# EUR-Lex - 52012SA0020 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52012SA0020

**Special Report No 20/2012 ‘Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives?’ **

*

*

GLOSSARY

Administrative measures : In this report, measures adopted through legislation which require waste producers, waste managers and/or municipalities to observe certain requirements such as implementing a permit and inspection system for waste management facilities, establishing separate collection of waste at source or complying with quality standards in the production of compost.

Biodegradable waste : Any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food, garden waste, paper and cardboard.

Cohesion Fund : Financial instrument designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion by financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the EU average.

Economic measures : In this report, measures designed to provide incentives for selecting less damaging options for the management of waste in accordance with EU waste policy (for example recycling instead of landfilling). These include "pay as you throw" tariffs as well as waste disposal taxes.

Effectiveness : Measure of the relationship between the results obtained and the objectives set.

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) : Financial instrument designed to promote economic and social cohesion between the regions of the EU. ERDF interventions are mainly implemented through operational programmes and single programming documents encompassing a large number of projects.

EU-27 : The 27 Member States of the European Union.

EU-12 : Member States which have joined the EU as part of the accessions of 2004 (10 Member States) and 2007 (two Member States).

Information measures : In this report, measures concerning the provision of information intended to encourage good waste disposal practices on the part of the public to contribute to the effectiveness of waste management policy. Awareness-raising campaigns and educational strategies are two examples.

Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) : Financial instrument to assist the candidate countries in the preparation for accession. It provides assistance for infrastructure projects in the EU priority fields of environment and transport. After accession, ISPA projects turned into Cohesion Fund projects.

Leachate : Any liquid percolating through the deposited waste.

Municipal waste : Waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed of through the waste management system. The bulk of this waste stream is from households, though "similar" wastes from sources such as commerce, offices and public institutions are included. Municipal waste is composed, for example, of biodegradable material, paper, plastics, glass, metals, textile, etc. (source: Eurostat).

Operational programme : A document approved by the Commission, which takes the form of a coherent set of priorities comprising multiannual measures encompassing a large number of projects.

"Polluter pays principle" : According to this principle, the costs of waste management shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holders (source: waste directive).

Programming period : The multiannual framework within which structural measures expenditure is planned and implemented.

Structural measures : In this report, interventions from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and from the Cohesion Fund.

Waste disposal tax : An economic measure designed to increase the cost of landfilling and in some cases also of incinerating and therefore to provide an incentive to recycle. The tax, paid per tonne of waste disposed, is charged on top of landfill and/or incineration fees.

Waste tariff : Price charged by municipalities to households for the collection, treatment and disposal of waste. Waste tariffs can be calculated in different ways by municipalities (e.g. square metres of apartments or houses, number of persons in households, consumption of drinking water, weight or volume of waste generated, etc.).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. In 2010, each EU-27 citizen generated on average approximately 500 kg of municipal waste, which if not collected, treated and disposed of properly, can cause negative environmental impacts. However, proper waste management can lead to an improvement of the use of resources as municipal waste is a source of raw materials. As a result, the EU has introduced common standards and targets in the form of directives for the management of municipal waste and co-finances waste management infrastructures in specific regions.

II. The Court’s audit focused on EU co-financing of municipal waste management infrastructures and examined whether the funding was effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives. The Court assessed directly the performance of 26 sampled waste management infrastructures and reviewed the achievement of EU waste policy objectives as well as the implementation of supporting measures in the eight regions where the infrastructures were located. The role of the Commission was also examined.

III. The Court concluded that, although in almost all the regions selected some improvements in the management of waste were observed, the effectiveness of structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructures was hampered by the poor implementation of supporting measures:

(a) The performance of the co-financed infrastructures was highly dependent upon waste collection strategies. Concerning landfills, waste was deposited without adequate treatment and in general insufficient financial amounts were put aside to cover closure and after-care costs.

(b) The reporting on the achievement of EU targets was hampered by the reliability of data, making monitoring by the Commission difficult. Although in almost all regions some improvements in waste management were observed, per capita waste generation increased in six of the eight regions audited. In the two regions which contributed to the achievement of EU targets, biodegradable waste was collected separately and landfill taxes more widely implemented resulting in a reduction of the reliance on landfilling. Waste was generally landfilled without adequate treatment.

(c) The effectiveness of EU funding was not maximised due to the weak implementation of supporting informative, administrative and economic measures. The implementation of these supporting measures was not a condition for receiving an EU grant. Weaknesses were also noted in the EU waste regulatory framework and EU guidelines.

IV. The Court recommends that:

(a) Member States should focus on waste management infrastructures treating waste previously segregated at source and ensure that landfills treat waste before disposal and possess a sufficient financial security to cover closure and after-care costs. The Commission should request the implementation of these recommendations from the Member States before granting EU financial support.

(b) Member States should set up reliable and complete waste management databases and the Commission should test the reliability of the statistics received from the Member States. The Commission, the Parliament and the Council should consider linking EU financial support to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives.

(c) Member States should implement information, administrative and economic measures to support the co-financed infrastructures. In particular, Member States should pay greater attention to public participation and adherence, focus on separate collection implementation including biodegradable waste when cost effective and implement a landfill tax as well as incentives via tariff to encourage waste prevention and recycling. The Commission should request the implementation of these recommendations from the Member States before granting EU financial support; reduced rates of assistance should be applied when the "polluter pays principle" is not applied.

(d) The Commission should improve the EU waste regulatory framework and EU guidelines. In particular, the Commission should propose waste prevention targets, clarify the concept of treatment before disposal, consider the opportunity to develop with Member States EU quality standards for compost and provide appropriate guidance and disseminate best practices in relation to the methodology to be used to estimate closure and after-care costs of landfills.

INTRODUCTION

MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE EU

1. European society has grown wealthier over the last decade, with increased levels of consumption and production. In 2010, each EU citizen generated on average 502 kg of municipal waste, ranging from 304 kg in Latvia to 760 kg in Cyprus (see Figure 1).

2. Municipal waste, if not collected, treated and disposed of properly, is a threat to public health and can cause negative environmental impacts on air (by means of greenhouse gases), soil (via leachates due to illegal dumping or poorly controlled landfills) and water (through water coming into contact with waste and entering aquifers or surface water), as well as problems with odours.

FIGURE 1

PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATION IN 2010 BY MEMBER STATE

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: Eurostat.

3. Proper waste management can lead to an improvement in the use of resources as municipal waste can be a source of raw materials. Paper, cardboard, metals, glass and plastic can be recycled, and biodegradable waste transformed into nutrient-rich compost to be used in agriculture as a soil improver. What remains can be incinerated (energy recovery) or disposed of in landfill.

4. A diagram of the main elements of municipal waste management is provided in Annex I. The following types of infrastructures, together with the collection of waste (separate or non-segregated at source), make up the typical municipal waste management system:

(a) sorting plant: a facility intended to segregate recyclables such as paper and cardboard, glass, packaging and metals, through manual sorting belts and/or automatic processes such as air flow or optical separators;

(b) composting and anaerobic digestion plants: facilities designed to treat biodegradable waste. Composting plants perform an aerobic biological process to convert biodegradable waste into a stable granular material which can be applied to land as soil improver whereas anaerobic digestion plants apply chemicals to aid the decomposition process. Here, in the absence of air, bacteria acts on biodegradable waste to convert it into a digest and methane-rich biogas to be used to produce energy;

(c) mechanical biological treatment plant: a facility combining sorting with a form of biological treatment such as composting or anaerobic digestion. The mechanical treatment stage separates the biodegradable and dry parts of the waste and in some cases segregates recyclables. Then the biodegradable matter undergoes a biological treatment;

(d) incinerator: a plant intended to burn waste with or without energy recovery;

(e) landfill: a site for the disposal of waste materials which are deposited into or on to land.

5. Landfilling remains the dominant waste management option in most EU Member States, even if energy recovery and especially recycling have gained importance in recent years (see Figure 2).

6. In order to reduce the negative impact of municipal waste on the environment and public health and to promote a more efficient use of resources, the EU has introduced general principles and common standards and targets in the form of directives, for the management of municipal waste.

FIGURE 2

MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT IN 2010 BY MEMBER STATE

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: Eurostat.

7. The framework of EU waste policy was established in the directive of 15 July 1975 [1]. According to this directive, EU waste policy is based on the promotion of prevention, re-use and recycling of waste. If waste generation cannot be prevented, as many of the materials as possible should be recovered, preferably by recycling, with landfill only used as a last resort. It also introduced the "polluter pays principle". The 2008 waste directive [2] further developed these principles by establishing a compulsory five-step waste hierarchy pyramid (see Figure 3).

