In order to facilitate the decision making process for a ... · 2 Main Authors: Florian Amlinger,...

Association „КЕ&B - UV&P” VAT.Nr.: BG176245551

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME

ENVIRONMENT 2007-2013

61 Preki pat str., Sofia 1618 Bulgaria Tel./fax:(+359 2) 857 5197 E-mail: [email protected]

EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND

WE INVEST IN YOUR FUTURE

Project No TA-2011-KPOS-PP-78 „Technical assistance on waste management”

“Development of legal framework on bio-waste management and establishment of

Quality Assurance System for Compost and National Organization of Quality

Assurance for the Compost”

Development of Legal Framework on Bio-Waste Management and

Establishment of Quality Assurance System for Compost and

National Organisation of Quality Assurance for the Compost

STAGE I

Analysis of the EU Acquis and Bulgarian Legislation

on the Biowaste Management and the

Residual Fraction of Household Waste

Part IV

Model and Phased Action Plan for Biowaste

Management in Bulgaria

Final Report – 10 September 2012 120910_Model concept_v2.0.doc

2

Main Authors:

Florian Amlinger,

Compost – Consulting & Development

Dominic Hogg, Ann Ballinger, Adrian Gibbs,

eunomia - research & consulting

Josef Barth,

Informa

Enzo Favoino, Marco Ricci

Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

3

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5

2 Ordinance and model on separate collection of biowaste ......................................... 7

2.1 Principle approaches ................................................................................................ 7

2.2 The possible concept ................................................................................................ 8

2.2.1 General pre-requisites ......................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Key provisions for an Ordinance on Separate Collection of Organic

Waste (list of contents) .................................................................................................... 9

3 Capacity building for composting in the 55 Waste management regions

following a decentralised biowaste management concept ....................................... 11

3.1 Main concept and sources used ............................................................................. 11

3.2 Results – biowaste potentials for 55 WM-Regions .................................................. 15

4 Technical guidance documents ................................................................................. 29

4.1 Technical requirements for composting plants [STAGE III] .................................... 29

4.2 Technical requirements for biogas plants [STAGE III] ............................................ 30

4.3 Technical requirements for digestate and its application [STAGE II] ....................... 30

4.4 Requirements for low grade compost and stabilised MBT material and its

application [STAGE II] ............................................................................................ 31

5 Implementation of a Quality Assurance Scheme for Composting ........................... 32

5.1 Short term actions – preparation phase for the implementation of the

Quality Assurance Scheme ..................................................................................... 32

5.2 Medium term activities – implementing the QAS and its organisation in

practice ................................................................................................................... 33

5.3 Long term activities – evaluating and improving the scheme, integrating

marketing tools ....................................................................................................... 34

6 Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of introducing a Source Segregated

Biowaste Collection and Treatment System in Bulgaria .......................................... 35

7 Public relation and information work during implementation and set-up

of the biowaste strategy in BG ................................................................................... 36

8 Phased implementation Action Plan addressing the role and duties of

involved parties ........................................................................................................... 39

4

List of Tables

Table 1: The principle approaches for mandating separate collection and

recycling of biowaste .............................................................................................................. 7

Table 2: Definition of three settlement types for the purpose of modelling the

organic waste potentials. ...................................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Further assumptions and data sources for quantitative biowaste

modelling .............................................................................................................................. 13

Table 4: Summary table for potential municipal food and garden waste collection

for Bulgaria allocated to the 3 settlement types per population size ...................................... 16

Table 5: Required regional capacities grouped in 4 quantitative classes .............................. 18

Table 6: Summary output of the quantitative assessment of collectable organic

waste from households (Door-to-Door collection of predominantly FOOD waste

and minor parts of fine GARDEN waste) and GREEN waste (mainly bring system

from private and public sources) ........................................................................................... 19

Table 7: Modelling the composting infrastructure for the 3 settlement types in the

55 Waste Management Regions .......................................................................................... 23

Table 8. Performance data of prospected agricultural composting plants (avg.

capacity 1,200 t/a) relative to total biowaste treatment capacity in Bulgaria .......................... 27

Table 9: Concept for the implementation of a decentralised (agricultural)

composting systimg in the framework of a biowaste strategy for Bulgaria ............................ 28

Table 10: Short-Term Actions [S] ......................................................................................... 40

Table 11: Medium-Term Actions [M] ..................................................................................... 44

Table 12: Long-term actions [L] ............................................................................................ 47

List of Figures

Figure 1: The four essential elements of quality assurance ..................................................33

Figure 2: Flow sheet of the course of the quality assurance scheme ....................................34

5

1 Introduction

In order to facilitate the decision making process for a consistent biowaste policy and

legislative frame work we herewith present a MODEL comprising the relevant aspects which

have to be considered when implementing the whole range of measures which are

necessary for a successful integration of biowaste recycling in Bulgarian waste management.

The model – or better implementation strategy – aims to encourage source separation and

recycling of relevant organic waste streams predominantly via composting. It is built on and

takes into consideration

the European regulatory and strategic framework ( Report: EU & Bulgarian

Framework for Biowaste);

the up to date national policy for biowaste management in Bulgaria ( Report: EU &

Bulgarian Framework for Biowaste);

the best practice models of EU MS with long term (25 to 25 years) experience in

separate collection, biological treatment including quality assurance for compost of

organic waste ( Report: Analysis of Framework Strategies and Legislation on

Biowaste Management in EU Member States)

the basic concept of decentralised biowaste management and composting following

the proximity principle and as implemented above all in Austria as On-Farm or

Agricultural Composting Scheme. ( Report: Options for a Decentralised Biowaste

Management in Bulgaria)

the logistic and infrastructural framework as well as existing projects for construction of

biological treatment facilities in the 55 Waste Management Regions ( Chapter 3)

the differentiation between URBAN , SEMI-URBAN & RURAL settlement types as

regards population size, waste generation, collection infrastructure and scheme, for

both, residual waste as well as biowaste, potential realistic biowaste collection and

composting infrastructure

the cost-benefit analysis relative to the modelled implementation scenario for

nationwide biowaste collection and biological treatment ( Chapter: 6 Analysis of the

Costs and Benefits of introducing a Source Segregated Biowaste Collection and

Treatment System in Bulgaria). This part is delivered in an individual document

attached to this report.

This report is divided in 6 sub-chapters:

2. The model for separate collection

3. Capacity building for composting in the 55 Waste management regions following a

decentralised biowaste management concept

4. Technical guidance documents

5. The implementation of a Quality Assurance Scheme for Composting

6. Economic assessment of implementing separate collection and composing (AD) in

Bulgaria

6

7. Public relation and information work during implementation and set-up of the biowaste

strategy in BG

8. Phased implementation Action Plan addressing the role and duties of involved parties

(MoEW, MoAF, MoEnergy. RIEW, FSA, EEXA, Municipalities, Waste Management

Regions, Collection companies, Composting plants operators, farmers, citizens,

research institutes, laboratories, consultancy institutes etc.)

9. Summary of main findings and recommendations

7

2 Ordinance and model on separate collection of biowaste

Along the lines of similar provisions adopted in other EU MSs, an Ordinance on biowaste

generally includes legally binding elements and technical provisions to support

implementation of a National Strategy aiming at

Enforcing strategic goals as stipulated by Directive 2008/98/EC

Increasing diversion from landfills, so that the diversion targets stipulated by Directive

1999/31/EC be met

Ensuring cost-effective, phased implementation

Establishing drivers and investment security for decision-makers and investors

Ensuring consistent amounts of separately collected materials, so that the processing

industry and end users may consider steady, sufficient supplies for their activities

2.1 Principle approaches

Based on received wisdom from different strategic approaches in various Member States

(and outside the EU) where a Biowaste Strategy (or parts of it) has already been established,

the following benefits and disadvantages of different approaches may be singled out.

Table 1: The principle approaches for mandating separate collection and recycling of biowaste

[A] BANS ON BIODEGRADABLES TO LANDFILLS

This is the approach taken e.g. in many States in the US, in the form e.g. of bans on landfilling garden waste.

Benefits Downsides:

Certainly, this is the most stringent provision, hence it potentially represents the most powerful driver

It certainly lacks flexibility and leaves no room for a phased introduction of strategies depending on the level of difficulty in implementation for different options for diversion

the emphasis is on diversion from landfills, which may be equally achieved through e.g. incineration, hence this is not certainly a direct driver for separate collection (although it tends to foster its adoption)

no option may actually ensure 100% diversion; hence, this approach concurrently requires codified thresholds for acceptance at landfills

[B] OBLIGATION ON SEPARATE COLLECTION

An obligation on separate collection is addressed to Municipalities (e.g. NL; in DE by 2015) or to households (e.g. AT, with exemptions for those households participating in home composting

programmes; recently, a similar approach has been adopted in IE)

Benefits Downsides:

An obligation on households On may be very effective, if stringent control is possible.

An obligation addressed to Municipalities or other Local Authorities is not result-oriented, and may be deceived with poor performing / low participation systems (e.g. bring schemes for food waste)

It may require phased implementation in order to consider less suited areas and housing/societal conditions

8

[C] TARGETS FOR SEPARATE COLLECTION / COMPOSTING / RECYCLING

Targets may be expressed in terms of

separate collection rates to be achieved (e.g. IT, UK)

specific biowaste processing targets (e.g. SE)

General recycling + composting targets

In principle targets can be defined as:

PERCENTAGE of the total municipal organic (Bio-) waste that must be source separated and recycled in an composting or AD plant

Advantage: can be uniquely applied to all regions and settlement structures because the %age relates to the specific /compostable) organic waste fractions in a given settlement type (urban / semi-urban / rural)

Downside: needs verified waste composition data for total municipal waste in order to obtain a just assessment of the achieved results between municipalities and regions.

OR

SPECIFIC CAPTURE in kg/INH*a (relative to the entire population in the catchment area of the Planing Unit (= Waste Management Region)

Advantage: easy to handle: no complicated calculation of percentage relative to total of potential is needed. Once the kg/INH*a to be source separated by each Municipality within a WMR are settled (based on a biowaste recycling programme to be adopted by the regional Waste Management Association) all is needed are the quantities of eligible organic waste streams that have been delivered to composting / AD plants.

Downside: In order to guarantee balanced and just obligations for all municipalities and regions it would be necessary to carry out a pre-assessment of the collectable quantities, distinguishing between food and garden waste - and provide differentiated targets for urban / semi-urban / rural settlement types. Specifically in semi-urban and rural catchment areas those figures need to reflect the extent of home composting.

Benefits Downsides:

Targets represent a result-oriented approach: local planners and the processing industry have a consistent reference for calculating capacities and related investments in time

It is a flexible approach, since phase targets drive implementation in most suited areas and conditions, first, to move at a later stage towards more difficult ones.

