jessica+swm+greece+study inception+report.nov09

JESSICA Instruments for Solid Waste

Management in Greece

STUDY

INCEPTION REPORT

November 2009

EIB Study: Jessica Instrument for solid waste management in Greece – Inception Report

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 6

2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 8

2.1. WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT IN GREECE ..................................... 8

2.1.1. Waste Types and Amounts in Greece.............................................................. 8

2.1.2. Waste Management in Greece ...................................................................... 16

2.2. RATIONALE ........................................................................................................... 32

2.3. STUDY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 32

2.4. STUDY’S SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................... 33

2.4.1. Scope ............................................................................................................. 33

2.4.2. Objectives ...................................................................................................... 36

3. STUDY FRAMEWORK & APPROACH .......................................................... 39

3.1. OVERALL APPROACH .......................................................................................... 39

3.1.1. Baseline Study ............................................................................................... 39

3.1.2. Preliminary screening ..................................................................................... 40

3.1.3. Technical and financial analysis ..................................................................... 40

3.1.4. JESSICA implementation plan (Model) .......................................................... 42

3.2. CRITICAL ISSUES OF THE PROJECT ................................................................. 43

3.2.1. Objective criteria for using Jessica ................................................................. 43

3.2.2. MSW Projects Maturity Plan .......................................................................... 47

4. STUDY WORK PLAN .................................................................................... 52

4.1. METHODOLOGY SUMMARY ................................................................................ 52

4.2. DELIVERABLES ..................................................................................................... 54

4.3. TIME PLAN ............................................................................................................. 55

4.4. MEETINGS - CONSULTATIONs WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS ............................ 55

5. PRELIMINARY STUDY .................................................................................. 56

5.1. Baseline Study ........................................................................................................ 56

5.1.1. Region of ATTIKI ........................................................................................... 56

5.1.2. Prefecture of THESSALONIKI ....................................................................... 62

5.1.3. Compost and RDF / SRF Market .................................................................. 65

5.1.4. MSW management tariff system. ................................................................... 67


3

5.2. Preliminary Technical Description of TWO Case Studies ....................................... 69

5.2.1. MBT Plant - Sorting and Biological Drying (Mixed Waste) in West Attiki ........ 69

5.2.2. MBT - Anaerobic Treatment – Source Separated Waste .............................. 72

5.2.3. MBT - Aerobic Treatment – Source Separated Waste .................................. 74

5.3. case study - Financial Model methodology ............................................................. 77

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 89

6.1. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 89

6.1.1. Waste Treatment ........................................................................................... 89

6.1.2. MSW facilities products market ...................................................................... 90

6.1.3. Public Environmental Awareness ................................................................... 90

6.1.4. MSW Management tariff system .................................................................... 91

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 91

7. APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 93


4

ABBREVIATIONS

EC European Commission

EIB European Investment Bank

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

EU European Union

HF Holding Fund

JESSICA Join European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas

MA Managing Authority

NWMP National Waste Management Plan

PPP Public and Private Partnership

UDF Urban Development Fund

SWM Solid Waste Management

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

OP Operational Programme

MBT Mechanical & Biological Treatment

WtE Waste to Energy Plant

SRF Energy-rich solid recovered fuel

RWMP Regional Waste Management Plans

EEA European Environment Agency

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

HERRCO Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation

C&D Construction and Demolition Waste

ELV End of Life Vehicles

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

JMD Joint Ministerial Decision

TCG Technical Chamber of Greece

MD Ministerial Decision

PD Presidential Degree

PPC Public Power Corporation

WMA Waste Management Authorities

MRF Materials Recovery Facilities


5

MS Member State

BMW Biodegradable Municipal Waste

MBT Mechanical and Biological Treatment

RDF Refuse Delivered Fuel

PFI Private Finance Initiative

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

OP Operational Programmes

SOP Sectoral Operational Programmes

ROP Regional Operational Programmes

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

EFF European Fisheries Fund

OPESD operational program ‘’Environment and Sustainable Development’’

CEB Council of Europe Development Bank

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

PEIA Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

ACMAR Association of Municipalities and Communities in the Attiki Region

NTUA National Technical University of Athens

AUTH Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

ALAPT Local Authorities of Prefecture of Thessaloniki

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

GET Greek Environmental Technology S.A.


6

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The draft Inception Report forms the first deliverable of the “Study: JESSICA Instruments for

Solid Waste Management in Greece” (ref. IR 831) implemented by the consortium

Euroconsultants S.A. (Greece) & Epta Ltd (Greece), under contract from the EIB. The project

started on August 17th, 2009 and includes, according to the study ToR, the clarification and

finalization of the Study objectives, proposes objective criteria for the evaluating JESSICA

investment deployment and provides a detailed work plan.

The study will include an analysis of the potential for using the JESSICA instrument for SWM

sector in Greece and will suggest recommendations for setting up the new JESSICA

investment framework.

The study will be organized in 2 Phases – in addition to the present Inception Phase:

• The Implementation Phase

During this phase all activities related to the achievement of the project objectives will be

implemented. It will include, briefly: a) an analysis of the institutional and legal environment of

Solid Waste management in Greece b) an assessment of the SWM related on-going programs,

major projects, funding instruments, private sector involvement and of the market gaps that

need to be filled c) identification and review of case studies for JESSICA implementation and d)

formation and evaluation of possible JESSICA mechanisms and structures for SWM sector in

Greece. This phase will involve the frequent contact and required reporting to EIB and to the

JESSICA steering / technical committee, in addition to the continuous consultations with key

stakeholders of SWM sector in Greece.

• The Concluding Phase

This phase covers the last 2 months of the project during which the Final Report will be drawn

up for submission, bringing together the input from all individual short-term experts into an

overall evaluation of all project outputs. Following the approval of the Final Report, its main

findings will be presented at a seminar / workshop.


7

During the elaboration of the this report , several key issues were identified that must be

addresses, including:

� Scope of the study in terms of geographical coverage, type of waste and phase of

SWM process.

� Criteria, which SWM projects must meet to be considered for Jessica credit, in addition

to the general criteria set out for Jessica application

� Criteria for choosing UDF management model

� Steps, study methods and consultations with SWM key stakeholders


8

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT IN GREECE

Waste management represents a significant challenge, while developing an environmentally

sustainable strategy of waste management procedures constitutes a major goal for all

European Union countries. The quantities of waste generate in Greece depending on their

source and type, existing waste management and future planning according to National and

Regional Waste Management Plans (abbreviated NWMP and RWMP respectively) are briefly

described in the following paragraphs.

2.1.1. Waste Types and Amounts in Greece

Solid waste can be classified into different types depending on their source as follows:

a) Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

b) Industrial / Agriculture Waste

c) Medical (hospital) Waste

d) Special Streams

Generally, waste generation and composition data depend strongly on the management

practice used and are notoriously uncertain. In Greece, the data most vulnerable to inaccuracy

and uncertainty is hazardous medical waste generation, due to the fact that unfortunately most

hospitals and clinics are not fully compliant with relative regulations and do not monitor their

hazardous wastes. Moreover there is not a sufficient auditing system in place mainly due to

lack of specialized personnel from competent authorities. Industrial waste generation is also

vulnerable to inaccuracy, because waste generation depends on industrial production which is

subject to many financial factors and is not easily predictable. MSW generation is well

monitored, as well as special streams waste generation, due to the establishment of various

producer responsibility schemes.


9

2.1.1.1. Municipal Solid Waste

According to Eurostat and the European Environment Agency (E.E.A.), Municipal Solid Waste

(MSW) includes predominantly household waste (domestic waste) with the addition of

commercial waste (waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade or

business or for the purpose of sport, recreation, education or entertainment), non hazardous

waste from industry and waste from clinics and hospitals, which are similar in nature and

composition to household waste, collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and

disposed of through the waste management system. The composition of municipal waste may

vary from municipality to municipality, depending on the local waste management system.

Generally MSW consists of putrescibles, paper, plastics, glass, metals, wood, textiles and other

materials such as rubber and leather. MSW includes also green waste from garden or parks,

such as grass, flower cuttings and hedge trimmings. In the following figure the solid waste

categorization and the fractions of solid waste that are including in the MSW are depicted.

Figure 1: Solid Waste Categorization

According to Eurostat data published on March 9 2009, in 2007, the annual MSW generation in

Greece is estimated around 5 million tonnes. The following figure depicts the annual generation

of MSW in Greece from 1995 until 2007.


10

Annual Total MSW Generation in Greece

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Total MSW production ('000 tn)

Figure 2: Annual total generation of MSW in Greece (Eurostat)

According to the same study, in 2007 the annual MSW generation per capita in Europe lied

between 294 kg in the Czech Republic and 801 kg in Denmark. In Greece itr reaches up to 448

kg per capita (see Annex 1). The following figure depicts the annual generation of MSW per

capita in Greece from 1995 until 2007.

Annual MSW Generation per capita in Greece

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

kg per capita - year

Figure 3: Annual generation of MSW per capita in Greece (Eurostat)


11

Per capita waste generation is strongly correlated with income and social development but also

affected by waste awareness and education. Figure 3 shows an increase of just over 33% in

the period 1995-2000, but with a tendency to level off from 2001 onwards. However, annual

MSW generation per capita is still increasing, and unless a national strategy for waste

prevention and reduction is successfully developed and implemented, the upward trend seen

over the last two decades, is expected to continue.

In general, nowadays it is estimated that more than 5.2 million tones of MSW are produced

annually in Greece, 39% of which are produced in the area of Attiki and 16% are produced in

the region of Central Macedonia that includes the prefecture of Thessaloniki (11%). In other

words, the total annual production of municipal solid waste in these two areas exceeds

2.600.000 tonnes per year, as it is outlined in the following table.

Table 1: Annual MSW generated quantities in Attiki and Thessaloniki

Prefecture MSW 2001 (tn) MSW 2009 (tn)

Attiki 1 1.775.000 1.990.000

Thessaloniki 450.0002 618.0003

Detailed calculations for 2009 and future trends estimations based on waste generation per

capita and population increase, for both Attiki and Thessaloniki, will be presented during the

next reports.

2.1.1.2. Industrial / Agriculture Waste

Industrial waste can be classified into 3 different types, namely Non Hazardous (Municipal)

Waste, Non Hazardous (Private) Waste and Hazardous Wastes.

Non Hazardous Industrial (Municipal) Waste

This category includes waste that is similar in nature and composition to household waste and

collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed of through the waste

management system. This category includes mainly packaging material (paper, glass, plastic,

metals and wood) from consumer products.

1 According to RWMP calculations

2 According to Waste Management Authority of Thessaloniki calculations

3 Based on preliminary estimations of Waste Management Authority of Thessaloniki


12

Non Hazardous Industrial (Private) Waste

This category includes non hazardous waste streams such as industrial packaging materials,

waste from food processing, animal by-products that are not potentially harmful to animals, the

public or to the environment (in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002), farm waste

etc, that are similar in nature to MSW but the management responsibility lies with producers

according to the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) strategy. EPR uses political means

to hold producers liable for the costs of managing their waste and end of life products. Hellenic

Recovery Recycling Corporation (HERRCO), which is the competent authority for managing

packaging waste, has come to an arrangement with packaging producers as stated in the legal

framework, in order to ensure that packaging waste is being collected and recycled (see

section 2.1.2.1).

According to HERRCO4, 20% of the total MSW amount comprises of packaging waste

(packaging material from consumer products) while the total amount of packaging materials

produced (from municipal and private waste) in 2007, is estimated around 1.000.000 tonnes,

out of which 504.000 tonnes (50%) where recycled. Apart form packaging waste, estimations

about the quantities of other waste streams kin this category are highly uncertain as no

sufficient quantity and quality data are available.

Hazardous Waste

This category includes hazardous waste streams, such as flammable, corrosive, toxic,

explosive etc. According to Ministry of Environment, in 2007, 330.000 tonnes5 of hazardous

waste (including hazardous medical waste, hazardous chemicals and specific special steams

i.e. batteries and used oils) were produced in Greece. Around 62% of that amount was

disposed while the rest was recycled. In addition, during 2004, 1.550 tonnes where transferred

abroad (mainly to Germany - over 70%) for processing. The largest amounts are produced in

Attiki 48,5%, central Macedonia 12,6%, Central Greece 10,2%, Thessaly 6,9% and Western

Greece 5,2%.

4 www.herrco.gr

5 http://www2.minenv.gr/press/doc/0702281.doc


13

2.1.1.3. Medical wastes

Medical waste can be classified into 2 different types, namely Non Hazardous (Municipal-Like)

Waste and Hazardous Medical Waste.

Non Hazardous (Municipal) Waste

This category includes waste that is similar in nature and composition to household waste

(kitchen waste, packaging waste etc) and collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and

disposed of through the waste management system.

Hazardous Medical Waste

Medical wastes include waste from hospitals, clinics, labs and nursing homes that are classified

as infectious and bio-hazardous and could potentially lead to the spread of infectious disease,

and thus require proper disposal. For these types of waste the management responsibility lies

within the producer (hospitals, clinics etc), and according to Ministry of Environment, it is

estimated that 15.000 tonnes of hazardous medical waste are produced annually in Greece.

The largest amounts are produced in Attiki (50 %) and central Macedonia (15 %). Currently a

modern incinerator is operating in the Attiki Region with a total annual capacity of 8.000 tonnes

per year, which is capable of handling all the quantities produced in the region of Attiki. In the

rest of Greece, medical institutions have their own incinerating kilns, although weaknesses

exist as, in some cases these are not suitable for incinerating hazardous waste. Due to the

hazardous nature of medical waste it is necessary to monitor the implementation of the current

legislation. The collection of waste from small medical facilities is also a matter that has to be

looked into.

2.1.1.4. Special Streams

Special streams include Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D), Batteries, End of Life

Vehicles (E.L.V.), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (W.E.E.E.), Used Tires and Used

Oils. Extended producer responsibility schemes have been set-up in Greece for special waste

streams, an overview of which is provided in the paragraphs below.

� Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D)

The term construction and demolition waste refers to a wide variety of materials such as

excavation materials, road construction waste, demolition waste and construction-site waste.


14

According to the Joint Ministerial Decision (J.M.D.) regulating landfilling of waste, disposal of

construction and demolition waste should take place only in landfills for inert materials. There

are not specific data about the production of C&D waste in Greece; however according to the

Technical Chamber of Greece (TCG, 20066), in 2006, 5.5 million tonnes were produced, out of

which less than 5% were recycled or reused.

The recycling of C&D waste is a relatively unexplored area in Greece. The potential benefits of

using recycled aggregates can be economic, social and environmental, such us the avoidance

of waste disposal charges and Landfill Tax, the reduced costs of transporting aggregates if

recovery material facilities are available locally and the increase in local employment.

Therefore, it is recommended further analysis and a supplementary study on this subject.

� End of Life Vehicles (ELV)

The national management scheme for ELV (Greek abbreviation: EDOE) was approved by the

Ministerial Decision (M.D.) 105136/10.06.04 (907Β/17.06.04) and its operation is governed by

the regulations of Law 2939/2001 and Presidential Degree (P.D.) 116/2004. Owners of E.L.V.

are obliged to hand them in designated collection points or authorized treatment facilities

without being charged since there is no market value for the vehicle. In 2008, the scheme was

active in 32 prefectures covering 85% of the total population, while the same year around

62.696 E.L.V. were recycled7.

� Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (W.E.E.E.)

Producers of Electric and Electronic equipment sign the Entry Agreement, regularly declare the

quantities of products marketed in Greece and pay the legally required financial contribution to

"Appliances Recycling S.A.". The scheme also cooperates with local authorities in order to set

collection points for citizens. In 2008 it is estimated that was collected 47.250 tonnes of

W.E.E.E. and processed around 39.000 tonnes8.

6 http://library.tee.gr/digital/m2173/m2173_oikonomou.pdf

7 http://www.edoe.gr/

8 http://www.electrocycle.gr – Official site of Appliances Recycling S.A.


15

� Used Tyres

Current legislative statutes forbid the landfilling of used tires. According to Law 2939/01 and

P.D. 109/04 tire producers are obligated to create or participate to recycling schemes for used

tires. Owners or final users of used tires are obliged to hand them to collection points or

approved management schemes. The competent scheme called Ecoelastika S.A. begun its

operation in 1-11-2004 in the Prefectures of Viotia and Fthiotida (Central Greece, north of

Attica). From the 54.638 tn produced in 2008, 46.697 tn (85%) where collected. Nowadays the

scheme is active in both Greek mainland and islands. Around 14,2% of the tyres collected have

been co incinerated in the cement industry, 78,5% where recycled while the rest was either

stored or exported9.

� Batteries

The competent management scheme for batteries AFIS S.A. started its operation in March

2004. Afis has come to an agreement with importers/producers of batteries, which contribute a

fee for every battery sold in the Greek market in order to cover the costs for collection,

transportation, recycling and dissemination activities. Battery recycling rates are very high.

Collection bins have been placed in 33.000 spots spread out across Greece. During 2007, 442

out of 2.100 tonnes of batteries where recycled which equals to a percentage of 21%. In 2008,

the percentage reached up to 26%10, which exceeds the target established from European

Union for 2012 (25%).

� Used Oils

In June 2004 the competent authority Greek Environmental Technology S.A. (GET) was

created for the management of waste oils. The company is cooperating with major oil

consumers like the Army and the Public Power Corporation (P.P.C.) and has focused in

promoting cooperation with municipalities. The producers of waste oils are obliged to hand the

waste to approved collectors. Around 36.550 tn of waste oils have been collected and

regenerated which equals to 60,9 % of the totally produced waste11.

9 http://www.ecoelastika.gr

10 http://www.afis.gr

11 http://www.eltepe.gr – Official site of Greek Environmental Technology S.A


16

2.1.2. Waste Management in Greece

2.1.2.1. Competent Authorities

The Ministry of Environment (until Sept 2009: Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning &

Public Works) is the main actor involved in waste management and particularly:

� Defines waste management policy

� Is responsible for the legislative framework and proposes the issuing of legislative

regulations (Laws, Presidential Decrees, Join Ministerial Decisions, and Ministerial

Decisions) and issues circulars for the implementation of the legislation.

� Prepares the National Planning of non hazardous Solid Waste and the National

Planning of hazardous Solid Waste, which contains the goals and actions regarding

waste management.

� Evaluates proposals for the funding of waste infrastructure according to the regional

and national planning (in case of funding through OPESD - see section 2.1.2.5)

The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the establishment of the registry of waste competent

authorities, while the Ministry of Finance is directly involved in the funding of waste

management infrastructure projects.

Moreover, according to the NWMP the municipalities are responsible for waste collection and

transportation. The operation of transfer stations, the processing and disposal of waste lies

within the jurisdiction of Waste Management Authorities (WMA), which are public entities,

supervised by Local Authorities Councils. For waste streams not included in MSW the

management responsibility lies with producers. Especially for the special waste streams that

are included in Law 2939/01 (electrical waste, tires, vehicles etc) recycling is carried out by

producer responsibility schemes created and financed by the producers.

It must be noted that during the issuing of permission, funding, construction and operation of

solid waste management infrastructure numerous authorities are involved as stated in the

national and EU legislation. For example forest and archeological authorities and the Ministries


17

of Health and Culture need to deliver an opinion on the environmental impact assessment

studies

Regarding recycling, HERRCO (Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation) has been

established in order to organize the municipal and industrial recycling program according to the

provisions of packaging directive. Thus, HERRCO is cooperating with municipalities in order to

collect packaging separately from mixed Municipal Solid Waste, and also managing packaging

waste produced directly from industries, in order to ensure that packaging waste is being

collected and recycled. At the same time contracts have been signed with several

municipalities in order to install and expand the separation at source system of packaging

material. Packaging waste is temporarily stored in blue bins (source separation) that are

provided by HERRCO and afterwards transferred to Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF).

Apart from HERRCO the following recycling systems from private companies have been also

approved:

� Recycling system for used oil packaging (Greek abbreviation: KEPED). This system

aims to collect and recover used waste oil packaging waste. During 2007 3.900 tonnes

where recovered and recycled.

� Packaging waste management system of the Vasilopoulos S.A. (M.D. 106156 , OJG

1108Β/22.7.2004). This system has recovered and recycled 1.240 tonnes of private

label packaging waste and an additional 2.450 tonnes of other packaging waste.

� Collection system based on the establishment of refund recycling centers. Those

centers accept and sort the materials and provide a small financial compensation. The

Central Union of Municipalities and Communities of Greece is participating in the system

and it will function in a supplementary way to the system of HERRCO.

2.1.2.2. Impact of EU Legislation

Greece, as any other Member State (MS), is under the obligation to meet certain targets

regarding material recycling and the diversion of biodegradable waste. Council Directive

1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 refers to the disposal of waste to landfills. The aim of the Directive

is to define measures, directions and guidance, in order to prevent or reduce, as far as


18

possible, the adverse effects of the landfill of waste on the environment, in particular on surface

water, groundwater, soil, air and human health, by providing stringent operational and technical

requirements on the waste and landfills.

The Directive requires from the MS to set up a national strategy for the implementation of the

reduction of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to landfills in a specific interval of

time by means of recycling, composting, biogas production or materials/energy recovery, and

notify the Commission of this strategy.

More specifically the Directive sets the following targets:

� In 2006, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 75 % of the total amount of BMW

produced in 1995, for which standardised Eurostat data are available;


produced in 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data are available;


produced in 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data are available.

Countries, such as Greece and United Kingdom, where more than 80% of the waste ended up

at landfills in the reference year gained a 4-year extension in order to reach the aforementioned

targets. Greece is formulating its strategies by placing targets for the years 2010, 2013 and

2020. This requires the adoption of treatment technologies that results in either the recycling of

the material (such as composting) or the recovery of energy (such as thermal treatment).

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. As for MSW composition, data from field measurements exist for only a few areas

such as Athens, Creta, Thessaloniki, etc. Official data on national level were published in the

M.D. 14312/1302 that reported a total quantity of 3,9 million tones in 1997 of which 2,6 million

tonnes are biodegradable (67,0%). Based on the above, year 1997 was chosen as a basis for

calculations, and the targets from Greece are:


19

� In 2010, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 1.95 million tonnes;

� In 2013, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 1.3 million tonnes;

� In 2020, BMW going to landfills must be reduced to 0.91 million tonnes.

Regarding packaging materials which are collected separately through the competent scheme

HERRCO, the following targets have been set (J.M.D. 9268/469/2007):

� No later than 31 December 2011, 60 % as a minimum by weight of packaging waste will be

recovered or incinerated at waste incineration plants with energy recovery

� No later than 31 December 2011, the following minimum recycling targets for materials

contained in packaging waste will be attained:

(i) 60 % by weight for glass;

(ii) 60 % by weight for paper and board;

(iii) 50 % by weight for metals;

(iv) 22,5 % by weight for plastics, counting exclusively material that is recycled back into

plastics;

(v) 15 % by weight for wood.

2.1.2.3. Current Practices

In the last two decades, and especially during the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 Programming

Periods, priority was given to the construction of compliant infrastructure and therefore most of

the 13 Regions lack in waste processing infrastructure. Therefore, despite of the NWMP that

was introduced in 2003, most of the waste management systems operated in Greece are not in

full compliance with the requirements of Landfill Directive, which establishes diversion rates of

biodegradable municipal waste from landfills, and the revised Waste Framework Directive

2008/98/EC, which encourages the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the

composting and digestion of bio-waste.

More specifically, according to Eurostat data (2009), in 2007 landfilling rate in Greece lied at

84%, the recycling rate at 14% (62,7 kg per capita out of 450kg generated) and composting at


20

2% (8,96 kg per capita - year). With 84% of its municipal solid waste sent to landfill in 2007,

Greece landfilled much more than the 42% recorded across the EU as a whole (see Annex 2).

Particularly low levels of landfilling were recorded by Germany with just 1% of MSW being

disposed of in this way, the Netherlands (3%), Belgium (4%) and Sweden (also 4%).

The following figure depicts the total amounts of MSW that were disposed and treated in

Greece, from 1995 until 2007, according to Eurostat data.

MSW Treatment in Greece

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

MSW treatment ('000 tn)

Recycling

Composting

Landfill

Figure 4: Management of MSW in Greece, from 1995 until 2007 (Eurostat)

Regarding disposal facilities, there are in operation 65 Landfills; among others, one compliant

landfill is currently in operation in Attiki (Fyli), and one in Thessaloniki (Mavrorahi). Moreover 32

are under construction and 41 are in preparatory phase (environmental and technical studies

are being conducted). Regarding the illegal landfills according to the responsible ministerial

Commission, until the end of 2007, 492 small uncontrolled landfills across the country received

municipal solid waste. However, during the last two years, significant steps have been made

towards closing and restoration of these uncontrolled landfills.

Three Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plants have been constructed; one in Attiki,

one in Kalamata (Peloponnese) and one Chania (island of Crete). The unit in Attiki, which is

one of the biggest MBT plants in Europe, treats mixed municipal waste, produces Refuse


21

Delivered Fuel (R.D.F.) good quality compost and its annual capacity reaches 450.000 tonnes.

The waste treatment plant in Chania, has an annual capacity of 70.000 tonnes, treats mixed

municipal waste and recyclable materials that are separated collected and produces only low

quality compost. The treatment plant in Kalamata is the oldest, has a capacity of 32.000 tonnes

per year but is now temporarily non operational due to a legal battle between its constructors

and operators. Moreover in Heraklion (island of Crete) and Kefalonia (one of the Ionian islands)

two MBT plants are under construction.

Regarding the recycling facilities, currently 23 mechanical recover facilities for the separation of

collected recyclable materials have been constructed and are operational in Greece.

2.1.2.4. Future Planning

In line with EU and international best practice, the hierarchy in the waste management sector

according to the NWMP is based on the following three priciples.

1. Prevention or minimization of waste production (quantitative minimization) as well as the

minimization of the waste content in hazardous substances (qualitative minimization)

2. Utilization of waste (reuse, recycling and energy recovering)

3. Safe final disposal of residues

In accordance with the above, several compliant residual waste landfills and treatment units are

foreseen for the next years across the country, in order to achieve the targets for diversion of

biodegradable waste and recycling. In the following table, the major existing and planned

facilities for waste treatment in Greece are outlined.


22

Table 2: Existing and Planned Waste Treatment Facilities in Greece

Location Capacity

tn MSW per yr

Capacity

tn BMW per yr Begining of operation Technology / Funding (committed )

Existing facilities(Plants)

Ano Liosia 450,000 200,000 2004-2006 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

Chania 70,000 53,600 2005 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

(EU Cohesion Fund: € 16.5 million)

Kalamata 32,000 21,440 1997 MBT, composting enriched organic fraction

Heraklion 70,000 46,900 2010 MBT, biodrying

Kefalonia 10,000 6,700 2010 MBT, biodrying

Facilities (Plants) under planning

Hmathia 70,000 50,000 2011 MBT, biodrying and AD

Serres N/D N/D 2012 MBT, Technology not selected yet

Zante Island N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Aitoloakarnania N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Fokida N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Corfu Island N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Rhodes Island N/D N/D N/D WtE

ILIA N/D N/D N/D MBT, Technology not selected yet

Thiva 350,000 - N/D WtE

Ahaia (Patra) 120,000 80,400 2011-2012 MBT (EU Cohesion Fund: € 55 million)

Thessaloniki_1 400,000 301,500 2012 All options open (PFI12: € 280 million)

Thessaloniki_2 N/D N/D N/D All options open

Athens Fyli_1 700,000 402,000 2013-2014 MBT, Biological Drying

Athens Fyli_2 400,000 280,000 2012-2013 Mechanical Treatment

Athens Fyli_3 67,000 47,000 Under Consideration Source Separated Biowaste, Anaerobic Digestion

Athens Fyli_4 80,000 53,600 2011-2012 Source Separated Biowaste, Composting or AD

Athens Keratea_1 40,000 26,800 2011-2012 Source Separated Biowaste, Composting or AD

Athens Grammatiko_1 40,000 26,800 2011-2012 Source Separated Biowaste, Composting or AD

Athens Keratea_2 127,500 90,000 2012-2013 MBT, Technology not selected yet

Athens Grammatiko_2 127,500 90,000 2012-2013 MBT, Technology not selected yet

12 Private Finance Initiative


23

Regarding planned disposal facilities, among others, one compliant residual waste landfill is in

preparatory phase in Thessaloniki, and two compliant residual waste landfills are under

construction in southeast and northeast Attiki.

