opportunities & barriers of recycling in balkan countries: the cases

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

Boјana 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: [email protected], [email protected]

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 EU’s 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: Inđija has an effective collection system with high participation rates .......................................................................... 72

Figure 74: Μarket 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 2008‐2009‐2010‐2011 ........................................................................................................... 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 čistoća" at the recycling centre ....................................... 106

1 | P a g e

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

Serbia’s 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 Greece’s and Serbia’s 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

2 | 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.

RECYCLING 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

recycling materials is increasing1.

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.

1 ISWA Presidential Advisory Committee, C. Scharff & E. Antreich “TRENDS IN THE EU PACKAGING MARKET“, 7 June 2013

3 | 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 products2, 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.

CONSTRAINTS

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 constraints3 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

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.

2 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

4 | 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 let’s 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

generation is about 524 kg/cap (2008), while there are large differences between countries4.

4 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics

5 | 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

environmental impacts associated with extracting and refining virgin materials5.

5 EEA, “Earnings, jobs and innovation: the role of recycling in a green economy“, 2008

6 | P a g e


FIGURE 4: RECYCLING PERFORMANCE IN EUROPE (% OF THE TOTAL MSW GENERATED), SOURCE: EUROSTAT, 20126

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 raw materials and a decline in

6 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastemanagement/recycling

24%

37%

0%

14%

23%

45%

12%

32%

17%15%

18%20%

16%

9%

3%

26%

18%

7%

28%

30%

15%

11%

1%

43%

4%

20%

36%

25%27%

34%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

EU (

27

co

un

trie

s)

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

De

nm

ark

Ge

rman

y

Esto

nia

Ire

lan

d

Gre

ece

Spai

n

Fran

ce

Ital

y

Cyp

rus

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Hu

nga

ry

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Au

stri

a

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

ven

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Fin

lan

d

Swe

de

n

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

No

rway

Swit

zerl

and

Cro

atia

2010

7 | P a g e


commodity prices during the economic downturn the turnover of recycling declined sharply at the end of 2008 and

in the first half of 2009 but seems to have recovered somewhat since then7.

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

2007 versus 174,000 in 20009.

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 ETC/SCP, "Green economy and recycling in Europe", June 2011

8 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/total-turnover-of-recycling-of

9 EEA, “Earnings, jobs and innovation: the role of recycling in a green economy, 2008

8 | 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 BiH 2009 Montenegro 2009 EU 27 2009

Population 4,417,000 3,840,000 620,145 493,000,000

Quantity rMSW [tonne] 1,800,000 1,493,000 193,000 167,000,000

Quantity rMSW [kg/inhab] 408 388 311 338

Quantity of PET [tonne] 44,000 50,000 3,018,600

[kg/inhab] 10 13 6

[pcs/inhab] 332 434 200

PET Collection [tonne/yr] 22,000

PET Recycling 18,200 500 1,360,000

PET Recycling 41% 1% 48

Plastic bags [tonne] 2,200 3,400,000

Plastic bags [kg/inhab] 0.6 7

Plastic bags [pcs/inhab] 29 338

10 Anonymous, 2012

9 | 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

relative amounts of the different materials that are recycled12

.

11 Anonymous, 2012

12 Anonymous, 2012

10 | P a g e


TABLE 2: SHARE OF RECYCLED WASTE13

Croatia (2008)

Bosnia & Herzegovina (2007)

Serbia (2010)

EU 27 (2008)

Proportion of Municipal Waste Recycled 14% <5% 7-8% 60.5%

Paper/cardboard 67% 10-25% 75% 80.8%

Plastic packaging 9.4% 1% 10-15% 30.3%

Aluminium 0.5% >60% 3% (metal) 67.7% (metal)

Glass 22% <1% 2% 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

by the system. For the year 2012 a packaging law has been announced.14

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 Anonymous, 2012

14 Anonymous, 2012

11 | 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,

juice and water bottles.15

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

includes PET beverage bottles as well as other plastic packaging like foils, bottles, buckets, etc. 16

15 Anonymous, 2012

16 Anonymous, 2012

12 | P a g e


3. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING POLICIES & LEGAL

FRAMEWORK

3.1 THE EU’S 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 resource-

efficient economy.

The EU’s 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) LANDFILL DIRECTIVE

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

13 | 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) THEMATIC STRATEGY ON THE PREVENTION AND RECYCLING OF WASTE

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) WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

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.

RECYCLING TARGETS

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 Separate collection: At least for paper, plastic, metal and glass

2020 Recycling rates of 50% for household and similar wastes (at least for paper, plastic, metal & glass)

2020 70% for construction and demolition waste

14 | 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.

BIOWASTE 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.

END-OF-WASTE CRITERIA

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.

15 | 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) PACKAGING DIRECTIVE

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) (ΚΥΑ 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

16 | 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 (Κ.Υ.Α. 14312/1302 ΦΕΚ 723

Β’/9.6.2000 and 26469/1501/Ε103 ΦΕΚ 864 Β’/1.7.2003) involved the creation of 124 Sanitary Landfills (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 (εγκυκλίους) of the relevant

Ministry (ΥΠΕΧΩΔΕ), and afterwards through laws (Κ.Υ.Α. 50910/2727 ΦΕΚ 1909/22.12.2003). So Regional Plans for

Solid Waste Management (RPSWM - ΠΕΣΔΑ) 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, ΥΠΕKA 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 Producer 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 includes all the

phases of a product and the disposal phase as well, while ‘polluter pays’ principal concerns, mainly, its

manufacturing phase and its impacts.

17 | 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.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING

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. 36259/2010).

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/ΕC was published.

18 | 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

population’s 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.

LINKS 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.)

LEGAL 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.

19 | 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. 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

2. Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 135/04 and 36/09) 3. Law on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette of RS, no. 135/04) 4. Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette of the RS, no. 135/04 and 36/09) 5. Law on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Official Gazette of RS, no. 135/04) 6. 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.

7. 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.

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Recovery [%] 5,0 10,0 16,0 23,0 30,0

Recycling [%] 4,0 8,0 13,0 19,0 25,0

Specific recycling targets

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Paper / cardboard [%] 0,0 0,0 14,0 23,0 28,0

Plastic [%] 0,0 0,0 7,5 9,0 10,5

Glass [%] 0,0 0,0 7,0 10,0 15,0

Metal [%] 0,0 0,0 9,5 13,5 18,5

Wood [%] 0,0 0,0 2,0 4,5 7,0

MANAGEMENT OF OTHER PRODUCTS (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.