Targets require establishing methods to ascertain fulfillment (although this is in line with many provisions stipulated by various EU Directives, as e.g. the reuse+recycling targets of the Waste Framework Directive, the packaging recovery targets of the Packaging Directive)

2.2 The possible concept

2.2.1 General pre-requisites

With due consideration for the peculiarities of the Bulgarian situation, a practicable concept

must consider:

I. The need for flexibility, in a Country where the system must be implemented starting

from scratch

II. The need for a phased implementation in all regions/areas across Bulgaria, so that

the system be made fair and balanced in costs and operational efforts for all

communities (pilot schemes might rather be implemented in many areas, instead of

just concentrating efforts only in one specific Region with an obligation for that

Region)

9

III. The need to give drivers also to public and private investors, and the processing

industry, so that bankability of initiatives be ensured (preference for “result-oriented”

approaches)

All considered, the approach that best mirrors such needs and underlying conditions seems

to be the one based on targets, which we’ll assume in first instance as the basis for the

strategic proposal.

2.2.2 Key provisions for an Ordinance on Separate Collection of Organic

Waste (list of contents)

The Ordinance on Separate Collection of Organic Waste will have to include the following

key elements

Legally binding element:

o a percentage of X% (e.g. 25%) of biowaste must be separately collected and

processed in compost or AD sites by year A1 (e.g. by 2016)

o a percentage of Y% (e.g. 50%) of biowaste must be separately collected and


o a percentage of Z% (e.g. 75%) of biowaste must be separately collected and


At which level the target must be met / who is addressed?

o Operational strategies (programmes for separate collection) for fulfilment of the

targets must be deployed at the level of each planning unit, so that cross-

consistency between development of separate collection and increase in the

processing capacity be ensured.

o At the level of the planning units, decisions will be taken as to the phased

implementation of collection schemes in a harmonised way, having due

consideration for the need to start form the most suited situations.

o The alternative, i.e. adoption of a common National target, would require a

subsequent plan for implementation, with politically awkward discussions on

distributing efforts.

Sources and biowaste streams subject to the legally binding target:

The biowaste sources included in programmes for calculation and fulfilment of the

legally binding target are:

o Household food waste;

o Household garden waste (either managed by themselves or by professional

gardeners);

o (Public) park waste;

o Green markets and green retailer markets as far as included in the municipal

collection scheme;

o Catering services: canteens, restaurants;

10

o Other household-like organic waste coming from greengroceries, bakeries, and

other retail shops or outlets included in MSW collection programmes.

Other large producers as food processors which are not included in the scope of

Municipal waste collection scheme are not covered by the target, although of course

they may be included in local programmes to increase the amounts of totally

processed biowaste.

For the sake of consistency with the general goals of the Landfill Directive and of the

Recycling Targets of art. 11 WFD, it is recommended to refer only to biowaste

included in MSW. – This is to avoid the easy workaround for some districts to collect

huge amounts of food processing by-products, forgetting about kitchen waste. In any

case, catering waste and shops typically fall under the scope of MSW, as being

included in the common municipal waste collection scheme.

Exemptions and amounts out of the scope of the legally binding target:

o Biowaste which is home composted is considered as a measure for waste

prevention. As such, it is not included in calculations of total amounts of biowaste

and related percentage to be processed, hence it is not covered by the obligation.

o Rural settlements and small villages, (e.g. with a pop. < 1000 inhabitants) are

preferably excluded from separate collection schemes, unless:

They border other villages or larger Municipalities and may establish a cost-

effective, fully scaled collection route under a common scheme

They establish local contracts/agreements with local farmers for operationally

simplified collection/delivery of biowaste directly to on-farm compost sites,

according to technical requirements established in technical guidelines for

compost sites

o All communities exempted from the legally binding target, must implement and

show evidence of home composting programmes aimed at increasing awareness

and/or help practical management and/or defining economic incentives (e.g. tax

rebates)

Policing and penalties

o Compliance with the targets will be ascertained at the end of each year.

Calculations will consider the average processing rate in the planning unit, for

separately collected biowaste, coverd by the municipal collection scheme as

defined above (Sources and biowaste streams subject to the legally binding

target).

o As already stated, home-composted biowaste is considered as prevention, hence

not included in the calculation

o Those planning units not meeting the legally binding targets will be subject, until

they comply, to an increased Landfill Tax (e.g. 200%)

11

3 Capacity building for composting in the 55 Waste

management regions following a decentralised biowaste

management concept

This chapter summarises the result of investigating the biowaste potentials for separate

collection and biological treatment on national and regional level. Regional level here means

the 55 implemented Waste Management Regions for which the Regional Waste

Management Associations were to be established pursuant to the Waste Management Act.

The basic assumptions and baseline data of waste composition used for providing a

quantitative assessment are the same as they have been developed for the economic

assessment on national scale. However, in long term estimation of collectable biowaste we

choose a more ambitious approach than used in the cost benefit analysis – specifically for

the urban settlement type.

It is important to understand that the capacity building estimate

1. focuses on a predominantly decentralised composting scheme for the entire biowaste

potentials, exploring the possibility of extensive implementation of a low tech and

agricultural cooperation model,

2. outlines just a generic scenario for potential composting capacities and numbers of

composting plants if adopting a decentralised management scheme for the Waste

Management Regions, and therefore

3. does not substitute an in depths analysis of the regional frame work conditions, ie.

a. the already existing OPE and otherwise financed projects for composting of

green waste and other organic waste sources, and

b. the factual home composting and home animal feeding practices in the

specific regions.

3.1 Main concept and sources used

Waste generation differs considerably between housing and settlement types. Living styles

and consumption habits vary mainly between rural and densely populated, urban areas.

Therefore it is justified to differentiate between rural and urban settlement types which are, to

great extent, defined by population size per settlement or municipality. The detailed criteria

for setting the boundaries may be more or less sophisticated. However, the model set, is as

good as the available data represent the reality of behavioural features such as consumption

level, on-site recycling of organics e.g. via home composting and animal feeding, the

proportion of persons living in and of agricultural activities, the existence of a central heating

system or and the use / disposal of ash from individual heating systems etc..

Best and therefore close to reality data of waste potentials on individual settlement scale to

be used for a chosen management scenario, would be detailed statistics on dwelling/housing

types in combination with reliable morphological waste composition studies.

In first instance this information was not available.

12

Hence the following approach was adopted in agreement with the Waste Management

Directorate.

Based on the best available waste composition study (TBU/SGS, 20061) which particularly

had a focus on detailed analysing food and garden waste generation, the following

categorisations of three settlement types were adopted:

Table 2: Definition of three settlement types for the purpose of modelling the organic waste

potentials.

Strata investigated by TBU/SGS study Transposition in settlement types for the purpose of quantitative and economic assessment

CITY CENTRE: multi-story buildings (3 to 10 floors) URBAN settlements with a population 3,000 inhabitants

SUBURBS: 1 to 2 floors / ”villa” SEMI- URBAN settlements with a population > 3,000 25,000 inhabitants

RURAL RURAL settlements with a population > 25,000 inhabitants

In this way the settlement types are matching the concept as adopted by the MoEW in its

“National strategy for diversion of biodegradable waste going to landfill 2010 – 2020”.

Table 3 lists further data sources and assumptions as well as methods for further estimations

as adopted for the quantitative and strategic assessment:

1 TBU/SGS, 2006. Quantity & Quality Assessment of household waste in Bulgaria 2006 with particular

emphasis on the biodegradable fraction. Bulgarian Ministry for Environment & Waters; Final Report.

Innsbruck / Sofia, November 30, 2006

13

Table 3: Further assumptions and data sources for quantitative biowaste modelling

Information / Data / Subject Source

Population data for each settlement NSI official statistics tables available at http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53 do provide data aggregated for statistical districts and municipalities. On personal request, population data of the CENSUS 2011 have been provided, for each of the 5,269 settlements of Bulgaria

Total population NSI, Census 2011: 7,364,570

Average persons per household and number of households per settlement type 2

Settlement type Number of persons per household

Number of households

[%]

URBAN 2.23 1,817,965 49%

SEMI-URBAN 2.00 660,610 18%

RURAL 1.58 1,259,044 34%

…Total households: 3,737,618

List of 55 WMR with all municipalities and settlements.

Basic excel file listing population and waste generation estimates for all 55 Waste Management Regions was officially provided by the Waste Management Directorate

Specific Municipal Waste generation [kg/INH*a]

Based on the NSI waste statistics for the year 2010, average municipal waste generation was provided by the NSI with support by the Waste Management Directorate for municipalities which were allocated to the 3 settlement types:

Settlement type Nr. of municipalities** matching the under-lying population size

Generated municipal waste

[kg/INH*a]

URBAN 84 456 kg/INH*a

SEMI-URBAN 172 392 kg/INH*a

RURAL 12 295 kg/INH*a

…

Total Municipal Waste generation … was gained by multiplying the Specific Municipal Waste generation [kg/INH*a] by the population of each settlement according to the respective settlement type

Organic Waste generation Organic waste generation addresses two major municipal sources (origins):

food and (fine) garden waste which today is found in the mixed household waste container

garden and park waste (green waste) from private gardens and public parks

Gained from waste composition study in municipal waste

Private & Public Green waste Settlement

type Food waste (fine) Garden

waste

[%] [kg/INH*a] [%] [kg/INH*a] [kg/INH*a]

URBAN 31.8 145 2.5 11 60

SEMI-URBAN 35.3 138 2.8 11 90

RURAL 24.5 72 6.5 19 70

…

Organic waste potentially collectable 1) Food and (fine) garden waste formally contained in mixed waste after introducing a separate collection system

Based on experience and practice data from local separate collection schemes in Austria, Italy and the UK, two factors were taken into account:

the typical achievable participation quota of households in door-to-door separate collection schemes differentiated for the 3 settlement types.

The long term* maximum percentage of the organic waste generated that

2 National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria. 2012. 2011 Population census in the republic of bulgaria (final data).

www.nsi.bg

http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53

http://www.nsi.bg/

14

Information / Data / Subject Source

will be collected with the new Bio-bin or Bio-bucket door to door collection scheme

The used assumptions are:

Settlement type

Participation quota of households in Bio-bin or Bio-bucket door to door collection scheme

Percentage source separated and collected

Total collection rate [% of potential]

URBAN 80% 80% 64%

SEMI-URBAN 60% 80% 48%

RURAL 20% 80% 16%

* … the const benefit analsis used for the short to mit term planning more cautious figures. E.g. only 50% participation in biowaste collection schemes in areas with an urban settlement type.

2) PRIVATE & PUBLIC Green waste

Here, the assumed total specific park waste generation represent already the amount that is assumed to be collected mainly via bring systems (to Municipal Recycling Centres / MRC) or by means of specifically offered collection schemes (fortnightly to monthly collection campaigns during the vegetation season).

A higher total potential may be added into generation data, but the range of uncertainty her is to high for making any serious estimate.

Home composting The following assumption were made:

Assumption of a specific percentage of households with gardens within the 3 settlement types (source MoEW / NSI)

Percentage of households with gardens which actively implement home composting in their backyards

Specific quantity of organic food and garden waste potentially generated and used in home composting [kg/INH*a] (= 80% of potential generation; 20 % would be still disposed via residual waste or separate collection)

The used assumptions are:

Settlement type

Households with gardens [%]

%age of House-holds with gardens which actively implement home composting

Potentially generated and used in home composting

URBAN 40% 30% 324 kg/HH*a

SEMI-URBAN 70% 40% 258 kg/HH*a

RURAL 90% 80% 192 kg/HH*a

* WMR … Waste Management Regions; ** … on settlement level not quantitative waste data are available kg/HH … kg per household

15

3.2 Results – biowaste potentials for 55 WM-Regions

The result of quantitative assessment of potential and collectable organic waste in national

scale is shown in Table 4.