8. The waste directive was complemented by a number of specific directives for waste treatment operations (landfilling [3] and incineration [4]) or specific waste streams, such as packaging [5] or electrical and electronic equipment [6]. These directives set quantitative targets to be met by Member States in terms of percentage of biodegradable waste diversion from landfill, packaging recycling and recovery rates and separate collection of electrical and electronic equipment waste. Deadlines to comply with targets were extended for some Member States to take into account their starting situation in terms of waste management (see Table 1).

FIGURE 3

WASTE HIERARCHY PYRAMID

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Court of Auditors.

9. The effectiveness of waste management policy can be improved through supporting measures such as the running of information and awareness campaigns, the redesigning of administrative procedures or the putting in place of financial incentives or disincentives. Sometimes these are required by regulation, such as the need to adequately inform consumers, but in other cases, they are the result of experience gained in the management of municipal waste, such as the implementation of a waste disposal tax or the separate collection of biodegradable waste.

TABLE 1

TARGETS TO BE MET BY MEMBER STATES

Source: EU waste directives.

Directives | Targets |

Landfill directive | General target: Biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 75 %, 50 % and 35 % of the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995, by the end of 2006, 2009 and 2016 respectively. |

Specific target for Portugal and Romania: Deadlines are the end of 2010, 2013 and 2020 respectively. |

Packaging directive | General target: By the end of 2008, 60 % as a minimum by weight of packaging waste must be recovered and between 55 % as a minimum and 80 % as a maximum recycled. Moreover, the following minimum recycling targets for materials contained in packaging waste must be attained: 60 % by weight for glass, 60 % by weight for paper and cardboard, 50 % by weight for metals, 22,5 % by weight for plastics and 15 % by weight for wood. |

Specific target for Portugal: By the end of 2005 the recovery of packaging waste should reach 50–65 %, and 25–45 % by weight of the totality of packaging materials contained in packaging waste should be recycled (with a minimum of 15 % by weight for each packaging material). The 2008 general target should be achieved by 2011. |

Specific target for Romania: The 2008 general target must be met by 2013 with intermediate targets. |

Electrical and electronic equipment waste directive | A rate of separate collection of at least 4 kg on average per inhabitant per year of electrical and electronic equipment waste from private households must be achieved by the end of 2006. |

Specific target for Romania: A rate of separate collection of at least 2, 3 and 4 kg on average per inhabitant per year of electrical and electronic equipment waste from private households must be achieved by the end of 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. |

EU STRUCTURAL MEASURES CO-FINANCING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURES

10. In specific regions, Member States may request EU financial support for infrastructures in the field of municipal waste management through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF). During the 2000–06 programming period, 4,6 billion euro was earmarked from these funds for urban and industrial waste infrastructures. For the 2007–13 period, the EU contribution to waste infrastructures will increase to 6,2 billion euro, of which around 70 % will be in the EU-12 Member States. EU earmarked amounts by Member State for both programming periods are provided in Annex II.

11. Co-financed infrastructures are implemented under shared management, with the Commission bearing the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the EU budget [7]. During the 2000–06 programming period, in addition to the approval of operational programmes, the Commission approved the applications submitted by Member States for all Cohesion Fund projects and for ERDF projects whose total cost exceeded 50 million euro (major projects). For the 2007–13 programming period, apart from the approval of programmes, only projects which have a cost in excess of 50 million euro have to be approved by the Commission [8].

12. Two directorates-general of the Commission [9] have a significant role in the area of municipal waste:

(a) DG Environment is responsible for EU environmental policy in the field of waste management. It is required to monitor the implementation of the related legislation (such as the achievement of specific targets) and is consulted by DG Regional and Urban Policy when examining the quality of operational programme proposals and major projects [10];

(b) DG Regional and Urban Policy is responsible for the EU budget in the area of regional policy, under which waste management infrastructure projects can be co-financed.

13. During the 2000–06 programming period, structural measures mainly co-financed the following types of waste management infrastructures: sorting plants (see Picture 1), composting and anaerobic digestion plants (see Picture 2), mechanical biological treatment facilities, separate collection systems and landfills (both the construction of new ones and the closure and rehabilitation of old ones) (see Picture 3). These types of infrastructure are expected to contribute to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives of diverting biodegradable waste from landfills and increasing recycling rates (see Box 1).

BOX 1

EXAMPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURES CO-FINANCED BY THE EU

A sorting plant in Portugal (Resitejo), with a capacity of 9000 tonnes per year, aimed at recuperating packaging waste and paper and glass previously segregated at source in a group of municipalities. The recyclable materials, sorted manually, were sold to recycling operators and residual waste was conveyed to an adjacent landfill site. The cost of the project eligible for EU assistance was 2,28 million euro, with 1,71 million euro of ERDF co-financing.

In Romania, a composting plant (Râmnicu Vâlcea) intended to treat biodegradable waste collected separately from households as well as green waste from municipal parks and to transform it into compost. With a capacity to treat 14400 tonnes of waste per year, the plant was designed to contribute to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills in line with the landfill directive targets. The infrastructure was part of an integrated waste management project costing 14,67 million euro for which EU assistance amounted to 11 million euro.

A project in Spain (Alt Empordà) consisted of the enlargement of a landfill with a capacity of 1167603 m3 as well as of the improvement of the existing cells in terms of gas and leachate collection and treatment in order to reduce the environmental impact of the site. The cost of the project was 5,71 million euro, 4,57 million euro of which came from the Cohesion Fund.

+++++ TIFF +++++

+++++ TIFF +++++

+++++ TIFF +++++

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

14. The main objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of structural measures funding of municipal waste management infrastructures in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives.

15. The Court addressed the following three questions:

(a) Have municipal waste management infrastructures been successful?

(b) Have EU waste policy objectives been achieved at regional level [11]?

(c) Were measures put in place to maximise the effectiveness of EU funding?

16. Assessment criteria used for the audit are explained further in the report, under each question (see paragraphs 20, 21, 35 and 45). As is usually the case in performance audit, they take into account examples of good practice observed in the domain (see paragraph 9).

17. The audit was carried out at the European Commission and in eight regions in four Member States (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Romania). The sample of infrastructures audited focused on Member States and regions receiving a high-level EU financial support for waste management during the 2000–06 and 2007–13 programming periods and where a sufficient number of completed projects were available at the time of the audit, so that their effectiveness could be assessed. Annex III contains the list of infrastructures audited as well as of the operational programmes reviewed.

18. The audit was based on an assessment of:

(a) the performance of a sample of 26 waste management infrastructures co-financed during the 2000–06 programming period [12]: five sorting facilities, seven composting or anaerobic digestion plants, seven mechanical biological treatment plants and seven landfills;

(b) the achievement of EU municipal solid waste objectives in the eight regions audited;

(c) the implementation in the regions sampled of supporting measures as well as of the role of the Commission to maximise the effectiveness of EU funding.

19. The audit was conducted between January and November 2011. Project files were reviewed at the Commission and in the four Member States sampled and interviews were held with Commission staff, Member State authorities and infrastructure operators. All the waste management infrastructures in the sample were visited during the course of the audit. The Court was assisted by external independent experts knowledgeable in the field of municipal waste management. Audit criteria were established with the assistance of external experts and discussed with the Commission when planning the audit.

OBSERVATIONS

HAVE MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURES BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

20. The performance of the co-financed infrastructures should be in line with their technical design, the funding application and generally accepted standards.

21. According to the waste directive, waste management infrastructures have to be designed and operated to guarantee that waste is treated and disposed of without risk to water, air and soil and without causing noise or odour problems. In addition, the landfill directive requires the setting-up of a financial security to cover closure and after-care costs for a period of at least 30 years, as potential environmental threats extend after the operational phase.

22. The Court examined whether:

(a) co-financed municipal waste management infrastructures were effective, in terms of the achievement of the expected results;

(b) the operation of co-financed municipal waste management infrastructures had caused environmental problems.

WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANTS WERE EFFECTIVE TO VARYING DEGREES BUT THOSE RECEIVING UNSORTED WASTE UNDERPERFORMED

SORTING PLANTS

23. The five sorting plants reviewed by the Court, which were designed to recuperate packaging waste (and in some cases paper and glass) segregated at source by households, generally performed satisfactorily in relation to their technical design and to generally acceptable standards in terms of ratio input/output [13] and quality of the materials recovered:

(a) they recovered between 50 % and 74 % of the packaging waste received;

(b) the quality of the materials recovered was usually in line with market specifications and therefore was saleable.

24. However, three of the five sorting plants were operating at between 106 % and 154 % of their design capacity after 6 or 7 years of operation due to weaknesses at the planning stage of the infrastructures. In one case more municipalities than initially planned were served by the plant and in two cases the quantity of waste collected separately at source exceeded the forecast. Overloading results in the risk of reducing the ratio of materials recovered as well as of not meeting the quality standards for recovered materials required by recycling companies.

