Waste management implementation in times of Economic Crisis in Greece by hellas cisd

KU LEUVEN MASTER OF EUROPEAN STUDIES: TRANSNATIONAL AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES BLIJDE INKOMSTSTRAAT 5 3000 LEUVEN, BELGIË

Waste management implementation in times of Economic Crisis in Greece Case study: Attica Region

Vasiliki Daniela Makri

Presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in European Studies

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Sander Happaerts

Academic year 2013 – 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................2 Executive Summary......................................................................................................3 List of Graphs and Tables............................................................................................5

Introduction...................................................................................................................6 1. Theoretical Framework............................................................................................9 1.1 Implementation Theory.....................................................................................9 1.2 Comparative Research.....................................................................................12 2. Methodology and Analytical Framework.............................................................14 2.1 Time...................................................................................................................14 2.2 Space..................................................................................................................14 2.3 Factors that influence implementation...........................................................15 3. Main Findings..........................................................................................................20 3.1 Political Motivation..........................................................................................20 3.2 Knowledge of the Law......................................................................................22 3.3 Resources...........................................................................................................27 3.3.1 Number of Landfills..................................................................................27 3.3.2 Plants for the alternative treatment of Waste........................................28 3.3.3 Funding......................................................................................................30 3.4. Efficient Management and Coordination Structures...................................34 Discussion and Conclusion.........................................................................................38

List of References........................................................................................................41 Annex............................................................................................................................46 Abbreviations..........................................................................................................46 Kallikratis Programme..........................................................................................47 Table 3.....................................................................................................................48 Table 4.....................................................................................................................49 Graph 2....................................................................................................................51 Graph 3....................................................................................................................52

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The present thesis could not have been completed without the direction and support of some people.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Sander Happaerts, for introducing me to Environmental Politics and the possibilities a research in this field can offer. Without his patience, instructive comments and inspiring attitude this thesis would not have been conceived or completed.

I would also like to thank Mrs Paraskevopoulou Argyro and Mr Triantafyllou from the Greek Ministry for Environment and Climate Change for their cooperation and valuable input when it was most needed. Also, thank you Mrs Paschalidou Lynda for your valuable input regarding the technical details of the thesis and for your timely corrections.

This thesis could also not have been written without the unlimited support of Dimitra, Helena, Phillipa and Jayledaki. Thank you for supporting me in every manner whenever it was needed and for making me think outside of the box. I also thank Agiou Dimitriou 85 for always providing me with a source of inspiration.

Last but not least, I thank my family for giving me the opportunity to study and supporting me all the way.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This thesis focuses on the impact of the economic crisis on waste management implementation (WMI) in Greece. The point of departure is that there is a lack in the existing bibliography regarding the effect of the economic crisis on WMI in Greece. Therefore, the research question that is formed is “Has waste management implementation in Greece been affected by the economic crisis?”. On these grounds the hypothesis “The economic crisis has had a negative effect on waste management implementation primarily in the Attica region and secondarily in Greece” is formed. The research is based on Implementation theory while Comparative Research methods complement it. This is achieved by adopting factors that influence implementation from implementation theory and adapting them to waste management implementation. In addition, comparative research enables the examination of a single case study- the Attica region- and comparison of waste management implementation in two years of reference- 2006 (before the crisis) and 2012 (during the crisis). The above mentioned theories and the literature behind them are presented in the Theoretical Framework. The way they are adapted for this thesis is presented in the Methodology and Analytical Framework. The factors that are identified and analysed are Political Motivation, Knowledge of the Law, Resources and Efficient Management and Coordination structures. Political Motivation is separated into State level and Regional Level and shows a negative change in the state level and a positive change in the Regional level. Knowledge of the law has decreased between the two reference years. Resources are further identified in Number of Landfills, Plants for the alternative treatment of Waste and Funding. Each of these categories is further divided into smaller parts. Briefly, the number of illegal landfills has decreased while the number of alternative landfills has either remained the same or increased. The plants for the alternative treatment of waste have increased significantly. Funding has decreased dramatically at all levels. Effective management and coordination structures are identified in State level, regional level and local level structures and show significant negative alterations between the two reference years. The findings of the thesis are presented briefly in the Conclusion and Discussion part where observations that became evident during the research complement them and are discussed. The thesis outcome answers the research question positively, i.e. the economic crisis does affect waste

management implementation in Greece. In addition, the hypothesis that the economic crisis has had a negative impact on waste management implementation -primarily in the Attica region and indirectly in Greece- is also verified. However, it is presented that the economic crisis is not the sole responsible for the poor performance of Greece in waste management practices, as the very strong and negative impact of other factors have become evident through the course of research, the strongest of which is the Kallikratis programme.

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

Table 1. Main Legislative Framework on Waste management in Greece........................23

Graph 1. Rate of Recycling- Re-using of waste in 2006 and 2012.....................................29

Table 2. EU expenditure through the LIFE+ Programme for waste management in Greece.........................................................................................31

Table 3. Differences between Top-down and Bottom-up Implementation Perspectives.............................................................................48

Table 4. Structure and Operation of Local and Regional Democracy in Greece.....................................................................................49

Graph 2. Rate of Recycling in Greece and in the EU in 2006 and 2012............................51

Graph 3. Municipal Waste by treatment in the EU............................................................52

INTRODUCTION

Although the principal drive for the creation of the EU was the formation of a single market, over the years environmental concerns started to arise. The main drive was a series of environmental disasters that increased public awareness, coupled with action and pressures from pioneering states in the environmental field (Bruyninckx, 21/03/2014). Among the first priorities within the environmental legislation was waste management with the first waste law1 being passed in 1975. As EU enlargements started to take place, the existing policies had to be adapted to the specific needs of the new Member States while trying to form convergence patterns between them. One of the most interesting case studies in this aspect is that of Greece. Greece did not have any pre-existing national legislation regarding waste management. Waste was uncontrollably disposed of in open-air landfills so the first time any considerations were expressed at national level was due to the need for convergence with other member states. In addition, ύreece‟s unique geographic characteristics (combination of mountains, sea and fields at the triangle between Asia, Africa and Europe) place it in a position that makes it host to a large proportion of EU‟s overall biodiversity, thus any alteration in the equilibrium due to waste pollution could influence the overall EU quota. Lastly, its economy is primarily based on tourism that in its turn is based on the beauty of natural sites. The deterioration of these sites could lead to a drop in tourism that would be detrimental for many private Greek SMEs. For all these reasons correct waste management implementation (WMI) had to be sought at least as early as 1986 when Greece entered the EU. However, 28 years after its accession, Greece is still facing considerable challenges in the waste management sector –both before and during the economic crisis- resulting in a high number of environment and waste management infringement cases before the European Court of Justice (EC, Accessed on 05/03/2014; EC, Accessed on 09/03/2014) and fines imposed by the Commission (WWF, 2007)2. These cases concern mainly the use of illegal landfills and the unsuccessful rehabilitation of the ones that have been closed (EC, 2011).

Framework Directive 75/442/EC The most recent case was in 2013 when the Commission proposed a “daily penalty payment of 71193 euros for each day after the second Court ruling until Greece complies with the judgment and a lump sum calculated on the basis of 7786 euros per day for the period between the first judgment and the day of compliance or the day of the second Court ruling.” (EC, 21/02/2013). 2

The most evident question that arises at this point is what explains the gap between legislation and implementation3. Since the required legislation exists at both EU and Greek level, why is Greece still unsuccessful? Initial research shows that the existing literature on waste management in Greece is ripe with official European and National legal documents, reports and articles that either condemn Greece by stating that it is failing (Greek citizens and EU) or praise it because there have been some positive results (Greek authorities). It is evident that there is a variety of opinions regarding ύreece‟s success or failure depending on the point of view of the analyst and on which definition of success or failure is considered. On the other hand, what is found to be lacking in the literature is an assessment of the impact the current economic crisis has on Greek environmental (and waste management) policy implementation. Departing from the opinion that sustainability policies tend to be highly prioritised mainly in countries that enjoy a relatively stable socio-economic state (Happaerts, 2011) it is interesting to examine the Greek case under another lens that takes into account the socioeconomic developments that have taken place. The most recent and prominent one is the economic crisis that started in 2009 and whose impact is still devastating for Greece. As far as the environment is concerned, although Greece has never been among the most „complying‟ states with a large number of environmental infringements and red flag reports, the impact of the economic crisis on the national environmental policy has not been examined thoroughly yet. In addition, the unique parameters that characterise Greece nowadays (tourism-based economy and environmentally rich coupled with its economic destabilisation and the socio- political challenges it faces), provide the grounds for fruitful research that will take into account the possible effects the economic crisis has had on many levels of the waste management field (e.g. institutional structure, funding, motivation). Another aspect that further highlights the importance of this research is that due to environmental management issues existing prior to the crisis, by comparing Greece to itself in two different time periods that are differentiated by a major socio-political change, one important parameter is covered; there will not be a comparison of Greece with any other EU member state that –potentially- enjoys more stable socio-economic conditions. This departure from the usual viewpoint will allow for a more objective opinion regarding the improvement or deterioration of the WMI scene in Greece. Lastly, it is expected that through examining the impact of the economic crisis on WMI other factors that have had a negative impact will also come to light. 3

Waste management implementation here refers to practices that work towards fulfilling the goals set by the EU and to which Greece is completely aligned (MEECC, 2011:38)

Consequently, the research question that is formed is “Has waste management implementation in Greece been affected by the economic crisis?”. Specific focus will be on implementation of waste management policy at the regional level with the scope of comparing key factors of its implementation before the beginning of the crisis and during the crisis. The reason for examining the regional level is that in Greece, authority for WMI is shared between the state, regional and local levels while the amount of each level‟s responsibilities has been altered due to the economic crisis and its subsequent structural changes. However, according to the existing trend, the Greek state sets general priorities (eέgέ “environmental protection”) and allocates certain amounts of funds to the regions that set up their own structures and invest the money on their own initiative. Given the high degree of differentiation between Greek regions 4, the funds for environmental protection are invested differently and according to the specific needs of each. Therefore, an examination at the regional level will present more exact results regarding WMI than if the same policy was researched at state level. The results of this thesis will provide valuable feedback for future research such as forecasts of how the environmental policy field is expected to look in the aftermath of the crisis, research for preventive mechanisms in other countries that might be faced with a similar crisis and mechanisms that might alleviate the current situation in Greece as well as research on the other –non economic crisis-related- factors that influence WMI negatively.

