Roadmap for South Italy (South IT)

Transcription

1 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 1 (South IT) Despite good performances in many districts, and successful separate collection schemes implemented in various, Italy was singled out, in general terms, as a Country showing critical issues pertaining waste management. In particular, the assessment of problems and measures be implemented was focused on 5 Central and Southern Regions which are showing a particularly critical profile vis-à-vis waste management. To help ensure full implementation of EU waste legislation and the waste hierarchy, including by addressing the still very predominant reliance on landfilling municipal waste (66 % in South IT), the following recommendations are made: Main recommendations 1. Provide waste management planning based on options in line with the waste hierarchy and by making use of the appropriate economic in order qualify for EU funding ( ). Such EU funds should primarily support waste separate collection and recycling of waste with a view of meeting the recycling targets. 2. Progressively increase the existing landfill tax levels necessary effectively divert waste from landfills. Use revenues support separate collection and alternative infrastructure. 3. Use (part of) the landfill tax boost local programmes and schemes for separate collection necessary achieve the national target of 65% by 2012 and recycling. Introduce PAYT scheme as necessary in order help prevent waste generation. 4. Ensure full compliance with the legal obligation on pre-treatment of waste before disposal in order make disposal less cost-competitive. 5. Facilitate the (re-)establishment of the ATO (Optimal Terririal Units) or similar entities for a coordinated planning of treatment and disposal sites so that municipalities can join/plan efforts and reduce waste management while providing legal certainty for private operars. Define capacity building programmes for local decision-makers in order facilitate the exchange of good practices. 6. Update the establishment of SISTRI as a ol prevent illegal practices related waste management.

2 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 2 Regional waste management situation structure: The State (Central Government, Ministry of Environment) defines general strategies and secral policies, adopting Waste Acts and Environment Acts. The National EPA (ISPRA) provides technical support policy-making. Together with the National Observary on Waste (ONR) it publishes the National Annual Waste Report. Regions are mandated define Waste Management Plans and Waste Prevention Plans, although this is often devolved down, in which case Regions only define the strategic provisions. or aggregations of (be they established by law as ATO, i.e. Optimal Terririal Unit in Regional or Provincial planning, be they voluntary agreements among different ), detain ownership ( privativa ) of MSW (household + household-like waste), they are responsible for organization of waste collection systems, which they may run through dedicated services or Companies established on purpose ( in house management); alternatively, they may tender out the waste collection service through public tenders. Waste generation and collection: According [MSW ISPRA Report 2012] 1, the tal amount of municipal waste generated in SOUTH IT (data 2010) is 10,348 kt; in LAZIO it tals 3,431 kt. The foregoing gives a per capita generation of 495 kg (SOUTH IT) and 599 kg (LAZIO) respectively, similar and higher than the EU average. Waste collection basically covers 100 % of the population. Cleansing of areas affected by littering and fly tipping is covered by Municipal services, and waste thereby collected is fully defined as MSW. Waste management is established by law as a service of public interest; hence its collection is subject strategic planning and decisions taken by (whom the primary responsibility for collection resides on). Collection of packaging waste is covered by same schemes and contracts related Municipal Waste. Separate collection of packaging waste is common in North Italy, and fairly diffused in South Italy. Separate collection of biowaste is undergoing a fast growth (Italy is currently talling more than 3.5 Mt separately collected organics from MSW), and is showing be the main driver increase separate collection rates. Waste treatment: In Italy the extent of self-sufficiency at Regional level was 99.8 % (2007) and 99.4 % (2008). No figures have been made available for 2009 yet [EC 2012b]. Some waste is currently being shipped abroad from Campania in order help tackle the local waste crisis. In SOUTH IT and LAZIO, treatment infrastructure of municipal waste is based on: pre-treatment facilities (mostly MBT sites), respectively 53 and 8 operating plants, composting facilities, respectively 49 and 12 operating plants, incinerars, respectively 9 and 4 plants and landfills, respectively 80 and 10 sites. Processing and recycling of packaging waste is typically subject dynamics of globalization. Therefore, a comparison of flows of collected materials vis-à-vis the consistency of industrial capacity is highly influenced (and disrted) by imported/exported nnages. In any case, collected packaging waste is (mostly) given back CONAI, which then refers the network of industrial facilities (paper mills, glass facries, steel facries, etc.) processing separately collected materials gether with primary raw materials. 1 The latest MSW Report 2012 by ISPRA refers data sets of The aggregated data sets herewith presented for SOUTH Italy include the following Regions: Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicilia, Sardegna, Abruzzo, Molise, the last three not specifically targeted by our survey. Lazio, which is covered in national statistics and in the ISPRA MSW Report in CENTRAL Italy, is therefore mentioned separately with dedicated data sets

