Report Recycling in Balkan Region FINAL

HSWMA & SeSWA
July 2013
Aida Anthouli, Konstantine Aravossis, Rozy Charitopoulou, Bojana Tot, Goran Vujic
[OPPORTUNITIES & BARRIERS

OF RECYCLING IN BALKAN
COUNTRIES: THE CASES OF
GREECE AND SERBIA]
OPPORTUNITIES & BARRIERS OF RECYCLING

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

We would like to thank the contributors and reviewers for their constructive, valuable support and helpful
suggestions: Antonis Mavropoulos, Elias Ordolis - AFIS S.A., Panagiota Vagena - "FOTOKIKLOSI S.A., Sofia Houma Re-Battery AE, and Marios Skarvelakis.
Websites: www.eedsa.gr, www.seswa.rs

E-mails: info@eedsa.gr, office@seswa-srbija.com
With the support of
Financed under the ISWA Project Grant 2012.
LEGAL NOTICE
Reproduction, photocopying, unauthorized selling or transmission by magnetic or electronic means of this publication in whole
or parts are strictly prohibited. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use must be prior granted by HSWMA,
SeSWA, and ISWA. Violation of copyright will result in legal action, including civil and/or criminal penalties, and suspension of
service.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction: A Recycling World ............................................................................................................................... 2
2. Recycling in the Region ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Recycling in EU .................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Recycling in Balkan Countries (Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro) ................................................... 7
2.2.1 Bosnia & Herzegovina ................................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 Croatia ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Montenegro .............................................................................................................................................. 11
3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework ............................................................................................... 12
3.1 The EUs Waste Management Policy ................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Legal Framework for Waste Management and Recycling in Greece and Serbia .............................................. 15
3.2.1 Overall strategy, Policy & Legal Framework in Greece .............................................................................. 15
3.2.2 Overall strategy, policy & Legal Framework in Serbia ............................................................................... 18
4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................ 21
4.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Greece ................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Serbia ................................................................................................. 26
5. Production & management of Recycling Streams ................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Management of Recycling Streams in Greece ................................................................................................. 37
5.5.1 Package and Packaging Waste ................................................................................................................... 39
5.5.2 Motor oil residues ..................................................................................................................................... 50
5.1.3 End of Life Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 52
5.1.4 Portable batteries & accumulators ............................................................................................................ 54
5.1.5 WEEE - Waste of Electronic and Electrical Equipment .............................................................................. 58
5.1.5 Used Tires .................................................................................................................................................. 62
5.1.6 Construction & Demolition Waste Systems............................................................................................... 64
5.2 Management of Recycling Streams in Serbia .................................................................................................... 65

5.2.1 Actors in the national-private sector ......................................................................................................... 71
6. Stakeholders in Recycling ........................................................................................................................................ 84
6.1 Recycling Stakeholders in Greece ..................................................................................................................... 84
6.2 Recycling Stakeholders in Serbia ....................................................................................................................... 86
7. Preconditions for Successful Implementation of Recycling Policies ....................................................................... 89
7.1 Challenges, Problems, Gaps and Barriers of the Recycling in Greece ............................................................... 89
7.2 Challenges, Problems, Gaps and Barriers of the Recycling in Serbia ................................................................ 92
Gaps for Policy and Policy and Policy Implementation Measures ...................................................................... 93
8. Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry ....................................................................................................... 96
8.1 Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry in Greece ................................................................................ 96
8.2. Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry in Serbia ................................................................................ 97
9. Recommendations for Policy & Mechanisms in the Financial Crisis Situation ........................................................ 99
9.1 Recommendations and Important Measures for Policy in Greece ................................................................... 99
9.2 Recommendation and Important Measures for Policy in Serbia .................................................................... 101
10. Success Stories/Good Practices in the Region ..................................................................................................... 104
10.1 Success Stories - Good Practices in Greece ................................................................................................... 104
Afis .................................................................................................................................................................... 104
10.2 Success Stories - Good Practices in Serbia .................................................................................................... 104
Cluster "Recycling South" ................................................................................................................................. 105
Recycling and Service Coverage in Belgrade .................................................................................................... 106
11. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................... 109
Greece ................................................................................................................................................................... 109
Serbia .................................................................................................................................................................... 109
12. Sources/References ............................................................................................................................................. 113
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT IN EU (2011) ................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: TREND IN GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN EUROPE .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 3: MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT EUROPE ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Recycling Performance in Europe (% of the total MSW Generated), Source: Eurostat, 2012 ............................................ 6
Figure 5: Packaging Recycling Rate (2010) ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 6: Total turnover of recycling of seven key recyclables in the EU. Source: EEA ..................................................................... 7
Figure 7: GDP and residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 8: European legislation on waste management ................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Waste hierarchy pyramid ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Country and waste profiles of Greece & Serbia .............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 11: MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATED IN GREECE .................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 12: Municipal waste in Greece by treatment ....................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 13: Average Greek MSW composition (YPEKA, 2011) .......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 14: Geographical and temporal variation of MSW composition in GREECE, ........................................................................ 24
Figure 15: Uncontrolled active dumpsites in Greece (2011) ........................................................................................................... 25
Figure 16: Map of identified landfills in Serbia ................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 17: Quantity of municipal solid waste, expressed in kg capita-1 day-1 ................................................................................ 29
Figure 18: Influence of seasonal variation on generated waste quantities ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 19: Daily amount of municipal solid waste expressed in kg per capita ................................................................................ 32
Figure 20: Municipal waste morphological composition for Republic of Serbia ............................................................................. 32
Figure 21: The role of PROs (adapted from [29]. ............................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 22: Organogram of HRA........................................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 23: HERRCO Recycle bin ....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 24: Material Recovery Facility .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 25: Number of bins and corresponding tonnage collected packaging waste from 2005 - 2009 .......................................... 40
Figure 26: Location of the 24 Recycling facilities in Greece as of 2009 ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 27: Percentage of the different producer categories ........................................................................................................... 41
Figure 28: Composition of recovered materials of the Attica recycling plant ................................................................................. 43
Figure 29: The number of registered producers of packaging and packaging waste, 2002-2011 ................................................... 44
Figure 30: Packaging waste collected in Greece, 2009-2011, per material and totally. .................................................................. 44
Figure 31: Total packaging waste and printed paper collected, 2006-2011. ................................................................................... 45
Figure 32: Collection centre ANTAPODOTIKI ANAKYKLOSI .............................................................................................................. 45
Figure 33: Collection centre AB Vassilopoulos ................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 34: The number of registered producers of oil packaging waste, 2003-2011 ...................................................................... 46
Figure 35: Put on the market and collected quantities for each material of oil packaging, 2011 ................................................... 46
Figure 36: Recycling of paper in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ................................................................................ 47
Figure 37: Recycling of plastic in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ............................................................................... 47
Figure 38: Recycling of glass in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) .................................................................................. 48
Figure 39: Recycling of wood in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ................................................................................ 48
Figure 40: Recycling of aluminium in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ........................................................................ 49
Figure 41: Recycling of steel in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) .................................................................................. 49
Figure 42: Recycling of packaging waste in Greece in the period of 2006-2010 (in tons) ............................................................... 50
Figure 43: Composition (average) of collected packaging waste .................................................................................................... 50
Figure 44: The number of registered producers of motor oil residues, 2004-2011. ....................................................................... 51
Figure 45: Put on the market and collected quantities of motor oil, 2004-2011 ............................................................................ 52
Figure 46: Treatment site of EoLV ................................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 47: Typical collection site of EoLV ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 48: Collection of wastewater separately .............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 49: EoLV collected for 2004-2010. ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 50: Percentage of reuse, recovery and recycling of end of life vehicles ............................................................................... 54
Figure 51: AFIS collection point ....................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 52: The number of registered producers of batteries, 2005-2011 ....................................................................................... 55
Figure 53: Put on the market and collected quantities of batteries, 2005-2011 ............................................................................. 55
Figure 54: Percentage of Recycling of Portable batteries in Greece in the period 2006-2011 (in tons) .......................................... 56
Figure 55: Site DYDESIS.................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 56: Pb-oxide batteries .......................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 57: The number of registered producers of batteries, 2004-2011. ...................................................................................... 57
Figure 58: Put on the market and collected quantities of batteries, 2005-2011. ............................................................................ 57
Figure 59: Treatment facilities for WEEE ......................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 60: Collected quantities over the period 2006-2009 (kg). .................................................................................................... 58
Figure 61: Appliance Recyclings collection points .......................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 62: Number of registered producers in the years from 2004-2009...................................................................................... 59
Figure 63: The number of registered producers of WEEE, 2004-2011 ............................................................................................ 60
Figure 64: Put on the market and collected quantities of WEEE, 2005-2011 .................................................................................. 60
Figure 65: Quantities of WEEE treated, and collected from householdes, 2005-2010 ................................................................... 61
Figure 66: Bin for the collection of lighting fittings ......................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 67: Bin for the collection of bulbs ......................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 68: The number of registered producers of WEEE, 2009-2011 ............................................................................................ 62
Figure 69: Put on the market and collected quantities of WEEE, 2009-2011 .................................................................................. 62
Figure 70: Put on the market and collected quantities of used tires, 2004-2011. .......................................................................... 63
Figure 71: Destinations of tires collected in Greece 2006-2011 ...................................................................................................... 64
Figure 72: Packaging & packaging waste management system in accordance with the Law on waste management .................... 71
Figure 73: Inija has an effective collection system with high participation rates .......................................................................... 72
Figure 74: arket share of the biggest companies (2010) .............................................................................................................. 96
Figure 75: Collected tonnes of portable batteries from AFIS ........................................................................................................ 104
Figure 76: Containers for different types of waste ........................................................................................................................ 107
TABLES
Table 1: Waste Management Data - Estimated Overview ................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Share of Recycled waste .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Targets of the Waste Framework Directive ....................................................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Recycling and recovery targets under Serbian legislation ................................................................................................. 19
Table 5: General information on waste management in the Republic of Serbia ............................................................................. 27
Table 6: Number of identified landfills in Serbia by criteria ............................................................................................................ 27
Table 7: Daily and annually projections of generated municipal waste quantities per capita ........................................................ 28
Table 8: Composition of MSW based on housing conditions (as % of total category weight)......................................................... 30
Table 9: Morphological analysis results projected on the municipality of Novi Sad ....................................................................... 33
Table 10: Municipal collection programs ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 11: Operating PRO systems in Greece during 2012 ............................................................................................................... 38
Table 12: Results of the blue bin projects in Greece ....................................................................................................................... 41
Table 13: Development in the years 2008200920102011 ........................................................................................................... 42
Table 14: Results of the collection system ELTEPE in the years 2006-2007 .................................................................................... 51
Table 15: AFIS collection points ....................................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 16: Collection points in all Greece ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 17: Quantities of WEEE treated, and collected from householdes, 2005-2010 ..................................................................... 61
Table 18: Collection amounts of tires in Greece.............................................................................................................................. 63
Table 19: Destinations of tires collected in Greece 2006-2011 ....................................................................................................... 63
Table 20: Estimated quantities of packaging waste ........................................................................................................................ 66
Table 21: The total amount of recovered packaging waste again by the operators ....................................................................... 66
Table 22: Amount of recovered packaging waste by type and operators ....................................................................................... 66
Table 23: Total generated MSW / Total generated special waste streams ..................................................................................... 69
Table 24: Estimated amount of collected waste ............................................................................................................................. 74
Table 25: "Recycling Backyards" National Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 76
Table 26: Plastic Processors and Recyclers Comparison Summary ................................................................................................. 82
Table 27: Recyclables redeemed by Public Utility Company "Gradska istoa" at the recycling centre ....................................... 106
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Notwithstanding their many differences, countries of the Balkan region share some similar characteristics,
especially regarding the culture of their inhabitants, as well as problems and experiences deriving from a
longstanding neighbouring and a common history.
These common features can be met as well in local recycling policies and their application. Relative experiences,
successes, problems, and questions are worth a closer and more serious investigation in order to help recycling in
the area, and promote environmental protection.
Especially countries that recently have started their recycling efforts, and have little experience from local projects,
can greatly benefit by paradigms, success stories and failures identifying in that way their own sustainable
recycling solutions that truly apply to related countries. Moreover, it can strengthen cooperation between
neighbouring countries in the spectrum of interconnectivity and globalisation, and bring financial, environmental,
and social benefits in the Balkan area. A common perception of the situation in recycling, and conclusions deriving
from such investigation, could empower, in a European framework, proper environmental policy making, and later
application, in its foundations.
For the reasons above, this report takes a closer look in recycling in the Balkan region, focusing in Greece and
Serbias current status, and suggests useful examples and successful case studies.
Initially, this report presents the reason why recycling is a major issue globally, and describes the EU framework
under which Balkan countries establish their recycling future. After a short description of recycling status in other
Balkan countries like Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, the current waste and recycling situation
is elaborated in next chapters. Finally, opportunities and barriers are elaborated, while successful case studies and
conclusions are presented in the final chapters.
More in particular the report focuses in the below Greeces and Serbias recycling key-areas:
Analysis of Policies and Legal Framework
Performance targets and current results in recycling
Identification of the relative recycling markets and stakeholders
Challenges, Problems, Gaps and Barriers of Recycling in the countries
Opportunities and Recommendations
Successful applications and case studies
1|P a g e
Opportunities & barriers of Recycling in Balkan Countries: The cases of Greece and Serbia
1. INTRODUCTION: A RECYCLING WORLD

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

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

-
Varied interpretations of legislation

Weak implementation of legislation in some countries
Continued dependence on landfill, which is also the characteristic of Balkan countries, including Greece up
to today
Recycling is expensive for certain types of waste
Problems deriving from financial crisis - Economic downturn affects market prospects
Illegal waste dumping
Downcycle of materials
In the above framework cooperation between nations and exchange of experiences and transfer of knowhow is
essential for the successful implementation of national and global policies on the recycling field.
C. Velis and P. Brunner, "Recycling and resource efficiency: it is time for a change from quantity to quality", Waste Management Research,
June 2013
3
D-Waste, European Recycling Performance: Drivers, Barriers and Lessons Learnt, 2012
3|P a g e
2. RECYCLING IN THE REGION

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

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

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

FRAMEWORK
3.1 THE EUS WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY
EU waste policy has evolved over the last 30 years through a series of environmental action plans and a framework
of legislation that aims to reduce negative environmental and health impacts and create an energy and resourceefficient economy.
The EUs Sixth Environment Action Programme (2002-2012) identified waste prevention and management as one
of four top priorities. Its primary objective is to ensure that economic growth does not lead to more and more
waste. This led to the development of a long-term strategy on waste. The 2005 Thematic Strategy on Waste
Prevention and Recycling resulted in the revision of the Waste Framework Directive the cornerstone of EU waste
policy.
Waste Framework Directive regulates waste management in the EU along with a number of subordinated and
complementary laws related to treatment methods or waste streams.
FIGURE 8: EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
The revision brings a modernised approach to waste management, marking a shift away from thinking about waste
as an unwanted burden to seeing it as a valued resource. The Directive focuses on waste prevention and puts in
place new targets which will help the EU move towards its goal of becoming a recycling society. It includes targets
for EU Member States to recycle 50% of their municipal waste and 70% of construction waste by 2020.
A) L ANDFILL D IRECTIVE
Article 5 of the Landfill Directive states that Member States should set up a national strategy for the
implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills by means of recycling, composting,
biogas production or materials/energy recovery. This strategy should ensure that not later than five years after the
date of implementation biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 75% of the total
amount of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995. After eight years this must be reduced to 50% of this
12 | P a g e
3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework
amount, and after 15 years to 35%. Member States that landfilled more than 80% of their collected municipal
waste in 1995 may postpone the attainment of the targets by a period not exceeding four years.
Municipal waste is defined in the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) as "waste from households, as well as other waste
which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from household". However, the precise definition
of biodegradable municipal waste varies from Member State to Member State.
The main motivation for these targets and measures was to reduce the production of methane gas from landfills,
inter alia, in order to reduce global warming. And they should also aim at encouraging the separate collection of
biodegradable waste, sorting in general, recovery and recycling.
The Report from the Commission on the national strategies for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to
landfills points out that all the strategies promote composting, recycling of paper and energy recovery. Most
strategies stress the importance of using source segregated organic waste to obtain good quality compost.
B) T HEMATIC S TRATEGY ON THE P REVENTION AND R ECYCLING OF W ASTE

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

The Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC has been revised. On 17 June 2008, the European Parliament adopted
a legislative resolution in which it approved the Council's Common Position as amended. This step marks the
adoption of the revised Directive in second reading and the end of the negotiations.
R ECYCLING T ARGETS
The New Waste Framework Directive sets new targets for recycling, and expects Member States to set up separate
collection to ensure high quality recycling. By 2015 separate collection should be set up at least for paper, metal,
plastic and glass.
In particular the new targets of the Waste Framework Directive are described in the following table:
TABLE 3: TARGETS OF THE WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
New targets
2015
2020
2020
Separate collection: At least for paper, plastic, metal and glass

Recycling rates of 50% for household and similar wastes (at least for paper,
plastic, metal & glass)
70% for construction and demolition waste
13 | P a g e
According to the Directive Reuse and Recycling should reach the minimum of 50% by 2020, for household and
possibly for similar waste. This concerns at least paper, metal, plastic and glass. Other targets include the Landfill
diversion for biodegradable waste, as well as packaging recovery and recycling
The Directive introduces a five-step waste hierarchy where prevention is the best option, followed by re-use,
recycling and other forms of recovery, with disposal such as landfill as the last resort. EU waste legislation aims to
move waste management up the waste hierarchy.
B IOWASTE TREATMENT
The new Waste Framework Directive foresees in its article 22 specific provisions on biowaste. Member States are
obliged, as appropriate, to encourage the treatment of biowaste following the waste treatment hierarchy by
promoting separate collection with a view to the composting and digestion of bio-waste, by taking measures for
the treatment of bio-waste in a way that fulfils a high level of environmental protection, and by stimulating the use
of environmentally safe materials (e.g. composts) produced from biowaste.
In a crucial clause, the Commission is asked to carry out an assessment on the management of bio-waste with a
view to submitting a proposal if appropriate. In this assessment the opportunity should be examined of setting
minimum requirements for biowaste management and quality criteria for compost and digestate from bio-waste.
It is envisaged that this could end up in a Communication or in a specific bio-waste Directive or Regulation. It is
clear that this constitutes the point of departure for this study.
Article 11 introduces reuse and recycling targets. Bio-waste however is not included in the waste types that are to
be collected separately or for which recycling targets have been established. However, Member States are allowed
and encouraged to include more waste streams, to promote high quality recycling. To this end they can set up
extra separate collection schemes of waste where this is technically, environmentally and economically practicable
and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors. By 31 December 2014
at the latest the Commission itself shall examine the existing measures and targets and shall consider setting
targets for other waste streams.
The new Waste Framework Directive introduces an important new element on energy recovery through anaerobic
digestion of biodegradable waste. Article 2 point 1 f extends the exclusion of other natural non-hazardous
agricultural or forestry material from the application of the Waste Framework Directive. In the old Waste
Framework Directive 2006/12/EC this was limited to application of this waste for use in farming. The new Waste
Framework Directive foresees an exclusion for the production of energy from such biomass. This means that
installations for composting for this material do fall under the restrictions and obligations of the environmental
permit for recycling activities while competing installations for bio-methanisation and energy recovery are
exempted.
E ND - OF - WASTE C RITERIA
Article 6 specifies that certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery, including
recycling, operation and complies with specific criteria to be developed in accordance with the following
conditions:
-
the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes ;

