Final Report - InfoTerreinfoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-55007-FR.pdfanalysis and cost/effectiveness...

HOLIWAST Deliverable D0-4b

Second Activity Report Final Report

BRGM/RP-55007-FRApril, 2007

Holiwast 2nd activity report

1/28

PRIORITY [policy-oriented research priority SSP/8.1]

SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH OR INNOVATION PROJECT

HOLIWAST

Holistic assessment of waste management technologies.

Contract number: 006509

April 16th, 2007

Second Interim Activity Report

Period covered by the report: 1st February 2006 to 31st July 2006

Sections included: 1 to 4, Deliverables D1-1, D1-2, D2-1, D2-2, D3-1, D3-2, D5-1

Name of the co-ordinator: Jacques Villeneuve

Project home page: http://holiwast.brgm.fr

Research European Commission


2/28


3/28

Publishable executive summary

The HOLIWAST project intends to give direct decision making tools and policy support in the field of waste management, in particular effective but low cost waste treatment technologies.

The objectives are:

a multidisciplinary (environmental, economic, social) comparison of different waste management technologies;

three case studies showing how to identify the most appropriate technologies within an integrated waste management framework for different socio-economic contexts (rural area in Denmark, medium size city in Poland, large city in Italy);

an evaluation of policy instruments for promoting these technologies and support decision-makers in waste management.

On one hand, individual assessments of policy instruments and technologies lead to highlight their respective advantages/disadvantages on a global basis.

On the other hand, the assessment of the situation of waste management in the three real contexts provided the complete mass and energy balances, and the costs. From these results, environmental pressures are given and are to be included in a cost/benefit analysis and cost/effectiveness analysis.

Finally, the frame of the decision aid tool was designed, representing the most challenging part of this research: the tool will gather socio-economic, political, environmental and technical criteria in such a way as to reproduce the complex network of influences in the decision making process.


4/28


5/28

CONTENTS

1. SECTION 1: PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD .................................................................................................................... 7

1.1. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 7 1.2. STRUCTURE AND WORKPLAN............................................................................................. 7 1.3. MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE SECOND SIX-MONTHS PERIOD...................................... 8

1.3.1. Milestones ............................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2. Deliverables obtained............................................................................................ 9

2. SECTION 2: WORKPACKAGE PROGRESS OF THE PERIOD ......................................... 10 2.1. OVERVIEW OF THE ACTIONS CARRIED OUT ....................................................................... 10 2.2. WORK PACKAGE N°1. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT APPLICATION OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS IN THE FIELD OF WASTE MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1. General objectives............................................................................................... 11 2.2.2. Progress towards objectives, including contribution from partners .................... 11 2.2.3. Deviations from the project workprogramme, corrective actions taken .............. 11

2.3. WORK PACKAGE N°2: ANALYSIS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES. ....................... 12 2.3.1. General objectives............................................................................................... 12 2.3.2. Progress towards objectives, including contribution from partners .................... 12 2.3.3. Deviations from the project workprogramme, corrective actions taken .............. 13

2.4. WORK PACKAGE N°3: SCOPE DEFINITION AND SIMULATION OF 3 CONTRASTED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. .............................................................................................................. 14

2.4.1. Objectives............................................................................................................ 14 2.4.2. Progress towards objectives, including contribution from partners .................... 14 2.4.3. Deviations from the project workprogramme, corrective actions taken .............. 15

2.5. WORK PACKAGE N°4: ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY FOR THE CASE STUDIES. 16


2.6. WORK PACKAGE N°5: ASSESSMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CASE STUDIES...................................................................................................................................... 18


2.7. WORK PACKAGE N°6: DECISION SUPPORT....................................................................... 20 2.7.1. Objectives............................................................................................................ 20 2.7.2. Progress towards objectives, including contribution from partners .................... 20 2.7.3. Deviations from the project workprogramme, corrective actions taken .............. 20

2.8. WORK PACKAGE N°7: DISSEMINATION, COMMUNICATION AND VALORISATION OF PROJECT AND RESULTS. ............................................................................................................................. 21


3. SECTION 3: CONSORTIUM MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 23 3.1. WORK PACKAGE N°0: PROJECT CO-ORDINATION.............................................................. 23 3.2. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 23 3.3. TASKS ACHIEVED DURING THE PERIOD ............................................................................. 23

