lable at ScienceDirect

Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

Contents lists avai

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/habitat int

Waste management benchmarking: A case study of Serbia

Marina Ili�c, Magdalena Nikoli�c*

Faculty of Ecology and Environment, Cara Dusana 62-64, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 September 2015Received in revised form25 December 2015Accepted 26 December 2015Available online xxx

Keywords:Municipal wasteMunicipalitiesBenchmarkingAssessmentSerbia

Abbreviations: EU, European Union; LWM, Law onMinistry of Urban Development; MSW, Municipal Soterephthalate; SLB, Service Level Benchmarking; SWMTQM, total quality management; US, United States; Welectronic equipment.* Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.12.0220197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Republic of Serbia expects to open Chapter 27 for negotiation in the coming year. Comparative analysis inthis paper shows current situation in waste management which should meet EU standards. The purposeof this paper is to operationalize current knowledge of waste management practices in order to provide aguideline for implemenetation of future projects and hereby make this knowledge applicable in everymunicipality. The results were compared with a municipality of similar characteristics from Ireland, inorder to compare average situation in wate management in Serbia with one EU country. This paperpresents the findings of the waste management benchmarking, and it sets out the policy priorities fromdevelopment perspective that need to be addressed to ensure that Serbia meets own waste managementneeds. The results obtained in the study showed the obstacles, real costs and time requirements forestablishment of an efficient institutional system able to generate strategic decisions and ensureadequate capacities for infrastructure project development and implementation in the waste manage-ment sector.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Waste management presents one of the challenges that anyurban area in the world facing with. Although the quantity of solidwaste generated in urban areas developing countries is lowcompared to industrialized countries, the municipal solid wastemanagement still remains inadequate (Proki�c, & Mihajlov, 2012).The main reason is that municipal authorities lack the resourcesand trained staff to provide their rapidly growing populations withthe necessary facilities and services for solid waste management.Thus, the problem of upgrading practices for the disposal of solidwastes is far more difficult than in developed countries(GamzeTuran, Çoruh, Akdemir, & Osman Nuri Ergun, 2009). Serbiais in the process of upgrading its MSW management, but generallyit can be characterized as undeveloped, as waste managementconsists of waste collection and land disposal only (NemanjaStanisavljevic, Ubavin, Batinic, Fellner, & Vujic, 2012). Many citiesin Serbia are facing serious problems in managing solid wastes dueto the existing solid waste management system that is found to be

Waste Management; MoUD,lid Waste; PET, polyethylene, Solid Waste Management;EEE, waste from electric and

highly inefficient. Although strict regulations on the managementof solid waste are in place, primitive disposal methods such as opendumping and discharge into surface water have been used invarious parts. For dealing with generated waste in an environ-mentally and economically sustainable way, landfilling must bereplaced by other, more sustainable, more efficient and modernprocesses (Karagiannidis, Kontogianni, & Logothetis, 2013).

Serbian approach to waste management is based on the EUstandards and adopted waste hierarchy principle prescribed in theLaw on Waste Management (“Official Gazette RS”, No. 36/09, 88/10), as well as in the National Waste Management Strategy,2010e2019 (“Official Gazette RS“, No. 29/10). This hierarchy statesthat the most preferred option for waste management is preven-tion, followed by re-use and recycling, energy recovery and, leastfavoured of all, disposal. Serbia is in the process to establish na-tional targets for waste recycling, diversion of biodegradable wastefrom landfills etc.

In order to ensure compliance with future EU targets, Irelandhas adopted new policies for continuing improvements in wastemanagement after the mid 2000s (EEA, 2013). The last decade hasseen significant changes in waste management in Ireland. Accord-ing to Environmental Protection Agency (2013a, 2013b, 2013c), tenyears ago recovery and recycling of household waste was 9% whilenow it reachs 47%. In addition, 98% of construction and demolitionwaste and 79% of packigingwaste is recovered (EPA, 2013). The Irishstrategy is to divert over 90% of waste from the ladfilling to a

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460454

significant recovery of recyclable materials through the imple-mentation of 10 regional waste management plans and inclusion ofstakeholders involvement programmes. Regional waste manage-ment plans were prepared according to principal drivers from theEU Waste Framework Directive, the EU Packaging waste Directiveand the EU Landfill Directive (Rudden, 2007).

Benchmarking method described below enables to make acomparative identification of those key elements, that will help toidentify cities’ strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, municipalbenchmarking leads to more efficient municipal resources man-agement and contributes significantly to expenditure cuts, mainlythrough a process of development and learning. Subsequently, thisanalytical tool will serve as the basis for evaluating the results.