a market or demand exists for such a substance or object;
the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets the existing
legislation and standards applicable to products; and,
the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health
impacts.
14 | P a g e
The measures relating to the adoption of such criteria and specifying the waste shall be adopted using the
comitology procedure. End-of-waste specific criteria should be considered, among others, at least for aggregates,
paper, glass, metal, tyres and textiles.
FIGURE 9: WASTE HIERARCHY PYRAMID
Where criteria have not been set at Community level, Member States may decide case by case whether certain
waste has ceased to be waste taking into account the applicable case law.
D) P ACKAGING D IRECTIVE
The Packaging Directive (94/62/EC as amended by 2004/12/EC) among other provisions sets minimum recycling
targets for paper and board packaging waste. Compliance with the Packaging Directive thus directly affects the
amounts of biodegradable waste landfilled or incinerated, and thus also compliance with the Landfill Directive.
However, it does not affect recycling of bio-waste as defined in the Waste Framework Directive.
In other words, compliance with the Packaging Directive makes it easier to comply with the Landfill Directive
without having to increase the amounts of bio-waste that are recycled.
All other things being equal, it can be concluded that the Packaging Directive provides a negative incentive for the
recycling of bio-waste as defined in the Waste Framework Directive.
However, the Packaging Directive does provide some positive incentive as well, to the extent that some countries
include cardboard packaging within the management of biowaste through composting and anaerobic digestion.
For example, some anaerobic digestion plants treat a waste stream which includes dirty card, whilst some
composting plants treat card which is collected alongside biowaste. If there are increasing returns to scale in
biowaste treatment, this lowers the average costs. This is not, however, mainstream activity, either for card or for
biowaste management.
3.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING IN GREECE AND SERBIA
3.2.1 OVERALL STRATEGY , POLICY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN GREECE
Greece is a full member of the European Union and therefore has to adjust its legislative framework to comply
with the European legislation. In most environmental issues, including waste management, the drive to implement
new stricter laws stems from the EU. To a large extent, European legislation is incorporated well to the national
law and the legislative framework for waste management can be considered sufficient and well elaborated.
Problems usually arise at the level of implementation.
Waste planning started in 1996 in a Regional Level (Nomarchies) ( 69728/824), with an aim to eliminate illegal
dumping. At that point there was not taken into consideration the future need for waste treatment facilities, in
15 | P a g e
order to move from sanitary landfills to integrated waste management solutions, and as a consequence the
creation of numerous sanitary landfills was planned. In 2000, National Planning (... 14312/1302 723
/9.6.2000 and 26469/1501/103 864 /1.7.2003) involved the creation of 124 Sanitary 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 () of the relevant
Ministry (), and afterwards through laws (... 50910/2727 1909/22.12.2003). So Regional Plans for
Solid Waste Management (RPSWM - ) were obligatory until the end of 2005.
RPSWM specify the objectives of the National Planning, set targets at a regional level, and reveal SWM projects for
the coming years. RPSWM define the Operational Modules through which relevant bodies (FoDSA and Municipal
Authorities) will be called to manage projects of collection and integrated solid waste management. Countrywide,
the overall projected Managing Units amount to 81. Since 2005 some RPSWM have been reviewed, but their
application has encountered problems as a whole, both in terms of financing and in terms of social opposition and
appeals. The Law 3852/2010 known as "Kallikratis" anticipates the combination of FoDSA of each region on a single
Association.
Today there are 79 Landfills (XYTA) in Greece; most of them will be considered illegal after 2012, as they cannot be
turned into Sanitary Landfills (XYTY), and many are in construction phase.
National Planning was aiming in the closure of all illegal sites in Greece, and the coverage of all population with
Sanitary Landfills, until 21/12/2008. This was the date given by the European Court that condemned Greece for its
negative environmental results of insufficient waste management. But this deadline was not reached. In December
2010, Greek authorities brought a plan to the European Commission, stating that all illegal landfills will be closed
by June 2011, and will be decontaminated within 2012. Today (July 2013) most of the targets are met with a small
number of illegal landfill sites (10-20) operating until the end of the year
The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change as it has been renamed and restructured in 2010,
(MEECC, KA in Greek) is charged with environmental protection and provides co-ordination and advice on the
main environmental policy areas. Also, the Ministry of the Interior has particularly important responsibilities
regarding solid wastes and local solid waste management (SWM), as part of its role in supervising local authorities.
Regarding the diversion of Biological Municipal Waste (BMW) from landfilling, ten years after the adoption of the
EU landfill directive (99/31/EEC) Greece still relies on landfills for the disposal of over 80% of its waste. The
Directive sets stringent standards on the design, construction, operation and aftercare of landfills and introduces a
compulsory framework for the calculation of landfill costs and charges, based on full cost accounting, including the
costs for restoration and monitoring after the end of the useful life of the landfill. These provisions are defined in
the Ministerial decree 29407/3508 (JMD 1572B, 16-12-2002) which transposed, practically through an exact
translation, the directive into national law. Very recently, in 2012 the European Waste Framework Directive
(98/2008) was introduced in National Law (Law 4042/2012) and regulated many topics of national concern, as will
be analyzed further in the following Chapters.
Also following the EU legislation, which sets as a major goal the Waste Prevention and Recycling in the last few
decades, recycling processes become more and more important due to increase of waste production. At the same
time, waste hierarchy which guides European Union (EU) waste management policy and innovative approaches
concerning waste management, like polluter pays or Extended 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.
16 | P a g e
The EPR concept is incorporated in Greece into the Law 2939/2001, which sets the legal framework for recycling of
packaging waste and other products and transposes the EU Directive 94/62/EEC.
L EGAL F RAMEWORK FOR W ASTE M ANAGEMENT AND R ECYCLING

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

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

The Government adopted the National Program of Integration (NPI) in October 2008, which is a basis of legislative
work plan of the Government till 2012, which the Strategy on the EU Accession of Serbia marked as the year when
Serbia is ready to take over obligations emanating from the EU membership.
The National Sustainable Development Strategy (Official Gazette of RS, no. 57/08) was adopted by the
Government in May 2008. The aim of the Republic of Serbia Sustainable Development Strategy is to balance three
pillars, three key dimensions economic growth, environment protection and social balance creating one coherent
entity supported by corresponding institutional framework. In March 2009, the Government adopted also the
Action Plan for implementation of National Sustainable Development Strategy.
The Strategy of Energy Development in the Republic of Serbia by 2015 (Official Gazette of RS, no. 44/05) and
Regulation on the establishment of a Programme for implementation of the Strategy of Energy Development of the
Republic of Serbia by 2015 in the period 2007-2012 (Official Gazette of RS, no. 17/07, 73/07 and 99/09) define
energy development priorities.
The Regional Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia for period 2007-2012 (Official Gazette of RS, no.
21/07) was adopted in January 2007. This document treats regional development in Serbia, for the first time in a
comprehensive and consistent manner all created problems and disparities and suggests a series of measures
for their mitigation and solution.
Strategy of Cleaner Production Introduction (Official Gazette of RS, no 17/09) was adopted by the Government in
March 2009, and it is the elaboration of strategic documents, especially of the National Sustainable Development
Strategy and National Environmental Protection Programme..
The Decision on the Establishment of the National Environmental Protection Programme (Official Gazette of RS,
no. 12/10) defines strategic objectives of the environmental protection policy, as well specific objectives for
protection of environmental media (air, water, soil) and influence of certain sectors on environment (industry,
energy, agriculture, mining, traffic, etc.)
L EGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING
New legal framework for waste management was established by the enforcement of a set of laws in the area of
environmental protection (2004), including new laws which regulate waste, i.e. packaging and packaging waste
management (2009). These laws provide conditions for establishment and development of integral waste, i.e.
18 | P a g e
packaging and packaging waste, management system. Basic regulations which govern waste management in the
Republic of Serbia are the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Law on Ratification of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and its
Disposal (Official Gazette of FRY, International Agreements, no. 2/99
Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 135/04 and 36/09)
Law on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette of RS, no. 135/04)
Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (Official Gazette of the RS, no. 135/04 and 36/09)
Law on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Official Gazette of RS, no. 135/04)
Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of the RS, no. 36/09) sets forth types of waste and its
classification, waste management planning, stakeholders, obligations and liability with regard to waste
management, specific waste streams management, requirements and procedures for the issuance of
permits, transboundary waste movement, reporting, waste management financing, supervision and other
relevant aspects of waste management. Waste management consists of a set of activities of joint interest
which comprise implementation of prescribed action plans to be carried out within waste collection,
transport, storing, treatment and disposal, including supervision of the aforesaid activities and
responsibility for waste management facilities upon closure thereof.
Law on Packaging and Packaging Waste Management (Official Gazette of RS, no. 36/09) sets forth
environmental requirements which packaging must meet in order to be marketed; packaging and
packaging waste management, reporting on packaging and packaging waste, economic instruments, as
well as other relevant issues with regard to packaging and packaging waste management. The Law also
regulates imported packaging, produced, i.e. marketed packaging, as well as packaging waste generated in
the course of business activities on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, regardless of its origin or
purpose, and used packaging material.
The Decree on establishing a plan to reduce packaging waste for the period 2010-2014 (Official Journal RS
88/2009) defines the targets for recovery and recycling.
TABLE 4: RECYCLING AND RECOVERY TARGETS UNDER SERBIAN LEGISLATION
General targets
Recovery
Recycling
Specific recycling targets
[%]
[%]
2010
5,0
4,0
2011
10,0
8,0
2012
16,0
13,0
2013
23,0
19,0
2014
30,0
25,0
Paper / cardboard
Plastic
Glass
Metal
Wood
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
[%]
2010
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2011
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2012
14,0
7,5
7,0
9,5
2,0
2013
23,0
9,0
10,0
13,5
4,5
2014
28,0
10,5
15,0
18,5
7,0
M ANAGEMENT OF O THER P RODUCTS ( OLD VEHICLES , TYRES , CONSTRUCTION WASTE ETC )

Rulebook on the manner and procedure of end-of-life vehicle management ("official gazette of the republic of
Serbia", no. 98/2010). This Rulebook shall apply to vehicles and end-of-life vehicles, including built-in components
and materials regardless of the manner in which the vehicle is serviced or repaired during its use and whether or
not the vehicle is equipped with components that the manufacturer shipped or other components installed as
spare parts.
Rulebook on manner and procedure of waste tires management
Management of waste tires is a set of measures that include collection, transportation, storage, and treatment of
waste tires. Management of waste tires is conducted in such manner as to ensure the protection of human health
and the environment. Waste tires may not be disposed of in landfill. For 2010 the recycling of waste tires shall
comprise 70% and use for energy purposes 30% of the total quantity of waste tires collected in the previous year.
19 | P a g e
The recycling of newly-created waste tires from this Rulebook's entry into force to 31 December 2010 shall
comprise 70% and use for energy purposes 30% of the total quantity of waste tires collected in the previous year.
Rulebook on manners and procedures of used batteries and accumulators management ("Official Gazette of the
Republic of Serbia", No. 86/2010). This Rulebook shall set forth the content and appearance of labels on the
batteries, button cell batteries and accumulators according to the content of hazardous material, manners and
procedures for waste management of batteries and accumulators, as well as devices with built-in batteries and
accumulators.
20 | P a g e
4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste
4. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL

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

Greece is a member of the European Union (EU) since 1981. Since then, the country has to meet great challenges
in order to confront problems of insufficient waste management, and reach the same level of environmental
protection as the most progressed EU member-states.
Waste management in Greece is one of the most complicated problems the country has to face. Several
parameters make decision making, planning and implementation a difficult task, both from environmental,
18
political, legal and social perspective .
17
18
Waste Atlas. Access July 2013, http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/

Sifakis & Haidarlis, Waste Management in Greece, 2006
21 | P a g e
Also the European Court of Justice has condemned Greece several times for not succeeding to meet the
19
requirements set by the EU .
Nevertheless Greece has done some positive steps during the last decades in matters of environmental protection
and sustainable waste management.
First of all there has been the integration of EU legislation in the Greek laws. Secondly, in matter of strategy, there
has been the adoption of the Green Growth Strategic Action Program (2010-2015). Also there has been a
successful operation and established experience of 9 recycling systems, most of which have brought satisfactory
results. Due to the operation of the systems, there has been an increase in the recycling rates, even though still
there are low in comparison to other EU countries and refer mostly to the material recycling (In Greece organic
recycling is still very low, about 1%).
Among other actions, Greece has straggled to close its illegal landfills. Some pilot projects on Pay As You Throw
(PAYT) schemes exist, and there are currently industry initiatives to reduce packaging material.
Regarding expected actions in the field of waste management, several waste facilities have entered in tendering
phase which are in Peloponnese, Western Macedonia, Serres, Ilia & Aetoloacarnania, and 2 more have been
announced in Attica and Patra.
Regarding biowaste management, there is a target of 5% separate collection of biowaste by 2015, which by 2020
will increase to 10%. Also there has been an introduction of landfill tax of untreated waste which will take effect
from 1.1.2014. The tax is set at 35/t of waste and will increase annually by 5/t until 60/t.
Of course there are still remaining many issues to be solved and improved. In spite the efforts still some illegal
landfills exist, and Waste Management in the Greek islands is not considered satisfactory, as there is lack of
infrastructure, as well as lack of recycling programmes.
Waste management responsibility and liability in Greece is at local level and lies within the competence of the
Municipalities. They are responsible for the collection, transport, temporary storage, reload, recovery and disposal
of waste.
20
Generated household waste in Greece was reported to be near 5,197,519 tonnes/year .

In Greece there is not yet a strategy for the prevention of waste, and the amount of municipal waste generated per
capita in Greece increased between 1995 and 2009. After 2009, due to the economic crisis, it is experiencing a
decline. Until 2009, Greece had one of the highest annual growth rates, of municipal waste generated, reaching
21
3.3% .
Below there are the figures presented by Eurostat, as from 2013.
19
Abeliotis, K., Karaiskou, K., Togia, A., Lasaridi, K., 2009. Decision support systems in solid waste management: a case study at the national
and local level in Greece. Glob. Nest J. 11, 117126.

20
Hellenic Statistical Authority, http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-
themes?p_param=A1501&r_param=SOP06&y_param=2010_00&mytabs=0
21
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_statistics#Municipal_waste_generated_by_country
22 | P a g e
FIGURE 11: MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATED IN GREECE22
MSW quantities in Greece grew from 3.9x106 tonnes in 1997 (the first year for which relatively reliable data exist)
to appr. 5.3x106 tonnes in 2011, at a rate of 3.4% annually (estimation YPEKA, 2011). The BMW content is
estimated at 60%, comprising of 40% putrescibles (dropping in urban areas) and 20% paper, with an increasing
tendency (Figure 1). Data illustrating the temporal and geographical variation of waste composition in the country,
according to the few studies carried out up to now, are summarised in Figure 2. The lack of accurate waste data, as
well as the different methodologies used to define the waste composition, is a basic problem complicating any
Municipal waste in Greece by treatment
SWM planning in the country.
500
450
kg per capita
400
350
Recycling and
composted
300
Incinerated
250
Landfilled
200
150
100
50
0
2004
Source: Eurostat, 2012
2006
2008
2010
FIGURE 12: MUNICIPAL WASTE IN GREECE BY TREATMENT
Currently Greece has no incineration capacity, neither source separation of biowaste. The country relies heavily on
landfilling for the disposal of about 81.1% of its waste, the rest being recycled by both the formal and informal
sector (18.9%) and MBT treated in the Ano Liossia plant, in Athens.
22
Source: Eurostat 2011 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasmun&lang=en
23 | P a g e
MSW Composition - Greece, 2011
Inert material
Wood
3%
Metals 2%
Glass 3%
Other
6%
Putrescibles (organic)
40%
3%
Plastics
14%
Putrescibles (organic)
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Metals
Wood
Paper
29%
Inert material
Other
Fraction (% by weight) (%ti
FIGURE 13: AVERAGE GREEK MSW COMPOSITION (YPEKA, 2011)

70
Athens -1984
Thessaloniki -1987
60
Heraklion -1987
Athens -1991
Rhodes -1989
Chania -1991
Kos -1991
Kalamata -1992
Naxos -1993
Xanthi -1993
Athens -1997
Thessaloniki -1998
Pilea -1998
Crete -2004
50
40
30
20
10
0
Putrescible
Paper
Glass
Plastics
Metals
Other
Waste category
FIGURE 14: GEOGRAPHICAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION OF MSW COMPOSITION IN GREECE23,24
For the main calculations as used in many studies for the Recycling sector the following basic data are used:
23
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
Gidarakos, E., Havas, G., Ntzamilis, P., 2006. Municipal solid waste composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste
management system in the island of Crete. Waste Management 26, 668679.

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

Serbian government and the professional public community are under constant pressure concerning how to
achieve goals for waste management as soon as possible and harmonize policy with official policy. Many experts
from the European Union state that mistakes made by developed countries in waste management should not be
repeated by developing countries, and that developing countries must make their on way to develop waste
management systems bearing in mind the mistakes that the mentioned developed countries experienced. The
basic mistake was the opinion that it is necessary to avoid the waste management system based on landfills and
apply an advanced 3R system as soon as possible as well as other WTE and so on. The question is whether it is
possible. Is it possible to achieve the goals of waste management at an affordable cost, or whether it is possible to
develop a modern waste management system without landfills that represents the basis of every waste
25
management system?
As a country in transition with 3582 landfills and a production of 0.87 kg capita1 day1, and very austere
economic situation, Serbia seeks for a solution of its waste problem.
Tax in Serbia, in the city of Novi Sad, increased from 25 /hh/year to 30 in 2003, while in 2010 it was 36
Euro/hh/year.
Statistics suggest that Serbia recycles nearly ten times less waste than EU member states, but officials say recycling
is on the rise.
Now that the situation is more stable and Serbia is fighting for EU membership candidate status, more attention is
being paid to the environment. The state has adopted a national waste management strategy, which is to fully
introduce European standards in waste recycling by 2019.
Serbia currently recycles 7% to 8% of communal waste -- glass, wood, paper, plastic, and metal. In the EU,
depending on the type of material, between 60% and 80% of waste is recycled. According to European standards,
four kilos of electronic waste per capita should be recycled, whereas in reality 0.5 kilos is recycled. We have made
progress in recycling car batteries. About 80% of them are recycled, but on the other hand, batteries used by
households are practically not recycled at all. According to EU standards, 95% of unusable vehicles should be
recycled. There is no precise data on how many of such vehicles are recycled in Serbia, but we are most certainly
far from the European norm.
The quantity of packaging waste in the Republic of Serbia is neither measured nor recorded systematically. The
quantity of packaging waste is estimated to over 334,500 t p.a., based on the measuring in several municipalities,
i.e. it includes around 30% of the population. It is estimated that the share of the packaging waste in the municipal
waste is around 14%. Serbia needs a packaging waste management system, since the quantity of this waste is
constantly increasing due to the growing share of the disposable packaging, especially PET packaging and cans. The
greatest part of it is collected with municipal waste and disposed in the dumps. Primary selection of packaging
waste is organized in some cities (aak).
That Serbia has much more to do in terms of waste management is also evidenced by the fact that there are 3,582
uncontrolled landfills, predominantly in rural areas.
The public needs to be told more about recycling for the situation to improve, while local governments must
provide people with more recycling containers, to sort various kinds of waste.
25
Goran Vuji, Dejan Ubavin, Duan Milovanovi,EU HIERARCHY IN WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SERBIAN WASTE MANAGEMENT
CHALLENGES, REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
26 | P a g e
The data for the qualitative and quantitative composition of waste in Serbia are not sufficient since until recently
waste was disposed in uncontrolled landfills. Serbia annually produces over two million tonnes of municipal waste.
TABLE 5: GENERAL INFORMATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
Population
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
28
3.302
According to the data in Serbia are 3582 identified landfills in Serbia, 165 of them are municipality landfills, 5 are
sanitary landfills and rest are wild dump sites. There are 5 more regional sanitary landfills in construction progress,
as well as closure and sanitation and/or recultivation of some municipality landfills.
TABLE 6: NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED LANDFILLS IN SERBIA BY CRITERIA
3
Criteria (m )
Number of landfills
Total area (ha)
Total volume (m )
to 1.000
from 1.001 to 10.000
from 10.001 to 100.000
from 100.001 to 500.000
from 500.001 to 1.000.000
Over 1.000.000
Total
2.702
698
131
37
7
7
3.582
154,50
480,04
313,11
199,24
62,59
131,98
1.341,46
604.628,93
2.251.995,18
4.087.590,55
8.693.492,43
5.296.214,07
23.123.124,56
44.057.045,71
27 | P a g e
FIGURE 16: MAP OF IDENTIFIED LANDFILLS IN SERBIA
M UNICIPAL SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES

Quantities of MSW generated in Serbian municipalities were measured within the 7-day period. Exceptions
represent municipalities Belgrade, Novi Sad and Kragujevac, since they have weighbridges on the municipal
landfills and measurement of disposed waste are performed every day. Using demographic data of the
participating municipalities, quantity of annually generated waste per person was obtained. This is shown in Table
2.3.
TABLE 7: DAILY AND ANNUALLY PROJECTIONS OF GENERATED MUNICIPAL WASTE QUANTITIES PER CAPITA26
**
Municipality
Inija
Sombor
Novi Kneevac
abac
Topola
Kragujevac
Bor
Ni
Novi Sad
Belgrade
49,258
56,734
9,648
123,155
25,292
185,000
55,817
239,596
314,192
1,392,691
26
Anonymous. 2012c
28 | P a g e
Inhabitants
Quantity of collected
-1
waste (tones week )
396
267
39
528
49
1,018
119
1,320
2,323
15,032
Projection of generated waste quantity

-1
-1
-1
(tones year )
(kg capita year )
20,588
417
13,873
244
2,026
209
27,465
223
2,543
100
52,945
286
6,215
111
68,656
286
120,773
384
781,692
561
* Include number of inhabitants under the waste collection system

** Average quantity for three different seasonal measurements
FIGURE 17: QUANTITY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, EXPRESSED IN KG CAPITA-1 DAY-127
Belgrade, as the capital city, generates over 15000 tonnes per week, followed by Novi Sad, Ni (2323 and 1320
tonnes respectively), and other regional centres. Expressed as daily quantity per person, the variation from 0.28 kg
for Topola to 1.54 kg for Belgrade clearly shows the correlation between economic prosperity and waste quantity
(Figure 16). It can be noticed that waste generation rate is higher during summer comparing to winter season
(Figure 17).
FIGURE 18: INFLUENCE OF SEASONAL VARIATION ON GENERATED WASTE QUANTITIES
Organic waste which include garden and other biodegradable waste is the dominant sample fraction (40% to 60%
of total sample weight), followed by plastics (10%) and its subcategory - plastic bags (4%-7%). Paper, glass and
cardboard contribute by 2% to 10%.
Morphological MSW analysis results are shown in Table 8. For Topola, with an even mix of households (urban and
rural), only one (rather than three) waste sample was classified.
27
Goran Vujic, 2010
29 | P a g e
TABLE 8: COMPOSITION OF MSW BASED ON HOUSING CONDITIONS (AS % OF TOTAL CATEGORY WEIGHT)
30 | P a g e
Metal- Al cans
Plastic packaging waste
Plastic bags
Hard plastics
Textiles
Leather
Nappies
Fine waste particles
S
b
S
c
S
a
S
b
S
c
S
a
S
b
S
c
S
Sa
Sb
Sc
S
22.2
17.9
40.1
23.7
1.9
22.1
27.1
11.2
25.8
26.5
5.4
22.4
6.4
40.6
25.3
20.5
36.7
63.3
34.4
19.2
26.7
18.2
27.7
52.1
27.6
52.3
3.8
6.9
3.06
0.6
5.0
3.8
6.4
15.0
5.5
6.4
6.9
2.4
6.1
2.6
6.2
6.6
1.6
2.2
3.0
10.9
3.8
7.1
5.1
3.7
1.8
2.2
2.3
5.8
2.7
2.1
0.9
4.5
12.5
1.5
2.8
2.1
3.9
7.2
3.9
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.7
1.5
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.7
1.1
2.1
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.8
5.1
1.7
0.4
1.8
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.1
3.3
1.8
4.5
2.8
4.9
5.0
7.0
4.5
3.2
1.6
4.3
1.9
4.7
6.0
4.3
5.4
9.6
3.1
5.4
2.4
8.2
3.3
3.4
2.9
6.8
1.7
3.3
3.1
1.8
2.1
3.1
0.9
2.4
2.8
6.1
3
4.3
2.3
1.6
3.7
3.9
12.9
4.5
10.2
0
2.6
5.7
6.9
3.3
14.8
6.0
0.6
0
0.4
0.1
0.9
5.1
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
5.2
3.1
5.64
/
/
/
0.3
6.5
2.8
1.4
2.8
3.3
1.6
11.4
15.7
4.5
9.1
4.9
5.0
10.4
17.7
9.9
8.7
11.8
6.8
8.6
Sa
Sb
Sc
Sa
Sb
Sc
1.6
13.7
33.3
8.4
0.6
11.0
27.9
29.3
29.1
48.3
45.5
51.6
7.5
7.3
1.9
3.4
5.2
2.2
2.3
12.4
1.3
1.1
4.3
2.2
9.7
15.5
5.8
10.2
5.4
2.9
0.2
0.1
0
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
1.4
0.6
0.3
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.6
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.1
0.3
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.7
2.2
3.5
2.4
3.0
2.3
7.6
5.5
3.9
5.4
9.4
3.3
4.2
4.3
5.2
2.7
2.9
2.7
8.4
1.1
2.6
2.9
2.2
4.9
0
0
1.3
1.1
0.5
0.8
8.4
1.9
2.6
4.7
7.1
4.7
15.8
4.3
7.4
7.0
9.8
8.6
packaging
Metalother
and
biodegradable
Al-coated cardboard
Bor
Waxed cardboard
Kragujevac
Cardboard
Topola
Glass
abac
Paper
Novi
Kneevac
Other
waste
Sombor
Garden waste
Inija
Housing conditions
Municipality
Waste category
Ni
Novi Sad
Belgrade
Sa
Sb
Sc
Sa
Sb
Sc
Sa
Sb
Sc
16.4
5.3
4.4
16.2
5.2
17.2
4.1
3.6
19.4
37.8
33.7
36.0
40.4
39.5
44.8
41.6
41.4
39.1
2.8
2.5
0.9
6.0
10.3
4.5
5.5
5.5
8.3
0.6
6.4
1.2
2.7
15.3
3.5
11.6
4.7
0.5
4.2
3.2
1.9
3.3
7.0
5.7
5.2
6.8
6.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.9
4.3
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
1.2
2.8
0.5
1.6
1.6
0.6
1.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.1
3.6
3.3
5.9
3.9
4.9
3.8
5.3
5.0
3.7
6.3
11.6
10.6
4.0
3.8
3.7
6.1
4.8
5.1
2.7
6.6
2.7
5.1
3.5
3.1
1.5
3.5
2.7
3.7
15.0
6.8
8.8
2.1
2.4
2.6
5.8
1.9
0
0
0.7
0.2
0
0
0
0.5
0
1.6
3.7
12.5
3.1
0.3
3.2
4.1
4.7
4.1
17.5
5.8
14.3
2.4
4.9
5.5
7.2
5.2
6.8
Sa -Urban area - individual housing

Sb -Urban area - collective housing and commercial zones
Sc -Rural areas within the municipality
31 | P a g e
FIGURE 19: DAILY AMOUNT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE EXPRESSED IN KG PER CAPITA28
In Novi Sad, the most of waste was generated, over 2323 tons of waste a week. Expressed in per capita daily
quantity, the variation of 1.15 kg in Indjija to 0.58 kg in the New Knezevac clearly shows a correlation between
economic prosperity and waste (Figure 18).
The final projected value of 2.374.375 tonnes of waste is generated annually by 7.443.183 inhabitants of Serbia,
yields the average 0.87 kg capita-1 day-1. The total yields participation (in %) of all waste categories on the national
level are shown in figure 19. At the national level, organic waste with its two sub-categories takes up almost 50% of
total municipal waste. Other biodegradable material with 37.62% is three times heavier than garden waste. Plastics
take up 12.73%, while paper and cardboard contributes by 13.57%. Values of other fractions are shown on Figure
19.
FIGURE 20: MUNICIPAL WASTE MORPHOLOGICAL COMPOSITION FOR REPUBLIC OF SERBIA29
28
Goran Vujic, 2012
32 | P a g e
The example of calculated results for municipality of Novi Sad is shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9: MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS PROJECTED ON THE MUNICIPALITY OF NOVI SAD30
Waste category
Garden waste
Other biodegradable waste
Paper
Glass
Cardboard
Waxed cardboard
Al-coated cardboard
Metalpackag. and other
Metal- Al cans
Plastic packag. waste
Plastic bags
Hard plastics
Textiles
Leather
Nappies
Fine waste particles
Novi Sad
9.17%
40.73%
8.57%
11.19%
6.06%
0.72%
0.91%
0.98%
0.43%
4.57%
3.85%
3.66%
3.09%
0.03%
1.29%
4.73%
In most municipalities in Serbia generated waste is mostly not sorted at the source, but collected in the same
waste bins. The main source of information on the amount of waste generated is Public Utility Company, which
deals with information of the total quantity of the waste collected and land filled by this company and some other
companies that are paying for disposal of their waste to the official landfill. Another limitation factor should be
considered when speaking about the quantities of waste collected by the existing system is the activity of the
waste pickers, which collect a considerable amount of the recyclables from the containers and they sell it on the
market. Also, an amount of waste is still disposed on open dumps, mostly along the roads or on some undeveloped
area. That is because of the lack of implementation of the national policy, integrated system of waste management
and adequate technologies. There is no brief study on optimization of dynamic and routing of the collection system
and is rather done by operators estimation. Small hanging waste bins and small bins are used for collection of
small parts of waste thrown by people when in the street. Usually small bins are placed along the sidewalk and
other areas for public use. While doing the street cleaning, workers are emptying those bins into the curbside
containers.
The house-to-house collection system is implemented in specific parts of the municipalities where the structure
consists mostly of individual houses. Plastic waste bins of 240 l are distributed to each household. Transportation
vehicles visit houses, once a week, at a specific day and time for waste collection.
Waste collection vehicle collects the waste positioned on defined territorial block on each tour, or collects the
waste from individual households on each tour.
It is necessary to mention that solid, non-household waste, construction-demolition waste, discards generated by
industries, workshops is handled through agreements with some private collection services, or by using the special
service provided by Public Utility Company.
29
MOPRORK, 2012
30
Goran Vujic 2012
33 | P a g e
Another generated waste stream is not controlled. It is the waste that ends on open dumps that are formed on
inappropriate area, along the roads, rails, river flows etc. The open dumps of mixed and demolition waste are
formed by some citizens who throw their waste irregularly.
Due to the different way of collection, mechanization used, transportation and the characteristics of the waste
collected from open dumps, bulky waste, green waste and other types of waste (mostly demolition waste).
Waste volume in the Republic of Serbia is hard to estimate. The main reason is lack of information on waste
qualitative and quantitative analysis, i.e. data base of quantities, characteristics, especially content, and
classification of waste.
Table 10 presents municipal collection programs summary in Serbian cities which include recycling.
TABLE 10: MUNICIPAL COLLECTION PROGRAMS31
Municipality
aak
Kragujevac
Indjija
31
Materials
Plastic (all types)

Paper (all,
including Tetra
Pak)
Metal
Tires
Glass
Compost
Plastic (PET, PP)

Paper
Plastic (mainly
PET, LDPE)
Paper
Electronic Waste
Tires (planned)
Glass (none)
Anonymous, 2010
34 | P a g e
Collection
Sorting/Separation
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 fiveyear, rent-free
agreements for
private partners.
Local private
partners: Pima (nonmetal), Scholz
(metal).
Pima-managed
sorting line.
JKP Javna Zelenila
.manages pilot
compost operation.
Secondary
separation facility
planned at Duboko
landfill.
PP caps separated
from PET bottles;
PET sorted by color
and baled.
Temporary workers
through a Republicfinanced social
employment
program (subsidy).
PET pressed and
baled together with
PP caps.
Sorting facility
located 10 km from
city.
Umka provided
press for cardboard.
2009: >100 tons plastic.

Began with USAID assistance.
200 wire containers; 200 large
canvas bags.
Stable management (no political
influence).
Suburbs served (no villages).
Public awareness campaigns.
2009: 100 tons PET.

Paper: 200-240 tons/year.
Bag collection for households.
Business obligated to buy two
140L containers.
Public containers.
Bag collection in 11 villages.
Bag system nearly prohibitively
expensive.
Markets/Buyers
Various buyers for

different materials;
private operators
manage all sales
and transactions.
Symbolic fee paid
to JKP based on
quantities of
materials.
PET: Saniplast, 12
RSD/kg clear; 8
colored.
PP: Various small
plastic producers,
12 RSD/kg
Paper: Umka.
PET: Probably
Greentech, but not
positive.
Krusevac
Nis
Kraljevo
Plastic (mixed)
Paper/Cardboard
Glass
PET
Metal
Plastic (mixed)
Raska
PET
Paper (started
and later stopped)
Zitoradja
PET
LDPE
Cardboard
Blace
Plastic (mixed)
Cardboard
Ivanjica
Priboj
No current
activities.
No current
activities.
2008: 50 tons total

Plastic: 750 kg/month.
Started in 2006; USAID supported
expansion.
JKP management changes with
political party.
Wire containers with few (early)
closed containers.
Expanded to several villages.
PET: 8 tons/month
Preparing for PPP.
250 PET containers, plan to add
50.
Plan to add 50 metal containers.
Municipality buys scrap metal
from local industry.
Planning recycling yard and
islands.
3 tons PET since 2008.
Began in cooperation with
Ministry of Economy & Regional
Development, Ministry of
Tourism.
50 containers.
Concede paper collection to
Roma and private collectors.
PET: 1.0-1.5 tons/month.
Paper: 15 tons before stopping.
Wire containers with canvas
liners added later.
Began with USAID donation of 60
wire containers & press.
Good example of collection
efficiency and source separation.
3-4 nearby villages served.
PET: 1 tons/month.
Cardboard: 3 tons/month.
Began with USAID assistance.
120 wire containers (50 from
USAID).
separation.
Plastic: 750 kg/month.
Began with USAID assistance
70 wire containers (50 from
USAID).
Media campaign.
Good participation and source
separation.
Villages served.
Received USAID donation,
started, then later stopped
activity.
Closed containers.
Private communal collector, wire
containers.
Received USAID donation,
started, then later stopped
activity.
5m3 compartmentalized
PET pressed and

baled together with
PP caps.
Five workers
collection and
processing.
Recycling Center
likely planned for
future.
PET: Saniplast,
150/ton, 2008.
Paper: Umka, 4.8
RSD/kg, 2008;
currently YuKarton
in Nis.
PP caps separated
from PET bottles;
PET sorted by color
and baled.
PET, sorted by color,
pressed and baled.
PET & PP:

Greentech.
PP caps separated
from PET bottles;
PET sorted by color
and baled.
55 temporary
workers under Eko
Brigad social
employment
program.
PET: 85/ton
PP caps: 150/ton
Pressing, baling &

accumulating PET.
Until time of
interview had only
stockpiled material.
PET pressed and

baled together with
PP caps.
PET: Greentech, 16
RSD/kg, 2008.
Paper: Umka, 3
RSD/kg, 2008.
PET pressed and

baled together with
PP caps.
Plastic: Greentech.
N/A
N/A
N/A
All collected
materials sold to
Novak, 1000 total.
35 | P a g e
Nova Varos
No current
activities.
Tutin
No current
activities.
36 | P a g e
containers.
Collected 20 tons before
stopping.
Private communal collector, wire
containers.
Received USAID donation; not
utilized at time of interview.
20 5m3 compartmentalized
containers.
Received USAID donation of 50
containers and press; not utilized
at time of interview.
Privatized (contracted) JKP.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5. Production & management of Recycling Streams
5. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF RECYCLING

STREAMS
5.1 MANAGEMENT OF RECYCLING STREAMS IN GREECE
In Greece, the Extended Producer Responsibility EPR concept, although not named as such, was incorporated to
the national legislative framework via the Law 2939/2001 (amended by Law 3854/2010 and 4042/2012). The Law
2939/2001 had a farsighted perspective, which facilitated the further adoption of the different EPR EU Directives
through Presidential Decrees (PD) after the Law 3854/2010, through Ministerial Decisions (MD). In fact, other
waste streams (e.g. used tires, used oils and Construction and Demolition waste - C&D) which are not specifically
under the EPR policy in the EU legislation were put under the EPR umbrella.
The main idea behind EPR is that producer that design products and place them on consumption should have a
part of responsibility for the end of life treatment of his product. Thus producers ought to fulfil their responsibility
in any way the can, either in an individual or a collective way. If they choose the first option, they bear
responsibility only for the products that they put on market. However, bearing the responsibility may be proved
extreme costly. Instead, the producers can join together and form collective compliance schemes (or collective
take back systems), in order to be in line with EPR requirements. The role of the aforementioned schemes, which
are known as Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), are pivotal in the EPR implementation for two reasons.
Firstly, PROs take care of the overall practical implementation of the take-back obligation. Specifically their
activities include: organization of collection from predetermined points, processing and transportation to recycling
facilities, informing about their results the appropriate national authority. Secondly, they provide an important
interface for organizing nancial transactions, collections, and 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].
37 | P a g e
Among others, EPR Directives, Laws PD and MD gave producers of waste the responsibility to form PROs operate
and finance them. Moreover, as in all m-s of EU, they set several compulsory quantitative targets for the separate
collection of waste streams or products at the end of their lives. Currently, all aspects of EPR policy and PROs
licensing and operation are regulated by the Hellenic Recycling Agency (HRA), former National Organisation for the
Alternative Management of Packaging and Other Waste (NOAMPOW) (Law 4042/2012). At this time, eighteen
PROs operate in Greece (see Table 1), four of which for packaging waste, one for motor oil residues, one for EoLV
(End of Life Vehicles), four for batteries and accumulators, two for WEEE, one for used tires and five for C&D
waste.
TABLE 11: OPERATING PRO SYSTEMS IN GREECE DURING 2012
Waste stream and legal approval
Type
Range
Name of PRO
Package and packaging waste, L.