3.3.1. Task 1: project administration and organisation. ................................................ 23 3.3.2. Task 2: reporting. ................................................................................................ 24 3.3.3. Task 3: smooth and streamline information flow................................................. 24 3.3.4. Task 4: controlling duties of the project (quality, planning, budget).................... 24

3.4. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED AT MANAGEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION LEVEL AND PROPOSED/APPLIED SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................... 24

4. SECTION 4: OTHER ISSUES.............................................................................................. 25

ANNEX: PLAN FOR USING AND DISSEMINATING THE KNOWLEDGE .................................. 26 SECTION 1 - EXPLOITABLE KNOWLEDGE AND ITS USE .................................................................... 26


6/28

SECTION 2 – DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE............................................................................... 27 SECTION 3 - PUBLISHABLE RESULTS ............................................................................................. 28


7/28

1. SECTION 1: PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD

1.1. Objectives of the project

The primary objectives of this Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP) are:

1) to provide a multidisciplinary (environmental, economic, social) comparison of different waste management technologies;

2) to identify how the most appropriate technologies can be implemented within an integrated waste management framework, for different socio-economic contexts;

3) to evaluate the opportunity of policy instruments for promoting these technologies and support decision-makers in waste management.

The results of this STREP are based on real data derived from case studies and matched with the respective social-cultural frame conditions. Consequently the following support can be given directly to policy and decision makers

provision of a tool to assess waste treatment technologies in a wide context;

guidelines and recommendations for the use of results from case studies;

priority criteria for best practice determination;

criteria for benchmarking of available and emerging technologies.

Objective is further the extrapolation and the building of scenarios (simulation of processes) for diffusion of waste treatment technologies and management practices, and assessment of the economic and social consequences. Technology Impact Assessment will give support for selection of the most promising technologies (best practice).

One of the last goals is also the assessment and evaluation of various policy instruments pertaining to waste including the achievement of the respective parts of the waste management hierarchy with regard to material-oriented waste policy/legislation. In this context, evaluation of the achievement of waste prevention, among others, will constitute an integral part of the analysis.

1.2. Structure and workplan

To achieve these objectives the project structure distinguishes work packages of different nature:

One Framework work-package (WP0) – (see section 3 of this report),

Two Topic-specific work-packages (level 1) on assessment of individual policies and individual waste treatment technologies (WP1 and WP2),

Three Topic-specific work-packages (level 2) on assessment for integrated waste management (WP3, WP4, WP5),

Two Horizontal work-packages:

• on derived decision support (WP6),

• on dissemination and valorisation of results (WP7).

To translate the work-packages into action, the project is broken down to four phases:


8/28

the initiation phase is designed to build up the co-ordination process and ensure sound preparation of the both assessment phases;

the assessment phase addresses theoretical work on scientific and technical surveys and analysis of individual waste treatment technologies and implementation of the case studies;

the validation phase is based on the case studies (assessment at level 2) for reference systems and leads to the compilation phase;

deriving direct decision support and compilation of results and deliverables during the final phase aiming at a broad dissemination, valorisation and marketing of knowledge.

1.3. Major achievements during the second six-months period

1.3.1. Milestones

The second six-months period began on the 1st February 2006 and ended on the 31st July 2006. Taken into account the late start of the project, it represents the first real work input. The period was characterised by the first progress meeting the 1-3 March and culminated with the Mid-Term Assessment (MTA) meeting the 28-30 August.

The First progress meeting (6-monthly) was held in Orleans due to a cancellation by SAPM.

The main advances of this meeting were :

• the choice of waste flows included in the system definition of the case studies,

• the choice of the “functional” extension of the system until the point where no further treatment exist,

• the choice of indicators to consider when supplying decision aid in the final tool,

• the shaping of the final decision aid tool.


9/28

1.3.2. Deliverables obtained

Deliverable No

Deliverable title Delivery date

(Month)

Nature Status Dissemination

level

D0-1 Project manual after the kick-off meeting.

6 Report Done(1) Restricted

D0-2 Project web site: http://holiwast.brgm.fr

6 Other Done Public

D0-3 6-monthly activity report 7 Report Done Restricted

D0-4 Annual Management report

6-monthly activity report

14 Report Draft Restricted

D1-1 Review of policy instruments (Waste management policy and policy instruments in Europe – an overview)

10 Report Done Restricted

D1-2 Evaluation of applied policy instruments in case studies

Report Draft Restricted

D2-1 Report on waste management options 10 Report Draft Public

D2-2 Possible schemes on waste management strategies

14 Other Draft Restricted to programme participants

D3-1 Documented models of BAT selected. 14 Report Done Restricted to programme participants

D3-2 Description of simulators of the present state of MSW in three cases.