1.1. MSWM legislation: at a Glance

The Republic of Ireland is an EU member since 1973. Legal basisof Ireland's waste policy is influenced by a range of EU Directives.Waste Framework Directive sets out the management systemapplicable to the municipality and it is an inseparable part of IrishWaste Management Act 1996. Waste Management Act is coveringnon hazardous and hazardous waste in Ireland. This legislationcontains a number of key legal obligations, including disposal andrecovery activities that require a waste licence (EPA). Waste man-agement policy at the national level was set down in several doc-uments issued by the Department of the Environment, Communityand Local Government. Government policy document ‘ChangingOur Ways', published in 1998, was based on the “integrated wastemanagement” approach, and internationally adopted hierarchy asthe cornerstone of European waste policies and legislation. Pre-venting and Recycling Wastee Delivering Change was published in2002, built on Changing Our Ways moving to concrete proposals togive authoritiesmore power undertake the problem of waste, whileWaste Management e Taking Stock and Moving Forward waspublished in 2004, Last one, A Resource Opportunity e WasteManagement Policy in Ireland was published in 2012. The revisedWaste Framework Directive (2008) was transposed into nationallaw providing the legal basis for Irish national waste managementpolicy (ARO, 2012). In summary, the national policy framework formodernising Irish approach towastemanagement was coordinatedand put in place in the form of 10 Regional waste managementplans (EPA).

The Republic of Serbia is a developing country in Europe(Nemanja Stanisavljevic, Ubavin, Batinic, Fellner, & Vujic, 2012).Although Serbia is bordering with EU countries, the state of wastemanagement in Serbia is far below EU targets. Since the strategicgoal of Serbia is to join the European Union, Serbia goes through anongoing process to harmonise local laws with EU legislation.Legislation may be considered to be one of the most appropriatemeans of addressing environmental issues. Serbia adopted the Lawon Waste Management (Official Gazette of RS, no. 36/09 and 88/2010) in 2009, which sets the framework for waste managementin Serbia in compliance with the EU. The Law prescribes all relevantaspects of waste management. Waste management consists of a setof activities of joint interest which comprise implementation ofprescribed action plans to be carried out within waste collection,transport, storing, treatment and disposal, including responsibilityfor waste management facilities upon discontinuation of their op-erations. In 2009 Serbia also adopted a Law on Packaging andPackaging Waste Management. This law sets forth environmentalrequirements which packaging must meet in order to be marketed,and it is in compliance with the EU regulation (“The Official Gazetteof the RS”, no. 36/09). According to the LWM each municipalityhave to develop a municipal waste management plan; subse-quently, municipalities must then organize themselves into regions

and prepare regional waste management plans based on the localplans (Proki�c, & Mihajlov, 2012). The strategic and planning docu-ments that came from primary legislation and from a series of by-laws adopted in the last three to four years are the Waste Man-agement Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2010e2019, Spatial Planof the Republic of Serbia 2010e2020, National Strategy for Sus-tainable Development and National Programme of EnvironmentalProtection. National Waste Management Strategy (2010e2019)adopted in 2010, provide national targets for sustainable wastemanagement. It establishes system for the management of specificwaste streams. Therefore, main challenge in waste management inSerbia is to ensure good coverage and capacity for collection,transport and disposal of waste on compliance landfills (Filipovi�c &Obradovi�c Arsi�c, 2012).

1.2. Benchmarking

The late 1970s and early 1980s were a timewhen benchmarkingwas used in the management of industrial firms in the US (Luque-Martinez &Munoz-Leiva, 2005). Benchmarking has been a popularin recent years as a practical method in developing critical areas ofbusiness (Anand & Kodali, 2008). Benchmarking can be seen as animportant management tool of total quality management (TQM),also for achieving or surpass the performance goals by learningfrom best practices and understanding the processes bywhich theyare achieved (Ananad & Kodali, 2008), and as a continuous processof identifying, understanding and adapting practice and processesthat will lead to better performance (Auluck, 2002; Kouzmin,Lo�Effler, Klages, & Korac-Kakabadse, 1999). The term benchmarkwas originally used by land surveyors, and by definitionis a refer-ence or measurement standard used for comparison (Auluck, 2002;Ungureanu, 2011). Anand and Kodali (2008) compare 35 differentbenchmarking models and note that most of them share severalkey themes including measurement, comparison, identification ofbest practices, implementation, and improvement. In fact, impor-tance of benchmarking results from its applicability in a variety offields such as: Manufacturing Total quality (Concurrent engineer-ing, Lean production, Innovation and product, development,Manufacturing and engineering systems, Logistics, Company or-ganization and culture, Environment, health and safety), Finance,Marketing - Customer satisfaction, Plus many others (Kelessidis,2000).