COMPOSTING AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PLANTS

25. The performance of the seven composting or anaerobic digestion plants, intended to treat biodegradable waste producing compost, varied. The Court noted that:

(a) the quantity of compost produced compared to the tonnage of municipal waste entering the facilities was below the design target in four of the selected plants (the ratio input/output ranged in those plants from 1 % to 22 %) resulting in significant quantities of residual waste being landfilled;

(b) in two plants, the quality of the compost produced was below the objectives set in the applications, especially when it resulted from mixed waste, as a result of the high content of heavy metals, therefore reducing its suitability for other usages, such as agriculture. In a third plant the operator only tested the content of heavy metals during the first year of operation and not in the following 4 years;

BOX 2

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW COMPOST CAN SUCCESSFULLY BE MARKETED

A Portuguese composting plant (LIPOR), serving approximately 1 million inhabitants, received only separately collected biodegradable waste, whether food and kitchen or green waste. The operator of the plant, through actions such as the development of awareness campaigns, focused on the appropriate sorting and collection of biodegradable waste in order to improve the quality of the raw material going into compost. In 2010, the plant produced 10027 tonnes of high-quality compost, which was easily marketed at an average price of 71,8 euro per tonne.

(c) the compost produced was difficult to sell in five of the seven facilities sampled due to the lack of development of the compost market [14] and its poor quality. The compost was eventually disposed of for less than 1 euro per tonne. In two cases, stocks were accumulated despite production being significantly below target;

(d) two plants were operating at a rate below 10 % of their capacity as most biodegradable waste collected separately was unusable because it was mixed with other types of waste and had to be directly landfilled. In contrast, two other plants were overloaded as they were operating at 102 % and 119 % of capacity.

MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANTS

26. Six audited mechanical biological treatment plants were operational; however, a seventh, located in Puglia, for which the works were completed in 2003 was not in operation at the time of the audit due to significant problems in the awarding of the contract for the operation and in delays in obtaining the necessary permits. During this period since 2003, the plant has been kept under conservative maintenance at a cost of 3,5 million euro (or 24 % of the total investment cost) supported by the Member State.

27. Five of the six operational mechanical biological treatment plants audited, were intended to treat mixed waste (including biodegradable waste). The Court noted a very low performance in terms of recovered materials and waste diversion from landfill. In terms of performance these six mechanical biological treatment plants can be divided into three groups:

(a) one mechanical biological treatment plant clearly contributed to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives and particularly to landfill diversion, even if not fully achieving the targets set in its technical design (see Box 3);

(b) another mechanical biological treatment plant had a mixed level of performance. It succeeded in sending the dry part of the waste to an external plant to produce refuse-derived fuel and less than 50 % of the waste entering the plant was landfilled. However, with the exception of a small amount of metals recovery, no other material recovery was carried out, and biodegradable waste was not recycled as all the digest resulting from the process was landfilled;

(c) four mechanical biological treatment plants did not significantly reduce the quantity of waste landfilled (see Box 4).

BOX 3

EXAMPLE OF ONE MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT IN LINE WITH EU WASTE HIERARCHY AND WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL

One mechanical biological treatment plant in Spain (Sant Adrià de Besòs) received only residual waste, as packaging, glass, paper and cardboard, and biodegradable waste were previously separately collected through dedicated bins available for the entire population of the area covered by the facility. The plant separated the dry fraction from the biowaste. The remaining dry fraction, following the recovery of materials suitable for sale to reprocessors, such as glass, plastics, metals and paper and cardboard, was incinerated and energy recovered in a facility within the same waste management complex. Biowaste was subject to an anaerobic treatment to produce biogas which was then used as a source of energy. As a result of the process, in 2010, materials recovery amounted to 8 % of residual waste entering the plant compared to 10 % set in the application, biodegradable matter for biological treatment to 20 % compared to 26,5 % planned and residual waste for incineration to 70 % compared to 63,5 %.

BOX 4

FOUR MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANTS NOT ACHIEVING THEIR TARGETS AND NOT CONTRIBUTING TO WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILLS

In three Italian mechanical biological treatment facilities (Villacidro, Olbia and Cerignola) the operator entirely landfilled the outputs from the process: the dry fraction with no material recovery as well as the digest produced, amounting in total to 68 %, 82 % and 93 % of the waste entering the respective facilities. Only process losses (such as evaporation or leachate generation) reduced the quantity of waste landfilled. In two of the plants the co-financed machinery for refuse-derived fuel production was in one case not put into operation and in the other was dismantled as a result of the lack of potential buyers for the fuel. The mechanical sorting unit of the third plant was not in use 6 years after the plant entered into operation, as it was no longer required, since biodegradable waste was collected separately at source.

Moreover, the three plants were overloaded and as a result 13 %, 52 % and 65 % respectively of the waste received by the facilities was not treated at all and directly landfilled with a high content of biodegradable matter, as biodegradable waste was not collected separately in two cases.

The fourth plant within this group (Linares, Spain) had implemented the recovery of materials and did not landfill the compost produced, which was used in civil works and in agriculture. However, recovery targets were not met: only between 6 % and 9 % of biodegradable waste and 4 % of recoverable materials were recovered compared to a target of 25 % to 28 % and 7 % to 8 % respectively. As a result 85 % of waste entering the plant was landfilled with a high content of biodegradable matter. The resulting compost produced was difficult to sell and approximately 50 % of total production of the plant was stockpiled at the time of the audit.

LANDFILLS

28. Regarding the seven selected landfill sites, the Court noted that the quantity of biodegradable waste landfilled ranged from 31 % to 55 % of total waste landfilled as a result of a failure to effectively treat such waste:

(a) waste was landfilled without any treatment in five of the seven landfills reviewed. Even if, in three of these five landfill sites biodegradable waste was collected separately, in two cases more than 90 % of biodegradable waste was contaminated with non-biodegradable waste and as a result directly landfilled;

(b) waste deposited in the remaining two selected landfills was treated in mechanical biological treatment plants prior to disposal. However, the two treatment facilities did not perform satisfactorily. One of the plants was overloaded (52 % of the waste received was directly sent to landfill without treatment). The second one did not reach the biodegradable waste recovery target set in its technical design and, as a result, waste was landfilled with a high content of biodegradable matter (see Box 4).

ALMOST ALL INFRASTRUCTURES MET ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF LANDFILLS LACKED THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR CLOSURE AND AFTER-CARE COSTS

29. For 25 of the 26 waste management infrastructures selected, the Court’s review of data indicated that environmental impacts on air, water and soil were generally monitored. Projects complied in most cases with their respective permits. One plant was not yet in operation at the time of the audit (see paragraph 26).

30. However, at the time of the audit, in two of the seven selected landfills, gas resulting from the decomposition of biodegradable waste deposited was not collected and treated or flared, as required by the landfill directive (see Box 5). Uncontrolled landfill gas can pollute the atmosphere, affect vegetation and cause explosions.

31. The Court also noted problems regarding the applicable limits for odour emissions set out in the national environmental permits in one third of the infrastructures, at least during certain periods of their operation. A lack of monitoring with regard to odours was noted in another third of the selected infrastructures. Two of the plants failing to monitor odour levels were at the same time in receipt of EU co-financing for complementary works to deal with odour problems.

BOX 5

TWO LANDFILLS LACKED GAS COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OR FLARING

In one of the landfills in Italy (Cavallino), waste was being deposited for 3 years and at the time of the audit the utilisation rate was approximately 70 %. The gas generated as a result of the decomposition of biodegradable matter was being released into the atmosphere without being treated or flared as the construction of the infrastructure for gas collection had not been completed.

In a landfill in Romania (Piatra Neamt), almost 2 years after starting operation, the Court noted that no landfill gas collection system was either in place, under construction or being planned.

These two landfills received a significant amount of biodegradable waste as a result of a lack of or deficient treatment prior to disposal, which made the collection and treatment or flaring of gas even more relevant in order to safeguard the atmosphere.

32. However, half of the infrastructures which had problems with odour management did not change their operational processes or make complementary investments to solve such problems (see Box 6).

33. The potential impacts on the environment resulting from the operation of landfill sites are not limited to the operational period of the infrastructure, as potential leachate infiltrations and landfill gas emissions last for decades after waste disposal has finished. For this reason, the landfill directive requires the setting aside of amounts to cover closure and after-care costs for a period of at least 30 years. However, five of the seven selected landfills lacked a sufficient financial security for this purpose. In these cases, the amounts actually deposited, regardless of the methodology for their calculation, are not sufficient to ensure that appropriate funding will be available, once landfills cease operation, to prevent long-term threats to the environment such as the pollution of groundwater by leachate infiltration into the soil or the pollution of the atmosphere by landfill gas emissions.