14 Report Draft Restricted

D5-1 Theoretical analysis of potential socio-economic consequences of the selected optimal system for each region and of the potential differences in the analysis for old and new/future EU Member States

14 Report Done Restricted

(1) The “project manual” is a document were all project information can be gathered (contracts, minutes, working documents, etc) according to commonly used quality standards in Europe. For the interest of all partners and to make it more interactive, BRGM has proposed an “e-project” space in electronic version. The partners can have a protected access to it via internet or via the “holiwast” web site.


10/28

2. SECTION 2: WORKPACKAGE PROGRESS OF THE PERIOD

2.1. Overview of the actions carried out

All work packages have been active during the second six-month period of the project.

On WP1, “Analysis of current application of policy instruments in the field of waste management“, a review of administrative, economic and informative policy instruments highlighted the possibilities and limits of the means in the hands of decision-makers for promoting waste policies. Local dimension was envisaged through interviews of representatives of the three case studies.

On WP2, “Analysis of waste management technologies”, the elements driving the diffusion of various treatment strategies (existing and emerging) have been analysed briefly, including specific EU-Waste Legislation. The focus was made on the current development of separate collection and elements for optimisation of collection of specific waste streams (i.e food, garden and residual waste) and treatment options for the recovery of Biowaste and the treatment of Residual waste. On WP3, “Scope definition and Simulation of 3 contrasted waste management systems”, the simulators of the existing situation in the 3 cases were produced and the results presented.

On WP4, “Assessment of environmental efficiency for the case studies”, the methodological choices concerning the evaluation of the environmental impacts of waste management were made. Questions related to the external effects and their monetisation method have been examined. The last choice of monetisation is not done yet. The analysis of the simulation results through a set of indicators (emissions produced, energy used, land use,…) which will define the total weighted effectiveness of a measure (e.g. best available technique, change of type of collection) compared to the current waste management scenario is going on.

On WP5, “Assessment of socio-economic consequences for the case studies”, the relevant criteria and indicators for the impact assessment were identified and the method of the impact assessment was fine-tuned. The works now focus on an analysis of the political context in which the waste management concepts have to be implemented. For this purpose an “actor-based” impact assessment will be added to the “technical” impact assessment of WP 4.

On WP6, “Decision support”, the development of the decision support software (web-based) has started. The tool is organized around a flow diagram incorporating stakeholders, policy instruments and constraints, waste composition, technologies for waste collection and treatment, impact assessment, feedback and interpretation. The WP leaders are asked for input to the decision support process from the respective WP's as well as help in testing of the tool.

On WP7, “Dissemination, Communication and Valorisation of project and results”, some documents were produced (poster, leaflet), partners attended to meetings where they presented the project, the organisation of the conference began.

Overall, the definition of the final tool for decision support is being developed, all partners contribute to complete it and thus efforts converge towards the main result of the project.


11/28

2.2. Work package N°1. Analysis of current application of policy instruments in the field of waste management.

Work package number WP1 Start date or starting event: Month 1

Participant id BRGM Ecologic SAPM TU Vienna ULund 2.-0 LCA GIG

Person-months per participant: 1 2 0 0 5 0 1

2.2.1. General objectives

The general objective of the WP1 is to provide insights into the environmental effectiveness of policy instruments related to waste management applied in selected socio-economic contexts.

2.2.2. Progress towards objectives, including contribution from partners

Due to the delay of the start of the project, works related to the first two deliverables of the WP1 were conducted in parallel. While preparing the first deliverable (D1-1: Review of policy instruments) mainly via literature review in close collaboration with Ecologic, study visits to three case communities were conducted, in close collaboration with the partners from the respective countries (SAPM, LCA 2,-0 and GIG) to collect materials for the second deliverable (D1-2: Evaluation of applied policy instruments in case studies). The visits to the respective community lasted 2 to 5 days (Tølløse, Denmark: January and July 2006; Torino, Italy: early April 2006; Katowice, Poland: late April 2006).