The total potential of municipal organic waste (= BIO WASTE) – nowadays to be found in the

mixed waste container – accounts ca. 1.0 million tons which is 34% of the total MW

generation. Due to the collection system this already includes a certain amount of

commercial organics from retailers, shops, restaurants using the municipal waste collection

scheme. Including additional GREEN WASTE from private and public garden and parks we

have to add another 500,000 tons, giving a total of 1.5 million tons which is equivalent to 206

kg/INH*a.

Based on the assumptions for the realistically collectable part of organics potentials, after full

implementation of the proposed separate collection scheme, ca. 1 million tons will be

available for biological treatment, predominantly composting. Only the source separated food

waste might achieve a recycling rate of 52% relative to the total potential.

From the waste composition data we can see that garden waste today is rarely disposed via

the municipal waste collection route. The practice at least in rural and many semi-urban

areas would be ‘black dumping’, burning the woody garden waste in open fires as well as in

the individual heating system and home composting / mulching.

Hence with respect to the collectable Green Waste we made a rather conservative

assumption. However it is a common experience, from the moment a biowaste collection

scheme was introduced and if convenient garden waste collection schemes via bring and

collection services was offered, more garden waste occurred in the course of the years than

reasoned by initial investigations and waste analyses. This is why in some predominantly

semi-urban settlement types total organic waste captures may raise to 200 or even 250

kg/INH *a.

However, the final mean estimate of 138 kg/INH*a is an ambitious but in the long run still

reliable figure for Bulgaria, bearing in mind the widely represented rural settlement type of

the country (27% of the population live in one of the 5052 rural settlements with less than

3,000 inhabitants) with “Prevention” of organic residues for animal feeding and individual

heating systems.

Comparing the 3 settlement types the projected capture from URBAN and SEMI-URBAN

population types are at the same level (~160 kg/INH*a). The less amount of organic

household waste (mainly from kitchens) to be expected in semi-urban areas with a much

higher proportion of garden owners and home composting is compensated by increased

green waste from private as well as public and some commercial sources.

Though we find a higher proportion of the population in rural districts (27%) vis-à-vis

settlements/municipalities of > 3000 25,000 inhabitants (18%) the collection potential is

considerably less and amounts only for 16.5% (168,000 t) of the total prospected organic

waste capture. As said, we have to consider that in very rural/agricultural areas in Bulgaria,

kitchen and food waste is very often fed to domestic animals or composted together with

garden waste.

16

Table 4: Summary table for potential municipal food and garden waste collection for Bulgaria

allocated to the 3 settlement types per population size

Urban > 25000

Semi-Urban

> 3000 25000

Rural

3,000 TOTAL

Population 4,054,061

(=55%)

1,325,303

(=18%)

1,989,289

(=27%) 7,364,570

MSW total (NSI) kg/INH*a 456 392 295 410

FOOD waste potential

% 31,8% 35,3% 24,5% 31%

kg/INH*a 145 138 72 124

t 588,241 182,825 143,776 914,842

DO

OR

–T

O–

DO

OR

co

lle

cti

on

Collectable FOOD waste kg/INH*a 91 64 12 65

t 369,831 84,268 23,198 477,298

Recycling rate of FOOD waste % 63% 46% 16% 52%

GARDEN waste potential [in waste container]

% 2,5% 2,8% 6,5% 3.3%

kg/INH*a 11 11 19 13

t 45,477 14,329 37,851 97,657

GARDEN waste, collectable with Bio-Bin/Bucket

kg/INH*a 7 5 3 6

t 28,322 6,605 6,107 41,034

TOTAL (FOOD & GARDEN waste) collectable

kg/INH*a 98 69 15 70

t 398,153 90,873 29,306 518,331

BR

ING

syste

m

Additional private & public GREEN waste Collectable

kg/INH*a 60 90 70 68

t 243,244 118,910 139,250 501,404

TOTAL organics collectable

kg/INH*a 158 159 85 138

t 641,397 209,782 168,556 1,019,735

Table 6 presents the quantitative assessment of collectable organic waste for each of the 55

Waste Management Regions.

The calculated total municipal waste generation is 4.4% below the NSI Waste Statistics for

2010. We consider this a consistent and good result since (i) the estimate was transposed to

2011 population data, (ii) the waste data allocation for the 3 settlement types was done by

grouping of municipalities (not settlements) into to each of the respective population sizes

and (iii) we used the waste composition data of the indicated study of 20061.

The total organic waste prospected for separate collection and composting at the same time

provides the needed capacity for biological treatment.

Key findings from this evaluation are:

17

Relation between Green waste from private and public parks and gardens and food /

organic household waste

o On national scale, the proportion between GREEN waste > bring system relative to

FOOD waste > door-to-door collection is ca. 1:1 (see Table 7). When looking into

the results for the individual WMR we can easily see: the more the green waste

increases relative to the food waste capture the more the WMR represents a rural

settlement and living type. This is, above all, an advantage for providing

decentralised, open windrow composting plants with sufficient garden waste and

structure material in order to achieve optimised conditions for the biological

process of composting.

Prospected installation of composting / MBT capacities on Regional Landfills as

already applied within the OPE

o As a preliminary estimation the OPE Mechanisms for Development of the Waste

Management Infrastructure lists potential capacities for biological treatment plants

in 20 WMR. Additional projects are launched as via private or other financing

sources. Meanwhile, a number of these projects are under assessment or already

approved or tender contracts are signed.. Base on the information provided by the

Waste Directorate these projects, mainly dedicated for green waste composting

were taken into account for the prospected decentralised biowaste recycling

model.

o However, by comparing the capacities envisaged in 21 Waste Management

regions we identified a lack of ca. 400,000 t.. Hence, this would open the

possibility to consider additional decentralised projects in the (semi-)rural parts of

the regions for establishing small scale on-farm and community composting plants

(Table 6).

Analysis of needed total capacities for composting in the 55 WMR exploring a

decentralised, partly on-farm composting model

o To give a better overview on the scales of needed total composting capacities in

the individual WMR Table 5 groups total collectable quantities into 4 classes.

18

Table 5: Required regional capacities grouped in 4 quantitative classes

< 10,000 t 10,000 – 20,000 t 20,000 – 50,000 t > 50,000 t

Number 24 (44%) 18 (33%) 9 (16%) 4 (7%)

Total capacity [rounded]

124,051 t (12%) 241.620 t (24%) 269,829 t (26%) 384,132 (38%)

Regions Antonovo

Botevgrad

Byala

Dospat

Elhovo

Gorna Malina

Gotse Delchev

Kostinbrod

Lovetch

Lukovit

Madan

Malko Tarnovo

Omurtag

Panagurishte

Petrich

Plovdiv/Shishmantsi

Razlog

Rudozem

Sandanski

Sevlievo

Smolyan

Sozopol

Troyan

Zlatitsa

Asenovgradд

Blagoevgrad

Dupnitsa

Gabrovo

Harmanli

Kardjali

Karlovo

Kostenets

Levski

Montana

Oryahovo

Pernik

Provadiq

Razgrad

Silistra

Targovishte

Vidin

Vratsa

Dobrich

Haskovo

Pazardjik

Pleven

Ruse

Shumen

Stara Zagora

Veliko Tarnovo

Yambol

Bourgas

Plovdiv/Tsalapitsa

Sofia - suhodol

Varna

Waste Management Regions with partly approved OPE Projects for composting / biological

treatment

The largest number of regions (24) shows a potential biowaste capture of less than

10,000 t. In other words, due to their rural character nearly half of the WMR will

process 12% of the nation wide collected biowaste. Only 4 of these “less than 10,000 t

regions” include a town with more than 25,000 inhabitants. Only 4 WMR would

produce more than 50,000 t biowaste each or 38% of the total collected potential,

these are Bourgas, Plovdiv/Shishmantsi, Sofia–Suhodol and Varna.

19

Table 6: Summary output of the quantitative assessment of collectable organic waste from households (Door-to-Door collection of predominantly

FOOD waste and minor parts of fine GARDEN waste) and GREEN waste (mainly bring system from private and public sources)

WMR Population Total amount of generated

MUNICIPAL WASTE

TOTAL potential Organic waste

Separately ollectable FOOD + GARDEN Waste

[Bio-Bin/ Bucket]”

PRIVATE & PUBLIC GREEN Waste

TOTAL of sep. collectable FOOD +

GARDEN Waste [Bio-Bin/Bucket]

+PRIVATE & PUBLIC GREEN

Waste

Status of OPE ore otherwise financed

treatment facilities on regional landfills

OPE + PPP Projects

Projected capacity for

composting & (MBT?)

Divergence: OPE Projected

capacities – quantitative assessment

Antonovo 6,262 1,847 1,010 91 438 530 No Projects

Asenovgrad 114,854 43,931 22,820 2,385 7,915 10,300 No Projects

Blagoevgrad 102,696 42,355 20,985 7,936 6,613 14,550 OPE: in preparation 3,500 -11,050

Botevgrad 52,791 19,571 11,727 3,121 4,520 7,641 No Projects

Bourgas 381,020 152,646 78,905 27,368 26,319 53,611 OPE: approved 5,000 -48,631

Byala 56,048 18,186 10,368 1,790 4,264 6,054 OPE: assessment stage 1,820 -4,234

Dobrich 195,777 76,246 39,669 12,892 13,585 26,477 OPE: assessment stage 15,000 -11,477

Dospat 41,343 12,881 7,219 1,007 3,035 4,042 No Projects

Dupnitsa 125,714 50,578 25,316 5,263 8,210 13,473 OPE: in preparation 3,000 -10,473

Elhovo 20,379 7,035 4,109 899 1,638 2,537 No Projects

Gabrovo 77,022 33,127 16,401 6,699 4,991 11,690 OPE: approved 10,000 -1,690

Gorna Malina 29,050 9,579 5,497 1,018 2,242 3,259 No Project

Gotse Delchev 56,308 18,803 10,843 2,111 4,394 6,505 No Project

Harmanli 86,337 30,965 18,341 4,492 7,177 11,669 No Project

Haskovo 153,612 63,652 31,112 12,081 9,601 21,682 OPE: assessment stage 2,000 -19,682

Kardjali 159,234 56,292 29,909 7,393 11,172 18,533 No Projects

Karlovo 74,734 26,866 15,926 3,925 6,225 10,150 No Projects

Kostenets 73,124 28,581 15,449 4,943 5,415 10,359 OPE: approved 20,000 9,641

Kostinbrod 69,100 24,413 14,382 3,377 5,668 9,045 No Projects

Levski 106,164 39,301 21,296 5,966 7,775 13,740 OPE: approved 15,000 1,260

20


MUNICIPAL WASTE








Waste



OPE + PPP Projects


composting & (MBT?)



