Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
    Reference: SG/E/2019/07
    Received Date: 06 May 2019
    Subject: Marišćina County Waste Management Centre
    Complainant: Udruga Krizni Eko Stožer Marišćina
    Allegations: Negative environmental impacts of the project
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    15/05/2019
    29/06/2022
    17/11/2022
    18/11/2022

    * Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.

    Case Description

    Complaint

    The complaint concerns (i) operation of the mechanical biological treatment plant and bioreactor landfill, as part of the CWMC Marišćina in Croatia; (ii) methane emissions from the CWMC and (iii) exceedance of ambient standards for hydrogen sulphide (H2S)/odour near the CWMC.

    EIB-CM Action

    Based on the collected and analysed information, the EIB-CM prepared the conclusions report.

    Conclusions

    The reviewed evidence shows that:

    A.     In the last three years for which data are available (2019, 2020 and 2021), the mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plant turned between 1.5% and 8%, instead of the planned 35%, of mixed municipal waste into fuel; and there were also issues with fuel disposal. Due to the fuel-related challenges, there is a risk of a reduction of the lifespan of the CWMC because of the faster filling of the landfill.

    B.     The CWMC contributes to methane emission reduction. The CWMC replaced non-sanitary landfills and is flaring/converting methane into energy. Construction of CWMCs and the separate collection of biodegradable waste are part of Croatia’s strategy to reduce methane emissions, in line with EU law.

    C.    In the past, the CWMC generated an unpleasant odour. Over the years, the operator has invested efforts in reducing the unpleasant odour. The local population still complains about the odour and the operator is taking further steps to address the issue of unpleasant odour.

    With respect to the role of the EIB, the reviewed evidence shows that:

    A.     The EIB monitored the offtake of fuel. It enquired with the borrower but was not informed that: (i) less fuel is produced than planned; (ii) more waste is landfilled than planned; (iii) faster filling of the landfill may significantly reduce the lifespan of the CWMC, as required. Consequently, further possible actions of the EIB are limited given that the technical assistance offer was not taken up.  

    B.     The EIB carried out its role as required concerning methane emissions. The EIB noted that the CWMC reduces greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, by: (i) replacing non-sanitary landfills; and (ii) having a gas collection system. The EIB made the use of its funds conditional on steps to reduce the biogas (including methane)-generation process.

    The EIB carried out its role as required concerning the unpleasant odour. The EIB monitored the challenges concerning the unpleasant odour.

    Outcomes

    The EIB should utilise the experience gained concerning CWMC Marišćina in future similar projects.