3 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 3 Instruments applied move up the waste hierarchy: Legal s: In Regional and Provincial Plans, National provisions concerning targets, bans and restrictions apply, which includes the following key provisions: A (minimum) separate collection target of 65 % A target for preparation for recycling and reuse of 50 % An obligation on pre-treatment of waste going landfills A ban on landfilling waste with high calorific value (LHI > 13 MJ/kg; although entry in force of this provision is still pending, since it has been postponed various times by the National Government) A packaging waste recovery target of at least 60 % (including incineration with energy recovery ) A recycling target for various packaging materials of at least 60 % for glass, paper and board, 50 % for metals, 26 % for plastics, 35 % for wood Besides, at national level, Decree 203/03 establishes an obligation on at least 30 % of green procurement (purchase of goods made of recycled materials) by Public Bodies. Economic s: The reference Landfill tax is defined at Regional level. The tax varies according other parameters established at Regional level, e.g. whether the waste has been pre-treated; the landfill tax is also subject rebates for those areas (, ATOs) achieving the separate collection targets. Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) is currently implemented in some hundreds, mostly in North Italy. In other, a Waste tax applies, which is calculated on the surface area of the property. Separately collected packaging waste benefits from the crediting scheme managed by CONAI (National Consortium for Packaging); unit values vary according the type of packaging and the purity of collected materials. Energy from anaerobic digestion, landfill gas and incineration is subsidized through the Green Certificates (renewable obligations). In the case of incineration, this applies only 51 % of the produced energy (which is the share considered as renewable ). The main problems with regard the management of municipal waste and their corresponding reasons are summarised in the following section.

4 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 4 Overview of the most relevant problems and their reasons (in order of importance) No Deficit/Problem Description of the problem Reasons 1 Obligation on treatment of waste landfills not fully complied Most of residual waste going landfills still largely by-passes pretreatment. To our calculations, in Southern Italy only 46.4 % of the landfilled waste is pretreated (2010). As a matter of course, infringement procedures are underway or have been already notified on the specific issue. The problem mostly originates from the deferring effect caused by postponement (for various years, until 2009) of the deadline for entry in force of the obligation, which misled many planning authorities plan only on the long-term solutions. In addition, the budgetary constraints sometimes exert an effect, in that settle for the least expensive option (i.e. those landfills where pretreatment has not been fully or The deadline included in National Frame Act on landfills has been postponed various times (until 2009), thereby causing lack of care/commitment the issue by local planners and contracrs Dedicated infrastructure (e.g. MBT or thermal treatment) largely incomplete in some above Sicily and Calabria Where already established, capacity is not fully used on account of operational problems due mismanagement (e.g. Campania) Budgetary constraints compelling reduce adequately implemented yet). 2 The potential of separate collection/recycling /composting not fully deployed Separate collection ok huge steps forward in last years, including schemes in South Italy and in large wns. However, many LAs and Communities are still lagging behind despite *evidence on efficacy of kerbside schemes already implemented also by many even in Southern Regions 1 (typically delivering separate collection rates of % and more) *the national separate collection target, 65 % by 2012 Locally, high landfill capacity and low fees available (e.g. Sicily) Some WMPs dragging resources and planning efforts wards options for the management of residual waste (plans biased wards incineration, e.g. Campania) The starting CAP.EX. (investment for equipment: dedicated trucks and receptacles) typically not covered by EU funding measures (such funds are normally used for capital-intensive infrastructures for This impairs the potential of separate collection as the fastest ol meet the targets and obligations of the Landfill Directive (concurrently missing comply, locally, with the Packaging Directive). The main problems have a further, fast and effective growth of separate collection are currently related the need change the management of residual/mixed waste) Decision-makers not fully aware of achievable results Possibility optimise the system and make it cost-effective not fully disclosed local decision-makers operational paradigms of waste collection in those many where large investments have been made in the past on bring schemes (collection by means of road containers and side-loading packer trucks; this refers mostly many areas in Central Italy as e.g. Tuscany). As a matter of fact, the need have the system shifting wards kerbside collection (based on smaller receptacles and, for most materials, on non-compacting open lorries) requires a thorough revision of the waste collection infrastructure. Also, the financial dimension being progressively attained by many corporate groups gathering different Public Cleansing Services, often makes strategies slip away from publicly defined interest (which normally