BOX 6

EXAMPLES OF WAYS TO DIMINISH ODOUR PROBLEMS

In two composting/anaerobic digestion plants (Valorsul, Portugal and Gironés, Spain) odour problems were noted by independent monitoring. To tackle this situation the operators implemented changes in the operation process, such as modifying the schedule and timing of the turning of the compost, or in the maintenance of, for example, the biofilters. A reporting system was implemented in one of the plants to allow residents to complain of unpleasant odours by SMS to the operator.

In two of the landfills in Portugal (Residouro and Baixo Tâmega) complaints about odour problems were registered during the first years of operation. Deodorant emission systems were installed which were activated when necessary.

34. The Court also noted significant differences in the methodologies in place in the regions to determine the amount of the financial security, resulting in very different amounts (ranging from 370000 euro to 4180000 euro for a landfill with a capacity about 1,4 million m3). These methodologies do not provide satisfactory assurance that sufficient funding will be available to cover closure and after-care costs for a period of 30 years. In some cases the financial security was determined by the cost of the landfill infrastructure, whereas in others the amount was set taking into account the capacity of the landfill, its surface or the tonnes deposited.

HAVE EU WASTE POLICY OBJECTIVES BEEN ACHIEVED AT REGIONAL LEVEL?

35. Structural measures funding for municipal waste infrastructures should help the beneficiary regions to meet the waste policy objectives set in EU directives. In particular, municipal waste prevention should be encouraged, regions should be increasing their separate collection rate so that they can contribute to achieving EU targets11 for recycling and recovery, and the reliance on final disposal in landfills should be reduced.

36. The Court examined whether:

(a) the situation regarding the prevention of municipal waste was improving in the regions sampled;

(b) regions had increased their separate collection rate, contributed to meeting EU targets for specific waste streams and reduced their reliance on landfilling;

(c) illegal dumps had been eradicated and waste was being pre-treated before disposal in landfills.

INCONSISTENT DATA REPORTING

37. Following its visits to eight regions in the four Member States sampled, the Court noted some inconsistencies regarding the reporting of the achievement of EU targets. Data reported to the Commission could not always be reconciled with the figures available in Member States. Such inconsistencies can make it difficult for the Commission to assess whether EU waste targets are actually being achieved (see Box 7). The Commission checks the consistency of figures received, but does not assess their reliability.

38. Moreover, the Commission does not compile information on the contribution of the regions to achieving EU targets despite the fact that, in six of the eight regions visited, waste management plans which take into account EU targets are prepared at regional level. Reporting at national level can mask major disparities in waste management performance within a Member State, as was the case for Andalucía and Puglia when compared with the overall situation in Spain and Italy respectively.

BOX 7

EXAMPLES OF CASES WHERE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECONCILE DATA IN MEMBER STATES WITH DATA REPORTED TO THE COMMISSION

In Spain, in relation to the achievement of the landfill directive target, the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for consolidating the data from the regions and reporting to the Commission. Andalucía reported, the quantity of biodegradable waste landfilled in 2009 as being 500000 tonnes, whereas based on data obtained during the audit the Court estimated that the quantity should have been approximately 1800000 tonnes. As a result, in 2009 Spain landfilled 58 % of the biodegradable waste produced in 1995, and not 47 % as reported to the Commission, and failed to meet the landfill target for the year set at 50 %.

In Portugal, where no data were available at regional level on the achievement of the targets set in EU directives, data reported at national level to the Commission showed compliance with the landfill directive for 2006 as well as with the packaging directive for 2005. However, data obtained during the audit indicated that the landfill directive target for 2006 was narrowly missed and that the packaging directive targets for 2005 were missed in respect of the recycling of plastic packaging (by 46,95 %).

THE GENERATION OF WASTE INCREASED IN SIX OF THE REGIONS SAMPLED

39. Contrary to the trend observed for the EU-27 average, which shows that despite continuous economic growth until 2008 municipal waste generation has stabilised at around 520 kg/capita, since 2000 per capita waste generation increased in six of the regions sampled. In the two remaining regions, Sardinia and Catalonia, it stabilised. In 2009 the per capita waste generation in half of the regions sampled exceeded the EU-27 average as well as the average of the respective Member State, while this was not the case in 2000 for any of the regions sampled.

ONLY ONE QUARTER OF THE REGIONS SAMPLED SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THEIR SEPARATE COLLECTION RATE, REDUCED THEIR RELIANCE ON LANDFILLING AND CONTRIBUTED TO MEETING EU TARGETS

40. Only two of the regions selected, Sardinia and Catalonia, made significant progress with separate collection and diversion from landfill. The Court noted an increase in the separate collection rate for Sardinia from 2 % in 2000 to 43 % in 2009 and for Catalonia from 13 % to 38 % over the same period. There was also a resulting decrease in municipal waste landfilling over the same period from 74 % to 23 % for Sardinia and from 64 % to 39 % for Catalonia (see Figure 4) [15].

41. In these two regions a reduction of waste landfilled in kilograms per capita was observed, whereas this indicator remained almost stable or increased in the other six regions sampled (see Figure 5).

FIGURE 4

EVOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE SEPARATE COLLECTION AND LANDFILL RATES IN THE REGIONS SAMPLED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2009 [16]

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels.

FIGURE 5

WASTE LANDFILLED PER CAPITA (KG) IN 2000 AND 2009 [17]

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels.

42. The same regions, Sardinia and Catalonia, are the only ones which contributed to achieving EU targets for specific types of municipal waste:

(a) in terms of diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills, only Sardinia and Catalonia contributed to meeting the landfill directive targets. Two other regions did not contribute to meeting the EU targets; and for four others the deadline to achieve the target was 2010. Data for 2010 was not available at the time of the audit, but the trend in years prior to 2010 did not show an increase of biodegradable waste diversion [18] (see Table 2);

(b) concerning packaging directive targets, the situation noted in the eight regions varied significantly. Catalonia, Sardinia and Andalucía contributed to achieving EU targets. In the five other regions, no specific monitoring was carried out at regional level. The Court estimated, based on data obtained in the Member States, that these regions were unlikely to contribute to achieving EU targets due to the low separate collection rate;

(c) five of the eight regions sampled [19] did not contribute to achieving the EU target for separate collection of electrical and electronic equipment to be achieved in 2006 in accordance to the electrical and electronic equipment waste directive, even if in general a positive trend was noted. Catalonia had already contributed in 2006 and Sardinia and Puglia in 2009 and 2010.

TABLE 2

BIODEGRADABLE WASTE LANDFILLED RATE TREND ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BIODEGRADABLE MUNICIPAL WASTE PRODUCED IN 1995

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels.

| 2006 | 2009 |

Regions sampled | Achieved | Target | Achieved | Target |

ES-Catalonia | 69 % | < 75 % | 45 % | < 50 % |

IT-Sardinia | 59 % | < 75 % | 36 % | < 50 % |

IT-Puglia | 84 % [2222] | < 75 % | 85 % | < 50 % |

ES-Andalucía | 87 % | < 75 % | 93 % | < 50 % |

Portugal [1111] | 79 % | NA | 78 % | < 75 % [5555] |

RO-Nord-Est | 56 % [3333] | NA | 69 % [3333] | < 75 % [5555] |

RO-Sud-Vest | 75 % [4444] | NA | 87 % | < 75 % [5555] |

ILLEGAL DUMPS WERE ERADICATED IN HALF OF THE REGIONS BUT WASTE WAS GENERALLY LANDFILLED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR TREATMENT

43. According to data provided by the regions audited, during the 2000–09 period, illegal dumps had been either eradicated or their number significantly reduced:

(a) in four regions, according to the data provided by the relevant authorities, no illegal dumps were operational at the time of the audit;

(b) in the other four regions, illegal dumps were still being used, especially in the two regions selected in Romania where in 2009 municipal waste collection only covered 54 % and 33 % of the population. The lack of collection of municipal waste in these two regions was especially noticeable in rural areas.

44. In the audited regions municipal waste was generally landfilled without proper treatment, despite the landfill directive stipulating that waste deposited in landfills should be treated to reduce the quantity of waste or hazards to human health or the environment. The Court noted the following:

(a) municipal waste was generally landfilled without any treatment in four of the regions sampled [20]. In addition, in these regions the separate collection of biodegradable waste was only found in a very limited number of municipalities resulting in high levels of biodegradable matter in waste landfilled;

(b) in one region, treatment prior to disposal covered waste generated by only approximately 40 % of the total population of the region. However, this lack of treatment was partially mitigated by the fact that the separate collection of biodegradable waste was carried out in most of the region;

(c) in the three remaining regions, there were more mechanical biological treatment plants carrying out treatment prior to disposal but in general they did not achieve the performance expected (see Box 8).

WERE MEASURES PUT IN PLACE TO MAXIMISE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU FUNDING?