2939/2001
HERRCO
REWARDING RECYCLING **
VSLPLS
KEPED (oil packaging only)
Motor oils residues, PD 82/2004
ELTEPE
EoLV, PD 116/2004
EDOE
Portable batteries and accumulators, PD

115/2004, amended by MD
41624/2057/103/2010
AFIS
SYDESIS
SEDIS-K***
Re-Battery
10
APPLIANCES RECYCLING S.A.
11
12
Used tires, PD 109/2004
FOTOKIKLOSI S.A (lighting

equipment and light bulbs
only)
ECOELASTIKA
C&D waste, MD 36259/1757/103/2010
C
C
R
R
ANABE S.A
SANKE
14
15
CHALKIDIKI*
16
SEDPEKAT
17
ANAEKK
18
WEEE, PD 117/2004 and PD 15/2006
13
*Approval is expected by HRA, **Temporary withdrawal licence, *** from 2011 not operating, C=Collective, I=Individual,
R=Regional, N= Nationwide
The main characteristics and key results achieved by nine of sixteen PROs per ERP waste stream in Greece are
32
presented next. Data were extracted from the annual reports of the PROs submitted to the HRA .
The HRA is a private entity with public character supervised by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate
Change, with administrative and financial independence and is organised as follows:
32
Statistical data, HRA website www.eoan.gr
38 | P a g e
FIGURE 22: ORGANOGRAM OF HRA
The HRA is financed partly by the contributions of the PROs and partly by other programmes (Operational
Programme for Environment and Sustainable Development). Its main task is to approve, supervise and control the
operation of the PROs and coordinate the strategy for recycling activities in the country.
5.5.1 PACKAGE AND PACKAGING WASTE

H ELLENIC R ECOVERY AND R ECYCLING C OMPANY (HERRCO)
During the last decade the necessary infrastructure has been developed for the
collection and processing of recyclable packaging waste. This infrastructure is
best known as the blue bin system and has been established by HERRCO,
currently there are 108.000 blue bins all over the country. The term blue bin
comes from the blue colour of the bins (photograph below) in which all
packaging material can be disposed of without further separation. This packaging
material includes aluminium, tinplate, plastic, glass, paper and composites like
Tetra Pak, while the system also accepts printed paper. The system (HERRCO)
has been developed in cooperation with the Municipalities (the Central
Organisation of the Municipalities is participating with 35% in the SA) and FIGURE 23: HERRCO RECYCLE BIN
cooperates in different ways with municipalities: a) HERRCO provides the
municipalities with equipment (bins and vehicles) b) the municipalities are responsible for the collection of the
packaging material c) the municipalities have in some cases a profit when operating the recycling centres.
The collected material is sorted in material recovery facilities, which are either owned by HERRCO or by private or
municipal entities. To date, 28 material recovery facilities are in operation all over the country processing the
collected recyclable materials and some more are designed (photograph below from the recycling facility in Patra.
The main characteristics of the projects carried out by HERRCO include:
39 | P a g e
Coverage of > 79% of the population in Greece

Especially in islands, separate projects have been
developed in 22 islands, corresponding to 350.000
inhabitants and visitors
During 2011 15.000 blue bins have been handed out to
the participating municipalities as well as 11 collection
vehicles
Every day 273 collections have been carried out by the
participating municipalities
At the end of the year 27 Recycling Facilities are
operating all over the country (most of them listed in
the following map). Especially the municipalities of
Athens and Thessaloniki show overbooked capacity
FIGURE 24: MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY
There was a significant increase in the glass recycling
rate compared to 2010 (+54%), due to the expansion of
the system to specific collection sites (restaurants, touristic places etc)
Increase in number of bins and corresponding tonnage collected packaging waste from 2005 - 2009.
FIGURE 25: NUMBER OF BINS AND CORRESPONDING TONNAGE COLLECTED PACKAGING WASTE FROM 2005 - 2009
FIGURE 26: LOCATION OF THE 24 RECYCLING FACILITIES IN GREECE AS OF 2009
40 | P a g e
At the end of 2011, 28 Recycling plants are operating.
P ARTICIPATION OF P RODUCERS
From the site of the producers the participation of the responsible producers accounts is as follows:
The total number of the participating firms has increase by 3% and accounts 1.703 companies
The average annual contribution (fee) for each new contract has been reduced by 18% compared to 2010
and accounts now for 900.
The total participating packaging volume has been reduced by 7% and is estimated to be 445.000 tons.
The main reason for this is the economic crisis leading to a significant reduction of the production of
packaging waste (decrease in sales)
For the same reasons the input from fees in 2011 is expected to be 22,6 Mio., reduced by 7% compared
to 2010.
In the following graph the percentage of the different producer categories are listed, indicating that the
main producers originate from the food and beverage sector (62% in total)
FIGURE 27: PERCENTAGE OF THE DIFFERENT PRODUCER CATEGORIES
C OOPERATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES

By the end of 2011 there have been 241 municipalities cooperating with the System either direct with contracts or
indirect through municipal taxes, accounting for ca. 8 Mio. Inhabitants
In the following table the recovered and recycled tons of packaging waste in each one of the Recycling facilities is
shown.
TABLE 12: RESULTS OF THE BLUE BIN PROJECTS IN GREECE
Quantities of packaging waste recovered/recycled in the Recycling facilities (in tons)

Project / location
2010
2011
2010/2011 (%)
Athens area (Attica Prefecture) total

Thessaloniki (total)
82.109
16.188
67.176
15.809
-18%
-2%
oannina
Patras
Thessaly
Kalamata
4.214
7.460
5.370
4.180
4.207
5.298
5.067
4.036
0%
-29%
-6%
-3%
41 | P a g e
Lamia
Kerkyra (Corfu)
Eastern Crete
Alexandroupolis
3.828
2.899
8.353
828
2.805
4.097
7.545
1.909
-27%
41%
-10%
-
Chania (Crete)
Pieria
Schimatari
Magnisia
Serres
Larisa
Tripolis
Korinthos
8.397
1.873
5.649
5.212
3.485
2.073
2.529
1.761
6.772
1.939
6.443
4.570
3.359
2.031
2.893
-
-19%
4%
14%
-12%
-4%
-2%
14%
Rest of Greece
Total in Recycling facilities
10.239
176.285
10.808
162.135
6%
-8%
Final results for the year 2011 (Annual Report of HERRCO)

In addition to the packaging waste collected and recycled in the Recycling facilities, there has also been 80.000
tons of printed paper (newspapers, magazines, books, brochures etc) recycled separately, although the
corresponding producers do not participate in the costs for the treatment of this product, due to the lack of the
legal framework.
HERRCO develops, beyond the blue bin collection system, in different occasions flexible projects aiming at the
maximization of the recovery and recycling of packaging waste from municipal waste like the separate collection of
glass from professional sites (restaurants, hotels etc), the collection of multiple packaging streams on islands (4
different materials), the collection with bags door-to-door etc.
Summing up, the quantities of packaging waste that have been recycled from HERRCO for 2011 account for:
194.000 tons of packaging waste

274.000 tons of recyclables (including printed paper)
Apart from the figures reported above, the collection of a special category of packaging waste, the
industrial and commercial packaging waste that includes also the Plastic Packaging Waste, which is based
on the certified quantities delivered separately by private companies-collectors, have shown the following
results: 189.000 tons of packaging waste.
It should be noted at this point, that there is an economic incentive (paid by the Systems) that is given to all
collectors in order to collect and deliver packaging waste to recycling facilities for collecting this type of waste. That
instrument allows the monitoring of each stream separately.
TABLE 13: DEVELOPMENT IN THE YEARS 2008200920102011
Indicator
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
42 | 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 20022011. Next Figures, Figure 29 and Figure 30, give information about the quantities of each packaging material and
printed paper collected for the periods 2009-2011 and 2006-2011 respectively.
43 | P a g e
NUMBER OF REGIST ERED PRODUCERS PER YEAR
2000
1420
1293
1500
1552
1651
1703
2010
2011
1078
826
1000
460
500
247
107
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
FIGURE 29: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE, 2002-2011
COLLECTED QUANTITIES
433
*1000 tn
500
400
300
414
263
300
383
219
200
100
51 40 22 20
61 38
28 24
61 32 43
28
2009
2010
2011
paper/cardboard
plastic
metals
glass
w ood
total packaging
FIGURE 30: PACKAGING WASTE COLLECTED IN GREECE, 2009-2011, PER MATERIAL AND TOTALLY.
Regarding the destination of material recovered, there is export of a large part of the materials, while some are
recycled in the country.
The glass quantities are treated by YIOULA Glassworks Company in its factories in Greece and Bulgaria.
44 | P a g e
COLLECTED QUANTITIES
500
433
400
*1000 tn
400
300
414
383
344
267
200
100
20
35
2006
2007
57
79
95
80
2008
2009
2010
2011
packaging w aste collected
printed paper collected
FIGURE 31: TOTAL PACKAGING WASTE AND PRINTED PAPER COLLECTED, 2006-2011.
A NTAPODOTIKI A NAKIKLOSI
Another collection system based on Refund Recycling
Centers is the Rewarding Recycling (Antapodotiki
Anakiklosi - AA).
This Collection system is based on the establishment of
refund recycling centres and operates from 2009, on a
supplementary basis to the HERRCO System. Those
centres (approx. 80 all over Greece) accept and sort the
materials and provide a small financial compensation
(www.antapodotiki.gr). It is noted though that the
operating license of that system is temporarily
suspended.
AB V ASSILOPOULOS
FIGURE 32: COLLECTION CENTRE ANTAPODOTIKI ANAKYKLOSI
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
FIGURE 33: COLLECTION CENTRE AB VASSILOPOULOS
collection of recyclable material. Another pilot program
that was funded by European Commission took place in
the municipality of Elefsina, Attica that examined and implemented in a pilot scale a PAYT system.
45 | P a g e
KEPED (O IL P ACKAGING W ASTE O NLY )

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

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

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

FIGURE 36: RECYCLING OF PAPER IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
b) Plastic
Recycling (%) of plastic in Greece in the period from

2006-2010 (in tons)
10%
Waste (produced)
Recycling
13,7%
26,7%
30,1%
11,9%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
300.000
295.000
240.000
237.000
221.500
30.000
40.500
28.605
63.200
66.730

FIGURE 37: RECYCLING OF PLASTIC IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
c) Glass
47 | P a g e
Recycling (%) of glas in Greece in the period 20062010 (in tons)
25,3%
18%
15%
15,2%
21,4%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Waste (produced)
150.000
150.000
160.000
155.000
135.100
Recycling
38.000
27.000
24.000
23.500
28.923
FIGURE 38: RECYCLING OF GLASS IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
d) Wood
Recycling (%) of wood in Greece in the period of

2006-2010 (in tons)
75%
58%
50,1%
30,8%
37,3%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Waste (produced)
60.000
60.000
65.000
54.200
50.500
Recycling
35.000
45.000
20.002
20.200
25.287
Reference: Annual Reports to the E.C.

FIGURE 39: RECYCLING OF WOOD IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
e) Aluminium
48 | P a g e
Recycling (%) of aluminium in Greece in the period

2006-2010 (in tons)
33%
34%
34%
37,6%
37,2%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Waste (produced)
26.000
25.000
25.000
22.600
21.500
Recycling
8.500
8.500
8.500
8.500
8.000

FIGURE 40: RECYCLING OF ALUMINIUM IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
f) Steel
Recycling (%) of steel in Greece in the period 20062010 (in tons)
50%
54,2%
45,8%
50,4%
42,8%
Waste (produced)
Recycling
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
120.000
120.000
120.000
109.200
105.900
60.000
65.000
55.000
55.000
45.360

FIGURE 41: RECYCLING OF STEEL IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD OF 2006-2010 (IN TONS)
g) Packaging waste
49 | P a g e
Recycling (%) of packaging waste in Greece in the period

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

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

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

EDOE
The PRO for EoLV was approved in 2004. Till today 36 companies are registered as waste producers
that consist about 85% of the total vehicle importers. Furthermore, the PRO is cooperated with 20
collection companies, 82 processing centers and 7 shredder facilities.
So far the Prefectures (Nomoi) covered by the System account for 46 (out of 52), corresponding to
>95% of the population, showing a geographic coverage of > 90% in 91 different collection sites.
FIGURE 46: TREATMENT SITE OF EOLV
52 | P a g e
FIGURE 47: TYPICAL COLLECTION SITE OF EOLV
FIGURE 48: COLLECTION OF WASTEWATER SEPARATELY
As it is shown, in Figure 46, most of the vehicles collected originate from individual owners. The system peaked in
2009 due to a government supported initiative for the replacement of older vehicles.
NUMBER OF ITEMS
160000
146540
140000
120000
100000
80000
29240
40000
20000
68665
62696
49798
60000
1181
6584
0
2004
2005
2006
Individuals
2007
Municipalities
2008
2009
2010
Total
FIGURE 49: EOLV COLLECTED FOR 2004-2010.
53 | P a g e
Percentage of reuse, recovery and recycling of End of life vehicles in

Greece in the period 2006-2010 (in tons)
86,5%87,4%
86,5%
84,5%
85,7% 85,7%
84,1%84,1%
82,3%82,3%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
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
Reference: Annual reports to the E.C.
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

Schools
Supermarkets
Telecommunication stores
Commercial stores
Companies
TOTAL
8400
12500
3200
2500
10400
11000
48000
54 | P a g e
FIGURE 51: AFIS COLLECTION POINT

200
180
172
166
160
149
152
180
156
140
120
91
100
80
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
FIGURE 52: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

2000
1850
1800
1600
1400
tn
1200
1000
800
629
600
442
400
200
712
657
497
218
81
0
2005
2006
2007
batteries collected
2008
2009
2010
2011
batteries put on the market
FIGURE 53: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF BATTERIES, 2005-2011
55 | P a g e
Percentage of Recycling of portable batteries in

Greece in the period 2006-2011 (in tons)
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
23,1%
500
Put in the market

Recycling
25,5%
31,9%
32,3%
35,6%
9,9%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2.197
2.051
1.951
1.970
2.205
1.850
218
474
497
629
712
658
Reference: Annual reports of the Collective PRO "AFIS"
FIGURE 54: PERCENTAGE OF RECYCLING OF PORTABLE BATTERIES IN GREECE IN THE PERIOD 2006-2011 (IN TONS)
SYDESIS
The present PRO has 6445 collection points and is cooperating with 43 companies for the collection and
transportation of collected batteries. Furthermore, it has developed collaboration with 18 companies for
temporary storage of the waste, 6 treatment facilities and 2 companies for cross border transfer. In this PRO there
are 95% of the producers participating (some of them are also shareholders of the PRO).
Main figures of the operation of the System SYDESYS:
254 companies / producers are registered

There are 25 collection companies cooperating with the System
6.500 collection sites all over Greece
887 collection points on the islands
The treatment facilities for Pb-oxide batteries are all-over Greece and are recycling/recovering the batteries
producing recyclables (Pb, plastics, etc) at an overall percentage of 60-75% for all materials and 95% for Pb. The
process includes 3 main stages: a) the dismantling and storage of the batteries, b) the recycling/recovery process
of the metal and c) the final production.
56 | P a g e
FIGURE 56: PB-OXIDE BATTERIES
FIGURE 55: SITE DYDESIS
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.
300
250
252
2007
2008
231
232
241
2009
2010
2011
208
173
200
150
255
110
100
50
0
2004
2005
2006
FIGURE 57: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF BATTERIES, 2004-2011.
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

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

APPLIANCES RECYCLING S.A
In order to fulfil the requirements of the aforementioned WEEE Directive, the first PRO for WEEE has been
established and operated in 2004, by the major players of EEE equipment trade in Greece, called Appliance
Recycling S.A. At this time the system is affording 9.023 collection points and is 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).
58 | P a g e
TABLE 16: COLLECTION POINTS IN ALL GREECE
FIGURE 61: APPLIANCE RECYCLINGS COLLECTION POINTS
By the end of 2006, there were 392 collection points in all Greece.
FIGURE 62: NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS IN THE YEARS FROM 2004-2009
In the above figure the number of the registered producers in the years from 2004 - 2009 are listed. In 2011, 1134
producers are registered as shown in the figures below.
Figures 15 and 16 present data on the number of registered producers of WEEE for the period 2004-2011 and on
the quantities they put on the market and collected by themselves between 2005 and 2011 correspondently.
59 | P a g e

1134
1200
1021
936
1000
860
748
800
619
600
355
400
200
15
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
FIGURE 63: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF WEEE, 2004-2011
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

250000
212194
200000
177189
172887
143273
141083
119355
tn
150000
206392
100000
66012
47142
50000
46527
31406
763
42309
11341
0
2005
2006
2007
WEEE collected
2008
2009
2010
WEEE put on the market
FIGURE 64: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF WEEE, 2005-2011
60 | P a g e
2011
70000
60000
50000
40000
Treated WEEE (tonnes)
30000
Collected WEEE from

households (tonnes)
20000
10000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
FIGURE 65: QUANTITIES OF WEEE TREATED, AND COLLECTED FROM HOUSEHOLDES, 2005-2010
TABLE 17: QUANTITIES OF WEEE TREATED, AND COLLECTED FROM HOUSEHOLDES, 2005-2010
Treated WEEE (tonnes)

Collected WEEE from households (tonnes)
2005
239
100
2006
9,356
9,599
2007
24,236
28,733
2008
39,044
44,305
2009
55,883
62,847
2010
45,598
44,552
Regarding Recycling of light bulbs Recycling Appliences S.A has increased collected quantities in 2012, although
there was a significant drop in the sales of new ones. In 2012, 763,000 bulbs were recycled, instead of 626,000 in
2011, which meant an increase of 22%. This increase was caused due to the expansion of the collection network of
33
629 means of collection in all Greece reaching 2,788 collection points .
FOTOKIKLOSI S.A ( LIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND LIGHT BULBS ONLY )

In 2009 was approved the collective alternative management system for lighting fittings and bulbs named
Fotokiklosi S.A.. At the present time it has 5500 collecting points in the 13 regions of the country. Waste lighting
fittings transferred to Belgium and waste bulbs delivered to affiliated domestic recycling.
33
http://www.electrocycle.gr/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235:ianouarios2013-proodo-simeionei-i-anakiklosi-
lamptiron&catid=1:latest&Itemid=124
61 | P a g e
FIGURE 66: BIN FOR THE COLLECTION OF LIGHTING FITTINGS

FIGURE 67: BIN FOR THE COLLECTION OF BULBS
Figures 17 and 18 present data on the number of registered producers of WEEE for the period 2009-2011 and on
the quantities they put on the market and collected by themselves between 2006 and 2011 correspondently.
140
130
120
100
100
85
80
60
40
20
0
2009
2010
2011
FIGURE 68: THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED PRODUCERS OF WEEE, 2009-2011
QUANTITIES PER YEAR

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

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

60000
54638
54196
48244
50000
5223052620
4636748442
46697
41380
41520
tn
40000
30000
33182
27047
20000
10000
0
2004-2005
2006
2007
2008
used tires collected
2009
2010
2011
tires put on the market
FIGURE 70: PUT ON THE MARKET AND COLLECTED QUANTITIES OF USED TIRES, 2004-2011.
TABLE 19: DESTINATIONS OF TIRES COLLECTED IN GREECE 2006-2011
Destination
Energy
recovery
Recycling
Exports
Stock
Total
2006
3,742
2007
2008
8,067
2009
8,335
2010
6,660
2011
3,045
30,277
323
7,038
41,380
43,288
262
3,147
46,697
43,958
282
-77
52,230
29,976
6,861
1,195
46,367
26,711
8,703,
4
42,078
23,423
8,118
-1,402
33,184
63 | P a g e
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
-10.000
Stock
Exports
Recycling
Energy recovery
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.
34
Generated waste quantities of construction waste; according to the Hellenic Statistical Authority , in the year
2010 was 2,086,080.0 tonnes
C ONCLUSIONS
Greece as a Member State of EU has adopted the key pillars of EPR and implemented them in the corresponding
waste streams. Currently, under the EPR context management system, PROs are operating for WEEE, packaging
waste, portable batteries and accumulators, used tires, oils residues, EoLV and C&D waste. In general, PROs
material recycling output had a rising trend until 2009, when the effect of the financial recession in Greece became
apparent. At that time, or a little later in a part of the market, the rising trend is stopped or reversed, when the
results of the financial recession became evident in this market sector. For the streams of WEEE and packaging
waste in particular, this is the result of both the financial crisis that Greece is facing but also it is attributed to the
activity of scavengers, which has been increased, also as a result of the general economic and social decline in
Greece. Furthermore, a significant challenge for all PROs is imposed by the free rider problem, which is intensified
due to the financial crisis. However, it should be noticed that the results and achievements of the nine largest PROs
in Greece for the year 2011, in the light of the national targets requirements, indicate that a lot of progress has
been made in the recycling field, for several materials. The latest recycling results of the PROs in the country
demonstrate that targets have been achieved for most material streams regulated under EPR policies.
34
http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-themes?p_param=A1501&r_param=SOP06&y_param=2010_00&mytabs=0
64 | P a g e
5.2 MANAGEMENT OF RECYCLING STREAMS IN SERBIA