2.1.2.5. Waste Management Funding Framework

National Strategic Reference Framework

The NSRF (National Strategic Reference Framework) 2007–2013 constitutes the reference

document for the programming of European Union Funds at national level for the 2007–2013

period. The architecture of the NSRF 2007-2013 Operational Programmes (OPs) was

formulated in such a way as to implement the country's strategic choices in the best possible

manner, whilst also taking into account new data for the programming period 2007–2013 (63%

of the country's population in a state of transitional support).

The new scheme is characterised by a smaller number of Operational Programmes in relation

to the previous 2000–2006 period, leading to a more flexible management scheme. The

country’s strategic planning for the 2007 - 2013 period will be implemented through eight (8)

Sectoral OPs, five (5) Regional OPs and twelve (12) European Territorial Cooperation OPs.

Thus, during the 2007–2013 period, all accessibility infrastructure projects will be implemented

through a single OP, while there will no longer be a distinct OP for the sectors of health and

culture and the relevant actions will be carried out through Regional and Sectoral OPs.

The Sectoral Operational Programmes are the following:

� S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development» (co-funded by Cohesion Fund & ERDF)

� S.O.P. «Accessibility Improvement» (co-funded by Cohesion Fund & ERDF)

� S.O.P. «Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship» (co-funded by ERDF)

� S.O.P. «Digital Convergence» (co-funded by ERDF)

� S.O.P. «Human Resources Development» (co-funded by ESF)

� S.O.P. «Education and Lifelong Learning» (co-funded by ESF)

� S.O.P. «Public Administration Reform» (co-funded by ESF)

� S.O.P. «Technical Support for Implementation» (co-funded by ERDF)


24

As stated, there is no sectoral operational programme dedicated to urban development.

However, all sectoral programmes comprise of priority axes that directly or indirectly promote

the target of sustainable urban development. The most relevant ones are as follows:

� S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development», priority axis 4 - soil protection and

solid waste management.

� S.O.P. «Accessibility Improvement», i.e. priority axes of transport infrastructure, means

of public transport etc.

� S.O.P. «Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship», priority axis that ensure the

adequate energy capacity for the country through the use of Renewable Energy

Source.

For the implementation of the country’s development planning during programming period

2007-2013, Greece was divided into five regions, which correspond to five Regional

Operational Programmes (R.O.P.), as follows:

� O.P. Macedonia - Thrace

� O.P Western Greece – Peloponnesus – Ionian islands

� O.P. Crete and Aegean islands

� O.P. Thesally - Mainland Greece – Epirus

� O.P. Attiki

The regional operational programmes formulate priority axes dedicated to sustainable urban

development while, additional funding mechanism such as the global grants (article 42 & 43 Of

Regulation 1083/2006) are foreseen. Additionally, all the regional operational programmes

make a reference to potential JESSICA usage, in order to achieve the objectives. Furthermore

it must be noted that Athens belongs to the O.P. of Attiki, while Thessaloniki to the O.P. of

Macedonia – Thrace.


25

Financial Framework – European Funds for Cohesion Policy

The allocation of Community resources for Cohesion Policy of period 2007-2013, was decided

at the session of the European Council held in December 2005. Greece is allocated EUR 20.4

billion in current values (including national match funding). These resources will be used to

finance interventions through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the

European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.

The total amount of funding, as well as its annual allocation, is separately designated for each

type of Region. Thus, a total amount of EUR 9.4 billion is allocated to the 8 Regions classified

under Objective Convergence. EUR 6.5 billion is allocated to the 3 Statistical phasing out

Regions (Attiki, Central and Western Macedonia). In the 2 Phasing In Regions (Mainland

Greece, Southern Aegean) are allocated EUR 0.63 billion. Additionally, for the Programmes

falling under Objective 3, there are Community funds available in the amount of EUR 0.21

billion. As laid down in the Greek National Strategic Reference Framework, from the total

amount of the aforementioned amounts, namely EUR 16.7 billion, EUR 12.36 billion is

channelled to the new Operational Programmes through the European Regional Development

Fund (ERDF) and the remaining EUR 4.36 billion will be channelled thereto through the

European Social Fund (ESF). Additionally, Community funds of EUR 3.7 billion are earmarked

for Greece through the Cohesion Fund.

Finally, EUR 3.9 billion, are invested to Greek regions, through the Programmes of the Ministry

of Rural Development and Food. These resources are part of the European Agricultural Fund

for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).

S.O.P. «Environment & Sustainable Development»

The operational program ‘’Environment and Sustainable Development’’ (OPESD 2007-2013),

was submitted during September 2007 and was approved during October – November 2007.

The program consists of eleven priority axis. As stated, solid waste management is included in

Axis 4 (Soil Protection and Solid Waste Management) which aims to protect public health, soil

and underground water from the pollution caused by uncontrolled dumping of solid waste.

Together and in accordance with the regional operational programs, the necessary

infrastructure in order to divert the biodegradable fraction of MSW from landfills towards


26

treatment facilities that are described in the Regional Plan will be financed. The OPESD

through the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Operational Programmes through the ERDF will

cover the costs for the construction of transfer stations, treatment units and landfills including

the costs for rehabilitation of all uncontrolled dumpsites throughout the country.

Priority will be given to actions described in the regional solid waste management plans. The

total budget of Axis 4 for Soil Protection and Solid Waste Management in the OPESD reaches

288.995.000 €. This amount consist of 179.380.000 € from Cohesion Funding, € 44.845.000

from National Funding and 65.770.000 € from other sources (e.g. private investments). OPESD

has already distributed almost the total amount to certain Regions for regional solid waste

management plans. In the region of Attiki, the total funding that have beet committed for waste

management from OPESD and other sources, is approximately €145M, although the final

amount is not yet distributed officially.

In the following diagram, the allocation of the above-mentioned funds is outlined.

Figure 5: Allocation of the National Strategic Reference Framework funds


27

At this point, shall be mentioned that only ERDF and ESF streams are eligible for JESSICA

instruments.

In the following table, facilities scheduled to be funded from Structural Funds and additional

needs for financing are outlined (based on estimations from preliminary data).

Table 3: Funding from structural funds for waste management facilities in Greece

Infrastructures Description No of Plants Estimated

budget (€ M)

Allocated funds from Structural

Funds (€ M)

Estimated Gap (€ M)

Disposal new landfills 40 220 190

Rehabilitation existing landfills 400 300 240

Transportation Transfer Stations 80 120 100

Treatment Plants Attiki 8 500 144

MBT Patra 1 60 55*

MBT Hmathia 1 40 10

To be defined Thessaloniki 1 100

200

MBT Corfu Island 1 30

MBT Ilia 1 30

MBT Aitoloakarnania 1 30

To be defined Eastern Macedonia/Thrace 2 60

MBT Zante Island 1 10

MBT Fokida 1 10

MBT Serres 1 25

To be defined Other treatment plants according to the RWMP

n/a 400

Subtotals 1.935 939 996

* already committed

Based on the above-mentioned estimated budgets of the planned facilities in Attiki, the

following diagram outlines the additional funding (including national and/or private matching

funds) that is needed for the implementation of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.


28

Figure 6: Additional funding that is needed for the implementation of the SWM Plan in Attiki

Specific economical data have been requested from competent authorities and will be

presented during next reports.

Public – Private Partnerships (PPP) framework

Law 3389/2005 establishes a new legal framework for the implementation of Public - Private

Partnerships in Greece. This legal framework aims to promote the implementation of PPP

projects, taking into consideration the experience gained from concession agreements that

were successfully implemented in Greece, especially for large scale projects in transportation

sector (i.e. new Athens Airport, Attiki Odos motorway, Rio-Antirrio bridge), but also the

important attempts over the last years to implement privately funded projects in other sectors.

The implementation of PPPs has been the issue of consultation for many years in Greece. It

was necessary to overcome a legal gap in Greece, which led each contractual agreement for a

project co-financed by the private sector for ratification by the Parliament. Furthermore, lot of

issues, hindering the negotiations for the financing of the projects and causing delays in their

implementation, had to be settled.

It was also necessary to create a framework, through which private entities would be able to

implement projects and services, without imposing indirect / shadow charging schemes for end

users.


29

The time required to tender a PPP project depends on its maturity and the actions already

taken by the Contracting Authority (the public institution) to ensure the successful

implementation of the project. The main characteristic of this procedure, according to the

international practice and given the lack of internal capacity in PPP projects, is the recruitment

of external, financial, technical and legal advisors. These advisors assist the authorities to

prepare projects faster and more effectively, since the tender documents and procedures differ

from those of traditional Public Procurements. The new tasks needed In the PPP tenders and

provided by the external advisors, are: Project Financial Model, Risks allocation matrix,

Payment mechanism model, Public Sector Comparator - VfM, market sounding survey,

financial advise to the Public Entities, till the SPV financing is definitely ensured and the

relevant loan contracts are signed. Also, in PPP tenders, emphasis is given in the project

operation and maintenance requirements, instead of the detailed technical design – as it is

usually the case for traditional Public Procurements.

PPP schemes are complementary not only to traditional public works, but also to other forms of

partnerships between the public and the private sector, such as the concession agreements or

collaborations between Local Authorities and private partners. Anyhow, the Ministry of Finance

intends to offer to Public Authorities a new additional mechanism & financial tool (PPPs though

the Law 3389/2005), the use of which is upon them. To choose between the two options

(concession or PPP through the new Law), the Local Authorities should take into consideration

the benefits and setbacks of each procedure:

Concession through existing Public Procurement Law: More familiar procedure and tender

documents, shorter tender procedure, but tighter legal environment of contract implementation

PPP through the new law 3389/2005: accelerated approval of project permits / licenses,

supplementary public financing, more effective legal provisions for possible disputes between

Contracting Authority and SPV, but lengthy procedures for project approval and tendering.

So far (Oct 2009) the following two SWM projects have been approved by the Joint Ministers’

Committee for PPPs:


30

Project 1: “Implementation of an integrated waste-management system in the Prefecture of

Thessaloniki”

Contracting Authority: Union of Municipalities of the Greater Thessaloniki area

Date of approval: 30 Jan 2008

Indicative Budget 242 million euros (+20% insurance cost and heavy maintenance cost)

Project Duration: 29 years

Construction Period: 4 years

Operation Period: 25 years

Forecasted period of SPV selection: mid 2010

Project Details:

This PPP project involves the design, financing, construction, maintenance, facility

management and operation of the new infrastructure of the integrated waste management

system in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki for a period of 29 years.

More specifically, the private partner will undertake the design, construction, maintenance and

operation of a plant that will treat solid waste of the North-western unit of the Prefecture of

Thessaloniki. This plant will be composed of a treatment and exploitation unit and a compliant

residual waste landfill. This unit will be constructed upon any proven technology that can meet

the targets set by the Community Directives and the output specifications set by the

Contracting Authority. The unit will have a capacity of 400.000 tons per year. Moreover the

private partner will be given the right to commercially exploit the output of the unit (such as

recyclable products, biogas, RDF, energy, etc.)

Project 2: “Implementation of infrastructure for the Integrated Waste Management System in

the Region of Western Macedonia”

Contracting Authority: DIADYMA S.A.

Date of approval: 02 Aug 2007

Indicative Budget 97 million euros (+20% insurance cost and heavy maintenance cost)

Project Duration: 27 years

Construction Period: 2 years

Operation Period: 25 years


31

Forecasted period of SPV selection: mid 2010

Project Details:

This PPP project involves the design, construction, financing, maintenance, facility

management, and operation of the new infrastructure, aiming at covering the waste

management requirements imposed by the Community Directives. Contracting Authority of this

project is DIADYMA SA (Local Authorities’ Development Agency, responsible for the design

development and operation of the Integrated Waste Management System of Western

Macedonia).

More specifically, the SPV that will be selected will undertake the following:

� The design, construction, maintenance and operation of the central integrated waste

management installations, which will be composed by a treatment and exploitation unit and

a compliant residual waste landfill. This unit will be constructed upon any proven

technology that can meet the targets set by the Community Directives and the output

specification set by the Contracting Authority. Moreover the SPV will be given the right to

commercially exploit the output of the unit (such as recyclable products, biogas, RDF, SRF

, etc.)

� The maintenance and operation of the existing network of waste transfer stations, when the

treatment unit begins its operation. This network consists of ten transfer stations and their

mobile equipment.

The capacity of the above mentioned unit starts from 120.000 tons per year, reaching 152.000

tons per year by the end of the partnership, the operational period of which is 25 years.

This PPP project is a part of the strategic plan of the Region of Western Macedonia. The

construction and operation of the treatment comes to integrate the existing integrated waste

management system of the Region, thus creating a waste management model, completely

compatible with the environmental strategy of the European Union. The implementation of this

project ensures that the amount of waste to landfill decreases, the environmental impact of

treating biodegradable waste is minimized, and that commercially exploitable products are

produced. Moreover, the construction and operation of the treatment unit results to doubling the

life cycle of the existing landfill and maximizing the impact of the investment made during the

2002 - 2004 period, financed by the Cohesion Fund.


