ADMINISTRATIVE & ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR PROMOTING BIODEGRADABLE WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL

Transcription

1 ADMINISTRATIVE & ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR PROMOTING BIODEGRADABLE WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL Lasaridi K.-E., Chroni C., Heilakis K., Zorpas A., Abeliotis K. Harokopio University, GR Institute of Environmental Technology & Sustainable Development, CY

2 European policy and legislation Waste Framework Directive (WFD 2008/98/EC European Landfill Directive (LD 1999/31/EC) Diversion targets Waste management landscape in European Union Member States (EU MS)

3 MS like Greece and Cyprus that relied heavily on landfills in 1995, for more than 80% of their MSW, may postpone each of the targets by a maximum of 4 years. Using this allowance, Greece and Cyprus should meet the respective diversion targets by 2010, 2013 and : Greece was short of reaching its 1,1 million tn BMW diversion target by about 15%; since then a very modest progress has been made in infrastructure development. Cyprus also did not meet the 2010 diversion target. To reverse the existing situation 7comply with the LD and the WFD, the entire waste management sector in Greece and Cyprus should be subjected to radical and rigorous changes.

4 Targeted intervention strategies designed for specific geographical areas should lead to improved diversion rates of BMW from landfill (Purcell & Magette, 2011). There is no single environmentally best option for the landfill diversion and management of BMW (2008/98/EC). The environmental benefits & costs of the different options available depend on a number of local factors, including collection systems, waste composition, climate, potential compost uses & their contribution to combating soil erosion etc. Therefore, BMW management strategies should be determined by MS using life-cycle thinking.

5 Research objectives The study details the administrative & economic tools that are employed worldwide (with emphasis in EU MS) for the biowaste diversion from landfills To showcase examples of good practice to support decision-makers in GR & CY SYRVEY- INTERVIEWS

6 Administrative & Economic Tools for BMW Diversion from Landfill The main alternatives to landfill for BMW: 1 Waste Reduction 2 Source separation & recycling for paper 3 Source separation & composting/anaerobic digestion (AD) 4 Thermal treatment (commingled MSW / solid refuse fuel)

7 Policy instruments for the diversion of waste from landfilling in the different EU member states Market based instruments Administrative instruments Country Landfill tax Tax, other Landfill ban Packaging collection systems Separate collection other BMW GROUP 1: Countries with high material (>25%) & high incineration (>25%) rates Belgium- Flanders Belgium- Wallonia s Yes Yes Denmark /1998: packaging 1997 Glass: France Luxembourg Yes Netherlands Sweden

8 Policy instruments for the diversion of waste from landfilling in the different EU member states Market based instruments Administrative instruments Country Landfill tax Tax, other Landfill ban Packaging collection systems Separate collection other BMW GROUP 2: Countries with high material (>25%) & low incineration (<25%) rates Austria / Finland / Germany 2001* 1991 Hungary 1995: product fee Italy / Ireland : plastic bags 1997 Spain 1997 United Kingdom :LATS

9 Policy instruments for the diversion of waste from landfilling in the different EU member states Market based instruments Administrative instruments Country Landfill tax Tax, other Landfill ban Packaging collection systems GROUP 3: Countries with low material (<25%) & low incineration (<25%) rates Separate collection other BMW Cyprus Czech Republic 1991: fee on landfill 1997: paper Estonia 1990: fee on landfill 1997: product fee (packaging) Greece 2001 Latvia 2002: product fee (packaging) 2003/ Lithuania 2003: product fee (packaging)

10 Policy instruments for the diversion of waste from landfilling in the different EU member states Market based instruments Administrative instruments Country Landfill tax Tax, other Landfill ban Packaging collection systems GROUP 3: Countries with low material (<25%) & low incineration (<25%) rates Separate collection other BMW Malta Poland 2002 Portugal 1998 Slovakia 1992: fee on landfill 2001: recycling fund 1998 Slovenia

11 Methodology A state-of-the-art review A survey (key-persons in the waste management sector) The interview design Questionnaire (15 questions) April 2011 to March 2012 The questions were categorised into the following sections: Knowledge and comprehension of the current waste management system in the study areas; Opinion on the implementation of administrative tools for the diversion of BMW from landfilling; Opinion on the implementation of economic tools for the diversion of BMW from landfilling; and Suggestions about the administrative and/or economic tools.

