Why there is no incineration in Greece?

A discussion to introduce the Change Ring for Solid Waste

Management Systems

Antonis Mavropoulos
CEO EPEM SA
Vice President of Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association
amavrop@epem.gr
http://mavropoulos.blogspot.com/

The author is kindly asking everyone to share thoughts and ideas either through his web
blog or through e-mail

In European Union (EU), it seems that Waste to Energy (WTE) concepts either in the 
form of direct incineration of waste or in the form of thermal utilization of secondary 
fuels are strongly preferred as a mean to fulfil the targets that have been set for Solid 
Waste Management (SWM) through the famous Landfill Directive EU 99/31 (surprisingly 
the name of this directive is totally misleading because it is a directive for the elimination 
of landfills). 

Currently approximately 50 million tones of  waste are thermally treated each year  in 

about 400 Waste to Energy Plans (WEPs) in Europe.  Greece is one of the two EU­15 
countries (countries that form the initial core of EU before the latest expansion to eastern 
countries) that does not incorporate thermal treatment in SWM systems.

So the first question for this article is this one: Why there is no incineration in Greece 
when   thermal utilisation is becoming the main trend in EU countries? I  will discuss 
certain barriers for waste incineration in Greece trying to identify ways to avoid barriers 
or limit their influence. 

Due to space limitations, in this article I will not focus on certain important drivers like 
EU   legislation for  SWM,  Public   – Private Partnership laws,  the  Climate  Change and 
Energy issues and the most important one the limited landfill space available for big 
cities. Those drivers are discussed in details in the article “Drivers and Barriers for the 
application   of   waste­to­energy   technologies   in   Greece”   written   by   Mavropoulos, 
Skoulaxinou, Mentzis in ISWA 2007 proceedings (available also at mu blog).

But what is more important is that working on the firtst question we face a second one, 
clearly much more important: How can we deliver change in waste management? How 
can we shape our understanding for SWM systems in a way that will provide us the 
capacity not just to understand the world but also to change it? I will also try to outline a 
tool for change management in SWM systems and I encourage everyone to share ideas for 
this neccessary discussion. 

A last introductory note is that I strongly believe that there is a usual systematic error 
when we focus in SWM evolution in different countries and regions. Normally authorities 
and consultnts try to figure out conclusions from success stories and when there is even a 
small step forward we demonstrate this to conferences, events etc. But exackly as every 
human being, SWM systems are getting better only discussing deeply and understanding 
the failures and the mistakes. That is why the discussion for the failure of incineration in 
Greece (at least up to now) may provide conclusions and tips with a more general value.

Barriers for incineration in Greece

Greece is not a uniform place. It incorporates mountainous areas and hundreds of islands, 
high­income tourist places and low­income rural areas as well as highly urbanized cities. 
The following remarks formulate the SWM landscape for incineration in Greece. 

A history barrier: Up to now, there were two remarkable efforts to introduce WTE in 
Greece. The first one took place at early 90s in Zakynthos Island and it was a complete 
failure. A small and old­fashioned incinerator was installed and after a short test period it 
shut down due to big operational as well as environmental problems. In the middle 90s 
there was another effort to establish a small incineration unit in Thira Island. With a total 
capacity of 15,000 tones/ year that incinerator was planned to work for 6­7 months per 
year, while the rest of the period the waste was going to be balled and stored until the next 
operational   period.   Although   there   was   a   big   financial   support   from   EU,   local 
municipalities and the Greek government were not finally persuaded for the feasibility of 
the project, especially due to high operational cost and limited technical experience of 
similar projects. 

But more importantly the history barrier emerges clearly from the unofficial but effective 
prohibition of incineration that characterised the SWM Governmental Policy for the years 
1985 – 2000. 

A political barrier: It is well known that Greek Government was practically against WtE 
concepts especially in the period 1985­2000. The main reasoning was the high cost and 
the   unsuitability   of   incineration   for   the   national   ­   local   conditions.     These   political 
positions in combination with the ecological NGOs attitudes against incineration have 
created a political barrier that cannot be ignored and sometimes must be considered as 
remarkable. 