32

2.2. RATIONALE

Given the above, recently the Greek Ministry of Economy and Finance has expressed interest

in using the JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas)

Instrument in pursuit of the country’s urban agenda as set out in its National Strategic

Reference Framework (NSRF-2007-2013) and associated Operational Programmes (O.Ps).

JESSICA is an initiative of the European Commission (EC), the European Investment Bank

(E.I.B.) and the Council of Europe Development Bank (C.E.B.), aimed at using financial

engineering mechanisms to support investments in sustainable urban development as a

component of integrated regeneration. The JESSICA initiative is designed as a financial

engineering instrument with a revolving nature: it allows combining subsidies, loans,

guarantees and other financial products. By using financial engineering measures, JESSICA

aims to create a leveraging effect in attracting additional financial resources for urban renewal

and development projects.

The Ministry has already requested an Evaluation scoping study necessary both to review the

instrument's potential in the Greek context and to test options for its effective implementation.

In this context, this scoping study has already been concluded, identifying the prospects and

potential benefits for the deployment of JESSICA in the country. The results of this study

highlighted the advantages of using a Holding Fund (H.F.) structure employing E.I.B. as H.F.

whereas, at the same time, making reference to the need for subsequent studies focusing not

only on sustainable projects in place making, but also on, inter alia, waste management. As a

result, Greece was the second country after Portugal that signed a MoU with the E.I.B. in

December 2008, which foresees the formulation of a Holding Fund (H.F.).

2.3. STUDY BACKGROUND

On the basis of the proposals made in the scoping study as well as the recently amended

regulations aiming at the acceleration of the absorption of Structural Funds in the EU-27, the

Ministry of Economy and Finance is committed to implementing JESSICA, inter alia, in the area

of waste management, necessitating to target more precisely the focus on the actual

implementation of JESSICA in the country. Given the above, and further to joint consultation


33

with the EC and the Ministry, a further study focusing on deployment of the JESSICA

instrument to support investment in waste management was required.

2.4. STUDY’S SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

2.4.1. Scope

The overall aim of the study is twofold:

� To assess in detail the development of an economically and environmentally

sustainable mechanism (model) for municipal solid waste management, including

commercial waste, in Attiki and Thessaloniki, under the framework of JESSICA

initiative.

� To propose specific projects which promote the sustainable development of the waste

management in these two urban areas, and could be included and benefitted from

JESSICA.

2.4.1.1. Type of Projects

Waste management involves the collection, transportation, processing, recycling and disposal

of waste materials, as well as the final de-commissioning and rehabilitation of disposal sites at

the end of their useful life. The study will cover mainly capital intensive projects that include

transfer stations, mechanical biological treatment systems that combine a sorting facility with a

form of biological treatment such as composting, biological drying and anaerobic digestion,

materials recovery facilities and combustion (incineration) facilities. It is very important to

mention that for the techno-economical analysis and evaluation, the complete process of waste

management life cycle will be taken into account. Generally, a holistic approach to waste

management includes technical and economical data from generation of waste to final de-

commissioning of facilities, including e.g. cost of waste collection and transportation,

supplementary transport stations, infrastructure works (building installations, structural, electro-

mechanical etc), control and monitoring works, landfill rehabilitation costs etc.


34

In the following table, all existing and planned facilities for waste management in Attiki and

Thessaloniki are outlined, which could be considered as a preliminary list of potential projects

for further analysis and evaluation.


35

Table 4: Existing and Planned Facilities for Waste Management in Attiki and Thessaloniki

Prefecture Population Existing Facilities Planned Facilities

Attiki

3.761.810 (2001)

4.237.651 (2009)

(Estimation)

1 Compliant Residual Waste Landfill

(West Attiki – Fyli)

TYPE of PLANTS CAPACITY ESTIMATED BUDGET LOCATION13

1 MBT Plant for SRF production (Mixed wastes) 700.000 tn/year €153M West Attica - Fyli

1 MBT plant (Mixed wastes)

450.000 tn/year

(West Attiki – Fyli)

1 Mechanical Treatment Plant (Mixed wastes) 400.000 tn/year €85M West Attica - Fyli

1 Anaerobic Treatment plant (SS Organic Waste)14

67.000 tn/year €20M West Attica - Fyli

2 MBT plants (Mixed wastes) 127.500 tn/year each Total €180 East Attica (Keratea & Grammatiko)

4 MRFs

(Recyclable Wastes)

170.000 tn/year

2 MBT plants (Organic Waste) 40.000 tn/year each Total €39 East Attica (Keratea & Grammatiko)

1 MBT plants (Organic Waste) 80.000 tn/year €35 West Attica - Fyli

2 Compliant residual Waste Landfills Under Construction

Thessaloniki

800.764 (2001)

1.084.001 (2009)

(Estimation)

2 MRFs

(Recyclable Wastes)

Total 40.000 tn/yr

1 MBT Plant (Mixed wastes) 400.000 tn/ year €280M Mavrorahi

1 MBT Plant (Mixed wastes) 180.000 + tn/ year €55M N/D

1 Compliant Residual Waste Landfill

(South Thessaloniki-Mavrorahi)

1 Compliant Residual Waste Landfill N/A €9M N/D

1 MRF (Recyclable Wastes) 20.000 tn/yr N/D N/D

13 Refers to sites that have been already identified.

14 Under Consideration


36

In addition to the above, several central transfer stations are also foreseen for both areas. In

general, transfer stations are used for the temporary deposition of waste and function as a

supplementary infrastructure, used to enhance the operation of the integrated waste

management system, although in some cases they are considered to be mandatory for the

whole process. All these parameters will be analyzed and evaluated for both areas under

examination.

Specific technical and economical data for the aforementioned projects, such as type and level

of technology, nominal capacity, investment and process costs, revenues from material and

potential energy recovery etc, have been requested from competent authorities.

2.4.2. Objectives

The main objectives of the study is the analysis of institutional and regulatory environment, the

evaluation of potential JESSICA implementation in waste management sector, the overview

and evaluation of MSW projects case studies, the development of scenarios for JESSICA

implementation and the proposal of an action plan in order to provide a long-term solution to

solid waste management problems by ensuring financial sustainability to the Model.

The Model is expected to:

� Take into account the need to develop an integrated approach to waste management,

including its relationship with other aspects of urban development and the requirements of

the different components of the waste management process, as well as to cover its

sustainability aspects, including a long-term balance of the waste management cycle from

generation to treatment to final disposal and de-commissioning of facilities.

� Be based on an assessment of the gaps between the supply and demand of funding

summarise the rationale for the establishment of a UDF for "Integrated Waste

Management" for sustainable urban development, including an assessment of the

investment needs in this sector and an analysis of the scope of existing structures. In order

to map the current situation, the study shall review and update: a) relevant technical

parameters: waste generation rates, anticipated collection and recycling rates,

municipalities/population covered; b) regional solid waste management plans and spatial


37

planning; c) location of sites: identification of existing waste treatment sites including

dumpsites and a critical analysis of potential future treatment sites in terms of

environmental and logistic issues and potential imbalances in Attiki and Thessaloniki; d)

collection of data and information regarding Municipal Waste Management, including

commercial waste; and e) the legal framework for the development of such activities.

� Analyse how financial engineering actions and products targeting waste management

could fill financial gaps; review the potential for using UDFs to accelerate investment, and

determine the interest and readiness of potential key market players, such as banks, IFIs

(EIB), stakeholders from both the public sector (e.g. municipalities, association of

municipalities) and private sector (e.g. waste managers) and other entities, in endorsing

the JESSICA concept and running UDFs supported by SF contributions.

� Identify the main beneficiaries of the solid waste service (private households, business,

public institutions, etc.) and assess their ability and willingness to pay for the service to

ensure financial sustainability of the model and hence contribute to providing a long-term

solution to solid waste management problems in respective urban regions. Indicative,

revenues coming from beneficiaries will include gate fees and third party income (electricity

selling, recyclates, composting materials, etc.).

� Identify ERDF resources available for supporting integrated waste management

interventions and other requirements under the Greek Operational Programmes (e.g.

sources of funding, existing ceilings, eligibility criteria, etc.) as well as potential funding

from other (national) programmes.

� Provide different concrete scenarios for revolving investment instruments, with the

participation of ERDF funding, to implement solid waste facilities in Attiki and Thessaloniki,

and possibly other contributions. In this respect, the study shall pay particular attention to

providing independent and autonomous solutions as regards the integrated waste

management process (i.e. separation and recycling, mechanical and biological

treatment and/or composting, incineration, final disposal, etc.).

� Identify how the most suitable model could be financed (i.e. contributions from public and

private participants). In particular, the following elements need to be addressed: fund

structure; the fund's investment strategy, products and targeted beneficiaries. In essence,

identify the need for technical assistance to establish UDFs and, as appropriate, what

the essential components of the envisaged assistance should comprise.


38

� Identify the administrative and legal framework and constraints and propose respective

solutions (i.e. how the model should be structured and how the corresponding UDF should

be set up and participate in the model). The proposed solutions should be compatible with

the SF Regulation on expenditure, monitoring and auditing activity.

� Propose an action plan for a short to medium-term implementation of the proposed

solutions.

More specifically, the study will provide a complete picture of the existing situation in Attiki and

Thessaloniki, by reviewing the location and sites of the facilities in use, the relevant technical

parameters such as waste generation rates, anticipated collection and recycling rates etc, and

will identify and evaluate investment needs in the sector, by analyzing the potential future

treatment sites in terms of environmental, economical and logistic issues, as well as identify

potential imbalances.

The environmental and economic benefits of different treatment methods depend significantly

on local conditions such as population density, infrastructure etc, as well as on markets for

associated products (energy, recyclables and composts). In addition, the proposed

management services have to keep pace with demand, be appropriate to needs, be cost-

effective and optimize the environmental and social profit, thus in the study the main

beneficiaries of the solid waste services, as well as costs and revenues, including gate fees

and third party incomes, such as electricity selling, recyclables, compost etc. will be identified

and analyzed. The legal framework for the development of such activities will be also reviewed

and evaluated.


39

3. STUDY FRAMEWORK & APPROACH

3.1. OVERALL APPROACH

The following chapter of the inception report outlines the framework and approaches to be used

in this study.

The overall approach, will include a baseline study, which will provide a better understanding of

the existing waste management practices in Attiki and Thessaloniki, a preliminary screening of

the potential projects in these areas based on high importance criteria such as maturity level

and budget, an evaluation of the overall market and demand for funds over the next years, a

technical and financial analysis of anticipated commercial performance of the projects under

evaluation, and finally a strategy formulation for implementing JESSICA funding mechanisms.

3.1.1. Baseline Study

A baseline study will be carried out first, to provide a better understanding of the existing waste

management practices in Attiki and Thessaloniki. This baseline study needs to address

comprehensively the range of areas of importance to waste management services, including

institutional, operational and financial aspects such as waste quantities and composition,

existing MSW management operations, institutional and financial framework, prediction of

future waste quantities and analysis of shortfalls and constraints.

The main objective of data collection on waste quantities and composition is to determine the

demand for collection, transfer, treatment and disposal facilities. Data on waste composition

can also be helpful in establishing the current status of recycling in the MSW management

system and the feasibility of resource recovery and waste treatment schemes. The results of

this study will need to be adjusted based on assumptions and evaluations which should take

into account the effects of seasonal variations as well as the tourist nature of the district.

The collected and summarized data on the present waste quantity and composition will form

the basis for predictions of the future waste generation and composition during a 20 years

period. The predictions will take into account predicted future changes in population,


40

GDP/average income and related changes in consumption patterns, changes in economic

structure, and other factors that are believed to have an influence on the waste generation. In

particular, three scenarios (central, min and max) for estimating waste growth will be evaluated,

assuming different growth rates in waste production (waste grows by 1% yearly, by 35% in the

20-year period, and by 3% yearly). The approach used, and the assumptions made will be

clearly presented.

The results from the predictions will be presented in tables and on maps (allocation of waste

sources) for the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2028 as the predicted future:

� total waste generation in the region/prefecture (tn/year),

� unit waste generation in the region/prefecture (kg/cap-day),

� waste composition using the same breakdown as in the study of present conditions.

3.1.2. Preliminary screening

Next a preliminary screening of the planned projects in the areas under examination will be

performed, based on exclusion criteria, such as maturity level (implementation time 2010-

2015), as well as high importance criteria such as estimated budget, committed funds etc. The

process will include a short technical description

The process will lead to a number of projects that will be analyzed and evaluated in depth.

3.1.3. Technical and financial analysis

Once the projects to be evaluated have been determined, a Technical and Financial Analysis of

anticipated commercial performance of the potential projects will be the next step, where the

solutions available will be addressed and analyzed, in order for the most environmentally,

socially and economically sustainable projects to be identified and evaluated.

The techno-economic study report shall be divided into two parts:

� The Technical Study of the project/works

� The Economic evaluation – estimation of the cost of the project/works


41

The Technical Study of the Project will be structured into chapters, containing the following:

1 Introduction: All data relating to the study as well as the kind and purpose of each

project will be given.

2 Description of Projects locations: This part will include a short description of each

Project’s location with regard to the waste sources and national planning.

3 Design parameters of each Project: In this chapter all the design data will be

described and evaluated (depending on the available data), i.e. the population to

be served, quantitative and qualitative waste feedstock data, calculations of each

project’s capacity etc.