Municipal Solid Waste: The diagram below presents a summary of municipal solid waste streams, breaking the
overall waste stream into three major classifications: communal waste, industrial & commercial waste, and
construction waste.
Communal Waste: Communal waste constitutes an estimated 63% of all waste; it is generally uneconomical to
collect and recycle. At present most communal waste collection is managed by municipalities and JKPs, and a
number of municipalities already manage recycling programs. There is a recent trend in Serbian municipalities and
regions to contract landfill and waste collection services to independent international operators in 25-year publicprivate partnership (PPP) agreements.
Industrial & Commercial Waste: Industrial and commercial waste (i.e. factories, supermarkets, public facilities
such as hospitals, and warehouses) is the most desired and demanded waste on the market. It can probably be
said that without industrial or commercial waste, a private-sector operator cannot survive; all of the private
collectors and recyclers interviewed in this assessment rely to some extent (in some cases exclusively) on industrial
or commercial waste.
Packaging Waste: There are an estimated 334,000 tons of packaging waste generated in Serbia per year. Packaging
waste is covered under the Law on Packaging & Packaging Waste and has recovery targets established for coming
years, beginning with 5% recovered and 4% recycled in 2010, increasing to 30% recovery and 25% recycling in
2012. PROEurope (Packaging Recovery Organization Europe) is the umbrella organization for European packaging
and packaging waste recovery and recycling schemes; National PRO-Europe organizations like Seko-Pak essentially
relieve industrial companies and commercial enterprises of their individual obligation to take back used packaging
through the operation of a scheme that fulfils these obligations on a national basis on behalf of their member
companies. The aim is to ensure the recovery and recycling of packaging waste in the most economically efficient
manner. The Green Dot trademark is a financing symbol that indicates companies have signed a license agreement
with a packaging recovery organization.
Construction Waste: Recycling of construction waste falls into two categories: i) construction material salvaging;
and ii) concrete (and other materials) recycling. Salvaging (undamaged and reusable materials) is typically handled
by the owner; if left to the construction contractor, materials are typically disposed of in the landfill. The recycling
of concrete waste, including reinforcement metal, bricks and stones, is typically not an economical process except
on very large demolitions. In this case, the materials are pulverized, often together; the metal is removed; and the
chunks are sorted by size and used as aggregate base gravel. Typically, the chunks cannot be added to new
concrete mixes.
The state of waste management and recycling in Serbia is far below EU targets. Only about 60 % of municipal solid
waste is collected in Serbia, and less than 10 % recycled. However the recycling sector, yet young in Serbia, displays
a fairly vibrant level of activity, especially in the private sector. Collectors and small-scale recyclers operate in many
municipalities; recycled consumer goods are being successfully marketed; and actors are networked and
cooperative. Public recycling programs are being managed in some municipalities, all of which show potential for
improvement in volume, outreach and efficiency. While collection of most recyclables remains low, there appears
to be additional demand for recyclables, showing that there exists potential for growth and outreach.
Packaging waste is any package or packaging material which cannot be used for the primary purpose, except for
the residues generated during the production process. According to the Waste Catalogue, packaging waste is
defined under the index number 15 00 00. Packaging is the product made of materials with different features, used
for placing, keeping, maintaining, delivery, goods presentation and protection of its contents, and it includes the
65 | P a g e
objects used as additional means for packing, wrapping, tying, impermeable sealing, preparation for consignment
and marking of the goods.
TABLE 20: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF PACKAGING WASTE35
Waste type
Quantity, t p.a.
Glass packaging
90,000
Plastic packaging
Paper/cardboard
Composite packaging
Aluminium packaging
Iron packaging
TOTAL
88,000
115,000
17,300
5,200
19,000
334,500
th
The total quantity of the packaging waste in the 2012 year, according to data 49.987.6 tons, submitted by the
operator, submitted for re-use, which is given in Table.
TABLE 21: THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RECOVERED PACKAGING WASTE AGAIN BY THE OPERATORS36
Operator
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

PE
Plastic
Glass
Metal
Paper/ cardboard
Wood
Other plastics
Total
Total
Iron
Aluminum
Total
Paper and cardboard
Total
Pallets
35
National waste management strategy, 2010
36
Anonymous, 2012b
37
Anonymous, 2012b
66 | P a g e
Recovered packaging waste

SEKOPAK
EKOSTAR-PAK
Amount (t) Amount (t)
3 441,9
1 234,7
501,9
2 600,7
3 812,1
6 042,6
5 548,7
4 234,6
2 629,3
215,3
452,9
54,4
180,9
269,7
633,8
11 212,7
13 505,3
11 212,7
14 245,9
734,5
499,6
DELTA-PAK
Amount (t)
/
UKUPNO
Amount (t)
4 676,6
205,8
205,8
1,7
6,0
/
6,0
3 499,9
3 499,9
/
7 120,5
11 797,1
6 865,6
674,2
235,3
909,5
/
28 958,5
1 234,1
Other
Total
1 234,1
Packaging waste collecting is performed within the activity of certain number of mainly privately owned business
operators.Some public utility companies (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Sombor, Kruevac, Smederevo etc.) are registered for
the activity of recycling, among other things, packaging waste, mainly plastic, paper and metal.
Plastic: The term plastic is broad and it should be noted that the marketability and values of different types of
recycled plastic vary widely. Some plastics have higher values and are reprocessed locally into new consumer
products by a number of Serbian recyclers; PET on the other hand is typically collected, pressed, baled and
consolidated where it ultimately ends up at one of two large plastic processors in Serbia where it is subsequently
exported. The price for plastics mirrors that for petroleum. The international financial crisis and the drop in
petroleum prices adversely affected many recyclers as the price for virgin material dropped to levels near those for
recycled plastic. LDPE plastic folio and hard plastics of the type used in beer cases and fruit trays, plus other plastics
like polypropylene are recycled in Serbia by a number of small-scale producers of consumer plastic goods. No
appreciable quantities of PET, if any, are recycled in Serbia; rather they are consolidated, baled or shredded, then
ultimately sold to a large collector in Romania for sale to international markets, mainly China. Addressing PET
waste is important due to its sheer volume and generally negative environmental impact. Though PET can be
recycled, it is more difficult and generally feasible only on a large scale; its value is low, local markets are
essentially nonexistent, and its use is widespread and growing. As a result, it is one of the most visible, and
38
unfortunately enduring, forms of litter .
Paper: Paper includes all types of paper and cardboard; cardboard in particular has value and is recycled in varying
levels of efficiency in most cities. Roma collect much of the communal paper waste, and other private and
individual collectors collect industrial cardboard waste. The waste paper is consolidated by regional buyers in
towns and cities, where it is ultimately resold to Umka. In general, communal waste paper (mainly cardboard) has
value as a recyclable and is collected in varying levels of efficiency in most cities in Serbia. In many cases, Roma
collect cardboard waste from nearby shops and other trash containers, consolidate it through small local buyers
(also often Roma) who in turn sell it to larger private sector city or regional buyers, where it is ultimately resold to
Umka, the Belgrade-based paper company.
Glass: There are limited opportunities for glass collection and recycling in Serbia; the sole glass factory in Paracin
reportedly does not recycle. One Krusevac recycler buys unbroken glass containers and then sells them through a
network of users and other traders.
Used batteries and accumulators: Around 27,000 t of waste lead accumulators is generated in the Republic of
Serbia per year, and the entire quantity is recycled. There is no precise data on the quantities of generated waste
batteries. Used batteries usually end up in municipal waste landfills. There is no organised system for used
batteries management. In some locations the soil is contaminated with acid and waste plastic, which is the result
of illegal decomposition of waste lead accumulators. There is a facility which performs organized collecting and
handing over of hazardous lead accumulators and provides services to third parties. After handing over, it is
recycled completely. Total installed capacities are 25,000 t per year. There is one more facility, which is now in the
39
process of verification of the necessary documents, and its capacity will also be 25,000 t per year .
38
39
67 | P a g e
Waste tyres: In the Republic of Serbia, around 1.4 million pieces of new tyres are placed on the market annually, on
the basis of which it was estimated that about 18,000 waste tyres are generated annually. One part of the said
quantity comes from domestic production, and other part is imported. It is estimated that the existing quantities of
waste tyres in Serbia are around 50,000 t, taking into consideration only stocks bigger than 500 t. Increase is
expected for 2010 to approximately 26,000 t of waste tyres due to the adoption of new Traffic Safety Law. It is
estimated that the problem of the existing waste tyres quantities will be solved by 2014. Organised legal collection
and final disposal for energy recovery (co-incineration) is performed by cement plants, which have the permit for
use of maximum 15.000 t. There is also organized collecting and export of rubber dust which is generated in the
process of protection of spent tyres. In Serbia, there are installed capacities for recycling of waste tyres of different
dimensions, currently amounting to 18,000 t p.a. In compliance with the prescribed waste tyres management
hierarchy, a proportion of 70:30 % was prescribed for 2010, or 80:20 % from 2011 and on, which gives advantage
to recycling compared with use of waste tyres for energy recovery.
End-of-life vehicles: There are no exact data on the quantities of end-of-life vehicles which are generated during
one year. In the Republic of Serbia there are around 1 million vehicles whose average age is more than 10 years.
Collection and management of end-of-life vehicles depends mostly on supply and demand. Hazardous substances
and components are not extracted before the recycling process of end-of-life vehicles. Parts with use value are
extracted in smaller amount, depending on their age and condition. A certain number of operators which are
registered for metal waste recycling can meet the legal regulations for end-of-life vehicles recycling. These
40
operators have the capacity to recycle end-of-life vehicles in accordance with regulations .
Waste electric and electronic equipment: Waste electrical and electronic equipment is composed of waste
household devices (TV sets, radios, refrigerators, freezers, etc.), personal computers, telephones, cassette
recorders, etc. Most of this waste is hazardous waste because of the components it contains. There are no exact
data on the quantities of the electrical and electronic waste generated during one year it is estimated that the
quantity generated amounts to 30,000 t per year, while around 40,000 t of the old waste is located in the dumps,
various storages and wild dumpsites. 85,600 t of new electrical and electronic devices are annually imported and
placed on the market in Serbia. It is not allowed to import used personal computers, i.e. electrical and electronic
equipment, except for private use. Collection and management of WEEE is only present in the biggest urban areas.
Mainly, waste computer equipment is collected. There are three operators in Serbia that perform organised
collection and recycling. Recycling is performed by manual disassembling and separating different types of waste,
or mechanically, with manual selection. There are no operators that perform previous extraction of refrigerants
from the electrical and electronic waste household devices (refrigerators, freezers, air conditioning units). The
management system for electrical and electronic waste is missing. In the Republic of Serbia, only small percentage
41
of electronic waste is recycled per year .
Construction and demolition waste: It has been estimated that about 1 million tons of construction and demolition
waste are generated in the Republic of Serbia annually. In Serbia, construction waste ends up at landfills for
municipal waste and is also used as inert material to cover waste at the landfill. Recycling of construction waste
42
does not exist (asphalt is recycled in small quantities), although about 80% of construction waste can be re-used.
40
41
42 National waste management strategy, 2010
68 | P a g e
The following table shows the analysis and projections for specific waste streams in the Regions of Serbia.
TABLE 23: TOTAL GENERATED MSW / TOTAL GENERATED SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS43
740
489
132
1370
224
540
483
407
257
610
555
381
377
173
694
223
147
40
413
68
163
146
123
77
184
167
115
114
52
209
811
536
144
1501
246
592
530
446
282
669
608
418
413
189
760
14317
9454
2546
26496
4336
10442
9349
7868
4974
11806
10733
7377
7295
3339
13420
2139
1413
380
3959
648
1560
1397
1176
743
1764
1604
1102
1090
499
2005
1156
763
206
2139
350
843
755
635
402
953
867
596
589
270
1083
933
616
166
1726
283
680
609
513
324
769
699
481
475
218
874
1278
844
227
2364
387
932
834
702
444
1054
958
658
651
298
1198
2048
1353
364
3791
620
1494
1337
1126
712
1689
1536
1055
1044
478
1920
42798
28263
7611
79207
12962
31216
27946
23520
14868
35294
32086
22052
21807
9982
40117
Region Leskovac
55844
35524
2112
2067
2702
407
123
446
7867
1176
635
513
702
1125
23518
43
Construction waste
4918
3247
875
9101
1489
3587
3211
2703
1708
4055
3687
2534
2506
1147
4609
Total medical waste
3762
2484
669
6962
1139
2744
2456
2067
1307
3102
2820
1938
1917
877
3526
Tires
3843
2538
683
7112
1164
2803
2509
2112
1335
3169
2881
1980
1958
896
3602
Batteries and
accumulators
Composite packaging
64648
42692
11497
119645
19580
47153
42214
35528
22459
53313
48467
33311
32940
15079
60598
Waste oil
Paper and cardboard
101626
67112
18073
188081
30780
74124
66360
55850
35306
83807
76190
52364
51781
23704
95259
TOTAL PACKAGING
Plastic packaging
Region Subotica
Region Sombor
RegionNovi Beej
Region Novi Sad
Region Kikinda
Region Zrenjanin
RegionSr.Mitrovica
Region Panevo
Region Vrac
Region Inija
Region Kragujevac
Region Vranje
Region Kruevac
Region Pirot
Region Ni
Metal packaging
Total
generated
special waste
streams
(t/year)
Aluminum packaging
Region
Total
generat
ed
MSW
(t/year)
Glass packaging
Electrical and electronic

waste
Categories of special waste streams (t/year)
Anonymous. 2012d
69 | P a g e
Region Kraljevo
49392
31420
1868
1828
2390
360
108
394
6958
1040
562
453
621
995
20801
18932
12043
716
701
916
138
42
151
2667
399
215
174
238
382
7973
21561
13716
815
798
1043
157
47
172
3037
454
245
198
271
435
9080
78483
49926
2968
2905
3798
572
172
626
11056
1652
893
720
987
1582
33052
25117
15978
950
930
1215
183
55
200
3538
529
286
231
316
506
10578
68745
43731
2599
2545
3326
501
151
549
9685
1447
782
631
864
1385
28951
55844
35524
2112
2067
2702
407
123
446
7867
1176
635
513
702
1125
23518
56689
36062
2144
2098
2743
413
124
452
7986
1193
645
520
713
1142
23874
19121
12164
723
708
925
139
42
153
2694
403
217
176
240
385
8052
553204
351913
20918
20477
26769
4029
1214
4415
77933
11646
6292
5078
6954
11149
232972
Region Poarevac
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
Region Prokuplje
Region Lapovo
Region Uice
Region Loznica
Region Zajear
Region Jagodina
Region Smederevo
Region Nova Varo
Region
Beograd
70 | P a g e
Grad
FIGURE 72: PACKAGING & PACKAGING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW ON WASTE MANAGEMENT44
5.2.1 ACTORS IN THE NATIONAL-PRIVATE SECTOR

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

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

Sombor
Annually collected waste [t]
25.576
Urban areas [t]
24.423
Rural areas [t]
1.153
Apatin
Kula
Odzaci
Bac
Region
10.214
18.118
4.889
4.452
63.249
9.167
13.981
3.628
2.222
53.421
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].
S EKO -P AK (PRO-E UROPE )

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

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

Anonymous, 2010
76 | P a g e
understand, and perhaps expect too much, from the association in terms of donations and assistance; the
association should increase its profile and visibility; and members are unwilling to contribute [Anonymous, 2010].
KOMDEL, A SSOCIATION OF JKP S