Lovetch 60,019 23,598 11,695 4,004 3,835 7,839 No Projects

Lukovit 79,745 26,949 15,613 3,178 6,288 9,466 OPE: approved 2,000 -7,466

Madan 31,818 11,088 6,499 1,465 2,578 4,043 No Projects

Malko Tarnovo 3,793,00 1,119 612 55 266 321 No Projects

Montana 147,588 54,991 29,752 8,485 10,801 19,286 Private tender

Omurtag 51,635 17,515 10,162 2,096 4,085 6,181 No Projects

Oryahovo 99,296 34,169 19,934 4,317 7,956 12,273 No Projects

Panagurishte 30,176 11,004 6,556 1,676 2,546 4,222 OPE: assessment stage 2,000 -2,222

Pazardjik 245,372 92,400 50,308 14,687 18,194 32,881 OPE: in preparation 13,000 -19,881

Pernik 133,530 54,108 27,401 9,863 8,918 18,781 OPE: approved 3,000 -15,781

Petrich 54,006 20,918 10,568 3,454 3,560 7,014 No Projects

Pleven 188,532 75,314 38,285 13,440 12,639 26,079 OPE: assessment stage 25,700 -379

Plovdiv/Shishmantsi 51,779 16,977 9,720 1,757 3,996 5,733 No Projects

Plovdiv/Tsalpitsa 441,660 190,562 94,527 36,302 28,737 65,038 No Projects

Provadiq 99,921 33,410 19,277 3,772 7,805 11,577 No Projects

Razgrad 125,190 44,636 23,865 6,046 8,889 14,935 No Projects

Razlog 54,381 18,965 11,120 2,513 4,409 6,922 OPE: approved 3,500 -3,422

Rudozem 10,069,00 3,335 1,917 362 780 1,142 No Projects

Ruse 215,693 89,680 44,597 17,087 14,006 31,092 OK; prep of TOR

Sandanski 51,689 19,812 10,052 3,196 3,425 6,621 No Projects

Sevlievo 48,222 17,141 10,120 2,418 3,977 6,395 Project in preparation

Shumen 164,037 63,994 32,985 10,824 11,207 22,031 No Projects

Silistra 104,100 38,081 20,067 5,671 7,269 12,940 PPP; under construction

Smolyan 56,997 22,269 11,299 3,757 3,791 7,548 No Projects

21


MUNICIPAL WASTE








Waste



OPE + PPP Projects


composting & (MBT?)



Sofia - suhodol 1,291,591 588,965 279,393 129,214 77,495 206,710 OPE: approved 44,000 -162,710

Sozopol 27,965 9,257 5,320 1,001 2,165 3,166 No Projects

Stara Zagora 347,069 137,362 70,287 23,922 23,490 47,411 OPE: approved 20,000 -27,411

Targovishte 86,039 32,955 16,745 5,089 5,960 11,034 No Projects

Troyan 35,737 12,891 7,651 1,903 2,986 4,888 No Projects

Varna 375,153 166,790 80,708 35,386 23,367 58,753 MBT/PPP … aproved 16,000 -42,753

Veliko Tarnovo 174,898 69,960 35,484 12,520 11,682 24,202 OPE: assessment stage 28,000 3,798

Vidin 101,018 38,354 19,593 6,062 6,759 12,820 OPE: approved 8,000 -4,820

Vratsa 95,642 39,045 19,617 7,205 6,306 13,511 No Projects

Yambol 275,346 110,649 55,731 19,792 18,181 37,973 OPE: assessment stage 2,500 -35,473

Zlatitsa 23,424 8,129 4,758 1,059 1,891 2,950 No Projects

TOTAL 7,364,570 2,953,410 1,513,481 518,331 501,404 1,019,633 243,020 -414,856

Specific [kg/INH*a] 401 206 70 68 138

Waste Management Regions with partly approved OPE Projects for composting plants

22

o Table 7 shows population and settlement figures as well as total captures and

distribution of organic waste within the 3 settlement types for each of the WMR.

Those data give reference to the extent of urbanisation and the respective origin of

organic waste. Based on these data and taking into account the practical

experience in implementing decentralised composting schemes in Austria, 5

‘Decentralisation classes’ with decreasing extension of small scale decentralised

composting were formed:

100 % DEC > DECENTRAL COMBI > CENTRAL CENTRAL

= 100% decentralised agricultural or municipal composting plants

= predominantly decentralised

= balanced combination of centralised / decentralised composting

= predominantly centralised composting scheme

= dedicated centralised composting facilities

o The decision for allocating a WMR to one of the 5 ‘Decentralisation Classes’ was

done with the help of the following criteria. Even though, if for some regions not all

criteria may be found within the set margins, in case captures from the 3

settlement types were fairly balanced, the WMR was rather grouped under the

class ‘COMBI’. However, the proposed categorisation has to be seen as

approximation and it is obvious that verification must be done for each WMR on

municipal and partly settlement level.

Criterion 100 % DEC > DECENTRAL COMBI > CENTRAL CENTRAL

Ratio GREEN/ FOOD waste

> 1.5 1.1 – 1.8 0.9 –1.3 < 1.0 < 0.8

Ratio of biowaste origin (rural / semi-urban / urban)

> 30 % RURAL; if not nor urban settlement !

> 20 % RURAL

< 50 % URBAN

< 75 % URBAN

balance RURAL/SEMI-URBAN & URBAN

< 20 % RURAL

> 60 % URBAN

> 80 % URBAN

Ratio of Population (rural / semi-urban / urban)

< 30 % URBAN < 45 % URBAN > 75 % URBAN

23

Table 7: Modelling the composting infrastructure for the 3 settlement types in the 55 Waste Management Regions

WMR Population NUMBRE. of SETTLEMENTS

For each settlement type:

Rural / Semi-Urban /

Urban

PECENTAGE of POPULATION

living in settlement

types: Rural / Semi-Urban /

Urban

TOTAL of sep. collectable FOOD + GARDEN Waste [Bio-Bin/Bucket] +PRIVATE & PUBLIC GREEN Waste

Ratio between GREEN waste and FOOD waste

Extent of “Decentralaised” composing in the 55 WMR

OPE + PPP Projects

Projected capacity for composting

& (MBT?)

Divergence: OPE

Projected capacities – quantitative assessment

TOTAL RURAL SEMI-URBAN URBAN

R / s-U / U %. in R /s-U / U [t] [t] [%] [t] [%] [t] [%] [t] [t]

Antonovo 6,262 60/0/0 100/0/0 530 530 100% 0% 0% 6.05 100% DEC

Asenovgrad 114,854 75 / 2 / 1 39 / 17 / 44 10,300 3,791 37% 2,186 21% 4,322 42% 3.73 > DECENTRAL

Blagoevgrad 102,696 70 / 1 / 1 24 / 6 / 69 14,550 2,127 15% 1,079 7% 11,344 78% 0.90 COMBI 3,500 -11,050

Botevgrad 52,791 29/5/0 22/78/0 7,641 979 13% 6,662 87% 0% 1.57 100% DEC

Bourgas 381,020 193/8/1 26/22/53 53,631 8,226 15% 13,333 25% 32,052 60% 1.04 > CENTRAL 5,000 -48,631

Byala 56,048 57/3/0 70/30/0 6,054 3,301 55% 2,753 45% 0% 2.69 100% DEC 1,820 -4,234

Dobrich 195,777 220/5/1 33/20/46 26,477 5,516 21% 6,392 24% 14,569 55% 1.15 COMBI 15,000 -11,477

Dospat 41,343 42/1/0 83/17/0 4,031 2,890 72% 1,141 28% 0% 3.50 100% DEC

Dupnitsa 125,714 150 / 2 / 2 30 / 8 / 62 13,473 3,236 24% 1,088 8% 9,150 68% 1.71 COMBI 3,000 -10,473

Elhovo 20,379 41/1/0 48/52/0 2,537 831 33% 1,705 67% 0% 2.01 100% DEC

Gabrovo 77,022 238/1/1 11/12/77 11,690 732 6% 1,523 13% 9,435 81% 0.80 CENTRAL 10,000 -1,690

Gorna Malina 29,050 31/2/0 64/36/0 3,259 1,577 48% 1,682 52% 0% 2.47 100% DEC

Gotse Delchev 56,308 40/2/0 60/40/0 6,505 2,852 44% 3,652 56% 0% 2.32 100% DEC

Harmanli 86,337 129/5/0 34/66/0 11,669 2,511 22% 9,157 78% 0% 1.75 > DECENTRAL

Haskovo 153,612 74/0/2 25/0/75 21,682 3,255 15% 0% 18,427 85% 0.86 > CENTRAL 2,000 -19,682

Kardjali 159,234 516/5/1 58/15/28 18,533 7,756 42% 3,754 20% 7,023 38% 1.67 COMBI

Karlovo 74,734 35/6/0 34/66/0 10,150 2,119 21% 8,030 79% 0% 1.73 > DECENTRAL

Kostenets 73,124 61/4/1 25/38/36 10,359 1,558 15% 4,546 44% 4,255 41% 1.19 > DECENTRAL 20,000 9,641

Kostinbrod 69,100 123/6/0 40/60/0 9,045 2,333 26% 6,712 74% 0% 1.84 > DECENTRAL

Levski 106,164 64/4/1 41/30/28 13,740 3,703 27% 5,211 38% 4,826 35% 1.43 COMBI 15,000 1,260

Lovetch 60,019 51/0/1 39/0/61 7,839 1,981 25% 0% 5,858 75% 1.05 COMBI

24




Urban




Urban




OPE + PPP Projects


& (MBT?)

Divergence: OPE




Lukovit 79,745 57/4/0 56/44/0 9,466 3,761 40% 5,705 60% 0% 2.20 100% DEC 2,000 -7,466

Madan 31,818 68/3/0 45/55/0 4,043 1,208 30% 2,835 70% 0% 1.94 100% DEC

Malko Tarnovo 3,793,00 13/0/0 100/0/0 321 321 100% 0% 0% 6.05 100% DEC

Montana 147,588 129/4/1 40/31/30 19,286 4,942 26% 7,337 38% 7,007 36% 1.39 COMBI

Omurtag 51,635 76/5/0 54/46/0 6,181 2,378 38% 3,803 62% 0% 2.16 100% DEC

Oryahovo 99,296 52/7/0 49/51/0 12,273 4,148 34% 8,125 66% 0% 2.04 100% DEC

Panagurishte 30,176 13/2/0 28/72/0 4,222 720 17% 3,502 83% 0% 1.66 > DECENTRAL 2,000 -2,222

Pazardjik 245,372 89/12/1 35/35/29 32,881 7,320 22% 14,041 43% 11,520 35% 1.35 COMBI 13,000 -19,881

Pernik 133,530 168/2/1 26/14/60 18,781 2,938 16% 3,009 16% 12,834 68% 0.98 COMBI 3,000 -15,781

Petrich 54,006 55/1/1 40/6/54 7,014 1,834 26% 554 8% 4,626 66% 1.13 COMBI

Pleven 188,532 64/7/1 30/14/57 26,079 4,741 18% 4,220 16% 17,117 66% 1.02 > CENTRAL 25,700 -379

Plovdiv/Shishmantsi 51,779 47 / 5 / 0 66 / 34 / 0 5,733 2,896 51% 2,837 49% 0% 2.55 100% DEC

Plovdiv/Tsalpitsa 441,660 34 / 9 / 1 10 / 14 / 77 65,038 3,929 6% 6,991 11% 54,119 83% 0.86 > CENTRAL

Provadiq 99,921 120/6/0 59/41/0 11,577 5,023 43% 6,554 57% 0% 2.31 100% DEC

Razgrad 125,190 98/4/1 54/19/27 14,935 5,762 39% 3,750 25% 5,422 36% 1.62 > DECENTRAL

Razlog 54,381 32/4/0 45/55/0 6,922 2,052 30% 4,870 70% 0% 1.93 > DECENTRAL 3,500 -3,422

Rudozem 10,069,00 22/1/0 63/37/0 1,142 534 47% 608 53% 0% 2.42 > DECENTRAL

Ruse 215,693 54/4/1 21/9/69 31,092 3,880 12% 3,263 10% 23,949 77% 0.89 > CENTRAL

Sandanski 51,689 83/1/1 42/7/51 6,621 1,858 28% 561 8% 4,202 63% 1.17 COMBI

Sevlievo 48,222 120/2/0 38/62/0 6,395 1,537 24% 4,857 76% 0% 1.80 > DECENTRAL

Shumen 164,037 119/4/1 34/16/49 22,031 4,783 22% 4,308 20% 12,940 59% 1.13 COMBI

Silistra 104,100 99/3/1 50/16/34 12,940 4,366 34% 2,875 22% 5,699 44% 1.41 > DECENTRAL

25




Urban




Urban




OPE + PPP Projects


& (MBT?)

