Developing the strategy for biodegradable waste management in Greece

S. Skoulaxinou1, A. Mavropoulos1, A. Karkazi1, K.E. Lasaridi2

1. EPEM S.A., Athens, Greece
2. Harokopion University, Athens, Greece

1. Introduction
The Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, places targets on
Member States to reduce the quantities of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW)
going on landfill. Greece taking advantage of the four-year extension allowed for
those countries landfilling more than 80% of their waste in the year 1996, is
formulating its strategy by placing targets for the years 2010, 2013 and 2020.
The aim of this paper, is to present the approach for the formulation of the Greek
Strategy, given a wide array of economic, cultural and geographic constraints
coupled with a lack of reliable data-series on waste production.

2. Current Situation regarding SWM - BMW management

2.1 Current Institutional Infrastructure for MSW management
Municipalities and Communities are mainly responsible for the waste collection
and disposal, but also some aspects of planning. In many cases, waste disposal
comes under the competence of the so-called Waste Management Authorities
(WMA), which can be for instance, associations of local authorities. The most
important are the Association of Communities and Municipalities of Attica
(ACMAR) covering some 3,5 million people and the Association of Greater
Thessaloniki. Until recently there existed 5.600 communities and 360
municipalities contributing to local conflicts and opposition regarding the siting of
waste disposal facilities. By the end of 1998, municipalities and communities
were merged to less than 1.000, facilitating among else waste management
planning.
The second level of local government consists of the 51 Prefectural authorities,
also directly elected. The development of solid waste management master plans
and the approval of some of the new works scheduled by the municipalities, fall
within their jurisdiction, although from the year 2002 a requirement for waste
management planning on Regional level was placed by the central government
as a prerequisite for project funding. By planning on a more central level it should
be possible to achieve economies of scale, as larger facilities for the treatment
and disposal of the waste may be considered. The 13 Regional authorities, are
part of the public administration and may be regarded as the regional
representatives of the ministries and the state. They are not directly elected but
are appointed by the central government.
At a national level, the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public
Works is responsible for policy making, national planning, technical matters, as
well as licensing and regulating the financing of large waste treatment and
disposal facilities. The ministry is also responsible for preparing the sectoral
waste management strategies to ensure compliance with the EU legislation,
including the most challenging and often-controversial strategy for BMW.

2.2 SWM Management

Waste quantities in Greece reached 3,9 mil. tones in 1997 and 4,57 mil. tones in
2001. About 39% of the waste is produced in Attica Region.
Waste disposal until 1994 was characterised by the numerous dumpsites (4.850)
recorded officially, 70% of which, were uncontrolled (corresponded to 35% of the
total waste quantities). The proportion of the population served by regular
collection system was around 70%, while in numerous small islands and isolated
villages collection was rarely organized. Recycling activities were relatively
developed with remarkable results, mainly due to private sector efforts, providing
a diversion rate of 5,96 %.
Currently, situation has improved in the field of collection, recycling and final
disposal while there is much more to be done in the field of waste pre-treatment /
treatment prior to landfill. More specifically:
i. MSW collection rates have increased up to 90% (served population), while
the rest 10% concerns isolated communities and small islands with less
than 500 inhabitants.
ii. Six big uncontrolled or semi-controlled landfills are under restoration (two
in Attica, three in Thessaloniki and one in Crete Island). Currently, six
projects are under implementation while twelve (12) more under
preparation.
iii. Recycling rates for paper and metals (especially aluminium) have been
satisfactory as already mentioned. Additionally to the private sector’s
activities, four MRFs currently operate successfully, based on citizens’
participation in separation at source systems (in Zakynthos, Patras, Athens
and Larissa). Some recycling results are available in table 1. However,
recycling schemes have not spread to many areas of the country yet and
in many cases people are indifferent towards MSW management in
general.
iv. The total amount of waste to be treated prior to landfill will reach 597.000
t/y by 2005 (12% of total in 2005). A new Mechanical recycling - Biological
Treatment (MBT) facility is being constructed in Chania (70.000 t/y), while
the Athens MBT is expected to operate shortly (495.000 t/y). The existing
MBT plant in Kalamata (32.000 t/y), while operating, faces many problems.
v. Regarding final disposal in sanitary landfills (SLs), 53% of the population is
currently served, while it is expected to reach up to 74% by 2005, based
on the projects under preparation/construction.
[Table 1]

Also, important steps have been made with regards to environmental legislation:
i. The packaging directive was transposed to Greek legislation by issuing the
2939 Law in 2001. Its implementation started with the formulation of a
private – public partnership, the Packaging Waste Management Company
(PWMC), in 2003. This company has undertaken the task to organize
packaging waste management activities all over the country and to assure
increase in recycling rates for all recyclable materials, by enhancing
citizens’ participation and constructing new MRFs.
ii. The landfill directive has been transposed to Greek legislation by issuing a
Ministerial decree in 2002 (29407/3508). The implementation of this
directive now presents a great challenge for Greece since the results
already achieved, though quite important, are simply not enough to
achieve the targets and a change in waste management culture needs to
be made.

Another important area that characterizes current situation is the secondary raw
materials market. Currently, no market for compost or RDF exists. This is due to
two main reasons:
♦ Greek legislation imposes compost specifications, in order to utilise it for
agricultural use, while its application on fields is allowed for a limit of years in
order to avoid bio - accumulation of heavy metals. Currently, no positive
results exist for composts produced by MBTs (i.e. Kalamata plant) and farmers
are used to the commercial products they apply for years
♦ Strict specifications apply for RDF especially when it comes to its moisture.
Besides, the use of RDF as an alternative fuel presupposes modifications and
additional air pollution treatment units, for industries willing to use it as a fuel
(i.e. cement factories). The related costs for these modifications are
significant and it is doubtable that industry will afford it.
Additionally, existing markets for plastics and glass are not well developed, while
markets for paper and metals are mostly defined by private sector activities.

In the following, a proposal for creating a National Strategy for Biodegradable

Municipal Waste (BMW) will be presented based on quantified targets for BMW
diversion from landfill.

3. Setting the Targets

3.1 Basis for calculations
On the national level, a major drawback is the existence of a limited data
sequence regarding waste quantities. As it is set by the 1999/31 Directive, the
year 1995 should be the basis for quantified target formulation (or the earlier
year for which official data are published by EUROSTAT).
Based on EUROSTAT, official data for Greece exist for years 1985, 1990, 1991,
1992, 1997 and 2001. The majority of the data reported to Eurostat are based on
estimations, since in the ‘80s and the early ‘90s uncontrolled or semi-controlled
dumping was the common practice in Greece.

3.2 MSW composition

For Greece, data from field measurements exist for only a few areas such as
Athens, Creta, Thessaloniki, etc. Even those measurements, however, were made
at a certain year and there is no data repeatability. Official data on national level
were published in the Ministerial Decree 14312/1302 as presented in Diagram 1,
for year 1997.
[Diagram 1]

Additionally, data for Greece are published by EUROSTAT and by the European
Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flow – ETC/WMF.
EUROSTAT reports a total quantity of 3 million tones in 1990 of which 2,688
million tones are biodegradable (89,6%). Such a percentage is rather high and
most likely far from reality. On the other hand, ETC/WMF reports a total quantity
of 3,9 million tones in 1997 of which 2,613 mil. tones are biodegradable (67,0%),
based on the Ministerial Decree aforementioned.
Based on the above, year 1997 was chosen as a basis for calculations and waste
composition was assumed the one shown in Diagram 1. Year 1990 was not used
as a basis, because waste quantity reported is very low (3 million tones), while
the percentage of the biodegradable fraction is unrealistic (89,6%).

3.3 Estimating BMW quantities

Several alternative methods for making estimations were checked in the study
such as the model created in 1998 by the Dutch Ministry of Health and the
Environment (RIVM), which is based on the assumption that waste generation is
proportional to private consumption.
Another model for estimating waste quantities is the one developed by EEA
(2002), in which four different scenarios were developed for each country. Two of
the scenarios assumed different yearly increase in waste generation, while the
rest connected GDP and private consumption with waste generation.
The main conclusion from the evaluation of the existing models is that
connecting GDP or private consumption data with waste generation is not
applicable to the case of Greece.
Greek GDP presented a continuous increase in the decade ’90-’00 equal to 2,4%.
However, the estimation of a constant GDP growth in the next decade is not safe.
GDP arisings for the last five years are quite positive, but its composition
(primary/secondary production and services) limits the credibility of any future
indications. The statistical data available with regards to GDP growth indicate a
reduction in GDP growth after 2004. For the same reasons, a continuous increase
in private consumption is also unjustifiable.
Based on the above, new scenarios for estimating waste growth were developed
and evaluated, assuming different growth rates in waste production:
1st scenario: Waste grows by 1% yearly – “Optimistic” scenario
2nd scenario: Waste grows by 35% in the 20-year period 2001-2020 – “Realistic”
Scenario
3rd scenario: Waste grows by 3% yearly – “Pessimistic” scenario

Concluding, the 2nd scenario was considered realistic because an increase of 35%
in the period 2001-2020 is constituent to the increase in the previous decade
(47%), while population slightly increased and per capita waste production tends
to become constant.

Additionally, two scenarios regarding waste composition were made:

Composition Scenario 1: The biodegradable fraction of waste equals to 67% (47%
putrescibles+ 20% paper) minus the paper recycled. The paper recycled is
considered constant after 2005 and equal to 435.000 tons (current quantity
recycled 230.000 tons+ 205.000 tons until 2005) - pessimistic scenario.
Composition Scenario 2: The hypotheses in this scenario are (optimistic):
1. After 2005 the putrescible fraction is reduced to 35% of MSW and remains
constant for the period 2005-2020
2. Paper quantities increase up to 30% of MSW while paper recycling equals to
50%.
Finally, BMW quantities were calculated, according to the realistic scenario for
waste growth and the pessimistic scenario for waste composition.

3.4 Setting the targets on the National level

According to the above-described assumptions, the targets set are presented in
Table 2:
[Table 2]

4. Creation of the Greek Strategy for BMW Management

Before presenting a proposal for strategy development with regards to BMW
management, some interesting comments and conclusions arise from the work
made to quantify the targets for Greece in the years 2010, 2013, 2020:
• Assumptions need to be made in order to estimate waste quantities as well as
composition evolution in time. This is not only the case in Greece since
heterogeneity of information and reporting exists among different EU
countries (for instance, BMW has a different meaning among several states).
Besides, the very need for estimations in order to quantify the targets makes
it unsafe to set them now for 17 years ahead, because waste generation and
composition change over life status.
• Greece is a country with a special morphology, (mountainous areas, lots of
small islands and isolated areas, etc), thus many differences in life status exist
leading subsequently, to heterogeneity in waste production and composition
 from area to area. So, after quantifying the targets on the national level, one
comes to realize how tricky it is to allocate these targets to the regional level.
• Little has been achieved so far in the field of recovering materials from waste.
While recycling results seem promising, paper recycling cannot alone be
enough to reach the vast quantities of BMW that should be diverted from
landfill, taking into account that Greek MSW contain mostly putrescibles
(47%). Current treatment facilities with a total amount of MSW treated equal
to 597.000 t/y, contribute only by 30% to the target set for year 2010 (1,1
million tones of BMW to be diverted).
• Based on the above, it seems only logical that urban areas like Athens,
Salonica, Patra, etc., will have to take drastic measures in the short-time to
meet the targets (nationally and regionally). Referring to the calculations
made, Attica region for instance, has to divert 430.000 tons of BMW from
landfilling, by 2010. This may appear to be fare since the country’s capital is
the main waste producer, but waste quantities to be treated have to be
increased, in order to cover up for areas that cannot contribute a great deal to
achieving the national target.
• From an engineer’s point of view and taking into account the comments so
far, it seems difficult to meet the targets in urban areas without a large
incineration-energy recovery plant, which is the only way to avoid the
production of tremendous quantities of secondary materials. On the other
hand, planning now for the year 2020 may lead to technical and economical
mistakes that will in the future create an unsustainable system.
• Results from another similar study conducted on the regional level, indicate
that separate collection systems of organic waste in order to process it in
decentralized simple composting units, costs the same with establishing a
centralized plant. Therefore, when developing the strategy one comes to face
the dilemma: “Should the country invest on people’s environmental
conscience which is undoubtedly enhanced by separate collection systems or
on centralized treatment plants that could more easily achieve the targets”?

4.1 A proposal for BMW strategy

4.1.1 The strategy core
The strategy has to be based on the hierarchy: reduction of waste quantities
produced, increase in reuse/recycling/recovery (including energy recovery) and
reduction of BMW being landfilled.
Some basic elements of the strategy should be:
• Setting up two types of targets. The first one, maximum quantities of BMW, is
in accordance with the requirements of the 1999/31 directive. The second
one, minimum quantity that has to be diverted, (treated, recycled, recovered
etc.), has to be included in the National Strategy to indicate the need for an
integrated waste management system that will result at the achievement of
the first target.
• Application to all the regions of the country and inclusion of modifications by
area, if necessary
• Combined actions to all levels: design, collection-transfer, reuse, recycling,
treatment and disposal
• Changes in facilities licensing system as well as in the way waste producers
are charged
• Enforcement of institutional infrastructure and creation of national and
regional centres for solid waste management
• Use of a system to monitor progress by setting up specific monitoring
indicators
 4.1.2 Waste Reduction
The targets proposed are: i. Reduction in yearly MSW growth by 1% up to 2005, ii.
Total increase in MSW quantities for the period 2001-2010 should not exceed
15%, iii. MSW quantity should remain constant in the period 2010-2020.
Such targets obviously imply a change in eating and consuming habits, which
especially in urban areas, are hard to change. So, a well-designed informing
campaign is necessary, while a new way of charging households for the waste
they produce may have positive results.
4.1.3 Reuse / Recycling
Separation at source of organic waste and composting in simple systems is one
of the best ways of utilizing organic waste especially in rural, agricultural areas.
Even though such systems cannot lead to target achievement alone, their
application is necessary for alteration in environmental conscience of citizens,
which is, in the long run, necessary for reducing waste production.
Such systems should be favoured at the local level and local authorities should
encourage:
• Separate collection systems of organic waste in hotels, restaurants, etc.
• Treatment of organic waste with the use of simple, “mild” technologies
• Use of the produced compost in several applications
The targets proposed are: i. Composting of 5% of BMW by 2010, ii. Composting of
8% of BMW by 2013 and iii. Composting of 15% of BMW by 2010
4.1.4 Diversion from landfill – treatment
Establishing treatment plants seems to be a one-way solution for meeting the
targets. However, no technology can vanish waste but it simply converts existing
pollution to a different form (from solid to liquid or to air, etc). Additionally, as
already mentioned centralized treatment does not help in altering the way people
think about MSW.
Therefore, the choice of the kind, the capacity and the number of treatment
plants should be decided with caution. Some things to keep in mind are:
1. Central MBT plants should not be chosen unless:
• Separate collection of organic waste is not feasible
• Compost quality is of no importance
• Waste to be treated exceeds 50.000 t/y
2. Central energy recovery plants should not be chosen unless:
• Separate collection of organic waste is not feasible
• Ground resources are limited
• Waste to be treated exceeds 100.000 t/y
• Heating value of wastes (in case of incineration) or the amount of
organic waste (in case of anaerobic treatment) is appropriate
• Special attention should be paid to the high recycling rate of paper that
might affect heating value
• Incineration of “green” waste and other similar waste streams should
be avoided
Independently of the technology chosen, central treatment plants should be
designed and established in a way that separate collection systems are not
inhibited. Such plants must be part of an integrated management plant and not
isolated solutions.
4.1.5 Regarding final disposal
Sanitary Landfills (SL) are the end point of any waste management system. They
are also the cheapest and perhaps the most feasible solution for rural, isolated
areas in Greece. However, the environmental impacts from landfiling
biodegradable waste (odours, biogas, leachate), makes it compulsory to reduce
BMW landfilling.
Therefore, the targets proposed include:
• No landfilling of untreated MSW should take place after 2003.
• New SLs or existing ones until 2004 should apply waste pre-
treatment/treatment. The alternatives are: i. A treatment plant, ii. Recycling of
materials from waste (paper at least which is biodegradable), iii. Separate
collection and composting of garden waste, iv. Separate collection and
composting of kitchen waste
Central authorities should set minimum recovery rates that should be achieved
by each alternative.
Regional authorities, via regional waste management, should decide upon the
measures to be taken in order to reduce BMW quantities reaching landfills. Some
tools to be used in this direction are:
1. Complete banning of BMW landfilling
2. Complete banning of landfilling certain BMW streams (paper, garden
waste, etc)
3. Closure of certain Sanitary Landfills (SLs)
4. Limitation of BMW that can enter SLs (application per SL)
5. Limitation of BMW that can enter SLs (application at the regional level)
6. Upper and lower limit of BMW treated (per facility)
7. Landfill tax
Advantages and disadvantages of the above measures if applied in Greece are
presented in Table 3.
[Table 3]

All the above measures as presented in table 3, have advantages and

disadvantages. In all cases however, what appears to be a prerequisite is the
existence of field measurements regarding waste composition and a common
method to allocate BMW quantities at case level (area, landfill, region, etc).
Also, important element of any planning is the need for flexibility instead of
creating a system that relies solely on a landfill or on a treatment facility, while it
is obvious that targets need to be reset after a certain time (i.e. every 3 years) in
order to depict waste quantity and composition evolution as well as possible
achievements in management.
4.1.6 Institutional infrastructure
The confrontation of all the issues for the management of solid waste imposes
coordination, cooperation and complete utilization of public staff at all levels.
Taking as a fact that environmental offices and regional staff as well as personnel
in prefectures, acquire important experience on design, licensing and projects’
preparation issues, their broader possible utilization is considered a prerequisite
for the success of any management plan.
Certain tools that can help authorities to modernise and strengthen their
infrastructure are:

i. Waste Management Offices at the Regional Level

In addition to MSW issues, increased needs over hazardous waste, special waste
and wastewater issues require the establishment of Waste Offices, as separate
department of environmental offices in regions, at least in those this is possible.
The establishment and sufficient staffing of such an office would significantly
assist the achievement of the results that should be performed and provide the
ability of developing waste specialists. The Waste office could operate as a focal
point for Waste Management Authorities (WMA) and municipalities, but also as
information and documentation centre on legislation issues. Overall it will be the
official representative at Regional level.
Roles and responsibilities of the Waste office (solid, wastewater and hazardous)
could be as following:
• Systematic monitoring of legal development on waste issues and direct
notification of the involved offices and local authorities on regional/prefectural
level.
• The coordination and continuous contact with involved offices of the Ministry
of the Environment, over all those issues require national design and
informing of the central governing mechanism.
• The coordination and continuous contact with the involved prefecture staff.
• Systematic monitoring of the implementation progress of the solid waste
prefecture management plan and the assistance of the involved authorities
and WMA.
• The organization and supervision of required design studies on prefecture
level.
• The development and monitoring of a recording mechanism for dumpsites
remediation on regional level.
• The assurance of transparency and providing of information to everyone
interested on waste management issues.
• The control of environmental terms’ implementation on waste management
projects.
• 6 months and annual progress reporting over design and projects realization
issues.

ii. Business Plan for Waste Management Authorities (WMA)

WMA have to be strengthened in order to meet with the new needs coming from
the operation of more complex facilities, setting up extensive separation at
source systems and imposing strict environmental terms on landfills operation. A
way to set the basis for their feasibility is to develop a Business plan that
includes:
• Action plan for the next decade regarding various waste streams
• Development of an information system for monitoring waste management
progress that includes a full cost accounting computer software to monitor all
WMA activities
• Acquirement of an environmental certificate (ISO 14000 or EMAS)
• Establishment of an educational system for the staff
• Research for the options of cooperating with the private sector

iii. Formal or Informal Networks

Finally, setting up formal or informal Networks with the participation of both
public an private sector can assist in brainstorming and in exchanging
experiences, information, etc. Such networks can be assisted by NGOs like the
Hellenic Solid Waste Association in order to spread up information and create an
open dialogue channel between the various levels of public authority as well as
between public administration and the private sector.
4.1.7 Monitoring Indicators
The progress of every strategy has to be monitored in order to correct mistakes
and enhance good efforts. The establishment of monitoring indicators is rather
helpful in this field since they can provide with lots of information in a short time,
even to those with no technical/scientific expertise. Proposed indicators are
presented in table 4
[Table 4]
5. Conclusion
The implementation of EC goals in Greece, as they are expressed through
packaging waste and sanitary landfill directives, will result in a great SWM market
transformation.
This transformation will create new problems, relating with:
• Increased operational cost
• Difficulties in secondary raw materials disposition.
While it is obvious that the reduction of the landfilled biodegradable fraction will
have positive environmental impacts, it is not sure if such a reduction can be
achieved without central facilities and in particular incineration plants which lead
to massive volume reduction and produce energy that can be sold more easily. In
this case, one comes to face the dilemma: “Should the country invest on people’s
environmental conscience which is undoubtedly enhanced by separate collection
systems or on centralized treatment plants that could more easily achieve the
targets”?
Additionally, increased recycling and recovery rates will lead to a need for
expanding the secondary raw materials market, which is currently available only
for certain products (paper, ferrous and non-ferrous metals). Such an expansion
cannot ensure the disposition of the treatment products and thus there is an
urgent need for additional research and studies, on a European level, on this
issue. The uncertainty of the market behaviour and capacity provides with a
crucial conclusion. Landfills will be necessary not only for the treatment residues
and the untreated wastes but also to secure the system and to allow the final
disposal even for treatment products that their markets will not absorb them.
There is a need to combine common sense with waste hierarchy. Waste hierarchy
is a rule of thumb, but it may be in contrast with the common sense, especially if
it is too expensive. A cost – benefit analysis is always required, including
environmental and social costs and benefits besides the economic values. This is
also another field for research and studies, on a European level, because there is
not a clear and generally accepted way to implement environmental cost-benefit
analysis.
The implementation of EC directives presupposes, among others, an increased
involvement of the private sector since the advanced needs for the construction
of new treatment facilities drive to private sector funds.
The involvement of the private sector may give a solution to waste treatment
needs, but it means also that SWM activities have to be profitable. This is a very
critical point because as SWM becomes a profitable activity, the interest for
waste reduction and consequently for profit reduction, may decrease and thus a
long-term solution will not be promoted.
Finally, the market transformation will generate new SWM products and services,
leading to new needs for human and data resources management. A lot of efforts
should be implemented in Greece in order to achieve new control systems and
training organisations.

6. List of References
i. EEA, (2002). Biodegradable municipal waste management in Europe, Parts
1-3, Copenhagen, Denmark
ii. ΕΕΑ, (1999). Waste generation and management, Copenhagen, Denmark
iii. EEA, (1999). Baseline projections of selected waste streams, Copenhagen,
Denmark
iv. EPEM S.A, (2003). A Plan for the management of the Biodegradable
fraction of Municipal Solid Waste, Athens, Greece
v. ETC/WMF, (2003). Zero study: Resource Use in European Countries.
ETC/WMF, Copenhagen, Denmark
vi. Fraklin Associates, (1998). Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1997 update. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Report No.
EPA530-R-98-007.
vii. Imppola U., Veijanen A., Hänninen K., Kyriacou M., Kotsou M., Protopapa I.,
Kavoussanos M. and Lasaridi K.E. (2003). Comparative Evaluation of
Process Performance of Composting Plants in Greece and Finland. Oral
Presentation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Environmental Science and Technology (CEST), 8-10 September, Lemnos,
Greece.
viii. Lasaridi K.E., (2003). Organic Waste Management in Greece: Current
Status and Trends. Conference Proceedings. ORBIT 2003 Conference on
“Biological Processing of Organics: Advances for a Sustainable Society”,
29/4-5/5/2003, Perth, Australia.
ix. Linstaed C. Ekins P., (2001). Mass Balance UK: Mapping UK resource and
Material Flows. Royal Society for Nature Conservation, UK.
x. Mavropoulos A., Fountoulis K., Kolokotroni K., (2003). The Greek Strategy
on the implementation of landfill directive 1999/31/CE. 4th International
Technical Conference on Solid Waste, Leiria, Portugal.
[Table 1]: Recycling rates in Greece
Existing Recycling Recycling
Total
Recyclin planned Rates Total,
Material packagin
g rates, by PWMC, planned by %
g, tons
% t/y PWMC, %
Glass 19,0 21.865 178.950 12,1 31,1
Plastics 3,3 11.624 242.500 5,0 8,3
Metals 8,8 12.626 77.000 16,4 25,2
Paper/cardboard 64,6 77.403 356.000 21,7 86,3
Total packaging 32,6 123.518 855.000 14, 0 47,0
Printed paper NA 127.800 NA NA NA

Other
Metals 15,5%
4,5%
Glass
4,5%

Plastics
8,5%

Putrecibles
Putrescibles
Paper
47%
47,0%
20,0%

[Diagram 1]: MSW composition as reported in 14312/1302 Ministerial Decree

[Table 2]: Targets for BMW management in Greece

TARGETS FOR LANDFILLING AND 2010 2013 2020
DIVERSION OF BMW (million t/y) (million t/y) (million t/y)
Maximum BMW that may be driven to
1,95 1,30 0,90
Landfills
Minimum BMW that should be diverted 1,10 1,90 2,70

[Table 3]: Measures for reducing landfilling of BMW

Measure Advantages Disadvantages Application
1. Complete -BMW diversion -Rigid Certain SL located
banning of BMW from SL enhanced -Detailed data on closely to
landfilling -SL lifetime BMW quantities treatment facilities
increases and systematic
control of
incoming waste
loads is needed
-Increased
management
costs
2. Complete -BMW diversion -Rigid Certain SL located
banning in from SL enhanced -Detailed data on closely to
landfilling certain -Separate BMW quantities treatment facilities
BMW streams collection systems and systematic or to areas where
(paper, garden encouraged control of separate collection
waste, etc) -Environmental incoming waste systems operate
conscience loads is needed
developed -Separation
system in landfills
is required
-Increased
management
costs
3. Closure of -Number of SLs -Transfer costs Small SL reaching
certain Sanitary reduced increase the end of their
Landfills (SLs) -Increased lifetime
quantities
“available” to be
treated
4. Limitation of -Offers flexibility if -A common Large SL serving
BMW that can quantities allowed method to urban areas
enter SLs to enter SL estimate BMW
(application per decrease over a quantities at case
SL, inclusion in the time period level is necessary
licensing -Encourages the -In case diversion
documents) setting up of systems fail a
systems for temporary
diverting BMW disposal area for
from SL BMW is required
-SL terms of -Overall
operation are management
clearly defined costs increase
-SL environmental
impacts minimised
-SL operation and
rehabilitation costs
decrease
5. Limitation of -Accordant to -A common Where regional
BMW that can 99/31 philosophy method to authorities have
enter SLs -Offers flexibility if estimate BMW the necessary
 Measure Advantages Disadvantages Application
(application at the targets are quantities at infrastructure
regional level) redefined over a regional level is
time period necessary
-Encourages the -Increased
setting up of complexity
systems for -Inadequate
diverting BMW institutional
from SL infrastructure in
-SL terms of many areas
operation are -Overall
clearly defined management
-SL environmental costs increase
impacts minimised
-SL operation and
rehabilitation costs
decrease
6. Upper and lower -Facilities can -A common In any case
limit of BMW accept quantities method to
treated (per from various areas estimate BMW
facility, inclusion thus quantities at
in licensing competitiveness is regional or case
documents) encouraged level is necessary
-Encourages the -Increased
setting up of complexity
systems for
diverting BMW
from SL especially
if combined with
measure 4
-Room available
for separation at
source systems
-Flexible system,
not depending on
a certain facility
7. Landfill tax -Motivates against -Need to change Should be
landfilling waste producers considered by
-May be a source are charged central authorities
of money to invest -Landfill gate fees and applied by
on must increase up case if considered
recycling/recovery to 250-300% to applicable
reach treatment
costs

[Table 4]: Progress monitoring indicators

Monitoring indicator Definition
MSW production Quantity of municipal
Unit: tons/yr solid waste based on
weighing measurements
in Sanitary Landfills and
treatment facilities
Goal
Creation of database
for the monitoring and
assessment of the
system
Monitoring of the
 “decrease of waste
production” target
MSW production per person Annual quantity of Monitoring of the
per GDP municipal solid waste relation among MSW
Unit: tons/per GDPcapita per person per GDP generation and
consumer habits
(definition of the
relation: MSW
generation – GDP
development)
Daily MSW production per Daily quantity of Creation of database
person municipal solid waste for the monitoring and
Unit: Kg/capita*day per person according to assessment of the
the population data of system
2001 inventory Monitoring of the
“decrease of waste
production” target
MSW composition Composition of MSW Creation of a
Unit: % w/w of material based on composition database for the
field measuring monitoring and
programs assessment of the
system
Safe disposal Solid waste percentage Monitoring of the
Unit: % disposed to sanitary “decrease of
landfills over the total uncontrollable waste
waste generated disposal” target
Achievement of 99/31
targets
Recovery rate (RBMW) BMW recovered over the Achievement of 99/31
Unit: % w/w of generated total BMW generated targets
BMW
Disposal rate (DBMW) BMW disposed to Achievement of 99/31
Unit: % w/w of generated sanitary landfills over targets
BMW the total BMW
generated
Packaging waste recovery rate Packaging waste Achievement of 99/31
indicator (RPW) recovered over the total and national law 2939
Unit: % w/w of generated generated targets
packaging waste
Packaging waste pecovery Material recovered over Achievement of
rate per material (Rpaper, Rglass, the total generated national law 2939
Rmetal, Rplastic) targets
Unit: % w/w of the specific Development of
generated material database for the
quantity of paper left
for treatment