45. In order to maximise the effectiveness of the co-financed infrastructures, information, administrative and economic supporting measures, such as awareness campaigns, quality standards and separate collection or "pay as you throw" schemes and landfill taxes (see paragraph 9), should be in place to encourage waste prevention and recycling in accordance with the EU waste hierarchy (see Figure 3). EU financial support should encourage the implementation of such supporting measures. An appropriate regulatory framework and guidelines should be implemented.

BOX 8

EXAMPLE OF A REGION WHERE TREATMENT FACILITIES WERE IN PLACE, BUT WHERE THEIR PERFORMANCE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY

In one of the regions sampled 22 of the 28 landfills in operation at the time of the audit received pre-treated waste from mechanical biological treatment plants. However, these plants did not meet their performance targets. On average 76 % of waste entering the 23 treatment facilities available in the region was landfilled in 2008 with a high content of biodegradable matter despite the treatment process; in the case of the plant audited (Linares, Spain) the recovery of biodegradable waste only amounted to between 6 % and 9 % rather than the design target of 25 % to 28 %.

46. The Court examined whether:

(a) informative, administrative and economic instruments were put in place at Member State and/or regional level to support the co-financed waste management infrastructures and whether the Commission encouraged their implementation when approving operational programmes or projects;

(b) the EU regulatory framework and guidelines were likely to maximise the effectiveness of EU funding.

THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INFORMATION, ADMINISTRATIVE AND ECONOMIC SUPPORTING MEASURES VARIED SIGNIFICANTLY AMONG THE REGIONS SAMPLED

INFORMATIVE MEASURES

47. In general in the regions where the sampled waste management infrastructures were located, there was evidence of complementary information activities such as public awareness campaigns or the publication of waste management guidelines. Box 9 describes one such case.

BOX 9

A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW DEVELOPING PUBLIC AWARENESS CAN RESULT IN A BETTER QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE FROM INFRASTRUCTURES

One of the composting plants in Portugal (Lipor) was operated by a company providing waste management services (separate collection and treatment) to eight municipalities accounting approximately for 1 million inhabitants. As the company considered communication and high levels of participation as key factors for the success of the management of waste, all its activities were associated with efforts to provide information, raise awareness and educate the public. In particular, the construction of the composting plant was accompanied by communication and awareness campaigns as well as a specific marketing strategy for the compost. Public satisfaction surveys were carried out periodically, a free information phone line was set up and waste management guidelines were published and distributed. All these efforts resulted in a satisfactory segregation at source of biodegradable waste by households and commerce, which allowed the production and selling of high-quality compost (see Box 2).

48. However, the Court noted the following:

(a) in none of the regions sampled did the responsible authorities measure the success of their information campaigns and no measurable targets had been defined at the outset;

(b) in the two regions selected in Romania, despite some awareness campaigns, almost all biodegradable waste collected separately was found to be contaminated and had to be directly landfilled rather than being treated in the composting plants.

ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES

49. As required by the waste directive, the eight regions implemented a system of issuing of permits for establishments carrying out waste treatment. At the time of the audit, all the infrastructures were subject to inspections by the responsible authorities. Such inspections were, however, limited to the assessment of potential environmental impacts and did not cover the performance aspect of the waste management facilities (see Box 6).

50. Concerning separate collection, the Court noted significant discrepancies in its implementation in the regions and municipalities served by the waste management infrastructures audited. Whereas segregated collection of packaging waste, paper and cardboard and glass was widely implemented, contributing to the good performance observed in the audited sorting plants, separate collection of biodegradable waste was satisfactory in two regions only. These regions contributed to meeting EU diversion targets for biodegradable waste and managed to reduce the kilograms landfilled per capita (see paragraphs 41 and 42). For the other six regions separate collection of biodegradable waste was generally not in place or was ineffective. As a result, composting plants treating mixed waste or biodegradable waste not properly segregated at source performed poorly.

51. Figures show an inverse relationship between separate collection implementation and percentage of waste landfilled (see Figure 6).

52. Regarding compost quality standards, the Court noted that, at the time of the audit, four regions lacked any such standard and for the remaining four regions the admissible concentration limits of heavy metals in the compost varied significantly and were less stringent than those contained in EU draft guidelines. The lack of quality standards contributed to the difficulties faced by the composting and anaerobic digestion plants in selling their compost.

FIGURE 6

INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEPARATE COLLECTION AND PERCENTAGE OF WASTE LANDFILLED [21]

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels.

ECONOMIC MEASURES

53. Based on the review of the waste management tariffs charged by municipalities to households in at least the three major municipalities served by each infrastructure in the sample, the Court noted the following:

(a) in all cases, tariffs were flat [22] and not based on "pay as you throw" schemes intended to take into consideration the "polluter pays principle" and to prevent or reduce waste generation;

(b) some municipalities, despite not having a "pay as you throw" scheme, introduced elements in the tariff to encourage recycling (see Box 10).

54. A waste disposal tax charged to municipalities [23] per tonne of waste landfilled and/or incinerated on top of normal landfill and/or incineration fees is another economic incentive to try to change behaviour. Five of the eight regions sampled have introduced such a waste disposal tax to promote waste management options less damaging to the environment. The two regions with the highest level of landfill tax presented the lowest percentage of waste being disposed of in landfills in 2009 (see Figure 7) and the most significant improvements during the 2000–09 period. In order to encourage separate collection, two regions linked the amount of the waste disposal tax to the rate of separate collection achieved by each municipality (see Box 11).

BOX 10

EXAMPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT TARIFFS WITH ELEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING

In order to encourage recycling, some municipalities in Catalonia applied discounts to the waste management tariff paid by households based on home composting, use of collection centres or participation in awareness campaigns. The separate collection rate achieved by these municipalities (39 %) was higher than the one observed in municipalities not applying economic incentives (29 %). Other municipalities in Catalonia took into account the proportion of waste landfilled when establishing the tariff to benefit the households of those municipalities with lower landfill rates.

FIGURE 7

WASTE DISPOSAL TAX AND PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLED IN 2009 [24]

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels.

BOX 11

AN EXAMPLE OF THE WASTE DISPOSAL TAX SET FOR WASTE LANDFILLED OR INCINERATED BASED UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF SEPARATE COLLECTION ACHIEVED BY EACH MUNICIPALITY

Since 2005, to promote separate collection of waste at source, Sardinia has adapted the tariff charged to waste landfilled or incinerated, based on the separate collection rate achieved by each municipality. For example, in 2010, if the separate collection rate reached a level between 50 % and 60 % a tax relief of 20 % was applied. If separate collection was above 60 % municipalities benefited from a tax relief of 40 %. However if separate collection was below 50 % (or 40 % depending on the number of inhabitants of the municipality) a penalty of an additional 5,16 euro/tonne was charged.

WHEN APPROVING OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES OR PROJECTS, THE COMMISSION DID NOT ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPORTING MEASURES

55. Structural measures funding did not influence the implementation of information, administrative and economic supporting measures. The Commission required limited information on such instruments when deciding on the co-financing of waste management infrastructures:

(a) for ERDF funding, the Court noted that 9 of the 10 operational programmes selected did not contain information regarding specific administrative measures nor any reference to waste disposal taxes or types of waste management tariffs paid by households (flat rate or based on "pay as you throw" schemes);

(b) even if each Cohesion Fund project was individually assessed and approved by the Commission during the 2000–06 programme period, the Court noted that the level of detail concerning supporting measures requested by the Commission from Member States did not in general ensure their existence before the granting of EU funding.

56. Implementation reports submitted by the sampled Member States to comply with the requirements set in EU waste directives contain some information on such supporting measures (information on landfill tax implementation, inspections, public information, etc.). However, the Court did not note any link between the assessment of the implementation reports by DG Environment and the EU funding of waste management infrastructures which is the responsibility of DG Regional and Urban Policy: Member States not reporting to the Commission or providing incomplete reports benefit in the same way from structural measures funding for waste management infrastructures.

57. The lack of a link between EU funding and the existence of supporting instruments was especially significant in relation to the implementation of the "polluter pays principle", which is one of the principles on which EU environmental policy is based [25]. The 1975 waste directive established this principle [26] which was then included in other specific directives on waste management, such as the landfill directive [27]. According to cohesion policy regulations and to Commission internal guidelines, EU financial support should take into consideration the implementation of the principle through differentiated rates of assistance [28].

58. This principle of differentiated rates of assistance was further developed by the Commission during the 2000–06 period in a technical paper [29] which established that "where the financing of a project includes a system of charges (such as low flat rate charges), which are not based on the actual consumption of resources and do not provide the necessary financial means to properly maintain the infrastructure nor to cover the operational costs and a large part of the depreciation costs, then the rate of assistance should be reduced". In these cases, the proposed rate of assistance should normally be as set out in column 5 of Annex IV.