4 Technical description of each Project: In this chapter a short technical description

of all individual installations (plant, residue treatment, control installations etc) and

works (road and landscape construction), that are to be constructed for the proper

operation of each project will be described and evaluated. In particular, for the

design of the plant, there will be a description (the depth of which will be based on

the available data) of each project, which will include: a) description of reception

unit (i.e. mechanical treatment) and forwarding incoming waste, b) description of

main treatment unit – depending on the technology used, c) description of possible

secondary treatment stage of products, d) description of method of forming and

storing products, e) description of the management method and disposal of

recovered recyclable products and by-products from their treatment (prices and

markets for them), f) description of the management method of non-use materials /

residues for final disposal (e.g. landfill), including mass and energy balance,

antipollution works, project benefit etc. The waste flows will be presented by flow

chart broken by type, showing each separate flow which is especially important for

a newly built plant.

5 Control works and monitoring of the environmental impacts and parameters: In this

chapter reference will be made to the projects monitoring of the incoming waste,

gas emissions and the performance of each individual project etc. Special note will


42

be given to the calculation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the possible

offset benefits arising (i.e. use of compost instead of fertilizers and energy

production).

6 Organization and operational works of the project: This chapter deals with the

organization and operation of the project.

7 Indicators: Performance indicators and “sustainability” metrics (such as diversion

form landfill) will be presented by waste system elements – collection,

transportation, recycled, deposited, etc.

The Economic Evaluation will be based on the technical data and will contain the following:

a) Budget estimate for the construction cost of the works

b) Data as to the organization and operation of the installations (operating hours, required

personnel etc) and the operational costs of the works for a period of 15-25 years

(depending on the nature of the facility)

c) Data for the maintenance of all the installations and maintenance cost for a period of

15-25 years

d) Data for the de-commissioning of the plant, and rehabilitation of the site.

e) Cash-flow presentation, identifying the sources of revenue and expense per annum

3.1.4. JESSICA implementation plan (Model)

A strategy plan for JESSICA implementation for SWM sector in Greece will be the final step,

where the key conditions for creation of JESSICA structures (Urban Development Funds) will

be assessed, along with the combination of JESSICA and existing public funds - grant

mechanisms. The action plan for JESSICA implementation addressing management and legal

issues & procedures for setting up the new instrument within a certain timetable will be the final

stage of the strategy plan.


43

Data and information will need to be collected in a broad range of areas, including socio-

economic, environmental, political and institutional issues. Combinations of methods will be

used to collect and analyze these necessary data. The methods will include desk research,

market and legal analysis, interviews and consultations, case study analysis, technical and

financial evaluation of projects, multicriteria analysis, financial modeling, S.W.O.T analysis etc.

3.2. CRITICAL ISSUES OF THE PROJECT

3.2.1. Objective criteria for using Jessica

Next, objective criteria for both case studies and JESSICA implementation model are outlined.

3.2.1.1. Projects’ selection – criteria analysis

The analysis of each characteristic of all the alternative projects will be based on the selection

and examination of different criteria that are aiming to define the optimal solution to the

examined situation. The criteria that will be used in this fall into the following five categories:

environmental, financial, technical, legal and social criteria. These include both quantitative

and qualitative measures.

Generally, the application of all waste treatment technologies has been fraught with problems

that have often arisen because of over-optimistic assessments of technical, institutional and

financial feasibility. Overestimations of the calorific value of the waste in case of incineration

projects, market demand for compost and recyclables, technical skills and available operation

and maintenance budgets, has been a major cause of failure of investments in waste treatment

technology. All these risk factors will also be taken into consideration during the evaluation of

each project and incorporated into the analysis of each scenario. Some of the key issues are

presented next:

� Feedstock Availability and Composition Risks

Waste quantity and composition influence directly the functioning and capacity of waste

management projects, as well as their viability because quantity and composition

determine the products and/or energy recovery from treatment facilities, and thus the


44

potential revenue streams. In planning an upgrade of existing or development of new

systems/facilities it is therefore of utmost importance to determine current and future waste

quantity and composition as accurately as possible.

� Market Demand Risks

The viability of MBT plants rests on the availability of outlets for the principal products and

residues. In the case of MBT plants that create (refuse derived fuel) RDF and solid

recovered fuel (SRF), the main barriers to development are the planning problems

associated with the construction of dedicated Waste to Energy plants to receive the fuel,

and the lack of secure long-term markets for the fuel in the cement, power and other

energy-intensive industries that could try alternatives to fossil fuel. In the case of MBT

plants that create a biologically stable product for landfill the main uncertainty relates to

whether the product complies with the requirement of the Landfill Directive for the diversion

of biodegradable waste from landfills. In cases where an MBT plant produces a recyclable

or marketable product (compost etc) the issue of product quality and consistency is

paramount if a long-term market is to be secured. Products developed from mixed waste

inputs are generally too contaminated to permit uses other than in low value applications.

3.2.1.2. JESSICA implementation model

A full scheme for the JESSICA vehicle organization comprises the establishment of a Holding

Fund (H.F.) and Urban Development Funds (U.D.F.). JESSICA is a flexible vehicle, which

allows the implemented configuration to be adjusted to specific conditions and needs of a given

Country / Region and sector. On the legal and administration side, the legal and management

framework of the U.D.F. remains for analysis and clarification within the study outputs.

One initial strategic issue to be clarified is whether the UDF will also cover sectors additional to

the SWM sector(s), for example energy efficiency projects, notably waste-to-energy,

regeneration of surrounding areas, compensation measures for municipalities etc.

Regarding the establishment of U.D.Fs, the following options will be reviewed and evaluated in

order to support the strategic decision process:


45

� Legal form of U.D.F.: Equity Fund (Law 2992/2002) or Joint Venture (Societe Anonyme)

between Public Entity and Private Investor / Financial Institution, which will be selected

through a public procurement procedure.

� Public Administration Level of U.D.F. establishment: Centralized or Regional / Local U.D.F.

� Involvement and roles of Ministry of Economy & Finance, Regional Authorities and

Regional Funds, Local Authorities

� Other current development Funds as possible partners of U.D.F.

The above issues will be examined taking in consideration the restrictions of the current Greek

legislation framework, the EU State Aid applicable rules and the lessons learnt from the

establishment and operation of similar type of Funds in Greece. The basic criteria for choosing

the U.D.F. structure are:

• Conformity with the national legal framework

� (i.e. Law 3389/05 for PPPs)

• Flexibility and efficiency of U.D.F. management structure

• Capability of potential involved public bodies

• Time limitations for establishment and operation of U.D.Fs

We have to point out that there are no equity instruments in Greece focused on urban

development – not to mention on sustainable MSW systems. The only relevant existing legal

framework is the Equity Funds’ framework focused on private sector – which can be adapted

for the Jessica HF/UDF development and operation. An overview of Equity Funds framework is

presented afterwards:

Equity Funds in Greece and relative legal framework

The Greek Venture Capital (VC) & Private Equity (PE) industry has been active in Greece and

in the South East European Region since the early ‘90s. The Greek Venture Capital market

starts to develop and acquire considerable size after 1997. At that point a significant

percentage of the investment capitals are raised and two major funds are established by the

foreign firm Parthenon Trust, in 1998 (350 million euro) and in 2001 (750 million euro). Since

then private and semi-public financing institutions for high-technology ventures were developed


46

to satisfy a slowly emerging demand (i.e. TANEO). A few private VCs emerged either as

affiliates to large banks or as initiatives of other financing institutions. Foreign VCs funding

research-intensive start-ups were identified. The commercial banks have acted as

intermediaries in the flow of small volumes of funding from the Operational Programmes to

SMEs and microenterprises, thus reducing the administrative burden of the managing

authorities of the programmes and facilitating access to the funds for the beneficiaries.

The first attempt to set a legal framework which will give incentives for the growth of the VC

industry was made with the enforcement of Law 1775/88. The aforementioned law introduced

the Venture Capital Provision Firms (EPEK). These structures were obliged to have the legal

form of a Greek Société Anonyme (S.A.). and 51% of the firms’ portfolio should consist of

investments in high technology companies.

However, the law was judged as inadequate and was amended later on by Law 2367/1995

(articles 5 and 9). The new law renamed the EPEK to Venture Capital Firms (EKES). This

second law did not limit EKES strictly in high-tech investments but allowed investments also in

enterprises in other sectors such as agriculture, manufacture, tourism or retail that their legal

form is that of a an S.A. or Ltd and that are non-listed (article 5). It should be pointed out that

an EKES can transfer the management of its assets and achievement of their goals to

specialized firms (article 5). EKES are subsidized up to 20% for investments only in high-tech

firms (article 7), the tax rate of the EKES is 20%, while its share-holders are exempted from

taxes on gains made by distribution of share gains (article 8).

A new legislative regulation was introduced in 2002, by Law 2992/2002 aiming to further

support the growth of the Venture Capital Industry. The law foresees the establishment of

AKES which is a closed-end venture capital mutual fund, formed as a partnership. The

structure is tax transparent for domestic and non-domestic investors with the ability to be

exempted from having a permanent establishment when investing through the fund. Both

management fees and carried interest are not liable to VAT. AKES pay corporate income taxes

at a rate of 20% of profits distributed to shareholders. Corporate income tax does not apply to

corporate profits which are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the company

for reinvestment.

However, the AKES is not free from undue restrictions and can only invest in non-listed Greek

Société Anonyme and Limited Liability Companies. The law enables the transformation of

EKES operating under Law 2367/1995 to AKES without any tax (article 7).


47

In 2000 Law 2843/2000 5 established the New Economy Development Fund S.A. (TANEO).

TANEO is a Greek government backed Fund-of-Funds. Initially the government was the only

investor, but later on the fund raised also private capital. Based in Athens, the fund has 150

million euro under management, 105 of which come from foreign investment institutions and

Greek investors and 45 million euro from the Greek government. The fund was structured by

the UK fund of funds group Westport Private Equity. TANEO’s mission is to produce financial

returns at the same time as jump-starting the venture capital industry and boosting the Greek

economy by investing in Greek private equity funds. TANEO invests in all types of funds from

buy-outs to earlystage venture capital (venture funds, mutual funds etc). TANEO offers

investors government guarantees, but the small size of the Greek market dictates an

opportunistic strategy in the allocation of capital.

At present TANEO holds a share of 49,99% in eleven VCs of the following SMEs sectors:

� IT- Computer Related

� Biotechnology - Health

� Industrial products – Materials

� Eco-Business

� Agro - Business - Beverages

� Services

Another state sponsored Fund is the Digital Leap Fund (established by Law 568/2005) for the

Information Society sector. The fund was expected to invest 100 million EURO in 30-50

companies for a period of 10 - 12years. A procedure for the selection of the Fund Manager

commenced two years ago, but was cancelled. The Fund Manager’ fee was determined as 2%-

3% of the Fund’s budget, with additional fee of Fund’s carried interest at 20% of capital gain. In

addition to Fund Manager, there is provision for Fund Treasurer (bank or other financial

institution).

3.2.2. MSW Projects Maturity Plan

One of the most critical parameter for case study selection is the maturity level of each one,

which is mainly based upon the current phase of the licensing process. All waste management

units (Landfills, MBT, MRF, Transport Stations etc) are subject to the same steps of licensing.

According to the J.M.D 15393/02, the licensing process of all the proposed projects is divided

into the next steps:


48

Step 1: Project Idea - Concept

Competent Waste Management Authorities (WMA) assign to consultants the preliminary

assessments (feasibility and techno-economic studies) in order for the final concept and idea to

be established. Study

Step 2: Assignment and Preparation of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA

Screening / Scoping Study Report)

After the concept has been established, WMA assign the preliminary environmental impact

assessment to private engineering consultants. The preparation of a Preliminary Environmental

Impact Assessment Study is necessary according to Article 7 of J.M.D. 50910/03 for all

projects. Assignment can be done through open competition which lasts approximately 1 month

or direct commission, while preparation usually lasts 1-2 months, depending on the special

characteristics of the project under examination.

The EIA Screening / Scoping Study shall cover all aspects and matters that must be evaluated

and assessed on the basis of existing Greek and Community legislation. The Study must be

submitted for approval.

Step 3: Approval of Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment

The Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Study has to be submitted to the

competent Prefecture, Region or Department of the Ministry of Environment, and be approved

by them and a number of other public authorities such as the Prefecture Environment

Department and the Archeological Department of the Ministry of Culture.

Step 4: Assignment and Preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA Report)

The next step is the assignment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study from the WMA

to private engineering consultants. . Assignment can be done through open competition which

lasts approximately 1 month or direct commission, while preparation usually lasts 1-2 months,

depending on the special characteristics of the project under examination. The MPE must also

be submitted for approval.


49

Step 5: Approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment and publication of Environmental

Agreements.

The next step which is submitted to the competent Prefecture, Region or Department of the

Ministry of Environment depending on the population covered and the type of the facility. After

a number of authorities have delivered their opinion, the Environmental Agreements Conditions

are issued. These are necessary for the construction of all waste management related

infrastructure.

Step 6: Assignment and Preparation of Technical Engineering Studies and Tender Documents

In this step, the preparation of all the appropriate technical engineering studies and tender

documents are assigned by WMA to private engineering consults, in order for all the necessary

information about the implementation of the project to be identified and assessed.

The Tender Documents, among others, include:

� Technical Specifications for all construction works / equipment

� Preliminary design / studies and drawings

� Bills of quantities with pre-measurements

Step 7: Application for Funding

In this step WMA, usually with the assistance of the aforementioned consulting engineers,

prepare and submit a complete application file for co-funding of the Project by either the

Cohesion Fund in accordance with the European Union requirements (application only to

“Major Projects”), or R.O.P funds.

Step 8: Project Tender

In this step candidates (constructors) submit their tenders, and WMA, usually with the

assistance of the aforementioned consulting engineers, evaluate the tenders and prepare an

evaluation report.

Step 9: Assign and Construction

The final step involves the contract assignment and construction of the project based on the

above-mentioned evaluation report.


50

Next a schematic representation of the above steps is presented.

Figure 7: Schematic representation of the licensing process steps


51

The total estimated time from the assignment of the EIA Screening / Scoping Study to project

tendering, varies approximately from 17 to 34 months.