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

W ASTE T IRES
Auto Mirko is the contracted supplier for Ecorec (Holcim) covering southern Serbia. Auto Mirko collects 5-12 tons
of used tires per week from vulkanizers and auto repair shops; from this collection he uses some tires to produce
retreads (his main business) and transports the remainder to Holcim. He typically organizes one shipment per
week, traveling to one city or region and picking up all of the tires available. In the past, tire companies paid
30/tire for disposal, but when the cement companies obtained permits to co-process tires the tire and auto shops
could then transfer the tires to the cement factories and not pay a collector. Mirko transports the tires to Holcim,
who covers his fuel cost. In exchange, he is also able to sort through the tires at Holcim and take some for retreads
[Anonymous, 2010].
C ONSTRUCTION W ASTE
ua, a large company specializing in demolition, site clearance and 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 companys involvement is limited to selling metal to collectors, and at times
reusing a very small percentage of roof tiles.
Concrete Recycling: Construction waste is the second largest waste stream behind municipal solid waste; according
to estimates concrete and by-product waste consumes 17% of worldwide landfill space. Most countries do not
have a concerted solution for its management and disposal, in part due to efforts on the part of construction
companies to prevent mandatory recycling. Concrete recycling is, however, gradually becoming more common due
77 | P a g e
to improved environmental awareness, governmental laws, and economic benefits. Concrete is recycled by
separating the softer materials and then passing it through a crushing machine, often along with asphalt, bricks,
and rocks. Rebar and metallic reinforcements are removed with magnets and recycled through traditional metal
recycling supply chains. The remaining aggregate chunks are sorted by size, with larger chunks sometimes being
reprocessed. The resulting pieces are reused as aggregate base gravel, with fresh concrete or asphalt placed over
it. Crushed recycled concrete can sometimes be used as the dry aggregate for new concrete if it is free of
contaminants, though this affects the strength and properties of the concrete and is therefore prohibited in many
jurisdictions.
In the case of the Lafarge factory, ua recycled or disposed of 30,000 m3 of waste in a process similar to that just
described. The resulting chunks of concrete were either used as aggregate on Susa construction sites or sold as a
gravel substitute. Steel was sold to metal recyclers.
ua recently purchased a 2 ha site where they wish to build a recycling yard. The company recognizes the need for
recycling on large-scale demolition projects, both for the economic benefit and for reducing unnecessary demands
on landfill and other disposal methods. Susa wants to position itself as a leader in demolition and construction
waste recycling. Stevanovic Invest is interested in two segments of construction waste recycling. The first is
traditional crushing and pulverizing of demolished concrete; the separated metal is sold to US Steel and the
concrete is crushed to 30 mm and used as a gravel substitute. The second is concerned with recycling excess
concrete and wash water from concrete mixing and equipment/vehicle washing; the system collects the water,
cement and aggregate in pools and reuses it in the production of new concrete. The necessary investments are
250,000 and 100,000, respectively. The motivation for the investments is to be positioned to more successfully
compete on large demolition projects [Anonymous, 2010].
E LECTRONICS RECYCLERS
Bozi i Sinovi in Pancevo (visited), Eko Metal in Vrdnik and CE Trade in Belgrade. There is only one licensed lead
battery recycler in Serbia: Farma Kom (Galenit Cluster, visited), the automotive battery manufacturer in Zajeca
near Sombor. Due to the specialized nature (in the case of electronics recycling) and the sole source (in the case of
battery recycling) the discussions below are based on information provided in the two interviews (condensed from
the profiles in Part 2 of this assessment). Related to electronics recycling it is likely that the three recyclers operate
considerably different from one another, so the explanation below applies only to Bozic i Sinovi.
BiS (Bozi i Sinovi) has two core businesses: IT recycling and software development. They recycle all electronic and
electrical equipment and waste, plus magnetic tape and fluorescent bulbs in a 2-floor, 3000 m2 facility in Omoljica,
approximately 10 km outside Pancevo. Gowi, the IT/software company, was recently separated from BiS. BiS also
serves the Ministry of Trade & Services by destroying pirated CDs and DVDs, recycling all of the plastic from the
discs and cases; they provide a similar service for Microsoft. They have also begun providing a service to wipe hard
disk data from clients with sensitive data, such as banks.
BiS collected 330 tons of electronic waste in 2009, a very low figure according to the company. Most of the
collection (97%) is done directly with businesses (B2B) and government offices; both BiS and companies reach out
to one another and BiS cooperates with NGOs. Telenor, Price-Waterhouse-Coopers, and banks in Serbia are key
clients. Without organized collection it is difficult to reach citizens and household electronic waste; initiatives,
containers and collection infrastructure are necessary. The company has had communications with the strategic
waste management providers Brantner and PWW. BiS is currently limited on the supply-side and wants to develop
collection and transport services to begin developing citizen collection services all over Serbia [Anonymous, 2010].
The Galenit Cluster is comprised of the Serbian battery factory Farma Kom and includes members from battery
distributors and retailers, auto services, collectors, two citizens associations, Institute Kirilo Savic and Nis Faculty of
Electronics. The cluster manages eight battery storage centers and 150 collection sites (typically retail stores and
78 | P a g e
services). Farma Kom is the founder of the cluster. The Galenit Cluster accepts all batteries: lead-automotive,
industrial and general purpose. Lead batteries are recycled in the Zajeca plant and other batteries are currently
being accumulated and stored for future processing or export. Galenit is responsible for collecting and recycling
55
15,000 tons of batteries per year .
Galenit is confident that they collect 95% of all automotive batteries in Serbia, with only 5% staying somewhere
outside the system. They have 3000 special, licensed containers in Serbia: each service has two, with the
remainder in public, private, military and transport sites. In August 2009 they were granted approval to begin
importing waste batteries; they imported a relatively low volume of 5000-6000 tons but expect the volume to
increase since Croatia, Montentgro and Macedonia have no recycling facilities. Farma Kom pays 30 RSD/kg for
automotive batteries, a portion of which is used to support the Galenit Cluster. They accept the used mobile phone
batteries from the Telenor initiative. They are also storing CRTs for future processing or export since they also
contain lead; this is a strategic move as they are preparing for large volumes of CRTs as consumers trade in their
old televisions and monitors for LED and plasma screens.
M ETALS
Metals, both ferrous and nonferrous, are recycled quite efficiently in Serbia through a vast network of collectors
and buyers covering virtually every city, town and village. Individual collectors, mainly Roma, collect metal from
containers and door-to-door; many citizens facilitate the process by placing metal waste alongside, rather than
inside, of containers. Industrial and commercial metal waste is recycled even more efficiently. It is likely that every
producer of metal scrap has a buyer established, either under a long-term agreement or periodic negotiated sales.
There is a large network of metal buyers across Serbia. In the former MESP recycling database, metal recyclers
were by far the most prevalent, with 55 registered metal recyclers; the IFC Recycling Linkages project had 65 in
their database. A typical consolidator, Vet Prom in Krusevac, was interviewed in this assessment; Vet Prom collects
150-200 tons/month of metal, mostly from larger firms and factories in and around Krusevac; they have a one-year
contract with most generators. Vet Prom accepts all metal, including machines, motors, vehicles, processing
equipment and scrap. The equipment is disassembled, sorted and baled on the Vet Prom lot, where it is then sold
to various buyers who reprocess the metal or melt it into ingots. Vet Prom also collects LDPE and PP from the same
commercial and industrial sources. In the city of Krusevac (city pop. 75,000), there are around five such collectors.
Most of the steel collected in Serbia is either sold to the US Steel factory in Smederevo or exported, along with
other metals. Recan (below) manages a Serbian program collecting aluminum cans. Some other metals are also
56
processed locally: lead by the Farma Kom battery factor in Sombor, copper by Jugo Impex in Nis, and others .
Recan, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ball Packaging Europe, operates recycling centres in Serbia where used
aluminum cans are sorted, compressed and returned for recycling. The recycling centres cooperate with waste
management operators, scrap metal dealers, supermarkets, shopping centres, petrol stations and other
businesses, providing a network of collection points to ensure that consumers have a convenient and problem-free
facility to return used beverage cans. Recan also provides consulting services related to logistics and quality,
quality checks, analyses and documentation, and payment handling. Recan offers attractive prices for used
beverage cans that meet Balls quality specifications.
G LASS
55
Anonymous, 2010
56
Anonymous, 2010
79 | P a g e
At the outset it should be noted that glass recycling in Serbia is fairly uncommon: demand and prices are low, it is
heavy (transport costs are high), and there are few collectors willing to work for the low margins. That said, there
are two supply chains of glass recycling in Serbia. Many, probably most, cities in Serbia do not a buyer for glass in
either supply chain.
There is a small network of collectors, often individuals working informally, who buy virtually any unbroken glass
container, organize and consolidate types and sizes by trading with one another, and sell or trade the bottles and
jars to their network of bottlers and food producers. Kalimero Komerc in Krusevac is the only example of this type
of collector interviewed for this assessment, though several others (mostly individuals) were identified in other
cities.
Srpska Fabrika Reciklaza (SFR) near Aleksinac appears to be the only buyer in Serbia, though a partner collector,
Glass Rec, may soon begin working in Belgrade. SFR, a privatized operation employing 13 workers, crushes the
glass and sorts it by size, and sometimes by colour; they have a capacity of 30,000 tons/year; all of the crushed
glass is exported. Collection details were vague but include some containers in Aleksinac owned by SFR, individual
collectors, bottlers, and a number of JKPs and collectors of commercial and industrial waste who are required to
collect glass along with other materials (Pima). One JKP informed that SFR pays 0.75 RSD/kg for glass.
Srpska Fabrika Stakla (SFS) is the only Serbian producer of glass packaging; SFS is owned by Serbia Gas (63%),
Bulgaria Glass Factory Pleven (25%), and company ownership (balance). At this time, SFS only recycles broken glass
from its own factory (rejects), clients (damaged), and limited private collectors (clean). From the private collectors,
the company is paying 2.0 RSD/kg for white, 1.5 RSD/kg for sorted colour, and 1.0 RSD/kg for mixed. They are,
however, interested in beginning glass recycling on a larger scale.
After privatization, the company had 10,000 tons of broken glass in storage, plus additional quantities waiting
return from clients. In addition, they routinely have quantities of internal glass that gets recycled (broken, reject,
surplus). So for some time, the factory has been trying to reduce its inventory of broken glass and now appears
ready to undertake more serious collection and recycling. In addition to reducing inventory they have also been
making some changes to their process to decrease the amount of rejected and damaged production.
SFS stated that they have two interests to begin recycling: firstly because of ecological responsibility, and secondly
economics. Simply put, glass is cheaper to melt than quartz so recycling saves energy and reduces the cost of
production. Energy is the biggest expense in glass production; for every 10% of recycled glass, a savings of 3% can
be realized in energy.
The glass factory is interested in collecting and recycling glass of all colours. In order to be recycled, however, the
glass must be totally pure with no inorganic contamination. Some levels of organic dirt and dust are tolerable, but
any ceramic, metal, stone or other inorganic substances can damage the furnaces; the factory already has
magnetic separators for ferrous metals. Therefore the glass should be cleaned and sorted prior to recycling; this
could be done either by the collectors, an intermediary, or the factory itself. An automated cleaning and sorting
line requires an investment of approximately 3 million; credit or other 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.
80 | P a g e
The glass factory does not have a developed strategy for recycled glass collection, though they do accept returns
from some companies (e.g. Knjaz Milos). All glass currently accepted for return is clean and doesnt pose a
contamination hazard. They have had no other contact with collectors and would require a period and/or
57
assistance to develop a collection network .
P APER
Paper, especially cardboard, is recycled fairly efficiently in Serbia. It has value and is collected in varying levels of in
probably every city, small town and many villages in Serbia.
Paper is collected in three ways:
-
Individual collectors (Roma and others) collecting cardboard directly from containers and small retail
shops.
Organized collectors (JKPs and strategic waste management partners) and some slightly larger private
operators like Kandic and Urvis.
Secondary separation from mixed municipal solid waste (eg waste separation line in a landfill in Novi Sad).
Commercial and industrial sources of waste paper (cardboard packaging and print shop waste) sell their waste to
consolidators who pick up the waste from the source. These arrangements are typically structured so that a single
operator is required to take all of the waste, and pays the source for the waste, either by a fee or by weight
(presumably they do not take communal waste generated by workers). In the case of supermarkets, the
consolidator typically owns the containers. Pickups are usually arranged on demand.
Consolidators can be placed into three categories based on size:
-
Small consolidators, who purchase primarily or solely from individual collectors; in urban centers, these
actors are often Roma. Most small towns and villages in Serbia also typically have a buyer of paper, metal
and other materials; such consolidators might buy from 10-100 tons/month. Small consolidators serve
medium consolidators, almost never selling directly to the processors.
Medium consolidators collect from 100-1000 tons/month; several were interviewed and profiled in this
assessment. These consolidators are also usually the buyers of JKP-collected cardboard and hold
agreements with commercial and industrial waste sources.
Large consolidators, of which there are only a handful in Serbia (Inos and TechnoPaper, neither of which
was interviewed) collect more than 1000 tons/month. Medium consolidators will sometimes sell their
paper to large consolidators and achieve a better price because of the higher quantities. In these cases,
the large consolidator generally does not handle the paper, but simply organizes supplies from different
sources and holds the agreement with the buyer. It seems, and is logical, that the large consolidators
serve export markets.
Most of the paper and cardboard production in Serbia is handled by companies in the Kappa Star group. Together
they account for over 9,000 tons/month of paper and cardboard production. Besides those companies, there are
two remaining paper factories in Serbia: Bozo Tomic in Cacak, and Fopa in Vladicin Han, producing about 1,700
tons/month combined. In September 2009, the German Hamburger Group opened a large factory in Hungary with
a capacity in excess of 30,000 tons/month. The factory is not yet operating at full capacity but will become a major
regional buyer and competitor for waste paper. There is already some waste paper export from Serbia Meanwhile,
58
Umka imports high quality white paper from other countries in the region .
57
Anonymous, 2010
58
Anonymous, 2010
81 | P a g e
P LASTIC
At present in Serbia there are few examples of strictly sorting operations. A number of actors manage sorting lines
(Pima, Brzanplast) but they do so as part of a larger operation. In fact, virtually all of the processors, both large and
small, also manage sorting operations. The Recycling Backyards concept, if implemented, would be an example.
There are numerous types of plastic processors in Serbia that specialize or utilize recycled plastic. First are the PET
processors, larger companies processing from 50 to several hundred tons per month. Next are the large non-PET
processors, producing LDPE folio (Brzanplast), hose and piping (Nives), or granulate. Finally are the hundreds of
small plastic processors scattered around Serbia producing folio and injection-molded products, most of whom
process recycled material to a greater or lesser degree (Nikolo, Vlada-Pak, Interprodukt, Nima).
There is an under-supply of secondary plastic materials on the market, evidenced by surplus capacity in most
buyers and processors, and competition for materials, including PET. Greentech, Saniplast, Intercord and Deni
Komerc all process PET and all have additional capacity and demand. Greentech notes this as a positive, as it
creates demand and helps cover times of crisis, such as when during the peak of the economic crisis Greentech
was the processor buying PET. To illustrate the scale, Greentech collects 300 tons/month of PET in Serbia; in their
two Romanian plants (producing mainly Polyester Staple Fiber) they process 5000 tons/month. Development
efforts should focus on increasing collection by expanding existing operations and facilitating the startup of new
59
initiatives .
T IRES
Import of used tires is currently banned in Serbia. According to the Law (December 24, 2009.) Co-processing of
waste tires is limited to 30% of the total number of tires, and 70% is designated for recycling.
With the new drive tire recycling (Eco-Recycling, Sirig / Novi Sad), the demand for scrap tires far exceeds supply.
Eco-Products Recycling rubber granules which are mainly used for the surface in playgrounds and a smaller part in
60
the construction of certain roads .
TABLE 26: PLASTIC PROCESSORS AND RECYCLERS COMPARISON SUMMARY
PLASTIC PROCESSORS & RECYCLERS COMPARISON SUMMARY

Company,
Municipality
Greentech,
Novi Sad
59
Anonymous, 2010
60
Anonymous, 2010
82 | P a g e
Materials
PET
Quantities
Serbia 300 ton/month
input;
250 ton/month finished
product.
Greenfiber Group: 5000
ton/month, 4000-4500
for Polyester Staple
Fiber.
Possible future
investment in
PE and PP lines in Serbia.
Collection
Production
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.
Brzanplast,
Batocina
Intercord,
Subotica
Deni Komerc,
Nis
Saniplast,
Gorni
Milanovac
Nives, Nis
All
plastic,
sorted, cleaned,
granulate
LDPE folio
PET
PE
PP
Non-Plastics
PET
Biodegradable &
recycled LDPE
PP
PET
LDPE,
HDPE
PP
PS
LLDPE,
2007: 3000 tons.

2008: 5000 tons.
2009: 3000 tons.
2009: 1000 tons plastic.
PET: flake, film,

bottle-to-bottle.
LDPE folio.
50-60 ton/month.
Municipalities & JKPs.

40 containers in Belgrade.
Pet flake.
100 ton/month washing

& processing.
1000
ton/month
distribution.
Granulators & processors.

Collectors.
LDPE folio.
Hose & piping.
Commercial & industrial

waste.
60% commercial & industrial
waste.
30% individual collection.
10% production excess.
Granulation &
manufacture.
Consumer,
industrial
&
agricultural
plastic products.
Folio products
for agricultural
purposes.
Bus seats.
Consumer
&
industrial
products.
Injectionmolded
containers.
8 ton/month secondary
material inputs.
Vlada-Pak
Beloljin, Blace
LDPE, HDPE
PP
PS, PVC, PA
10 ton/month average
Recycles 50% into new
products & sells 50%.
Nima,
Krusevac
LDPE
7-8 tons/year, seasonal.
Maxi-Plast,
Pepeljevac
HDPE
PP (small)
Granulates: PET,
PE, PP
Municipalities & JKPs.
LDPE, HDPE
PP
LDPE, HDPE
PP & other
plastics
LDPE folio.
Granulate.
PET: 600 kg/hour, 40005000 ton/year minimum.

Current demand: 200400 ton/month.
Nikolo,
Krusevac
Interprodukt,
Nova Varos
Private-sector
collectors,
some municipalities.
Operate sorting line for all
inputs.
Four main suppliers 50%:
Intercord, Saniplast, Pima,
Nives.
Commercial & industrial
clients.
Subotica JKP.
40% collection ultimately
provided
by
Roma
(secondary
sorting
at
landfill).
350
ton/year
total
plastic.
250 ton/year recycled.
2007: 47.2 tons.
<10% recycled.
Agricultural producers.
Commercial, industrial and
agricultural waste.
Individual collectors (small).
Opportunity buying.
83 | P a g e
6. STAKEHOLDERS IN RECYCLING
6.1 RECYCLING STAKEHOLDERS IN GREECE
In order to accomplish a successful recycling program especially for packaging waste it is essential to share the
responsibility among all the stakeholders involved in the process, e.g. the municipalities which are responsible for
the collection of the waste, the regions who are responsible for the planning and the financial details of the waste
management programs, the producers who are responsible for the financing of the recycling system and finally the
citizens who are the main actors, since on their contribution relies the success of all the efforts.
The new Law that has been adopted recently (2012) undertakes some corrective actions in the previously
regulated authorisation of the FODSA (Organisations for the Integrated Management of Solid Waste), as had been
decided with the Law of 2007 and the JMD in 2009. Previously 95 FODSA had been foreseen, but with new law the
number of the FODSA is 13, one for each Region. In the last update there will be one Regional Organisation for
each Prefecture (overall 13 Regional Plans)
G OVERNMENT
-
Ministry of Environment, Energy & CC

Ministry of Interior
Hellenic Recycling Agency
Role - Responsibilities
Ministry of Environment, Energy & CC
-
Create the National Plans for Solid Waste Management of non-hazardous and hazardous waste in Greece.
Harmonise the Greek with the European legislation
Create, enact and implement legislation on waste management , monitoring of the activities
Consults / advises and coordinates finally the proposals for the financing of the waste management
projects in the Regions, as well as in Structural Funds from the EU according to the targets and the
programming set in a national level
Issues permits, approvals, confirmation for the environmental performance of the waste management
projects and activities (e.g. environmental impacts), according to the laws
The National Planning includes:

-
the design of the overall framework for the waste management with the correspondent targets, as well as
the main directives for the preferred methodologies for the management of the different waste streams
along with a coherent time schedule,
the setup of the criteria for the feasibility and evaluation of the proper placement of the treatment and
disposal facilities for municipal waste,
the enforcement of unique procedures and terms for the design and implementation of waste
management plans.
L OCAL A UTHORITIES
Managerial, waste collection, monitoring role.
84 | P a g e
6. Stakeholders in Recycling
The Local Authorities are responsible for the execution of the Waste Management Plans of the Regions, by
implementing the appropriate systems. The municipalities are obliged to deal with the management of the waste
produced in their territories by using flexible and effective solutions. Their main activities (given by law) include:
-
The waste collection,

The transport,
The temporary storage and transport of the waste,
The recycling / recovery and final disposal of the waste.
At the municipal level there are a lot of differentiations among the municipalities in Greece: most of them are only
engaged with collection and disposal of their waste. The financial situation is bad, since their main income derives
from the central government. There are no revenues set at a local level that means the citizens pay for their waste
management through a central taxation (electricity bills, depending on the size of the houses). Thus, the waste
management equipment (bins, vehicles) is provided by the Ministry of Interior and Finance.
Additional problems are caused by the lack of experienced and especially trained personnel in the whole circle of
waste management (collection, recycling, disposal) and the limited awareness in the politicians (local authorities).
R EGIONS (13 P REFECTURES )

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

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

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

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

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

Competent authorities and organizations responsible for waste management are as follows:
-
Ministry in charge of the environmental protection and other competent ministries;

Competent authority of the autonomous province;
Competent authority of the local self-government unit;
Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as: Agency);
Environmental Protection Fund (hereinafter referred to as: Fund);
Professional waste testing organizations
T HE M INISTRY :
-
Propose Waste Management Strategy and individual national plans for managing of various waste
streams to the Government;
Prepare and enact executive regulations for implementation of laws;
Coordinate and perform waste management activities that are significant for the Republic and monitors
the condition;
Approve regional waste management plans, except for plans on the territory of the autonomous
province;
Issue permits, approvals, confirmations and other documents defined under the law;
Maintain records on permits, approvals, confirmations and other documents issued by other competent
authorities;
Designate the authorized organizations pursuant to the law;
Monitor and control the implementation of measures for handling with waste;
Undertake other measures and activities pursuant to the international contracts and agreements.
In the area of packaging and packaging waste management, the Ministry:

-
Prepare and propose Packaging Waste Reduction Plan to the Government;

Prepare and enact executive regulations for implementation of law;
Issue and withdraw permits for packaging waste management pursuant to the law;
Set up and maintain a register of permits issued for packaging waste management;
Determine the level of deposit fee for the packaging depending on the type of packaging or the chemical
stored in the packaging;
Monitors the operation of the Agency, autonomous province, local self-government unit, as well as
authorized legal entities, in implementation of the entrusted activities.
C OMPETENT A UTHORITY OF THE AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE :

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

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

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

Through its authorized agencies:
-
61
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.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 36/09, 88/10
87 | P a g e
On the local level, cities and municipalities have their own Decisions on communal order, managing, providing,
organizing and carrying out communal waste on the cities and municipalities territory. Waste management in
Serbia is inadequate and is a threat to human health and the environment. In practice, there are great problems
for the municipalities to agree on forming a joint region for waste management. The national authorities do not
have means to force them to unite because it is contrary to the Law on local self-government where each
municipality has the opportunity to decide with whom they will merge. Big problem is the lack of local and regional
plans and strategy of waste management.
88 | P a g e
7. Preconditions for Successful Implementation of Recycling Policies
7. PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL

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

-
Significant dependence on landfilling

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

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

The implementation of the landfill directive and the Waste Framework Directive and the corresponding national
legislation requires major changes in the entire waste management sector in Greece, from the introduction of new
technologies and stringent operation regimes for landfills to the calculation of costs and charges to the public and
the structure, organisation and operation of the waste management authorities. In short, the whole philosophy on
which the Greek waste management system was built needs to be upgraded to meet demanding targets, criteria
and standards, while keeping cost increases to a minimum.
The first steps have taken place through new legislation approval (Law 4042/2012), but the implementation has to
be enforced (adaptation in Regional Plans, implementation of the new terms and controls of the competent
authorities).
The Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association (HSWMA) has published some proposals, which are presented
here.
G AP IDENTIFICATION IN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Waste Management Fee for the citizen: The current charging system for waste management services
relies on a coefficient of /sq. meters. This system doesnt offer a motive to prevent waste generation
within a residence or business. In Europe several different charging systems exist that are adjusted to the
waste management needs.
Common element of those systems is that charging for waste management services depends upon the waste
generation, encouraging waste prevention and recycling according to the polluter pays principle.
The adaptation of such a system in Greece is necessary towards an integrated waste management concept. To
implement such significant legislative changes, communication between all competent authorities (Ministry of
Environment, Municipalities etc.) would be required.
Cooperation with private sector: Despite the introduction of statutes concerning Public Private
Partnerships (Law 3389, O.J.G. 232, 22-9-2005), there are still many steps to be done in order to enhance
the cooperation between public and private sector in the field of waste management.
90 | P a g e
Since the European funds allocated for waste management projects in the current Programming Period (ESPA
2007-2013+2) are underestimated, additional resources are needed in order to meet the needs of full coverage of
Waste treatment facilities in the country.
Special waste streams treatment: Problems due to the lack of hazardous waste treatment sites
B ARRIERS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE RECYCLING AND RECOVERY GOALS