20 | 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.

21 | 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,

political, legal and social perspective18

.

17 Waste Atlas. Access July 2013, http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/

18 Sifakis & Haidarlis, “Waste Management in Greece“, 2006

22 | P a g e


Also the European Court of Justice has condemned Greece several times for not succeeding to meet the

requirements set by the EU19

.

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/year20

.

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

3.3%21

.

Below there are the figures presented by Eurostat, as from 2013.

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, 117–126.

20Hellenic Statistical Authority, http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-

themes?p_param=A1501&r_param=SOP06&y_param=2010_00&mytabs=0

21http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_statistics#Municipal_waste_generated_by_country

23 | 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

SWM planning in the country.

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

Municipal waste in Greece by treatment

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2004 2006 2008 2010

kg

pe

r c

ap

ita

Recycling and

composted

Incinerated

Landfilled

Source: Eurostat, 2012

24 | P a g e


FIGURE 13: AVERAGE GREEK MSW COMPOSITION (YPEKA, 2011)

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, 668–679.

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

MSW Composition - Greece, 2011

Putrescibles (organic)

40%

Paper

29%

Metals

3%

Wood

2%

Glass

3%

Plastics

14%

Inert material

3%Other

6%

Putrescibles (organic)

Paper

Plastics

Glass

Metals

Wood

Inert material

Other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Putrescible Paper Glass Plastics Metals Other

Waste category

Fra

cti

on

(%

by

we

igh

t) (

%ti

Athens -1984 Thessaloniki -1987

Heraklion -1987 Rhodes -1989

Athens -1991 Chania -1991

Kos -1991 Kalamata -1992

Naxos -1993 Xanthi -1993

Athens -1997 Pilea -1998

Thessaloniki -1998 Crete -2004

25 | 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 thermal 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)

26 | 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

management system?25

As a country in transition with 3582 landfills and a production of 0.87 kg capita–1 day–1, 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 (Čačak).

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 Vujić, Dejan Ubavin, Dušan Milovanović,“EU HIERARCHY IN WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SERBIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT

CHALLENGES“, REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013

27 | 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 Number of households

Percentage of collection coverage (%)

Total waste generated (t/year)

Daily waste generated per capita (kg/capita/day)

Number of main / illegal dumps

Number of Regions

7.498.001 2.677.857 62 2.380.990 0,87 158 3.302 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

Criteria (m3) Number of landfills Total area (ha) Total volume (m

3)

to 1.000 2.702 154,50 604.628,93

from 1.001 to 10.000 698 480,04 2.251.995,18

from 10.001 to 100.000 131 313,11 4.087.590,55

from 100.001 to 500.000 37 199,24 8.693.492,43

from 500.001 to 1.000.000 7 62,59 5.296.214,07

Over 1.000.000 7 131,98 23.123.124,56

Total 3.582 1.341,46 44.057.045,71

28 | P a g e


FIGURE 16: MAP OF IDENTIFIED LANDFILLS IN SERBIA

MUNICIPAL 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 *Inhabitants

**Quantity of collected

waste (tones week -1

)

Projection of generated waste quantity

(tones year-1

) (kg capita-1

year-1

)

Inđija 49,258 396 20,588 417

Sombor 56,734 267 13,873 244

Novi Kneževac 9,648 39 2,026 209

Šabac 123,155 528 27,465 223

Topola 25,292 49 2,543 100

Kragujevac 185,000 1,018 52,945 286

Bor 55,817 119 6,215 111

Niš 239,596 1,320 68,656 286

Novi Sad 314,192 2,323 120,773 384

Belgrade 1,392,691 15,032 781,692 561

26 Anonymous. 2012c

29 | 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, Niš (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

30 | P a g e


TABLE 8: COMPOSITION OF MSW BASED ON HOUSING CONDITIONS (AS % OF TOTAL CATEGORY WEIGHT) M

un

icip

alit

y

Ho

usi

ng

co

nd

itio

ns

Waste category

Gar

den

was

te

Oth

er

bio

deg

rad

able

was

te

Pap

er

Gla

ss

Car

db

oar

d

Wax

ed c

ard

bo

ard

Al-

coat

ed c

ard

bo

ard

Met

al-

pac

kagi

ng

and

oth

er

Met

al-

Al c

ans

Pla

stic

pac

kagi

ng

was

te

Pla

stic

bag

s

Har

d p

last

ics

Text

iles

Leat

her

Nap

pie

s

Fin

e w

aste

par

ticl

es

Inđija Sa 22.2 40.6 3.8 2.6 2.3 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.2 1.1 4.7 1.7 1.6 0.6 5.2 11.4

Sb 17.9 25.3 6.9 6.2 5.8 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.2 3.3 6.0 3.3 3.7 0 3.1 15.7

Sc 40.1 20.5 3.06 6.6 2.7 0.5 0.6 2.1 0.3 1.8 4.3 3.1 3.9 0.4 5.64 4.5

Sombor Sa 23.7 36.7 0.6 1.6 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 4.5 5.4 1.8 12.9 0.1 / 9.1

Sb 1.9 63.3 5.0 2.2 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 2.8 9.6 2.1 4.5 0.9 / 4.9

Sc 22.1 34.4 3.8 3.0 4.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 4.9 3.1 3.1 10.2 5.1 / 5.0

Novi

Kneževac

Sa 27.1 19.2 6.4 10.9 12.5 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 5.0 5.4 0.9 0 0 0.3 10.4

Sb 11.2 26.7 15.0 3.8 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.2 7.0 2.4 2.4 2.6 0 6.5 17.7

Sc 25.8 18.2 5.5 7.1 2.8 1.2 0.2 5.1 0.2 4.5 8.2 2.8 5.7 0 2.8 9.9

Šabac Sa 26.5 27.7 6.4 5.1 2.1 0.3 0.6 1.7 0.1 3.2 3.3 6.1 6.9 0 1.4 8.7

Sb 5.4 52.1 6.9 3.7 3.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.6 3.4 3 3.3 0.2 2.8 11.8

Sc 22.4 27.6 2.4 1.8 7.2 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.2 4.3 2.9 4.3 14.8 0 3.3 6.8

Topola S 6.4 52.3 6.1 2.2 3.9 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.2 1.9 6.8 2.3 6.0 0 1.6 8.6