In case of special PPP (Law 3389/2005), WMA submits a preliminary application to Special

Secretariat for PPPs, and after the approval, assign the whole procedure (steps 2-6) to a

Technical Consultant through open competition or direct commission, which is responsible for

the preparation of all necessary design, studies and documents; hence the amount of time that

is needed for steps 2-7 is decreasing.

In terms of licensing and permitting, the most critical stages are highlighted in red in Figure 5,

and include both the approval of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment Study and

the Environmental Impact Assessment Study, with respect to obtaining approval of competent

authorities and regulatory agencies. Moreover, during these stages, the community has the

largest opportunity to access the information and raise any objections to the projects.

.


52

Phase I:

Inception

Phase II:

Implementation

Phase III:

Finalization

Activities:

• Conclude contracting arrangements

• Establish working relationships with stakeholders

• Review and revise work plan

• Establish effective communication system

• Establish objective criteria for using JESSICA in the SWM sector in Greece

Work Packages (WPs):

• WP1: Analysis of Institutional and regulatory Environment

• WP2: Evaluation of potential JESSICA Implementation in Waste management Sector

• WP3: Case studies of JESSICA implementation

• WP4: Development of scenarios for JESSICA implementation

Work Package (WP):

• WP5: Action Plan for JESSICA implementation in waste management sector

Methods:

• Inception meetings

• Mobilize resources

Methods:

• Consultations with EIB/ MoE&F/ Jessica SC / stakeholders

• Desk research / Market / Legal framework analysis,

• Fund & Project Financial modelling

• SWOT analysis

• Case studies analysis

Methods:

• Consultations with EIB/ MoE&F/ Jessica SC

Deliverables:

• Study Progress Reports

• Special Reports

Deliverables:

• Final Report

• Draft UDF establishment legal documentation

• Study findings presentation

Month 1

Deliverable:

• Inception Report

Months 4-5 Months 2 - 3

4. STUDY WORK PLAN

4.1. METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

As laid out in the consultants’ proposal, the phases, activities, work packages and deliverables

are presented in summary in the following table:


53

Combinations of the following methods will be used to collect the necessary data and to

evaluate the numerous alternative options for JESSICA mechanisms application in the SWM

sector in Greece:

Desk research

Desk research will be used for collecting and analyzing relevant secondary data. Information

sources included EU-level legislation (on the EU Structural Funds, JESSICA instrument, etc.),

NSRF 2007 – 2013, Operational Programmes, Regional and Local Waste Management Plans,

related legal acts as well as statistical information. The market and legal analysis will be based

on this method. Market analysis will include a review of the need for solid waste management

investment for each phase of the waste management cycle, maturity of the market for PPPs

and a description of existing public programmes and other available financial instruments to

promote and encourage investment in waste management. Legal analysis will be used to

describe legal context and necessary requirements and restrictions for the implementation of

JESSICA in Greece, in compliance with EU regulations and national legal acts (related to State

aid rules, public procurement, PPPs, legal forms of establishing and managing UDFs, other

relevant legal issues).

Interviews and stakeholders consultations

Interviews and stakeholders consultations will be used in order to gain the opinions and

experience of key actors, who are responsible for the management of NSRF 2007 – 2013 and

the planning, implementation and financing of SWM projects in Greece.

Technical Evaluation

Cases will be selected following a rigorous preliminary screening process, and then quantitative

and qualitative information for all potential projects will be collected and best use will be made

of the available information. All the alternative solutions available will be addressed and

analyzed, and the most environmentally, socially and economically sustainable projects will be

identified and evaluated thought the application of a multicriteria analysis.

Financial modeling

Financial modeling will be used for the determination of market gaps and the most effective

means of improving access to financing for public and private bodies in implementing solid


54

waste management projects in Greece and to compare cash-flows and returns between

employing traditional grants vs. JESSICA mechanisms. It will be used for the determination of

the most appropriate strategy for JESSICA introduction in Greek market and to tailor the type

and scale of financial support (equity investments, loans, guarantees). Project Financial

Modeling will be also used for the financial evaluation of the selected case studies - SWM

projects.

SWOT analysis

Strength – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threads analysis will be used for evaluation of

critical options related to the launching and implementing JESSICA instrument in Greece

4.2. DELIVERABLES

The above work packages and methods should achieve the following deliverables:

1st Progress Report: Analysis of institutional and regulatory environment of SWM in Greece

(Work Package 1)

: Evaluation of potential JESSICA implementation in Waste management

Sector – Analysis of supply & demand financial gap & Case studies –

Actual Projects / Programs implementation, using JESSICA instruments

(Work Packages 2 & 3)

Draft Final Report: Strategy and Action Plan for JESSICA structure implementation (Work

Packages 4 & 5)

Final Report: Executive Summary and synthesis of the above Progress Reports after

consultations with EIB and the Ministry of Finance and Economy & MA


55

4.3. TIME PLAN

The study duration is 5 months and it will finish on December 31st, 2009. Most project activities

and consultations will take place in the period mid October – December 2009 and will be

concluded with the Final Report and public presentations.

An indicative time plan of the study progress is as follows:

Dec 2009 Submission of 1st Progress Report

Jan 2010 Submission – Presentation of Draft Final Report –

Revision

Final version

4.4. MEETINGS - CONSULTATIONS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Through the study progress, it is proposed that meetings - consultations between the study

experts and the following SMW key stakeholders, should be conducted, with the cooperation of

JESSICA steering / technical committee:

� MINISTRY OF ECONOMY & FINANCE

� ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IN THE ATTICA REGION

� ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF GREATER THESSALONIKI

� ATTIKI REGIONAL AUTHORITY / ATTIKI REG. O.P. M.A.

� KENTRIKI MAKEDONIA REGIONAL AUTHORITY / K.M. REG. O.P. M.A.


56

5. PRELIMINARY STUDY

5.1. BASELINE STUDY

5.1.1. Region of ATTIKI

5.1.1.1. Waste Management Authority

The competent authority for waste management in the region of Attiki is the Association of

Municipalities and Communities in the Attiki Region (ACMAR).

5.1.1.2. Waste Generation and Composition

Indeed, waste quantity and composition influences directly the functioning and capacity

required for waste collection and treatment/disposal systems and facilities. In planning an

upgrade of existing or development of new systems/facilities it is therefore of utmost

importance to as accurately as possible determine current and future waste quantity and

composition.

Waste Generation

In the following table waste quantities generated in Attiki in 2001, as well as estimations for

future quantities according to RWMP of Attiki (2006) are outlined.

Table 5: Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Attiki (RWMP, 2006)

Year MSW (tn/y)

West Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

NE Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

SE Attiki

MSW (tn/y)

Total

2001 1.520.280 127.385 127.385 1.775.050

2008 1.685.935 141.620 141.620 1.969.175

2010 1.736.670 145.635 145.635 2.027.940

2013 1.816.240 152.570 152.570 2.121.380

2020 2.015.530 169.360 169.360 2.154.960

2028 2.270.665 190.530 190.530 2.651.725


57

Detailed methodology and updated future trends estimations based on waste generation per

capita and population increase, will be presented during the next reports.

Waste Composition

In the following table, the change of composition of MSW over time in Attiki is presented, based

on several detailed studies conducted by ACMAR, in conjuction with the National Technical

University of Athens (NTUA).

Table 6: MSW composition in Attiki (ACMAR – NTUA, 2008)

Type of Waste 1985 1991 1997 2008

Putrescibles 56,50 % 48,50 % 46,50 % 43,60%

Paper 20,00 % 22,00 % 23,44 % 28,20%

Plastic 7,00 % 10,50 % 10,80 % 12,50%

Metals 4,00 % 4,20 % 3,74 % 3,20%

Glass 2,70 % 3,50 % 3,42 % 3,20%

W-L-R-T15 4,30 % 3,50 % 4,25 % 4,20%

Inert 1,00 % 3,30 % 3,58 % 1,20 %

Other16 4,50 % 4,50 % 4,27 % 3,90 %

Total 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00

In addition, MSW composition (2008) is depicted next.

15 Wood – Leather – Rubber - Textile

16 Other types include batteries, fine material etc


58

Putrescibles

43,60%

Paper

28,20%

Plastic

12,50%

Metals

3,20%

Glass

3,20%

Other

9,30%

Putrescibles

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Other

Figure 8: MSW composition in Attiki in 2008 (ACMAR – NTUA, 2008)

5.1.1.3. Existing Facilities

In West Attiki, the existing facilities are the following:

� One compliant residual waste Landfill in the area of Fyli, with annual capacity of 825.000

tonnes per year.

� One Mechanical and Composting Treatment (MBT 1) in Ano Liosia, with annual capacity of

450.000 tonnes per year for the treatment of mixed solid waste. The unit combines a

sorting facility with biological treatment of composting, produces R.D.F. and compost, its

operation begun on 2004 and is one of the biggest MBT plants in Europe. Detailed

description of the facility will be presented during next reports.

Nowadays, these two facilities are the only MSW management units in Attiki, as it is presented

in the next figure.


59

Figure 9: Existing MSW in Attiki

The following figure depicts future quantities and management of BMW in Attiki, in accordance

with the targets established by EU Legislation, assuming a BaU scenario (Business as Usual)

and waste growth of 1,5% yearly (central scenario). In depth analysis of various scenarios will

be presented during next reports.

Figure 10: Future quantities of MSW and BMW generation and disposal in Attiki (waste growth:

1,5% yearly)


60

5.1.1.4. Waste Management Facilities Planning

According to the Regional Plans several treatment units are foreseen for the next years in

Attiki, in order to achieve the quantified targets for diversion of biodegradable waste shown on

the above-mentioned figure. ACMAR has recently commissioned a study in order to evaluate

the most appropriate technology for the treatment of 2.500-3.000 tonnes of solid waste that are

still being disposed directly to Fyli Landfill. According to the results of the aforementioned

study, the construction of the following waste treatment units has been proposed:

West Attiki

� A M.B.T. (Sorting and Biological Drying) plant in Fyli ,with annual capacity of 700.000 tones

per year and the ability to treat mixed waste and produce S.R.F. (budget 153.510.000 €).

� A Mechanical Treatment plant with annual capacity of 400.000 tones for the treatment of

mixed solid waste (84.311.500 €), possible combined with an Anaerobic Digestion and

post-composting treatment plant with annual capacity of 67.000 tones of organic waste

(budget 19.093.058 €).

� One Biological Treatment plant for separated at source organic waste with annual capacity

of 80.000 tones per year (budget 35.000.000 €).

East Attiki

According to the Regional Plans several treatment units are foreseen for the next years in

Attiki, in order to achieve the quantified targets for diversion of biological (organic) waste.

ACMAR has recently commissioned a study in order to evaluate the most appropriate

technology for the treatment of 800 tn of solid waste per day that are still being disposed

directly to Fyli Landfill (West Attiki). According to the results of the aforementioned study, the

construction of the following waste treatment units has been proposed:

� One Landfill in the area of Grammatiko, which is under construction, with annual capacity

of 125.000 tn per year.

� One Landfill in the area of Keratea, with annual capacity of 125.000 tn per year.

� A mechanical and anaerobic biological treatment with annual capacity of 127.500 tn/year

for the treatment of mixed solid waste in the South East Attiki (budget 89.083.400 €)


61

� A mechanical and anaerobic biological treatment with annual capacity of 127.500 tn/year

for the treatment of mixed solid waste in the North East Attiki (budget 89.083.400 €)

� A Biological Treatment plants for separated at source organic waste in the South East Attiki

with annual capacity of 40.000 tones per year (budget 17.000.000 €).

� A Biological Treatment plants for separated at source organic waste in the North East Attiki

with annual capacity of 40.000 tones per year (budget 17.000.000 €).

The locations of the above-mentioned plants, as well as the existing MBT in Ano Liosia are

depicted on the following map.

Figure 11: Locations of the existing MBT and under planning facilities in Attiki


62

5.1.2. Prefecture of THESSALONIKI

5.1.2.1. Waste Management Authority

The competent authority for waste management in the region of Thessaloniki is the Association

of Local Authorities of Prefecture of Thessaloniki (ALAPT), which is a legal entity of public law

that was established in 1971 and consists of 47 municipalities of the prefecture of Thessaloniki.

The Association is responsible for the construction of the new landfill in Mavrorahi, the

application of Recycling Programs, the rehabilitation of previous waste disposal sites and the

development of advanced research and awareness programmes, aiming at the environmental

protection and sustainable and viable development.

5.1.2.2. Waste Generation and Composition

Waste Generation

In the following table waste quantities generated in Thessaloniki in 2001, as well as estimations

for 2008 and 2010 quantities according to ALART estimations are outlined.

Table 7: Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Thessaloniki (A.L.A.R.T, 2008)

Year Thessaloniki

2001 450.000

2008 600.000

2010 618.000

Detailed methodology and updated future trends estimations based on waste generation per

capita and population increase, will be presented during the next reports.

Waste Composition

In the following table, the change of composition of MSW over time in Thessaloniki is

presented, based on several detailed studies conducted by A.L.A.R.T. (Research on quality

and quantity composition of Thessaloniki's urban solid waste, using the European methodology

MODECOM) and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH).


63

Table 8: MSW composition in Thessaloniki (ALART – AUTH)

Type of Waste Composition (%) 2007

Putrescibles 26,70%

Paper 29,20%

Plastic 17,90%

Metals 4,40%

Glass 3,60%

W-L-R 6,20%

Inert 4,00%

Textile 3,00%

Other 5,00%

Total 100%

In addition, MSW composition (2007) is depicted next.

Putrescibles

26,70%

Paper

29,20%

Plastic

17,90%

Metals

4,40%

Glass

3,60%

Other

18,20%

Putrescibles

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Other

.