The D1-1 includes a review of waste policy and legislation at the EU level relevant to the scope of the HOLIWAST project, as well as a review of administrative, economic and informative policy instruments. The chapter on economic instruments was written by Ecologic while the rest of the chapters were written by the ULund. The content of D1-1 takes into consideration, to the extent possible, the request of the leader of WP6 (LCA 2,-0) to facilitate the direct usability of the content of the D1-1 in the final decision making tool. The final draft for D1-1 was completed and put on the project website in May 2006 (month 9).

Concerning D1-2, notes from all the meetings were summarised by ULund and were sent to the project partners/interviewees for confirmation and further questions. ULund is in the process of drafting for D1-2, whose preliminary draft will be completed by mid October.

2.2.3. Deviations from the project workprogramme, corrective actions taken

The deviations concern at present the timetable. Efforts have been made to make up lost time, which led to the delivery of D1-1 on Month 9, while preparation for D1-2 takes place in parallel.


12/28

2.3. Work package N°2: Analysis of waste management technologies.

WP number WP2 Start date or starting event: Month 1


Person-months per participan 1 0 7 2 0 1 2

2.3.1. General objectives

The general objective of WP2 is to draw up a list of waste treatment technologies currently adopted/planned and emerging technologies including an evaluation of current/optimised schemes for source separation focusing on strong and weak points of each technology and to select basic options and combined strategies for subsequent modelling.


The work was started through investigations in literature to seek descriptions of treatment technologies and collection systems.

Efforts have been focused on evaluation of cross-consistency of systems for collection, related changes in waste to be treated and disposed of, and technologies for treatment and disposal.

This establishes a “mobile target” of investigations, since data-mining about collection systems provided for a wide data set according to which deep changes in nature, composition, calorific value and percentage of biodegradables in residual waste is to be expected as a consequence of collection systems that are factually implemented.

This required more time than previously planned in order to define the boundary conditions for adoption of technologies to process biodegradables or dispose of residual waste, which is one key focus of the life-cycle investigation to follow.

Details about such changes in composition of waste and related consequences in terms of processability, energy recovery, fulfilment of landfill diversion targets, etc, were presented at the interim meeting

D2-1 Report on waste management options, was prepared; the Report includes a list and description of Waste management technologies currently adopted, including «emerging» technologies, and an evaluation of these technologies with particular reference to flexibility, scaling down of throughputs, consistency with legislations, affordability, environmental effects, reliability. A draft version of D2-1 was uploaded on the web site in early May. It was revised after contributions by partners’ concerning a review of the layout; also, a more detailed description of conventional technologies (grate incineration, fluidized bed incineration


13/28

and rotary kiln) was provided for the chapter “Options for thermal treatment” with a contribution by TU Wien. Other changes followed, also in parallel to ongoing activities of WP2 and relationships to other WPs, and concerned the following topics: figures for material flow (including air and water) for principal technologies (incineration), PAYT charges applied to collection schemes, finalisation of tables describing advantages/disadvantages and “conditions” for different options for treatment of residual waste. The final revision is being finalised for uploading on the website. A draft was also prepared for D2-2, concerning suitable schemes on waste management strategies in the 3 case-studies (key elements for the choice)..


The deviations concern at present the timetable. An extra time window was required in order to:

finalise investigations on expected results of schemes for separate collection in terms of change of amount and composition of residual waste,

match them with the proposed list of technologies to be considered in modelling,

integrate the contribution from TU Wien with particular reference to flow sheets and mass balance of thermal treatment technologies,

integrate D2-1 with PAYT schemes survey and more comprehensive comments on advantages, constraints and conditions for adoption of different technologies for treatment and disposal of mixed/residual MSW (see chap 4),

Check differences and inconsistencies between Report D1-1 and chapter 1 of D 2-1.


14/28

2.4. Work package N°3: Scope definition and Simulation of 3 contrasted waste management systems.




2.4.1. Objectives

The general objective of WP3 is to supply material balance, energy balance and production costs of waste management systems before and after using BAT in three contrasted situations: rural area in Denmark (Tølløse), medium-size city in Poland (Katowice), large city in Italy (Torino).


The main part of the work was devoted to the creation of the simulators of the existing situation in the three cases studied. This work has been done with active participation of 2.-0 LCA, SAPM, GIG and TU Vienna. The matter and energy balances were considered as well as the costs. On these three aspects, available data showed a wide variety in completeness and details.