Kragujevac Sa 1.6 27.9 7.5 2.3 9.7 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.1 3.7 7.6 4.2 8.4 0 8.4 15.8

Sb 13.7 29.3 7.3 12.4 15.5 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.3 2.2 5.5 4.3 1.1 0 1.9 4.3

Sc 33.3 29.1 1.9 1.3 5.8 0 0.6 1.5 0 3.5 3.9 5.2 2.6 1.3 2.6 7.4

Bor Sa 8.4 48.3 3.4 1.1 10.2 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.1 2.4 5.4 2.7 2.9 1.1 4.7 7.0

Sb 0.6 45.5 5.2 4.3 5.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 0.1 3.0 9.4 2.9 2.2 0.5 7.1 9.8

Sc 11.0 51.6 2.2 2.2 2.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.1 2.3 3.3 2.7 4.9 0.8 4.7 8.6

31 | P a g e


Niš Sa 16.4 37.8 2.8 0.6 4.2 0.5 0.3 1.6 0.3 3.6 6.3 2.7 3.7 0 1.6 17.5

Sb 5.3 33.7 2.5 6.4 3.2 0.6 0.4 1.6 0.4 3.3 11.6 6.6 15.0 0 3.7 5.8 Sc 4.4 36.0 0.9 1.2 1.9 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.1 5.9 10.6 2.7 6.8 0.7 12.5 14.3

Novi Sad Sa 16.2 40.4 6.0 2.7 3.3 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.4 3.9 4.0 5.1 8.8 0.2 3.1 2.4

Sb 5.2 39.5 10.3 15.3 7.0 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 4.9 3.8 3.5 2.1 0 0.3 4.9

Sc 17.2 44.8 4.5 3.5 5.7 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 3.8 3.7 3.1 2.4 0 3.2 5.5

Belgrade Sa 4.1 41.6 5.5 11.6 5.2 1.9 1.2 0.9 0.4 5.3 6.1 1.5 2.6 0 4.1 7.2

Sb 3.6 41.4 5.5 4.7 6.8 4.3 2.8 0.8 0.5 5.0 4.8 3.5 5.8 0.5 4.7 5.2

Sc 19.4 39.1 8.3 0.5 6.2 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.1 3.7 5.1 2.7 1.9 0 4.1 6.8

Sa -Urban area - individual housing Sb -Urban area - collective housing and commercial zones Sc -Rural areas within the municipality

32 | 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

33 | 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 Novi Sad

Garden waste 9.17%

Other biodegradable waste 40.73%

Paper 8.57%

Glass 11.19%

Cardboard 6.06%

Waxed cardboard 0.72%

Al-coated cardboard 0.91%

Metal–packag. and other 0.98%

Metal- Al cans 0.43%

Plastic packag. waste 4.57%

Plastic bags 3.85%

Hard plastics 3.66%

Textiles 3.09%

Leather 0.03%

Nappies 1.29%

Fine waste particles 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 operator’s 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

30 Goran Vujic 2012

34 | 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 Sorting/Separation Markets/Buyers

Čačak

• Plastic (all types) • Paper (all,

including Tetra Pak)

• Metal • Tires • Glass • Compost

• 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.

• Municipal-owned “Waste Management Incubator” with five-year, rent-free agreements for private partners.

• Local private partners: Pima (non-metal), Scholz (metal).

• Pima-managed sorting line.

• JKP Javna Zelenila .manages pilot compost operation.

• Secondary separation facility planned at Duboko landfill.

• 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.

• PP caps separated from PET bottles; PET sorted by color and baled.

• Temporary workers through a Republic-financed social employment program (subsidy).

• 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)

• 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 pressed and baled together with PP caps.

• Sorting facility located 10 km from city.

• Umka provided press for cardboard.

• Paper: Umka. • PET: Probably

Greentech, but not positive.

31 Anonymous, 2010

35 | P a g e


Krusevac • Plastic (mixed) • Paper/Cardboard • Glass

• 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.


• Five workers collection and processing.

• “Recycling Center” likely planned for future.

• PET: Saniplast, €150/ton, 2008.

• Paper: Umka, 4.8 RSD/kg, 2008; currently YuKarton in Nis.

Nis • PET • Metal

• 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.”


• PET, sorted by color, pressed and baled.

• PET & PP: Greentech.

Kraljevo • Plastic (mixed)

• 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.


• 55 temporary workers under “Eko Brigad” social employment program.

• PET: €85/ton • PP caps: €150/ton

Raska • PET • Paper (started

and later stopped)

• 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.

• Pressing, baling & accumulating PET.

• Until time of interview had only stockpiled material.

Zitoradja • PET • LDPE • Cardboard

• PET: 1 tons/month. • Cardboard: 3 tons/month. • Began with USAID assistance. • 120 wire containers (50 from

USAID). •

separation.


• PET: Greentech, 16 RSD/kg, 2008.

• Paper: Umka, 3 RSD/kg, 2008.

Blace • Plastic (mixed) • Cardboard

• Plastic: 750 kg/month. • Began with USAID assistance • 70 wire containers (50 from

USAID). • Media campaign. • Good participation and source

separation. • Villages served.


• Plastic: Greentech.

Ivanjica • No current

activities.

• Received USAID donation, started, then later stopped activity.

• Closed containers. • Private communal collector, wire

containers. • N/A • N/A

Priboj • No current

activities.

• Received USAID donation, started, then later stopped activity.

• 5m3 compartmentalized

• N/A • All collected

materials sold to Novak, €1000 total.

36 | P a g e


containers. • Collected 20 tons before

stopping. • Private communal collector, wire

containers.

Nova Varos • No current

activities.

• Received USAID donation; not utilized at time of interview.

• 20 5m3 compartmentalized containers.

• N/A • N/A

Tutin • No current

activities.

• Received USAID donation of 50 containers and press; not utilized at time of interview.

• Privatized (contracted) JKP.

• N/A • N/A

37 | 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 financial transactions, collections, and communications 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].

