WASTE MANAGEMENT AND THE PECULIARITIES OF ISLANDS

UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

SCHOOL OF LAW, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Master’s Program: “European and International Studies”

SUBJECT: INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LECTURER: EMM. DOUSI

Anna Karamanou’s Work

WASTE MANAGEMENT

& THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE ISLANDS

Athens, February 8, 2006

CONTENTS.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Definition of the concept of waste

1.2. Η φιλοσοφία του απόβλητου….

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY OF THE EU AND THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE ISLANDS

2.1. Τα οικονομικά και οικολογικά προβλήματα των νησιών

3. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AT INTERNATIONAL, EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL LEVEL

3.1. Το Διεθνές Δίκαιο

3.2. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Δίκαιο

3.3. Σε Εθνικό Επίπεδο ( casestudy in Greece…)

3.3.1. Δραστική μείωση στη πηγή, ανακύκλωση, εξαφάνιση….

4. STRATEGIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

IN THE ISLANDS – Technology provides solutions

5. INTERMEDIATE EVALUATION OF THE SOUTH AEGEAN OPERATIONAL PROGRAM, REGARDING WASTE MANAGEMENT

6. CONCLUSION

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Definition of the concept of waste

What is waste? Officially, and based on Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC, waste is defined as “any substance or object which the holder discards or is required to discard in accordance with the provisions of the applicable national legislation.” Consequently, the concept of waste depends on the meaning of the term “discard,” which includes both disposal and recovery of a certain substance or object.

The Court of the European Communities has its own opinion on the matter. In its decision regarding the case Zanetti & Vessoso (12.12.1989), it stated that “the concept of waste should not be understood as excluding substances and objects that can economically be reused…”, while in another decision (E. Zanetti and others, 28.3.1990) it argues that “waste is any kind of residue from industrial by-products or other substances generated in the course of a production process…”, (Koufaki, 1998). The term “waste management” refers to the totality of processes of temporary storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of waste – potentially involving their treatment (Alexaki –Agapetidis, 1999).

1.2. Η φιλοσοφία του απόβλητου….

Beyond the legal aspect, waste has also provoked philosophical thought. The philosophy of the useless!… of the cursed, the outcast, the discarded, the trash!… John Scanlan, from the Center for Environmental History Research at St. Andrews University in Scotland, in his latest book “On Garbage,” examines the waste of our culture. For Scanlan, “garbage” represents much more than material waste and the environmental degradation it causes. It represents corrupted knowledge, useless concepts, and the remnants of systems of thought and worldviews. He argues that Western philosophy, science, and technology have surpassed nature through a prolonged act of cleanliness, which is summarized not only in the disposal of useless knowledge and objects but also in the removal of humanity from nature, a practice that has marked the progress of the West for thousands of years. Therefore, might the “garbage,” the waste of our progress, simultaneously be the source of all that is precious to us? A fundamental working assumption of Scanlan is that by shedding light on the nature and extent of the waste we create, we can deepen and illuminate the beliefs, ideas, sources, and structures of our Western culture.

Balancing between legal science and philosophy, the UN, at the Conference on Environment and Sustainable Development in Rio in 1992, proclaimed that effective waste management practices are a central issue for maintaining environmental quality and sustainable development. At a related conference in Malta in October 2001, Dr. Francis Zammit Dimech argued that “waste management is at the heart of sustainable development. Waste represents unnecessary waste of natural resources, unnecessary costs, and environmental degradation that could be avoided. Sustainable waste management means effective resource utilization.” Certainly, islands, particularly small ones, are among the most vulnerable and sensitive ecosystems that require special attention and sustainable management.

The purpose of this work is to highlight the urgent nature of the issue and particularly the weaknesses of its legal-institutional aspect. From a methodological standpoint, in section 2, the main parameters of European Environmental Policy and the difficulties encountered in its implementation on the islands are examined, due to inherent difficulties and particularities. In section 3, the institutional framework is analyzed at the international, European, and national levels, with an emphasis on the weaknesses and omissions of Greek policy. Section 4 presents elements of strategic planning and the use of technology from the Waste Management Plan of the South Aegean Region. In section 5, the interim evaluation of the environmental parameter of the Operational Program of the South Aegean is discussed, and in section 6, the general conclusion is drawn.