Following a report of interview and national Danish data on waste management received from 2.-0 LCA, a simulation for Tølløse was prepared. TU-Vienna sent comments both on the nomenclature of the MFA methodology and on the consideration of the final sinks. Further documents helped to complete and adjust the flow sheet of the simulator. Data concerning the treatment plants have been collected by contact to the regional waste management organisation Noveren. Interviews have been conducted or are in progress with all relevant stakeholder groups i.e. citizens, city council, municipal technical staff, waste collection contractor, the municipal recycling station and Noveren. Data on waste treatment are extracted from yearly accounts and green accounts from Noveren and from average data in Denmark from the Danish EPA. Interviews with DEPA and DAKOFA/affalddanmark has been conducted to get overview of policy instruments and strategies and action plans applied in Denmark as well as implementation of relevant EU directives at national and local level.

Basic data necessary for mass balance of the Katowice waste management system have been collected. The data collection was performed in close cooperation with the Katowice City waste department. To get detailed information regarding collection of waste in Katowice area, interviews of some waste management companies have been conducted, particularly MPGK who collects about 75% of the waste and owns the MBT facility. Waste management strategies and action plans for years 2005 – 2015 on national, regional and Katowice city levels have been overviewed.

Preliminary contacts were taken with Turin Company devoted to collection and treatment of MSW. Despite the operational staff had been deeply engaged in preparation and management of the Olympic Games (Turin was the Olympic host) a first data set about waste management was collected. Further, several visits to Turin (one


15/28

including BRGM and U Lund) enabled to complete the questionnaires for collection operations and most of the needed data for the landfill.

The main time consuming tasks have been to resolve the visible inconsistencies between real data and models results. It has been necessary to get many complements and to decide on a case by case basis, for each step of the waste management systems considered, whether the results obtained by the models were relevant enough or not. The easiest cases to resolve were those for which the answers to the questionnaires were obtained.

The calculation of mass and substance balances for the case studies in Tølløse (Denmark), Katowice (Poland) and Turin (Italy) have been derived by BRGM. Contributions from TU Vienna were done by comments on the first draft of flow sheets especially by defining the system boundaries of the case study regions. Municipal solid waste fractions were selected and important indicators were chosen for the environmental assessment. The actual flow sheets of the status quo scenarios have been checked on plausibility concerning the waste quantities and emission data. Several email contacts while reviewing the calculations took place. Questionnaires concerning cost data of the treatment plants in the case study regions are merged with the questionnaires of BRGM.

The D3-2, “Description of simulators of the present state of MSW in three cases” is being finalised.

Another part of the work has been to develop the models of “BAT” or “emerging technologies” pointed out in WP2 in view of preparing the simulations of scenarios. This task started quite late. SAPM supplied the basic information to represent the operations encountered in MBT plants under a simple “transfer function”. Supplementary literature search was done to find data allowing a more predictive approach. In fact, the MBT operations are sensitive to the characteristics of the input waste (size distribution of the different components) and to the main sizes of the equipment used (size of trommel openings). Predictive modelling may thus be much more reliable than transfer coefficients, particularly in cases where too few data exist on the real situation or in scenarios simulations. In fact, the development of predictive models for MBT has been estimated too time consuming and the models finally developed are based on SAPM transfer data.

The D3-1, “Documented models of BAT selected”, presents a model for collection1, for anaerobic digestion2, composting, splitting and bio-drying. The former two, although beneficiating from previous work, have been completed for Holiwast scenario simulations.


The deviations still concern the timetable. The efforts made during this period lead to recover about half of the lost time. These efforts will be pursued.

1 P. Michel, Y. Ménard, J. Villeneuve, “AWAST niveau 1: vers un AWAST opérationnel” – BRGM/RP-55201-FR

2 J. Villeneuve, Ph. Wavrer, Y. Ménard, P. Michel, “Simulation d'un scénario de gestion des ordures ménagères résiduelles à l'échelle du département des Bouches du Rhône” - BRGM/RP-53891-FR


16/28

2.5. Work package N°4: Assessment of environmental efficiency for the case studies.



Person-months per participant: 1 0.5 1 8 0.5 1 2

2.5.1. Objectives

WP4 includes the objective to extract mass and substance balances of three waste management systems from simulation results of WP3 according to methodology of material flow analysis (MFA).

Secondly, three waste management systems have to be evaluated by applying Cost-Benefit- (CBA) and Cost-Effectiveness-Analysis (CEA), which consider possible criteria such as greenhouse gas emissions, conservation of resources, critical air volume etc.. The selected methods cover emissions to water, air and soil.