Divergence: OPE




Smolyan 56,997 130/1/1 37/9/54 7,548 1,775 24% 870 12% 4,904 65% 1.10 COMBI

Sofia - suhodol 1,291,591 0/0/1 0/0/100 206,710 0% 0% 206,710 100% 0.65 CENTRAL 44,000 -162,710

Sozopol 27,965 29/2/0 63/37/0 3,166 1,487 47% 1,679 53% 0% 2.42 100% DEC

Stara Zagora 347,069 207/7/2 31/15/53 47,411 9,217 19% 8,491 18% 29,703 63% 1.07 COMBI 20,000 -27,411

Targovishte 86,039 85/1/1 38/18/44 11,034 2,756 25% 2,529 23% 5,749 52% 1.21 COMBI

Troyan 35,737 40/2/0 32/68/0 4,888 975 20% 3,913 80% 0% 1.71 100% DEC

Varna 375,153 28/4/1 5/6/89 58,753 1,484 3% 3,676 6% 53,594 91% 0.71 > CENTRAL 16,000 -42,753

Veliko Tarnovo 174,898 273/4/2 30/13/57 24,202 4,397 18% 3,697 15% 16,108 67% 1.01 COMBI 28,000 3,798

Vidin 101,018 139/2/1 44/8/48 12,820 3,769 29% 1,357 11% 7,693 60% 1.22 COMBI 8,000 -4,820

Vratsa 95,642 49/1/1 25/11/63 13,511 2,033 15% 1,765 13% 9,713 72% 0.95 COMBI

Yambol 275,346 142/2/2 30/10/60 37,973 6,886 18% 4,559 12% 26,527 70% 1.00 COMBI 2,500 -35,473

Zlatitsa 23,424 19/2/0 46/54/0 2,950 918 31% 2,031 69% 0% 1.97 100% DEC

TOTAL 7,364,570 5052 / 181 / 36 27 / 18 / 55 1,019,633 168,627 16% 210,442 21% 641,397 63% 1.05 243,020 -414,856

Specific [kg/INH*a]

138 85 162 160

Waste Management Regions with partly approved OPE Projects for composting

26

Table 9 now summarises the detailed results of the quantitative modelling.

The Report: Options for a Decentralised Biowaste Management in Bulgaria demonstrates

that in a strict decentralised biowaste management structure the average capacity of

agricultural (in some cases also municipal) composting plants is between 1,000 and 1,500 t

per year. Of course, at this stage a detailed concept with exact number and location of

facilities cannot be given. This would require in depth investigation and evaluation of the local

and regional conditions.

For the purpose of categorisation of plant sizes (capacities) the following grouping was

defined:

Capacity Group 1: Average capacity = 1,200 t; range: 500 – 2,500 t

Capacity Group 2: Average capacity = 3,500 t; range: 2,000 – 6,000t]


Capacity Group 4: Average capacity = 15,000 t; range: 10,000 – 20,000]t


The presumed percentage of biowaste that is treated by composting plants of the different

Capacity Groups depends on the ‘Decentralisation Class’ (see 2nd row in Table 9). For

instance in WMR where it is foreseen to roll out the Decentralised / On-Farm Biowaste

management scheme for the entire region, 100% of the prospected organic waste collected

would be treated in composting plants with a mean treatment capacity of 1,200 tons per year.

In practice, and in dependence on the factual decisions taken for each settlement and

municipality, plant sizes would range between ca. 500 and 2,500 tons of capacity.

The average capacity of a composting plant in Bulgaria (here excluding the already decided

OPE and PPP projects and the Sofia region) would be approximately 1,800 t per year. If we

include Sofiy and these 21 more centralised projects this will be 2,800 t/plant.

For the purpose of modelling the treatment capacities, the planned quantities of the already

registered OPE & PPP projects were not included as the projected capacities and the design

of composting plants cannot be altered.

The key results are:

28 WMR (51%) would be suited for full or predominant rollout of a decentralised

composting model (100% DEC & > DECENTRAL).

The concept proposes the installation of 302 decentralised small scale composting

plants with an average capacity of 1,200 tons per year (<500 to 2500 t) distributed all

over the country. Each of those plants would serve a population between ca. 3,500

and 18,000, in average 8,500. The average plant would produce ca 500 t of compost

and in case of agricultural use would require ca. 30 ha of land.

On Bulgarian scale, decentralised small scale and if possible agricultural composting

would give the following features, here also shown in relation to all assumed

composting plants and quantities:

27

Table 8. Performance data of prospected agricultural composting plants (avg. capacity 1,200

t/a) relative to total biowaste treatment capacity in Bulgaria (figures are rounded)

Nr. of agric. Composting plants

Total biowaste treated

Served population

Produced compost

Agricultural land needed

Agricultural plants 302 363,000 t 2,628,000 145,000 t 9,400 ha

All plants of Model [without already approved OPE or PPP projects]

344 776,600 t 5,628,000 310,600 t 20,000 ha

% covered by decentralised, agric. scheme of total of Model (without OPE & PPP projects)

88% 47%

All plants incl. OPE & PPP projects

365 1,019,633 t 7,388,242 408,000 t 26,500

% covered by decentralised, agric. scheme of total (incl. OPE projects)

83% 36%

In summary, the full implementation of a decentralised model would propose that 36%

of the total collectable biowaste potential is treated by small scale predominantly

agricultural composting plants which amounts to 83% of all prospected facilities.

In19 WMR (35%) a well balanced combination (‘COMBI’) of decentralised agricultural

and more centralised mid scale composting systems would be a suitable option, still in

line with the proximity principle. In these WMR 35% of the entire Biowaste collected

will be treated. However in those WMR we will find the highest number, 122 or 40% of

all small scale composting plants

Bourgas, Haskovo, Pleven, Plovdiv/Tsalapitsa, Ruse, Stara Zagora, Varna, and

Yambol would be candidates for mid scale composting plants between between 5,000

and 25,000 t tons. Only in Plovdiv/Tsalapitsa and Ruse no OPE or PPP projects are

currently under assessment or approved .

Special case Sofia: Under the OPE financing scheme, the city of Sofia has already

approved a treatment capacity for ca. 44,000 tons green waste for composting as well

as anaerobic digestion of food waste from commercial sources and from separate

collection from households.. The quantitative model for urban settlement types

proposes capture rates of 98 kg/INH*a for FOOD and FINE GARDEN waste and 60

kg/INH*a GARDEN & PARK waste, in total 158 kg/INH*a. The relatively high FOOD

waste amount is explained by (i) a small proportion of home composting and (ii) a high

concentration of large producers (restaurants, shops, markets etc.) which are also

included in the municipal food waste collection scheme. This leads to a total estimate

for Sofia of 207,000 t. which would be ca. 4.4 times the capacity than currently

projected. The authors are well aware that the prospect for the urbanised areas (big

cities) represents a very optimistic and engaged long term (15 years) target, but it can

be achieved if schemes for separate collection of the organics potentials from the

diverse sources are optimised and adapted to the urban framework conditions. (see

Chapter 2 “Ordinance and model on separate collection of biowaste”).

28

Table 9: Concept for the implementation of a decentralised (agricultural) composting scheme

in the framework of a biowaste strategy for Bulgaria

100 % DECTRALISED

> DECENTRAL COMBI > CENTRAL CENTRAL TOTAL

Definition of Implementation model relative to the extent of decentralised composting

= 100% decentralised agricultural or municipal composting plants

= predominantly decentralised

= balanced combination of centralised / decentralised composting

= predominantly centralised composting scheme

= dedicated centralised composting facilities

Allocation of average size of composing sites [% of regional capacity]

1200 t = 100%

3,500 t = ---

7,500 t = ---

15,000 t = ---

25,000 t = ---

1200 t = 80%

3,500 t = 20%

7,500 t = ---

15,000 t = ---

25,000 t = ---

1200 t = 60%

3,500 t = 20%

7,500 t = 10%

15,000 t = 10%

25,000 t = ---

1200 t = 30%

3,500 t =5%

7,500 t = 10%

15,000 t = 25%

25,000 t = 30%

1200 t = 5%

3,500 t = ---

7,500 t = ---

15,000 t = 10%

25,000 t = 90%

WMR Antonovo Botevgrad Byala Dospat Elhovo Gorna Malina Gotse Delchev Lukovit Madan Malko Tarnovo Omurtag Oryahovo Plovdiv/Shishmantsi Provadiq Sozopol Troyan Zlatitsa

Asenovgradд

Harmanli

Karlovo Kostenets

Kostinbrod

Panagurishte

Razgrad Razlog Rudozem Sevlievo Silistra

Blagoevgrad Dobrich Dupnitsa Kardjali Levski Lovetch Montana Pazardjik Pernik Petrich Sandanski Shumen Smolyan Stara Zagora Targovishte Veliko Tarnovo Vidin Vratsa Yambol

Bourgas Haskovo Pleven Plovdiv/Tsalpitsa Ruse Varna

Gabrovo Sofia – suhodol

Nr. & % of WM-Regions 17 (31%) 11 (20%) 19 (35%) 6 (11%) 2 (4%) 55

Assessed Total capacity * 91,155 t (9%) 98,077 t (10%) 355,726 t (35%) 256,276 t (25%) 218,399 t (21%) 1,019,633

Prospected composting capacity of regional WM systems (OPE & PPP) *

3,820 t 25,500 t 111,000 t 48,700 t 54,000 t 243,020 t

Left for DECENTRA-LISED MODEL

87,335 72,577 244,726 207,576 164,399 776,613

‘Capacity Groups’ – average and [approximate range]:

Capacities and Number of composting plants allocated to 5 scales of capacities [without 20 OPE Projects]

Total

No. [t] No. [t] No. [t] No. [t] No. [t] No. [t]

1,200 t [500-2500] 73 87,335 48 58,061 122 146,836 52 62,273 7 8,220 302 362,725

3,500 t [2,000-6,000] --- --- 4 14,515 14 48,945 3 10,379 --- --- 21 73,839

7,500 t [5,000 -10,000] --- --- --- --- 3 24,473 3 20,758 --- --- 6 45,230

15000 t [10,000 -20,000] --- --- --- --- 2 24,473 3 51,894 1 16,440 6 92,807

25000 t [20,000-60,000] --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 62,273 6 139,739 8 202,012

Total: 73 87,335 52 72,577 141 244,726 63 207,576 14 164,399 343 776,613

Average capacity within the Model Group [t]**

1,200 t 1,400 1,700 3,300 12,100 2,300 [without Sofia:

1,800]

* includes also the additional organic waste potential of ca. 160,000** t of the Sofia region,

** rounded

29

4 Technical guidance documents

Based on the technical bid and in agreement with the Waste Management Directorate the

general concept and roll-out of the technical guidelines accompanying the new regulatory

framework within the Biowaste Strategy the further elaboration of each of the required files is

done during the respective STAGES.