Figure 12: MSW composition in Thessaloniki in 2007 (ALAPT , 2007)

5.1.2.3. Existing Facilities

Nowadays, the only waste management facilities in Thessaloniki are one compliant residual

waste Landfill in the area of Mavrorahi, and 2 MRFs for Recyclable Wastes separated at

source, with a total nominal capacity of 40.000 tonnes per year.


64

The following figure depicts future quantities and management of BMW in Thessaloniki, in

accordance with the targets established by EU Legislation, assuming a BaU scenario

(Business as Usual) and waste growth of 1,5% yearly (central scenario). In depth analysis of

various scenarios will be presented during next reports.

Figure 13: Future quantities of MSW and BMW generation and disposal in Thessaloniki (waste

growth: 1,5% yearly)

5.1.2.4. Waste Management Facilities Planning

According to the Regional Plan two treatment units are foreseen for the next years in

Thessaloniki, in order to achieve the quantified targets for diversion of biological (organic)

waste. ALART has recently commissioned a feasibility study in order to evaluate the most

appropriate technology for the treatment of 400.000 tn of MSW per year that are still being

disposed directly to Mavrorahi Landfill. The technology is not selected yet, however the project

will be financed thought PFI (280.010.000 €).

The locations of the above-mentioned plant, as well as the existing landfill in Mavrorahi are

depicted on the following map.


65

Figure 14: Locations of the existing MBT and under planning facilities in Thessaloniki

5.1.3. Compost and RDF / SRF Market

The viability of any investment in solid waste processing depends on the optimisation of the

available waste streams, the plant capacity and the existing and future markets for the

materials produced (e.g recyclables, compost, energy etc). The latter, is a key parameter in the

evaluation of the viability of any such investment, and an area where many unsuccessful

ventures have paid insufficient attention.

Market analysis is as important for products where markets exist but are vulnerable to

fluctuations (such as recyclables or energy) as for products where markets are not developed

yet (such as compost). For example compost utilisation, is affected by and would benefit from

several activities where further analysis in the Greek market context would be beneficial.

Examples of these include the development and formal adoption of quality standards for

domestic, agricultural, soil enrichment etc, use of compost, public attitude surveys on the use of

Tagarades

Mavrorahi


66

compost, evaluation of factors affecting compost quality etc. In the following sections, a brief

description of the compost and RDF/SRF market is outlined, while further analysis will be

performed during next reports.

5.1.3.1. Compost market

Compost is a unique product which can improve the physical, chemical (nutritional) and

biological properties of soil and plant growth media. These characteristics make compost a

valuable product which can be used in a variety of applications. High quality composts have

been produced from leaf and yard debris, biosolids, municipal solid waste, animal manures,

agricultural by-products, food and a variety of industrial by-products. Generally a cleaner

separated at source bio-waste fraction allows to produce high quality compost. Moreover the

residue from anaerobic digestion (the digestate) can be composted and produce also good

quality compost. According to EU Green Paper “on the management of bio-waste in the

European Union”, compost in EU is used in agriculture (about 50%), for landscaping (up to

20%), to produce growing media (blends) and manufactured soil (around 20%), and by private

consumers (up to 25%). Countries which produce compost predominantly from mixed waste

and have undeveloped compost markets tend to use it in agriculture, for land restoration or

landfill cover. The demand for compost varies in Europe depending mostly on soil improvement

needs, and consumer confidence. EU soil policy calling on the Commission and the Parliament

to act against the degradation of soil, as well as increasing consumer confidence in relation to

the safe use of composts from waste, could enhance demand significantly. Nowadays, in

Greece, the price of compost varies from 3.00 up to 15.00 € / tonne (bulk) with an average

price of 8 € / tonne, depending on its properties and quality. The price of bagged, high quality

compost in Europe reaches up to 120.00 € / tonne, however, at this point, the market for high

quality compost in Greece it is estimated to be very limited, due to the low price of competitive

fertilizers.

5.1.3.2. RDF- SRF market

RDF consists largely of organic components of municipal waste such as plastics and

biodegradable waste. RDF processing facilities are normally located near a source of MSW

and, while an optional combustion facility is normally close to the processing facility, it may also


67

be located at a remote location. SRF can be distinguished from RDF in the fact that it is

produced to reach a standard such as CEN/343 ANAS.

RDF can be used in a variety of ways to produce electricity. It can be used alongside traditional

sources of fuel in coal power plants. In Greece the R.D.F. produced in the M.B.T. of A. Liossia

it is either stored or used in landfilling operations. The WMA of the Attica Region issued a

market study in order to find a way to utilize the R.D.F. produced in the Athens treatment unit.

The study included two big cement industries (AGET Iraklis and Titan A.E.) and other types of

industry where big amounts of energy are required (Public Power Corporation, Steel Industries

and Lime Industries) but there was no correspondence. A contract has been signed between

AGET – IRAKLIS and the WMA which states that initially 35.000 tn/year will be co incinerated

in the AGET plant and that amount will increase to 75.000 tn/year. According to the contract

AGET will receive 10 € per tonne of R.D.F. co-incinerated. Totally 750.000 €/year will be

required. The contract was signed during February 2007 and has a five-year duration.

Nevertheless the total amount of R.D.F. is still being landfilled. Construction and operation of

Waste to Energy plants are expected to enhance demand and thus selling price significantly.

5.1.4. MSW management tariff system.

Another important consideration is the impact the gate fees have on waste management tariffs

and tariff evolution. This is especially important because the issue of affordability and

willingness to pay is an area that needs to be evaluated carefully to ensure that the main

beneficiaries of the solid waste services (private households, businesses, public institutions,

etc.) will accept, participate and contribute constructively to the proposed investments.

As stated, municipalities are responsible for waste collection and street sanitation. In order to

finance those activities, fees are imposed to the citizens. The allocation of fee to the citizens is

done depending on the surface of the building they live. The sanitation fee is paid through the

electricity bill and later attributed to the Municipalities by PPC. As a result citizens cannot

evaluate the quality of the services provided by the municipality and no motive to reduce the

waste quantities is being offered.

Collection cost varies depending on the geographical data and the equipment used, and

usually it amounts over 80 €/tonne. In the existing sanitary landfills the gate fee lies around 25-


68

30 €/tn while the cost for processing waste in the existing MBT facilities is more than 50 €/tn.

However, the cost for managing solid waste is expected to increase since modern facilities will

be constructed. This will be a good opportunity to change the way fee for solid waste is

allocated and a “Pay as You Through” strategy to be introduced by WMA.

Regarding recycling, since the beginning of 2009, Municipalities receive an extra financial aid

for the collection of recyclables by HERRCO. The amount scales according to the quantity of

packaging waste collected per inhabitant, and is shown in the following table.

Table 9: Financial contribution to Municipalities for the collection of packaging waste

Collected Waste per capita Financial Aid

From (kg) To (kg) € / tn

0,0 8,0 30

8,1 15,0 40

15,1 20,0 50

20,1 25,0 60

25,1 30,0 65

30,1 -- 70

A more detailed analysis will be performed during next reports, to establish these figures more

accurately.


69

5.2. PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF TWO CASE STUDIES

In this chapter preliminary data about two projects in Attiki are briefly described.

West Attiki

5.2.1. MBT Plant - Sorting and Biological Drying (Mixed Waste) in West Attiki

5.2.1.1. General Description

MBT is a term used to describe a particular waste treatment concept for the management of

municipal and non-hazardous industrial and commercial waste. This MBT plant mechanical

processes to separate out the dry recyclables such as glass and metals, with biological drying

to drive out moisture and to stabilise the organic fraction of the incoming waste. In addition to

the separation of dry recyclables from the incoming waste stream, the plant will be designed to

produce an energy-rich solid recovered fuel (SRF) comprising organic matter, paper, plastics

and other combustible fractions, that can be combusted in energy from waste plant or in an

industrial furnace. The main activities involved are:

� Shredding and pelletizing of feedstock mixed wastes

� Crushing and milling

� Screening and other mechanical waste classification processes

� Magnetic separation of metals, and ballistic sorting systems

� Biological drying

In addition to the above the plant will include wastewater and emissions treatment units, as well

as monitoring works.

5.2.1.2. Preliminary technical data

An indicative mass balance of the plant is presented next.


70

Figure 15: Indicative mass balance of the MBT – Biological Drying in West Attiki

In the following tables, technical and economical data are presented, based on preliminary

calculations.


71

Table 10: Preliminary technical data for MBT – Biological Drying in West Attiki

MBT – Biological Drying in West Attiki

1. Maximum capacity 700.000 tn / year

2. Investment Cost 153 € M

3. Process Cost (not including waste sent to landfill)

40 € / tn waste feedstock

4. Cost of waste sent to landfill 20 € / tn waste to landifll

5. Quantities of Waste (Feedstock) for 5 first years

1st Year: 400.000

tn / year

2nd Year: 700.000

3rd Year: 700.000

4th Year: 700.000

5th Year: 700.000

6. Income from Material and Energy Recovery 1. SRF17: 0 € / tn SRF

2. Metals: 60 € / tn metal

7. Gate fee (Indicative) 74 € / tn

8. Funding N/D

Table 11: Preliminary economical data for MBT – Biological Drying in West Attiki

MBT - Biological Drying Euro Quantity Euro

Costs Process Cost (euro / tn waste feedstock) 40 700.000 28.000.000

Cost of waste sent to landfill (euro / waste to landfill) 20 102.000 2.040.000

Income SRF (euro / tn SRF) 0 350.000 0

Metals (euro / tn metals) 60 22.000 1.320.000

Gate Fee (euro / tn waste feedstock) 74 700.000 51.800.000

Profit (Euros / per year) 23.080.000

Investment (Euro) 153,510,000

17For landfilling operations


72

East Attiki

Two identical MBT plants are foreseen in Northeast and Southeast Attiki. The plants will treat

separated at source bio-waste, and will apply either aerobic or anaerobic digestion technology

for the biological treatment of waste. The method is not yet defined (final decisions are

expected during the next two months), thus both the possible technologies are briefly

presented.

5.2.2. MBT - Anaerobic Treatment – Source Separated Waste


This MBT plant will accept separated at source biodegradable waste (bio-waste). During the

mechanical stage the waste will be broken down into smaller parts by shredding and recyclable

material will be removed, since the feedstock is not expected to be pure bio-waste. The

biological stage will include anaerobic digestion and composting of the residue material.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is a process whereby organic waste is broken down in a controlled,

oxygen free environment by bacteria naturally occurring in the waste material. Methane rich

biogas will be produced thus facilitating renewable energy generation. The produced methane

will be treated and provide energy for the plant and to the grid. The residual nutrient rich liquor

and digestate will be composted and then will be suitable for use as fertiliser.




73

Figure 16: Indicative mass balance of the MBT – Anaerobic Digestion in East Attiki


calculations.

Table 12: Preliminary technical data for MBT – Anaerobic Digestion in East Attiki

MBT – Anaerobic Digestion in East Attiki – Source Separated Waste


2. Investment Cost 22 €M

3. Process Cost

(not including waste sent to landfill) 42 € / tn waste feedstock

4. Cost of waste sent to landfill 20 € / tn waste to landifll

5. Income from Material and Energy Recovery 1. Compost: 8 € / tn compost

2. Electricity: 11 € / tn waste feedstock

6. Gate fee (Indicative) 74 € / tn waste feedstock

7. Funding N/D


74

Table 13: Preliminary economical data for MBT – AD in East Attiki

Specific economical data for other projects have been requested from competent authorities

and will be presented during next reports.

5.2.3. MBT - Aerobic Treatment – Source Separated Waste


This MBT plant will accept separated at source biodegradable waste (bio-waste). During the

mechanical stage the waste will be broken down into smaller parts by shredding and recyclable

material will be removed, since the feedstock is not expected to be pure bio-waste. The

biological stage will include composting of the material.

Composting is a natural biological process that is carried out by various natural microbes,

including bacteria and fungi that break down organic material into simpler substances. These

microorganisms require air and water; therefore, it is necessary to maintain proper

environmental conditions for microbial life within the compost pile. The time window to produce

compost depends on the composting process. In-vessel composting can produced compost in

7 to 10 days, while other composting systems may take more than 20days to produce a mature

compost. Composting has the potential to manage organic material in the waste stream which

cannot otherwise be recycled.



Euro Quantity Total Euro

Cost Process Cost (euro / tn waste feedstock) 42 40.000 1.680.000

Cost of waste sent to landfill (euro / waste to landfill) 20 12.000 240.000

Revenues Compost (euro / tn compost) 8 11.644 93.152

Energy (euro / tn waste feedstock) 11 40.000 440.000



Investment (Euro) 22.000.000


75

Figure 17: Indicative mass balance of the MBT – Composting in East Attiki


calculations.

Table 14: Preliminary technical data for MBT – Composting in East Attiki

MBT – Composting in East Attiki – Source Separated Waste


2. Investment Cost 16 €M

3. Process Cost

(not including waste sent to landfill) 40 € / tn waste feedstock

4. Cost of waste sent to landfill 20 € / tn waste to landfill

5. Income from Compost Recovered 8 € / tn compost

6. Gate fee (Indicative) 74 € / tn waste feedstock

7. Funding N/D


76

Table 15: Preliminary economical data for MBT – Composting in East Attiki

Specific economical data for other projects have been requested from competent authorities

and will be presented during next reports.

Euro Quantity Total Euro

Cost Process Cost (euro / tn waste feedstock) 40 40.000 1.600.000

Cost of waste sent to landfill (euro / waste to landfill) 20 10.000 200.000

Revenues Compost (euro / tn compost) 8 14.000 112.000


Profit (Euros / per year) 1.272.000 Investment (Euro) 16.000.000


77

5.3. CASE STUDY - FINANCIAL MODEL METHODOLOGY

5.3.1 General Description

There are three options regarding the HF – UDF - Project SPV relationship: Jessica Equity or

Jessica Loan or Jessica Loan + Jessica Equity. This means that the HF gives the funds –

repayable or not - to the UDF which in turn gives it as equity or loan or equity + loan to the

projects. A financial institution (bank) may co-finance the projects along with the UDF and

the private investors. UDF is a closed-end investment fund. A graphical representation of the

parties involved is given in Figure 16.