5 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 5 No Deficit/Problem Description of the problem Reasons entails more separate collection, organization, manpower) in a financially aimed strategy (aiming at infrastructures as incinerars and other hi-tech installations, hence more technology, less manpower). 1 e.g. Salerno (pop, ) and pilot neighborhoods in Naples, achieving 70% 3 Difficult siting of disposal sites (landfills, incinerars) Currently, local protests and riots against new planned sites are the main constraint on prompt implementation of plans. Subsequently, waste management plans are often bound undergo revision, with a much broader/slower management of procedural implications. Protests against new sites often originate from a lack of credibility of plans and the concurrent argument that separate collection might be the solution. The issue is of particular importance in Lazio (due a long-term reliance on the huge landfill sites for Rome, with no consistent action in the past on separate collection) and Campania (due over-reliance of previous plans on landfilling and incineration). Also, demographic conditions may locally imply difficult siting (e.g. in the highly urbanized metropolitan area around Naples). Often, over-reliance of local plans on landfilling and incineration (e.g. Campania) causes a lack of credibility and provides for easy arguments against installation of infrastructures for residual waste The largely missing pre-treatment of waste be landfilled, causes much increased impacts at landfill sites, hence a higher sensitivity of local communities Cases of corruption in the past also cause a lack of credibility of institutions and private contracrs, and provide for arguments against the rationale for siting Sometimes, high density of population in the suitable areas (e.g. flatlands in Campania) is an intrinsically constraining facr 4 Incomplete coverage of with regard MSW management The tal revenues from the Waste tax (TARSU), which should in principle cover 100 % of the related waste management, are lower in Southern Italy (85 % coverage in 2009). This in turn affects viability of different options for waste management, and sometimes even implies the waste collection service be discontinued ( finance-bound waste emergencies instead of lack of capacities, often happening above all in Sicily). Tax evasion (linking sometimes incomplete moniring/reporting on dwellings, whose width the waste tax is calculated) Use of local waste companies as a way secure social employment (thereby tackling occupational issues), causes an inappropriate increase in, which in turn triggers tax evasion Political sensitivity of any action devised increase taxation or the degree of collection of taxes 5 Lack of cross-consistency across different Regional WMPs Despite overarching goals and targets (e.g. the 65 % separate collection target) mandated by National framework waste legislation, different Regions often adopt different options, above all for the management of residual waste. This often causes confusion in the public debate concerning devised strategies. The decision-making process is still largely subject different visions of various Political Parties and lobbying actions Good practice is widely diffused across Italy and within Southern but so far it has not been sufficiently emphasised (the pdown approach, i.e. defining strategies, is not sufficiently well complemented with the botm-up approach, i.e. dissemination of good practice) 6 Illegal delivery of special/hazardous waste in MSW Amounts of special (i.e. industrial) and even xic/hazardous waste are sometimes illegally collected/delivered alongside MSW. Apparently, this happened above all in Campania in the past, and constitutes another argument for protests against Poor moniring (a national system for traceability of industrial waste, SISTRI, has been defined and is planned operate, though its entry in force is being progressively postponed)

6 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 6 No Deficit/Problem Description of the problem Reasons treatment sites and final disposal sites. Illegal delivery may take place o o during collection (private contracrs illegally servicing also industries during the collection round) or directly in containers (delivery of industrial waste in containers permanently sited on the road, in bring schemes )