Hence, the following just indicates a briefly content and some references used.

4.1 Technical requirements for composting plants [STAGE III]

The purpose of this guidance and good practice on the technical and operational

requirements is to set the Bulgarian national minimum standard for composting biowaste and

sludge as defined under the Compost Ordinance. This document should be seen as

mandatory reference for licensing as well as the basis for quality management as required by

the obligatory Quality Assurance System.

Above all it will be addressing facilities which do not fall under the Industrial Emissions

Directive and its Best Available Technique Reference Documents, i.e. composting plants with

a treatment capacity of less than 75 tons per day or ~ 27,000 tons per year.

Here the proposed list of contents; and structure of the report:

1 Overview of the biology of composting

2 Treatments which do not comply with ‘good practice’ composting techniques

defined in this guideline (long term uncontrolled storage, no oxygen supply

and no turning, other bad management schemes etc.)

3 Typical pre-processing methods – anaerobic storage and fermentation and

slow fungal decomposition with inoculants

4 Compost feedstocks – Specific requirements with respect to process, potential

emissions and quality aspects (Organic feedstock, auxiliary agents and

additives, contaminants)

5 Quality management – Short overview on general requirements for

documentation and record keeping

6 Basic requirements for low-emission process management

6.1 Management of odour emissions

6.2 Basic technical requirements – hard standing and water management

systems at open composting sites

6.3 Hygiene related process and product requirements

6.4 Bio-aerosols management

6.5 Management of other gaseous emissions – greenhouse gases,

ammonia and volatile organic compounds (VOC)

6.6 noise emissions

7 Quality management at composting plants - a step-by–step guide

30

The 6 subsequent stages of the composting process will be described structured as

follows:

Main functions

Basic technical and construction systems

Technical design and equipment

Basic requirements for operation and documentation

7.1 Tipping area with receipt control

7.2 Pre-treatment

7.3 Active decomposition phase

7.4 Maturation

7.5 Final processing

7.6 Compost storage

4.2 Technical requirements for biogas plants [STAGE III]

The technology of anaerobic digestion is by far more complex and requires a much higher

level of technical know-how and engineering than it the case for biowaste and green waste

composting. Therefore, within this project it is not foreseen to prepare a fully elaborated

manual with detailed construction, technical and management requirements. The document

will provide minimum standards and process requirements as an introductory file supporting

the start-up of a Bulgarian Biogas Industry.

ÖNORM S 2207-1 Fermentation plants - Part 1: Terms and definitions and basics (published

2011-03-01)

ÖNORM S 2207-2 Fermentation plants - Part 2: Technical requirements for process

technology (published 2011-03-01)

Bayer. Landesamt für Umwelt (Edt.), 2007 – 201 continued: Biogashandbuch Bayern –

Materialienband [Biogas Manual Bavaria – Reference Book]

http://www.lfu.bayern.de/abfall/biogashandbuch/index.htm

4.3 Technical requirements for digestate and its application

[STAGE II]

For the purpose of providing a national guidance document for the environmentally sound

use of digestion residues from Biogas plants, a compilation of best practice experience and

already successfully implemented national documents will be produced. These are:

Austria: Der Sachgerechte Einsatz von Biogasgülle und Gärrückständen im Ackerund

Grünland Fachbeirat für Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Bodenschutz; 2. Auflage.

http://www.ages.at/ages/landwirtschaftliche-sachgebiete/boden/download-

broschueren/

Germany: Gütesicherung Gärprodukt RAL-GZ 245. Güte- und Prüfbestimmungen

sowie Durchführungsbestimmungen für die Verleihung und Führung des RAL-

http://www.lfu.bayern.de/abfall/biogashandbuch/index.htm

http://www.ages.at/ages/landwirtschaftliche-sachgebiete/boden/download-broschueren/

http://www.ages.at/ages/landwirtschaftliche-sachgebiete/boden/download-broschueren/

31

Gütezeichens Gärprodukt. Hrsg.: RAL Deutsches Institut für Gütesicherung

und Kennzeichnung, St. Augustin. http://www.kompost.de/index.php?id=706

Switzerland: Qualitätsrichtlinie 2010 von Komposten und Gärgut. http://www.vks-

asic.ch/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DB1MmpgHhcM%3d&tabid=982&language=

de-CH

Sweden: SPCR 120 – Certification rules for digestate from biowaste by the quality

assurance system of Swedish Waste Management

http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/Biologisk/English_su

mmary_of_SPCR_120.pdf

United Kingdom: BSI PAS110: Specification for digestates and the corresponding

quality protocol.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/farming_growing_and_landscaping/producing_quality_

compost_and_digestate/index.html

4.4 Requirements for low grade compost and stabilised MBT

material and its application [STAGE II]

In order to guarantee a proper technical and logistic boundary of quality compost from source

separated biowaste and stabilised (compost-like) materials produced in mechanical

biological treatment MBT plants for the biological stabilisation of residual (mixed) waste it is

necessary to establish a concise definition of the purpose of MBT as a technology as well as

for application criteria of its outputs of biologically stabilised waste materials. A proposed

systematic scheme how to integrate stabilised MBT-output into the overall quality and

material related classification scheme of the Compost Ordinance is given in the Report

End of Waste Compost Ordinance – general concept and structure proposal.

Two types of outputs may result from the biological step of a MBT plant

stabilised organic fraction to be landfilled in compliance with national standards on

pollutants as well as stability criteria which guarantee a low methane formation

potential when incorporated in the landfill body

mixed waste compost-like output complying with certain minimum quality criteria and

restrictions for the use in land reclamation of closed landfill sites, possibly brown fields,

in road construction - so in areas where no food and fodder production takes place not

now and not in the future

Therefore it will be further discussed in which way quality and use requirements for stabilised

MBT output shall be implemented in the compost ordinance or within another legislative, but

in any case binding format.

http://www.kompost.de/index.php?id=706

http://www.vks-asic.ch/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DB1MmpgHhcM%3d&tabid=982&language=de-CH



http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/Biologisk/English_summary_of_SPCR_120.pdf

http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/Biologisk/English_summary_of_SPCR_120.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/farming_growing_and_landscaping/producing_quality_compost_and_digestate/index.html

http://www.wrap.org.uk/farming_growing_and_landscaping/producing_quality_compost_and_digestate/index.html

32

5 Implementation of a Quality Assurance Scheme for

Composting

STAGE VI includes the elaboration of a Quality assurance scheme for compost. It will

comprise threefold:

Scope organisation structure and operation requirements of the Quality assurance

Organisation and the certification process

The Quality Assurance and certification requirements for composting plants

(‘Operational Quality’) with reference to the Process Management and documentation

requirements as laid down in the Compost Ordinance and the ‘Guidelines - Technical

requirements for composting plants’ Quality Certificate for the Composting Plant

The Quality Certificate for the Compost

The minimum requirements for the Quality assurance Organisation and scheme will be

included in the Compost Ordinance. Its implementation and the underlying quality

management will be therefore mandatory for all composting plants.

It has to be considered that Quality assurance in this respect affects all involved parties in

the process: operators, control authorities (RIEW) inspection bodies, laboratories. All these

groups have to be involved in the initial formation of the QAS in Bulgaria in order to create a

common understanding on tasks and needs in every day operation and exchange of

information and data between the contracted parties.

As a preview to the QAS development and implementation process the following indicates

short, medium and long term activities and measures (therefore not repeated specifically in

the Phased Action Plan).

5.1 Short term actions – preparation phase for the implementation

of the Quality Assurance Scheme

In order to harmonize the development under the new regulatory framework, the MoEW

should play an active role while setting up the quality assurance scheme. It is proposed to

set up a working group / implementation team convened by a representative of the MoEW.

Further experts and stakeholder would be from research institutes, laboratories, MoAF,

Chamber of Commerce, municipalities, farmers and horticulture organisation as well as a

representative of the Ministry of economics / national certification body.

Following the manual for QA-Organisations and compost certification elaborated under

STAGE VI, the task of this working group will be to set the frame for the practical

establishment of the national quality assurance organisation.

Participation of the Regional Inspectors RIEWs will guarantee that needs of the controlling

authority are considered correspondingly in the QAS. This is important because it is intended

that the inspection and assessment work of the QAS awarding the compliance certificate with

all regulatory and further QM criteria as part of the QAS should to create extent substitute

regular control activities of the control authority and therefore reduces its administrative work

load. Therefore it will be important to establish transparent and reasonable system of

communication between the QAS and the competent authority regarding the assessment

reports and inspection results.

33

Figure 1: The four essential elements of quality assurance

Therefore the main reference will be the QAS Guidance & Handbook comprising the all

relevant criteria of the Compost Ordinance and in co-operation with MoEW and RIEW further

QAS requirements. The Handbook covers the four essential elements as shown in Figure 1

and include further:

the rules for the internal procedures in the organisation

parameter to be controlled,

process monitoring requirements for the plants,

quality criteria,

plant inspection rules

sampling and analysis procedures, acknowledgement of labs

evaluation of the analysis results

and the documentation/labelling.

It describes in details the course of the QAS and certification process (Figure 2).

5.2 Medium term activities – implementing the QAS and its

organisation in practice

The implementation phase is dominated by setting up the national quality assurance

organisation/QAO and the training of labs, sample takers and plant inspectors. For the

implementation the requirements and procedures laid down in the above mentioned QAS

Handbook need to be transformed into a legally established NQAO.

The QAO should be set up as a membership organisation comprising governmental

institutions, authorities, research institutes, compost producers, stakeholder organisation

mainly from the compost use sector, technology suppliers and consultants - all with the

objective to promote sustainable recycling of organic waste into high quality products.

Within the QAO a Quality Committee/QC will be established as institution for the unbiased

evaluation of inspections reports and plant assessments provided by the Inspector of the

QAO Body/Person. The QC decides on significant problems or appeals/complaints. The QC

guided by Ministry MoEW consists of representatives of the RIEWS, of representatives of

34

main compost application areas of researchers (from sectors like soil or sanitisation), and of

plant operators. The latter group should amount less 50 % of the members in order to

demonstrate the necessary independency.