38 | 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 Type Range Name of PRO

Package and packaging waste, L. 2939/2001

C N HERRCO 1

C N REWARDING RECYCLING ** 2

I N ΑΒ VΑSΙLΟPΟΥLΟS 3

C N KEPED (oil packaging only) 4

Motor oils residues, PD 82/2004 C N ELTEPE 5

EoLV, PD 116/2004 C N EDOE 6

Portable batteries and accumulators, PD 115/2004, amended by MD 41624/2057/Ε103/2010

C N AFIS 7

C N SYDESIS 8

C R SEDIS-K*** 9

C N Re-Battery 10

WEEE, PD 117/2004 and PD 15/2006 C N APPLIANCES RECYCLING S.A. 11

C N FOTOKIKLOSI S.A (lighting equipment and light bulbs only)

12

Used tires, PD 109/2004 C N ECOELASTIKA 13

C&D waste, MD 36259/1757/Ε103/2010 C R ANABE S.A 14

C R SANKE 15

C R CHALKIDIKI* 16

C R SEDPEKAT 17

C R ANAEKK 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

presented next. Data were extracted from the annual reports of the PROs submitted to the HRA32

.

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

39 | 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

HELLENIC RECOVERY AND RECYCLING COMPANY (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

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:

FIGURE 23: HERRCO RECYCLE BIN

40 | 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

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

FIGURE 24: MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY

41 | P a g e


At the end of 2011, 28 Recycling plants are operating.

PARTICIPATION OF PRODUCERS

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

COOPERATION 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 2010 2011 2010/2011 (%)

Athens area (Attica Prefecture) total 82.109 67.176 -18%

Thessaloniki (total) 16.188 15.809 -2%

Ιoannina 4.214 4.207 0%

Patras 7.460 5.298 -29%

Thessaly 5.370 5.067 -6%

Kalamata 4.180 4.036 -3%

42 | P a g e


Lamia 3.828 2.805 -27%

Kerkyra (Corfu) 2.899 4.097 41%

Eastern Crete 8.353 7.545 -10%

Alexandroupolis 828 1.909 -

Chania (Crete) 8.397 6.772 -19%

Pieria 1.873 1.939 4%

Schimatari 5.649 6.443 14%

Magnisia 5.212 4.570 -12%

Serres 3.485 3.359 -4%

Larisa 2.073 2.031 -2%

Tripolis 2.529 2.893 14%

Korinthos 1.761 -

Rest of Greece 10.239 10.808 6%

Total in Recycling facilities 176.285 162.135 -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 2008‐2009‐2010‐2011

Indicator 2008 2009 2010 2011

Population served (Mio) 6,6 7,6 8,1 8,1

Percentage of population covered (%) 64% 74% 79% 79%

Municipalities (in total) (2) 610 648 679 241 *

Recycling facilities in operation 18 22 28 27

Bins delivered (thousands) 77 98 111 126

Collection vehicles 236 327 359 370

43 | P a g e


Bags for collection (total, Mio) 1,7 2,1 2,3 2,6

Working places 1.052 1.578 1.893 1.870

Operation costs HERRCO (Mio. €) 24,0 31,2 27,1 24,4

Capital investments (Mio. €) 25,9 4,6 2,3 7,9

Sum of costs (Mio. €) 49,0 35,9 28,6 27,7

Quantities of packaging waste recycled (thousands tons)

400 433 424 398

Quantities of printed paper recycled (thousands tons)

57 79 95 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 2002-

2011. 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.

44 | P a g e


FIGURE 29: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE, 2002-2011

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.

NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR

107247

460

826

10781293

14201552

1651 1703

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

COLLECTED QUANTITIES

300263

219

51 61 6140 38 3222 28 4320 24 28

433 414383

0

100

200

300

400

500

2009 2010 2011

*1000 t

n

paper/cardboard plastic metals glass w ood total packaging

45 | P a g e


FIGURE 31: TOTAL PACKAGING WASTE AND PRINTED PAPER COLLECTED, 2006-2011.

ANTAPODOTIKI ANAKIKLOSI

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 VASSILOPOULOS

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.

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

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.

COLLECTED QUANTITIES

267

344

400433 414

383

20 3557 79 95 80

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

*1000 t

n

packaging w aste collected printed paper collected

FIGURE 32: COLLECTION CENTRE ANTAPODOTIKI ANAKYKLOSI

FIGURE 33: COLLECTION CENTRE AB VASSILOPOULOS

46 | P a g e


KEPED (OIL PACKAGING WASTE ONLY)

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.

FIGURE 34: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF OIL PACKAGING WASTE, 2003-2011

FIGURE 35: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES FOR EACH MATERIAL OF OIL PACKAGING, 2011

PACKAGING 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.


12

57

84

125137

148161 170 178

0

50

100

150

200

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

QUANTITIES PER MATERIAL FOR 2011

16001500

450

150280

1410

190 150

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

plastic metal paper w ood

tn

put on the market collected

47 | P a g e


a) Paper

FIGURE 36: RECYCLING OF PAPER IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

b) Plastic

FIGURE 37: RECYCLING OF PLASTIC IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

c) Glass

Recycling of paper in Greece in the period of 2006-

2010 (in tons)

70%

79,5% 73,6%83% 94,1%

Waste (produced) 400.000 400.000 440.000 430.000 392.900

Recycling 280.000 318.000 324.056 357.000 369.780

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Reference: Annual Reports to the EC

Recycling (%) of plastic in Greece in the period from

2006-2010 (in tons)

10%13,7%

11,9%

26,7%30,1%

Waste (produced) 300.000 295.000 240.000 237.000 221.500

Recycling 30.000 40.500 28.605 63.200 66.730

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


48 | P a g e


FIGURE 38: RECYCLING OF GLASS IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

d) Wood

FIGURE 39: RECYCLING OF WOOD IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

e) Aluminium

Recycling (%) of glas in Greece in the period 2006-

2010 (in tons)

25,3%18% 15% 15,2%

21,4%

Waste (produced) 150.000 150.000 160.000 155.000 135.100

Recycling 38.000 27.000 24.000 23.500 28.923

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Recycling (%) of wood in Greece in the period of

2006-2010 (in tons)

58%

75%

30,8% 37,3%50,1%

Waste (produced) 60.000 60.000 65.000 54.200 50.500

Recycling 35.000 45.000 20.002 20.200 25.287

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Reference: Annual Reports to the E.C.

49 | P a g e


FIGURE 40: RECYCLING OF ALUMINIUM IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

f) Steel

FIGURE 41: RECYCLING OF STEEL IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

g) Packaging waste

Recycling (%) of aluminium in Greece in the period

2006-2010 (in tons)

33% 34% 34% 37,6% 37,2%

Waste (produced) 26.000 25.000 25.000 22.600 21.500

Recycling 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Recycling (%) of steel in Greece in the period 2006-

2010 (in tons)

50%54,2%

45,8% 50,4%42,8%

Waste (produced) 120.000 120.000 120.000 109.200 105.900

Recycling 60.000 65.000 55.000 55.000 45.360

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


50 | P a g e


FIGURE 42: RECYCLING OF PACKAGING WASTE IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)

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.