59. The Court noted that although for the selected infrastructures, operating and depreciation costs were not covered by the waste management tariff charged to households, the Commission did not apply the principle of a differentiated rate of assistance by reducing the co-financing rate. As a result, in almost all the cases the co-financing rate granted was higher than the one that should have applied in accordance with the principle of differentiated rates of assistance (see Annex IV). Some municipalities did not charge any waste management tariff to households.

60. Tariffs charged by municipalities to households for the management of waste varied significantly, even within each region (see Table 3). Differences, reaching in some cases up to 300 % within the same region, could not be solely explained by differences in the average income of households and their affordability level or in the cost of waste management among the municipalities sampled.

TABLE 3

WASTE MANAGEMENT TARIFFS PAID BY HOUSEHOLDS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES SAMPLED IN 2009 OR 2010

Source: European Court of Auditors based on audit evidence obtained during the audit.

Region | Lowest tariff noted | Highest tariff noted | Difference in % |

ES-Catalonia | 40,25 euro per household | 166,50 euro per household | 314 % |

IT-Sardinia | 1,02 euro per m2 of surface | 3,3 euro per m2 of surface | 224 % |

IT-Puglia | 1,57 euro per m2 of surface | 2,62 euro per m2 of surface | 67 % |

ES-Andalucía | 69,60 euro per household | 94,36 euro per household | 36 % |

PT-Norte | 0 euro | 76,20 euro per household | - |

PT-Lisboa Vale do Tejo | 0 euro | 70,38 euro per household | - |

RO-Nord-Est | 8,69 euro per person (the infrastructures sampled served only one municipality) | NA |

RO-Sud-Vest | 16,2 euro per person (the infrastructures sampled served only one municipality) | NA |

WEAKNESSES WERE NOTED IN THE EU WASTE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND EU GUIDELINES

61. The EU waste regulatory framework and EU guidelines can contribute to maximise the effectiveness of EU funding. The Court noted weaknesses in this area.

LACK OF FOCUS OF EU DIRECTIVES’ TARGETS ON WASTE PREVENTION

62. The EU waste hierarchy contained in the waste directive indicates prevention as the first waste management option. The sixth environment action programme [30] included an overall objective to substantially reduce waste generation and disposal.

63. However, targets set in EU directives in the waste management field relate only to recycling, recovery and diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills and do not address prevention or reduction of waste (see paragraph 39).

LACK OF CLARITY OF THE CONCEPT OF TREATMENT BEFORE DISPOSAL

64. According to the landfill directive only waste that has been subject to treatment should be landfilled. However, the directive is not clear enough on what such treatment should consist of and whether treatment requires a reduction in the quantity of waste landfilled or only a reduction of its volume [31].

65. This lack of clarity regarding the concept of treatment before landfilling has resulted in different strategies at national and/or regional level. One of the regions sampled focused, for example, on mechanical biological treatment plants, the performance of which in achieving the reduction of waste landfilled was not satisfactory. In two other regions, when high levels of separate collection were achieved, waste was considered as having been treated and could be taken to the landfill directly (see paragraphs 28 and 44).

LACK OF EU QUALITY STANDARDS FOR COMPOST

66. The EU co-financed composting and anaerobic digestion plants in all eight regions sampled. However, at the time of the audit four of the regions reviewed lacked any quality standards for compost. In the four remaining regions, the admissible concentration levels of heavy metals varied significantly (see paragraph 52).

67. The fact that quality standards for compost at national/regional level either did not exist or if they existed, varied significantly, hampered the development of a compost market, making it difficult for plant operators to sell the compost produced. There are no EU compost quality standards.

NO EU GUIDELINE FOR THE FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR LANDFILL CLOSURE COSTS

68. Concerning the financial security to cover closure and after-care costs, the Court noted that significant differences existed in the methodologies applied for its calculation in the six regions where landfills were sampled, resulting in significantly varying amounts for a landfill of the same capacity, which indicates that they may not always be sufficient to cover all the costs for a period of 30 years as required by the landfill directive. The EU has neither provided any guidelines to Member States as to how the closure and after-care costs should be estimated nor promoted any exchange of experiences among Member States in this area (see paragraphs 33 and 34).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

69. In almost all the regions selected some improvements in the management of waste were observed, however the effectiveness of structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructures in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives was hampered by the poor implementation of supporting measures and by weaknesses in EU rules and guidelines. When assessing operational programmes or projects for which it had responsibility, the Commission did not encourage the implementation of supporting measures. The success of the co-financed infrastructures depends on the existence of effective separate collection at source, which was often not the case. Although all the regions sampled showed some improvements in the management of waste, only 25 % achieved EU waste policy objectives, mainly those who put supporting measures in place.

PERFORMANCE OF MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURES

70. The performance of co-financed infrastructures was highly dependent upon waste collection strategies:

(a) sorting plants, intended to recover packaging waste segregated at source by households, performed satisfactorily (see paragraphs 23 and 24);

(b) in general, composting and anaerobic digestion plants treating biodegradable waste collected separately (when it was not contaminated) performed better than the plants treating unsorted waste where performance was unsatisfactory (see paragraph 25);

(c) mechanical biological treatment plants receiving waste unsorted at source did not manage in general to contribute to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives as most of the waste entering the plants was landfilled (see paragraphs 26 and 27).

71. Waste was deposited following either inadequate treatment or without any treatment whatsoever in all of the landfill sites sampled, resulting in a high content of biodegradable matter being landfilled (see paragraph 28).

72. Almost all of the infrastructures audited met environmental requirements. However, five of the seven selected landfills did not set up a sufficient financial security to cover closure and after-care costs. Significant differences were observed in the methodology used to determine the amount of financial security required. In most cases the amounts established would be insufficient to cover all the associated costs (see paragraphs 29 to 34).

RECOMMENDATION 1

(a) Member States should:

(i) focus on waste management infrastructures treating waste previously segregated at source (including biodegradable waste when cost-effective);

(ii) ensure that municipal waste deposited in landfills has been treated before disposal;

(iii) make sure that landfill sites possess a sufficient financial security to cover closure and after-care costs for a period of at least 30 years, the calculation of which should be based on an appropriate methodology.

(b) The Commission should make the EU contribution subject to the implementation of these recommendations by the Member States.

EU WASTE POLICY OBJECTIVES AT REGIONAL LEVEL

73. The Court noted significant weaknesses regarding the reporting by Member States of the achievement of EU targets, resulting in the inability of the Commission to evaluate in all cases whether the performance being achieved by Member States was in line with EU waste targets. The Commission checks the consistency of the figures received, but does not assess their reliability and does not compile information on the achievement of EU targets at regional level (see paragraphs 37 and 38).

74. Although in almost all the regions selected some improvements in the management of waste were observed:

(a) per capita waste generation increased in six of the eight regions sampled despite prevention being fundamental in the hierarchy of EU waste management actions (see paragraph 39);

(b) only one quarter of the regions sampled significantly increased their separate collection rate resulting in a reduction of the reliance on landfilling and contributed to achieving EU targets (see paragraphs 40 to 42);

(c) waste was generally landfilled without having been adequately treated or not treated at all (see paragraph 44).

RECOMMENDATION 2

(a) Member States should set up reliable waste management databases, both to monitor their progress towards the achievement of EU waste policy objectives and to underpin their reporting to the Commission.

(b) The Commission should assess the data received from Member States for reliability.

(c) The Commission, the Parliament and the Council should consider linking EU financial support to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives.

MEASURES PUT IN PLACE TO MAXIMISE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU FUNDING

75. The effectiveness of EU funding was not maximised due to the weak implementation of supporting measures.

76. The development of supporting information, administrative and economic measures varied significantly in the regions sampled:

(a) A high level of public awareness and willingness to participate in waste management schemes appeared to be key factors for the success of waste management infrastructures, especially in relation to waste segregation at source by households. In none of the regions sampled did the responsible authorities measure the results of the information measures they had put in place (see paragraphs 47 and 48).

(b) Only regions having implemented separate collection at source of biodegradable waste contributed to meeting the related EU diversion targets (see paragraphs 50 and 51).

(c) Four of the eight regions sampled lacked any quality standard for compost and in the remaining four regions the acceptable concentration limit for heavy metals varied significantly, contributing to the poor development of a market for the compost produced by the composting and anaerobic digestion plants in the sample (see paragraph 52).

(d) The implementation of economic instruments via tariffs or through waste disposal taxes proved to have a significant impact on the performance of projects and regions in the management of waste (see paragraphs 53 and 54).

(e) The Commission did not encourage the implementation of supporting measures, especially of the "polluter pays principle" as no differentiated rates of assistance were found to have been applied in the projects sampled (see paragraphs 55 to 60).