E.g. Attica is the most industrial one and Thrace one of the least industrial but richer in biodiversity terms.

1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK “The most heated arguments derive 'reality' from a conceptual framework, instead of deriving a conceptual framework from reality." E. F. Schumacher

By starting to examine how the WMI has changed during the crisis, importance must be placed on existing implementation theory.

1.1 IMPLEMENTATION THEORY

The theory on policy implementation is characterized by a high degree of disagreement between the researching scholars (Schofield, 2001:247-250). Discussions on the implementation of existing environmental legislation has been monopolised by “lawyers and partly by political and administrative scientists” (Demmke, 2001:2). It is a field mainly dominated by studies in “educational, health, environmental, social, and economic issues” (Saetren 2005:570). The starting point of Implementation Theory research was (arguably) set by Pressman and Wildavsky (Paudel 2002:36, Saetren 2005:572, Conteh 2011:3) with the publication of “Implementation” in 1λιγέ Since then, the literature has become enriched and research focus intermittently shifted e.g. from bottom-up approaches to top-down and from qualitative to quantitative research methods Φη‟ Toole, 2000:264). However, agreement between scholars seems to be reached on the existence of three generations of policy implementation theory each appearing in the field during the ιί‟s, κί‟s and λί‟s respectively Φθaudel βίίβ:38-45, DeLeon 2002:468-473). “The first generation of implementation studies usually consisted of case study analyses that considered the immense vale of troubles that lay between the definition of a policy and its executionέ” ΦDeδeon βίίβ:469), and their focus was on specific case studies that allowed for little generalisation (Paudel 2002:38, Quoting Googin, 1990:13). The second generation researchers were, among others, more inclined to use analytical frameworks and the construction of models. According to Paudel (2002:39, quoting Winter 2003:213), this practice induced an unavoidable “confrontation between the so-called top-down and bottom-up perspectives of policy implementation”. For the purposes of this thesis more elaboration on these perspectives is needed. Top-down approaches are adopted mainly by policy makers and their research questions regard the comparison of policy goals with outcomesέ “The starting point is the authoritative decisionν as

the name implies, centrally located actors are seen as most relevant to producing the desired effectsέ” (Matland1995:146). Their research outcomes are generalised and prescriptive in nature, aiming to provide improvements for future policies (Ibid). Importance is placed in the policymaker‟s ability to control the implementation process and it is sought through centralisation of the implementation defining factors (Paudel 2002; Matland 1995). Bottom-up approaches, on the other hand, represent primarily the viewpoint of the target populationέ “This perspective has as its starting point a problem in societyέ” Φθaudel βίίβ:41). The research outcomes are descriptive by nature, while implementation responsibility is placed in the hands of the implementers and central administrators are thought to have a smaller share in it. Decentralisation is a key aspect of this approach. According to Matland (1995), there are two levels of implementation: 1. The macro-implementation where the policy programme is created by the government. 2. The micro-implementation level that involves the recipients of the centrally decided programme. They carry the responsibility of deciding upon the mode of implementation in their local area. The logic behind this arrangement is that micro-level players are in direct contact with – thus presumed to have advanced knowledge of- the case-specific characteristics and challenges5. There has been considerable disagreement among scholars regarding the use of either approach. According to Saetren (Mentioned in Matland, 1995:152), both are legitimate as long as the topdown approach is used in the policy-formation stage and the bottom-up one in the eventual policy evaluation. However there have also been efforts in combining the bottom-up and top-down approaches such as Elmore‟s forward and backward mapping and ύogin‟s communications model of intergovernmental policy implementation (Ibid:151-152). According to Demmke (2001), these approaches were practiced at the EU level through the 80s and 90s in the environmental field. Top-down, hierarchical modes of policy implementation were predominantly used in the 80s and the main method was command-and-control. In the 90s bottomup approaches were more prominent in the environmental field, with the member states having a stronger position. In the 21st century there is a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches with multi-actor, multi-level, hetero-archical, network governance that is also characterised by a large variety of means for environmental policy implementation (Demmke, 2001:4-5; Schunz, 2014). In order to accommodate the needs of this thesis several tools of implementation theory will be used. First of all, there will be a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches according to the factor under examination by collecting and analysing data from EU and national documents as 5

For differences between top-down and bottom-up perspectives see Table 3 in Annex

well as from local press. This will allow for the adoption of a more objective approach that will neither condemn ύreece for its “failure” Φin EU terms) nor praise it for its “successes” (in national terms). Secondly, the macro- and micro- level differentiations will be used, separating Greece into several levels according to the authority of the factor being examined; State, region and local. In this way the responsibility and effect of each authority will be presented leading to an understanding of the most prominent and dysfunctional level that can later be examined in other researches. Third, the factors that will be examined will also derive from implementation theory. Although the existing literature is ripe with a very high number of factors influencing environmental and waste management policies, the ones chosen are those of Demmke (as will be presented in the methodology) as they are both comparatively few and encompassing enough in order to be adapted to Greece and the above mentioned levels and approaches. However, implementation theory alone is not sufficient for representing the situation. “σ context-free

theory

implementation

likely

produce

only

inadequate

results…implementation always takes place in a changing context and researchers should thus accept that there is no immutable and perfect theory of implementation. The changing developments in the society must be taken into account” ΦDemmke, 2001:5). In Greece, the biggest development in the last decade has been undeniably the economic crisis and ideally research would represent the impact of the economic crisis on WMI in the whole country. However, such research is impossible without

over-generalising a number of

significant variables such as political

motivation of local and regional authorities (that is crucial given the structural characteristics of the administrative authorities in Greece that convey a great amount of responsibilities to these levels6) and the vast differences in a set of socio-economic and developmental indicators (as there are several stages of development among the Greek regions that signify different financial resources as well as different levels of industrialisation and environmental degradation). Thus, research must be focused on one region in order to produce comparable results. Although it is acknowledged that the examination of one region alone is not enough in order to provide a conclusion that will be correctly applicable to the whole country, a good indication can be provided, depending on the choice of the region that will be examined. In order to solve the regional problem and all the problems that it entails, another branch of research theory must be used; comparative studies. This branch will be supportive of and complementary to implementation theory.

See Annex, Table 4

1.2 COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

Comparative research is one of the most flexible frameworks since it is applicable to a large thematic range (social, political, economic, historical, scientific etc.) and can include both qualitative and quantitative methods. Its functioning is based on comparing two or more entities with the scope of identifying similarities or differences. According to Pennings, Keman and Kleinnijenhuis (2006:23, Quoting Schmitter, 1993:177) comparative research can be spatial and/or temporal i.e. units are examined across space or time. On these bases, five categories of comparative research are identified (Pennings, Keman and Kleinnijenhuis, 2006:20): “Φ1) The Single υase Study (either a country, an event or systemic feature) (2) The Single Case Study over time (i.e. a historical study or time series analysis) (3) Two or more cases at a few time intervals (i.e. closed universe of discourse) (4) All cases that are relevant regarding the Research Question under review Φη) σll relevant cases across time and space Φpooled time series analysis)” In order to answer the question of this thesis the second category of comparative research will be used that “is often used as a theory confirming or infirming analyses based on a country‟s history with a specific focus derived from the Research Question in use (Lijphart, 1971μθλβ)…This type of case analysis can be performed qualitatively or quantitatively (Beck and Katz, 1995).” (Pennings, Keman, Kleinnijenhuis, 2006:21). This approach will provide insights regarding the state of affairs before the crisis and during the crisis thus making easily identifiable the correlation of the economic crisis (if any at all) with WMI. The case- study that will be examined is one Greek region7and the temporal factor will be two years, one before the beginning of the financial crisis and one at its height. To conclude, implementation theory alone is dispersed and faced with its own challenges. On the other hand “it is almost impossible to conceive of serious explanatory work in political and social science that is not at least implicitly comparative…” ΦIbid:25). Comparative analysis must be founded on a theoretical context that will provide the tools for the comparison while implementation theory must be limited and provided with an analytical context. For these reasons

Identified by using the NUTS-2 classification the EU uses for the allocation of structural funds.

the framework of policy implementation will provide the backbone of this thesis and it will be complemented by comparative research. With the above in mind the hypothesis that is formed is â&#x20AC;&#x153;The economic crisis has had a negative effect on waste management implementation primarily in the Attica region and secondarily in Greeceâ&#x20AC;?. The negative aspect will be measured by comparing a set of factors that influence policy implementation in two reference years. By assessing whether and how these implementation factors have been affected by the crisis it is possible to conclude on how overall WMI has been affected in the same period. Although the applicability of the outcomes cannot be ensured for the whole of Greece, they can provide a good indication of the situation in the country. The differences in WMI before and during the financial crisis are expected to be similar in all of Greece without the need to examine all regions.

2. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

The hypothesis‟ testing is possible through identifying three units of analysis; time, space and factors that influence implementation.

2.1 TIME Since the research question is focused on the financial crisis in Greece and the changes in WMI through it, two points in time must be chosen to allow for comparison of the implementation factors. The first year of choice is 2006 because it combines two very important factors. Firstly, this year is two years before the financial crisis was felt at the micro-level8 (Tamourantzis, 2012:4), so there were no pressures and consequently no alteration of the existing practices by the state, regional and local actors. The second reason for this choice is that a large part of the research will be based on press releases that are more likely to be available in this year than in the years before it9. Consequently, 2006 is an ideal point for comparison because it will manifest the exact difference for “before-and-during” the crisis while it is expected to provide a larger dataset in order to represent the situation as accurately as possible. The second year of choice is 2012 when Greece was already deep into the recession and the alterations in administrative structures, wages and practices had already started to take place and be felt at the micro-level. In addition the data needed are easily accessible and the time-span of two years since the writing of this thesis ensures a higher level of security in the conclusions.

2.2 SPACE In this thesis the Attica region, following the NUTS-2 classification system, will be examined. The reason for this choice of classification is that the largest part of financial resources aimed at environmental improvement derives from the EU and is aimed at EU regions. After the national and EU funds are allocated, the regions decide how waste management schemes will be implemented, by which factors and what amount of the funds will be directed to specific projects (e.g creation of a recycling unit). Consequently, the estimation of funds dedicated to WMI in one region will be facilitated. In addition, this classification happens to coincide with the territory that ύreece classified as “σttica Region” or “σttica θrefecture” in both years of reference. Thus, this territorial unit combines funding from the EU along with homogenous allocation of administrative 8

By the citizens in the form of wage cuts and unemployment. Preliminary research on the subject showed that the retrieval of historical press releases tends to produce fewer results the further back in time the subject is researched. 9

powers from the Greek state10 in both years of reference thus making it a stable unit across time that enables analysis. At this point it is important to mention a programme that will be mentioned several times in the course of this thesis; the Kallikratis programme. It came into force in 2011 and it altered greatly the structural characteristics and administrative responsibilities at state, regional and local levels by significantly decreasing the number of municipalities, merging some of the existing prefectures and increasing local and regional competences11. The reasons for choosing the Attica region in particular are numerous. First of all, it is the most populated Greek region since it accommodates roughly 1/3 of the overall Greek population12. Consequently, the level of WMI by 1/3 of the population sets a strong trend for the whole of the country. Secondly, according to this classification, it is the one of the most developed regions of Greece which according to Scutariu and Pascariu (2010:99-102) means that it has a higher GDP/capita, is structurally and administratively more advanced and functions in a more efficient manner. Consequently, if a negative trend is seen in WMI since 2006 in Attica it is expected to be seen also in the least developed Greek regions that do not enjoy the above mentioned developmental characteristics to the same degree13. Thirdly, Athens, the Greek capital, is located in this region resulting in a larger volume of data being available-both in media and in official documents.

2.3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE IMPLEMENTATION There is no agreement regarding the term “successful implementation” among the scholars or the implementers. The same policy can be considered successful or unsuccessful according to the commentator‟s point of view. There are many factors that influence the implementation outcome. Because of the term‟s inherent weakness and of what can be measured to estimate it, focus must shift elsewhere. According to Demmke (2001:6) “If policy objectives14 are to be achieved, a number of interrelated preconditions must be fulfilled”έ Although these are pre-conditions and not conditions, it can be deduced that the less they are fulfilled, the more unlikely it is for the implementation to be successful (and vice versa). Consequently, by estimating their level at the given reference years, it is estimable how probable it would be for implementation to be successful. If there is a negative 10

The administrative territory of various other regional units has been altered significantly in Greece in the last 10 years such as the merging of the” Thrace” and “εacedonia” regions in the region of “Eastern εacedonia and Thrace” 11 For further explanation of the Kallikratis programme see Annex. 12 3.827.624 people in the Attica Region versus 10.815.197 in all of Greece (Greek Statistical Authority, 2013) 13 However, the opposite i.e. if there is a positive change in Attica then there must be one in the least developed regions, does not necessarily apply. 14 In this thesis “objective” is both EU and national as they are completely aligned as stated earlier.

change in these factors, the outlook for correct implementation has worsened. A set of these preconditions is provided by Demmke (2001) and some of them are adopted in order to accommodate the needs of this thesis15. The choice was made on the grounds that they are specific enough in order to estimate effectiveness of implementation while at the same time broad enough in order to be easily adaptable to the specific characteristics of the units of analysis (i.e. the state, regional and local level). The way they are adapted and measured for this research are presented below: i. Motivation: Political motivation is crucial for successful implementation of any policy especially in the initial stages. It can be expressed through many forms, from public speeches to budget allocation 16. According to Callander‟s research (2008:678) on the performance of office- and policy-motivated candidates in elections “Simply because they intrinsically care more about policy outcomes, policymotivated candidates implement policies more effectively than do office-motivated candidates”έ Consequently political motivation plays a major role in policy implementation. Due to the fact that motivation can be expressed in speeches without necessarily leading to actual efforts in the implementation stage, in this thesis political motivation will be assessed primarily by the political authorities‟ speeches and afterwards verified by budget allocations. Political motivation will be sought in the context of setting environmental and waste management goals according to the ones set by the EU and attempting to comply with them. As mentioned earlier, waste management in Greece has been co-implemented by state and regional authorities, thus both levels must be placed under examination. However, the research methods for these two levels must differ, measuring the political motivation at state level through the Prime Ministers‟ (PM) official databases and the one at regional level through researching in non-politicized press. This differentiation in research methods is chosen because of two factors. First of all, speeches of PMs are maintained and published in the database of their appropriate political parties as far back as 2004. Thus, a thorough research on state level political motivation is possible. The same method cannot be applied to regional authorities as preliminary research showed that there is no such reliable database with a full record of all speeches, risking thus biased

The preconditions provided by Demmke are Motivation, Information, Knowledge of the law, Deterrence and threats, Resources, Skills and Efficient management and coordination structures. However, due to the limited space available for analysis and conclusion, four of these preconditions will be presented i.e. Motivation, Knowledge of the Law, Resources and Efficient Management and Coordination structures. 16 A number of researchers have focused on the issue of political motivation, such as Hotelling (1929), Persson and Tabellini (2000) and Aragones and Palfrey (2002, 2005) that have created models in order to measure political motivation as a factor for the effectiveness of policy implementation and the different policy approaches undertaken by office-motivated and policy-motivated election candidates (Callander, 2008).

results. Secondly, regional and local non-politicized press tends to highlight the regional and local problems and the consequent reactions of the responsible authorities more accurately. Thus, the state level will be researched by examining the θεs‟ political agendas in 2006 and 2012. The data will be collected by searching the databases of their political parties for their speeches and specifically for those that contain the word “environment17”έ This term was chosen instead of the term “waste management” because at the state level only general policy directions are given that entail within them smaller policy goalsέ Thus “environmental protection” could entail waste management along with many other environmental issues that need tackling in Greece (such as biodiversity loss in the Pindos mountain range and pollution of seaside areas). The term “waste management” is expected to be mentioned only by regional and local authorities that are responsible for setting and tackling area-specific goals. The regional authorities will be examined by researching in non-politicized newspapers for the term “waste-management” coupled with the names of the contemporary political authorities (at regional and local level). Lastly, the motivation of the state political figures presented in their speeches will be verified by comparing the national budgets in 2006 and in 2012 with the amount of funds derived from the national budget in order to cover environmental causes. It is not possible to measure the political motivation at state level by measuring the amount of national funds directed to waste management since the PMs are responsible for allocating funds to the appropriate ministries and ministries later launch more specific programmes that hand out responsibility for WMI to regions. Consequently the motivation at state level can only be measured in general terms such as “environmental protection”έ Limitations: It is expected that different research methods will have to be used for the two periods in question as speeches of regional authorities for 2012 are likely to be more available than those of the regional authorities in 2006. In the case where original speeches cannot be detected, the research will be based on printed and online newspapers excluding highly politicized press18. ii. Knowledge of the law: "Lawyers and both regulatees19 and regulators need to have detailed knowledge of Community and National law" (Demmke, 2001:6). It is pivotal that knowledge of the law by the authorities and the subjects of law are ensured in order for imposition and compliance to be possible. In the 17