Recycling (%) of packaging waste in Greece in the period

2006-2010 (in tons)

42,8% 48% 43,8% 52,3% 58,7%

Packaging waste

(produced)

1.056.000 1.050.000 1.050.000 1.008.000 927.400

Recycling 451.500 504.000 460.163 527.400 544.080

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Reference: Annaual Reports to the E.C.

PLASTIC

14%

METALS

7%

GLASS

8%

PAPER -

BOARD

63%

WOOD

5%

OTHER

3%

51 | 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.

FIGURE 44: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF MOTOR OIL RESIDUES, 2004-2011.


55

84

124136

147160

170178

0

50

100

150

200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

52 | P a g e


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

QUANTITIES PER YEAR

11761

2994336029 36440 38890

32923 3250027492

51818

99343 98684 9805292340

79167

65774

55000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tn

oil residues collected motor oil put on the market

53 | 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.

FIGURE 49: EOLV COLLECTED FOR 2004-2010.

NUMBER OF ITEMS

11816584

29240

4979862696

146540

68665

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Individuals Municipalities Total

54 | P a g e


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 Number

Municipalities and Public Bodies 8400

Schools 12500

Supermarkets 3200

Telecommunication stores 2500

Commercial stores 10400

Companies 11000

TOTAL 48000

Percentage of reuse, recovery and recycling of End of life vehicles in

Greece in the period 2006-2010 (in tons)

82,3%

84,1%

85,7%

86,5%

84,5%

82,3%

84,1%

85,7%

87,4%

86,5%

End of life vehicles (tons) 23.952 41.733 51.828 115.849 92.158

Reuse + Recovery (tons) 19.714 35.104 44.434 100.184 77.867

Reuse + Recycling (tons) 19.714 35.104 44.434 101.216 79.722

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Reference: Annual reports to the E.C.

FIGURE 51: AFIS COLLECTION POINT

55 | P a g e


FIGURE 52: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011

FIGURE 53: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011


149 152 156166

172180

91

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

QUANTITIES PER YEAR

81

218

442 497

629712 657

1850

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tn

batteries collected batteries put on the market

56 | P a g e


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.

Percentage of Recycling of portable batteries in

Greece in the period 2006-2011 (in tons)

35,6%32,3%

31,9%25,5%23,1%

9,9%

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

Put in the market 2.197 2.051 1.951 1.970 2.205 1.850

Recycling 218 474 497 629 712 658

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Reference: Annual reports of the Collective PRO "AFIS"

57 | 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.

FIGURE 57: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF BATTERIES, 2004-2011.

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


110

173

208

255 252231 232 241

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

QUANTITIES PER YEAR

21046

18035

7110

8884

13008

1797717174

20250

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tn

batteries collected batteries put on the market

58 | P a g e


RE-BATTERY

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 cooperating 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).

59 | P a g e


TABLE 16: COLLECTION POINTS IN ALL GREECE

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.

FIGURE 61: APPLIANCE RECYCLINGS’ COLLECTION POINTS

60 | P a g e


FIGURE 63: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF WEEE, 2004-2011

FIGURE 64: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF WEEE, 2005-2011


15

355

619

748

860936

1021

1134

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

QUANTITIES PER YEAR

76311341

3140647142

66012

46527 42309

141083

177189

212194 206392

172887

143273

119355

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tn

WEEE collected WEEE put on the market

61 | P a g e


FIGURE 65: QUANTITIES OF WEEE TREATED, AND COLLECTED FROM HOUSEHOLDES, 2005-2010

TABLE 17: QUANTITIES OF WEEE TREATED, AND COLLECTED FROM HOUSEHOLDES, 2005-2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Treated WEEE (tonnes) 239 9,356 24,236 39,044 55,883 45,598

Collected WEEE from households (tonnes) 100 9,599 28,733 44,305 62,847 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

629 means of collection in all Greece reaching 2,788 collection points33

.

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

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Treated WEEE (tonnes)

Collected WEEE fromhouseholds (tonnes)

62 | 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.

FIGURE 68: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF WEEE, 2009-2011

FIGURE 69: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF WEEE, 2009-2011

5.1.5 USED TIRES

ECOELASTIKA


85

100

130

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011

QUANTITIES PER YEAR

94 190 255

2.145

2.684

2.995 3.078

2.5282.700

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tn

WEEE collected WEEE put on the market

63 | 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) 2007 2008 2009

A passenger tires 3,244,011

B truck tires 375,460

C moto tires 112,889

Tires (tonnage) 2007 2008 2009

A passenger tires 25,952

B truck tires 18,773

C moto tires 282.22

Total 2007 2008 2009

Tonnage 46,697 52,229 46,884

% Collection 85.46% 99.26% 97.30%

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 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Energy recovery

3,742 8,067 8,335 6,660 3,045

Recycling 30,277 43,288 43,958 29,976 26,711 23,423

Exports 323 262 282 6,861 8,703, 8,118

Stock 7,038 3,147 -77 1,195 4 -1,402

Total 41,380 46,697 52,230 46,367 42,078 33,184

QUANTITIES PER YEAR

27047

41380

46697

52230

46367

41520

33182

54196

48244

5463852620

48442

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2004-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

tn

used tires collected tires put on the market

64 | P a g e


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 Authority34

, in the year

2010 was 2,086,080.0 tonnes

CONCLUSIONS

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 waste. In general, PRO’s

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.

34http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-themes?p_param=A1501&r_param=SOP06&y_param=2010_00&mytabs=0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

-10.000

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

StockExportsRecyclingEnergy recovery

65 | 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 public-

private 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

66 | 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 Quantity, t p.a.