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY OF THE EU AND THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE ISLANDS

The 1957 Treaty of Rome, as is well known, did not include environmental protection as one of its objectives. European policy on the environment emerged in the following years due to the rapid environmental degradation, the development of scientific knowledge, growing citizen awareness, and the need for the smooth functioning of the internal market and competition policy. Environmental protection gained significant political importance with the Single European Act of 1987 and the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 integrated the principle of sustainable development and environmental protection as one of the Union’s absolute priorities.

It is worth noting that during the period between 1972 and the Treaty of the EU, despite the challenges arising from the lack of a clear legal basis, community action on the environment developed through the adoption of successive action programs and the issuance of legislative acts in accordance with the procedures of Articles 100 and 235 of the EEC Treaty. By 1992, over 200 legislative acts and four action programs had been adopted. Relevant initiatives included the Directive 75/442/EEC on solid waste (Dousi, 2001, p. 25 & 42).

The sixth action program for the environment (approved in July 2002) sets the priorities of the EU until 2010 and places particular emphasis on four areas: a/ climate change b/ nature and biodiversity c/ environment and health d/ management of natural resources and waste (Koutoupa-Regkakou, 2005). Regarding the last one, which is also the subject of this work, it is a fact that progress has been made thanks to the legislative initiatives of the EU, which have formed the basis for reducing the environmental impacts of waste processing in many European countries.

The Community Policy for waste management is based on: a/ the prevention of waste generation and, among other things, the improvement of product design b/ the development of recycling and reuse of waste and c/ the improvement of final disposal conditions, particularly through the reduction of pollution caused by waste incineration and resorting to sanitary landfilling as a last resort (EUROPA SCADplus, 23.09.2005). Since the issuance of the Framework Directive of 1975, legislation has evolved based on these three principles, giving increasing importance to prevention and recycling. Member States must incorporate into their legislation and implement Community legislation, prohibiting the abandonment, disposal, and uncontrolled disposal of waste.

Certainly, this policy needs to be specified in the case of islands and take into account the special conditions. However, despite the recognition of the uniqueness of islands, which has been expressed at many levels by all EU institutions and other international organizations, no “special” policy has been implemented. The programs adopted for the outermost regions (REGIS, POSEIDOM, POSEIMA, POSEICAN) and the special island program of the Aegean do not constitute a comprehensive policy in favor of the islands, which is necessary for their sustainable development (Spilanis, 1996). We note, therefore, that the rigorous application of the rules of the single market undermines efforts for a coherent European island policy.

2.1. Τα οικονομικά και οικολογικά προβλήματα των νησιών

Historically, islands, with their small populations, did not require special waste management strategies, as the volume of waste was usually small and different from that of densely populated cities. With the development of tourism, the situation changed dramatically, and the problems of collection, management, and disposal of waste came to the forefront, demanding urgent solutions. The limited land area of the islands, combined with seasonal fluctuations in population, creates conditions of difficult coexistence between humans and nature, often leading to conflicts of interest and difficulties in managing problems. As Dhindaw (2004) notes, islands are confronted with increased waste production and suffer from the dual pressure exerted by economic and ecological problems.

Without a doubt, the sustainable management of waste on islands requires special effort and the problem concerns several European countries that include island clusters in their territory. The case of Greece is of course the most characteristic, because as shown in the table that follows, the population density in the island country is greater than in the other countries of the European Union that have islands. About 15% of the population of Greece lives on islands, a percentage comparable only to that of Italy (12%) and much higher than that of the other countries. Out of the 400 European islands, 167, or 42%, are located in the Greek territory.

