorescent bulbs in a 2-floor, 3000 m2 facility in Omoljica, approximately 10 km outside Pancevo. Gowi, the IT/software company, was recently separated from BiS. BiS also serves the Ministry of Trade & Services by destroying pirated CDs and DVDs, recycling all of the plastic from the discs and cases; they provide a similar service for Microsoft. They have also begun providing a service to wipe hard disk data from clients with sensitive data, such as banks. BiS collected 330 tons of electronic waste in 2009, a very low figure according to the company. Most of the collection (97%) is done directly with businesses (B2B) and government offices; both BiS and companies reach out to one another and BiS cooperates with NGOs. Telenor, Price-Waterhouse-Coopers, and banks in Serbia are key clients. Without organized collection it is difficult to reach citizens and household electronic waste; initiatives, containers and collection infrastructure are necessary. The company has had communications with the strategic waste management providers Brantner and PWW. BiS is currently limited on the supply-side and wants to develop collection and transport services to begin developing citizen collection services all over Serbia [Anonymous, 2010]. The Galenit Cluster is comprised of the Serbian battery factory Farma Kom and includes members from battery distributors and retailers, auto services, collectors, two citizens associations, Institute Kirilo Savic and Nis Faculty of Electronics. The cluster manages eight battery storage centers and 150 collection sites (typically retail stores and 78 | P a g e
services). Farma Kom is the founder of the cluster. The Galenit Cluster accepts all batteries: lead-automotive, industrial and general purpose. Lead batteries are recycled in the Zajeca plant and other batteries are currently being accumulated and stored for future processing or export. Galenit is responsible for collecting and recycling 55 15,000 tons of batteries per year . Galenit is confident that they collect 95% of all automotive batteries in Serbia, with only 5% staying somewhere outside the system. They have 3000 special, licensed containers in Serbia: each service has two, with the remainder in public, private, military and transport sites. In August 2009 they were granted approval to begin importing waste batteries; they imported a relatively low volume of 5000-6000 tons but expect the volume to increase since Croatia, Montentgro and Macedonia have no recycling facilities. Farma Kom pays 30 RSD/kg for automotive batteries, a portion of which is used to support the Galenit Cluster. They accept the used mobile phone batteries from the Telenor initiative. They are also storing CRTs for future processing or export since they also contain lead; this is a strategic move as they are preparing for large volumes of CRTs as consumers trade in their old televisions and monitors for LED and plasma screens.
M ETALS
Metals, both ferrous and nonferrous, are recycled quite efficiently in Serbia through a vast network of collectors and buyers covering virtually every city, town and village. Individual collectors, mainly Roma, collect metal from containers and door-to-door; many citizens facilitate the process by placing metal waste alongside, rather than inside, of containers. Industrial and commercial metal waste is recycled even more efficiently. It is likely that every producer of metal scrap has a buyer established, either under a long-term agreement or periodic negotiated sales. There is a large network of metal buyers across Serbia. In the former MESP recycling database, metal recyclers were by far the most prevalent, with 55 registered metal recyclers; the IFC Recycling Linkages project had 65 in their database. A typical consolidator, Vet Prom in Krusevac, was interviewed in this assessment; Vet Prom collects 150-200 tons/month of metal, mostly from larger firms and factories in and around Krusevac; they have a one-year contract with most generators. Vet Prom accepts all metal, including machines, motors, vehicles, processing equipment and scrap. The equipment is disassembled, sorted and baled on the Vet Prom lot, where it is then sold to various buyers who reprocess the metal or melt it into ingots. Vet Prom also collects LDPE and PP from the same commercial and industrial sources. In the city of Krusevac (city pop. 75,000), there are around five such collectors. Most of the steel collected in Serbia is either sold to the US Steel factory in Smederevo or exported, along with other metals. Recan (below) manages a Serbian program collecting aluminum cans. Some other metals are also 56 processed locally: lead by the Farma Kom battery factor in Sombor, copper by Jugo Impex in Nis, and others . Recan, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ball Packaging Europe, operates recycling centres in Serbia where used aluminum cans are sorted, compressed and returned for recycling. The recycling centres cooperate with waste management operators, scrap metal dealers, supermarkets, shopping centres, petrol stations and other businesses, providing a network of collection points to ensure that consumers have a convenient and problem-free facility to return used beverage cans. Recan also provides consulting services related to logistics and quality, quality checks, analyses and documentation, and payment handling. Recan offers attractive prices for used beverage cans that meet Balls quality specifications.
G LASS
55
56
79 | P a g e
At the outset it should be noted that glass recycling in Serbia is fairly uncommon: demand and prices are low, it is heavy (transport costs are high), and there are few collectors willing to work for the low margins. That said, there are two supply chains of glass recycling in Serbia. Many, probably most, cities in Serbia do not a buyer for glass in either supply chain. There is a small network of collectors, often individuals working informally, who buy virtually any unbroken glass container, organize and consolidate types and sizes by trading with one another, and sell or trade the bottles and jars to their network of bottlers and food producers. Kalimero Komerc in Krusevac is the only example of this type of collector interviewed for this assessment, though several others (mostly individuals) were identified in other cities. Srpska Fabrika Reciklaza (SFR) near Aleksinac appears to be the only buyer in Serbia, though a partner collector, Glass Rec, may soon begin working in Belgrade. SFR, a privatized operation employing 13 workers, crushes the glass and sorts it by size, and sometimes by colour; they have a capacity of 30,000 tons/year; all of the crushed glass is exported. Collection details were vague but include some containers in Aleksinac owned by SFR, individual collectors, bottlers, and a number of JKPs and collectors of commercial and industrial waste who are required to collect glass along with other materials (Pima). One JKP informed that SFR pays 0.75 RSD/kg for glass. Srpska Fabrika Stakla (SFS) is the only Serbian producer of glass packaging; SFS is owned by Serbia Gas (63%), Bulgaria Glass Factory Pleven (25%), and company ownership (balance). At this time, SFS only recycles broken glass from its own factory (rejects), clients (damaged), and limited private collectors (clean). From the private collectors, the company is paying 2.0 RSD/kg for white, 1.5 RSD/kg for sorted colour, and 1.0 RSD/kg for mixed. They are, however, interested in beginning glass recycling on a larger scale. After privatization, the company had 10,000 tons of broken glass in storage, plus additional quantities waiting return from clients. In addition, they routinely have quantities of internal glass that gets recycled (broken, reject, surplus). So for some time, the factory has been trying to reduce its inventory of broken glass and now appears ready to undertake more serious collection and recycling. In addition to reducing inventory they have also been making some changes to their process to decrease the amount of rejected and damaged production. SFS stated that they have two interests to begin recycling: firstly because of ecological responsibility, and secondly economics. Simply put, glass is cheaper to melt than quartz so recycling saves energy and reduces the cost of production. Energy is the biggest expense in glass production; for every 10% of recycled glass, a savings of 3% can be realized in energy. The glass factory is interested in collecting and recycling glass of all colours. In order to be recycled, however, the glass must be totally pure with no inorganic contamination. Some levels of organic dirt and dust are tolerable, but any ceramic, metal, stone or other inorganic substances can damage the furnaces; the factory already has magnetic separators for ferrous metals. Therefore the glass should be cleaned and sorted prior to recycling; this could be done either by the collectors, an intermediary, or the factory itself. An automated cleaning and sorting line requires an investment of approximately 3 million; credit or other finan cing scheme would also be necessary. There is no existing collection network on which to rely; transport is also an issue as shipping broken glass must be done in different containers than normal shipments. The annual demand for glass in Serbia is between 130-150K tons/year, of which approximately 30% is produced by SFS; the remainder is imported. Despite the global trend toward plastic containers, SFS stated that demand for glass is increasing, particularly for small, non-transparent bottles such as those used for small bottled wines. The company hopes to increase its production to 100K tons/year by 2011 by increasing its share of the Serbian market.
80 | P a g e
The glass factory does not have a developed strategy for recycled glass collection, though they do accept returns from some companies (e.g. Knjaz Milos). All glass currently accepted for return is clean and doesnt pose a contamination hazard. They have had no other contact with collectors and would require a period and/or 57 assistance to develop a collection network .
P APER
Paper, especially cardboard, is recycled fairly efficiently in Serbia. It has value and is collected in varying levels of in probably every city, small town and many villages in Serbia. Paper is collected in three ways: Individual collectors (Roma and others) collecting cardboard directly from containers and small retail shops. Organized collectors (JKPs and strategic waste management partners) and some slightly larger private operators like Kandic and Urvis. Secondary separation from mixed municipal solid waste (eg waste separation line in a landfill in Novi Sad).
Commercial and industrial sources of waste paper (cardboard packaging and print shop waste) sell their waste to consolidators who pick up the waste from the source. These arrangements are typically structured so that a single operator is required to take all of the waste, and pays the source for the waste, either by a fee or by weight (presumably they do not take communal waste generated by workers). In the case of supermarkets, the consolidator typically owns the containers. Pickups are usually arranged on demand. Consolidators can be placed into three categories based on size: Small consolidators, who purchase primarily or solely from individual collectors; in urban centers, these actors are often Roma. Most small towns and villages in Serbia also typically have a buyer of paper, metal and other materials; such consolidators might buy from 10-100 tons/month. Small consolidators serve medium consolidators, almost never selling directly to the processors. Medium consolidators collect from 100-1000 tons/month; several were interviewed and profiled in this assessment. These consolidators are also usually the buyers of JKP-collected cardboard and hold agreements with commercial and industrial waste sources. Large consolidators, of which there are only a handful in Serbia (Inos and TechnoPaper, neither of which was interviewed) collect more than 1000 tons/month. Medium consolidators will sometimes sell their paper to large consolidators and achieve a better price because of the higher quantities. In these cases, the large consolidator generally does not handle the paper, but simply organizes supplies from different sources and holds the agreement with the buyer. It seems, and is logical, that the large consolidators serve export markets.
Most of the paper and cardboard production in Serbia is handled by companies in the Kappa Star group. Together they account for over 9,000 tons/month of paper and cardboard production. Besides those companies, there are two remaining paper factories in Serbia: Bozo Tomic in Cacak, and Fopa in Vladicin Han, producing about 1,700 tons/month combined. In September 2009, the German Hamburger Group opened a large factory in Hungary with a capacity in excess of 30,000 tons/month. The factory is not yet operating at full capacity but will become a major regional buyer and competitor for waste paper. There is already some waste paper export from Serbia Meanwhile, 58 Umka imports high quality white paper from other countries in the region .
57
58
81 | P a g e
P LASTIC
At present in Serbia there are few examples of strictly sorting operations. A number of actors manage sorting lines (Pima, Brzanplast) but they do so as part of a larger operation. In fact, virtually all of the processors, both large and small, also manage sorting operations. The Recycling Backyards concept, if implemented, would be an example. There are numerous types of plastic processors in Serbia that specialize or utilize recycled plastic. First are the PET processors, larger companies processing from 50 to several hundred tons per month. Next are the large non-PET processors, producing LDPE folio (Brzanplast), hose and piping (Nives), or granulate. Finally are the hundreds of small plastic processors scattered around Serbia producing folio and injection-molded products, most of whom process recycled material to a greater or lesser degree (Nikolo, Vlada-Pak, Interprodukt, Nima). There is an under-supply of secondary plastic materials on the market, evidenced by surplus capacity in most buyers and processors, and competition for materials, including PET. Greentech, Saniplast, Intercord and Deni Komerc all process PET and all have additional capacity and demand. Greentech notes this as a positive, as it creates demand and helps cover times of crisis, such as when during the peak of the economic crisis Greentech was the processor buying PET. To illustrate the scale, Greentech collects 300 tons/month of PET in Serbia; in their two Romanian plants (producing mainly Polyester Staple Fiber) they process 5000 tons/month. Development efforts should focus on increasing collection by expanding existing operations and facilitating the startup of new 59 initiatives .
T IRES
Import of used tires is currently banned in Serbia. According to the Law (December 24, 2009.) Co-processing of waste tires is limited to 30% of the total number of tires, and 70% is designated for recycling. With the new drive tire recycling (Eco-Recycling, Sirig / Novi Sad), the demand for scrap tires far exceeds supply. Eco-Products Recycling rubber granules which are mainly used for the surface in playgrounds and a smaller part in 60 the construction of certain roads .
TABLE 26: PLASTIC PROCESSORS AND RECYCLERS COMPARISON SUMMARY
PLASTIC PROCESSORS & RECYCLERS COMPARISON SUMMARY Company, Municipality Greentech, Novi Sad Materials PET Quantities Serbia 300 ton/month input; 250 ton/month finished product. Greenfiber Group: 5000 ton/month, 4000-4500 for Polyester Staple Fiber. Possible future investment in PE and PP lines in Serbia. Collection 70% of all PET in Serbia passes through Greentech. Supply contracts & cooperation with all large operators. 100 containers in New Belgrade. Production Serbia: PET flake. Polyester Staple Fiber. Strapping band.
59
60
82 | P a g e
Brzanplast, Batocina
All plastic, sorted, cleaned, granulate LDPE folio
2007: 3000 tons. 2008: 5000 tons. 2009: 3000 tons.
Intercord, Subotica
PET PE PP Non-Plastics
2009: 1000 tons plastic.
Private-sector collectors, some municipalities. Operate sorting line for all inputs. Four main suppliers 50%: Intercord, Saniplast, Pima, Nives. Commercial & industrial clients. Subotica JKP. 40% collection ultimately provided by Roma (secondary sorting at landfill).
LDPE folio. Granulate.
Granulates: PET, PE, PP
Deni Komerc, Nis Saniplast, Gorni Milanovac
PET Biodegradable & recycled LDPE PP
PET: 600 kg/hour, 40005000 ton/year minimum. Current demand: 200400 ton/month. 50-60 ton/month.
Municipalities & JKPs.
PET: flake, film, bottle-to-bottle. LDPE folio.
PET LDPE, HDPE PP PS LLDPE,
Municipalities & JKPs. 40 containers in Belgrade.
Pet flake.
Nives, Nis
100 ton/month washing & processing. 1000 ton/month distribution. 8 ton/month secondary material inputs. 10 ton/month average Recycles 50% into new products & sells 50%. 7-8 tons/year, seasonal. 350 ton/year total plastic. 250 ton/year recycled. 2007: 47.2 tons. <10% recycled.
Granulators & processors. Collectors. Commercial & industrial waste. 60% commercial & industrial waste. 30% individual collection. 10% production excess. Agricultural producers. Commercial, industrial and agricultural waste. Individual collectors (small).
LDPE folio. Hose & piping. Granulation & manufacture. Consumer, industrial & agricultural plastic products. Folio products for agricultural purposes. Bus seats. Consumer & industrial products. Injectionmolded containers.
Nikolo, Krusevac Vlada-Pak Beloljin, Blace Nima, Krusevac Interprodukt, Nova Varos Maxi-Plast, Pepeljevac
LDPE, HDPE PP LDPE, HDPE PP PS, PVC, PA LDPE LDPE, HDPE PP & other plastics HDPE PP (small)
Opportunity buying.
83 | P a g e
6. STAKEHOLDERS IN RECYCLING
6.1 RECYCLING STAKEHOLDERS IN GREECE
In order to accomplish a successful recycling program especially for packaging waste it is essential to share the responsibility among all the stakeholders involved in the process, e.g. the municipalities which are responsible for the collection of the waste, the regions who are responsible for the planning and the financial details of the waste management programs, the producers who are responsible for the financing of the recycling system and finally the citizens who are the main actors, since on their contribution relies the success of all the efforts. The new Law that has been adopted recently (2012) undertakes some corrective actions in the previously regulated authorisation of the FODSA (Organisations for the Integrated Management of Solid Waste), as had been decided with the Law of 2007 and the JMD in 2009. Previously 95 FODSA had been foreseen, but with new law the number of the FODSA is 13, one for each Region. In the last update there will be one Regional Organisation for each Prefecture (overall 13 Regional Plans)
G OVERNMENT
Ministry of Environment, Energy & CC Ministry of Interior Hellenic Recycling Agency
Role - Responsibilities Ministry of Environment, Energy & CC Create the National Plans for Solid Waste Management of non-hazardous and hazardous waste in Greece. Harmonise the Greek with the European legislation Create, enact and implement legislation on waste management , monitoring of the activities Consults / advises and coordinates finally the proposals for the financing of the waste management projects in the Regions, as well as in Structural Funds from the EU according to the targets and the programming set in a national level Issues permits, approvals, confirmation for the environmental performance of the waste management projects and activities (e.g. environmental impacts), according to the laws
The National Planning includes: the design of the overall framework for the waste management with the correspondent targets, as well as the main directives for the preferred methodologies for the management of the different waste streams along with a coherent time schedule, the setup of the criteria for the feasibility and evaluation of the proper placement of the treatment and disposal facilities for municipal waste, the enforcement of unique procedures and terms for the design and implementation of waste management plans.
L OCAL A UTHORITIES
Managerial, waste collection, monitoring role.
84 | P a g e
6. Stakeholders in Recycling
The Local Authorities are responsible for the execution of the Waste Management Plans of the Regions, by implementing the appropriate systems. The municipalities are obliged to deal with the management of the waste produced in their territories by using flexible and effective solutions. Their main activities (given by law) include: The waste collection, The transport, The temporary storage and transport of the waste, The recycling / recovery and final disposal of the waste.
At the municipal level there are a lot of differentiations among the municipalities in Greece: most of them are only engaged with collection and disposal of their waste. The financial situation is bad, since their main income derives from the central government. There are no revenues set at a local level that means the citizens pay for their waste management through a central taxation (electricity bills, depending on the size of the houses). Thus, the waste management equipment (bins, vehicles) is provided by the Ministry of Interior and Finance. Additional problems are caused by the lack of experienced and especially trained personnel in the whole circle of waste management (collection, recycling, disposal) and the limited awareness in the politicians (local authorities).
R EGIONS (13 P REFECTURES )