7 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 7 Action plan Horizontal measures addressing several problems MEASURE MEASURE 1: Increase landfill tax Increase progressively the existing landfill tax achieve higher tal for landfilling than for alternative treatment infrastructure (given the political sensitivity, the increase and corresponding timeline need be further discussed) Revenues preferably be invested in re-use and recycling infrastructure Communicate landfill tax invesrs and stakeholders; initiate awareness campaigns regarding importance of increase of landfill tax for different target groups Undertake expert meetings on procedures for implementation and management of landfill taxes for local authorities/municipalities MEASURE 2: Restrictions/Ban on landfilling municipal waste Define a stringent deadline for the ban on landfilling untreated municipal waste, after which high fines apply Codify exemption (as stipulated by art, 6.a of Directive 99/31) from the obligation for achieving a low-risk condition for residual waste be landfilled (normally, after good separation of organics) MEASURE 3: PAYT scheme Promote PAYT schemes (this requires adoption of proper schemes for separate collection (basically, kerbside collection) and appropriate definition of the charging systems and levels, so as boost recycling/reduction, albeit concurrently avoiding fly-tipping) Legal/Administrat ive, Economic/ fiscal MoE, Ministry of Finance Short-term None Informative MoE Ad-hoc Informative MoE Short- Legal MoE Short-term None Legal Economic/fiscal MoE, Short-term short-term None - Reduced amount of untreated municipal waste going landfills, making recycling an economic alternative - Increased acceptance of the increase of taxations, transparency, reliability for invesrs of recycling facilities - Reduction of impacts of landfills in those districts where such provision is not implemented yet; reduce economic preference for landfills not adopting pre-treatment - Foster good practice in separate collection upfront - Improved separate collection, revenues balanced with and available for local waste

8 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 8 MEASURE management; MEASURE 6: Enhance enforcement Strengthen inspection and enforcement: provide sufficient human/ economic resources, provide training for local inspection and police officers MoE, ARPA,, Environmental Police (NOE, CFS) MoE Short-term - Better implementation of legal provisions - Revenues through fines MEASURE 7: Improve implementation of waste management plans Promote Regional workshops on EU-conformed implementation of waste management plans Informational MoE, short-term - Enhance the implementation of the already existing local Waste plans, and its likely effects in the Promote inter-regional cooperation and regular meetings on waste strategies and plans Informational Short and - Improve waste management strategies in different Regions MEASURE 8: Better use EU funds for establishment of alternative infrastructure - Better Increase administrative capacity for the management of EU funding measures by allocating more resources and technical capacity building (e.g. via projects) MoE, Regions Short-term utilisation/allocation of the CP fund - Improved alternative waste treatment infrastructure

9 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 9 PROBLEM 1: Obligation on treatment of waste landfills not fully complied with Proposals address the problem PROPOSAL 1: Establishment of treatment infrastructure (Comparatively) fast implementation of the ban on landfilling untreated waste. Possible further recovery of B grade Establish MBT facilities (number and capacity be discussed) or revamp existing ones (e.g. old mixed MSW composting sites) Infrastructural, waste industry Mid-term longterm Medium high Structural funds materials from residual waste (paper, plastics, metals); minimisation of disposal; thorough reduction of impacts of landfills; generation of renewable energy by means + of anaerobic digestion if included in the scheme Increase the number of pilot projects related Material Recovery facilities (MRFs) / infrastructural Region Short Medium Improved knowledge for recovery of materials from residual waste and related market PROBLEM 2: The potential of separate collection/recycling/composting not fully deployed Proposals address the problem PROPOSAL 1: Establishment of appropriate separate collection framework Promote operationally optimised separate collection schemes at the kerbside for urban/rural areas be determined Infrastructural LAs, medium Structural Funds Improved source separation; better quality of secondary raw materials. + Implement awareness raising campaigns regarding the reasons of the implementation of separate collection; foster cross-contamination and dissemination of good practice already existing in pilot schemes in S Italy, in accordance with existing initiatives of NGOs (e.g. National Award Informational LAs, NGOs Promote good practice in separate collection; promote adoption of operationally and economically optimised schemes Comuni Ricicloni, bets recycling )