In the sense of natural environment Highly politicized press is identified by its appropriateness to any extreme of the political spectrum. Such newspapers in Greece are Rizospastis (extreme left), I Avgi (leftist),To Pontiki (leftist), Xrysi Avgi (Extreme Right). The newspapers used in this thesis are I Kathimerini, To Vima and Naftemporiki that although cannot be completely politically neutral, they are in the centre of the political spectrum. 19 Regulatee here refers to whoever is regulated by the law

opposite case it is improbable that the policy under consideration will be implemented successfully or at all while the imposition of sanctions will be questionable as it is not an issue of informeddeliberate- non-compliance but one of lack of adequate information. In the context of this thesis, legislation regarding waste management will be researched at the EU level, as well as its incorporation into national legislation. The knowledge of the law by regulatees and regulators will be assessed by identifying and analyzing previous research by Greek legal experts. iii. Resources: "Sufficient technical, personal and financial resources are crucial for sustained success" (Ibid). Three resources are identified. a. Number of landfills. The number of three kinds of landfills (Spaces for the Uncontrolled Disposal of Waste- SUDW, Spaces for the Hygienic Land-filling of Waste- SHLW, Spaces for the Hygienic Land-filling of Residue- SHLR) will be calculated in both years by researching official datasets. It will become evident whether the number of landfills (which is the least preferred method of waste disposal) has increased between the two reference years. The number of the three categories of land-fills will be assessed trough researching into official documentation by the authorities responsible for WMI. Any gap in the documentation will be complemented by directly questioning the authorised services. b. Plants for the alternative treatment of Waste. The number and the functionality of recycling and re-using plants will be assessed through official documentation. The reason that these are the only methods of alternative treatment of waste to be researched is that according to Eurostat (2014), municipal waste in Greece has always either been land-filled or recycled and re-used with a very small amount of organic waste being composted. The methods of prevention and incineration are not used at all. c. Financial resources: The main sponsors of waste management in Greece are the EU and the Greek government. Greece receives two categories of funds for environmental protection. The first is funds for investment in waste management projects and the second is funding for covering the functional and administrative costs of actions adopted at an earlier stage. The EU funds directed to investments will be assessed in both years through the LIFE+ programme which is the EU's financial instrument supporting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU (EC, Environment- LIFE programme, accessed on 20/05/2014). The regular funds directed to WMI will be assessed by the yearly reports of the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) of Attica. This is a mechanism for the allocation of funds from the National Strategic Reference Framework that "constitutes the reference document for the programming of

European Union Funds at national level" for 6-year-periods (Ministry for Development and Competitiveness, accessed on 05/07/2014). v. Efficient management and coordination structures: "Correct implementation depends on the ability of the various actors and organisations to communicate, cooperate, integrate and coordinate policy objectives" (Demmke, 2001:6). The efficiency of waste management in Greece in the two years will be assessed through presenting the main WMI actors and their responsibilities in order to identify their interactions and level of effectiveness.

3. MAIN FINDINGS

3.1 POLITICAL MOTIVATION

Political Motivation at the state level The database of the Nea Dimokratia party was researched as it offers a full list of all the Prime Minister and ministerial speeches from 2003 onwards. In 2006 a total amount of 67 speeches were delivered by the PM Konstantinos Karamanlis. Of these, only 6 contained the term “environmental protection”έ όurthermore, no further explanation regarding “environmental protection” is givenέ υharacteristically, in his speech regarding governmental reform, environmental protection is the 7th and last goal, preceded by Education, Justice, Transparency, Parliament Membership, Public servants, and Economy. Waste was not mentioned in any of his speeches. The previous are further verified by researching the goals set in his electoral campaign in 2004 where he stated that priority is given to Education, culture, economic and agricultural policy and social welfare (Republic of Cyprus, Press and Information office, 08/03/2004). In addition, PM Karamanlis created the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works. Consequently the funds for the environment were not separated from those for other areas such as transportation, infrastructure and the Olympic Games that took place in 2004. In 2012 a total of 55 public speeches were delivered by PM Antonis Samaras (also leader of the New Democracy party). Of these, only two contained the term “environmental protection” and one of them referred to waste management. In his first prime-ministerial speech in 2012 he stated that economic development and exit from the crisis is the new government‟s first priority followed by privatization, utilization of public resources, unblocking the NSRF mechanism, closing down or merging public mechanisms and restoring market liquidity. The environment was mentioned in this speech in the sense that the above mentioned goals should be achieved with “environmental clauses relevant to the ones that are applied in the other EU countries” ΦSamaras, ίθήίιήβί1β)έ ηne positive step taken by PM Samaras was that he broke down the MESPPW and to form the Ministry for Environment and Climate Change making it the first time in Greek history when a Ministry is solely dedicated to the environment. This decision was most likely taken as a gesture of good will because of increased environmental pressure from the EU during θε Samaras‟ term in office that demanded an increased focus on environmental issues that could not be taken only partially by a mixed ministry.

Verification of Political Motivation at the state level The aggregate national budget for 2006 was 81.536.000.000 Euros. The annual national budget in 2006 allocated to the MESPPW was 2.160.890.000 euros. The category “Environmentώousing” was allocated 91.000.000 Euros meaning that it received approximately 0, 11% of the national expenditure (Ministry of Finance, 2006). The Greek national budget of 2012 amounted to 177.698.000.000 Euros. The MEECC received 113.973.000 Euros while the category “Environmental Services” was allocated 55.756.000 (Ibid). This signifies that this category received 0,031% of the national budget, approximately 3 times less than the amount allocated for the category “Environment-ώousing” in βίίθέ ώowever, if the percentages received by the ministries are compared, i.e. 2, 65% and 0, 64% in 2006 and 2012 respectively then there is a clear trend of decreasing the amount of the national budget allocated for environmental causes.

Political Motivation at the Regional and Local level In 2006 the Attica region was divided into three prefectures (East Attica, West Attica and Attica-Piraeus) that were responsible for the implementation of waste management. The political authorities at the time were prefects Arkoudaris Ar. in West Attica, Gennimata F. in AtticaPiraeus and Kouris L. in East Attica. Researching for online publications referring to Mrs Gennimata, 14 results were delivered, three of which referred to the environment. Following the same research method, the results for Mr Arkoudaris were 16 with 4 of them referring to the environment. It must be noted at this point that one of them presented Mr. Arkoudaris shutting down one of the local landfills in order to pressurise the government for more funds ( Hatzioannidou E.,08/02/2006). Regarding Mr. Kouris, 10 results were presented for 2006, only three of which referred to the environment. It is notable that although the three local authorities‟ political motivation for the environment was not at high levels, all of them referred to the problem of waste management in the Attica region while εrsέ ύennimata also mentioned the creation of “ύreen Spaces” ΦDevelopmental Network of West Athens, 02/03/2006). In 2012, after the implementation of the Kallikratis programme, the three prefectures had been merged into one hyper-regional unit- Attica- that corresponds with the region of the NUTS-2 classification. Responsibility for the entire hyper-region of Attica had been transferred to one prefect that in 2012 was Sgouros G.

The data were retrieved from Attica region‟s database and presented that in 2012 Mr Sgouros delivered 27 public speeches and interviews. Nine of these were dedicated to the environment and specifically to the implementation and shortcomings of waste management in the Attica region. This signifies that WMI was highly prioritised by Mr Sgouros.

Conclusion Consequently it is safe to conclude that political motivation at the state level is less in 2012 and political motivation at the regional and local level is more in 2012. This is likely attributable to the separation of executive powers in 2010 through the Kallikratis programme that enabled PM Samaras to focus on the crisis and Prefect Sgouros to face the local challenges within his region.

3.2 KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW

Introduction EU legislation is downloaded in the form of Directives and then integrated into the national one. The national legislation may place executive authority for waste management in either the nation‟s hands or in the regions‟. According to EU legislation, national authorities and regions are responsible for proposing, managing and evaluating environmental programmes while the EC pays the approved expenditure and verifies the national control systems. According to the Greek MEECC, all EC legislation regarding waste management has been integrated into Greek national legislation (Accessed on 08/05/2014). Its suitability is further verified by a national report published by WWό stating that “through the transposition of EU legislation into national law, ύreece has acquired a modern institutional framework on waste management” ΦWWό, βίίι:18). Findings The core legislation regulating waste management in Greece is shown in the table below (MEECC, Accessed on 08/05/2014; EC, Accessed on 08/05/2014). The EU is one of the most transparent international entities. All EU documents and legislation are available and accessible to anyone.

Table 1. Main Legislative Framework on Waste management in Greece General legislative framework for waste management in Greece

Greek national

legislation on

legislation on waste

waste

management

Explanation

management

L. 2939/2001

“θackaging and alternative management of other productsInstitutionalisation of National Organisation for the alternative management of packaging and other products and other provisionsέ”

L. 3854/10

“εodification of the legislation regarding alternative waste management of packaging and of other products and of the National Organisation of Alternative Management of Packaging and of other Products and other provisions”

2008/99/EC and

L. 4042/2012

2008/98/ C

“θenal protection of the EnvironmentFramework for the production and

management of wasteRegulation of issues of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and υlimateέ” L.4 014/11

“Environmental authorisation of projects and activities, regulation of arbitraries in light of the creation of environmental trial balance and other provisions authorized by the Ministry for the Environmentέ”

2002/532/ C

Into force

European Waste Catalogue Directive.

1999/31ή υ

JMD29407/3508/2002

“εeasures and

Directives

conditions for the

integrated into

hygienic landfill of

national

wasteέ”

legislation βίίίήιθή υ

JMD22912/1117/2005

“εeasures and conditions for the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution from waste incinerationέ”

94/62/EC

L. 2939/2001

“Packaging and alternative management of packaging and other products. Institutionalization of a national organization of alternative management of packaging and other products.”