The main purpose of solid waste benchmarking is to comparecommon elements in solid waste systems and to follow wastehandling from generation to disposal. Waste benchmarking be-comes a valuable and powerful tool for representing the solid wastesystem (NSWB, 2011). TheMinistry of Urban Development (MoUD),Government of India recognising its importance, has launched theService Level Benchmarking (SLB) initiative covering water supply,wastewater, solid waste management (SWM) and storm waterdrainage (The Ministry of Urban Development, 2010). Bench-marking has beenwidely applied to any part of waste managementsystem. For example, Folz (2004) use the benchmarking process toachieve efficient recycling measuring service quality for municipalsolid waste recycling programs, and shows information from aservice-quality framework can be used in a benchmarking project.Similarly, Lavee and Khatib (2010) use the benchmarking process toinvestigate which underlying characteristics of municipalitiespredict the potential for economically efficient recycling. The basicconcept of benchmarking is the recognition that certain munici-palities are able to achieve better results in a certain field thanothers, reviewing progress towards targets it can eventually lead tothe establishment of best practices within a municipality or acrossmunicipalities (Folz, 2004). Furthermore, municipal benchmarkingleads to more efficient municipal resources management and

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460 455

contributes significantly to expenditure cuts, mainly through aprocess of development and learning.

1.3. Selection of the reference municipalities

The objectives of the study were to evaluate nowadays trends ofMWM via several indicators to evidence differences between mu-nicipalities in Serbia. Fifteen Serbian municipalities were selectedin order to assess a variety of different wastemanagement practicesand verify the usability of the benchmarking method. These resultswere compared with the results from an Ireland municipality ofsimilar characteristics. The selected reference municipalities andsome comparative data are presented in Table 1.

The municipalities cover a wide range of population fromBogatic with population approaching 30,000 to small municipalityGad�zin Han with three times less population. In order to assessmunicipality's performance in waste management, it was decidednot to follow common practice and to classify municipalities ac-cording to any sets of criteria (e.g. a range of sizes).

2. Analytical framework

The proposed framework for benchmark analysis consists ofthree major elements, which are (1) maping the situation in theresearched areas, (2) identificaton of the position of the respondent(the city) in relation to the situation in other comparable citiesthrough the identification of its strengths and weaknesses, (3)creating a new communication and knowledge platform: byapplying a system of continuous improvement through the transferof know-how and good practices, by encouraging open discussionbetween central and local government (or between managing andexecutive units), and by recommending optimization or introduc-tion of functional systems applied to the local government level,which could serve as a stimulus for their formalization and wide-spread dissemination. Concentrating on direct competitors andknowing them strengths and weaknesses, benchmarking is vital forcontinuous success (J�onsd�ottir, Sparf, Hanssen, 2005). Definingaims and indicators in this framework is conditioned by the gradeof the current state and issue of waste management.

The purpose of benchmarking analysis is: (1) analysis of thecurrent situation (innovative itself), (2) definition of strengths andweaknesses, (3) identification of positions in comparison withpeers, (4) sharing of good practices, (5) participation in round ta-bles, workshops ¼>platform for future exchange of experience, (6)possibility of detailed analysis of the identified weaknesses. Themost central but challenging part of developing this framework is

Table 1Selected municipalities.

Country Municipality Area (km2) Total population

Ireland Carlow 897 54,612Serbia Aleksandrovac 387 29,389Serbia Alibunar 602 22,954Serbia Apatin 330 32,813Serbia Bela Crkva 353 20,367Serbia Bogatic 384 32,990Serbia Gadzin Han 325 10,405Serbia Knic 413 16,148Serbia Krupanj 342 20,192Serbia Kursumlija 950 21,897Serbia Ljubovija 356 17,052Serbia Merosina 193 14,812Serbia Razanj 289 11,369Serbia Sokobanja 525 18,571Serbia Svilajnac 326 25,511Serbia Vrnjacka Banja 239 26,492

to define a set of a few yet effective benchmarks. In order to facil-itate comparison between municipalities and to support a discus-sion of the best practices, the present work introduces someperformance indicators that apllied on: (1) waste generation, (2)waste collection and transport; (3) recycling activities and otherwaste treatment options and (4) waste disposal. Indicators are usedat international and national levels in state of the measurement ofwaste management performance and reporting on progress to-wards sustainable development. Quality is a key variable thatshould be measured in any public-sector benchmarking proces,picking the appropriate indicator of comparison (Folz, 2004).

3. Waste generation

Waste generation is the basic element for waste management,as it is a prerequisite to any waste management strategic planningto have adequate knowledge on the volume, type and compositionof waste (Ojha, 2011).