Figure 18: General representation of the parties involved in Jessica financing

The financial model used here is based on inputs and assumptions. It produces intermediary

results and (final) results. The SWM under analysis is the one with the highest capacity, i.e.

the method of biological drying. Specifically:


78

Inputs

Project inputs are: investment cost, capacity, construction period, types of revenues and

operating costs and their respective schedule.

UDF perspective inputs mainly concern the management fees and management costs. The

HF perspective contains the same type of inputs as in the UDF level, but at the HF level.

Intermediary Outputs

Depending on the Inputs, pro-forma Profit & Loss, Cash Flow and Sources & Uses tables are

given for each Project Case (3 Cases).

Outputs

Profitability and sustainability from the perspective of the project and all stakeholders

involved is given in terms of IRR and Payback period. Stakeholders are the HF, the UDF, the

private investor and the bank. Also tables summing up all outputs – final and intermediary -

are given.

Assumptions for the Project’ SPV

• Loan to Equity ratio is 75:25.

• Dividends to shareholders are only considered after the repayment of the

commercial loan and can not exceed, for each year, the amount of retained earnings

plus net income for the previous year.

• Debt Repayments are done at the end of each year.

• Useful life of unit equipment is 25 years

Alternative Financial Models

There will be analysis of 3 alternative financial models - cases, depending on the type of

Jessica financing:

a. Case 1: UDF participation as equity: 40% of total equity

b. Case 2: UDF participation as loan: 50% of total loan

c. Case 3: UDF participation as a combination of equity and loan: 30% of total equity

and 40% of total loan


79

An overview of the alternative cases is given in figure 19.

Sensitivity analysis

For each case, a Sensitivity Analysis will be calculated, in order to determine how different

values of projects variables (e.g. investment cost, capacity, gate fee, etc) will impact the

main financial model outputs, from the perspectives of all the stakeholders: Private partner

(Contractor), UDF, HF (see 5.3.4).

Figure 19: Overview of alternative financial models to be analyzed


80

5.3.2 Characteristics of SWM Method under analysis – MBT – Sorting and Biological Drying

5.3.2.1 Technical characteristics

The main technical characteristics of the facility are:

� Waste reception

� Waste grinding

� Biological drying. This process part aims to separate the highest water quantities in the least

possible time through an exothermic bio-reaction. The system will be entirely sealed and

automated, especially regarding air provision, transportation of material in process as well as

of processed material. Processing time will not be less than 7 days.

� Mechanical separation and refinement of bio-stabilized product, where there is retrieval of

ferrous and non-ferrous metals as well as non-combustible materials. Particularly, the

stabilized material will be directed to a system of densometric, size, magnet and eddy-

current separators for the retrieval of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and the removal of

heavy materials, such as pebbles and other inert contents.

� Gas waste treatment (dust, odors, volatile organic compounds) downstream the above-

mentioned processes. Such treatment will entail waste oxidation. Gaseous waste will

become odorless compounds plus moisture. Oxidation will take place in 850 oC minimum,

with reaction time at least 2 sec.

� Dust and odor exhaust section through use of bio- and bag-filters

� The Unit also includes a drying section for secondary fuel (SRF) production from mixed

urban wastes. Particularly, incoming urban waste will be directed to the Reception section

and subsequently to SRF production and recovery of metals and inert residuals.

Next, is presented an indicative process diagram of the Sorting and Biological Drying plant in West

Attiki.


81

Figure 20: Indicative process diagram of the Sorting and Biological Drying plant in West Attiki.

Biological drying of municipal solid waste is generally a proven process applied in numerous

mechanical biological treatment plants in Europe. Nevertheless, modern drying plants need

extensive control equipment in order to steer the process effectively. Further technical analysis

(suitability, cost effectiveness of technology, technology risks etc) will be performed during next

reports.


82

5.3.2.2 Financial characteristics

MBT – Biological Drying in West Attiki


2. Investment Cost 153 € M

3. Process Cost (not including waste sent to landfill)

40 € / tn waste feedstock

4. Cost of waste sent to landfill 20 € / tn waste to landfill

5. Quantities of Waste (Feedstock) for 5 first years

1st Year: 400.000

tn / year

2nd Year: 700.000

3rd Year: 700.000

4th Year: 700.000

5th Year: 700.000

6. Income from Material and Energy Recovery 1. SRF18: 0 € / tn SRF

2. Metals: 60 € / tn metal

7. Gate fee (Indicative) 74 € / tn

8. Funding N/D

MBT - Biological Drying Euro Quantity Euro

Costs Process Cost (euro / tn waste feedstock) 40 700.000 28.000.000

Cost of waste sent to landfill (euro / waste to landfill) 20 102.000 2.040.000

Income SRF (euro / tn SRF) 0 350.000 0

Metals (euro / tn metals) 60 22.000 1.320.000



Investment (Euro) 153,510,000

18For landfilling operations


83

5.3.3 Financial Model Inputs (in ‘000 €)

UDF

Average rate

Jessica Funds received TBD

Y1 to Y3 Y4 to Y10 Y10 to Y20

Management Fee 1.50% 1.00% 0.50%

Management Costs

HF

Average rate

Funds under Management 100,000

Funds not used

Return on Funds not used

Management Fee 1.50%

Management Costs

Note: Management costs in both the HF and the UDF tables are : personnel, office and other costs


84

Case 1 – Jessica Equity

Funding

% Debt 75%

% Equity 25%

Year 1 Year2 Year 3 Total

Funds needed 50,000 50,000 53,500 153,500

Funds available 50,000 50,000 53,500 153,500

Equity 25% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Jessica 40.00% 5,000 5,000 5,350 15,350

Private Entity 60.00% 7,500 7,500 8,025 23,025

12,500 12,500 13,375 38,375

Debt 75% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Commercial Loan 100.00% 37,500 37,500 40,125 115,125

Financial parameters

Commercial Loan interest rate 7.00%


85

Case 2 – Jessica Loan

Funding

% Debt 75%

% Equity 25%


Funds needed 50,000 50,000 53,500 153,500

Funds available 50,000 50,000 53,500 153,500

Debt 25.00% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Jessica Loan 50.00% 6,250 6,250 6,6875 19,1875

Commercial Loan 50.00% 6,250 6,250 6,6875 19,1875

12,500 12,500 13,375 38,375

Equity 75.00% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Private Entity 100.00% 37,500 37,500 40,125 115,125



Jessica Loan interest rate 1.00%


86

Case 3 – Jessica Equity + Jessica Loan

Funding

% Debt 75%

% Equity 25%


Funds needed 50,000 50,000 53,500 153,500

Funds available 50,000 50,000 53,500 153,500

Equity 25.00% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Jessica 30.00% 3,750 3,750 4,0125 11,5125

Private Entity 70.00% 8,750 8,750 9,3625 26,8625

12,500 12,500 13,375 38,375

Loan 75.00% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Jessica Loan 40.00% 15,000 15,000 16,050 46,050

Commercial Loan 60.00% 22,500 22,500 24,075 69,075

37,500 37,500 40,125 115,125



Jessica Loan interest rate 1.00%


87

5.3.4 Financial Model Outputs – Stakeholders’ Perspective Template

Private Partner Perspective

Jessica Equity Jessica Loan Jessica

Equity/Loan

IRR

Payback

Funds Used

UDF Perspective

Jessica Equity Jessica Loan Jessica

Equity/Loan

Management Fee

Management Costs

Margin

IRR

IRR w/o Fees

Payback

Funds Used


88

HF Perspective

Jessica Equity Jessica Loan Jessica Equity/Loan

Management Fee

Management Costs

Margin

IRR

IRR w/o Fees

IRR w/o Interest

IRR w/o Fees & Interest

Payback

Funds Used


89

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. CONCLUSIONS

While in many member states the main goal is to reduce waste generation and to increase recycling

and recovery rates to meet certain targets regarding material recycling and the diversion of

biodegradable waste, in Greece, the main problem until recently was the uncontrolled disposal in

illegal landfills.

Nevertheless, during the last few years, significant steps have been made both in the fields of the

organization (establishment of National Planning for Biodegradables and introduction of Waste

Management Authorities) and management of waste (closing and restoration of uncontrolled landfills,

construction of sanitary landfills). Furthermore, most of the WMA have already commissioned

feasibility and EIA studies (most of them funded by ERDF) in order to evaluate the most appropriate

technology applying to the jurisdiction area. Regarding the legal framework a number of E.U.

regulations where incorporated into Greek legislation and an increase of environmental

consciousness is being observed.

6.1.1. Waste Treatment

Greece gained tremendous experience in handling problems and other emergency situations from

the plants that were constructed and are currently in operation. Generally, appropriate feasibility

studies that take into account the unique characteristics of each area (e.g. waste generation and

composition), public dialog, appropriate allocation of funds (to most intergraded and well-designed

projects), as well as private sector participation, can lead to a successful result.

Nevertheless, all the existing treatment plants have problems finding a way to utilize their secondary

products which leads to extra disposal costs instead of revenues. Moreover, construction and

operation of Waste to Energy plants are expected to enhance demand and thus selling price

significantly. Furthermore, the overall delay observed in planning waste management facilities is due

to the long time needed for the preparatory studies, acquisition of the necessary funds and

permission to build. Also judging from the operation of the so far constructed MBT facilities, the

diversion target of 2010 will be very hard to achieve.


90

Recycling

Regarding recycling, rates increase very rapidly and are approaching EU targets, due to the

successful development and implementation of the municipal and industrial recycling program.

Nowadays, over 1500 legally obligated enterprises have joined HERRCO’s system, which continues

to expand successful recycling efforts.

Biodegradable waste

The environmentally sustainable strategy of waste management procedures constitutes a major goal

for all European countries and one of the most critical factors to success is the bio-waste separation

at source. In fact, in late 2009, the Commission intends to present an analysis and if appropriate,

proposals and initiatives for an EU strategy on the management of bio-waste. Apart from the

diversion of the biodegradable waste from landfills, the benefits of separate collection include

enhancing the calorific value of the remaining MSW, and generating a cleaner bio-waste fraction that

allows the production of high quality compost. Greece faces significant bio-waste management

problems in comparison to Central Europe, although separate collection of organic waste is promoted

in all Regional Waste Management Plans and numerous biological treatment projects are under

planning. Thus the introduction of bio-waste separation at source and collection schemes is deemed

necessary.

6.1.2. MSW facilities products market

For products whose markets must be developed, this can be a further area of focus of the evaluation

study. For example compost utilisation, is affected by and would benefit from several activities where

further analysis in the Greek market context would be beneficial. Examples of these include the

development and formal adoption of quality standards for domestic, agricultural, soil enrichment etc,

use of compost, public attitude surveys on the use of compost, evaluation of factors affecting

compost quality etc.

6.1.3. Public Environmental Awareness

In the last few years an increase in environmental awareness regarding waste management and

recycling has been observed. The low acceptance of waste treatment plants especially when it

comes to decide the area which will host the plant is caused due to lack of communication between

the local and regional authorities and the local population. The expected formation of local WMA will


91

be combined with programs that will aim to inform the public opinion in order to increase the

acceptance of solid waste management facilities.

6.1.4. MSW Management tariff system

Until recently the cost for managing waste in Greece was low compared to other countries since it

included only collection and disposal. The allocation of fee to the citizens is done depending on the

surface of the building. The sanitation fee is paid together with the electricity bill. As a result citizens

cannot evaluate the quality of the services provided by the municipality and no motive to reduce the

waste quantities is being offered. The cost for managing solid waste is expected to increase since

modern facilities will be constructed. This will be a good opportunity to change the way fee for solid

waste is allocated and the establishment of WMA throughout the country will help towards that

direction.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Greece is embarking on a long-term plan to overhaul its waste management practices. New

technologies are needed to deal with an increasing burden of waste and that meet the demand for

disposal, energy generation, recycling, and building new, closed-loop systems that limit waste

generation. Funding for all needed investments is not secured from conventional sources (Public

Investment Budget and Structural Funds). New financial engineering methods and mobilization of the

private sector seems to be a solution to close the funding gap. The recent experience with PPPs in

this sector shows the interest of the private financing community. Jessica could come as an

instrument to accelerate the closing of the funding gap in Waste Management sector. However,

significant decisions and administrative actions, as well as technological solutions, should be

promoted, in order to pave the way for a new instrument as such.

Generally the following actions are recommended:

A. Administrative / legislative aspects:

� Consultations with Ministry of Finance, Regional Authorities & SWM Project promoters in

Attiki & Thessaloniki, regarding the relative allocated funds and project maturing - tendering

timetables, in conjunction with the application of Jessica


92

� Adaptation of the existing legal framework for inclusion Jessica HF / UDF operation

mechanisms

� Provision of the possibility of Jessica UDF usage by SPV / consortia, after the PPP /

concession contract awarding, at the early stage of relative tender procedure

� Improvement and simplification of the legislative framework in order to eliminate time-

consuming steps in Waste Management licensing process

� Change of the way fee for solid waste is allocated. Promote Pay as You Through strategy

B. Identification / promotion of new technologies / business lines:

� Further studies on waste generation and management of construction and demolition waste.

The potential benefits of using recycled aggregates can be economic, social and

environmental

� Implementation of pilot bio-waste source separated collection programs.

� Establishment of a market for compost and RDF/SRF. That can be achieved with promotion

of eco-labelling standards, raise of environmental awareness, construction of waste to

energy facilities etc.

C. Technical aspects:

� Construction of transfer station networks


93

7. APPENDICES

Annex 1: Generation of municipal waste in the EU 27, 1995 and 2007 (Eurostat, 2009)


94

Annex 2: Municipal Waste Landfilled per Capita (Eurostat, 2009)