Economic-financial analysis of the Italian packaging waste management system from a local authority's perspectiveby Lucia Rigamonti, Sandra Ferreira, Mario Grosso, Rui Cunha Marques

Journal of Cleaner Production

Text

n rit o a

Poli ade c Center for Urban and Regional Systems (CESUR), Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 19 April 2014

Received in revised form 26 September 2014

Accepted 21 October 2014

Available online 31 October 2014 of municipal waste, counting for about 40% of the total waste delivered without any preliminary sorting (ISPRA, 2013).

In this regard, the recovery of packaging waste has been an aspect of great concern among the European Member States, not only to decrease the environmental impact related to its disposal, erials and possibly very of packaging r targets set in the on Packaging and quently amended ts targets updated. red a minimum of being achieved by material recycling and the remaining by energy recovery. Individual material recycling targets were also set for metals (50% by weight), paper and glass (60% each), plastics (22.5%) and wood (15%). The Italian Government has set more stringent targets for the recycling of plastics (26%) and wood (35%) (Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, 2012).

Some previous studies focused on costs and scenario analysis of wastemanagement operations. For example, the impact of the PPW

Directive in the Member States was analysed by RDC and Pira * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 0223996415; fax: þ39 0223996499.

Contents lists availab

Journal of Clean .e ls

Journal of Cleaner Production 87 (2015) 533e541E-mail address: lucia.rigamonti@polimi.it (L. Rigamonti).1. Introduction

Waste management represents a great challenge for local authorities, which have the responsibility to provide the collection and proper treatment of municipal waste. In Italy, starting from the late 90's, there has been a significant effort to increase the recovery of waste at the expenses of its disposal. Despite some huge improvements of the system, landfilling remains the main destination but also to reduce the consumption of raw mat limit the impact of their price increase. The reco waste is an objective of the Community with clea

European law. In 1994, the 94/62/EC Directive

Packaging Waste (PPW) was adopted and subse by 2004/12/EC and 2005/20/EC Directives, with i

By 2008, the Member States should have recove 60% byweight of total packaging waste, with 55%Keywords:

Packaging waste

CONAI

Financial support

Italy

Recoveryhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.069 0959-6526/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.a b s t r a c t

One of the pillars of the European Union legislation on packaging waste is the principle that each economic producer is fully responsible for the fate of the packaging materials he has introduced in the market (Extended Producer Responsibility - EPR). A system of financial transfers is then implemented between the industry and the local authorities which are ultimately responsible for the separated collection of packaging waste and its recovery. The paper reports an economic-financial analysis of the packaging waste management system in Italy from the perspective of the local authorities, building up from an extensive, rich and unique data collection for the Italian context. Both costs for separate collection and sorting and benefits arising from the financial transfers were considered. The cost savings that waste local authorities attain by diverting packaging waste from the residual waste collection services and disposal were also included. The results showed that the local authority benefits an average of 250 V per tonne of packaging waste separately collected. In contrast, if the savings associated with the diversion of waste are not considered (financial perspective), the benefits are significantly reduced to 58

V per tonne. As the services of separate collection and sorting of packaging waste represent 121 V per tonne collected, costs are fully covered only when considering an economic perspective. Conversely, this does not happen if the cost savings due to avoided disposal are not taken into account. The EPR principle, one of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive's cornerstones, is thus not being fulfilled, in a strictly financial perspective. Moreover, this means that if the EPR principle was to be strictly followed, the transfers to the local authorities should be increased. In any case, such transfers should be calculated based on the efficiency and peculiarities of each packaging waste system. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Economic-financial analysis of the Italia management system from a local autho

Lucia Rigamonti a, *, Sandra Ferreira b, Mario Gross a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (DICA) e Environmental Section, b Center for Management Studies of IST (CEG-IST), Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universid journal homepage: wwwpackaging waste y's perspective , Rui Cunha Marques c tecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal le at ScienceDirect er Production evier .com/locate/ jc lepro

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISPRA Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca

Ambientale (National institute for environmental aner Production 87 (2015) 533e541(2003). The study aimed to achieve optimal recycling rates taking into account the costs associated with the implementation of the

PPW Directive and the environmental benefits. Jamasb and Nepal (2010) applied a social costebenefit analysis on some waste treatment options with energy recovery and compared them with coal power equivalent under low-carbon price. Massarutto et al. (2011) performed an economic assessment of alternative scenarios differing by combinations of energy and materials recovery from

MSW. The chosen approach was an economic life cycle assessment (LCA), often referred to as Life Cycle Costing (LCC, Reich, 2005).

Assamoi and Lawryshyn (2012) carried out a financial analysis and an LCA for two waste treatment options (incineration and landfill).