Glass packaging 90,000

Plastic packaging 88,000

Paper/cardboard 115,000

Composite packaging 17,300

Aluminium packaging 5,200

Iron packaging 19,000

TOTAL 334,500

The total quantity of the packaging waste in the 2012th

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 The amount of recovered packaging waste (t)

SEKOPAK 22 494,1

EKOSTAR PAK 23 557,3

DELTA PAK 3 713,4

BB MINAQUA 222,8

Total 49 987,6

TABLE 22: AMOUNT OF RECOVERED PACKAGING WASTE BY TYPE AND OPERATORS37

Types of packaging waste

Recovered packaging waste

SEKOPAK EKOSTAR-PAK DELTA-PAK UKUPNO

Amount (t) Amount (t) Amount (t) Amount (t)

Plastic

PEТ 3 441,9 1 234,7 / 4 676,6

501,9

Other plastics 2 600,7 3 812,1 205,8 7 120,5

Total 6 042,6 5 548,7 205,8 11 797,1

Glass Total 4 234,6 2 629,3 1,7 6 865,6

Metal

Iron 215,3 452,9 6,0 674,2

Aluminum 54,4 180,9 / 235,3

Total 269,7 633,8 6,0 909,5

Paper/ cardboard Paper and cardboard 11 212,7 13 505,3 3 499,9 /

Total 11 212,7 14 245,9 3 499,9 28 958,5

Wood Pallets 734,5 499,6 / 1 234,1

35 National waste management strategy, 2010

36 Anonymous, 2012b

37 Anonymous, 2012b

67 | 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, Kruševac, 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

unfortunately enduring, forms of litter38

.

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

process of verification of the necessary documents, and its capacity will also be 25,000 t per year39

.



68 | 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

operators have the capacity to recycle end-of-life vehicles in accordance with regulations40

.

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

of electronic waste is recycled per year41

.

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

does not exist (asphalt is recycled in small quantities), although about 80% of construction waste can be re-used.42




69 | 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

Region

Total generated MSW (t/year)

Total generated special waste streams (t/year)

Categories of special waste streams (t/year)

Gla

ss p

acka

gin

g

Pla

stic

pac

kagi

ng

Pap

er a

nd

car

db

oar

d

Co

mp

osi

te p

acka

gin

g

Alu

min

um

pac

kagi

ng

Met

al p

acka

gin

g

TOTA

L P

AC

KA

GIN

G

Was

te o

il

Bat

teri

es

and

accu

mu

lato

rs

Tire

s

Elec

tric

al

and

el

ectr

on

ic

was

te

Tota

l med

ical

was

te

Co

nst

ruct

ion

was

te

Region Subotica 101626 64648 3843 3762 4918 740 223 811 14317 2139 1156 933 1278 2048 42798

Region Sombor 67112 42692 2538 2484 3247 489 147 536 9454 1413 763 616 844 1353 28263

RegionNovi Bečej 18073 11497 683 669 875 132 40 144 2546 380 206 166 227 364 7611

Region Novi Sad 188081 119645 7112 6962 9101 1370 413 1501 26496 3959 2139 1726 2364 3791 79207

Region Kikinda 30780 19580 1164 1139 1489 224 68 246 4336 648 350 283 387 620 12962

Region Zrenjanin 74124 47153 2803 2744 3587 540 163 592 10442 1560 843 680 932 1494 31216

RegionSr.Mitrovica 66360 42214 2509 2456 3211 483 146 530 9349 1397 755 609 834 1337 27946

Region Pančevo 55850 35528 2112 2067 2703 407 123 446 7868 1176 635 513 702 1126 23520

Region Vršac 35306 22459 1335 1307 1708 257 77 282 4974 743 402 324 444 712 14868

Region Inđija 83807 53313 3169 3102 4055 610 184 669 11806 1764 953 769 1054 1689 35294

Region Kragujevac 76190 48467 2881 2820 3687 555 167 608 10733 1604 867 699 958 1536 32086

Region Vranje 52364 33311 1980 1938 2534 381 115 418 7377 1102 596 481 658 1055 22052

Region Kruševac 51781 32940 1958 1917 2506 377 114 413 7295 1090 589 475 651 1044 21807

Region Pirot 23704 15079 896 877 1147 173 52 189 3339 499 270 218 298 478 9982

Region Niš 95259 60598 3602 3526 4609 694 209 760 13420 2005 1083 874 1198 1920 40117

Region Leskovac 55844 35524 2112 2067 2702 407 123 446 7867 1176 635 513 702 1125 23518

43 Anonymous. 2012d

70 | P a g e


Region Kraljevo 49392 31420 1868 1828 2390 360 108 394 6958 1040 562 453 621 995 20801

Region Prokuplje 18932 12043 716 701 916 138 42 151 2667 399 215 174 238 382 7973

Region Lapovo 21561 13716 815 798 1043 157 47 172 3037 454 245 198 271 435 9080

Region Užice 78483 49926 2968 2905 3798 572 172 626 11056 1652 893 720 987 1582 33052

Region Loznica 25117 15978 950 930 1215 183 55 200 3538 529 286 231 316 506 10578

Region Zaječar 68745 43731 2599 2545 3326 501 151 549 9685 1447 782 631 864 1385 28951

Region Jagodina 55844 35524 2112 2067 2702 407 123 446 7867 1176 635 513 702 1125 23518

Region Smederevo 56689 36062 2144 2098 2743 413 124 452 7986 1193 645 520 713 1142 23874

Region Nova Varoš 19121 12164 723 708 925 139 42 153 2694 403 217 176 240 385 8052

Region Grad Beograd 553204 351913 20918 20477 26769 4029 1214 4415 77933 11646 6292 5078 6954 11149 232972

Region Požarevac 33886 21556 1281 1254 1640 247 74 270 4774 713 385 311 426 683 14270

Region Valjevo 104368 66392 3946 3863 5050 760 229 833 14703 2197 1187 958 1312 2103 43953

71 | 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

PUBLIC 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

municipalities surveyed 45

44 "Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 36/09

45 Anonymous , 2010

72 | 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.

TRADITIONAL 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 (Čačak 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

paper 46

BAG (HOUSEHOLD) COLLECTION

Inđija and Čačak 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

yellow bag (plastic) and provide a replacement.47

FIGURE 73: INĐIJA HAS AN EFFECTIVE COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH HIGH PARTICIPATION RATES

WET-DRY MODEL

Of the municipalities surveyed, only Čačak 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 (Čačak JKP Javna Zelenila also operates a pilot composting facility where a small

46 Anonymous, 2010

47 Anonymous, 2010

73 | P a g e


amount of the wet waste is sent); dry waste is sent for sorting (in the case of Čačak, to a privatelymanaged line at

the municipal waste management complex). Seko-Pak seems to endorse the wet-dry model.48

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. Brđa 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

equipment for performing this procedure.49

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 Anonymous, 2010

49 Anonymous, 2010

74 | P a g e


TABLE 24: ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF COLLECTED WASTE50

Estimated amount of collected waste in 2007

Sombor Apatin Kula Odzaci Bac Region

Annually collected waste [t]

25.576 10.214 18.118 4.889 4.452 63.249

Urban areas [t]

24.423 9.167 13.981 3.628 2.222 53.421

Rural areas [t]

1.153 1.047 4.137 1.261 2.230 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].