Additionally, know how of MFA has to be transferred to the partners.

2.5.2. Progress towards objectives, including contribution from

partners

The overall definition of the current waste management situation according to the methodology of MFA started based on the information given by the simulations of BRGM (indirectly by 2.-0 LCA, GIG and SAPM). Flow sheets are created which show a graphical solution of the importance of flows for the goods (e.g. wastes, residues) between the processes (waste treatment facilities) and each substance (e.g. heavy metals, dioxins) separately using the software STAN.

The two methodologies which will be used in this project to evaluate the environmental impacts of waste management scenarios have been defined. The cost-benefit-analysis scheme is developed and approaches for the cost-effectiveness-analysis are decided. A literature review on former CBA studies showed a variety of results for different waste management concepts.

External effects as produced emissions of waste treatment plants and their monetisation method will influence the case study calculations of the CBA significantly. Suggestions from 2.-0 LCA Consultants have been done to use the “Stepwise monetary endpoint values”. Due to a comparison of these data and existing literature values as avoidance and damage costs showed major differences. However, the final choice of monetisation is not yet made.

A catalogue of the hierarchy of waste management targets leads to a set of indicators (emissions produced, energy used, land use,…) which will define the total weighted effectiveness of a measure (e.g. best available technique, change of type of collection) compared to the current waste management scenario.


17/28


On 4th July 2006 TU-Vienna requested a transfer of 2 person months from year one to year two. Additionally 3 person months more than proposed, not exceeding the total personnel budget have been requested. This additional time will be needed in year two when the data sets of the three case studies are complete and the calculations of the cost-benefit analysis and the cost-effectiveness analysis can be done. This was accepted by the scientific officer Mr. V. Vulturescu per email to the coordinator Mr. J. Villeneuve on 10th July 2006. In the meantime the actual personnel costs for Nina Truttmann are calculated and we have to reduce the additional person month from 3 to 2 month to maintain the proposed budget. The results of this change have no negative effects on the quality of the reports and the total costs of the project will not exceed the original target.

WP3 is delayed. In WP4 we have to extract relevant mass and substance balances from WP3. Therefore D4-1 will be delayed - depending on the availability of the complete scenario data of the case studies - approximately 1 month (month 19).


18/28

2.6. Work package N°5: Assessment of socio-economic consequences for the case studies.

WP number WP5 Start date or starting event: month 9



2.6.1. Objectives

Socio-economic impact assessment of the actual waste management and the optimal waste management scenarios as identified in WP3 and WP4 to ensure a successful implementation of the suggested waste management strategies.


To lay the scientific ground for the socio-economic impact assessment in WP5 some preliminary research has been carried out with the aim to identify the relevant criteria and indicators for the impact assessment.

These criteria have been identified and discussed with the consortium partners. For the evaluation of the cases according to the identified criteria, a draft questionnaire was developed and distributed to the case study leaders. Upon these discussions, the method of the impact assessment was fine-tuned and described in the report to WP5.

WP5 will now focus on an analysis of the political context, in which the waste management concepts have to be implemented. For this purpose an “actor-based” impact assessment will be added to the “technical” impact assessment of WP4.

Holistic Impact Assessment

The impact assessment of the waste management concepts will consist of two approaches:

• a “technical” impact assessment examining the technical, social and environmental facts needed to assess the waste management project. This assessment will mainly be carried out in Work-Package 4,

• an “actor-based” impact assessment examining the political and even the psychological circumstances and dimensions of the waste management concept in a given context (i.e. a certain community.) The “actor-based” impact assessment is carried out in Work-Package 5. It includes political and psychological aspects of the community considered

The combination of these two impact assessments should yield a useful base on which the political decision makers (waste authorities) can justify their decisions. One example of an impact assessment that roughly follows the approach outlined above, was the Strategic Environmental Assessment in the city of Vienna (Austria), which aimed at


19/28

finding the best solutions for waste management after the landfills for solid municipal waste had to be closed due to European and national legislation.

Theoretical framework: Description of political and social conflicts

In order to identify the criteria which have to be examined in the “actor-based” impact assessment, the conflicts which typically arise in the course of the development of a waste-management have been worked out and described. In order to anticipate and prevent / alleviate

The conflicts include:

- Conflict between local political decision makers and local industry;

- Conflict between local political decision makers and local waste management services (local traditions of waste management);

- Conflict between local political decision makers and local citizens/companies producing municipal waste (waste producers);

- Conflict between local political decision makers of different communities forming a union with regard to waste management;

- Conflict between local political decision makers and academics.