Over the last decade, the amount of waste generated in Irelandhas decreased by 17% since it peaked in 2007, reflecting a decreasein personal consumption which is on the other hand, related to theeconomic recession. However, Ireland with approximately 4.6million people belongs to the highest waste producers in Europe.Overall municipal waste generation in 2011 was 2,823,242 t andquantity of household waste disposed to the landfills was 750,066 t(EPA, 2013).

Serbia has a population of approximately 7.5 million, whereas57% of the population lives in urban areas. Only 70% of municipalsolid waste is collected (NWMS, 2010-2019), and it is important tosay that generated and collected waste in Serbia still show bigdifference due to the high percentage of organized waste collectionin urban areas, but low or no waste collection in rural areas.Furthermore, rate of waste generation is highly influenced byeconomic activity of each municipality. In other words, depends onthe degree of industrial development, living standard, lifestyles,social environment, consumption and other indicators of eachparticular community. Due to this reason, lack of coverage of thewhole territory of the collection service, dumping and illegaldumping, utilization of waste food in rural areas for feeding thelivestock, illegal burning of waste in the open and others, the vol-ume of generated waste can significantly differ between the mu-nicipalities. It should be pointed out that amount differs from theamount collected and disposed waste. Furthermore, in Serbiadefinition of municipal waste may still interpreted differently,which means that in some cases municipalities calculated all thewaste collected and disposed on the landfill which often includespecial waste streams as part of municipal waste, e.g. constructionwaste, waste from electric and electronic equipment (WEEE), etc.,which are by definition not content of the municipal waste.Therefore reporting of waste generation in not considered as 100%reliable. On the other hand, in Ireland municipal waste collection isrelated to commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, household wasteand street sweepings (EPA, 2013). Despite these caveats, someinteresting comparisons can be made. For accurate estimationselected waste generation indicators are presented in Figs. 1 and 2.

The data in Fig. 1 shows the variation of municipal waste gen-eration in Carlow Municipality and across the fifteen selectedmunicipalities in Serbia. It is clear that the amounts of generatedmunicipal waste differ. Serbian municipalities such as Gadzin Hanand Merosina are rate the lowest in terms of municipal wastegenerated per year. Municipality Carlow with 36,054 t generatedwaste is near to the Municipality Sokobanja that reached produc-tion of 39,314 t/year and high when compared internationally.According to the Municipality Sokobanja, the reason for high wasteproduction is 50,000 tourists who visit Sokobanja each year. The

Fig. 1. Total municipal waste generated per year (t/year).

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460456

municipality Knic also shows high municipal waste generationcorrelated with the population. However, waste generation in Knicshould be monitored carefully and calculated exactly according tothe regulation.

The waste generation per capita is given in Fig. 2 and indicates arange of 0.33e5.28 kg in Serbian municipalities, which shows thatsome data have to be checked again. The deffernces between thedata, “big range” could be the following reasons. First, differencesbetween rural population and urban population and their genera-tion of waste. It takes into account the rural population, in general,could be less developed economically. On the other hand, ruralhouseholds burn much of waste themselves or use waste food forfeeding the livestock, which is very widespread. This figure can alsoshow mistakes in statistic or wrong calculation due to the fact thatdata are collected directly from the municipalities.

However, most of the data from the municipalities includeIreland Carlow Municipality with 1.4 kg per capita, oscillatedaround 0.9e1.3 kg, which compliant the international standards.Similarly to discussion on Fig. 1, the Municipality of Sokobanja has

Fig. 2. Average municipal waste generate

the highest level of municipal waste generation per capita of all thebenchmark municipalities (Fig. 2). It is thus very useful for themunicipalities to compare these results and to learn also from themistakes in calculation. From Fig. 2 it can be concluded that withoutmunicipalities of Knic, Sokobanja and Razanj, other municipalitiesshow similar waste volume per capita, in average 0.94 kg/capita/day, which again complies with the international standards.

4. Technical capacities

4.1. 1 Waste collection and transport

The service level in solid waste collection is heavily dependenton the collection frequency, the points of collection and involvesgathering of waste and its transportation to the location where thecollection vehicle is emptied. Specifically, the achieved level ofcommunity service must be acceptable, whereas multiple resourceconstraints must also be considered and met, which relate to la-bour, collection equipment, etc. Best-service performance also

d per capita per day (kg/capita/day).