There is also another policy mater that makes the introduction of WTE concepts more 
difficult. Greece lost the opportunity to provide substantial funds for integrated waste 
management approaches during the 3rd  Community Support Framework. With only one 
exception, only new landfills and transfer stations were eligible. More than 300 million 
Euros were spent between 2000 ­2006 in order to create a total landfill capacity around 
2,5 million tones / year. 

This political choice drove the most developed and well­organized Waste Management 
Authorities (WMA) just to expand their landfill capacity, although there were a lot of 
them that were prepared to build waste treatment units. 

The landfill cost barrier: Greece is the first country in the EU in terms of dependence on
landfilling and the third in absolute quantities of MSW driven to landfills. The landfill
dependence means practically that most of the country citizens and waste management
authorities are used in very low operational cost in the range of 8-35 euros/ tone of waste.

Taking into account that the incineration costs are between 100 and 280 Euros/ton of 
waste it is clear that costs are a big barrier for WtE concepts. 

With the exception of the two metropolitan centers (Attica and Thessaloniki) the waste 
generation figures in the rest of the country require the installation of small capacities 
waste   treatment   units,   even   if   they   refer   to   the   regional   level.   Only   in   cases   of 
interregional waste management system, or in big regions, will the capacities of the waste 
management   units   significantly   increase   and   thus   related   gate   fees   may   become 
affordable. 

An administrative barrier: One more serious problem is that in Greece there is still lack of 
compliance   control   measures   and   institutional   development.   This   situation   results   in 
facing the waste management legislation more as a wish and less as an obligation. 

In terms of legislative framework, the existing specifications for the WtE facilities were 
developed in 1997 and hence they do not include recent technological advances. As a 
result the fact that the WtE technologies have improved their environmental performance 
in the last years, cannot be identified in these specifications. The fact that even at the EU 
level, standards for the secondary fuels have not been set yet, restricts further the potential 
production of secondary fuel from waste. 
The WMAs barrier: One of the most important issues for the development of integrated 
waste   management   systems   in   Greece   is   the   Waste   Management   Authority   problem 
(WMA). Today in Greece there are more than 40 WMAs. Few of them are in a position to 
provide integrated waste management services while most of them are facing problems of 
poor technical, financial and institutional capacity. There is a need for the modernization 
of their legal status and improvement of their human resources in order to be able:
 To apply cost efficient gate fees

 To develop long and medium term business plans

 To create an efficient framework of cooperation with private sector operators 

and waste management companies

The role of GDP in SWM systems

A lot of times, it has been discussed the correlation between SWM and Gross Domestic
Product of each country. In order to outline this issue for incineration, 31 European
countries were taken as a more representative sample and graphs that correlate GDP
forecast of 2008 (in Purchasing Power Standards) and SWM practices (landfill and
incineration) were constructed based on EUROSTAT data. The results are presented in
Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: GDP in PPS Vs Landfilling for 31 countries

GDP Vs LANDFILLING

300.00 1.00
0.90
250.00
0.80
GDP 2008 in PPS

0.70
% LANDFILLED

200.00
0.60
150.00 0.50
0.40
100.00
0.30
0.20
50.00
0.10
0.00 0.00
G nia

Lu No an d
ov y
Po nia

t h ia

E s a kia

Ne Au nd
n a

er s
Cz M al

ov s

m ay
Tu r ia

Sw ark
Ic en

g
h ta

nm d
m y

Ire nd
Be UK
Fr ain

Sw erl ia
Sp y
L d

rtu a

er ce

Fi um
Cy ep.
Sl gar

itz and
Hu a ni

l
Ro r ke

an

ur
ec
Sl pru

De nlan
n

Po oni
Li a tv

I ta

th st r
ec al

G an

xe rw
a
a

ed

la
la

e
a

bo
i
R

l
m

el
re
lg

lg
u

t
Bu

GDP, 2008 forecast MSW % landfilled 6 per. Mov. Avg. (MSW % landfilled)
Although this analysis does not count as an official statistical data acquisition, it is clear
that there is a strong negative correlation between GDP growth and Landfilling: the more
the GDP the less the landfilled part of SWM. This trend is more obvious if raw data for
landfilling is substituted from moving average (period 6) as in Figure 1.