Based on the analysis of the conflicts described above the criteria and questions for the questionnaire to be used for the “actor-based” impact assessment have been developed.

The questionnaire was discussed at the meeting in Denmark (August 2006) and will be adapted according to the results of the discussions.


The work on the actor-based impact assessment (Work-Package 5), including the interviews of the stakeholders in the regions, can only begin when the technical recommendations for the different waste management concepts in the regions in Italy, Poland and Denmark are available. Hence WP5 is highly contingent on WP3 and a delay of the deliverable D5-2 can not be excluded.


20/28

2.7. Work package N°6: Decision support.




2.7.1. Objectives

• to develop recommendations regarding local-scale criteria that must be taken into account for adequate policy-making on waste management at local, regional and national levels

• to develop recommendations and associated support tool for best practices adapted to different socio-economic environments


2.-0 LCA consultants has started development of the decision support software (web-based) including presentation for the partner meeting in August. The tool is organized around a flow diagram incorporating stakeholders, policy instruments and constraints, waste composition, technologies for waste collection and treatment, impact assessment, feedback and interpretation. The WP leaders are asked for input to the decisions support process from the respective WP's as well as help in testing of the tool in the second half of the project.


The start-up of the WP was delayed to fit with the partner meeting early March 2006. Since the development of the tool is following the time schedule.


21/28

2.8. Work package N°7: Dissemination, Communication and Valorisation of project and results.



Person-months per participant: 4 1 1 1 1 1 4

2.8.1. Objectives

The global objectives for this work package are:

• to stimulate the dissemination of the HOLIWAST results comprising the whole range of stakeholders

• to maximise the awareness and utilisation of the STREP results at the different levels of practice in Europe


These objectives will be attained through the 4 tasks described in the DoW, namely:

Task 1. Relations with key actors for decision and policy making.

Contacts with key-actors of waste management for the case studies have been maintained.

On 20 April 2006 in Katowice small workshop related to waste policy was organised. During the workshop the idea, objectives, targets and expected results of HOLIWAST project were presented by GIG (presentation in Polish). To facilitate the discussion about policy instruments in Poland, presentation about policy instruments used in different European countries was done by ULund. In the workshop representatives of Municipality of Katowice, Waste Company – MPGK, Waste Treatment Facilities in Katowice, ULund and GIG took part.

Task 2. Providing information.

On 22 and 23 March, 2006 the annual meeting of the Austrian Waste Water and Waste Management Association took place in Vienna. To present and advertise the HOLIWAST project, TU Vienna designed a poster which was exhibited during this meeting.

The information about the HOLIWAST project in Polish has been published on the GIG website: http://www.gig.katowice.pl/gig/projety_euro/VI_ramowy.php.

A leaflet presenting the project has been created by BRGM in English and French. It is accessible through the web site of the project (http://holiwast.brgm.fr) and is currently disseminated by BRGM according to contact opportunities.

Task 3. Use of existing newsletters at national/regional/local levels to ensure wide dissemination of the STREP results. No action undertaken yet.

Task 4. Events.


22/28

Some organisational activities regarding an international conference on EC Waste Policy planned in Cracovia, Poland, on 11-12 June, 2007, were taken. The place of conference, Auditorium Maximum has been reserved. Participation of about 100 people from EU 25 is foreseen. Draft of preliminary programme and budget of conference has been prepared. List of recommended hotels has been done.


None


23/28

3. SECTION 3: CONSORTIUM MANAGEMENT

3.1. Work package N°0: Project co-ordination



Person-months per participant: 1.97 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.2. Management objectives

As stated in the DoW, the project management must ensure:

(i) the preparation, start up and closure of the project administration and organisation,

(ii) the reporting to the EC,

(iii) the smooth and streamlined information flow within the consortium,

(iv) the controlling duties of the project (quality, planning, budget),

(v) the management of the crisis, in case of difficulties of one or more partners of the project, including re-attribution of tasks and/or funds. However, all partners should be committed to fulfil their duties and to contribute to a successful project.

The first management objective was to start the project with a good co-operation between the partners. The following tasks were achieved during the first period: • distribution of the allocated budget coming from the CE to each partner, • organisation of a kick-off-meeting and two six-monthly meetings and, • realisation of the reporting obligations of the consortium by presentation of the

project results and by setting up the web site of the project, • organisation of a common electronic space allowing secured exchanges between

partners.