Figure 2: Flow sheet of the course of the quality assurance scheme

The outcome of the QAS will be Evaluation Report on the results of each analysed sample

and an Annual Certificate per plant which shows conformity with the QAS and the underlying

regulations. The Annual certificate is issued by the QAO. It includes the conclusive

assessment on the basis of the evaluation report and compost assessments from regular

compost testing. It is the central document within the reporting of the operator of a

composting plant to RIEW and also provided to compost customers e.g. the agricultural

sector.

The QAS Handbook and supplementing information (inspection protocol, plant assessment,

other forms and documents) are the basic files used for training of sample takers, labs and

plant inspectors.

5.3 Long term activities – evaluating and improving the scheme,

integrating marketing tools

After 2 years of practical implementation, experience should be systematically evaluated

through the feedback from all involved parties. Based on the results, the QAS Handbook

shall be revised.

The QAO in cooperation with invited experts may research information about the use of

compost based on existing publications elsewhere in Europe, including recommendations for

successful application in the different use sectors. The aim is to develop ‘Factsheets on the

Application of Quality Assured Compost’ in co-operation with Ministries (e. g. Ministry of

Agriculture), researchers and the representatives of different compost application sectors.

These Factsheets need to include market sector related specifications for compost products

and details on application regimes. This information is an essential marketing tool for

compost sales by plant managers.

35

6 Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of introducing a

Source Segregated Biowaste Collection and Treatment

System in Bulgaria

The analysis of costs and benefits is delivered in an individual report prepared by

EUNOMIA

36

7 Public relation and information work during

implementation and set-up of the biowaste strategy in

BG

Specific public relation, information and training programmes related to the manifold

implementation measures of new legislative and strategic framework are included in Chapter

8 - Phased implementation Action Plan addressing the role and duties of involved parties

Here follows just a short overview, indicating the most important activities in this area of

information and promotion work.

STAGE V Handbook:

This Handbook will be a central communication tool to promote the implementation of

biowaste management strategy and the legislative framework in Bulgaria towards all

involved players and parties. It will need to balance necessary technical information

and a graphical layout which provides key-messages in an attractive and easily

perceptible way.

The Handbook will be divided into a first Part A (Legislation, duties, responsibilities,

control) drawing the general framework and common ground on which the practical

management system is built, and a second Part B including optimised separate

collection schemes, optimised waste charge models, main technologies and operation

options in composting and quality management as well as compost–marketing and

use.

It should not include the entire legal and technical information make references to the

detailed documents, guidelines and regulations. In this respect the biowaste webpage

of MoEW will be an important feature and serve as the central library to find additional

documentation such as check-lists, forms or template applications etc.. The proposed

content and structure is:

Part A - legislation, duties, responsibilities, control

o Today’s MSW management in Bulgaria

Composition and amount of MSW produced in Bulgaria

Figures on MSW recovery and disposal

o Framework legislation on BIOwaste management

National

EU

o Duties, Responsibilities and Control

The central government - MoEW / MoAF

Regional waste authorities / RIEW

Implications for Municipalities and municipal association: Setting the

infrastructure for collection and treatment; contracting

37

The duties of the citizen

Contracts, Fees and charges

Licensing and permits

Control and Inspection

o Main instruments for controlling waste management evolution at local and national

scale: authorities, controls, registration and reporting

Part B - Practice (types of bio-waste treatment techniques, types of compost and other

products resulting from the treatment system to ensure the quality of the finished

product - compost, conditions for use of compost in agriculture and other applications).

o Opportunities for Waste Reduction

Tools and instruments at national and local level to enhance waste production

reduction

Separate collection organic household waste – the Bio-Bin

Source segregation schemes: different available systems, compared

economical and environmental costs/benefits

Integrating residual waste and Food Waste/organic household waste collection

Options for biowaste treatment in relation to the collection scheme

o Peculiar features of different kind of biowaste recycling and treatment: food waste,

garden waste, bush and tree cuttings:

o Main features addressed: logistics, Infrastructure, investment, operation costs,

fees and charges, technologies and construction, environmental issues, Basic QM

requirements, risks and chances

Home composting / Community composting

Decentralised composting: Cooperative models with in-farm composting and

cooperative agricultural recycling schemes

Centralised composting: principles, elements of process development, main

outputs.

Anaerobic digestion as an option of further exploitation of organic waste for

energy recovery.

Energy from wood chips biomass incineration

Compost features and applications

Compost as an organic fertiliser: humus (carbon) and nutrient supply

Different compost standards depending on the kind of biowaste treated and

composting process features

Opportunities of compost application: compost use in agriculture, horticulture,

hobbies and land reclamation

Conditions for compost application: methods, periods, quantities with respect

to final destination

38

Appendices

o Glossary

o Tables, Formulas, calculation models

o References and Contacts

o Useful Websites, Links

Further key activities:

o Information campaigns to professional compost users on the benefits and use of

compost in the main application areas like agriculture or landscaping can be

arranged more directly via conferences, workshops and articles in expert

magazines by the compost industry itself. This will open a large part of the market.

The is a need to collect information about the use of compost and to compile them

in Factsheet e.g. one for landscaping or one for agriculture

o Information/training for the laboratories for sample taking, analysis of compost

(especially the biological parameter) and reporting of the quality results in the

frame of the Bulgarian quality assurance programme.

o Information/training on licensing, supervision and reporting of the compost sites

with representatives of the Ministry, the regional inspectorates RIEW/authorities

and plant operators

o Information/training of plant operators on suitable input material, process

monitoring and documentation following the request so the End-of-Waste/Compost

Ordinance

o PR-Campaigns directed to general public on the benefits and use of the compost

(e.g. with slogans like blooming coffee filters, delicious green cuttings = no longer

waste)) a phase where compost is already produced and on the market even on a

small scale. Campaigns to the entire public are subject to national awareness

campaigns by the MoEW within biowaste recycling as a whole.

39

8 Phased implementation Action Plan addressing the role

and duties of involved parties

On the basis of the proposed model and a general biowaste strategy Table 10, Table 11 and

Table 12 provide a phased Action Plan with the main short, mid and long term measures to

be taken in order to safeguard a well accepted and harmonised transition in the area of

biowaste management.

The envisaged 3 phases structure the important activities and measures in time in order to

promote a high probability of successful implementation. Of course fine tuning will be

necessary in agreement with the involved stakeholders and institutions and also depend on

the progress of related measures and availability of personal and financial resources.

Used abbreviations:

FSA … Food Safety Agency;

MoAF … Ministry for Agriculture and Food;

NAMRB … Bulgarian Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria;

NSI … National Statistical Institute

QAO … Quality Assurance Organisation (for Compost);

WFD …EU Waste Framework Directive;

WMA … Waste Management Association;

WMR … Waste Management Region;

40

Table 10: Short-Term Actions [S]

Activity area Involved Party Specific duty / measure / addressees Time scale Quarter/year

[S1] Communication of the national biowaste recycling strategy to involved Bulgarian parties

Workshop and Seminars on behalf of the MoEW about the essential objectives and elements of the future national biowaste strategy to all interested parties and stakeholders

MoEW with Project team

MoEW with Project team preparing the documents

Very short term in order to announce the policy/strategy on biowaste recycling at the earliest possibility, focussing partly on specific aspects

Mainly addressed to: MoAF, MoEnergy.,RIEW, FSA, EExA, WMA, municipalities, collection companies, research institutes, laboratories, and consultancy institutes, NGOs, compost user organisations, media, Chamber of commerce, citizens,

IV-2012/ I-2013

[S2] Implementation of legislation (laws, regulations, guidelines) for starting biowaste management by means of recycling, collection and treatment on regional and municipal level

3 to 4 Workshop (2-days) on behalf of the MoEW about the objectives and elements of the national biowaste strategy and the provisions of the 2 ordinances and technical standards "

Part 1: deals with the separate collection ordinance

Part 2: deals with the compost ordinance

Part 3: e.g. compost application and QAS

MoEW

Project team

RIEW

Laboratory

Mainly addressed to: Municipalities, WMA, RIEW, waste collectors, Laboratories, Research Institutes, consultancies

II or III/2013 when final draft of legislation is available

[S3] Revision of the National Waste Management Programme 2014 - 2020 I-2013 to IV/2013 -

Revision of the NWMP 2009-2013 with respect to all sections on biowaste management according to the new national Biowaste strategy and legislation. Revision of quantitative and economic assessments as well capacity building.

Elaboration of phased action plan for roll-out of separate collection and capacity building with a special focus on decentralised composting model

MoEW; RIEW; Project team; MoAF; EExA

Working group with Experts of MoEW, MoAF, EExA

41


[S4] Revision of the Operational Programme Environment and the Mechanisms for Development of the Waste Management Infrastructure with the Assistance of Operational Programme “Environment 2014-2020”

IV-2012 to III/2013

Revision of sections on the programmes on the establishment of organic waste processing facilities with special focus on:

Implementation and integration of decentralised composting schemes following the national Biowaste strategy as adopted for the NWMP 2014-2020.

Priorisation of agricultural composting and integration of Priority Axis 3 “Biodiversity” and other ERDF Programmes

Include specific programmes for investment of separate collection infrastructure

Include specific programmes for investment of Recycling Centres and green waste intermediate collection sites.

MoEW; EExA; WMA; NAMRB; Project team; MoAF

Install a working group composed of the involved institutions under the chair of MoEW

[S5] Revision of the National Strategy for achieving and calculating the diversion of biodegradable waste from being landfilled

IV-2012 to II/2013 -

Elaboration of a standard calculation model for estimating the achievement and the reporting of the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills – with special focus on:

Green waste

Food waste from households and similar institutions overed by the municipal waste collection scheme

Commercial and industrial sources

The application and interpretation of morphological waste analyses

MoEW; Project team; EExA; NSI; WMA; NAMRB

Working group with Experts of MoEW, MoAF, EExA

[S6] Development of a National strategy 2013 to 2020 and model for calculating recycling quota pursuant to Art. 11 WFD

IV-2012 to II/2013 -

Elaboration of a standard calculation model for estimating the achievement and the reporting on recycling using one of the calculation models of the COM Decision 2011/753/EU, with special focus on:

Biowaste and green waste separate collection and recycling

Inclusion/Exclusion of home and community composting

Implementation and reporting in WMR including exemptions for individual municipalities

Implementation of intermediate (yearly targets; 2016)

Implementation of incentives: Reduction of LANDFILL TAX

MoEW; RIEW; WMA; EExA; NSI; NAMRB; Project team; Recovery Organisations

Install a working group composed of the involved institutions under the chair of MoEW

42


[S7] Support of the implementation by providing detailed information, manuals, quality standards for compost, investments and funding for municipalities and investors/operators

From

II or III-2013 when final draft of legislation is available

Seminar within each region with several municipalities on the principles how to start separate collection of biowaste (which bin/bag and how many bins, frequency and vehicles of collection, fees and costs etc.)