JMDs on

JMD 50910/2727/2003

“εeasures and υonditions

specific issues

modified by

for Solid Waste

L.4042/2012

Management. National and Regional Management θlanning”

91/689/EEC

JMD 13588/725/2006

“εeasures, conditions and

modified by L.

restrictions for the

4042/2012

management of hazardous waste in compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/689/EEC "Hazardous Waste" of December 12, 1λλ1έ”

JMD 146163//2012

“εeasures and conditions

authorized by L.

for Waste Management of

4042/2012

ώealth Units 1λλ1”

As far as knowledge of the law is concerned, it is evident from the above table that the majority of the core legislation regarding waste management was adopted in Greece after 2000. In addition, 6 new pieces of legislation (either JMDs or Laws) were introduced after 2006, presenting a very large catalogue of issues that must be taken into consideration in the construction and overall

disposal of waste in Greece. This –in itself- is a very positive step since legislation is the basis for the implementation of any project. However, the coincidence of this legislation with the financial crisis (2008- today) and the structural changes brought about by the Kallikratis programme (2010) resulted in contradictions in the legal framework20 as the issue of waste management was assigned from the municipalities to a combination of municipalities, prefectures, regional units that used Regional Bodies for the Management of Municipal Waste and private enterprises for the management and commercial use of industrial waste (Greek Organisation for Recycling, 2013). “The administrative reform brought about in ύreece by the law γκηίήβί1β “ζew σrchitecture of Self- Government and Decentralised Administration- Kallikratis θrogramme” [caused] significant difficultiesέ They result from the restructuring of services, redistribution of competences between services of σ‟ δevel and τ‟ δevel of Self- Governed units, such as the abolition of Prefectures and the transportation of Managements of Technical Services of the θrefectures…the merging of municipalities… the conversion of collective bodies such as the United Association of Municipalities and Communities of Attica Φmanagement of solid waste) that led to significant delays especially to… management of water, liquid waste, solid waste…” (Institution for Regional Development of Panteion University, 2012:34). In addition, there is much confusion at the citizen level regarding the criteria laid down by the legislation for the construction and functioning of alternative waste management facilities. The strong reactions presented by them are argued on the basis of the new infrastructures polluting the environment exactly as the old SUDW did (Prasino+ Mple, 05/06/2011).

Conclusion To conclude, it is not possible to compare the “knowledge of legislation” in βίίθ and in βί1β nor to place it in one prefecture (as the law is national), but it is useful to observe a trend in this period. The adoption of legislation controlling waste management increased between 2006 and 2012, thus presenting a positive trend. However, there is still much confusion within the local and regional authorities regarding the allocation of responsibilities coupled with strong reactions from the citizens that either do not understand the legislation or do not trust the authorities for

For a presentation of the conflicting legislation see Ypsilantis ύέ, Φβ4ήίθήβίίθ), “ π Φ ΑΑ α α α α α α - RBMMW enterprises- Necessity for the immediate legislation for their institutionalization and function”, Working group of the ύreek enterprise for the management of solid waste for the RBMMW enterprises 20

implementing it correctly. Either way, understanding and knowledge of the law by both regulators (municipalities and prefectures) and regulatees decreased between 2006 and 2012.

3.3 RESOURCES

3.3.1 NUMBER OF LANDFILLS Introduction The main method of waste management in Greece has always been land filling of waste. There are three categories of land filling. The first –and only until 2004- is “Spaces of Uncontrolled Disposal of Waste” ΦSUDW) where anyone could dispose of any kind of waste. The second category that partly replaced the SUDW is “Spaces of ώygienic δand filling of Waste” ΦSώδW)έ In this case, the site selection follows very specific criteria, the liquid residue is led to a unit of biological treatment and the released gases are collected with specialised methods. The function of SHLW requires efficient recycling as recyclables should not be disposed of in SHLW. The third category is “Spaces of ώygienic δand filling of Residue” (SHLR) which also requires efficient recycling and is aimed at managing organic waste and basically food residue. In Greece the second and third category face strong opposition from the citizens and municipal authorities as they are falsely- identified with the first category and feared to further pollute the surrounding soil and water resources (Ibid).

Findings The first category is considered illegal by the EU and significant measures have been taken in order to restore the SUDW sites in Greece. Specifically, the MESPPW issued JMD 50910/2727/03 in 2003 that regarded the restoration of all Greek SUDW by 2008 (Institution for Statistic documentation, analysis and research, 2006). In the Attica region, the situation is as follows: In 2006 there were 29 SUDW in the Attica region (of which 24 were functioning) (Ibid) and only two functioning SHLW (one of which was already saturated and supposed to be closed down by February 2006) (ROP of Attica, 2007). In order to face the problem, the prefecture of Attica programmed the creation of three more SHLW in the following years (Varela Ev., 2011). Consequently, there were no SHLR either functioning or planned to function in the Attica region in 2006. In 2012 the number of SUDW had decreased to 11 in the Attica prefecture (Naftemporiki, 25/09/2012, Econews, 16/10/2012) and the number of functioning SHLW was still two. Even at the

time this thesis is being written, only one of those two SHLW is functioning in the Attica region while one more is completed but is not functioning (Kotsekidou , 08/07/2014). Two SHLR were in place in the Attica region (Fyli and Grammatikos) but were not functional (Paraskevopoulou, 08/07/2014).

Conclusion In conclusion, the number of illegal landfills has decreased greatly between the two reference years. The number of SHLW has remained the same while the number of SHLR has increased. This signifies a clear improvement between the two years as far as land filling is concerned in the sense that more environmentally friendly land- filling is used.

3.3.2 PLANTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT OF WASTE

Introduction Reusing is the second and Recycling is the third most preferred method of waste management in the EU21 as it decreases greatly the amount of land-filled waste. These methods have been used in the EU for decades with lead states such as Germany, Belgium and Sweden recycling up to 40% of their solid waste (Regions for Recycling, Accessed on 08/07/2014). A pre-condition for recycling and re-using is the separation of waste (either at the source or at other stations) into categories and the treatment of each category separately in specialized units. As far as Greece is concerned, it has had low rates of both methods (when compared with the EU average) in the two years of reference22while most of the recyclables are paper and fibre (EEA, 08/04/2011). As far as incineration and composting are concerned, Greece has never used incineration (Eurostat, 2014) and the percentage of composting of municipal waste even in 2012 was very low23. The main infrastructure for the alternative treatment of non-municipal waste in Greece comprises the following units: -Centres for Sorting of Recyclables -Units for Dismantling of End-of-Life-Vehicles -Units for the Recovery of Used Elastics -Units for the Re-generation of Lubricants and Waste Oils -Units for the recycling of batteries -Units for management of Construction and Demolishment waste See “Waste όramework Directive”, EC, Accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/legislation/a.htm See graph 2 in Annex. 23 See graph 3 in Annex 21 22

It is worth mentioning that 2004 was the first year that units for the treatment of industrial waste began to emerge in Greece. This sector is still in its developing stage (Dr. Charitopoulou, 10/07/2014).

Findings In the table below the rates of recycling in the years 2006 and 2012 in Greece are presented for the different industrial waste categories (Data retrieved from The Greek Organization for Recycling, Report for Recycling in Greece, 2013): Graph 2. Rate of Recycling- Re-using of waste in 2006 and 201224

As far as the Attica region is concerned the situation was as follows: In 2006 there was one unit for Mechanic Recycling and Biologic Treatment and one Centre for the Separation of Recyclables within the Attica region. As far as industrial waste is concerned, there were 6 units for their treatment focusing mainly on the treatment of hazardous industrial waste (MESPPW, 2007; ROP of Attica 2007-2013, 2007). In 2012 there were in total 40 units for the alternative treatment of municipal and industrial waste in the Attica region. In addition there was the introduction of separate waste bins that promoted separation of waste at the source (Greek Organisation for Recycling, 2013). However, the majority of municipal waste was still deposited in the existing SUDW and SHDW.

In the category â&#x20AC;&#x153;End of Î´ife Vehicles the rate signifies recycling AND re-using. In addition although the rate of recycling of lubricant oils is less in 2012 it must be noted that the amount of oils decreased from 60.000 tons in 2006 to 51.000 tons in 2012. Finally, in addition to the rate of recycling of batteries, their rate of collection is also presented as its sharp increase in 2012 signifies significantly more motivation at the citizen level. 24

Conclusion To conclude, in the prefecture of Attica the number of alternative waste management units has increased by 34. The rate of recycling and re-using in Greece was significantly higher in 2012 in almost all categories while the generation of waste in many categories (such as lubricants and oils, batteries) has decreased. The overall trend in the Attica region and in Greece is positive as far as recycling and re-using is concerned showing that significant efforts have been made at the state, regional and citizen level.

3.3.3 FUNDING

Introduction As far as funding for environmental protection is concerned there are two main categories that must be distinguished; funding for specific projects and funding from the regular budget. In the first category, a goal must be achieved so funding is mainly aimed at investing in something new. In the second category, funding is aimed at covering the administrative and functional costs of projects undertaken in the past or for completing past investments (i.e. completing the construction of a waste disposal area that started several years ago).