The second period was more concerned by follow-up actions.

3.3. Tasks achieved during the period

3.3.1. Task 1: project administration and organisation.

One meeting was organised during the period: the first progress meeting the 1-2 March 2006. This meeting initially planned in Monza was finally held in Orléans.

Part of the work was to require documents (administrative forms) and inputs from partners in order to prepare the MTA and annual reports.


24/28

3.3.2. Task 2: reporting.

The reporting obligations were respected. This report is the second 6-monthly report of the project. It is accompanied by the preparation of the first annual management report including the justification of resources, Form C and summary financial report, and also the report on the distribution of the Community financial contribution between contractors.

3.3.3. Task 3: smooth and streamline information flow.

The e-project manual facilitates the exchange of information material and knowledge between partners. Due to the complex information flows induced by the organisation of the project (3 case studies, multi-disciplinary team, links between WPs), most of the communication was based on bilateral contacts, which were put together during the meetings.

3.3.4. Task 4: controlling duties of the project (quality, planning, budget)

At present, the project is around 2 months late. It is to be noted that first all partners have made real efforts in recovering the initial delay and secondly that these efforts have been guided by the main global objective of the project, which is to produce a holistic decision aid tool. Considering the initial planning and organisation of project meetings, the first progress meeting has been organised by BRGM in substitution for SAPM. The overall budget consumption as presented in the joined management report is in line with the progress of the technical work.

3.4. Difficulties encountered at management and co-ordination level and proposed/applied solutions

The comment made in the first activity report is still valid: the difficulties are inherent to a multi-disciplinary consortium. Efforts have to converge towards the unique and main deliverable. It takes time to make sufficient communication and exchanges to make everybody adhere to the same objective. For that purpose, and if it does not cause prejudice to the work time devoted to the project, more contacts would be required between the partners, thus involving more travels expenditures. This aspect is not negligible as bad travel conditions imposed to some partners (mainly SAPM) finally lead to a gap in adhesion to the project.

Most problems in the life of the project were solved by direct e-mail links between the technical, administrative and financial contact persons on the partners and co-ordinator’s sides.


25/28

4. SECTION 4: OTHER ISSUES

None.


26/28

ANNEX: PLAN FOR USING AND DISSEMINATING THE KNOWLEDGE

Section 1 - Exploitable knowledge and its Use

This section will only present exploitable results, defined as knowledge having a potential for industrial or commercial application in research activities or for developing, creating or marketing a product or process or for creating or providing a service.

It should provide an overview, per exploitable result, of how the knowledge could be exploited or used in further research (if relevant). This should be created by the project coordinator obtaining input from each contractor that owns the knowledge and has an active role in its exploitation.

No exploitable result has been defined at the moment.

Overview table

Exploitable Knowledge (description)

Exploitable product(s) or measure(s)

Sector(s) of application

Timetable for

commercial use

Patents or other IPR protection

Owner & Other Partner(s) involved

.


27/28

Section 2 – Dissemination of knowledge

The dissemination activities section should include past and future activities and will normally be in the form of a table maintained by the coordinator or any other person charged with controlling the dissemination activities.

Overview table

Planned/actua

l

Dates

Type

Type of audience

Countries addresse

d

Size of audienc

e

Partner responsible /involved

January 2006

Project web-site General public World

22-23. March 2006

Poster about HOLiWAST

Annual Meeting of the Austrian Water and Waste Association

Austria 20 speaker and 200 participants

TU Vienna

July 2006

Leaflet in English and french

General public Europe BRGM

The overview table should be accompanied by a short description for each major activity (conference, exhibition, etc.) having taken place or planned since the last report.

Relevant details, such as references of journal publications and conferences, website addresses, dates, quantitative data, etc. should be explicitly mentioned.


28/28

Section 3 - Publishable results

This section provides a publishable summary of each exploitable result the project has generated, and should therefore be included only when the consortium is ready to publicise and have taken the appropriate measures to protect their IPR3.

3 Please beware that only information which is readily available in the public domain should be included as this might affect the owner’s right to seek protection (eg patent) the results.

Date post:	16-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Final Report - InfoTerreinfoterre.brgm.fr/rapports/RP-55007-FR.pdfanalysis and cost/effectiveness...

Documents