RECOMMENDATION 3

(a) Member States should:

(i) pay greater attention to increasing public awareness and participation in waste management schemes, especially in relation to waste segregation at source by households. Results achieved by awareness-raising campaigns and educational strategies should be systematically measured;

(ii) focus on separate collection implementation, including biodegradable waste when cost-effective, in order to maximise the performance of waste management infrastructures and to progress towards the achievement of EU waste policy objectives;

(iii) introduce economic instruments in the management of waste to promote waste prevention and recycling, particularly through a waste disposal tax, "pay as you throw" schemes and other incentives in the tariffs paid by households.

(b) The Commission should:

(i) make the EU contribution subject to the implementation of these recommendations by the Member States;

(ii) in relation to the "polluter pays principle", when approving operational programmes, request from the Member States the application of reduced rates of assistance when waste management tariffs paid by households do not cover operating costs and a large part of depreciation costs of municipal waste management. The Commission should apply itself this principle when approving major projects.

77. Improvements in the EU regulatory framework and EU guidelines can contribute towards maximising the effectiveness of structural measures funding of municipal waste management infrastructures. The Court noted:

(a) a lack of focus of EU waste directives’ targets on waste prevention despite prevention being the first management option according to the waste directive (see paragraphs 62 and 63);

(b) a lack of clarity of the concept of treatment before disposal, resulting in different strategies at national and regional level (see paragraphs 64 and 65);

(c) a lack of EU quality standards for compost, despite the absence or inconsistency of standards available at Member State level, which hampered the development of a compost market (see paragraphs 66 and 67);

(d) a lack of guidance on the methodology to be used to assess the closure and after-care costs of landfills (paragraph 68).

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Commission should:

(a) propose waste prevention targets in line with the EU waste hierarchy pyramid;

(b) clarify the concept of treatment before disposal contained in the landfill directive, to ensure a consistent approach by Member States;

(c) consider the opportunity to develop with Member States EU quality standards for compost to encourage the development of a compost market;

(d) provide appropriate guidance and disseminate best practices in relation to the methodology to be used to estimate closure and after-care costs of landfills to be covered by the financial security.

This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Harald NOACK, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 24 October 2012.

For the Court of Auditors

+++++ TIFF +++++

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira

President

[1] Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39), amended in 1991 by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32) and subsequently codified by Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 (OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9), which was repealed by Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3).

[2] Directive 2008/98/EC.

[3] Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1).

[4] Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91), repealed by Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17).

[5] European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10), amended by Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 26) and by Directive 2005/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005 (OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 17).

[6] Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24), amended by Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 (OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 106) and by Directive 2008/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 (OJ L 81, 20.3.2008, p. 65). This directive was recast by Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38).

[7] Article 17(1) TEU and Article 317 of the TFEU.

[8] From 1 January 2007 to 25 June 2010 the amount was 25 million euro in the case of the environment.

[9] Another directorate-general, Eurostat, is responsible for coordinating the European Statistical System and providing relevant statistics to other Commission services. The DG is the main provider of waste statistics of which the main user is DG Environment.

[10] During the 2000–06 programming period DG Environment was also consulted by the regional policy DG in the case of Cohesion Fund project applications.

[11] EU waste directives set objectives and targets at Member State level. However, as, in general, regions are responsible for establishing waste management plans and as they have received EU financial support for infrastructures in the field of municipal waste management, their contribution to the achievement of EU objectives and targets has been assessed in the framework of this audit.

[12] Fifteen waste management infrastructures benefited from Cohesion Fund financial support (including five ex- ISPA facilities launched in Romania when the country was in the process of becoming a Member State). The grant was approved by the Commission. Eleven were ERDF projects contained in operational programmes and approved by the responsible managing authorities.

[13] Ratio indicating the proportion between the tonnes of waste treated in the plant and the tonnes of materials recovered.

[14] An adequate compost market would imply the existence of compost quality standards, the indication of potential appropriate usages and the implementation of awareness campaigns intended to promote compost utilisation.

[15] The analysis of the results achieved by the region Sud-Vest in Romania is influenced by the lack of reliability of waste management databases available in the Member State, especially in relation to the separate collection rate.

[16] For the region Nord-Est in Romania the landfill rate covers waste collected for the period 2003–09 and the separate collection 2004–09; for Andalucía the separate collection rate refers to the period 2002–08; and for the region Sud-Vest the landfill of waste collected and separate collection rates correspond to the period 2006–09.

[17] For the region RO-Nord-Est data refer to 2003 and 2009 and for RO-Sud-Vest to 2007 and 2009.

[18] For Portugal only data at national level were available.

[19] ES-Andalucía, RO-Nord-Est and RO-Sud-Vest. Regarding the two regions sampled in Portugal, Lisboa e Vale do Tejo and Norte, data were not available at regional level. However, the target was not met by the Member State as a whole.

[1111] No figures available for the two regions, but only at the level of the Member State.

[2222] Data for 2008.

[3333] To be added, municipal waste not collected ,which amounted to 35 % and 27 % of the total municipal waste generation respectively.

[4444] Data for 2007.

[5555] Target for 2010.

[20] To be noted that Romania was granted an additional deadline, until 2017, to ensure that all existing landfills comply with the requirements of the landfill directive.

[21] For RO-Nord-Est and RO-Sud-Vest, the landfill rate was calculated based only on waste collected.

[22] Tariffs were calculated based on the square metres of apartments or houses, on the number of persons per household, on drinking water consumption or on a combination of these elements, without taking into consideration the quantity of waste generated by each household.

[23] As well as to private citizens in the case of disposal in landfills.

[24] For ES-Andalucía and IT-Puglia data refer to 2008. For RO-Nord-Est and RO-Sud-Vest the proportion of waste landfilled does not take into consideration waste not collected.

[25] Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version).

[26] Article 15 of Directive 75/442/EEC, Article 15 of Directive 91/156/EEC, Article 15 of Directive 2006/12/EC and Article 14 of Directive 2008/98/EC.

[27] Article 10 of Directive 1999/31/EC.

[28] Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds: "The contribution of the Funds shall be differentiated through the application of the polluter pays principle".Article 52 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999: "The contribution from the Funds may be modulated through the application of the polluter pays principle".Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006: "In calculating the eligible expenditure on revenue-generating projects, the managing authority shall take account of the application of the polluter-pays principle".

[29] "The new programming period 2000-2006: Technical paper 1 — Application of the polluter pays principle — Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations" ( 6.12.1999).

[30] Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community (COM(2001) 31 final).

[31] Article 6(a) of Directive 1999/31/EC stipulates that "by reducing the quantity of the waste or the hazards to human health or the environment", while Article 2(h) stipulates that "to reduce its volume or hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery".

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX I

WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM WASTE SOURCE TO FINAL DISPOSAL

+++++ TIFF +++++

Complementary notes to diagram

According to the waste directive,

Prevention: means measures, taken before a substance material or product has become waste, that reduce: the quantity of waste, the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health or the content of harmful substances in materials and products.

Re-use: means any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.

Recycling: means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of biodegradable material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.

Recovery: means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy.

Disposal: means any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX II

STRUCTURAL MEASURES ASSISTANCE EARMARKED FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

Source: European Commission.

2000–06 PROGRAMMING PERIOD |

Member State | CF (urban and industrial waste) | CF (environment related to waste) | ERDF | TOTAL | % over total |

Spain | 1393087080 | 75120816 | 220099852 | 1688307748 | 36,78 |

Greece | 365649728 | 0 | 297647168 | 663296896 | 14,45 |

Portugal | 385910757 | 8908090 | 51652744 | 446471591 | 9,73 |

Italy | 0 | 0 | 313677576 | 313677576 | 6,83 |

Hungary | 176848871 | 27958830 | 15167782 | 219975483 | 4,79 |

Germany | 0 | 0 | 197557502 | 197557502 | 4,30 |

Poland | 74031202 | 29438760 | 91424570 | 194894532 | 4,25 |

Lithuania | 90372374 | 16563950 | 1446008 | 108382332 | 2,36 |

Romania | 0 | 107489325 | 0 | 107489325 | 2,34 |

France | 0 | 0 | 103931777 | 103931777 | 2,26 |

Ireland | 6903275 | 0 | 80617000 | 87520275 | 1,91 |

Slovenia | 62572651 | 20331730 | 0 | 82904381 | 1,81 |

Czech Republic | 47345000 | 0 | 16328485 | 63673485 | 1,39 |

Latvia | 32405111 | 22928732 | 7538163 | 62872006 | 1,37 |

EU cross-border cooperation | 0 | 0 | 56691788 | 56691788 | 1,24 |

Bulgaria | 0 | 51800193 | 0 | 51800193 | 1,13 |

Cyprus | 0 | 28722415 | 0 | 28722415 | 0,63 |

Estonia | 23096673 | 0 | 2389009 | 25485682 | 0,56 |

Slovakia | 0 | 0 | 22870561 | 22870561 | 0,50 |

United Kingdom | 0 | 0 | 16864095 | 16864095 | 0,37 |

Malta | 11723250 | 0 | 3166065 | 14889315 | 0,32 |

EU interregional cooperation | 0 | 0 | 13985683 | 13985683 | 0,30 |

Finland | 0 | 0 | 6222300 | 6222300 | 0,14 |

Belgium | 0 | 0 | 5706707 | 5706707 | 0,12 |

Netherlands | 0 | 0 | 5680360 | 5680360 | 0,12 |

Denmark | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Luxembourg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Austria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Sweden | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

TOTAL EU | 2669945972 | 389262841 | 1530665195 | 4589874008 | 100,00 |

Source: European Commission.