Findings i. Funding for projects At the EU level, funding for the environmental projects is supplied to eligible member states from the Cohesion Fund. Under the regulation 2006/596/EC Greece is eligible for receiving funding25 (EC, 2006). The regions within the member states propose environmental projects and they receive funding according to the category they belong26. The projects are approved by the EC that thereafter allocates the funding mainly through LIFE+ programme. Greece is a special case in this regard as it is one of the few EU countries that have all three kinds of regions within their territory, while the majority of its regions fall within the Less Developed category with only the Attica and South Aegean regions being More Developed (EC, Accessed on 08/05/2014). According to data from the Cohesion Fund platform, Greece is the 6th largest beneficiary in terms of environmental funding from the Cohesion Funds (3.546,36 Million Euro) since the fundâ&#x20AC;&#x;s establishment in 2007 (Inforegio, accessed on 08/05/2014). In addition, within the context of the LIFE+ programme, 196 environmental projects have been financed in Greece since 1992, 25

Along with Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia 26 Less developed regions, transition regions and more developed regions (EC, accessed on 08/05/2014).

amounting to 255 Million Euros of which 183 million were EU contributions (EC, Accessed on 08/05/2014). Of these projects, 45 were aimed at waste management while only 22 have presented results (EC, Accessed on 10/05/2014)27. The Attica region received between 1992 and 2014 funds from the EU for a total number of 19 projects. Of those, 11 presented results (with the latest being in 2007). In order to assess whether the funds derived from the EU for waste management changed during the economic crisis, there will be a comparison of the total amount of funds between the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2012. In the period 2000-2006:

Table 2. EU expenditure through the LIFE+ Programme for waste management in Greece Name of Project

Amount

TRAFODECON - PCB Transformer

κηγ,λγλέίί €

Decontamination for Re-Use, and Decontamination of other PCB waste, with small-scale semi-mobile facilities, applied in pilot countries Poland and Greece Sumanewag - Sustainable Management of E-

446,400.00

waste in Greece ASBESTMINE - Utilisation of MABE

2,140,269.00

Asbestos Mine as a Disposal Site for Asbestos Wastes Diachirisi Adranon - Management of

984,138.00

earthquake construction and demolition waste in the municipality of Ano Liosia

e-Hospital EMAS - EMAS and Information

305,332.00

Technology in Hospitals DIONYSOS - Development of an

645,086.00

economically viable process for the integrated management via utilization of winemaking industry waste; production of high added value natural products and organic fertilizer

See LIFE+ Programme database

TWIRLS - Treating Waste for Restoring

1,525,928.00

Land Sustainability

Total EU expenditure

13.802.184,00

For the period 2007-2012: Name

Amount

DRYWASTE - Development and demonstration of

453,262.00

an innovative household dryer for the treatment of organic waste

Recycling@Home - Development and

560,896.00

demonstration of an ecological, innovative system for in-house waste recycling

HEC PAYT - The Development of Pay as You

658,251.00

Throw Systems in Hellas, Estonia and Cyprus

Athens - Bio-waste - Integrated management of bio-

638,715.00

waste in Greece â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The case study of Athens

ENERGY-WASTE - Energy exploitation of non-

658,251.00

recyclable urban waste in a sustainable waste-toenergy market ROADTIRE - Integration of end-of-life tires in the

733,851.00

life cycle of road construction

ELINA - Integrated green life-cycle management of

1,000,000.00

waste oils and petroleum residues

Waste2Bio - Development and demonstration of an innovative method for converting waste into

745,175.00

bioethanol

Total amount of EU expenditure

5.448.401

To conclude this section, there is significant difference in the investments for waste management by the EU for the Attica region. Up to 2006 the total amount of funds dedicated to waste management were 13.802.184,00 Euros, while between 2007 and 2012 they amounted to 5.448.401 Euros, showing a decrease of 39,47% between the two periods. This decrease cannot be attributed to the improvement of WMI in Greece since the second period (2007-2012) is characterized by increased pressures and complaints from both the EU and from the local level. At the EU level pressures were expressed in the form of reports that highlighted the divergence between Greece and the average of the EU on waste management issues coupled with the imposition of fines due to infringementsέ σt the local level pressures increased due to citizens‟ reactions regarding the creation of SHLW and SHLR that were meant to replace the existing SUDW. These reactions were based on the false belief that the land and water resources would be polluted in the same manner as before, decreasing thus the financial and aesthetic value of the concerned sites.

ii. Regular budget funds The funds covering administrative and functional costs are a combination of EU and national funds. The policy for their allocation to regions consists of the drafting of a 6-year-plan for each Member State; the National Planning for Regional Development (NPRD)έ “[It] is the reference document for the programming of the EU τudgets in the national level for each period” Φεinistry for Development and Competitiveness, Accessed on 05/07/2014). The mechanism in Greece for the allocation of the NPRD funds is the ROP that is issued once a year for each Greek region and represents the amount of National and EU funds dedicated to a specific thematic area in that region. The ROP for the Attica region in 2006 falls within the NPRD for the period 2000-2006 and is as follows: The total amount of spending28 in 2006 for the Attica region was 978.501.130,39 Euros. Environmental issues are presented in the programme‟s second pillar under the name “Restoration of quality of life and of the environment” and received βθ4έ012.511,38 Euros, of which

The amounts presented refer to spending and not allocation, number of contracts, of calls of interest or of assignment of projects that although higher in quantitative terms, do not represent the actual amount of funds that were absorbed.

55.566.174,67 was spent for actions for irrigation and waste management in the Attica region. Characteristically, in 2006, 5.000.000 Euros was spent on works regarding the construction or improvement of the Fyli SUDW in the Attica Region (Annual Report ROP of Attica, 2007). The annual report for the ROP of 2012 has not been published at the time this thesis is being written due to the fact that it was proposed for review in August of the same year. Therefore, the data presented for 2012 are of the ROP in force before the proposal. The Attica region received a total amount of 1.025.179.015 Euros in 2012. Of this, 154.186.079 Euros was spent for second pillar actions, namely for “Sustainable Development and Quality of δife”έ σs far as the category “Irrigation and waste management” is concerned, the only retrievable data is of the amount allocated to these actions, that is 48.235.294 Euros. However, according to the Review Proposal, the overall absorption percentage in the second pillar is maximum 10% of the total amount allocated to actions of that pillar for 2012 (Institution of Regional Development of Panteion University, 2012; ROP of Attica 2007-2013, 2012). Consequently, the amount spent in the category “Irrigation and waste management” was between ί and 4έκβγέηβλ,4 Euros. Either way the amount spent for waste management in 2012 in the Attica Region was maximum 8, 68% of that spent in 2006 presenting a huge difference between the two years.

Conclusion In conclusion the funds spent for WMI in the Attica region in 2012 were significantly lower than those spent in 2006 for both investments for new projects and for the sector‟s normal functioning. 3.4 EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION STRUCTURES

Introduction WMI in Greece is accomplished at many levels by a variety of factors. These factors at the state level take the form of Ministries while at the regional level they take the form of institutions and agencies. Considering the fact that the creation and dissolution of institutions and agencies is decided in Greece through legislation, it is evident that the procedure is lengthy and timeconsuming. Thus, between the two reference years not many of them were replaced. However their responsibilities and areas of competence altered significantly. Although the first pieces of legislation regarding waste management stakeholders29 were published as early as 1989, in recent years two of them have been considered as the most important, namely JMD 50910/2727/2003 “θrovisions and conditions for the Management of Solid 29

In this thesis, stakeholders is synonymous with actors.

Waste, ζational and Regional θlanning of εanagement” in complete accordance with Directive 91/156/EEC in 2003 and the Kallikratis programme that was published in 2010 and launched in 2011. The former denotes the responsible stakeholders for waste management in Greece from 2003 onwards. The latter does not mention waste management but it directly affects its implementation through re-structuring the administrative authorities and their responsibilities in Greece.

Findings i. State Level At the state level the actor responsible for WMI is the relevant Ministry that adopts a general direction according to the goals of the contemporary government. It is indirectly responsible for WMI as goal-wise it only gives general directions such as “υonserving and recovering balance, harmony and diversity in ύreek wildlife and ecosystems” Φεinistry of Interior, βίίλ)έ It receives a part of the Annual National Budget and it allocates it to various areas on its own initiative. According to JMD 50910/2727/2003 the contemporary “environment” εinistry is also responsible for the creation of a ζational θlan for the εanagement of Waste that “designates the general directions for the management of solid waste in the whole country”έ This plan is reviewed every five years and modified by the relevant ministries after consultation with municipal stakeholders. In 2006 the relevant ministry was the MESPPW. It had mixed tasks that incorporated environmental considerations in its higher prioritised areas such as infrastructure. The few environmental tasks that were taken on by the Ministry were mainly focused on the construction of more efficient irrigation systems and the prevention of fires in the summer months (MESPPW, 2005). As indicated previously in this research, waste management was not a priority of the relevant Ministry in 2006. In 2012 the above mentioned Ministry had already been taken apart and the MEECC had been established. The creation of a Ministry solely dedicated to environmental considerations is a very positive step as it signifies the acknowledgement of the importance of environmental actions at the state level. As far as its goals are concerned, in its third action pillar is mentioned “Efficient management of waste and promotion of recycling”έ This shows a positive trend in waste management prioritisation at the state level.

ii. Regional Level The same piece of legislation obligates every Greek region to “draft [a] Regional θlan for the εanagement of Waste… according to its social, economic and environmental needs” and is

approved by the relevant ministry. This plan must present in detail how WMI will be approached30. The plan can be modified every five years with the same procedures that apply for the National Plan for the Management of Waste. In addition, every region is responsible for the creation and efficient functioning of Organizations of Local Self-Government and Institutions for the Management of Solid Waste at the local level. As far as funding is concerned, the regions receive it from two sources. First, a part of the Annual National Budget is invested in the region that is later allocated through the ROP mentioned in the “όinancial Resources” part of this thesisέ The second source of funding is from the EU through the Cohesion Funds that are invested through the LIFE+ programme. Consequently, it is obvious that WMI at the regional level is approached by a multiplicity of actors. Although the goals, specific needs and means of implementation of each region are decided by the regional authorities, the regional needs‟ approval and the subsequent allocation of the needed funds are decided by the national and EU levels.

iii. Local level In 2006 the main local actors for WMI were the Organizations of Local Self- Government and the Institutions for the Management of Waste. The first organization is directly responsible for the installation of waste and recycling bins, the collection of waste according to the Regional Plan for Management of Waste. As far as the Institutions for the Management of Waste are concerned, they are mentioned in legislation that dates back to 1986 but they were finally authorised in 2003 and by 2006 their functioning had partially begun. These Institutions were responsible for the management and smooth operation of waste treatment plants and they had to collaborate closely with the previous institution. In 2012 the Kallikratis programme had already been launched and altered significantly the responsibilities and structure of waste management authorities. With the aim of decentralising administrative powers, it empowered further regional and municipal authorities. Consequently in 2012, the regions were responsible –among others- for “the approval and monitoring of the implementation of regional management of waste” and the “creation of … associations (FODSA)31 for the integrated solid waste management of the region” Φεinistry of Interior, βίίλ:35). Although the Bodies for the Management of Waste already existed, their functioning was partial and their structure haphazard resulting in big differences in their numbers between different regions. With the Kallikratis programme these were either merged into one or dismantled. By 2012 every region 30

i.e. which sites are to be chosen for the creation of waste management facilities, how is waste to be collected transported, stored etc. 31 Bodies for the Management of Waste

had at least one of those bodies, which amounted to 45 in the whole country (Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association, accessed on 18/07/2014).

