Ivaylo Hlebarov, Environmental Association Za Zemiata/For the Earth

For more than a year, citizens of Sofia have been witnessing the hopeless exercise called tackling the crisis in waste management, performed by Sofia Municipality.

Promises of closing the only one landfill at Suhodol have been made twice to the local people. Despite their protests, accompanied with two big crises in waste collection and disposal, the authorities are very far from finding an environmentally, socially and  economically viable solution for waste management in the biggest city in Bulgaria.

All the steps taken so far has proven that there is no will to develop a good programme which will serve both people of Sofia and the municipality in the best way.

The midterm solution, of putting mixed household waste in plastic bales, turned to be one of the most criticised and improvident actions taken by Sofia Municipality.

Fifteen million leva has been dumped into three baling machines which could not start operations because of serious protests by people likely to be affected, those living close to the proposed operational and storage sites.

Critics from environmental NGOs were also involved, addressing issues such as potential health risks, threats to the environment, and last but not least, that baling of mixed household waste will lead Sofia either to construction of a new landfill or construction of an incinerator[1] (which will additionally require the construction of a special hazardous landfill). That is because one can do nothing else but bury or burn these bales.

There has been widespread misinformation from the authorities, that the baled waste could stand for three to four years, and could even be recycled after that. The myth about bales and their safety and that they would do no harm to people and the environment was finally broken by European Commission experts who assessed the situation in February 2005 and stated in March that baling of mixed household waste threatened people and the environment with possible explosions and odours, and that such a procedure was not in conformity with environmental legislation. The same criticisms had been raised by concerned citizens and NGOs when the word "baling" appeared at first in 2005. These criticisms from these quarters were never taken seriously into account.

This baling experiment has so far led to 23 million leva in additional operational costs, bales that are already torn, a lack of proper storage for them, and thus this will inevitably lead to more problems. Examples of such problems include the beating of local people protesting against the transportation of the bales to Chukurovo coal mine, which is situated next to the Sofia drinking water reservoir, the Iskar dam. There have been court cases against the legitimacy of the operational and temporary storage sites which started to work without any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports and permits. 

Environmental NGOs have presented several times to the municipality a thorough scheme for waste management based on Bulgarian and European legislation and best practices around the world.

It includes necessary steps as prevention, separate collection, reuse, recycle and finally disposal with the clear exception of any kind of incineration. It appeared to be highly complex for the municipality and the current waste management programme (2005-2009) of Sofia clearly proves the unwillingness of the authorities to fight the problem at the source, but rather dealing with consequences and causing a further burden. The programme lacks a clear vision and actions that will provide for comprehensive waste management. The morphological analysis of the waste is old and thus inadequate so it cannot be a solid base for any serious plans. Waste prevention is an unknown matter, separate collection is going to be a pilot initiative for many more years and the only two clear things in the programme is that Sofia will have a new landfill and incinerator, as major financing has been allocated for them. The programme has not been opened for consultation with Sofia's citizens, NGOs and the wider public in general, and was not subjected to a Strategic Environmental Assessment as provided for by Bulgarian legislation.

Last week the municipality sent requests to several NGOs to comment on the programme, but it was obvious that the main reason is not to have comments, but to imitate public debate. The requests were received less than two days before the deadline for submitting comments.

Taking into account the latest developments, it looks that commenting on the waste management programme does not make much sense. The recently launched advertisement for finding an investor for the treatment of Sofia waste has shown that the authorities are foreseening an incinerator for Sofia. This also can be verified by looking at the list of investors who applied in response. The only facility that could qualify and fulfil the municipal requirements is a combustion plant or something similar that would enable burning at a later stage. The common political understanding is that technology will save us all, therefore Sofia does not need a good waste plan, but a plant.

Practice shows quite the opposite. Waste management is a matter of a political will to address problems through proper measures by involving all stakeholders, includng citizens, NGOs, business and authorities in the design, implementation and monitoring of activities that will lead to a favourable solution.

In cities like San Francisco, Buenos Aires, and the county of Suffolk in the UK, along with many others, this approach has led to the adoption of the Zero Waste principles, a concept starting from the design of the products, waste prevention, passing through separate collection, composting, reuse (refillable bottles  for example), recycling, extended producer responsibility [2] (take back schemes) and so far achieving more than 60  per cent waste diverted from landfills with no use of incineration at all. The ultimate long-term goal is to achieve Zero Waste. In some places the diversion is already more than 80 per cent. The biggest city adopted this approach is Buenos Aires with a population more than 11 million, which is proof that Zero Waste could be applied on a larger scale as well.

Why is incineration not a good solution? First, once you have such a burning plant one has to feed it for 20 to 25 years. This would block any initiatives for prevention, separate collection, reuse, or recycling. If one does not supply it regularly it will not work under optimal conditions and there is a risk of waste import. Additionally the extreme costs of the facility - investment and operational ones. Such a plant capable of handling 200 000 to 250 000 tons a year will cost more than 180 million euro. The waste treatment fee will be between 80 to 120 euro a ton.  This will be an enormous burden to Sofia's budget and to its citizens. Environmental threats should be also seriously taken into account as no matter how advanced an incinerator is it pollutes with hundreds of toxic chemicals[3] of which only few are measured. Human health is exposed to dioxins, heavy metals and other toxics that are released in stack gases, ashes and other residues and can cause cancer, hormonal disruption, birth defects and many others[4]. Incineration will cause much more problems than solving the current ones.

What to do then? Is there a need to change the legislation in order to fight the artificial crisis we are in or the municipality could do some essential things.

First stop the baling of mixed household waste. In Trebich district liquids from the bales leak trough the field to the river and towards the basements of about 20 houses.

Start separating the waste, meanwhile launch a new morphological analysis of Sofia's waste. Declare a clear goal of what we want to achieve with our waste. On that basis, then revise the current waste management programme with the involvement of independent experts and representatives of civil society, NGOs and launch a wide public debate about it. Search for a site for a new landfill in which biodegradable, toxic and medical waste will not come in and all recycling materials will be separated in advance. Do not build an incinerator!

Footnotes:
1. WASTE  INCINERATION PLANTS IN AUSTRIA, Herwig Shuster, Vienna 1999, GREENPEACE
2. Walker Pacher, SIEMENS AG - Austria, at BULENERGO Seminar in March 2005, Sofia http://www.bulenergo.com/eng
3. Jay and Stieglitz, 1995.
4. Incineration and Human Health, Michelle Allsopp, Pat Costner and Paul Johnston Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK. 2001.

Notes:
1. Incinerator - facility that burns waste in a furnace; similar thermal technologies are plasma, pyrolysis, waste gasification as they basically produce the same toxic substances as a normal incinerator. 
2. "Extended producer responsibility (EPR): a policy approach that makes firms responsible for their products and packaging in the post-consumer phase, providing an incentive to design products for end-of-life recycling." Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology, by Neil Tangri, 2003
3. "Such chemicals include dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated napthalenes, chlorinated benzenes, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals including lead, cadmium and mercury...." Incineration an Human Health, Michelle Allsopp, Pat Costner and Paul Johnston Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK. 2001