12 RESULTS

13 Results From April 2011 to March 2012, 65 structured interviews using a purpose designed questionnaire were obtained by the research group from stakeholders in the waste management field from Greece and Cyprus. All interviewees were actively involved at: central and local government waste management officers: 55%, consultants: 34%, academia: 8% and NGO s specialising in waste management: 3% The overall pool of relevant stakeholders in the two countries is estimated to be around 1,000 persons (800 in Greece, 200 in Cyprus)

14 Results Knowledge and comprehension of the current waste management system in the study areas Do you consider the existing legislative framework in your country (GR/CY) effective for the diversion of the biodegradable waste from landfilling? 81% in Greece and 61% in Cyprus, stated NO 50% of them in GR and 82% in CY were employed in the central and local government waste management sectors; They were playing a role in the implementation of the central or local waste management system and/or decision-making and had a clear picture of the existing situation.

15 Results Results -Knowledge and comprehension of the current waste management system in the study areas Do you think that the existing legislative framework, based on the WFD, promotes: recycling, incineration or both of them? 81% of the Greeks and 72% of the Cypriots responded recycling of biodegradable waste (e.g. by composting). Nine (9%) and six (6%) percent of the Greek and Cypriot respondents, respectively, chose incineration

16 Results Results - the viewpoint of stakeholders on the implementation of administrative and economic tools If the national legislation adopted compulsory source separation of biowaste, which rate would you prefer? <10%, 10%, 20%, 30%, >30%? Compulsory biowaste source separation targets: > 70% of the Greek stakeholders and all Cypriots stated that at least 10% of biowaste should be source separated. 53% of the Greek responded that the diversion rate target should be set at 20% or 30%. In Cyprus, 61% would opt for a compulsory biowaste source separation target of at least 30%

17 Results Results - the viewpoint of stakeholders on the implementation of administrative and economic tools Would you consider the imposition of a landfill tax to be a useful economic tool for MSW management in your country? 68% of the Greeks and 61% of the Cypriots stated that a landfill tax would be a useful economic tool to the municipal solid waste management system

18 Results Results - the viewpoint of stakeholders on the implementation of administrative and economic tools Do you believe that the impact of a specific BMW landfill ban, beyond the diversion targets of the LD, would be: i. positive, ii. negative, iii. unnecessary, iv. I do not answer / I do not know? 68% of the Greek and 72% of the Cypriot believe that an extra landfill ban would have a positive impact on the improvement of the biodegradable diversion rate.

19 Results Results - the viewpoint of stakeholders on the implementation of administrative and economic tools Do you believe that extra specific BMW landfill ban measures should be taken at European Union (EU) or national (MS) level?

20 Results Results suggestions of stakeholders on the administrative and economic tools In your opinion which of the following economic tools would be implemented successfully in your country? (only the percentage of those that have declare each option as first choice is noted) Greece (%) Cyprus (%) Landfill tax Quantity based gate fees Pay-as-you-throw systems on households Landfill allowance trade schemes Other N.A. did not prioritize

21 Conclusions Both Greece and Cyprus did not fully meet the 2010 BMW diversion target, while it is unlikely that the more demanding 2013 diversion will be met, as progress towards developing the necessary waste treatment infrastructure has been slow. According to the respondents view the implementation of the national legislative framework was ineffective mainly due to inadequate planning, political cost considerations in Greece and public opinion opposition in both countries. The new WFD clearly prioritizes recycling of biowaste, but national implementation tools are weak. Among the proposed tools, compulsory biowaste source separation targets were favored by the majority (>70%) of the respondents, with Cypriots opting for higher targets. The utility of ladfill tax as an efficient economic tool was recognized by over 60% of the respondents, who did not consider the financial crisis to be a sufficient reason to deter from its use. However, they opt for a modest level of up to 10 per tonne of MSW. The three most suitable tools: Source separation; Pay-as-you-throw systems; and Landfill acceptance criteria, leaving landfill tax in the 4 th and 6 th position in Greece and Cyprus, respectively.

22 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Part of the research was supported by the LIFE10 ENV/GR/622 project Development and Demonstration of a Waste Prevention Support Tool for Local Authorities WASP Tool which is co-funded by the European Union LIFE+ programme