Urban Solid Waste Management in Galicia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EX POST EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (ERDF) OR COHESION FUND (CF) IN THE PERIOD 1994-1999 URBAN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GALICIA PREPARED BY: CSIL, CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL STUDIES, MILAN PREPARED FOR: EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY POLICY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION MILAN, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 This report is part of a study carried out by a Team selected by the Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission, through a call for tenders by open procedure no 2010.CE.16.B.AT.036. The consortium selected comprises CSIL – Centre for Industrial Studies (lead partner – Milan) and DKM Economic Consultants (Dublin). The Core Team comprises: - Scientific Director: Massimo Florio, CSIL and University of Milan; - Project Coordinators: Silvia Vignetti and Julie Pellegrin, CSIL; - External experts: Ginés de Rus (University of Las Palmas, Spain), Per-Olov Johansson (Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden) and Eduardo Ley (World Bank, Washington, D.C.); - Senior experts: Ugo Finzi, Mario Genco, Annette Hughes and Marcello Martinez; - Task managers: John Lawlor, Julie Pellegrin and Davide Sartori; - Project analysts: Emanuela Sirtori, Gelsomina Catalano and Rory Mc Monagle. A network of country experts provides the geographical coverage for the field analysis: Roland Blomeyer, Fernando Santos (Blomeyer and Sanz – Guadalajara), Andrea Moroni (CSIL – Milano), Antonis Moussios, Panos Liveris (Eurotec - Thessaloniki), Marta Sánchez-Borràs, Mateu Turró (CENIT – Barcelona), Ernestine Woelger (DKM – Dublin). The authors of this report are Emanuela Sirtori, Mario Genco and Andrea Moroni of CSIL. Useful research assistance has been provided by Rosa Carmosino of CSIL. The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments from the EC staff and particularly to Veronica Gaffey, José-Luís Calvo de Celis and Kai Stryczynski. They also express their gratitude to all stakeholders who agreed to respond to the team’s questions and contributed to the realisation of the case study. The authors are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged. Cover: Waste piled up in the Sogama plant of Cerceda, picture by Gabriel Tizón (June, 2010). TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ON MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ......................................................................... 10 1.3 STRUCTURAL FEATURES ................................................................................................................... 14 1.4 SOGAMA’S ROLE IN THE LIFE-CYCLE OF SOLID WASTE ............................................................................. 19 1.5 CURRENT PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................. 25 2 ORIGIN AND HISTORY ............................................................................................................... 27 2.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 27 2.2 REVISION OF THE PROJECT DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 28 2.3 FINANCING DECISION AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 32 2.4 SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEMS OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................. 34 2.5 FUTURE INVESTMENTS .................................................................................................................... 38 3 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 41 3.1 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 41 3.2 DIRECT ECONOMIC GROWTH ............................................................................................................ 44 3.3 ENDOGENOUS DYNAMICS ................................................................................................................ 50 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 51 3.5 TERRITORIAL COHESION ................................................................................................................... 55 3.6 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY .................................................................................................................. 56 3.7 SOCIAL HAPPINESS .......................................................................................................................... 57 4 DETERMINANTS OF PROJECT OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 61 4.1 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 61 4.2 PROJECT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 62 4.3 APPROPRIATENESS TO THE CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 66 4.4 PROJECT DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 66 4.5 FORECASTING CAPACITY AND MANAGERIAL RESPONSE ........................................................................... 68 5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 71 ANNEX I. METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION .................................................................................. 75 ANNEX II. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 81 ANNEX III. MAP OF STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................. 117 ANNEX IV. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 119 ANNEX V. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................ 121 ANNEX VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 123 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CF Conversion factor CFB Circulating Fluidised Bed CO2 Carbon Dioxide DG Regio Directorate General for Regional Policies EC European Commission ECU European Current Unit ERDF European Regional Development Fund EU European Union EUR Euro GDP Gross Domestic Product GFMP Galician Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (Federaciόn Galega de Municipios e Provincias – FEGAMP) GSI Galician Statistics Institute (Istituto Galego de Estadistica) GWh Gigawatt per hour HCl Hydrochloric acid IMS Integrated Management System (Sistema Integrado de Gestiόn) IRR Internal Rate of Return MSW Municipal Solid Waste MWe Megawatt Electrical NOx Nitrogen oxides NPV Net Present Value NSI National Statistics Institute (Istituto Nacional de Estadistica) NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units Ptas Pesetas RDF Refuse Derived Fuel SOGAMA Galician Society for Environment (Sociedade Gallega do Medio Ambiente) VAT Value Added Tax WMP Waste Management Plan WtE Waste to Energy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case study analyses the implementation of a new urban solid waste management system in the Spanish Autonomous Community of Galicia. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the socio-economic long-term effects generated by the project and to disentangle the possible determinant factors that may have contributed to producing these effects. More details on the methodology are recalled in the box below and more extensively in Annex I. OVERALL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The Conceptual Framework delivered in the First Intermediate Report has been developed from the evaluation questions included in the ToR1, and further specified and organised in accordance with the study team’s understanding. In particular, the Team identified three relevant dimensions of analysis: a. The object of the evaluation (the ‘WHAT’): this relates to the typologies of long-term contributions that can be observed. Starting from the typologies identified in the ToR (socio-economic development and quality of life) the Team developed the following classification of long-term effects: ‘Economic development’ (including effects on GDP growth and endogenous dynamics) and ‘Quality of life’, taken here to be synonymous with additional social wellbeing, i.e. including effects that are not captured by the economic variables. ‘Quality of life’, in turn, has been divided into: social cohesion, territorial cohesion, institutional learning, environmental effects and social happiness. b. The timing of the long-term effects (the ‘WHEN’): this dimension relates to the point in the project’s lifetime at which