MoEW; RIEW; Project team; invited EU experts from Waste management Associations and Municipalities

Project team will provide example from other European Municipalities

Addressed to:

MoEW, WMA, farmers, operators

Municipalities, waste counsellors

Installation/adaptation of recycling centres for organic waste collection

Municipalities; WMA;

Recovery Organisation;

experts from Waste management Associations and Municipalities

Project team and EU experts will provide example from other European Municipalities

Addressed to:

MoEW, WMA, operators of RC

municipalities, waste counsellors

From

I or II-2013

Education of municipalities and WMA on minimum requirements for construction and operation of composting plants

- including licensing and control measures; documentation, reporting, main features of QM and QAS

MoEW; RIEW; Project team; invited EU consultants on composting technology

Project team will provide documentation from STAGE III state of the Art of Composting

Addressed to:

MoEW, WMA, farmers, operators, municipalities, waste counsellors; consultancies; FSA

IV-2013

[S8] Awareness campaigns on bio-/green waste recycling mainly directed to the Bulgarian public

The following instrument should be used for the campaign and support municipalities:

Brochure "Home composting guide"

Promotion brochure / leaflet / folder / posters/ website proposal with key arguments for biowaste recycling and composting

Promotion brochure / leaflet / folder / with key arguments for biowaste recycling and composting for schools and school kids

Template for municipalities to inform citizens about separate collection with reference to composting

Folder with info to municipalities why and how to implement separate collection and biowaste recycling with key elements (information campaign, type bins/bags, collection date calendar, what should be in the bin/what not, what happens with the compost etc.) combined with a clear message about the necessary changes of the system.

MoEW; PR agency; environmental NGOs; WMA

The communication in the campaign should include: what should be recycled, separated in the household, how does the collection scheme work; the options of composting; (from home to central plants), the compost benefits, successful use, the overall benefits of biowaste recycling to society and the environmental quality, also economic advantages …)-

Addressed to: Municipalities, public

III-2013 Start parallel to enactment of the Ordinances

Intensive phase 2014 and 2015

Ongoing after 2016 but at gradually reduced level

43


After 2014 until mid 2016 when bio-/green waste recycling is nationwide implemented more info is to be spread in additional channels: newspaper article, advertisement, TV spots/video, posters. The intensive phase of PR campaign can be gradually reduced after 2016..

MoEW; PR agency; environmental NGOs; WMA

Communication campaign to residents via the media (articles, advertisement, poster) and internet-

Information to the regional public and private waste management sector (Web, direct mailings, newspaper)

2014 - 2016

[S9] First pilot and demonstration projects on separate collection and composting

MoEW; involved municipalities; WMA; Consultancies; farmers; operators; collectors; planers

I-2013 to II-2014

Part one: planning and implementing separate collection of bio- and green waste Topics: Planning, designing sep. collection scheme (containers, buckets; vehicles; collection frequency; food waste; green waste …; information tools for citizens; project management; financing/funding; calculation of quantities; integration home and community composting etc.)

Part two: planning, application and construction of decentralised open windrow composting plants

Topics: Planning, location, technical composting, operation, quality management, documentation system and data report, costs, financing, end-products, compost use - supplemented by demonstration of plant inspection and control procedures

Organisation of visit tours to show the examples Important: thoroughly planned documentation of the pilot project for the purpose of providing gained experience and data to other municipalities and regions!

Addressed to: All Involved parties

II or III-2014

[S10] Preparation of implementing of Quality Assurance

Stakeholder meeting: presentation of the quality assurance scheme and the preparation of the foundation of the national BG quality assurance organisation QAO

Presentation of QAS Guidance Documents and QAS Procedures Infos (incl. quality criteria, registration procedure of plants & certified compost, approval for labs, plant inspection…)

Description of the future quality assurances organisation (statutes, legal form, responsibilities, internal procedure description, role of quality committee, QAS documents for labs, plants, assessment procedure, use of the quality label etc)

MoEW; MoAF; project team; municipalities; WMA; RIEW:

Project Team and MoEW prepare expert information on the QAS

Addressed to: Consultancies; farmers; operators;; Agric. Chamber; Research Institutes soil / agriculture, laboratories

II-2013 to I-2014

44

Table 11: Medium-Term Actions [M]


[M1A] Extension of the first start up pilot scheme to 4 to 6 regions Establishment of different pilot projects in 4 to 6 regions will allow consistent data collection and evaluation in order to get a representative compilation results.

Different pilot projects on separate collection (participation rates, collected biowaste quantities and qualities, logistics, costs and feed back from citizens; …) in rural, suburban and urban areas; different design of collection schemes

Different pilot projects on composting with on-farm, decentralised and centralised composting systems to get data about different source materials, treatment technologies and qualities as well as acceptance of compost by citizens and different user groups / market sectors

MoEW; MoAF; RIEW; WMA

Very essential for the development to show solutions in practice and to get more data and feedback from the practice from all over the country.

Selection of concrete pilot project in co-operation with RIEW/WMA

Addressed to: WMA, municipalities, farmers

I-2014 to IV-2015

[M1B] Accompanying of the pilot schemes by research projects assessing quantitative and qualitative (social, environmental) and economic indicators

Research institutes; consultancies;

I-2014 to IV-2016

[M2] Training for compost producers, of RIEW and other experts for licensing and controlling and of partners in a quality assurance scheme QAS

MoEW; RIEW; WMA/ some plant operators

Based on the Project's “Handbook Biowaste Management in Bulgaria”

IV-2013

ongoing

Education of compost producers: “The State of the art of composting” & legal framework & quality management

Research institutes; consultancies; MoEW; RIEW;

Addressed to: compost producers / operators including farmers and co-workers; and other experts (control bodies, FSA; Min. of Agric; Veterinary Authorities; EExA etc.)

Support & incentives & funding opportunities / requirements for installations of on-farm compost plants

Training of farmers and municipalities / WMA

Project planning and design in realising On-Farm / Agricultural composting schemes

MoEW; MoAF; RIEW

farmers; consultancies

Rural Development Programme RDP deliver financial sources for education of farmers and for investment in machinery for on-farm composting plants

- And subsidies for the use of compost within the programme for improvement of the environment and sustainable agricultural soil management (organic matter, humus) required by Common Agricultural Policy CAP/Cross Compliance

Information/training on licensing, supervision and reporting of the compost sites with representatives of RIEW in a Inspection and control scheme

MoEW; RIEW; EExA; NSI

Addressed to: MoEW; RIEW; EExA; NSI; Laboratories; QAO

Education on treatment of animal by-products a) Animal By-Products Guideline on definition, materials, national rules/exemption for catering waste, collection, treatment and sanitations requirements in compost/AD plants, control of process and end products

MoEW; MoAF; FSA; Veterinarian Authority; RIEW; EExA; Veterinarian

Addressed to: MoEW; MoAF, FSA, Veterinarian Authority, RIEW, EExA; Veterinarian experts

45


b) Technical guidelines for the processing of catering waste in biogas plants and via composting also if co-processed

experts

[M3] Start-up of quality assurance, setting up national quality assurance organisation QAO

Implementation of the entire QAS requirements with its bodies into a organisational structure

Official adoption of all documents and procedures

Installation of all committees and functions

MoEW; MoAF; municipalities; WMA; RIEW; research institutes; laboratories

Addressed to: see left

II-2014

Start-up event of the QAO with media and involved parties

[M4] Training of laboratories and experts institutes on sampling and analytical methods, compost assessment, test report etc.

Training on sample taking

Training on analytical methods and lab equipment (e.g for biological parameter)

Training on documentation and assessment of results

Training on plant inspection

Template/forms used for analysis results and assessments

Procedure of lab accreditation, organisation of ringtests to qualify the labs

RIEW; MoEW;

Labs; FSA; EExA

Addressed to: see left; sample takers and inspectors of the QAO

II-2014

[M5] Awareness campaigns for quality assurance, certified compost its production and its beneficial use

A basic set of information tools for quality assured composts should be prepared once centrally by means an initial funding by the MoEW/MoAF to reduce design and printing costs. The compost plants can use the tools by printing the address on or use address stickers.

Campaigning, distribution and further development of the information/tools is managed by the QAO and the compost plants

The set of tools should comprise: posters, flyer on quality compost, Website, advertisements, film on use/benefits of compost, stickers, information about the different compost application areas, education material for compost user, education material for public and especially for schools and kids

MoEW; MoAF; QAO; municipalities; WMA

Addressed to: farmers, municipalities; research institutes; compost users and their organisations, hobby gardeners

II-2014

[M6] Market introduction of compost by means of information of researchers, opinion leaders from the application areas of compost and compost users

Information of research (soil, fertilisation - e.g Institute Pushkarov and University for forestry), farmer organisation, horticulture,

Collection of information about the use of compost based on existing documents elsewhere in Europe and starting to compile/translate them into Bulgarian a Bulgarian

MoEW; MoAF; WMA; research institutes; QAO

Addressed to: MoAF; farmers, municipalities; research institutes; compost users and their organisations, hobby gardeners

II-2014

46


knowledge base

Organisation and reporting about additional field trials of compost application for special topics (e.g. N- availability of compost in agriculture) or special areas of use - partly managed in Diploma theses

[M7] Conferences / workshops / meetings for the groups actively involved in biowaste recycling in order to exchange practical experiences, problems and solutions

All Addressed to: All involved parties Once per year from III-2014

47

Table 12: Long-term actions [L]


[L1] Compost market development by information of the main customer groups

Development of technical fact sheets on the use of quality compost in the most important application areas like agriculture, landscaping, hobby gardening and horticulture. Main information to promote the use of compost and for compost sales by the plants.

PR campaign by using the fact sheets as information source e.g. for articles in the media directed to the most important compost user groups e.g. agriculture

MoEW; MoAF and Research Institutes; QAO

Representations of the user organisations e.g. Farmers association;

References can be found in EU MS

Addressed to: compost producers and compost users incl. user organisations

From I-2015

[L2] Extension of separate collection and the necessary treatment capacities incl. quality assurance country wide

2015 ongoing

Identification by WMR and municipalities of areas without separate collection and recycling of biowaste, problems, funding needs, constraints, needs

MoEW; WMA; municipalities; RIEW

Addressed to: WMA, municipalities 2015 ongoing

Consultation on project development and project improvement/adaptation for municipalities in those undeveloped regions

WMA and experts of municipalities; consultants; MoEW

Addressed to: WMA, municipalities

[L3] Reporting system with database for the entire biowaste sector with

Reporting system of the performance in terms of collection, input material, capacity, production, quality and markets

Results of the quality assurance

MoEW; MoAF; MoEnergy. waste statitics department; RIEW; WMA; QAO

Project Team provides examples form other European Countries

There is a need for harmonisation with the data collection requirements of the e.g. Waste Statistic Regulation, RES Directive/biomass action plans and other EU policy action plans,

2015

48


[L4] Assessment and evaluation of the achieved targets and objectives of the implemented projects of separate collection and composting by:

a) Investigation and reporting of best performances and success stories, the benchmarking and indicators for successful setup and design

b) Depending on the assessment outcome: revision of the policy / strategy elements and QAS scheme

c) Workshop: main findings of the assessment and on the current status/ performance, on success stories, shortcomings and optimisation options.

MoEW; MoAF; QAO; WMA; Agric. Chamber

Addressed to: WMA, municipalities, farmers IV-2014 ongoing

[L5] Visit tour to municipalities and facilities with varying features and performance outcomes

MoEW; MoAF; QAO; WMA;

Addressed to: WMA, municipalities, farmers

In order to facilitate the decision making process for a ... · 2 Main Authors: Florian Amlinger,...

Documents

Transcript of In order to facilitate the decision making process for a ... · 2 Main Authors: Florian Amlinger,...