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460 457

includes environmental aspects since best practices (economically,technically, operationally, etc.) lead to the efficiency and effective-ness of waste collection that are very important issues for publicauthorities, private actors and the community (Karagiannidis,Xirogiannopoulou, Perkoulidis, & Moussiopoulos, 2004). Wastecollection service in Ireland was changing rapidly. In the past, localauthorities collected almost all household waste. However, inrecent years it is an open market. Today, the private sector hasgained almost the entire national household waste collectionmarket. In themajority of local districts, even 32 of 34 privatewastecompanies play a major role in providing services to both publicand private sectors (OECD, 2013). In Serbia, municipal waste ismostly collected by Public utility enterprises (PUCs), founded by themunicipalities. This service is defined by municipal Decision oncommunal hygiene or cleanness in each municipality. The mainfunction of waste collection indicators is to reflect trends in thestate of waste management at local and regional level. Generallyspeaking, waste collection service does not reach the entire popu-lation of the urban areas. Percentage of population covered bywaste collection services in the municipality is generally between80% and 100% for urban areas and mostly very low in rural areas.Only municipalities Svilajnac and Vrnjacka Banja have 100% servicecoverage in rural areas, then Gadzin Han and Alibunar have close to80%, while others are below 50%, with Bogatic, Knic and Razanjwhich have nearly no service coverage in rural areas. Organizedwaste collection covered all urban areas, while coverage of the ruralareas was significantly weak. The introduction of a reliable collec-tion service often leads to the use of large and durable container,because the storage volume required for domestic wastes is afunction of the number of people served, the daily rate of wastegeneration per capita, and the number of days between successivecollections (UN-Habitat, 2010, chap. 5).

In Ireland different waste fractions are collected separately, us-ing 2-bin system, for dry recyclables and residual waste and 3-binsystem for dry recyclables, organics and residuals (OECD, 2013).Of serviced households, 96% have at least a 2-bin service, 39% havean organics service in addition (3-bin) while 5% have a segregatedglass service in addition (4- bin) (EPA, 2013). In Carlow, the wastegenerated from various sources is collected separately by theimplementation of 2-bin system for 72% of households, and 3-binsystem for 28% of households serviced by waste collecting sys-tem. In this municipality a 3-bin collection system is mandatorystarting from 2009 throughout urban areas greater than 1000persons (JWMPSE, 2012).

Such 2-bin system for households is planned in Serbia as well,but still it is sporadically implemented, mostly in the areas of in-dividual housing. In the urban areas with collective housing andhigh density of population, containers on the streets for separatewaste collection of PET, aluminium and cardboard packaging forrecycling are planned. Out of the fifteen benchmarked municipal-ities, only in a few municipalities the waste generated from varioussources is collected separately. The predominant system forcollection in most of the cities includes containers for residualwaste e the containers are common for recyclable, compostableand non-compostable waste (no segregation of waste is per-formed), and the waste is disposed at a municipal landfill. Out ofthe fifteen benchmarked municipalities, the municipalities Alibu-nar, Bogatic, Gadzin Han, Ljubovija and Merosina have no con-tainers for recyclable waste at all.

4.2. Recycling activities and other waste treatment options

During the last two decades regulation of waste management inEurope has been focused on reduction of environmental impactfrom waste treatment and conservation of resources from waste.

Illustrated by the waste hierarchy, the guiding principle of wasteprevention is prioritized over reuse, recycling, recovery anddisposal (Larsen, Merrild, M�rller, & Christensen, 2010). Developedcountries classified the recycling as strategic branch of the econ-omy. Recycling is a key factor of the packaging waste management.The goal of at least 25% recycling of the packaging waste wasreached in all EU member states in 2006. As one of the pre-conditions for the achievement of high recycling rates which manydeveloping country cities aspire to, is integrating source separationof clean materials for recycling into the formal system, and sup-porting by policy instruments (Wilson, Araba, Chinwah, &Cheeseman, 2009). Since “Changing our Ways” published in 1998,in Ireland progress is being made towards improved recyclinginfrastructure. With effects given to this policy approach in 2010,Ireland achieved ahead of time the ambitious municipal wasterecycling target of 38% in 2010 (ARO, 2012). According to EPA'sNational Statistics, Ireland's recycling rates have dramaticallyincreased in recent years. Ireland has surpassed with the 2011 EUpackaging recycling target of 55% and recovery rate of 79% in 2011,with recycling of 40% of total municipal waste generated (EPA).

It should be pointed out that in Serbia in the following periodhighest investment in the waste management sector will be in theconstruction of waste management centres, rehabilitation of theexisting dumping grounds, as well as the investment in wasterecycling and composting. This is wery important because theconstruction of recycling centres will enable an essential change inthe manner of waste management in Serbia, the amount of land-filled waste will be reduced, which will prolong the lifetime of thelandfills, provide the raw material for the development of therecycling industry and allow public utility (Filipovi�c & Obradovi�cArsi�c, 2012). For the part of recycling activities and other wastetreatment options, indicators are selected one for each followingpart. First indicator in Fig. 3 shows the percentage of householdwaste.