10 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 10 Proposals address the problem Establish civic amenity sites for collection of all types of municipal waste also including the option - deliver hazardous household waste - deliver goods (e.g. furniture, appliances, other Infrastructural LAs, long-term Medium Structural Funds Higher quality of separately collected waste (separation of hazardous from non hazardous streams). Prevention of waste via reuse of products + bulky waste) for a possible refurbishment/reuse Supervise compliance and quality of service provided by waste management companies through inspections and control activities Ad-hoc shortterm medium n.a. Improved quality of services for separate collection + PROPOSAL 2: Establishment of separate collection and alternative treatment infrastructure Promote the diffusion of home composting and community composting Infrastructural/ad ministrative LAs, Structural Funds Reduction of waste production and waste collection + PROPOSAL 3: Capacity building and training of authorities Provide for capacity building and information exchange for local authorities: - Organise trainings and expert knowledge exchange programmes, conferences, etc. - Establish a joint platform for exchange of MoE, n.a. Improved knowledge base through information/experience exchange experiences and waste management related problems Provide guidelines and manuals on separate collection (use available studies from Italy e.g. the Manual for Separate Collection published by ANPA, guidelines and benchmarking surveys MoE Increase technical capacity of authorities; foster proper decision-making in defining schemes properly issued by various Regions - and other countries)

11 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 11 PROBLEM 3: Difficult siting of treatment/disposal sites Proposals address the problem PROPOSAL 1: Increase social acceptability Strengthen administrative controls and increase transparency in public procurement procedures, concerned Mid-term Medium high n.a. Avoid lack of transparency/cases of corruption + Promulgation of participary paths for decision making processes on WM choices (i.e. SEA - Strategic Environmental Assessment) Increase awareness on opportunities given by different WM strategies/options with stakeholders Promote public meetings for information of citizens, Increase awareness on opportunities given by different WM strategies/options PROPOSAL 2: Minimize waste be disposed Enhance separate collection rates through implementation of best performing collection systems (i.e. kerbside) / Infrastructural, Mid term medium Structural Funds Reduction of waste be disposed; management of residuals becoming only a marginal part of socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable waste management + Establish MBT facilities or improved management of existing ones (e.g. Campania) with emphasis on possible further material recovery ( MRFs ) Infrastructural/ Mid-term longterm Medium high Structural Funds Fast implementation of the principle of minimisation of impacts of landfilling; reduction of waste be landfilled and/or incinerated

12 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 12 PROBLEM 4: Incomplete coverage of with regard MSW management Proposals address the problem PROPOSAL 1: Implement measures fully cover of MWM Promote expert meetings on procedures for implementation and management of taxes for local authorities MoE Acceptance of the increase of taxations, transparency + Establish inter-municipal waste management associations bundle capacities and improve cooperation between adjacent municipalities, define responsibilities medium n.a. Higher share of separate collection due sharing of and increased technical capacity PROBLEM 5: Illegal delivery of special/hazardous waste in MSW Proposals address the problem PROPOSAL 1: Fight illegal dumping and hazardous waste management Create Standing Committees among different institutional bodies tasked with moniring and control Establish coordination groups (between authorities devoted control and NGOs acting in various Regions) exchange information on illegal dumping sites bundle capacities and improve cooperation Provide information campaigns on sound waste management & related penalties (households, schools, SMEs, retailers etc.), Environmental Police (NOE, CFS) MoE, control authorities, NGOs MoE, NGOs medium n.a. Better and coordinated moniring and control on the terriry More complete information on illegal management Decrease of fly tipping, uncontrolled burning and dumping + Provide guidelines and manuals on hazardous MoE, waste Mid-term Increase in technical capacity of plant +

13 070307/2011/606502/SER/C2 13 Proposals address the problem waste treatment (use available studies, requirements, i.e. from IPPC criteria) PROPOSAL 2: Reform the waste data registration system Implement SISTRI System (waste traceability information system) keep real time data available about waste produced, transported and treated/disposed PROPOSAL 3: Capacity building and training of local authorities Provide specific education on sound waste management and data processing Provide guidelines and manuals on sound data collection and processing industry, MoE Mid-term n.a. MoE MoE owners, managers and authorities Better moniring of datasets and of specific activities More correct datasets, better moniring of MSW streams from the start More correct datasets, better moniring of MSW streams from the start