Conclusion In Greece waste management has been co-implemented by state, regional and local authorities. Although the structures have remained namely the same, their functioning altered significantly between 2006 and 2012. Starting at the state level, a Ministry solely dedicated to the environment was created. At the regional level with the launch of the Kallikratis programme, more responsibilities were taken on regarding the specificities of waste management. Lastly, the locallevel bodiesâ&#x20AC;&#x; responsibilities and functions were clarified in an attempt to improve efficiency. Although all these are identified as positive steps for improved WMI, their effectiveness is questionable as 2012 is too soon to have a clear view of the effectiveness of the institutions that changed in 2011 as the system was still in transition. Therefore, it is concluded that although in 2012 more effective coordination structures and institutions started to be created, they were less effective than in 2006 that had more effective but less WMI specialized structures and institutions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Approaching the end of this thesis, some general trends have become evident primarily for the Attica region and indirectly for the whole country. First of all, there has been a decrease in political motivation regarding the environment at the state level, unlike at the regional level. This trend signifies that the PM in 2012 was expected to prioritise other issues such as unemployment, wage cuts, privatisations etc. The rise in waste management considerations at the regional and local level, albeit a positive trend, cannot be attributed to the economic crisis as it is considered to be a direct consequence of the Kallikratis programme. Therefore the responsibilities of each region were attributed and clarified and the motivations of the regional political authorities had to be consistent with them. Although legislation regarding WMI in Greece has risen quantitatively, the synchronous launch of the Kallikratis programme and the large amount of legislation that followed it, resulted in increased confusion regarding the technicalities and bureaucratic procedures that had to be tackled by each regulator. In addition, the strong reactions of regulatees regarding the creation of units for the alternative management of waste is attributed to a lack of understanding of the law regulating the criteria for the functioning of the mentioned units. Consequently knowledge of the law was less in 2012 in both regulatees and regulators. Regarding the treatment of waste, there were significant positive changes. Despite the economic crisis and the lack of funds, illegal land-filling decreased significantly while alternative waste treatment units remained the same or increased. The fact that these numbers have improved shows that there are significantly more strenuous attempts at regional and local levels towards improving the WMI field in 2012, in the midst of the crisis, than in 2006. This shows that although the conditions are â&#x20AC;&#x201C;at least financially- unfavourable, the will for correct implementation has increased. Therefore it is probable that with the correct allocation of funds, WMI will improve dramatically. As far as funding is concerned there was a dramatic decrease in the allocation of funds for the environment and waste management between the two years of reference. This decrease is evident at all levels, from the amounts allocated to the relevant â&#x20AC;&#x153;environment ministriesâ&#x20AC;?, to the allocation of funds in the regions (by both the Greek state and the EU) for investment and functioning purposes. This decrease is directly correlated with the economic crisis as other areas such as market stabilisation were prioritised higher and can be held responsible for a large part of the delays Greece shows in WMI.

The last factor in consideration was efficient management and coordination structures and presented ambiguous results. By 2012 the MEECC had been set up which signifies a very positive difference when compared to the relevant ministry in 2006. Research on the other actors presented that the regional and local authorities became re-structured in 2011 and their fields of competence were significantly altered in an attempt to become more efficient which in itself is a very positive step as well and signifies an acknowledgement of the fact that they had been malfunctioning until then. However, due to the transition brought about by „Kallikratis‟ coupled with the fact that it took place at the height of the economic crisis with increased pressures from many levels, the Greek modus operandi of placing importance on the creation of public environmental institutions (that defines greatly the quality of said institutions when they are created in a state of crisis and in an atmosphere of urgency) and the problem of waste management still quite severe, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that positive steps towards the improvement of implementation have been taken. The outcome of these steps is expected to be seen in the following years. Regarding the research question “Has waste management implementation in Greece been affected by the economic crisis?” the answer is positive. WMI has been affected because of the economic crisis with the most significant factor being the decrease in funds. However, the change in implementation is not entirely attributed to the economic crisis as other factors have also affected the situation, sometimes in conflicting ways. As far as the hypothesis “The economic crisis has had a negative effect on waste management implementation primarily in the Attica region and secondarily in Greece” is concerned, it is concluded that it is true. Due to the financial crisis, the funds aimed at waste management have decreased dramatically, causing thus great delays in the implementation of specific projects and in the normal functioning of the existing ones. In addition, although environmental concerns were not prioritised highly even before the crisis, after the crisis they were pushed further down the state political agendas leaving all responsibility to regional authorities that are not however directly responsible for the amount of funds they receive. Apart from the point of focus of this research, the impact of another aspect has been presented and become very important; the Kallikratis programme. Although as a programme it is meant to enhance effectiveness, the fact that it was launched in the midst of the crisis, further challenged the already fragile equilibrium. Therefore many of the negative differences in the factors under examination are attributed to its launch and not to the economic crisis per se. In addition, the fact that the most responsible factors for delays in correct WMI are the lack of funds and the launch of the Kallikratis programme- both of them unavoidable in the current time and with no margins for immediate corrections- questions the legitimacy of the imposition of fines

by the EU regarding shortcomings of waste management practices since it worsens the financial shortcomings and may decrease the newly created motivation of regional and local stakeholders. To close this research, the pre-conditions for correct waste management primarily in the Attica region and secondarily in Greece altered significantly between 2006 and 2012. There is more motivation and positive alteration of practices at most levels as well as more infrastructure than there has ever been. The improvement of the situation is considerably delayed by the lack of funds and of effectiveness in the newly created administrations. The fact that these attempts for improvement take place during the financial crisis only makes failures more probable and accentuated. The situation is expected to become much better once the economy stabilises and the existing institutions gain expertise.

LIST OF REFERENCES    

τruyninckx, ώ Φβ1ήίγήβί14), Speech “The EU‟s challenge of the global environment”, KU LEUVEN, Leuven υallander, Sέ Φβίίκ), “θolitical εotivations”, The review of Economic Studies, Issue 75, p.p. 671-697, Doi: 0034-6527/08/00280671$02.00 Charitopoulou, (Contacted on 10/07/2014), Head of Alternative Management of the Greek Organisation for Recycling. Conteh, C. (2011)“Policy implementation in multilevel environments: Economic development in Northern Ontario.” Canadian Public Administration, 54(1), 121–142.



doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2011.00163.x DeLeon, P., & DeLeon, L. (2002). “What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467–



492. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003544 Demmke, C. (2001), “Towards Effective Environmental Regulation: Innovative Approaches in Implementing and Enforcing European Environmental Law and Policy”, Jean Monnet



Working Paper 5/01, The Jean Monnet Program, ISSN 1087-2221 Department of management of the σttica Rηθ Φβίίι), “ πα

α Α

2006-

2000-2006- Annual

Report on the Implementation of the intervention of Structural Funds for the year 2006- ROP 

of Attica 2000-βίίθ”



http://www.asda.gr/elxoroi/egaleo-poikilo.htm

Developmental Network of West Athens (02/03/2006), Retrieved from

Econews (16/10/2012), "Α

: 'Α

απ α α

Α Α-

The public call for the recuperation of SUDW are unfruitful", Retrieved from 

http://www.econews.gr/2012/10/16/diagwnismoi-apokatastasi-xada European υommission Φσccessed on ίηήίγήβί14), “Statistics on environmental infringements- Infringements per εember State”, Retrieved from



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/statistics_MS.pdf European υommission Φσccessed on ίλήίγήβί14), “Single εarket Scoreboard- Performance per Member state- ύreece”, Reporting θeriod βί1γ-2014, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/_docs/2014/07/member-states/2014-07greece_en.pdf



European Commission (06/09/2006), ”υommission Decision of 4 August 2006 drawing up the list of Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 20072013”. Official Journal of the European Union,, L243, Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006D0596&qid=140709427845

 

6&from=EN European υommission Φβί11), “υountry όactsheet for ύreece”, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/GR%20factsheet_FINAL.pdf European υommission Φβ1ήίβήβί1γ), θress Release “Environment: Commission takes Greece back to υourt over illegal landfills and asks for fines”, Retrieved from

       