2007–13 PROGRAMMING PERIOD |

Member State | EU earmarked amount | % over total |

Poland | 1311253636 | 21,01 |

Romania | 792840872 | 12,71 |

Czech Republic | 520258572 | 8,34 |

Spain | 462015554 | 7,40 |

Greece | 432176450 | 6,93 |

Slovakia | 368600000 | 5,91 |

Hungary | 366500000 | 5,87 |

Italy | 338072531 | 5,42 |

Bulgaria | 300521138 | 4,82 |

Lithuania | 278995046 | 4,47 |

Portugal | 224088076 | 3,59 |

Slovenia | 205568426 | 3,29 |

France | 134470000 | 2,16 |

Latvia | 129500000 | 2,08 |

Cyprus | 125495000 | 2,01 |

Estonia | 70302813 | 1,13 |

Malta | 55250000 | 0,89 |

Germany | 47745110 | 0,77 |

EU cross-border cooperation | 47890793 | 0,77 |

United Kingdom | 20230668 | 0,32 |

Ireland | 3000000 | 0,05 |

Belgium | 2382219 | 0,04 |

Netherlands | 2667500 | 0,04 |

TOTAL | 6239824404 | 100,00 |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX III

LIST OF INFRASTRUCTURES SELECTED FOR THE AUDIT

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Region (Member State) | Project title | Type of waste management infrastructure | EU fund |

Catalonia (Spain) | Mechanical biological treatment plant (Sant Adrià de Besòs) | Mechanical biological treatment | Cohesion Fund |

Catalonia (Spain) | Construction and adaptation of municipal waste management infrastructures in Catalonia (Project 17 — Enlargement and adaptation of the landfill in Alt Empordà) | Landfill | Cohesion Fund |

Catalonia (Spain) | Construction and adaptation of municipal waste management infrastructures in Catalonia (Project 18 — Gironés composting plant) | Composting plant | Cohesion Fund |

Sardinia (Italy) | Plant for the production of quality compost (Serramanna) | Composting plant | ERDF (OP Sardegna) |

Sardinia (Italy) | Anaerobic digestion plant (Villacidro) | Mechanical biological treatment | ERDF (OP Sardegna) |

Sardinia (Italy) | Plant for the selection, stabilisation and production of refuse-derived fuel (Olbia) | Mechanical biological treatment | ERDF (OP Sardegna) |

Puglia (Italy) | Plant for bio-stabilisation and composting in Cerignola | Mechanical biological treatment | ERDF (OP Puglia) |

Puglia (Italy) | Landfill (Cavallino) | Landfill | ERDF (OP Puglia) |

Puglia (Italy) | Bio-stabilisation plant (Cavallino) | Mechanical biological treatment | ERDF (OP Puglia) |

Puglia (Italy) | Environment protection and regeneration through the development of the urban waste management cycle (Brindisi) | Not in operation at the time of the audit | ERDF (OP Puglia) |

Andalucía (Spain) | Packaging and packaging waste recovery plant in the integrated centre for the treatment of municipal solid waste Monte Marta-Cónica (Sevilla) | Sorting plant | Cohesion Fund |

Andalucía (Spain) | Recovery and composting plant (Linares) | Mechanical biological treatment | Cohesion Fund |

Andalucía (Spain) | Fitting-out, closure and construction of a new cell in a landfill for depositing municipal solid waste, Guadiel (Linares) | Landfill | Cohesion Fund |

LVT (Portugal) | Sorting plant, Resitejo | Sorting plant | ERDF (OP LVT) |

LVT (Portugal) | Construction of an organic recovery plant (Valorsul) | Anaerobic digestion plant | Cohesion Fund |

Norte (Portugal) | Multi-municipal system for the recovery and treatment of municipal solid waste (Vale do Douro Sul, Residouro) | Sorting plant | ERDF (OP Norte) |

Norte (Portugal) | Multi-municipal system for the recovery and treatment of municipal solid waste (Vale do Douro Sul, Residouro) | Landfill | ERDF (OP Norte) |

Norte (Portugal) | Environmental rehabilitation of the plant for the treatment of municipal solid waste (Vale do Ave) | Composting plant | ERDF (OP Norte) |

Norte (Portugal) | Integrated management of solid waste by LIPOR — organic recovery plant | Composting plant | Cohesion Fund |

Norte (Portugal) | Multi-municipal system for the recovery and treatment of municipal solid waste (Baixo Tâmega) | Sorting plant | Cohesion Fund |

Norte (Portugal) | Multi-municipal system for the recovery and treatment of municipal solid waste (Baixo Tâmega) | Landfill | Cohesion Fund |

Nord-Est (Romania) | Piatra Neamt waste management programme | Composting plant | Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) |

Nord-Est (Romania) | Piatra Neamt waste management programme | Sorting plant | Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) |

Nord-Est (Romania) | Piatra Neamt waste management programme | Landfill | Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) |

Sud-Vest (Romania) | Integrated municipal waste management system (Râmnicu Vâlcea) | Composting plant | Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) |

Sud-Vest (Romania) | Integrated municipal waste management system (Râmnicu Vâlcea) | Landfill | Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) |

Complementary ERDF operational programmes reviewed for which no infrastructures were audited

Catalonia (Spain) | Single programming document Cataluña 2000–06 |

Andalucía (Spain) | Operational programme Andalucía 2000–06 |

Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) | Operational programme Castilla-La Mancha 2000–06 |

Comunidad de Madrid (Spain) | Single programming document Comunidad de Madrid 2000–06 |

Madeira (Portugal) | Operational programme Madeira 2000–06 |

Sicilia (Italy) | Operational programme Sicilia 2000–06 |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX IV

RATES OF ASSISTANCE GRANTED COMPARED TO RATES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LEVEL OF COVERAGE OF OPERATING COSTS BY HOUSEHOLDS

Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels.

Infrastructure | Total cost coverage by tariffs | Operating cost coverage by tariffs | Rate assistance applied | Proposed rates of assistance to be applied [3] | Year of reference |

ES-CA1 | 40 % | 42 % | 80 % | 50 % | 2010 |

ES-CA2 | 56 % | 59 % | 80 % | 50 % | 2010 |

ES-CA3 | 76 % | 80 % | 80 % | 50 % | 2010 |

IT-SA1 | 78 % | 84 % | 50 % | 40 % | 2009 |

IT-SA2 | 77 % | 83 % | 50 % | 40 % | 2009 |

IT-SA3 | 78 % | 84 % | 50 % | 40 % | 2009 |

IT-PU1 | 96 % | 100 % | 50 % | 40 % | 2009 |

IT-PU2 and 3 | 85 % | 91 % | 50 % | 40 % | 2009 |

IT-PU4 | NA. The project was not in operation at the time of the audit visit. |

ES-AN1 | NA. The operating and depreciation costs of the sorting plant are covered by companies having introduced packaging into the market. |

ES-AN2 and 3 | 83 % | 88 % | 80 % | 50 % | 2009 |

PT-LVT1 | 55 % | 66 % | 75 % | 50 % | 2010 |

PT-LVT2 [1] | 0 % | 0 % | 50 % | 50 % | 2010 |

PT-NO1 and 2 | 27 % | 33 % | 75 % | 50 % | 2010 |

PT-NO3 | 73 % | 88 % | 75 % | 50 % | 2010 |

PT-NO4 | 68 % | 82 % | 50 % | 50 % | 2010 |

PT-NO5 and 6 | 24 % | 29 % | 85 % | 50 % | 2010 |

RO-PN1, 2 and 3 | No info | 73 % | 75 % | 50 % | 2010 |

RO-RV1 and 2 | No info | 89 % [2] | 75 % | 50 % | 2010 |

[1] Information was only made available to the Court for two of the three municipalities for which it was requested.

[2] Not including the operating costs of the landfill and of composting plant.

[3] Based on "Technical paper 1 — Application of the polluter pays principle — Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations" ( 6.12.1999). This technical paper proposes rates of assistance to be applied.

--------------------------------------------------