Figure 2: GDP in PPS Vs Incineration for 31 countries

GDP Vs INCINERATION

300.00 0.60

250.00 0.50

% INCINERATED
GDP 2008 in PPS

200.00 0.40

150.00 0.30

100.00 0.20

50.00 0.10

0.00 0.00
G nia

Lu No an d
ov y
Po nia

th i a

Ne Au nd
E s a kia

er s

m ay
ov s
n a

Ic d en
Cz M ga l

e k
Tu r ia

h ta

nm d

g
m y

Sp y

y
Po onia

Fr ain

I re nd
Be UK
L d

er ce

Sw erl ia
Fi ium
Cy ep.
Sl gar

itz and
S w ar
Ro r ke

Hu ani

Sl pru

an
ec

De lan

ur
n
Li a tv

Ita

th str
ec a l

xe rw
G an

la
a

la

e
a

rt u

bo
R

l
el
m
re
lg

lg
u

n
t
Bu

GDP, 2008 forecast Series1 6 per. Mov. Avg. (Series1)

It is also clear that there is a positive correlation between GDP growth and incineration:
the more the GDP the more the incineration. Again the trend is more obvious if raw data
for incineration is substituted from moving average (period 6) as in Figure 2.
There are a lot of similarities for the correlation between Mechanical Biological
Treatment development and GDP. Although existing data for the same 31 countries is not
complete, it is assumed that there will be a positive correlation between GDP growth and
MBT development, although it is expected smoother than the correlation with
incineration due to the relative lower costs of MBT.

Instead of conclusions: the Change Ring

From the discussion above, but also from my general experience in 13 different countries
in 3 continents, it is clear that all the major SWM issues may be linked with GDP growth,
Policy, Know How and History - Culture. Utilizing this remark, the view of the Change
Ring is proposed for SWM systems and it is graphically presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The Change Ring as a mean to change SWM systems

Policy
GDP

Know how
History
The Change Ring is an approach that serves as a model for the better understanding of
SWM systems and their historical behavior and evolution. According the Change Ring
model, GDP is the dominant driver for SWM changes and historically at each GDP level
several different SWM systems may correspond. Some of them are better for the
environment, some of them are worst. The point of interest is that Policy, History -
Culture and Know How in combination create a ring, which defines, finally, the SWM
system that will be applied. In other words SWM development is clearly framed by the
ring of History-Culture, Policy and Know How.

The role of History and Culture has been discussed a lot also. History – Culture is
considered as the main background factor that influences all relative decisions.
Additionally, what is new to the Change Ring approach is the emphasis to the failures
instead of the main stream of demonstrating successful projects. Discussing about past
problems and unsuccessful efforts creates a much more effective environment for the
necessary re-engineering of the Waste Management Authorities and governmental bodies.
And that costs nothing; it needs just a re-writing of the SWM historical efforts.

Policy is clearly the field in which a lot can be delivered shortly. The trick is to drive
politicians to focus on the real crucial issues instead of searching solely for investment
funds. A strategy, priorities, conditions for funding, implementation plans, fight against
fragmentation, Waste Management Authorities framework, tariff systems and step-by-
step agenda are the key components to set up an effective policy.

Know - How development and capacity building are, finally, the key elements for the
creation of the link between Policy and History, especially in order to create new
historical examples that will drive the SWM forward.

Importantly, according our experiences and views even slight, local changes in GDP can
result in significant changes in SWM in case Policy, Know How and History parts of the
Ring are effectively elaborated.

Instead of waiting for the GDP growth, the Change Ring indicates that pushing Policy
measures, Know How development and History - Culture utilization in their limits,
changes in SWM are possible. There are a lot of examples where slight regional
differences result in completely different SWM systems.

Practical Suggestions
The following figure describes the Change Ring application in the problem of
incineration in low-income countries. The core idea is to expand the ring as much as
possible as a mean to create practical changes under the same – more or less – GDP area
and thus to get SWM systems ready to utilize even the slightest GDP growth and jump to
another more efficient level.

Figure 4: How to expand the Change Ring and multiply the possible SWM systems
 Know how
Policy Capacity building
Step by step agenda instead of studies
Implementation plan Technology centers
– emphasis to low
Regional planning
cost
against fragmentation
ISWA – ARS
Certain funds –
certain conditions Vocational training
Tariff framework Communication
End of waste criteria
History
to increase recycling First step
PPPs Informal sector: cooperation
instead of competition
Discuss for failure not for success
Social system – not technical