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-143_en.htm?locale=FR European Commission (accessed on ίκήίηήβί14), “Structural όunds Eligibility βί14-βίβί”, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/img/eligibility20142020.pdf European Commission (accessed on ίκήίηήβί14), “EU υohesion όunding- Key Statistics”, Inforegio, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/funding/index_en.cfm European υommission Φσccessed on βίήίηήβί14), “Welcome to δIόE”, δIόE θrogramme Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ European Commission (accessed on ίκήίηήβί14), “δIόE by country”, δIόE θrogramme, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/countries/index.htm European Commission, NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction European Environment Agency (08/04/2011), "Waste- National Responses, Greece", Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/gr/waste-national-responses-greece European υommission Φσccessed on ίκήίηήβί14), “EU Waste δegislation”, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/legislation/ European υommission Φίβήίιήβί14), “Questions and answers on the Commission Communication "Towards a Circular Economy" and the Waste Targets Review”, Retrieved



from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-450_en.htm Eurostat Φβί14), “εunicipal waste management and treatment by type of treatment methodGreece- Incineration- 1995-βί1β” Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/graph.do?tab=graph&plugin=1&pcode=tsdpc240&langu



age=en&toolbox=data α

Greek Statistical Authority (GSA)-

(

Α ), retrieved from

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-themes?p_param=A1602



Greek Organization for Recycling (2013), "Έ

Α α

α-

Report for Recycling in Greece", Athens, Retrieved from   

http://www.eoan.gr/uploads/files/cbbd0e79c9dea6d7410f11fa5ba15759021e285f.pdf Happaerts, S. (2011). “Sustainable Development: Between International and Domestic forces. A comparative analysis of sub national policies”. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Hatzioannidou Ef. Φίκήίβήβίίθ), ΟΈ

threatens Athens AgainΟ, Η α

- I Kathimerini

Απ

α- Garbage Α- Φ

», FOSDA- Bodies for the Management of Waste)”, Retrieved

Institution for Regional Development of Panteion University (2012), " Α π

α α

2007-2013- Analysis for the submission

of proposal for the reform of the Attica ROP 2007-2013", Panteion University, Athens Institution for Statistic Documentation, Analysis and Research (2006), " α π



α π

from http://www.eedsa.gr/Contents.aspx?CatId=38&lang=gr π



α απ

ώellenic Solid Waste εanagement σssociation Φσccessed on 1κήίιήβί14), “Φ α



Α α

- Deliberative poll in the Amarousio municipality",

University of Athens, Department of Statistics εatland Rέ Φ1λλη), “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict εodel of θolicy Implementation”, Journal of θublic σdministration Research and Theory, Inc., Public Management Research Association, Retrieved from

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181674 . Ministry32 for Development and υompetitiveness Φσccessed on ίηήίιήβί14), “

Α- What is ζRθD”, Retrieved from httpμήήwwwέespaέgrήelήθagesήstaticWhatIsESθσέaspx Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change (Accessed on 08/05/2014), “Ν

Απ

”, Retrieved from

http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=j7WZqbv%2bkgc%3d&tabid=437&language 

=el-GR Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change Φβί11), “National Reporting to the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Sessions of the Commission on Sustainable Development of the



United Nations- υountry θrofileμ ύreece”, Uζ-CSD 18/19 εinistry for Environment, Spatial θlanning and θublic Works, Φβίίι), “ α

Απ

- National planning of management of hazardous

waste”

All Ministries are Greek

 

Ministry of Interior (2009), “Division of θowers in ύreece”, όramework υontract ζoέ CDR/ETU/106/2009 εinistry of Interior Φβί1β), “Structure and ηperation of δocal and Regional Democracy”, Retrieved from: http://www.ypes.gr/UserFiles/f0ff9297-f516-40ff-a70e-



eca84e2ec9b9/Structure_and_operation_Greece_2012.pdf Ministry of Finance (2006), "National Budget for the financial year 2006" Naftemporiki (25/09/2012), "Α

: 'Α

απ

α α

Α Α- The public call for the recuperation of SUDW are unfruitful", Retrieved at 

http://www.naftemporiki.gr/story/364568 Nea Dimokratia party database, Retrieved from http://arxeio.nd.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=33&id=61&Ite

 

mid=157&order=date&limit=15&limitstart=840 O' Toole. T. (2000). "Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects", 10, 263–288, Retrieved from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/2/263.abstract Kotsekidou An., Deputy Head of SHLW of East Attica, Contacted on 08/07/2014 LIFE+ Programme database (Accessed on 10/05/2014), Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm Paraskevopoulou Ar., Head of Environment Directorate, Prefecture of Attica, Contacted on



08/07/2014



and Reconsideration”, Nepalese J Public Policy Govern 2009, 25:36-54.



Comparative Methods and Statistics”, SAGE Publications

Paudel, N. R. (2002) “A Critical Account of Policy Implementation Theories: Status Pennings P., Keman H., Kleinnijenhuis J. (2006), “Doing research in Political Science: Prasino+ Mple NGO for Civilization and the Environment (05/06/2011), " Απ

Α Α

- From SUDW to SHLR", Retrieved from 

http://www.prasinomple.gr/news_Full.asp?articleID=621 Region of Attica Database, Retrieved from http://www.patt.gov.gr/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=191&Itemi



d=165&selyear=2012&lang=el Regions for Recycling (Accessed on 25/06/2014), "Recycling in Europe: some figures", Retrieved from http://www.regions4recycling.eu/R4RTheProject/RecyclingWFD/Recycling_figures_Europe



Republic of υyprus, Φίκήίγήβίί4), “ύreece- Elections”, θress and Information office, Retrieved from http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/6645bc8e70e73e2cc2257076004d01c1/0ee112a2a



3e879cec2256e51003c369f?OpenDocument&print Ν α



Samaras A. (06/07/2012), "

,Α

α α

,“

- Speech of PM Antonis Samaras to the programmatic

statements of the New Government", Press Office of the PM, Greek Republic Saetren, H. (2005). “Facts and Myths about Research on Public Policy Implementation: Outof-Fashion, Allegedly Dead, But Still Very Much Alive and Relevant.” Policy Studies



Journal, 33(4), 559–582. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00133.x Schofield, J. (2001).” Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research”. International Journal of Management Reviews,

 



3(3), 245–263. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00066 Schumacher Eέ όέ Φ1λιγ), “Small Is τeautifulμ σ Study of Economics σs If θeople εattered”, Blond & Briggs, London Schunz, Sέ Φβί14), θresentation in lecture “ύovernance in the EU”, KU δeuven Scutariu, σέ, θascariu, δέ Φβί1ί), “δandmarks of Regional Development in the EU”, όascicle of the Faculty of Economics and Public Administration Stefal Cel Mare, Suceava University,



Volume 10, No. 2(12), 2010, ISSN 2066-575X Tamourantzis, A. (βί1β), “

απ

α 1λιγ

α-

The international financial crises from 1λιγ until today”, International θolitical Economy 

Retrieved from http://www.economica.gr/files/tamourantzis-crises.pdf Varela Ev., (2011), " Α α

απ

α α

- Evaluation of technologies for the mechanic and biologic

treatment of municipal solid waste", National Polytechnic University in Metsovo, Department  

of Chemical Engineers WWF (2007), “υommitments without implementationμ The status of environmental legislation in ύreece”, σthens, βίίι Ypsilantis ύέ, Φβ4ήίθήβίίθ), “ π α

Α- Α α α

- RBMMW enterprises- Necessity for the immediate

legislation for their institutionalization and function”, Working group of the ύreek enterprise for the management of solid waste for the RBMMW enterprises

ANNEX

Abbreviations EC: European Commission JMD: Joint Ministerial Decision SME: Small and Medium Enterprises SUDW: Spaces for the Uncontrolled Disposal of Waste SHLW: Spaces for the Hygienic Land-filling of Waste SHLR: Spaces for the Hygienic Land-filling of Residue PM: Prime Minister NSRF: National Strategic Reference Framework ROP: Regional Operational Programme MEECC: Ministry for Environment, Energy and Climate Change MESPPW: Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works NPRD: National Planning for Regional Development WMI: Waste Management Implementation

Kallikratis Programme With this programme a large number of municipalities were merged together (from 1034 to 325) while their responsibilities regarding local affairs increased, the prefectures remained largely the same but their name was changed into “regional units” and in some cases, two or more adjacent prefectures formed a hyper-prefecture (or hyper-regional unit) that was run by one political authority. The number of regions remained at 13 and they largely correspond with the NUTS-2 classification system of the EU. As far as administrative responsibilities are concerned, after the launch of the Kallikratis programme “Regions are responsible for the administration of affairs in their district. They shape, plan and implement policies at regional level as part of their responsibilities under the principles of sustainable development and the country‟s social cohesion taking into account national and European policies. Municipalities are responsible for the administration of local affairs. They manage and regulate all local matters in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proximity with the aim of protection, development and continuous improvement of the interests and the quality of life of local society. There is no hierarchical control and relationship between the Regions and the εunicipalitiesέ” Φεinistry of Interior, 2012).

Table 3. Differences between Top-down and Bottom-up Implementation Perspectives (Paudel 2002:40): Variables

Top-Down Perspective

Bottom-up perspective

Policy Decision Maker

Policy maker

Street-level bureaucrat

Starting point

Statutory language

Social problems

Structure

Formal

Both formal and informal

Process

Purely administrative

Networking, including administrative

Authority

Centralisation

Decentralisation

Output/ Outcomes

Prescriptive

Descriptive

Discretion

Top- level bureaucrats

Bottom-level Bureaucrats

Table 4. Structure and Operation of Local and Regional Democracy in Greece (Ministry of Interior, 2012)

Graph 2. Rate of Recycling in Greece and in the EU in 2006 and 2012 (Eurostat, 2014)

Graph 3. Municipal Waste by treatment in the EU (European Commission, 02/07/2014; Data retrieved from Eurostat, 2014)