SEKO-PAK (PRO-EUROPE)

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-Pak’s 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

75 | 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

ambitious 2012 targets: 30% recovery, 25% recycling.51

SERBIA PLASTIC RECYCLING ASSOCIATION

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 study 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 concept’s 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

publications prepared by Brzanplast.52

51 Anonymous, 2010

52 Anonymous, 2010

76 | 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 container/1000 citizens)

7,500 containers

Collection per Container 150 kg/month

Total Collection Serbia 1,125 tons/month

Sorting

Sorting Lines (1 line/100,000 citizens)

75 sorting lines

Sorted PET per Month 15,000 kg/month/line

Expense Summary

Pickup & Transport to Sorting Line

38.9 M RSD/year

Sorting & Pressing 247.5 M RSD/year

Transport to Recycling Center

45.0 M RSD/year

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 Citizen

1.8 kg/citizen (roughly 47 2-L bottles)

Cost per Bottle (26 2-L bottles/kg)

0.94 RSD/bottle

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

campaign and government support at national and local levels.54

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 don’t fully

53 Brzanplast and Serbia Plastic Recycling Association

54 Anonymous, 2010

77 | 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, ASSOCIATION OF JKPS

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].

RECYCLING COMPANIES FOR DIFFERENT WASTE STREAMS

WASTE TIRES

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].

CONSTRUCTION WASTE

Šuša, a large company specializing in demolition, site clearance and remediation, 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 company’s 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

78 | 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, Šuša 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.

Šuša 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].

ELECTRONICS RECYCLERS

Bozić 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 (Bozić 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

79 | 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

15,000 tons of batteries per year55

.

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.

METALS

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

processed locally: lead by the Farma Kom battery factor in Sombor, copper by Jugo Impex in Nis, and others56

.

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 Ball’s quality specifications.

GLASS

55 Anonymous, 2010

56 Anonymous, 2010

80 | 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 financing 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.

81 | 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 doesn’t pose a

contamination hazard. They have had no other contact with collectors and would require a period and/or

assistance to develop a collection network57

.

PAPER

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,

Umka imports high quality white paper from other countries in the region58

.

57 Anonymous, 2010

58 Anonymous, 2010

82 | P a g e


PLASTIC

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

initiatives59

.

TIRES

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

the construction of certain roads60

.

TABLE 26: PLASTIC PROCESSORS AND RECYCLERS COMPARISON SUMMARY

PLASTIC PROCESSORS & RECYCLERS COMPARISON SUMMARY

Company, Municipality

Materials Quantities Collection Production

Greentech, Novi Sad

• PET • 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.

• 70% of all PET in Serbia passes through Greentech.

• Supply contracts & cooperation with all large operators.

• 100 containers in New Belgrade.

• Serbia: PET flake.

• Polyester Staple Fiber.

• Strapping band.

59 Anonymous, 2010

60 Anonymous, 2010

83 | P a g e


Brzanplast, Batocina

• All plastic, sorted, cleaned, granulate

• LDPE folio • 2007: 3000 tons. • 2008: 5000 tons. • 2009: 3000 tons.

• Private-sector collectors, some municipalities.

• Operate sorting line for all inputs.

• Four main suppliers 50%: Intercord, Saniplast, Pima, Nives.

• LDPE folio. • Granulate.

Intercord, Subotica

• PET • PE • PP • Non-Plastics

• 2009: 1000 tons plastic.

• Commercial & industrial clients.

• Subotica JKP. • 40% collection ultimately

provided by Roma (secondary sorting at landfill).

• Granulates: PET, PE, PP

Deni Komerc, Nis

• PET • Biodegradable &

recycled LDPE • PP

• PET: 600 kg/hour, 4000-5000 ton/year minimum.

• Current demand: 200-400 ton/month.

• Municipalities & JKPs. • PET: flake, film,

bottle-to-bottle. • LDPE folio.

Saniplast, Gorni Milanovac

• PET • 50-60 ton/month. • Municipalities & JKPs. • 40 containers in Belgrade.

• Pet flake.

Nives, Nis

• LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE

• PP • PS

• 100 ton/month washing & processing.

• 1000 ton/month distribution.

• Granulators & processors. • Collectors.

• LDPE folio. • Hose & piping.

Nikolo, Krusevac

• LDPE, HDPE • PP

• 8 ton/month secondary material inputs.

• Commercial & industrial waste.

• Granulation & manufacture.

Vlada-Pak Beloljin, Blace

• LDPE, HDPE • PP • PS, PVC, PA

• 10 ton/month average • Recycles 50% into new

products & sells 50%.

• 60% commercial & industrial waste.

• 30% individual collection. • 10% production excess.

• Consumer, industrial & agricultural plastic products.

Nima, Krusevac

• LDPE • 7-8 tons/year, seasonal. • Agricultural producers. • Folio products

for agricultural purposes.

Interprodukt, Nova Varos

• LDPE, HDPE • PP & other

plastics

• 350 ton/year total plastic.

• 250 ton/year recycled.

• Commercial, industrial and agricultural waste.

• Individual collectors (small).

• Bus seats. • Consumer &

industrial products.

Maxi-Plast, Pepeljevac

• HDPE • PP (small)

• 2007: 47.2 tons. • <10% recycled. • Opportunity buying.

• Injection-molded containers.

84 | 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)

GOVERNMENT

- 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.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Managerial, waste collection, monitoring role.

85 | 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).

REGIONS (13 PREFECTURES)

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 SCHEMES / NON PROFIT COMPANIES/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.

FODSA (ORGANISATIONS FOR THE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE)

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.

COMPANIES/PRODUCERS

Responsible for recycling - financing the EPR system. Problems are arising by companies / producers not

participating in the Systems (“free riders”)

86 | P a g e


SYNDICATES, UNIVERSITIES, NGOS

Consultant role in policy & legislation, seminars, Conferences, raising awareness of the public, scientific, and

professional community.