S EPARATE COLLECTION
-
Collection coverage is almost 100%

Not all local authorities cooperate the same with Recovery Systems
Mostly mixed collection of packaging waste & not separate collection of all streams
High share of impurities
Low level of environmental awareness in the public
No incentives for households to participate in separate collection
Scavenging has significantly increased, especially for metal and scrap metal, were theft has risen sharply
the last 2 years
C HALLENGES FOR B IODEGRADABLE WASTE

-
A very high share of biodegradable waste go to landfills - 87,3% landfilled in 2009

Not accurate statistics
Insufficient composting
No separate collection of bio-waste
No anaerobic digestion/biogas plants available
Outdated compost quality standards
Limited market
Delays in the procurement & implementation of waste management infrastructure
A DMINISTRATIVE & INSTITUTIONAL DRAWBACKS

-
Overlapping of responsibilities (MEECC, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Development), Regional

Authorities & Municipalities
The recent administrative reform, Kallikratis is not yet completed, thus impeding the projects.
No update of national Waste Management Plans
Probably no Waste Procurement Projects until end of 2013
Serious delays in planning, procurement & implementation of waste management projects (although
funds are available)
Waste debate in Greece is strongly related to politics, & strong NIMBY phenomena exist
Definition of treatment (i.e. minimum standards) in implementation of landfill tax is unclear
F INANCIAL CRISIS
One of the most important problems in the current situation of the severe financial crisis is the reduction of the
collection of recyclables through the Collective Systems due to the following:
-
The theft of valuable recyclables from the collection bins

The reduction of the consumption due to the financial recession.
Financial crisis brought reduction of the collection of recyclables due to:

-
The theft of valuable recyclables from the collection bins from the increasing informal sector
The reduction of the consumption due to the financial recession - 20% reduction in MW production
The monitoring system got lose
Municipalities in lack of financial resources in many cases draw back recycling programs
Recycling systems are facing financial difficulties
91 | P a g e
7.2 CHALLENGES, PROBLEMS, GAPS AND BARRIERS OF THE RECYCLING IN SERBIA

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

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

P RACTICAL I MPLEMENTATION
C OLLECTION
Currently 60% of the Serbian population are connected to waste collection. The target to serve until 2020 more
than 90% of the Serbian population is realistic if efficient systems are introduced and financial resources are
mobilised.
However, simple extension of the current mixed municipal waste collection system will not be sufficient to achieve
the key targets for waste recycling generally (for packaging waste in particular) and the targets for diversion of
biodegradable waste from landfill. Given the infeasibility for both technical and financial reasons of achieving
separation of the whole amount of mixed municipal waste in large separation plants, segregated collection is
essential in at least urban areas.
The precise definition of measures for practical implementation needs to be accomplished in the regional and local
waste management plans (as referred to above). As such, the completion of these plans is a matter of urgency. The
strategic approach to be reflected in these plans should embody the installation of a comprehensive system for
waste collection and transportation and following:
High profile information, awareness raising and behaviour change campaigns prior to and during
introduction of new services;
62 Marija Andjelkovi Pesic, 2012
93 | P a g e
Adequate network of waste containers preference for larger multi-dwelling containers;

Modern compacting waste collection vehicles to be introduced;
Network of transfer stations to be provided on the basis of a least cost analysis;
Differentiated approach to be taken in urban and rural areas:
Initial focus in rural areas being the provision of simple mixed waste collection and the
introduction of domestic composting of green waste. In rural areas home composting has to be
encouraged as the most effective low-cost procedure to reduce biodegradables in landfills.
Distribution of compost boxes (for free) to all rural households can help to introduce home
composting;
More sophisticated approach taken in urban areas including separate collection of key
recyclables;
Separate collection of key recyclables (dry materials in the first instance):
Separate containers for recyclables;
In the beginning the same equipment (containers and compactor trucks) as for residues can also
be used for collection of recyclables. Later on for glass packages collection more comfortable but
also more expensive systems should be introduced (igloo containers and hook lift trucks with
crane)
Bring points: green islands;
Separately collected packaging waste (except glass packages) requires removal of impurities and sorting
into different fractions, as asked for on the recyclables market:
Network of regional recyclables handling (sorting, grading, storing, on-sale) facilities to be
provided on the basis of a least cost analysis. Construction of sorting plants to enable recycling of
packages and development of a sufficient network of plants for processing of sorted waste paper,
used container glass, used packages of different plastics and metal cans (priority for aluminium).
As emphasised in several instances here, the achievement of operational cost efficiencies is critical to the
successful implementation of the strategy. Achieving economics of scale in all respects (collection containers,
collection vehicles, transfer facilities, recycling facilities) will be a critical aspect and will require inter-municipal
cooperation in optimising the design of implementation projects. The most effective waste collection systems
should be used (mainly 1.1m3 revolving containers for all types of separately collected waste, 3-axle waste
compactor trucks wherever roads allow this, exclusion of tractors with trailers from waste collection). Containers
for different types of waste have to be located in container pools on public roads. Some places for container pools
have to be extended to allow for up to 5 containers for residues, paper/ cardboard, plastic/metal and two sorts of
glass.
D ISPOSAL
Construction of regional sanitary landfills automatically brings with it the requirement of inter municipal
cooperation because several municipalities will use the same landfill. As with the collection systems economies of
scale will be critical and therefore the number and location of regional landfills need to be optimised on a least
cost basis irrespective of administrative boundaries.
H AZARDOUS W ASTE
The main challenge for managing hazardous waste is the introduction of strong registration for all hazardous waste
From the cradle to the grave. The Hazardous Waste Movement Document as prescribed by the Serbian
legislation is an acceptable solution for this purpose. To finance collection and recycling of different waste streams
based on Serbian legislation producers of hazardous goods, becoming waste, have to pay a product charge into the
Eko- Fund. This fund will subsidise the system of licensed waste collectors/recyclers for these waste streams. If the
results of this model are not enough to comply with the EU directives, concerning special waste streams, an
extended producer responsibility (including them into return and recycling of used goods) should be introduced.
P ACKAGING W ASTE
94 | P a g e
Additional primary legislation, through the Law on Packaging Waste, and associated secondary legislation have
been introduced. Full implementation of this legislation will lead to approximation of Acquis requirements.
C ONSTRUCTION AND D EMOLITION W ASTE

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

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

INDUSTRY
8.1 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE RECYCLING WASTE INDUSTRY IN GREECE
So far the Recycling sector in Greece shows a turnover of 1.5 Billion (2010, ref. Stochasis study) and includes
mainly the reclamation of recyclable materials, while 7-10% refers to exports.
Although the sector shows a decrease from 2008-2010 at an annual rate of 13%, in 2010 there is an increase of
26% in relation to 2009, due to the rise of the scrap prices. The main results reported in this study refer to the
economic figures of the companies dealing in the market of recycling and recovery of waste. These companies are
handling with PROs in the field of recycling and production of by products and products and RDF.
The number of these companies accounts to almost 100, while 44 of them are primarily recycling companies. The
biggest of them (in terms of turnover) lie in the field of metallurgy. In the graph below the market share of the
biggest companies is listed.
ELBAL
18.60%
23.40%
SIDENOR
HALKOR
HALIVOURGIA
1.80%
16.90%
5.30%
HALIVOURGIKI
NEONAKIS
9.20%
ANTYMET
9%
15.80%
OTHER
FIGURE 74: ARKET SHARE OF THE BIGGEST COMPANIES (2010)
According to the Stochasis Study (ref) the SWOT Analysis results in the following remarks:
STRENGTHS
Satisfying financial situation for recyclers

Clear determined targets for the recycling of different waste streams according to the EU legislation,
limited of uncertainty factors
Activities aimed at important social benefits (limitation of the waste stream leading to landfills)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Energy production from municipal waste
Need for acceleration of the collection rate due to EU legislation
96 | P a g e
8. Opportunities in the Recycling Waste Industry
Determination of legislation for the management of construction waste

Optimisation of the collection of municipal waste by means of decentralized collection sites
WEAKNESSES:
Lack of healthy competition, due to practices from not certified companies

Lack of coordination and corrective actions between central and local administration
Lack of financial incentives towards the local administration for the waste treatment
THREATS:
Delays in the licencing procedure of treatment facilities and in the implementation of recycling and
recovery projects and
Possibility of delays in the collection and recycling rate and confusion caused to the producers by the
presence of more than one System per waste
Dependence of the recovery of waste due to the national rates for scrap (stock market) and the world
economic situation
C ONCLUSIONS / OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES :

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

As described above there are undoubtedly a number of very serious constraints facing the Republic of Serbia in
achieving compliance with European standards in the field of waste management, there are also opportunities
afforded to Serbia in the form of:
-
65
External donor support, particularly from the European Union;

Learning the lessons of other Member States (both EU15 and EU12) who have gone through
65
modernisation of the sector in recent years .
Anonymous, 2012b
97 | P a g e
STRENGTHS:
Adopted key laws on waste management reconciled with EU Directives

Adopted vast majority of secondary legislation pursuant to Laws on Waste and Packaging
Existence of National Waste Management Strategy
High priority afforded to waste management
Construction of several new regional waste management facilities underway
Revenue accruing to the National Environment Fund from waste related fiscal measures
OPPORTUNITIES:
Potential to leapfrog to modern solutions

Unused potential for waste recycling
Possibility of waste incineration in cement plants, thermal power plants
Integration process and use of EU and other donor funds
Contribution to employment and opening of new jobs in modernised waste management industry
Despite these challenges, there are ways for collectors to operate profitably. The undesirable nature of waste
management means that few entrepreneurs have the interest, thereby allowing opportunities in the market for
those who are willing. One of the keys to being successful is minimizing and maintaining low monthly fixed
expenses. Unless a company can afford expensive, automatic sorting equipment they are going to require a large
workforce.
WEAKNESSES:
Incomplete coverage of collection services for municipal waste, particularly in rural areas
Lack of infrastructure for treatment and disposal of waste
Limited capacities for recycling of waste
Absence of facilities for treatment of hazardous waste
Absence of central storage for hazardous waste
Lack of accurate data on quantity of waste that disappears
Poor financial position
THREATS:
66
Weak inter-municipal cooperation

Delays in PUC Reform
Slow pace of investment for development of waste management infrastructure
Unwillingness of households to segregate waste streams
Not in my backyard approach at the local level
66
Inability or unwillingness of citizens to pay the real, economic price for municipal services .
Anonymous, 2012b
98 | P a g e
9. Recommendations for Policy & Mechanisms in the Financial Crisis Situation
9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY &

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

In the level of the municipalities (local authorities), where the main effort for the improvement of the recycling
process lies, main steps that need to be taken include:
Improve the overall waste management planning.

Improve monitoring, regulations & enforcement.
Implement & increase the landfill tax.
Introduce restrictions in landfilling of certain waste streams.
Implement a tax on MBT.
Enforce Extended Producers Responsibility schemes.
Introduce PAYT schemes.
Utilise available EU funds.
Economic instruments
Waste disposal & treatment fees/bans (landfill & incineration)
Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) & Producer responsibility schemes
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR W ASTE T REATMENT
Utilise all proper available capacities & make additional infrastructure for recycling & recovery of
municipal waste
Expand the infrastructure for separate collection for municipal waste
Introduce local-regional targets for municipalities for recycling and/or limits for landfilling .
Also, improvement of compliance control
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
Establishment of appropriate collection infrastructure & initiate awareness raising campaigns

Expansion and control of the operation of Recycling streams & systems
Education of Local Authorities (seminars, guidelines, manuals, etc)
99 | P a g e
Further establishing & and modernising civic amenity sites

Enhancing connection to separate collection infrastructure to 100% (systems, or door-to-door collection)
R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR B IODEGRADABLE WASTE
Set up infrastructure for separate collection & treatment of biodegradable waste,

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

Increase resources allocated to local authorities
Improve cooperation between different administrative levels & relevant stakeholders
Improvement of statistical data related to municipal waste management
S UMMARY OF R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECYCLING
The recycling definition should be made clearer. In order to quantify better recycling rates. For example
what stands for packaging waste in Greece?
Monitoring of the systems (possibly PRO schemes?) should be further improved,
HRA is a positive step for setting the framework of Recycling in Greece -needs more support in order to be
able to meet increased demands.
Legislation is more or less in place, some improvements could be further implemented
There is space to increase the efficiency of the recycling companies in an optimal size
Increase awareness campaigns & include in the decision process citizens groups, NGOs, etc
Collection points should be further increased in some streams, & methods of separate collection &
collection rules that improve the quality, quantity & financially viability of the systems should be
implemented
Cooperation between systems, & local authorities should be strengthened.
Opportunities should be offered to the informal sector to stop being an enemy improving work, safety, &
health conditions of scavengers
Other steps that need to be done include:
The publication of a supplementary tender procedure which will be specialized in waste management
services and will be placed under the legislation concerning P.P.P.
The editing of a template contract for all P.P.P. projects which will result in the reduction of the time
needed to prepare and participate in a tender procedure.
To update the legal framework that defines the operation of Waste Management Authorities and to solve
the problem of funding towards private stakeholders.
To create indicators that will assess the performance of solid waste management works and authorities in
order to establish a control mechanism.
To set the specifications for products deriving from waste processing in order to create the necessary
conditions that will allow the expansion of the secondary product market.
Technical specifications: the amendment of J.M.D. 114218 is necessary in order to introduce state of the art
specifications in the operation and construction of waste treatment and disposal facilities. Especially the following
things have to be reviewed:
To introduce new specifications concerning waste treatment technologies

To expand the content of the J.M.D. to all waste management related services
100 | P a g e
To amend some of the specifications set since they are out of date and not in conformity with modern
waste management practices
Waste minimization measures
Measures in place for the prevention of PPW generation. Organisation of preventive/mitigation actions on
reduction/collection of PPW from environment, especially beaches/in the ports
Most of the measures concern the environmental education and the awareness raising activities that are organized
by municipalities, collective systems for collecting packaging waste, media and NGOs. Some of the
preventive/mitigation actions on reduction/collection of PPW from environment are:
Awareness activities in popular beaches of Attica during the summer period in order to inform about the
benefits of recycling and the negative impact of PPW for the environment.
Voluntary campaigns in order to remove waste (along with it PPW) from forest areas and seaside areas
Especially for the marine environment the NGO HELMEPA (Hellenic Marine Environment Protection
Association) has been organizing since 1993 voluntary Beach Cleanups and coordinates every September
in Greece the International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) day. In 2011 more than 2,600 volunteers from 144 public
and private entities carried out 74 beach and underwater cleanups in 67 areas of Greece. In implementing
their cleanup activities along beaches, ports, lake and river banks and underwater, volunteers covered 62
km in total, collecting and recording in detail more than 12 tons of solid waste of which 7,4% was plastic
bottles and 3,8% plastic bags. Also the message "No Garbage, No plastic in Seas and Beaches" is
disseminated by posters featuring the Seagull through TV cartoon-spots.
Information on current initiatives regarding management of plastic packaging products during service life.
Athens started an initiative to promote reusable bags on 14th April 2008 and other municipalities have already
shown an interest in following suit.
Indeed there was an initiative to use reusable bags that was organized with the support of the retailing sector.
Some of the largest super markets have replaced the plastic bag with biodegradable ones, many companies in the
retailing sector are using paper bags and some are selling their shopping bags (so as to avoid excessive use of
plastic bags). From a marketing point of view many retailers (including shops that sell clothes) promote the idea of
using reusable bags in order to attract more customers.
Until the end of 2013 the National Strategic Plan for Waste Prevention shall be finalized according to EU legislation.
A study is being prepared.
9.2 RECOMMENDATION AND IMPORTANT MEASURES FOR POLICY IN SERBIA

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

The objective is to achieve full transposition of the Acquis, subject to the specification of achievable deadlines for a
number of targets contained in the Acquis. Transitional periods are expected to be required in a number of
respects. Whilst transposition is largely completed, the following changes need to be made to complete
transposition:
Minor revisions to the Law on Waste management to address slight discrepancies in the existing
transposition;
Additions to the Serbian legal framework of measures to transpose the Directives on waste from
extractive industries and the use of sewage sludge in agriculture.
101 | P a g e
Following on from this Sector Approximation Strategy and the National Waste Management Strategy, more
detailed Waste management planning needs to be undertaken:
Adopt national plans for specific waste flows;

Develop regional and local waste management plans.
In terms of regulatory practice, the key change required is clearly the full implementation of the regulatory
provisions contained in the recent legislation. In particular the permitting, authorisation, registration, exemption
and reporting requirements need to be fully introduced.
I MPLEMENTATION C HANGES
The nature of the changes required here is specified in a generalised form, since they are being considered a priori
of the options analysis to determine which actual measures are feasible and which are optimal.
In the area of primary collection:
Increase waste collection services coverage to EU standards this is likely to entail provision of near
universal coverage of the population;
Augment the system of mixed municipal waste collection with systems for separation of waste at or close
to source so as to facilitate recovery and recycling of specific waste streams including metal, glass, paper,
plastic and bio-waste, and thereby minimise the quantity of mixed residual waste for treatment and or
disposal;
Strengthen the existing systems of separate receipt (product return facilities, drop points, household
waste centres and similar) for specified waste types including at least:
Batteries and accumulators;
Electronic and electrical equipment;
End of life vehicles;
Oils;
Pharmaceutical products;
Tyres.
Waste treatment and processing (municipal waste) requirements include:
Establish facilities for handling and treatment (at least sorting and grading) of separately collected
fractions;
If required; plan and implement mixed waste treatment to achieve recycling and recovery targets;
Ensure adequate capacity and standard of facilities for final disposal potentially including waste to energy
and landfill.
Waste treatment and processing (industrial waste) requirements include:
Establish facility for hazardous waste management and disposal;

Establish a network of facilities for the recovery of construction and demolition waste
T HE M OST I MPORTANT M EASURES

T HE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNICAL / OPERATIVE MEASURES
-
Develop a Local and Regional waste management plans in accordance with the Directive 75/442/EEC on
Waste (General Directive);
To build a new regional sanitary landfills in accordance with the Directive 99/31/EC on Landfills;
102 | P a g e
Introducing separate collection and recycling of dangerous household waste, oils, batteries etc;
Increasing the number of inhabitants included in waste management system (80%);
Develop the capacities for treatment of storage of medical waste;
Sanitation and re-cultivation of the existing damp sites;
Develop a plan for animal waste management;
Establishment of independent professional organization (association or chamber) for all participants in
waste management;
Increase the rate of reuse of packaged waste (glass, paper, card board, metal and plastic) to 25% until
2015;
E CONOMIC MEASURES
-
Increase fees for illegal waste handling;

Commence restructuring of public communal enterprises regarding their direct connection to founders,
divide them into organizational and technical units, and free them of secondary activities, and make
corporations;
Start with concessions to private and mixed enterprises, first of all for waste collection and disposal;
Sectoral liberalization, introduce competition, and users right to choose the best service;
Privatize activities connected to waste management, wherever justified.
I NSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MEASURES

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

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

Despite the collection model used, interviewees commonly repeated that many citizens want to recycle, and will
participate if given a relatively convenient opportunity. That said it can also take only a few citizens to disrupt a
program by not sorting properly. Some of the key success factors identified include:
104 | P a g e
10. Success Stories/Good Practices in the Region
Geography: Remote municipalities face more difficulties in identifying buyers, transportation and
recycling economics. Expanding around existing hubs or clusters of recycling programs, and
establishing and support in regional sorting lines, may help to overcome this challenge.
Will & Initiative: The will and initiative of municipalities and JKPs ultimately determines the success of
a public recycling program. The actors must be diligent in introducing and promoting the initiative to
the public, persistent in their efforts despite potential early setbacks, and committed to achieving
their goal and targets.
Citizen Behavior: Citizen behavior can be influenced by an effective media campaign to introduce
recycling, encourage citizens to recycle, engage the private sector, and provide ongoing information
about the program to the public. Media coverage can also help eliminate wrong impressions and
opinions among the public; for example, that JKPs are not recycling collected waste but rather
sending it to the landfill along with the rest.
Politics: The relations and cooperation between the municipalities and JKPs vary between
municipalities. It might be generalized that smaller municipalities have better cooperation than larger
ones; larger municipalities may have an opposition party in charge of the JKP, further complicating
the issue. Regardless, the politics of the relation play a key role in success, as recycling impacts waste
management contracts and agreements.
Related to source selection, a number of other best practices are noted:

-
Separation of plastic is better in smaller cities and even villages than in many urban centers. This runs
counter to what might be expected, though some interviewees explained that it may be because waste
disposal problems are more evident in villages due to the high number of visible illegal landfills.
Wire containers (those whose contents can be viewed from outside) have far better separation than
closed (solid) varieties. There appears to be a clear psychological effect in citizens ability to view the
contents of the container.
Recycling containers should be accompanied by general waste containers nearby. Recycling containers by
themselves attract general waste, as citizens simply dispose of their waste in the most convenient
container. Interestingly, many plastic recycling containers in the small towns and villages had excellent
separation despite not being placed near general trash containers.
Recycling containers should be efficiently placed to maximize collection and minimize effort. Containers
should be placed on an easily-traversed route; in quantities to meet the population and demands of
citizens (so that they fill at roughly the same rate); placed to allow citizens the opportunity to recycle with
minimal effort; and placed in public areas of high visibility, residential populations. foot traffic, and drink
consumption.
CLUSTER "RECYCLING SOUTH"

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

Total number of 588,322 households and 28,764 companies are covered by the waste collection service, as seen in
Table 27.
TABLE 27: RECYCLABLES REDEEMED BY PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY "GRADSKA ISTOA" AT THE RECYCLING CENTRE68
Recyclable component
Paper
Iron
Tin
Copper
Brass
Aluminum
Plastic (all types)
Battery lead
PET package
Tire
Aluminum cans
Collected
2009 (t)
3,449
184
655
8
2
35
138
3
550
578
17
in
Collected
2010 (t)
2,626
87
507
6
2
29
227
3
607
537
13
in
Rate
2010/2009
0.76
0.47
0.77
0.77
1.13
0.83
1.64
1.04
1.10
0.93
0.77
Currently, no transfer stations are used. Some kind of transfer station are used when speaking of bulky waste
collection, i.e. bulky waste is collected from the streets manually, with small vehicles and transported to a point
with bigger, but still limited space available for storage of this kind of waste. When the capacity is almost full, large
transport vehicles transfer the collected bulky waste to a landfill. There is no organized treatment for this waste
type.
Collection of recyclables started in 2003 by some Public Utility Company. Through this service, at the recycling
centers, citizens and the industrial sector could sell paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, aluminum (Al) and steel cans,
tire and other components.
Popularization of recycling has been initiated in June 2009 by installing 39 drop off points for recyclables or 26
locations per municipality. Each point includes three containers of 3.2 m, for separate collection of paper, PET
packaging and aluminum cans. The participation of citizens is voluntary. This system doesnt fit the awareness for
recycling, because of the long distance for most households in the area. There is no motivation system
implemented for recycling improvement.
Another type of selection of recyclable components from the MSW functions through the redemption of
recyclables at the recycling centre of the Public Utility Company. Also, it has a social implication because there are
a huddle number of street collectors that earn money by collecting or extracting recyclables disposed in curbside
containers and selling it at the recycling centres. At the beginning of 2011, the informal sector has launched
another recycling centre with purpose to engage neighbouring scavengers. There are no data on collection of
67
Marija Andjelkovi Pesic, 2012
68
Florina J. Popov, 2012
106 | P a g e
10. Success Stories/Good Practices in the Region
recyclables at centre. Like in other developing countries, waste pickers are an important constituent of the SWM
system. The solid waste collected in the curbside containers is sorted by waste pickers and waste collectors who
sell some of the waste materials to companies that can use them. However, during this process the waste is spread
around, contaminating the environment. The sorted waste is contaminated with remains of oil and food. This
69
activity also reduces the volume of waste thrown in containers in urban space .
FIGURE 76: CONTAINERS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF WASTE
Fourth type of extraction of the recyclables is by the activity of waste scavengers, after unloading the vehicles that
brought MSW on a landfill. These materials are also contaminated, some of them cannot be recycled / recovered
and the remaining ones need to be cleaned before processing, which increases the cost of the process. Scavengers
are obliged, by the contract, to sell all recyclables to the Public Utility Company. Unfortunately, there is no data on
the amount of recyclables collected by this informal sector and their contribution in operational costs of MSW
management. This is also an inefficient system; recyclables extracted from the landfill are returned to the recycling
centre. It should be considered that street and landfill scavengers are competition to the Public Utility Companys
70
recycling system because they steel recyclable components from the waste stream .
Only a small amount of glass is collected for recycling, by some private companies. The collected glass is exported
mostly to Bulgaria, because Serbian glass industry has failed.
Although MSW stream consists of huge quantities of organic waste (food scraps and garden waste), it is still not
included in separate collection and treatment, due to the lack of proper organization and resources.
They are not interested in PET packaging because of its big volume, small mass and relatively low price per kg. In
2010 no paper and Al-cans were collected by the placed containers, only 22 t of PET package was collected (0.63%
of total amount of recyclables collected).
Another problem related to drop off points is noticed some households throw their mixed waste into containers
assigned to recycling. Detailed analysis should be conducted in order to improve the existing recycling system and
to show if the recycling is an economically viable option for towns. It is necessary to pay particular attention to the
69
Florina J. Popovi, 2012
70
107 | P a g e
social dimension of recycling, which seems to have more influence than investment potential. Social factors mean
71
culture, habits, awareness of society and its parts .
71
108 | P a g e
11. Conclusions
11. CONCLUSIONS
Both Greece and Serbia have improved their waste management practices in the latest years. Of course much
more need to be made in a different degree in both countries, in order to reach wished level of environmental
protection.
GREECE
In Greece recycling has a small, in comparison with other EU countries that show greater achievements. Thus there
is a lot of space for improvement, both in organisation of the systems, the quantities gathered & the number of
waste streams recycled.
The implementation of the Landfill Directive & the Waste Framework Directive & the corresponding national
legislation requires major changes in the entire waste management sector in Greece, from the introduction of new
technologies and stringent operation regimes for landfills to the calculation of costs and charges to the public and
the structure, organisation and operation of the waste management authorities.
The whole Greek waste philosophy needs to be upgraded to meet demanding targets, criteria & standards, while
keeping cost increases to a minimum.
Systems material recycling output had a rising trend until 2009, when the effect of the financial recession in Greece
became apparent.
Furthermore, a significant challenge for all Systems is the free riders 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.
109 | P a g e
There is no systematically organised separate collection, sorting and recycling of waste in the Republic of Serbia.
The current degree of recycling i.e. waste utilization is not sufficient. Although, the primary recycling in Serbia has
been set forth under the law and envisages separation of paper, glass and metal in specially labelled containers,
recycling is not functioning in practice. The exception is one plant for separation of recyclable waste, centres for
separate collection of waste at the other location etc.
Municipal waste management falls under the competence of local self-government units. It is necessary to
strengthen the institutions and authorities in charge of planning and management of projects, issuance of
approvals, control and monitoring, as well as administrative capacities for more efficient implementation of
regulations in this field. On the basis of the Law on Waste Management, all regions and municipalities should adopt
their waste management plans. Spatial plans must identify the sites for municipal waste management plants.
Development of public awareness and education of staff remains a permanent activity. It is necessary that centres
for separate collection of recyclable waste (paper, cans, glass, plastics, electrical devices, clumsy waste material,
etc.) should be established and promoted where citizens themselves would bring the waste. Local self-government
units should provide for and equip those centres. Local self-government units should be focused on the
organisation of primary selection through the organised collection of recyclable waste in households. Waste tyres
must be treated, whereat recycling has advantage over burning. A special fee should be introduced for import and
production of tyres for vehicles when they become waste tyres after use, to enable the establishment of the
collection and treatment system. A network of buyout centres for waste tyres should be established.
The system for separate collection of electrical and electronic products should be established so that the usable
parts could be recycled. The waste components of electronic and electrical products containing PCB must be
separated and their appropriate disposal must be ensured. It is necessary that a separate recovery of refrigerants
should be established.
Uncontrolled disposal of construction waste in the environment should be prevented. Construction waste must not
be disposed in the sites where such waste has been generated, nor can it be disposed in locations not particularly
stipulated for such purposes. The owner of the construction waste shall bear costs for waste management and
shall provide for conditions for separate collection and temporary storing of construction waste. Mandatory
recycling of construction waste must be introduced in stationary and mobile plants. Demolition waste shall be
separated and treated in compliance with law (paper, glass and plastics should be separated from construction
waste and delivered to persons that collect and treat such materials). Concrete, asphalt, stone, etc. may be
recycled.
The following problems in waste management system could be noticed:
-
Organized communal solid waste collection covers about 60-70 % population

Rural areas are not covered by organized waste collection
Sole method of communal waste treatment is depositing to sites
There is no organized separate collecting and recycling of packages, and other communal waste, except in
a few cities in Serbia.
There are no plants for hazardous waste storage and treatment and no plants for biodegradable waste
treatment
There is no system for collection of household hazardous waste and for unusable cars, and other specific
waste categories
Present disposal sites mostly do not satisfy EU requirements and standards
Poor Corporation between municipalities
Communal solid waste collection taxes do not cover all expenses *niska*
There are no data on total number of generators of waste, which may be used as secondary raw material
There is no organize education of population on waste, its maintenance and recycling obligation
Bad existing law regulation
110 | P a g e
11. Conclusions
The other urgent problems:

-
Closed landfills are not recultivated and have no recultivation projects

Most of present disposal sites are full and planned for closing (existing for more than 20 years)
Bio-chemical and industrial waste is of en disposed of at disposal sites, though it is illegal
There is no special disposal site in Serbia, or regular site of hazardous waste
Illegal local dumps are huge problem, and in most settlements are formed in neglected places.
Municipal Recycling Steps to Establish a Public Program

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Make the commitment to start.

Decide materials to be collected based on a simple market assessment of buyers and financial estimates.
Plan to target plastic. Identify and contact potential buyers to learn terms, conditions and opportunities in
the area.
Identify local private sector actors to procure recyclables when possible. Investigate partnerships and
separate agreements for different materials.
Determine how much value-adding will be done by JKP and the public sector in general. If separation and
processing cannot be counted on to be thorough (as is generally the case) this role should probably be left
to the private sector, with JKP simply pressing and baling. This obviously affects the economics
Negotiate agreements between municipalities, JKPs and/or contracted private sector recyclers. Include
incentives for specific targets or quantities.
Estimate number of containers for starting. A rule-of-thumb is approximately one container per 1000
citizens.
Review container designs and select a design and size that can be managed by the collection vehicles. The
see-through wire containers have better citizen separation than the closed-lid varieties.
Conduct a public relations campaign focusing on regional media outlets, advertising and school
campaigns.
Conduct a public relations campaign at the onset of the program. Place containers in parks, bus stations
and other high visibility areas; near schools; and near high concentrations of residences such as apartment
complexes. In housing areas, containers can be placed at intersections with high pedestrian traffic to allow
all citizens the opportunity to recycle with a minimum of effort. Avoid placing containers in places where
there are no general use containers.
Outline a route to simplify container pickup; place containers along the route.
Determine if recycling program will buy or accept individual or private-sector collection. If so, ensure that
collectors are aware of the terms, locations and conditions.
Communicate and negotiate with private sector collectors to realize larger economies of scale for sale and
transportation to the large buyers.
Try to avoid a common public perception that the collected recyclables are being disposed of rather than
recycled by publicizing results.
Task collectors to monitor the rate at which containers in specific areas are filled. Move or add containers
as necessary to try to balance the time so that containers fill at roughly the same rate.
Review these issues on a periodic basis to make improvements and expand outreach.
Some further steps that should be done are:

-
Implement efficient separation at source system for different municipal solid waste stream fractions
(recyclables, organic, hazardous household waste, etc). Adequate capital investments, equipment and
infrastructure needed.
Adoption of some bye-laws at national and local level to guide further waste management strategies and
decisions.
Integrate & support informal sector for recyclables recovery, managing composting facilities.
Implement extended producer responsibility arrangements.
Minimization of construction waste disposal. Increase its reuse.
111 | P a g e
Modification of good practice from the developing countries before their implementation on local level to
find a market specific solution.
Taking the right steps to reduce waste generation rate, to improve recycling, to implement principles such
a Polluter pays, Producers responsibility, where possible.
Improvement of all parts of the existing MSWM system (collection, transportation, recycling, disposal).
This study gives an overview of the current situation in the waste management system in Serbia, with its good and
bad practice, illogical parts and complex social factors. The situation in this field needs paradigm change in the
future. Since the quantity of generated waste is growing continuously and a very low percent of recyclables is
separated from the waste stream, an integrated sustainable waste management system is necessary. Also, an
adequate system of MSWM could be implemented only if its characteristics and management status are
determined and understood. In order to obtain the necessary data to promote and implement the most
appropriate methods for waste management.
112 | P a g e
12. Sources/References
12. SOURCES/REFERENCES
1.
Approximation strategy for waste sector, Belgrade, Ministry of environment, mining and spatial
planning (memsp) April 2012.
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.
Andjelkovi Pesic M., Stankovic J., Jankovic Milic V., Analysis of Possibilities for Recycling Industry
Development - Multi-Criteria Approach, Economics and Organization Vol. 9, N0 2, 2012, pp. 241 255,
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. Izvetaj o upravljanju ambalaom i ambalanim otpadom u 2011. godini, Republika
Srbija Ministarstvo ivotne sredine, rudarstva i prostornog planiranja, Agencija za zatitu ivotne sredine,
Beograd, jul 2012. godine.
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., Republiki zavod za
statistiku, Beograd 2012.godine.
11. Anonymous. 2012d, Development of models for the management of specific waste streams in Vojvodina,
with special emphasis on packaging waste, Faculty of tehnical sciences, Serbia, Novi Sad, 2012.
12. BiPro Study (2012): Workshop Waste Management, Athens, 13th November 2012, Ministry of
Environment, Energy and Climate Change, European Commission, DG Environment and DG Regio, BiPRO,
ENVIROPLAN SA
13. Data from the National Plan for Waste Management (in preparation, 2013)
14. Developing integrated solid waste management plan training manual, united nations environment
programme, 2009
15. D-Waste, European Recycling Performance: Drivers, Barriers and Lessons Learnt, 2012
16. European Commission, 2010,Final report supporting the thematic strategy on waste prevention and
recycling http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Final%20Report%20final%2025%20Oct.pdf.
Accessed 14 May 2012.
113 | P a g e
17. European Commission, EU waste policy: the story behind the strategy
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/story_book.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2012.
18. Famellos S., Lasaridi K., Charitopoulou Tr. Paschali Th., Grigoriadou M. New Institutional Instruments of
Alternative Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, November 2012
19. Famellos S., Makridis V., Koutsourakis G., Tsiftelidis D., Paschali T., 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. Popovi, Jovan V. Filipovi, Vojislav N. Boani, Paradigm shift needed municipal solid waste
management in Belgrade, Serbia, 2012.
21. HRA, 2012, http://www.eoan.gr/el/content/7. Accessed 14 May 2012.
22. http://www.electrocycle.gr/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235:ianouarios2013proodo-simeionei-i-anakiklosi-lamptiron&catid=1:latest&Itemid=124
23. http://www.scribd.com/doc/93988506/%CE%91%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%
83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82-%CE%A5%CE%A0%CE%95%CE%9A%CE%91%CE%9C%CE%AC%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82-2012
24. Katsaros N., Alternative Management of Plastic Materials", 2010
25. Lasaridi K., Ioannou T., Abeliotis K. "Ten years of extended producer responsibility policies in Greece,
26. Law on waste management ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 36/09)
27. Law n packaging and packaging waste ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 36/09)
28. Markku Salo, "Cooperation between producers and municipalities make high recycling targets possible",
JLY- Finnish Solid Waste Association, ISWA World Solid Waste Congress 2012, Florence, Italy
29. Mayers C. K.: Strategic, Financial, and Design Implications of Extended Producer Responsibility in Europe,
A Producer Case Study. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(3), 113-131 (2007).
30. MOPRORK, Identification of pollution from landfills and monitoring models, risk assessment, an
appointment of waste quantities whit satellite-modern information technologies in order to support
implementation of the legislation, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, 2012.
31. Rulebook on manner and procedure of waste tires management ("Official Gazette of the Republic of
Serbia", no. 104/2009 and 81/2010)
32. Rulebook on manners and procedures of used batteries and accumulators management, ("Official Gazette
of the Republic of Serbia", No. 86/2010)
33. Rulebook on the manner and procedure of end-of-life vehicle management ("Official Gazette of the
Republic of Serbia", no. 98/2010)
34. Rulebook on the manner and procedure of end-of-life vehicle management, ("Official Gazette of the
Republic of Serbia", No. 98/2010)
35. Saki ., "Trends in Recycling in Europe", European Environment Agency, 2010
114 | P a g e
12. Sources/References
36. Simes P., Cabral M., Ferreira S., Cruz N., Marques R. C., "Assessing the Efficiency of Recycling Systems:
Evidence from Portugal", CEG-IST, Technical University of Lisbon
37. Stochasis, Study on the Opportunities in the Recycling Sector 2011,
38. The national waste management strategy for the period 2010-2019, ("Official Gazette of RS no. 29/2010)
39. Velis C. and Brunner P., "Recycling and resource efficiency: it is time for a change from quantity to
quality", Waste Management Research, June 2013
40. Vuji G., Jovii N., Redi N., Jovii G., Batini B., Stanisavljevi N., Abuhress O. A., A fast method for the
analysis of municipal solid waste in developing countries - case study of Serbia, Environmental
engineering and management journal, august 2010, vol.9, no. 8, 1021-1029
41. Vuji G., Ubavin D., Milovanovi D., EU hierarchy in waste management and Serbian waste management
challenges, REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013.
115 | P a g e

Report Recycling in Balkan Region FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report Recycling in Balkan Region FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HSWMA & SeSWA

[OPPORTUNITIES & BARRIERS

OPPORTUNITIES & BARRIERS OF RECYCLING

Contributors & Reviewers

Websites: www.eedsa.gr, www.seswa.rs

With the support of

Financed under the ISWA Project Grant 2012.

5.2 Management of Recycling Streams in Serbia .................................................................................................... 65

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

1. INTRODUCTION: A RECYCLING WORLD

R ECYCLING IN A GLOBALISED WORLD

1. Introduction: A Recycling World

Some more constraints include:

Varied interpretations of legislation

2. RECYCLING IN THE REGION

FIGURE 1: MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT IN EU (2011)

2. Recycling in the Region

FIGURE 2: TREND IN GENERATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN EUROPE

FIGURE 3: MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT EUROPE

FIGURE 5: PACKAGING RECYCLING RATE (2010)

2. Recycling in the Region

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

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

2. Recycling in the Region

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

TABLE 2: SHARE OF RECYCLED WASTE13

2.2.1 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA

2. Recycling in the Region

3. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING POLICIES & LEGAL

FIGURE 8: EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

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

C) W ASTE F RAMEWORK D IRECTIVE

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

the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes ;

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

FIGURE 9: WASTE HIERARCHY PYRAMID

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

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

3.2.2 OVERALL STRATEGY , POLICY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN SERBIA

L INKS TO OTHER STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

3. Analysis of the Existing Policies & Legal Framework

M ANAGEMENT OF O THER P RODUCTS ( OLD VEHICLES , TYRES , CONSTRUCTION WASTE ETC )

4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste

4. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL

FIGURE 10: COUNTRY AND WASTE PROFILES OF GREECE & SERBIA17

4.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

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

Generated household waste in Greece was reported to be near 5,197,519 tonnes/year .

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

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

4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste

FIGURE 11: MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATED IN GREECE22

Source: Eurostat, 2012

FIGURE 12: MUNICIPAL WASTE IN GREECE BY TREATMENT

Source: Eurostat 2011 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasmun&lang=en

MSW Composition - Greece, 2011

Fraction (% by weight) (%ti

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

FIGURE 14: GEOGRAPHICAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION OF MSW COMPOSITION IN GREECE23,24

Collection coverage reaches 100 %

management system in the island of Crete. Waste Management 26, 668679.

4. Production & Management of Municipal Solid Waste

The existing MSW treatment facilities (2012) include: