Table Of Content“Low Cost Zero Waste Municipality”
(1G/MED08-533 ZERO WASTE)
Phase 4.1.
Transnational SWOT Analysis on waste
management concepts
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................4
SECTION I: TRANSNATIONAL SWOT ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5
SEPARATE COLLECTION OF PACKAGING WASTE AND PRINTED MATERIALS..................................................5
REUSE SHOPS...................................................................................................................................................7
HOUSEHOLD COMPOST...................................................................................................................................8
GREENWASTE COMPOSTING...........................................................................................................................9
SEPARATELY COLLECTED BIOWASTE.............................................................................................................10
RECYCLING CENTERS.....................................................................................................................................11
APPLICATION OF FAIR CHARGING SCHEMES (PAYT).....................................................................................12
SEPARATE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING OF WEEE......................................................................................13
SEPARATE COLLECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD WASTE....14
SEPARATE COLLECTION AND REUSE/RECYCLING OF BULKY HOUSEHOLD WASTE.......................................15
SEPARATE COLLECTION AND RE‐USE OF TEXTILES/CLOTHING.....................................................................16
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF END OF LIFE VEHICLES (ELVS)..................................................................17
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE............................................18
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF USED COOKING OILS...............................................................................19
ZERO‐WASTE POLICY STRATEGY....................................................................................................................20
INTERNET EXPLOITATION FOR SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT.........................................................21
OPERATION OF A MUNICIPAL INFORMATION GROUP..................................................................................22
SECTION II: FACTSHEETS....................................................................................................................................23
1. “Free Newspapers, Pay as you Throw” of the Metropolitan Entity of Waste Water Services and Waste
Management (EMSHTR)................................................................................................................................24
2. "Retorna" Network, return for the future” of"Retorna" Network for the promotion of a Return,
Collection, and Recovery System (“SDDR” from its initials in Spanish).........................................................34
3. “CAPANNORI TOWARDS ZERO WASTE” of Municipality of Capannori; ASCIT......................................43
4. “RECYCLODROME” of RECYCLODROME association.............................................................................52
5. “Recycling of packaging waste” of Solid waste management corporation of Zakynthos.....................58
2
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
6. “Re‐use center (Center ponovne uporabe)” of Technology center for applicative ecology ‐ EKO‐TCE
d.o.o...............................................................................................................................................................64
7. “Eco Punt Verd” of PICH AGUILERA / TONI SOLANAS / GERONA GRUO, SL / INÈDIT, SL......................70
8. “Separate and win (locuj in zmaguj)” of Snaga d.o.o............................................................................78
9. “Omaplast” of Omaplast d.o.o..............................................................................................................85
10. “Yellow bags” of OKP ROGAŠKA SLATINA, d.o.o...............................................................................92
11. “Zeos” of Zeos d.o.o........................................................................................................................100
12. “MOON CUP PROJECT: FOR WOMEN WHO LOVE ENVIRONMENT AND LIKE TO FEEL "FREE” of
Municipality of Collegno – Isola Cooperative..............................................................................................107
13. “COMMUNITY WASTE DOMESTIC COMPOSTING” of Municipality of La Salle...............................115
14. “WATER IN JUG” of Municipality of Reggio Emilia..........................................................................123
15. LIFE07 ENV/GR/000271 HEC PAYT : “The development of Pay as You Throw Systems in Hellas,
Estonia and Cyprus” of Municipality of Elefsina..........................................................................................130
16. “Recycling of packaging waste” of Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation – HE.R.R.Co.............137
17. “Recycle of electrical and electronic equipment” of Municipal organization for waste treatment ‐
Rhodes.........................................................................................................................................................143
18. “Recycling of packaging waste” of Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation – HE.R.R.Co.............149
19. “Selective Collection Door to Door in Cervera (la Segarra). Recollida Porta a Porta dels residus
urbans de Cervera (La Segarra) of Consell Comarcal de La Segarra............................................................156
20. “Taxa Justa (The fair tax) a Argentona. Pay as You Throw Systems in Argentona (Catalunya)” of
Municipality of Argentona...........................................................................................................................169
21. ” Biobag” of Špela Lampe................................................................................................................181
22. A bin for biodegradable waste "Organko" of Plastika Skaza d.o.o..................................................187
23. “Plants for recovering and recycle materials” of Quadrifoglio Spa.................................................201
3
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
INTRODUCTION
The transnational SWOT analysis was produced within the framework of the Low Cost Zero Waste
Municipality project co‐funded by the European Regional Development Fund. Its focus was to
provide Local Authorities with a transnational SWOT Analysis of different types of sustainable solid
waste management practices. It focuses on evaluating the common strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats of the different practices and policies for local authorities across the
board when applied in different areas, regions and countries of EU Member States.
For this purpose:
The inventory of fact sheets on policy, practices and technologies was collected by the
project partners and evaluated. This is presented in part 2 of this document.
Examination of waste prevention policy at national, regional and local levels and
implementation practices were examined.
Overall available descriptions of prevention/re‐use/recycling activities taken by any type of
actors in countries were taken into account.
The following set of SWOT analyses refers to the most comparable applications collected from the
above mentioned review.
4
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
SECTION I: TRANSNATIONAL SWOT ANALYSIS
SEPARATE COLLECTION OF PACKAGING WASTE AND PRINTED MATERIALS
Strengths Weaknesses
EU legislation exists The more separation of source streams are required, there
higher the effort required by residents.
National producer responsibility schemes are in place
L.A. must develop highly efficient collection systems and
It can contribute to the valorization of a significant amount increase services.
of municipal and household waste.
Residents must be educated often to reach higher targets.
It can extend landfill lifetime expectancy.
Where there are more than one producer responsibility
There are economic gains for L.A. to implementing these schemes in place, competition may evolve between them
incentives.
The residents have knowledge on how these systems work
and they participate in them.
There is general support from society as a whole
Indirect incentives to residents for participation
Creation of new jobs.
It is a tried and proven method.
There are diverse technologies, methods and equipment to
choose from for application.
Higher quality materials are collected for recycling
It contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases.
Opportunity Threats
5
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
Contributes to local, regional and national authorities in There are cases where geographic location of Local
meeting their respective legislative targets. Authorities lead to a reluctance of the producer
responsibility schemes to integrated them as it is more
New jobs are created in the community. costly.
Materials are available in the community for local industry Inefficient collection schemes may create negative
and they do not have to import. backlash from residents.
Results in a decrease in waste production. Existing waste management staff at times perceives
initiating these programs as a threat to their positions.
Opportunity to generate income from the sale of materials.
Increases community solidarity‐residents acknowledge they There are initial expenses related to these projects (eg.
are doing something good for their local environment public awareness)
Local authority acquires environmentally positive profile.
Provides residents with the incentives to participate in
waste prevention activities.
6
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
REUSE SHOPS
Strengths Weaknesses
Significant job creation in comparison to other waste Requires continual awareness raising to secure goods from
management practices residents
Social impact: Provides less expensive products to residents (in Must have a very efficient collection system in place‐ often
some LA it is linked to social services) have to compete with private actors or residents that want to
get rid of it bulky goods immediately.
Easily applicable
In significant majority of cases it is financially sustainable and
income generating activity
A lot of bulky waste and quantities are diverted from landfill
and lifespan extended
Opportunity Threats
Opportunity to reduce landfill costs and increase income and In periods of economic crisis, although demand for used
job creation goods increases there is a decrease of donated goods.
Supports Social initiatives of L.A.‐Traditionally in Europe these
activities have provided opportunities for marginalized people
to be re‐introduced into work‐field.
Easily replicable
7
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
HOUSEHOLD COMPOST
Strengths Weaknesses
Supports national, European legislation When implemented at large‐scale local level requires good
planning to take all factors at household level into account.
Widespread applicability
There is a cost (although small)
Can have significant impact source reduction
Requires very good public awareness and support to citizens
Increases life‐span of landfills
No permits required
Cost‐benefit interest for LA
Benefit for citizens (citizens benefit from use of compost)
Opportunity Threats
Garners strong support from citizens Low awareness of population (if not properly informed
especially initially may have backlash)
Creates the opportunity for green job creation (directly and
indirectly)
8
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
GREENWASTE COMPOSTING
Strengths Weaknesses
Greenwaste are valuable and always on demand from Requires integrated planning and operation control
composting facilities
Requires space for the composting facility
National and EU legislation exists
Small number of composting facilities in some countries
Simple and widely spread know‐how on management
methods A relatively small capital cost is required for the initiation
Has the potential to manage 100% of MSW green waste Cooperation with and training of waste collection personnel
fraction of municipality
Increases landfills’ life span
Lower costs for the technology involved, compared to other
methods such as MBT and thermal treatment
Results in new permanent jobs
There is social consensus in this method
A useful and valuable material is produced
Contributes to GHG emissions reduction
Opportunity Threats
Waste reduction Can work only if it is accepted by the citizens
Reduction of final disposal costs Negative reactions from waste collection personnel of
municipality
Results in new permanent jobs
Low participation levels from citizens
Active participation of citizens that can become more active in
other waste management related issues
Positive environmental profile of the municipality that can
lead to privileged access to environmental funding, increased
tourism etc
Positive political profile with increased acceptance levels from
citizens
9
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
SEPARATELY COLLECTED BIOWASTE
Strengths Weaknesses
National and EU legislation exists Requires separate collection infrastructure (bins)
The necessary know‐how exists Requires integrated planning and operation control
Can combine different sources of organic waste, such as: Requires space for the composting facility
agricultural activities, slaughter houses, olive processing
plants, waste water treatment plants etc. Problems related to the establishment of the facility (area
selection, permits, social reactions)
Has the potential to manage 100% of MSW organic fraction
High initial costs (bins, facilities)
Increases landfills’ life span
Constant information and sensitization campaigns for quality
Lower costs for the technology involved, compared to other and quantity assurance
methods such as MBT and thermal treatment
Cooperation with and training of waste collection personnel
Results in new permanent jobs of municipality
There is social consensus in this method
A useful and valuable material is produced
Contributes to GHG emissions reduction
Opportunities Threats
Waste reduction Can work only if it is accepted by the citizens
Reduction of final disposal costs Negative reactions from waste collection personnel of
municipality
Results in new permanent jobs
Improper participation from citizens can lead to bad quality
Active participation of citizens that can become more active in compost
other waste management related issues
Positive environmental profile of the municipality that can
lead to privileged access to environmental funding, increased
tourism etc
Positive political profile with increased acceptance levels from
citizens
10
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund
Description:SECTION I: TRANSNATIONAL SWOT ANALYSIS . Municipality of Collegno –
Isola Cooperative. 13 It can extend landfill lifetime expectancy. There are