Responsible for planning & financial details of waste management programs The Regions are setting up their Waste Management Plans, taking into account the National Planning. Under the circumstances given, the Planning must be long-term; making use of the existent infrastructure and local conditions and cover the immediate needs (like eliminating the uncontrolled dumpsites). Furthermore, the Planning must be consistent with the requirements set by the national and EU legislation in the most appropriate way. The Regional Plans must have a solid technical and economic analysis as a background and take into account the transport costs from remote areas. They must also consider the acceptance problems and have a good awareness campaign, as well as a consultation phase. So far, 5 out of 13 Regional Plans have been updated. The Regions are in charge of the selection of the projects to be funded by the Regional Operational Programs (EU financing). The Regions are responsible for the monitoring of the waste management projects and their implementation.
The Regions are responsible for the issuing of permits for the projects and waste management activities according to the classification by law.
PRO S CHEMES / N ON P ROFIT C OMPANIES / BODIES

Authorised management systems, non profit organizations responsible for the implementation of the EPR Schemes in the field of the recycling / recovery of different waste streams. So far (2012) 17 Systems (PRO Schemes) are operating in Greece.
F O DSA (O RGANISATIONS FOR THE I NTEGRATED M ANAGEMENT OF S OLID W ASTE )

Organisations at Regional Level responsible for the implementation of the Regional Waste Management Plans. Previously 95 FODSA were operating. In the last update (2012) one Regional Organisation per Prefecture is foreseen. Not all FoDSA are operating until now.
C OMPANIES /P RODUCERS
Responsible for recycling - financing the EPR system. Problems are arising by companies / producers not participating in the Systems (free riders)
85 | P a g e
S YNDICATES , U NIVERSITIES , NGO S

Consultant role in policy & legislation, seminars, Conferences, raising awareness of the public, scientific, and professional community. HSWMA, PASEPPE, Ecological Recycling Company (Ecorec), NTUA
C ITIZENS
Citizens are main actors, since on their contribution relies the success of all efforts
I NFORMAL S YSTEMS ( SCAVENGERS )

The contribution of the informal sector is rising during the recent years of the economic crisis (believed to be appr. 10 - 20% in 2012)
6.2 RECYCLING STAKEHOLDERS IN SERBIA