HSWMA, PASEPPE, Ecological Recycling Company (Ecorec), NTUA

CITIZENS

Citizens are main actors, since on their contribution relies the success of all efforts

INFORMAL SYSTEMS (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

THE MINISTRY:

- 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.

COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE:

- Participate in preparation of Waste Management Strategy and individual national waste management plans;

87 | 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.

COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT UNIT:

- 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.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

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.

THE MINISTRY

- 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; - Organizes informational system on waste on the territory of the Republic

61.

LOCAL 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

88 | 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.

89 | 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

CHALLENGES 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

CHALLENGES IN WASTE 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.

90 | 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).

PROBLEMS 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.

GAPS 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.

GAP 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 doesn’t 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.

91 | 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

BARRIERS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GOALS

SEPARATE 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

CHALLENGES FOR BIODEGRADABLE 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

ADMINISTRATIVE & 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

FINANCIAL 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

92 | P a g e


7.2 CHALLENGES, PROBLEMS, GAPS AND BARRIERS OF THE RECYCLING IN SERBIA

CHALLENGES

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.

PROBLEMS 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.

93 | 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 200962

, 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.

GAPS FOR POLICY AND POLICY AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION

COLLECTION

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 Andjelković Pesic, 2012

94 | 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.

DISPOSAL

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.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

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.

PACKAGING WASTE

95 | 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.

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

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.

BARRIERS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GOALS

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

sites called “hot spots” from historical pollution with hazardous waste63

. 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; - Establish the system of construction waste management and the asbestos-containing waste

64.



96 | 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.

FIGURE 74: ΜARKET 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

18.60%

16.90%

15.80% 9%

9.20%

5.30%

1.80%

23.40%

ELBAL

SIDENOR

HALKOR

HALIVOURGIA

HALIVOURGIKI

NEONAKIS

ANTYMET

OTHER

97 | 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

CONCLUSIONS / 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

modernisation of the sector in recent years65

.

65 Anonymous, 2012b

98 | 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

Inability or unwillingness of citizens to pay the real, economic price for municipal services66

.

66 Anonymous, 2012b

99 | 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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WASTE TREATMENT

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

RECOMMENDATIONS 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)

100 | 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)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BIODEGRADABLE 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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE & 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

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 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

101 | 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.

LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

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.

102 | 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.

IMPLEMENTATION CHANGES

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

THE MOST IMPORTANT MEASURES

THE 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;

103 | 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;

ECONOMIC 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.

INSTITUTIONAL 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.

104 | 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:

105 | 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 Put inžinjering 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

106 | 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

participation of recyclers, members of the Cluster, as well as the use of available incentive funds67

.

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 ČISTOĆA" AT THE RECYCLING CENTRE68

Recyclable component Collected in 2009 (t)

Collected in 2010 (t)

Rate 2010/2009

Paper 3,449 2,626 0.76

Iron 184 87 0.47

Tin 655 507 0.77

Copper 8 6 0.77

Brass 2 2 1.13

Aluminum 35 29 0.83

Plastic (all types) 138 227 1.64

Battery lead 3 3 1.04

PET package 550 607 1.10

Tire 578 537 0.93

Aluminum cans 17 13 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 m³, for separate collection of paper, PET

packaging and aluminum cans. The participation of citizens is voluntary. This system doesn’t 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 Andjelković Pesic, 2012

68 Florina J. Popovć, 2012

107 | 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

activity also reduces the volume of waste thrown in containers in urban space69

.

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 Utility Company’s

recycling system because they “steel” recyclable components from the waste stream70

.

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. Popović, 2012


108 | P a g e


social dimension of recycling, which seems to have more influence than investment potential. Social factors mean

culture, habits, awareness of society and its parts71

.


109 | 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’ problem, 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.

110 | 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

111 | 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. Make the commitment to start. 2. Decide materials to be collected based on a simple market assessment of buyers and financial estimates. 3. Plan to target plastic. Identify and contact potential buyers to learn terms, conditions and opportunities in

the area. 4. Identify local private sector actors to procure recyclables when possible. Investigate partnerships and

separate agreements for different materials. 5. 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

6. Negotiate agreements between municipalities, JKPs and/or contracted private sector recyclers. Include incentives for specific targets or quantities.

7. Estimate number of containers for starting. A rule-of-thumb is approximately one container per 1000 citizens.

8. 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.

9. Conduct a public relations campaign focusing on regional media outlets, advertising and school campaigns.

10. 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.

11. Outline a “route” to simplify container pickup; place containers along the route. 12. 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. 13. Communicate and negotiate with private sector collectors to realize larger economies of scale for sale and

transportation to the large buyers. 14. Try to avoid a common public perception that the collected recyclables are being disposed of rather than

recycled by publicizing results. 15. 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. 16. Review these issues on a periodic basis to make improvements and expand outreach.

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.

112 | 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”, “Producer’s 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.

113 | 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.

2. “Local waste management plan for the City of Novi Sad”, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia,

2010

3. 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

4. Andjelković 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,

5. Annual Reports of ERP Systems in Greece (HRA, 2011/2012)

6. Anonymous, 2010. “Secondary materials and waste recycling commercialization in-Serbia 2009-2010”,

USAID April 2010

7. 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.

8. Anonymous, 2012a. Izveštaj o upravljanju ambalažom i ambalažnim otpadom u 2011. godini, Republika

Srbija Ministarstvo životne sredine, rudarstva i prostornog planiranja, Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine,

Beograd, jul 2012. godine.

9. Anonymous, 2012b. Approximation strategy for waste sector, Belgrade, Ministry of environment, mining

and spatial planning (memsp) april 2012.

10. Anonymous. 2012c, Statistika otpada i upravljanje otpadom u R.Srbiji 2008-2010., Republički 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.

114 | 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., Diamantis 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. Popović, Jovan V. Filipović, Vojislav N. Božanić, “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:ianouarios2013-

proodo-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 оn 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 Ö., "Trends in Recycling in Europe", European Environment Agency, 2010

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



115 | P a g e

12. Sources/References

36. Simões 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. Vujić G., Jovičić N., Redžić N., Jovičič G., Batinić B., Stanisavljević 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. Vujić G., Ubavin D., Milovanović D., “EU hierarchy in waste management and Serbian waste management

challenges”, REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013.

opportunities & barriers of recycling in balkan countries: the cases

Documents