According to all of the above-mentioned data on Fig. 3, the levelof houshold waste recycling in most of the municipalities in Serbiais still very low and much lower than in the EU. On the other hand,Fig. 3 demonstrate that level of houshold waste recycling in Carlowis very high by international standards. Seven out of fifteen Serbianmunicipalities have no houshold waste recycling. It can be seenform Figs. 3 and 4 that some of the Serbian benchmarked munici-palities, such as the municipalities of Krupanj, Ljubovija and Mer-osina registered high percentage of household waste recycled.Looking beyond the data the most expected was a link to thenumber of containers for separated waste collection, per cent ofrecycled household waste and the recycling facilities. But inter-estingly, Ljubovija and Merosina responded in the questionnairethat they have no containers for separated waste collection. On theother hand, in Merosina there are 5 recycling facilities with thelicence and in Ljubovija there is only one. An indication of the rangeof treatment facilities available across the benchmarked munici-palities is provided in Fig. 4.

Although this indicator does not take the size of the facility intoaccount, it does highlight the deficits in the existing waste infra-structure in the municipalities, in particular the absence of facilitiesfor recycling of waste in some of the municipalities. In 7 Serbianmunicipalities there is no recycling facility with a licence from thecompetent authority, but in Merosina there are 5 licenced recyclingfacilities. On the other hand in Carlow there is only 1 (JWMPSE,2012). When it comes to waste management and recycling inSerbia, there is a distinct impression that a lot of work is needed oncomprehensive education of all categories of the population, inorder to introduce every citizen with these issues, possible solu-tions and common contribution to the establishment of wastemanagement system for the benefit of all.

Fig. 3. Percentage of household waste recycled (%).

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460458

The current licenced Waste transfer station in Carlow is of 1150tonnes capacity. There is a further 150 tonnes of waste licencedcapacity at recycling facility in the Carlow. Also there are 5authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) with a permit for treatmentof End-of-life-Vehicles (ELVs). Furthemore, Carlow owns two bio-logical treatment facilities which have a waste licences. The firstBiological Treatment Facility held a Waste licence with threshold of50,000 tonnes/year. Another facility with waste managementpermit is for composting, with the capacity of compost of 25,000tonnes/year (JWMPSE, 2012).

Applied waste treatment options in the municipalities as a thirdindicator is highlighted in Fig. 5.

It can be seen that more than 90% of waste in Serbia is going tothe landfill. On the opposite, less than 50% of Carlow's municipalwaste is disposed of on the landfill. Carlow met EU target andexceeded 50% recovery, and have substantially improved its per-formance. They have set a benchmark and other authorities mustfollow that targets. In Serbian municipalities, recycling is present ina small percentage, and other treatment options such as com-posting, anaerobic digestion or waste to energy are still not

Fig. 4. Number of licenced recyclin

developed in the benchmarkedmunicipalities. This is mainly due tothe limited progress that has been made in waste treatmentinfrastructure construction for preferred waste treatment optionssuch as recycling and biological treatment. According to the Na-tional Waste Management Strategy, 26 Regional waste manage-ment centers are planned to be constructed in Serbia includingrecycling facility, composting plant and regional landfill, in order tomeet the EU targets in the realistic period of time.

While significant progress has been made in some municipal-ities in increasing the share of recycled packaging waste, depen-dence on landfill still remains high in most of them. However, in allof the benchmarked municipalities, except Bela Crkva, Krupanj,Ljubovija and Merosina which show 3e4% of total waste recycled,disposal on the landfill remains the only waste managementoption.

4.3. Waste disposal

According to the EPA's 2012 National Waste Report, only 41% ofmunicipal waste was consigned for disposal at 19 landfill sites in

g facilities in the Municipality.

Fig. 5. Municipal waste treatment options (%).

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460 459

Ireland. In developed countries, where it is possible to use signifi-cant financial resources, the most common are sophisticatedtechniques, such as incineration. This major changes in Ireland thatbefore predominantly reliant on landfill in managing waste, wasattributed to increasing use of incineration (EPA, 2012). In Carlowthere is a Landfill and Civic Amenity site located at Powerstownwith a capacity of 42,500 tonnes/year. This facility accepts allmunicipal waste and in addition providing recycling facilities forhazardous and non-hazardous waste. It is expected that many ofthe landfills will be closed and be replaced by an integrated regionalfacility. Carlow County Council aims to fill its Powerstown landfillby 2016, after which the facility will enter an aftercare phase(JWMPSE, 2012). In many transition countries incuding Serbia,huge problems in environment are caused by increasing amount ofwaste which is disposed of on uncontrolled landfills or opendumpsites (Josimovi�c, & Mari�c, 2012). Recent investigation shownthere are 164 official landfills and 4400 of dumpsites in Serbia(Atanasijevi�c, Pocajt, Popovi�c, Red�zi�c, & Risti�c, 2013). Waste sepa-ration is on very low level (SNR, 2012). There are 7 regional landfillsconstructed by now in Serbia according to the EU standards. Still,only 11,9% of generated municipal waste is disposed of on thosesanitary landfills, the rest is disposed of on the municipal disposalsites, which are more or less neglected (SNR, 2012).

Landfills, especially old one slacking modern environmentaltechnology, are sources for local pollution due to the fact that thayhave related implications such as long-term methane emissions,local pollution concerns, settling issues and limitations on urbandevelopment (Krook, Svensson, & Eklund, 2012). Furthmore, all ofthese factors are causing impact on the environment and publichealth. As already mentioned, the National Waste ManagementStrategy recommended construction of regional waste manage-ment centres. The data collection in this segment of waste man-agement in Ireland and in Serbia is focused on issues related tounofficiall municipal tips. Landfill characteristics in all the munic-ipalities highlighted there include practically no leachate collectionand treatment, no landfill gas collection, no bottom layer, no elec-tricity, no water supply etc. There is only soil covering of the wastelandfilled from time to time.

For this indicator - number of illegal dumpsites in all the mu-nicipalities, comparative data are given in Fig. 6. This comparisonshows that the number of illegal dumpsites which exists in all themunicipalities is high, especially in Gadzin Han, Knic, Sokobanja

and Svilajnac. Also, it was noted that although Carlow has a oper-ational licenced landfill, there are 8 unlicenced unofficial landfillswhich have been investigated by the Local Authorities in Ireland.One of them is defined as a high risk site. On the territory of theMunicipality Carlow, there is one local authority owned low risksite, the remaining sites are on private lands (JWMPSE, 2012).

5. Conclusion and recommendations

Benchmarking, as a tool that can help municipalities to improvemunicipal waste performance, now is in a refined stage of boththeoretical development and practical application. With regard towaste management performance in the Municipality Carlow inIreland, the case study is performed in Serbian municipalities inwaste management area, demonstrated that municipalities vary intheir financial capacities, policy priorities, as well as local needs,preferences and supports. Solid waste systems throughout Serbianmunicipalities vary dramatically in terms of services provided,disposal rates, disposal options and methodologies for measuringwaste and recycling rates etc. The benchmarking analysis hasprovided the background to address current shortcomings in allparts of municipal waste management.

This research suggests that municipalities should turn theirattention and put their efforts into the following key issues:Particularly, the provision of reliable data on waste volume in linewith the National Waste Management Strategy and the Law onWasteManagement. It is difficult to make performance comparisonamong municipalities, when it is obvious that current situation inmunicipalities is characterized by rather unreliable and incompletedata on municipal waste generation; Support to the benchmark-based research on costs and cost structures, i.e. the economic sideof waste collection and management; Preparation of the technicaldocumentation for Regional Waste Management Centres and con-struction of Regional Waste Management Centres with regionallandfills as well; Organization of financially sustainable wastemanagement scheme through the principle of full costs recoveryfor the services of collection, treatment and disposal of waste, aswell as the introduction of stimulation instruments for re-use andrecycling of waste, as per the NationalWasteManagement Strategy.In that case there would be no motivation for reducing the volumeof waste at source and no motivation for recycling and rehabilita-tion of the existing dumpsites in the municipalities.

Fig. 6. Number of waste tips in the municipality.

M. Ili�c, M. Nikoli�c / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460460

This work has shown explicitly how a benchmarking analysiscan be applied for wastemanagement in Serbia in order to measureprogress in modernizing and improving the solid waste manage-ment system. For waste managers, obtained results will be a goodbasis for future decisions and directions of Serbian waste man-agement development.

References

Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Benchmarking the benchmarking models. Bench-marking: An International Journal, 15(3), 257e291.

A Resource Opportunity. (2012). Waste management policy in Ireland. Avaliablefrom: http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad, 30729,en.pdf.

Atanasijevi�c, D., Pocajt, V., Popovi�c, I., Red�zi�c, N., & Risti�c, M. (2013). The forecastingof municipal waste generation using artificial neural networks and sustain-ability indicators. Sustainability Science, 8, 37e46.

Auluck, R. (2002). Benchmarking: a tool for facilitating organizational learning?Public Administration and Development, 22, 109e122.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). National waste report. Available from:http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/nationalwastereport2012.html#.VnCT3EorLIU.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a). National waste report for 2011. Availablefrom: https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/EPA.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Bulletin 2: Household waste statistics for2013. Available from: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/household/EPA_HH_2013_bulletin_final_to_web.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2013c). Irelands environment. Available from:http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/epa_infographic_waste_v2_web_Q42013.pdf.

EPA’s National Statistics. (2014). Progress towards EU waste recycling, recovery anddiversion targets. Updated November. Avaliable from: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/Progress%20EU%20targetsNov.pdf.

European Environment Agency. (2010). Waste (Serbia). Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu.

European Environment Agency. (2013). Municipal waste management in Ireland,2013. Available from: European Environment Agency http://www.eea.europa.eu.

Filipovi�c, D., & Obradovi�c- Arsi�c, D. (2012). Strategic approach to waste manegementplanning in the Republic of Serbia- current situation and prospect. Bulletin ofthe Serbian Geographical society, 4, 143e156.

Folz, H. D. (2004). Service quality and benchmarking the performance of municipalservices. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 209e220.

GamzeTuran, N., Çoruh, S., Akdemir, A., & Osman Nuri Ergun, O. (2009). Municipalsolid waste management strategies in Turkey. Waste Management, 29, 465e469.

Improving urban services through service level benchmarking. (2010). The ministryof urban development. Government of India. Available from: http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/uwss/slb/Flyer.pdf.

J�onsd�ottir, H., Sparf, A.M., Hanssen, J. O., 2005. Environmental benchmarking: a toolfor continuous environmental improvements in the SME sector. Available from:http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/37/36484.pdf.

Josimovi�c, B., & Mari�c, I. (2012). Methodology for the regional landfill site selection

enviromental sciences. In S. Curkovic (Ed.), Sustainable development- authori-tative and leading edge content for enviromental management chapter 22 (pp.514e538).

Karagiannidis, A., Kontogianni, S., & Logothetis, D. (2013). Classification and cate-gorization of treatment methods for ash generated by municipal solid wasteincineration: a case for the 2 greater metropolitan regions of Greece. WasteManagement, 33(2), 363e372.

Karagiannidis, A., Xirogiannopoulou, A., Perkoulidis, G., & Moussiopoulos, N. (2004).Assessing the collection of urban solid wastes: a step towards municipalitybenchmarking. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 4, 397e409.

Kelessidis, V. (2000). Benchmarking, report produced for the EC funded project.Available from: http://www.adi.pt/docs/innoregio_benchmarking-en.pdf.

Kouzmin, A., Lo�Effler, E., Klages, H., & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1999). Benchmarkingandperformance measurement in public sectors. The International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, 12(2), 121e144.

Krook, J., Svensson, N., & Eklund, M. (2012). Landfill mining: a critical review of twodecades of research. Waste Management, 32, 513e520.

Larsen, A. W., Merrild, H., M�rller, J., & Christensen, T. H. (2010). Waste collectionsystems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment for themunicipality of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Management, 30, 744e754.

Lavee, D., & Khatib, M. (2010). Benchmarking in municipal solid waste recycling.Waste Management, 30, 2204e2208.

Law on Packaging and Packaging Waste Management (Official Gazette of RS, no 36/09).

Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of RS, no 36/09 and 88/2010).Luque-Martinez, T., & Munoz-Leiva, F. (2005). City benchmarking: a methodological

proposal referring specifically to Granada. Cities, 22(6), 411e423.National Waste Management Strategy. (2010-2019). Official Gazette RS, No. 29/10.National waste management benchmarking, (2011). Available from: http://www.

nationalbenchmarking.ca/public/docs/nswbi_proposal_nov10.pdf.Nemanja Stanisavljevic, N., Ubavin, D., Batinic, B., Fellner, J., & Vujic, G. (2012).

Methane emissions from landfills in Serbia and potential mitigation strategies:a case study. Waste Management & Research, 30(10), 1095e1103.

OECD. (2013). Waste management service. Available from: www.oecd.org/daf/competition.

Ojha, K. (2011). Status of MSW management system in northern India-anoverview.Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13, 203e215.

Proki�c, D., & Mihajlov, A. (2012). Contaminated sites. Practice of solid waste man-agementin a developing country (Serbia). Environment Protection Engineering,38(1), 81e90.

Rudden, P. J. (2007). Report: policy drivers and the planning and implementation ofintegrated waste management in Ireland using the regional approach. Wastemanagement & research, 25(3), 270e275.

State of the Nation Report. (2012). Landfilling practices and regulation in Serbia.Avaliable from: www.iswa.org.

The Joint Waste Management Plan for the South East Region, (2012). Availablefrom: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Waste/WasteManagement/FileDownLoad,37568,en.pdf.

UN-Habitat. (2010). Collection of municipal solid waste in developing countries(Chapter 5) (pp. 40e47).

Ungureanu, M. (2011). Benchmarking- between traditional & modern businessenvironment. CES Working Papers, III(3), 440e451.

Wilson, C. D., Araba, O. A., Chinwah, K., & Cheeseman, R. C. (2009). Building recy-cling rates through the informal sector. Waste Management, 29, 629e635.