Competent authorities and organizations responsible for waste management are as follows: Ministry in charge of the environmental protection and other competent ministries; Competent authority of the autonomous province; Competent authority of the local self-government unit; Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as: Agency); Environmental Protection Fund (hereinafter referred to as: Fund); Professional waste testing organizations
T HE M INISTRY :
Propose Waste Management Strategy and individual national plans for managing of various waste streams to the Government; Prepare and enact executive regulations for implementation of laws; Coordinate and perform waste management activities that are significant for the Republic and monitors the condition; Approve regional waste management plans, except for plans on the territory of the autonomous province; Issue permits, approvals, confirmations and other documents defined under the law; Maintain records on permits, approvals, confirmations and other documents issued by other competent authorities; Designate the authorized organizations pursuant to the law; Monitor and control the implementation of measures for handling with waste; Undertake other measures and activities pursuant to the international contracts and agreements.
In the area of packaging and packaging waste management, the Ministry: Prepare and propose Packaging Waste Reduction Plan to the Government; Prepare and enact executive regulations for implementation of law; Issue and withdraw permits for packaging waste management pursuant to the law; Set up and maintain a register of permits issued for packaging waste management; Determine the level of deposit fee for the packaging depending on the type of packaging or the chemical stored in the packaging; Monitors the operation of the Agency, autonomous province, local self-government unit, as well as authorized legal entities, in implementation of the entrusted activities.
C OMPETENT A UTHORITY OF THE AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE :

Participate in preparation of Waste Management Strategy and individual national waste management plans;
86 | P a g e
6. Stakeholders in Recycling
Adopt Waste Management Plan for certain waste types of importance for the autonomous province in compliance with the Strategy and National Plan; Coordinate and perform the activities of waste management that are significant for the autonomous province and monitor the condition; Approve regional waste management plans on its territory; Issue permits, approvals, confirmations and other documents defined under the law, maintain records and submit data to the Ministry; Monitor and control the implementation of measures for handling with waste on its territory; Perform other activities set forth under the law.
C OMPETENT A UTHORITY OF L OCAL S ELF - GOVERNMENT U NIT :

Adopt local waste management plan, provide the conditions and take care of its implementation; Regulate, provide for, organise and implement management of municipal i.e. inert and non-hazardous waste on its territory; Regulate the procedure for charging of services in the field of waste, i.e. inert and non-hazardous waste management; Issue permits, approvals and other documents pursuant to the law, maintain records and submit data to the Ministry; Upon the request by the Ministry or the competent authority of autonomous province, provide the opinion in permitting procedure; Monitor and control the implementation of measures for handling with waste pursuant to the law, and other activities set forth under the law.
I NSTITUTIONAL R ESPONSIBILITIES FOR W ASTE M ANAGEMENT

The responsibility of the Government and the National Parliament is to establish legal framework for the sustainable waste management, economic instruments for the waste, management implementation and public awareness raising, initiation of dialogue between the interested parties, in order to establish waste management partnerships.
T HE M INISTRY
Develops and suggests the waste management strategy to the Serbian Government; Prepares regulations and technical standards; Issue licenses required by law and keeps adequate registers; Solid Waste Management in Republic of Serbia Coordinates waste management activities significant for the Republic, and follow up activities to see their progress. Adopts waste management plans on the level of several municipalities; coordinates activities regarding international agreements and regulations and decrees; Issue permits for waste import, export and transit; 61 Organizes informational system on waste on the territory of the Republic .
L OCAL SELF - GOVERNING OFFICE

Through its authorized agencies: Develops and suggests the waste management local plan; Organizes, provides, manages and carries out communal waste management on its territory; Manages procedure of service payment regarding communal waste management; Gives opinion on issuing license permits in accordance with the regulations; Takes part in decision-making in regard to treatment plant building and final hazardous waste disposal. Carries out other activities regulated by special laws.
61
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 36/09, 88/10
87 | P a g e
On the local level, cities and municipalities have their own Decisions on communal order, managing, providing, organizing and carrying out communal waste on the cities and municipalities territory. Waste management in Serbia is inadequate and is a threat to human health and the environment. In practice, there are great problems for the municipalities to agree on forming a joint region for waste management. The national authorities do not have means to force them to unite because it is contrary to the Law on local self-government where each municipality has the opportunity to decide with whom they will merge. Big problem is the lack of local and regional plans and strategy of waste management.
88 | P a g e
7. Preconditions for Successful Implementation of Recycling Policies
7. PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF RECYCLING POLICIES

7.1 CHALLENGES, PROBLEMS, GAPS AND BARRIERS OF THE RECYCLING IN GREECE
C HALLENGES IN SWM
Greece has joined the EU in 1981 and adopted the EU legislation ever since. Although the start up phase has been long, the achievements in the Solid Waste Management are unfortunately not very satisfying. According to the EUROSTAT data base and an evaluation that has been performed for the EU by external advisors (BiPRO study, Ref.), Greece has scored at a low level regarding the overall waste strategy and the recycling targets, although the progress in the last 10 years is really visible. The main problems we are facing at this point are summed up below: More waste treatment infrastructure needs to comply with EU waste hierarchy (mostly landfills operating) Improve in great degree the separate collection of municipal waste at source High share of biodegradable waste are still disposed in landfills Administrative & Institutional drawbacks
C HALLENGES IN W ASTE TREATMENT

Significant dependence on landfilling Lack of treatment infrastructure Regardless decisions taken many times in the past, there is slow progress in the implementation of projects (main problems are funding, NIMBY) Waste management is low on the political agenda of the decision makers & subject to political cost Lack of economic instruments to move up the waste hierarchy MBT facilities have difficulties in finding market for their products Municipalities have no binding targets to be met
Thus, the main problems the Waste Management still lie with the inability of the central Government to implement the National and the Regional Plans, leading to insufficient landfill capacity, low quality and costly treatment facilities and limited recycling efficiency - although much more advanced than the overall waste management efficiency. The country faces the threat of not complying with the Landfill Directive targets concerning the biodegradables and has to struggle to meet the recycling targets set in the Waste Framework Directive. If we could dare a simplified conclusion, this would be that the top-down approach, that has been applied in the case of Greece resulted in implications, not taken into consideration in the designing and implementation phase of Waste Management Plans in the past. Mainly the most desired consultation phases and awareness campaigns have been omitted, resulting in delays in the realization of the Plans. The lack of a transparent full cost accounting for the provision of waste management services is mostly due to the old fashioned way in which the financing between central government and local authorities takes place, which relies on a very simplified principle: cost flows according to the size of municipalities, no incentives given for waste minimization or even proper waste treatment. As a result the municipalities are not involved in the strategic process and miss the point of complying.
89 | P a g e
In the field of recycling, the private sector as involved within EPR scheme, contributes its share in the waste management cycle but needs also a more targeted approach. Recyclable materials are valuable and can be used to enforce recycling activities in the country (e.g. reuse).
P ROBLEMS IN DATA COLLECTION

Another important issue in Greece is the lack of reliable data in the fields of waste generation (different streams) and waste composition. Several studies have been conducted (as stated above) in different regions, but due to the lack of specifications, the comparison among data series is not guaranteed. The same applies to the lack of registration of all the companies under EPR schemes in one Inventory, which would enable the monitoring and control of free riders. The HRA is starting an effort to register the companies under PRO schemes and connect the data through an interface to other important data bases (like TAXIS, GEMI etc). Also, specifications for recyclables EU wide would be an important step to the upgrade of the recycling sector.
G APS FOR POLICY AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation of the landfill directive and the Waste Framework Directive and the corresponding national legislation requires major changes in the entire waste management sector in Greece, from the introduction of new technologies and stringent operation regimes for landfills to the calculation of costs and charges to the public and the structure, organisation and operation of the waste management authorities. In short, the whole philosophy on which the Greek waste management system was built needs to be upgraded to meet demanding targets, criteria and standards, while keeping cost increases to a minimum. The first steps have taken place through new legislation approval (Law 4042/2012), but the implementation has to be enforced (adaptation in Regional Plans, implementation of the new terms and controls of the competent authorities). The Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association (HSWMA) has published some proposals, which are presented here.
G AP IDENTIFICATION IN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Waste Management Fee for the citizen: The current charging system for waste management services relies on a coefficient of /sq. meters. This system doesnt offer a motive to prevent waste generation within a residence or business. In Europe several different charging systems exist that are adjusted to the waste management needs.
Common element of those systems is that charging for waste management services depends upon the waste generation, encouraging waste prevention and recycling according to the polluter pays principle. The adaptation of such a system in Greece is necessary towards an integrated waste management concept. To implement such significant legislative changes, communication between all competent authorities (Ministry of Environment, Municipalities etc.) would be required. Cooperation with private sector: Despite the introduction of statutes concerning Public Private Partnerships (Law 3389, O.J.G. 232, 22-9-2005), there are still many steps to be done in order to enhance the cooperation between public and private sector in the field of waste management.
90 | P a g e
Since the European funds allocated for waste management projects in the current Programming Period (ESPA 2007-2013+2) are underestimated, additional resources are needed in order to meet the needs of full coverage of Waste treatment facilities in the country. Special waste streams treatment: Problems due to the lack of hazardous waste treatment sites
B ARRIERS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GOALS S EPARATE COLLECTION
Collection coverage is almost 100% Not all local authorities cooperate the same with Recovery Systems Mostly mixed collection of packaging waste & not separate collection of all streams High share of impurities Low level of environmental awareness in the public No incentives for households to participate in separate collection Scavenging has significantly increased, especially for metal and scrap metal, were theft has risen sharply the last 2 years
C HALLENGES FOR B IODEGRADABLE WASTE

A very high share of biodegradable waste go to landfills - 87,3% landfilled in 2009 Not accurate statistics Insufficient composting No separate collection of bio-waste No anaerobic digestion/biogas plants available Outdated compost quality standards Limited market Delays in the procurement & implementation of waste management infrastructure
A DMINISTRATIVE & INSTITUTIONAL DRAWBACKS

Overlapping of responsibilities (MEECC, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Development), Regional Authorities & Municipalities The recent administrative reform, Kallikratis is not yet completed, thus impeding the projects. No update of national Waste Management Plans Probably no Waste Procurement Projects until end of 2013 Serious delays in planning, procurement & implementation of waste management projects (although funds are available) Waste debate in Greece is strongly related to politics, & strong NIMBY phenomena exist Definition of treatment (i.e. minimum standards) in implementation of landfill tax is unclear
F INANCIAL CRISIS
One of the most important problems in the current situation of the severe financial crisis is the reduction of the collection of recyclables through the Collective Systems due to the following: The theft of valuable recyclables from the collection bins The reduction of the consumption due to the financial recession.
Financial crisis brought reduction of the collection of recyclables due to: The theft of valuable recyclables from the collection bins from the increasing informal sector The reduction of the consumption due to the financial recession - 20% reduction in MW production The monitoring system got lose Municipalities in lack of financial resources in many cases draw back recycling programs Recycling systems are facing financial difficulties 91 | P a g e
7.2 CHALLENGES, PROBLEMS, GAPS AND BARRIERS OF THE RECYCLING IN SERBIA

C HALLENGES
The biggest challenge is that there is a general widespread lack of motivation and public engagement to prevent waste. The challenge of setting and receiving appropriate waste fees to cover the costs for collection and treatment mean that there is no economic incentive for consumers to reduce or recycle waste. Serbia opted for the collecting and recycling packaging waste model used in the EU countries, on the basis of Packaging and Packaging Waste Law which became valid in May 2009. Despite common belief, collecting and recycling plastic bottles and cans does not make quick and easy profit. In Serbia, it is public communal companies, which are already in charge of refuse transportation that will either enter this business, or are already dealing with it. This implies that individuals and small companies (up to 5 employees) are left with a short period of time to survive by collecting and recycling papers, plastic bottles and cans. As the process of collecting, baling and processing grows bigger, they will have to earn for living by cooperating with large companies or by opting for a completely new way of conducting business. If Serbia remains consistent in the implementation of the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Law the communal companies in the cities all over the country will impose themselves as large collectors of waste intended for recycling. They will also conduct this work for the manufacturers that are often not interested in dealing with recycling in addition to their main activities. Manufacturers and importers in Serbia are obliged to organise collecting and recycling of up to five percent of their packaging. Domestic industry is thus prepared for the application of the principle known as extended obligations of manufacturers. In other words, manufacturers, packers or package fillers who launch their products onto a market are no longer responsible only for making sure that their product is safe, but also for contributing to the recycling of used packaging, at least to a certain extent. In order that the whole system works, private collectors, operators, communal companies and recycling industry need to acquire new working licenses. The industry will hire operators, such as Sekopak, to collect and manage packaging waste for them. The idea behind this is to change packaging waste management system in cooperation with communal companies. This implies that manufacturers will thus subsidise communal companies, cince the whole process of collecting packaging waste costs more compared to the value of the secondary raw material gained by collection and recycling. The money that recycling companies, as a non-profitable organisation, receives from the industry will be transferred to communal companies. In experts' opinion, a system for collecting as much waste as possible for less cost should be designed in Serbia.
P ROBLEMS IN DATA COLLECTION

Packaging waste is classified as household and commercial waste. Though there are no official data on packaging waste volume, it is estimated that it covers 40 % i.e.550.000 tons/year. 92 | P a g e
There are no reliable data on the quantity of used batteries, no reliable data on the quantity of old tires, as well as of unusable vehicles located mostly in registered junks, no reliable data on waste produced by electric and electronic instruments, since this category of waste is not specifically classified, no reliable data on hazardous waste volume generated in industry. Communal waste is in Serbia mostly collected by Public communal enterprises, founded by municipalities. The collected waste is mostly directly transported to usually inadequate disposal sites (dumps), where it is deposited without any previous treatment. In spite of an option of composting (large percent of organic waste), it is not done. Officially, there are 164 disposal sites of communal waste in the Republic of Serbia, not counting a large number of illegal waste dumps in rural areas. According to the Report about the state of the environment in Serbia from 2009 , our country is missing systematically organized collecting, sorting and recycling of waste. Therefore, the main challenges of waste management in our country concern basic activities, like ensuring good coverage and capacity for collection, transportation and disposal of waste. Above this, our country should provide the economic effects from recycling, since there is potential for that. Also, one of the problems concerns the movement of waste over the boundaries and negative imbalance that characterizes our country. Last, but not least, is the problem that concerns the financing of waste management or providing funds for the development of the recycling industry. Data collection is usually performed in the form of a questionnaire, completed by utility companies, responsible for the collection and disposal of municipal waste. The main disadvantage of such data collection is that they relate only to the portion of the population and businesses who are users of services utility, while the data on the production and composition of the waste of other legal and physical entities are unknown.
62
GAPS FOR POLICY AND POLICY AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

P RACTICAL I MPLEMENTATION C OLLECTION
Currently 60% of the Serbian population are connected to waste collection. The target to serve until 2020 more than 90% of the Serbian population is realistic if efficient systems are introduced and financial resources are mobilised. However, simple extension of the current mixed municipal waste collection system will not be sufficient to achieve the key targets for waste recycling generally (for packaging waste in particular) and the targets for diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill. Given the infeasibility for both technical and financial reasons of achieving separation of the whole amount of mixed municipal waste in large separation plants, segregated collection is essential in at least urban areas. The precise definition of measures for practical implementation needs to be accomplished in the regional and local waste management plans (as referred to above). As such, the completion of these plans is a matter of urgency. The strategic approach to be reflected in these plans should embody the installation of a comprehensive system for waste collection and transportation and following: High profile information, awareness raising and behaviour change campaigns prior to and during introduction of new services;
62 Marija Andjelkovi Pesic, 2012
93 | P a g e
Adequate network of waste containers preference for larger multi-dwelling containers; Modern compacting waste collection vehicles to be introduced; Network of transfer stations to be provided on the basis of a least cost analysis; Differentiated approach to be taken in urban and rural areas: Initial focus in rural areas being the provision of simple mixed waste collection and the introduction of domestic composting of green waste. In rural areas home composting has to be encouraged as the most effective low-cost procedure to reduce biodegradables in landfills. Distribution of compost boxes (for free) to all rural households can help to introduce home composting; More sophisticated approach taken in urban areas including separate collection of key recyclables; Separate collection of key recyclables (dry materials in the first instance): Separate containers for recyclables; In the beginning the same equipment (containers and compactor trucks) as for residues can also be used for collection of recyclables. Later on for glass packages collection more comfortable but also more expensive systems should be introduced (igloo containers and hook lift trucks with crane) Bring points: green islands; Separately collected packaging waste (except glass packages) requires removal of impurities and sorting into different fractions, as asked for on the recyclables market: Network of regional recyclables handling (sorting, grading, storing, on-sale) facilities to be provided on the basis of a least cost analysis. Construction of sorting plants to enable recycling of packages and development of a sufficient network of plants for processing of sorted waste paper, used container glass, used packages of different plastics and metal cans (priority for aluminium).
As emphasised in several instances here, the achievement of operational cost efficiencies is critical to the successful implementation of the strategy. Achieving economics of scale in all respects (collection containers, collection vehicles, transfer facilities, recycling facilities) will be a critical aspect and will require inter-municipal cooperation in optimising the design of implementation projects. The most effective waste collection systems should be used (mainly 1.1m3 revolving containers for all types of separately collected waste, 3-axle waste compactor trucks wherever roads allow this, exclusion of tractors with trailers from waste collection). Containers for different types of waste have to be located in container pools on public roads. Some places for container pools have to be extended to allow for up to 5 containers for residues, paper/ cardboard, plastic/metal and two sorts of glass.
D ISPOSAL
Construction of regional sanitary landfills automatically brings with it the requirement of inter municipal cooperation because several municipalities will use the same landfill. As with the collection systems economies of scale will be critical and therefore the number and location of regional landfills need to be optimised on a least cost basis irrespective of administrative boundaries.
H AZARDOUS W ASTE
The main challenge for managing hazardous waste is the introduction of strong registration for all hazardous waste From the cradle to the grave. The Hazardous Waste Movement Document as prescribed by the Serbian legislation is an acceptable solution for this purpose. To finance collection and recycling of different waste streams based on Serbian legislation producers of hazardous goods, becoming waste, have to pay a product charge into the Eko- Fund. This fund will subsidise the system of licensed waste collectors/recyclers for these waste streams. If the results of this model are not enough to comply with the EU directives, concerning special waste streams, an extended producer responsibility (including them into return and recycling of used goods) should be introduced.
P ACKAGING W ASTE
94 | P a g e
Additional primary legislation, through the Law on Packaging Waste, and associated secondary legislation have been introduced. Full implementation of this legislation will lead to approximation of Acquis requirements.
C ONSTRUCTION AND D EMOLITION W ASTE

To develop recycling of construction and demolition waste all possible means should be used: a ban of gravel excavation from rivers and stone pits, also exertion of influence on used construction materials by public clients when tendering erection of buildings.
B ARRIERS IN THE A CHIEVEMENT OF THE R ECYCLING AND R ECOVERY G OALS

To develop a sustainable waste management system in order to reduce environmental pollution and spatial degradation. Short-term objectives (2010-2014) Harmonize national regulations in the sphere of waste management with the EU legislation; Adopt national plans for certain waste streams; Develop regional and local waste management plans up to 2014; Increase number of citizens included in the system for waste collection to 75 % by 2014; Develop the system of primary selection of waste in local self-government units; Construct 12 regional centres for waste management by 2014 (regional landfills, plants for the selection of recyclable waste, plants for separation of recyclable waste, plants for a biological treatment of waste and transfer stations in every region); Establish the system of hazardous waste management (establish central regional storages for hazardous waste and start the construction of the plant for physical-chemical treatment of hazardous waste by 2014); Establish the system for the management of specific waste streams (waste tyres, used batteries and accumulators, waste oils, end-of-life vehicles, WEEE); Establish the system for the management of medical and pharmaceutical waste; Establish the system for the management of waste of animal origin and adopt a relevant regulation; Encourage the use of waste as an alternative fuel in cement plants, steelworks plant and thermal plants, in accordance with the principle of waste hierarchy; Improve the sanitary conditions of current landfills that represent the highest risk for environment and of 63 sites called hot spots from historical pollution with hazardous waste . Long-term objectives (2015-2019) Introduction of separate collection and treatment of hazardous waste from households and industry; Construct 12 regional centres for waste management - regional landfills, plants for the selection of recyclable waste and transfer stations in each region; Provide the capacities for burning (incineration) of organic industrial and medical waste; Strengthening professional and institutional capacities for hazardous waste management; Achieve the level of re-use and recycling of packaging material waste (glass, paper, carton, metal and plastic) of 25% of its volume; 64 Establish the system of construction waste management and the asbestos-containing waste .
63
64
95 | P a g e
8. OPPORTUNITIES IN THE RECYCLING WASTE INDUSTRY

8.1 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE RECYCLING WASTE INDUSTRY IN GREECE
So far the Recycling sector in Greece shows a turnover of 1.5 Billion (2010, ref. Stochasis study) and includes mainly the reclamation of recyclable materials, while 7-10% refers to exports. Although the sector shows a decrease from 2008-2010 at an annual rate of 13%, in 2010 there is an increase of 26% in relation to 2009, due to the rise of the scrap prices. The main results reported in this study refer to the economic figures of the companies dealing in the market of recycling and recovery of waste. These companies are handling with PROs in the field of recycling and production of by products and products and RDF. The number of these companies accounts to almost 100, while 44 of them are primarily recycling companies. The biggest of them (in terms of turnover) lie in the field of metallurgy. In the graph below the market share of the biggest companies is listed.
ELBAL 23.40% 18.60% SIDENOR HALKOR 1.80% 5.30% 9.20% 9% 16.90% HALIVOURGIA HALIVOURGIKI NEONAKIS ANTYMET
15.80%
OTHER
FIGURE 74: ARKET SHARE OF THE BIGGEST COMPANIES (2010)
According to the Stochasis Study (ref) the SWOT Analysis results in the following remarks: STRENGTHS Satisfying financial situation for recyclers Clear determined targets for the recycling of different waste streams according to the EU legislation, limited of uncertainty factors Activities aimed at important social benefits (limitation of the waste stream leading to landfills)
OPPORTUNITIES: Energy production from municipal waste Need for acceleration of the collection rate due to EU legislation 96 | P a g e
8. Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry
Determination of legislation for the management of construction waste Optimisation of the collection of municipal waste by means of decentralized collection sites
WEAKNESSES: Lack of healthy competition, due to practices from not certified companies Lack of coordination and corrective actions between central and local administration Lack of financial incentives towards the local administration for the waste treatment
THREATS: Delays in the licencing procedure of treatment facilities and in the implementation of recycling and recovery projects and Possibility of delays in the collection and recycling rate and confusion caused to the producers by the presence of more than one System per waste Dependence of the recovery of waste due to the national rates for scrap (stock market) and the world economic situation
C ONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES :

The sector of waste recycling and recovery is a relatively young activity for the Greek market showing some interesting perspectives, which on the other hand are suffering a decrease because of the financial crisis. Thus, stagnation is expected in the coming years. Nevertheless some positive effects could derive from the better operation of the PROs, if the authorities execute their part in the supervision and compliance of the existing Systems. Another positive effect could be the necessity to follow the EU legislation that foresees the high percentage of recycling in the municipal waste with the targets set in the Waste Framework Directive. There is good sign in the market prices of the recyclables, which are rising especially the metal. One of the best perspectives in this field shows the WEEE market, because of the used technologies. The enforcement of the recycling strategies is of high importance also because of the scale of economy in the set up of Waste treatment facilities: by increasing the recycling percentage, small treatment plants will be needed. In Greece the geomorphological characteristics with the big urban centres (Athens, Thessaloniki) and the big number of islands, show the problems and limits of the application of well-known European solutions. More tailor made approaches for special recycling programs must be implemented and their efficiency must be proven, before they can be applied everywhere.
8.2. OPPORTUNITIES IN THE RECYCLING WASTE INDUSTRY IN SERBIA

As described above there are undoubtedly a number of very serious constraints facing the Republic of Serbia in achieving compliance with European standards in the field of waste management, there are also opportunities afforded to Serbia in the form of: External donor support, particularly from the European Union; Learning the lessons of other Member States (both EU15 and EU12) who have gone through 65 modernisation of the sector in recent years .
65
Anonymous, 2012b
97 | P a g e
STRENGTHS: Adopted key laws on waste management reconciled with EU Directives Adopted vast majority of secondary legislation pursuant to Laws on Waste and Packaging Existence of National Waste Management Strategy High priority afforded to waste management Construction of several new regional waste management facilities underway Revenue accruing to the National Environment Fund from waste related fiscal measures
OPPORTUNITIES: Potential to leapfrog to modern solutions Unused potential for waste recycling Possibility of waste incineration in cement plants, thermal power plants Integration process and use of EU and other donor funds Contribution to employment and opening of new jobs in modernised waste management industry
Despite these challenges, there are ways for collectors to operate profitably. The undesirable nature of waste management means that few entrepreneurs have the interest, thereby allowing opportunities in the market for those who are willing. One of the keys to being successful is minimizing and maintaining low monthly fixed expenses. Unless a company can afford expensive, automatic sorting equipment they are going to require a large workforce. WEAKNESSES: Incomplete coverage of collection services for municipal waste, particularly in rural areas Lack of infrastructure for treatment and disposal of waste Limited capacities for recycling of waste Absence of facilities for treatment of hazardous waste Absence of central storage for hazardous waste Lack of accurate data on quantity of waste that disappears Poor financial position
THREATS: Weak inter-municipal cooperation Delays in PUC Reform Slow pace of investment for development of waste management infrastructure Unwillingness of households to segregate waste streams Not in my backyard approach at the local level 66 Inability or unwillingness of citizens to pay the real, economic price for municipal services .
66
Anonymous, 2012b
98 | P a g e
9. Recommendations for Policy & Mechanisms in the Financial Crisis Situation
9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY & MECHANISMS IN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS SITUATION

9.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPORTANT MEASURES FOR POLICY IN GREECE
In a central government level the following actions towards a better Waste Management could be implemented: The treatment of biodegradable waste could be enforced through the implementation of pilot programs in the beginning (a LIFE project takes place in the moment) and in a larger scale afterwards The functioning of the PRO schemes should be monitored and optimization of the recycling process should be sought (better quality of recyclables, lower costs of the recycling/recovery, revenues for good results) Enforcement of the cooperation between Local Authorities and PROs aiming at the improvement of the recycling efficiency in the country More awareness campaigns in order to mobilize the stakeholders to participate Better coordination of the recycling activities among all the parties, in order to avoid complications and draw backs in participation Development of Collection sites for recyclables, together with enforcement of separate collection streams (eg for glass), also in islands
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR M UNICIPAL S OLID W ASTE M ANAGEMENT

In the level of the municipalities (local authorities), where the main effort for the improvement of the recycling process lies, main steps that need to be taken include: Improve the overall waste management planning. Improve monitoring, regulations & enforcement. Implement & increase the landfill tax. Introduce restrictions in landfilling of certain waste streams. Implement a tax on MBT. Enforce Extended Producers Responsibility schemes. Introduce PAYT schemes. Utilise available EU funds.
Economic instruments Waste disposal & treatment fees/bans (landfill & incineration) Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) & Producer responsibility schemes
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR W ASTE T REATMENT

Utilise all proper available capacities & make additional infrastructure for recycling & recovery of municipal waste Expand the infrastructure for separate collection for municipal waste Introduce local-regional targets for municipalities for recycling and/or limits for landfilling . Also, improvement of compliance control
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECYCLING AND RECOVERY

Establishment of appropriate collection infrastructure & initiate awareness raising campaigns Expansion and control of the operation of Recycling streams & systems Education of Local Authorities (seminars, guidelines, manuals, etc) 99 | P a g e
Further establishing & and modernising civic amenity sites Enhancing connection to separate collection infrastructure to 100% (systems, or door-to-door collection)
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR B IODEGRADABLE WASTE

Set up infrastructure for separate collection & treatment of biodegradable waste, Raise public awareness on importance of separate collection & needed infrastructure Bring measures for the creation of market for products produced Administrative capacity building & better cooperation on bio-waste management
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR A DMINISTRATIVE & INSTITUTIONAL DRAWBACKS

Update the national WMP Increase resources allocated to local authorities Improve cooperation between different administrative levels & relevant stakeholders Improvement of statistical data related to municipal waste management
S UMMARY OF R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECYCLING

The recycling definition should be made clearer. In order to quantify better recycling rates. For example what stands for packaging waste in Greece? Monitoring of the systems (possibly PRO schemes?) should be further improved, HRA is a positive step for setting the framework of Recycling in Greece -needs more support in order to be able to meet increased demands. Legislation is more or less in place, some improvements could be further implemented There is space to increase the efficiency of the recycling companies in an optimal size Increase awareness campaigns & include in the decision process citizens groups, NGOs, etc Collection points should be further increased in some streams, & methods of separate collection & collection rules that improve the quality, quantity & financially viability of the systems should be implemented Cooperation between systems, & local authorities should be strengthened. Opportunities should be offered to the informal sector to stop being an enemy improving work, safety, & health conditions of scavengers
Other steps that need to be done include: The publication of a supplementary tender procedure which will be specialized in waste management services and will be placed under the legislation concerning P.P.P. The editing of a template contract for all P.P.P. projects which will result in the reduction of the time needed to prepare and participate in a tender procedure. To update the legal framework that defines the operation of Waste Management Authorities and to solve the problem of funding towards private stakeholders. To create indicators that will assess the performance of solid waste management works and authorities in order to establish a control mechanism. To set the specifications for products deriving from waste processing in order to create the necessary conditions that will allow the expansion of the secondary product market.
Technical specifications: the amendment of J.M.D. 114218 is necessary in order to introduce state of the art specifications in the operation and construction of waste treatment and disposal facilities. Especially the following things have to be reviewed: To introduce new specifications concerning waste treatment technologies To expand the content of the J.M.D. to all waste management related services
100 | P a g e
To amend some of the specifications set since they are out of date and not in conformity with modern waste management practices Waste minimization measures Measures in place for the prevention of PPW generation. Organisation of preventive/mitigation actions on reduction/collection of PPW from environment, especially beaches/in the ports Most of the measures concern the environmental education and the awareness raising activities that are organized by municipalities, collective systems for collecting packaging waste, media and NGOs. Some of the preventive/mitigation actions on reduction/collection of PPW from environment are: Awareness activities in popular beaches of Attica during the summer period in order to inform about the benefits of recycling and the negative impact of PPW for the environment. Voluntary campaigns in order to remove waste (along with it PPW) from forest areas and seaside areas Especially for the marine environment the NGO HELMEPA (Hellenic Marine Environment Protection Association) has been organizing since 1993 voluntary Beach Cleanups and coordinates every September in Greece the International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) day. In 2011 more than 2,600 volunteers from 144 public and private entities carried out 74 beach and underwater cleanups in 67 areas of Greece. In implementing their cleanup activities along beaches, ports, lake and river banks and underwater, volunteers covered 62 km in total, collecting and recording in detail more than 12 tons of solid waste of which 7,4% was plastic bottles and 3,8% plastic bags. Also the message "No Garbage, No plastic in Seas and Beaches" is disseminated by posters featuring the Seagull through TV cartoon-spots.
Information on current initiatives regarding management of plastic packaging products during service life. Athens started an initiative to promote reusable bags on 14th April 2008 and other municipalities have already shown an interest in following suit. Indeed there was an initiative to use reusable bags that was organized with the support of the retailing sector. Some of the largest super markets have replaced the plastic bag with biodegradable ones, many companies in the retailing sector are using paper bags and some are selling their shopping bags (so as to avoid excessive use of plastic bags). From a marketing point of view many retailers (including shops that sell clothes) promote the idea of using reusable bags in order to attract more customers. Until the end of 2013 the National Strategic Plan for Waste Prevention shall be finalized according to EU legislation. A study is being prepared.
9.2 RECOMMENDATION AND IMPORTANT MEASURES FOR POLICY IN SERBIA

Given the very low starting point of the current waste management systems in Serbia, the requirements for change in the sector can, in many respects, be specified in the National Waste Management Strategy and the Acquis as objectives.
L EGAL AND A DMINISTRATIVE C HANGES

The objective is to achieve full transposition of the Acquis, subject to the specification of achievable deadlines for a number of targets contained in the Acquis. Transitional periods are expected to be required in a number of respects. Whilst transposition is largely completed, the following changes need to be made to complete transposition: Minor revisions to the Law on Waste management to address slight discrepancies in the existing transposition; Additions to the Serbian legal framework of measures to transpose the Directives on waste from extractive industries and the use of sewage sludge in agriculture. 101 | P a g e
Following on from this Sector Approximation Strategy and the National Waste Management Strategy, more detailed Waste management planning needs to be undertaken: Adopt national plans for specific waste flows; Develop regional and local waste management plans.
In terms of regulatory practice, the key change required is clearly the full implementation of the regulatory provisions contained in the recent legislation. In particular the permitting, authorisation, registration, exemption and reporting requirements need to be fully introduced.
I MPLEMENTATION C HANGES
The nature of the changes required here is specified in a generalised form, since they are being considered a priori of the options analysis to determine which actual measures are feasible and which are optimal. In the area of primary collection: Increase waste collection services coverage to EU standards this is likely to entail provision of near universal coverage of the population; Augment the system of mixed municipal waste collection with systems for separation of waste at or close to source so as to facilitate recovery and recycling of specific waste streams including metal, glass, paper, plastic and bio-waste, and thereby minimise the quantity of mixed residual waste for treatment and or disposal; Strengthen the existing systems of separate receipt (product return facilities, drop points, household waste centres and similar) for specified waste types including at least: Batteries and accumulators; Electronic and electrical equipment; End of life vehicles; Oils; Pharmaceutical products; Tyres.
Waste treatment and processing (municipal waste) requirements include: Establish facilities for handling and treatment (at least sorting and grading) of separately collected fractions; If required; plan and implement mixed waste treatment to achieve recycling and recovery targets; Ensure adequate capacity and standard of facilities for final disposal potentially including waste to energy and landfill.
Waste treatment and processing (industrial waste) requirements include: Establish facility for hazardous waste management and disposal; Establish a network of facilities for the recovery of construction and demolition waste
T HE M OST I MPORTANT M EASURES T HE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNICAL / OPERATIVE MEASURES

Develop a Local and Regional waste management plans in accordance with the Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste (General Directive); To build a new regional sanitary landfills in accordance with the Directive 99/31/EC on Landfills;
102 | P a g e
Introducing separate collection and recycling of dangerous household waste, oils, batteries etc; Increasing the number of inhabitants included in waste management system (80%); Develop the capacities for treatment of storage of medical waste; Sanitation and re-cultivation of the existing damp sites; Develop a plan for animal waste management; Establishment of independent professional organization (association or chamber) for all participants in waste management; Increase the rate of reuse of packaged waste (glass, paper, card board, metal and plastic) to 25% until 2015;
E CONOMIC MEASURES
Increase fees for illegal waste handling; Commence restructuring of public communal enterprises regarding their direct connection to founders, divide them into organizational and technical units, and free them of secondary activities, and make corporations; Start with concessions to private and mixed enterprises, first of all for waste collection and disposal; Sectoral liberalization, introduce competition, and users right to choose the best service; Privatize activities connected to waste management, wherever justified.
I NSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES

Establishment of cooperation and responsibility among more neighbouring municipalities for the purpose of planning in the field of waste management on the inter-municipal level; Incorporation of EU and national standards and targets into long-term contracts on waste management; Establishment of independent professional organization (association or chamber) for all participants in waste management; Advanced introduction of Environmental Management System (ISO and EMAS schemes) and ECO-marking.
103 | P a g e
10. SUCCESS STORIES/GOOD PRACTICES IN THE REGION

10.1 SUCCESS STORIES - GOOD PRACTICES IN GREECE
Recycling in Greece it is by itself a success story. The overall recycling efforts were listed in the chapters above. Compared with the Waste Management Plans, that are behind the targets of the EU policy, the Recycling sector expressed in figures shows a good example for the implementation of private/financial sector driven activities. Overall the implementation of EPR concept in different waste streams in Greece has been proven to be a success story since the 17 different licensed Systems showed very good results in the collection / recycling / recovery of the waste streams under this regime.
AFIS
Furthermore, one of the EPRs, the one for the portable batteries has achieved one of the highest recycling rates in Europe (target for 25% recycling for 2012 has already been met), due to a very extended collection system and a very apprehensive awareness and advertisement campaign, which was conducted in schools and in Mass Media.
FIGURE 75: COLLECTED TONNES OF PORTABLE BATTERIES FROM AFIS
According to the market figures, the collected 657 tonnes represent 31,3 % of the overall distributed amount of portable batteries in the country. Comparing this collection rate with the one recorded elsewhere in Europe, we can observe a very high percentage. From the 657 collected tonnes, 202 are originated from enterprises, 53 tn from municipalities, 131 tn from super markets and 63 tn from schools.
10.2 SUCCESS STORIES - GOOD PRACTICES IN SERBIA

Despite the collection model used, interviewees commonly repeated that many citizens want to recycle, and will participate if given a relatively convenient opportunity. That said it can also take only a few citizens to disrupt a program by not sorting properly. Some of the key success factors identified include: 104 | P a g e
10. Success Stories/Good Practices in the Region
Geography: Remote municipalities face more difficulties in identifying buyers, transportation and recycling economics. Expanding around existing hubs or clusters of recycling programs, and establishing and support in regional sorting lines, may help to overcome this challenge. Will & Initiative: The will and initiative of municipalities and JKPs ultimately determines the success of a public recycling program. The actors must be diligent in introducing and promoting the initiative to the public, persistent in their efforts despite potential early setbacks, and committed to achieving their goal and targets. Citizen Behavior: Citizen behavior can be influenced by an effective media campaign to introduce recycling, encourage citizens to recycle, engage the private sector, and provide ongoing information about the program to the public. Media coverage can also help eliminate wrong impressions and opinions among the public; for example, that JKPs are not recycling collected waste but rather sending it to the landfill along with the rest. Politics: The relations and cooperation between the municipalities and JKPs vary between municipalities. It might be generalized that smaller municipalities have better cooperation than larger ones; larger municipalities may have an opposition party in charge of the JKP, further complicating the issue. Regardless, the politics of the relation play a key role in success, as recycling impacts waste management contracts and agreements.
Related to source selection, a number of other best practices are noted: Separation of plastic is better in smaller cities and even villages than in many urban centers. This runs counter to what might be expected, though some interviewees explained that it may be because waste disposal problems are more evident in villages due to the high number of visible illegal landfills. Wire containers (those whose contents can be viewed from outside) have far better separation than closed (solid) varieties. There appears to be a clear psychological effect in citizens ability to view the contents of the container. Recycling containers should be accompanied by general waste containers nearby. Recycling containers by themselves attract general waste, as citizens simply dispose of their waste in the most convenient container. Interestingly, many plastic recycling containers in the small towns and villages had excellent separation despite not being placed near general trash containers. Recycling containers should be efficiently placed to maximize collection and minimize effort. Containers should be placed on an easily-traversed route; in quantities to meet the population and demands of citizens (so that they fill at roughly the same rate); placed to allow citizens the opportunity to recycle with minimal effort; and placed in public areas of high visibility, residential populations. foot traffic, and drink consumption.
CLUSTER "RECYCLING SOUTH"

One of the local initiatives, in terms of improving waste management, as well as the development of recycling industry, is the creation of the cluster "Recycling South" in 2010, whose members are companies from a broad territory of Nis, which are engaged in collecting and processing of different types of waste. The idea of this initiative is to strengthen regional cooperation in environmental protection and sustainable development by consolidating the activities of business entities engaged in waste management, especially recycling, in the territory of South Serbia. The companies, members of the cluster are: Jugo-Impex, Jugo-Impex EER, Denipet Ltd, Nives Ltd, Administrative Group Ltd, Maxi Co. Ltd., SNG Company Ltd. and Pu t ininjering Ltd. The cluster activities are: minimization of waste, the support of development of technical solutions, monitoring and control of raw materials and special waste streams, protection and improvement of the environment, advocating for health and social protection, establishment and development of special training and capacity building of cluster members, development of public awareness, etc. The state authorities or the local self-government bodies take actions to 105 | P a g e
reduce pressure on the environment using economic and other measures, and they have to choose the best available techniques, plant and equipment that do not require excessive costs. This means that it is necessary to intensify the cooperation between state bodies and local authorities and the Cluster in order to increase the 67 participation of recyclers, members of the Cluster, as well as the use of available incentive funds .
RECYCLING AND SERVICE COVERAGE IN BELGRADE

Total number of 588,322 households and 28,764 companies are covered by the waste collection service, as seen in Table 27.
TABLE 27: RECYCLABLES REDEEMED BY PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY "GRADSKA ISTOA" AT THE RECYCLING CENTRE68
Recyclable component Paper Iron Tin Copper Brass Aluminum Plastic (all types) Battery lead PET package Tire Aluminum cans
Collected 2009 (t) 3,449 184 655 8 2 35 138 3 550 578 17
in
Collected 2010 (t) 2,626 87 507 6 2 29 227 3 607 537 13
in
Rate 2010/2009 0.76 0.47 0.77 0.77 1.13 0.83 1.64 1.04 1.10 0.93 0.77
Currently, no transfer stations are used. Some kind of transfer station are used when speaking of bulky waste collection, i.e. bulky waste is collected from the streets manually, with small vehicles and transported to a point with bigger, but still limited space available for storage of this kind of waste. When the capacity is almost full, large transport vehicles transfer the collected bulky waste to a landfill. There is no organized treatment for this waste type. Collection of recyclables started in 2003 by some Public Utility Company. Through this service, at the recycling centers, citizens and the industrial sector could sell paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, aluminum (Al) and steel cans, tire and other components. Popularization of recycling has been initiated in June 2009 by installing 39 drop off points for recyclables or 2 6 locations per municipality. Each point includes three containers of 3.2 m, for separate collection of paper, PET packaging and aluminum cans. The participation of citizens is voluntary. This system doesnt fit the awareness for recycling, because of the long distance for most households in the area. There is no motivation system implemented for recycling improvement. Another type of selection of recyclable components from the MSW functions through the redemption of recyclables at the recycling centre of the Public Utility Company. Also, it has a social implication because there are a huddle number of street collectors that earn money by collecting or extracting recyclables disposed in curbside containers and selling it at the recycling centres. At the beginning of 2011, the informal sector has launched another recycling centre with purpose to engage neighbouring scavengers. There are no data on collection of
67
Marija Andjelkovi Pesic, 2012 Florina J. Popov, 2012
68
106 | P a g e
10. Success Stories/Good Practices in the Region
recyclables at centre. Like in other developing countries, waste pickers are an important constituent of the SWM system. The solid waste collected in the curbside containers is sorted by waste pickers and waste collectors who sell some of the waste materials to companies that can use them. However, during this process the waste is spread around, contaminating the environment. The sorted waste is contaminated with remains of oil and food. This 69 activity also reduces the volume of waste thrown in containers in urban space .
FIGURE 76: CONTAINERS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF WASTE
Fourth type of extraction of the recyclables is by the activity of waste scavengers, after unloading the vehicles that brought MSW on a landfill. These materials are also contaminated, some of them cannot be recycled / recovered and the remaining ones need to be cleaned before processing, which increases the cost of the process. Scavengers are obliged, by the contract, to sell all recyclables to the Public Utility Company. Unfortunately, there is no data on the amount of recyclables collected by this informal sector and their contribution in operational costs of MSW management. This is also an inefficient system; recyclables extracted from the landfill are returned to the recycling centre. It should be considered that street and landfill scavengers are competition to the Public Util ity Companys 70 recycling system because they steel recyclable components from the waste stream . Only a small amount of glass is collected for recycling, by some private companies. The collected glass is exported mostly to Bulgaria, because Serbian glass industry has failed. Although MSW stream consists of huge quantities of organic waste (food scraps and garden waste), it is still not included in separate collection and treatment, due to the lack of proper organization and resources. They are not interested in PET packaging because of its big volume, small mass and relatively low price per kg. In 2010 no paper and Al-cans were collected by the placed containers, only 22 t of PET package was collected (0.63% of total amount of recyclables collected). Another problem related to drop off points is noticed some households throw their mixed waste into containers assigned to recycling. Detailed analysis should be conducted in order to improve the existing recycling system and to show if the recycling is an economically viable option for towns. It is necessary to pay particular attention to the
69
Florina J. Popovi, 2012 Florina J. Popovi, 2012
70
107 | P a g e
social dimension of recycling, which seems to have more influence than investment potential. Social factors mean 71 culture, habits, awareness of society and its parts .
71
Florina J. Popovi, 2012
108 | P a g e
11. Conclusions
11. CONCLUSIONS
Both Greece and Serbia have improved their waste management practices in the latest years. Of course much more need to be made in a different degree in both countries, in order to reach wished level of environmental protection.
GREECE
In Greece recycling has a small, in comparison with other EU countries that show greater achievements. Thus there is a lot of space for improvement, both in organisation of the systems, the quantities gathered & the number of waste streams recycled. The implementation of the Landfill Directive & the Waste Framework Directive & the corresponding national legislation requires major changes in the entire waste management sector in Greece, from the introduction of new technologies and stringent operation regimes for landfills to the calculation of costs and charges to the public and the structure, organisation and operation of the waste management authorities. The whole Greek waste philosophy needs to be upgraded to meet demanding targets, criteria & standards, while keeping cost increases to a minimum. Systems material recycling output had a rising trend until 2009, when the effect of the financial recession in Greece became apparent. Furthermore, a significant challenge for all Systems is the free riders proble m, which is intensified due to the financial crisis. However, 17 different licensed Systems showed very good results in the collection / recycling / recovery of the waste streams. More particularly, results & achievements of the 9 largest Recycling Systems in Greece for the year 2011, indicate that a lot of progress has been made in the recycling field, for several materials. The latest recycling results of the Systems in Greece demonstrate that targets have been achieved for most material streams regulated under EPR policies.
SERBIA
In Serbia permission to manage packaging waste, have three operators, SEKOPAK, EKOSTAR PAK and DELTA PAK. These three operators include the management of packaging from 1069 legal entities. A license to independently manage their own packaging waste management company issued BB Minaqua from Novi Sad. Waste management problems are not equally and evenly present in all local self-government units, and the activities regarding the introduction of an integrated system are not conducted with the same intensity, but they primarily depend on the capacities of particular municipalities. Such an incoherent system cannot function adequately and the change of such condition in the direction of applying the modern sanitary and safe ways for handling with waste cannot be expected without significant assets. The only economically feasible solution is creation of regional waste management centres where the waste collected from several municipalities will be treated at the plants for separation of recyclable waste and the rest of it will be disposed of at the regional landfills. These regions will implement the principles of integrated waste management system for a longer period of time. 109 | P a g e
There is no systematically organised separate collection, sorting and recycling of waste in the Republic of Serbia. The current degree of recycling i.e. waste utilization is not sufficient. Although, the primary recycling in Serbia has been set forth under the law and envisages separation of paper, glass and metal in specially labelled containers, recycling is not functioning in practice. The exception is one plant for separation of recyclable waste, centres for separate collection of waste at the other location etc. Municipal waste management falls under the competence of local self-government units. It is necessary to strengthen the institutions and authorities in charge of planning and management of projects, issuance of approvals, control and monitoring, as well as administrative capacities for more efficient implementation of regulations in this field. On the basis of the Law on Waste Management, all regions and municipalities should adopt their waste management plans. Spatial plans must identify the sites for municipal waste management plants. Development of public awareness and education of staff remains a permanent activity. It is necessary that centres for separate collection of recyclable waste (paper, cans, glass, plastics, electrical devices, clumsy waste material, etc.) should be established and promoted where citizens themselves would bring the waste. Local self-government units should provide for and equip those centres. Local self-government units should be focused on the organisation of primary selection through the organised collection of recyclable waste in households. Waste tyres must be treated, whereat recycling has advantage over burning. A special fee should be introduced for import and production of tyres for vehicles when they become waste tyres after use, to enable the establishment of the collection and treatment system. A network of buyout centres for waste tyres should be established. The system for separate collection of electrical and electronic products should be established so that the usable parts could be recycled. The waste components of electronic and electrical products containing PCB must be separated and their appropriate disposal must be ensured. It is necessary that a separate recovery of refrigerants should be established. Uncontrolled disposal of construction waste in the environment should be prevented. Construction waste must not be disposed in the sites where such waste has been generated, nor can it be disposed in locations not particularly stipulated for such purposes. The owner of the construction waste shall bear costs for waste management and shall provide for conditions for separate collection and temporary storing of construction waste. Mandatory recycling of construction waste must be introduced in stationary and mobile plants. Demolition waste shall be separated and treated in compliance with law (paper, glass and plastics should be separated from construction waste and delivered to persons that collect and treat such materials). Concrete, asphalt, stone, etc. may be recycled. The following problems in waste management system could be noticed: Organized communal solid waste collection covers about 60-70 % population Rural areas are not covered by organized waste collection Sole method of communal waste treatment is depositing to sites There is no organized separate collecting and recycling of packages, and other communal waste, except in a few cities in Serbia. There are no plants for hazardous waste storage and treatment and no plants for biodegradable waste treatment There is no system for collection of household hazardous waste and for unusable cars, and other specific waste categories Present disposal sites mostly do not satisfy EU requirements and standards Poor Corporation between municipalities Communal solid waste collection taxes do not cover all expenses *niska* There are no data on total number of generators of waste, which may be used as secondary raw material There is no organize education of population on waste, its maintenance and recycling obligation Bad existing law regulation
110 | P a g e
11. Conclusions
The other urgent problems: Closed landfills are not recultivated and have no recultivation projects Most of present disposal sites are full and planned for closing (existing for more than 20 years) Bio-chemical and industrial waste is of en disposed of at disposal sites, though it is illegal There is no special disposal site in Serbia, or regular site of hazardous waste Illegal local dumps are huge problem, and in most settlements are formed in neglected places.
Municipal Recycling Steps to Establish a Public Program 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Make the commitment to start. Decide materials to be collected based on a simple market assessment of buyers and financial estimates. Plan to target plastic. Identify and contact potential buyers to learn terms, conditions and opportunities in the area. Identify local private sector actors to procure recyclables when possible. Investigate partnerships and separate agreements for different materials. Determine how much value-adding will be done by JKP and the public sector in general. If separation and processing cannot be counted on to be thorough (as is generally the case) this role should probably be left to the private sector, with JKP simply pressing and baling. This obviously affects the economics Negotiate agreements between municipalities, JKPs and/or contracted private sector recyclers. Include incentives for specific targets or quantities. Estimate number of containers for starting. A rule-of-thumb is approximately one container per 1000 citizens. Review container designs and select a design and size that can be managed by the collection vehicles. The see-through wire containers have better citizen separation than the closed-lid varieties. Conduct a public relations campaign focusing on regional media outlets, advertising and school campaigns. Conduct a public relations campaign at the onset of the program. Place containers in parks, bus stations and other high visibility areas; near schools; and near high concentrations of residences such as apartment complexes. In housing areas, containers can be placed at intersections with high pedestrian traffic to allow all citizens the opportunity to recycle with a minimum of effort. Avoid placing containers in places where there are no general use containers. Outline a route to simplify container pickup; place containers along the route. Determine if recycling program will buy or accept individual or private-sector collection. If so, ensure that collectors are aware of the terms, locations and conditions. Communicate and negotiate with private sector collectors to realize larger economies of scale for sale and transportation to the large buyers. Try to avoid a common public perception that the collected recyclables are being disposed of rather than recycled by publicizing results. Task collectors to monitor the rate at which containers in specific areas are filled. Move or add containers as necessary to try to balance the time so that containers fill at roughly the same rate. Review these issues on a periodic basis to make improvements and expand outreach.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Some further steps that should be done are: Implement efficient separation at source system for different municipal solid waste stream fractions (recyclables, organic, hazardous household waste, etc). Adequate capital investments, equipment and infrastructure needed. Adoption of some bye-laws at national and local level to guide further waste management strategies and decisions. Integrate & support informal sector for recyclables recovery, managing composting facilities. Implement extended producer responsibility arrangements. Minimization of construction waste disposal. Increase its reuse.
111 | P a g e
Modification of good practice from the developing countries before their implementation on local level to find a market specific solution. Taking the right steps to reduce waste generation rate, to improve recycling, to implement principles such a Polluter pays, Producers responsibility, where possible. Improvement of all parts of the existing MSWM system (collection, transportation, recycling, disposal).
This study gives an overview of the current situation in the waste management system in Serbia, with its good and bad practice, illogical parts and complex social factors. The situation in this field needs paradigm change in the future. Since the quantity of generated waste is growing continuously and a very low percent of recyclables is separated from the waste stream, an integrated sustainable waste management system is necessary. Also, an adequate system of MSWM could be implemented only if its characteristics and management status are determined and understood. In order to obtain the necessary data to promote and implement the most appropriate methods for waste management.
112 | P a g e
12. Sources/References
12. SOURCES/REFERENCES
1. Approximation strategy for waste sector, Belgrade, Ministry of environment, mining and spatial planning (memsp) April 2012. Local waste management plan for the City of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia, 2010 Alexaki E., Alternative Waste Management: An opportunity for the future?, 4th International Conference of Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association, 30 November-1st December 2012, Athens, Greece Andjelkovi Pesic M., Stankovic J., Jankovic Milic V., Analysis of Possibilities for Recycling Industry Development - Multi-Criteria Approach, Economics and Organization Vol. 9, N0 2, 2012, pp. 241 255, Annual Reports of ERP Systems in Greece (HRA, 2011/2012) Anonymous, 2010. Secondary materials and waste recycling commercialization in -Serbia 2009-2010, USAID April 2010 Anonymous, 2012. Sub-regional report, Plastic/PET waste recycling in the South-East Europe sub-region, with a focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia, Environment Program (UNEP), 2012. Anonymous, 2012a. Izvetaj o upravljanju ambalaom i ambalanim otpadom u 2011. godini, Republika Srbija Ministarstvo ivotne sredine, rudarstva i prostornog planiranja, Agencija za zatitu ivotne sredine, Beograd, jul 2012. godine. Anonymous, 2012b. Approximation strategy for waste sector, Belgrade, Ministry of environment, mining and spatial planning (memsp) april 2012.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Anonymous. 2012c, Statistika otpada i upravljanje otpadom u R.Srbiji 2008-2010., Republiki zavod za statistiku, Beograd 2012.godine. 11. Anonymous. 2012d, Development of models for the management of specific waste streams in Vojvodina, with special emphasis on packaging waste, Faculty of tehnical sciences, Serbia, Novi Sad, 2012. 12. BiPro Study (2012): Workshop Waste Management, Athens, 13th November 2012, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, European Commission, DG Environment and DG Regio, BiPRO, ENVIROPLAN SA 13. Data from the National Plan for Waste Management (in preparation, 2013) 14. Developing integrated solid waste management plan training manual, united nations environment programme, 2009 15. D-Waste, European Recycling Performance: Drivers, Barriers and Lessons Learnt, 2012 16. European Commission, 2010,Final report supporting the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Final%20Report%20final%2025%20Oct.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2012. 113 | P a g e
17. European Commission, EU waste policy: the story behind the strategy http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/story_book.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2012. 18. Famellos S., Lasaridi K., Charitopoulou Tr. Paschali Th., Grigoriadou M. New Institutional Instruments of Alternative Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, November 2012 19. Famellos S., Makridis V., Koutsourakis G., Tsiftelidis D., Paschali T., Di amantis D.,Results of Packaging Recycling Works of Eastern Thessaloniki and Municipality of Thessaloniki, 4th International Conference of Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association, 30 November-1st December 2012, Athens, Greece 20. Florina J. Popovi, Jovan V. Filipovi, Vojislav N. Boani, Paradigm shift needed municipal solid waste management in Belgrade, Serbia, 2012. 21. HRA, 2012, http://www.eoan.gr/el/content/7. Accessed 14 May 2012. 22. http://www.electrocycle.gr/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235:ianouarios2013proodo-simeionei-i-anakiklosi-lamptiron&catid=1:latest&Itemid=124 23. http://www.scribd.com/doc/93988506/%CE%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF% 83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82-%CE%A5%CE%A0%CE%95%CE%9A%CE%91%CE%9C%CE%AC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82-2012 24. Katsaros N., Alternative Management of Plastic Materials", 2010 25. Lasaridi K., Ioannou T., Abeliotis K. "Ten years of extended producer responsibility policies in Greece, 26. Law on waste management ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 36/09) 27. Law n packaging and packaging waste ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 36/09) 28. Markku Salo, "Cooperation between producers and municipalities make high recycling targets possible", JLY- Finnish Solid Waste Association, ISWA World Solid Waste Congress 2012, Florence, Italy 29. Mayers C. K.: Strategic, Financial, and Design Implications of Extended Producer Responsibility in Europe, A Producer Case Study. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(3), 113-131 (2007). 30. MOPRORK, Identification of pollution from landfills and monitoring models, risk assessment, an appointment of waste quantities whit satellite-modern information technologies in order to support implementation of the legislation, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, 2012. 31. Rulebook on manner and procedure of waste tires management ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 104/2009 and 81/2010) 32. Rulebook on manners and procedures of used batteries and accumulators management, ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", No. 86/2010) 33. Rulebook on the manner and procedure of end-of-life vehicle management ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 98/2010) 34. Rulebook on the manner and procedure of end-of-life vehicle management, ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", No. 98/2010) 35. Saki ., "Trends in Recycling in Europe", European Environment Agency, 2010 114 | P a g e
12. Sources/References
36. Simes P., Cabral M., Ferreira S., Cruz N., Marques R. C., "Assessing the Efficiency of Recycling Systems: Evidence from Portugal", CEG-IST, Technical University of Lisbon 37. Stochasis, Study on the Opportunities in the Recycling Sector 2011, 38. The national waste management strategy for the period 2010-2019, ("Official Gazette of RS no. 29/2010) 39. Velis C. and Brunner P., "Recycling and resource efficiency: it is time for a change from quantity to quality", Waste Management Research, June 2013 40. Vuji G., Jovii N., Redi N., Jovii G., Batini B., Stanisavljevi N., Abuhress O. A., A fast method for the analysis of municipal solid waste in developing countries - case study of Serbia, Environmental engineering and management journal, august 2010, vol.9, no. 8, 1021-1029 41. Vuji G., Ubavin D., Milovanovi D., EU hierarchy in waste management and Serbian waste management challenges, REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013.
115 | P a g e

Report Recycling in Balkan Region

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Report Recycling in Balkan Region

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HSWMA & SeSWA

Contributors & Reviewers

With the support of

Financed under the ISWA Project Grant 2012.

5. Production & management of Recycling Streams ................................................................................................... 37

5.1.5 Used Tires .................................................................................................................................................. 62

9.1 Recommendations and Important Measures for Policy in Greece ................................................................... 99

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 18: Influence of seasonal variation on generated waste quantities ..................................................................................... 29

Figure 67: Bin for the collection of bulbs......................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 11: Operating PRO systems in Greece during 2012 ............................................................................................................... 38

1. INTRODUCTION: A RECYCLING WORLD

R ECYCLING IN A GLOBALISED WORLD

1. Introduction: A Recycling World

2. RECYCLING IN THE REGION

FIGURE 1: MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT IN EU (2011)

2. Recycling in the Region

FIGURE 2: TREND IN GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN EUROPE

FIGURE 3: MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT EUROPE

36% 30% 28%

27% 25% 20%

18% 15% 11% 7% 4%

FIGURE 5: PACKAGING RECYCLING RATE (2010)

2. Recycling in the Region

2.2 RECYCLING IN BALKAN COUNTRIES (BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, MONTENEGRO)

BiH 2009 3,840,000 1,493,000 388 50,000 13 434

Montenegro 2009 620,145 193,000 311

EU 27 2009 493,000,000 167,000,000 338 3,018,600 6 200

500 1% 2,200 0.6 29

1,360,000 48 3,400,000 7 338

2. Recycling in the Region

FIGURE 7: GDP AND RESIDUAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) 11

Anonymous, 2012 Anonymous, 2012

TABLE 2: SHARE OF RECYCLED WASTE13

Bosnia & Herzegovina (2007) <5% 10-25% 1% >60% <1%

Serbia (2010) 7-8% 75% 10-15% 3% (metal) 2%

EU 27 (2008) 60.5% 80.8% 30.3% 67.7% (metal) 66%

2.2.1 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA

Anonymous, 2012 Anonymous, 2012

2. Recycling in the Region

Anonymous, 2012 Anonymous, 2012

3. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING POLICIES & LEGAL FRAMEWORK

FIGURE 8: EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

B) T HEMATIC S TRATEGY ON THE P REVENTION AND R ECYCLING OF W ASTE

C) W ASTE F RAMEWORK D IRECTIVE

2015 2020 2020

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

FIGURE 9: WASTE HIERARCHY PYRAMID

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

L EGAL F RAMEWORK FOR W ASTE M ANAGEMENT AND R ECYCLING

3.2.2 OVERALL STRATEGY , POLICY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN SERBIA

L INKS TO OTHER STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

[%] [%] [%] [%] [%]

4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste

4. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

FIGURE 10: COUNTRY AND WASTE PROFILES OF GREECE & SERBIA17

4.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

and local level in Greece. Glob. Nest J. 11, 117126.

Hellenic Statistical Authority, http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-

4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste

FIGURE 11: MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATED IN GREECE22

300 250 200 150 100 50 0