Table: Islands and island complexes in the countries of the European Union

Country	Islands	Population
Italy	Sardinia, Sicily, Tuscan Archipelago	6.7 million (12% of the total population)
Denmark	It includes many small islands.	0.1 million (0.2% of the total population)
Portugal	Azores, Madeira	0.5 million (6% of the total population)
Greece	Ionian Islands, Cyclades, Dodecanese, Northern Aegean Islands, Crete	1.5 million (15% of total population)
France	Corsica and colonies	2.2 million (3.9% of total population)
United Kingdom	Shetland, Orkney, Hebrides, Isles of Wight and Man, Channel Islands	0.2 million (0.3% of the total population)
Spain	Balearic Islands, Canary Islands	1.2 million (3% of the total population)

Source: Management Plan for Solid and Liquid Waste of the South Aegean Region.

Despite the differences they present among themselves, the islands have certain distinctive characteristics that compose their identity and clearly distinguish them from other areas typically referred to as problematic, such as rural, coastal, or mountainous areas.

Tourism is the most significant economic activity on most islands and therefore, rational waste management planning, which mainly concerns the cleanliness of beaches and roads, is perhaps the most essential parameter. The approach to waste management cannot be done in the same way as is customary on the mainland. The islands have a series of peculiarities that necessitate a distinct approach, as is specifically mentioned in the National Solid Waste Management Plan (Joint Ministerial Decision 14312/1302, 9/6/2000). These peculiarities can be categorized into 5 groups.

In the table that follows, some factors are presented for each of these categories.

Table: Design factors related to the specificity of islands

Geographical location	Distance from the mainland Distance from another island Frequency of bad weather / ban on vessel departures
Climatological characteristics	Long period of high temperatures exacerbating odor problems and health risks. Strong winds cause the dispersion of waste. The high temperatures contribute to the increase in the presence of beverage containers, juices, etc., in the waste.
Geological and hydrogeological characteristics	Limited available land Limited water resources, sensitive aquifer
Social and economic characteristics	Significant population increase during the tourist season Significant dependence of the local economy on tourism Concentration of most commercial activities in a few areas of the island
Administrative characteristics	Difficulty in implementing joint management with the mainland or with larger islands Frequent lack of resources for the operation of waste treatment and disposal systems

[Source: Joint Ministerial Decision 14312/1302, 9/6/2000]

To the above, the following could be added:

Lack of appropriate infrastructure IT is particularly evident in the Greek islands, a large number of which do not have a hospital or even a health center.
The double insularity. In the case of island complexes, the phenomenon is observed that smaller islands move as satellites of the larger ones in the multitude of European archipelagos (e.g., Azores, Canary Islands, Cyclades, Dodecanese, Balearic Islands).
The high cost of transporting recyclable waste to collection centers in the mainland, where recycling programs are implemented (Halvadakis, 1998)
Lack of drinking water and pollution of water resources, which is mainly attributed to sewage and solid waste. These problems are characteristic of the islands of Southern Europe.
High cost of energy supply. This problem is primarily due to the geographical isolation of the islands and the energy policy that did not favor or promote alternative forms of energy.

In addition to these problems, those directly related to solid waste must also be added, which are generally:

Effects on the natural environment, namely the atmosphere, waters, soil, flora, and fauna.
Impacts on the anthropogenic environment

These effects, of course, pertain both to the mainland and to the islands. However, the impacts on groundwater, for example, are more severe where water resources are limited. Additionally, the pollution of beaches and other negative factors for tourism have stronger effects on the islands, where dependence on tourism is – compared to the mainland – clearly more intense. The Local Government of the islands generally has to make greater efforts in the area of waste management than the mainland, regardless of the fact that achieving the same results is more costly on the islands.

3. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AT INTERNATIONAL, EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL LEVEL

3.1. Το Διεθνές Δίκαιο

Experts on environmental issues have expressed the view that the environment does not suffer so much from a lack of laws, but from the non-implementation of a multitude of binding and non-binding declarations, treaties, protocols, directives, soft laws, customary and general principles, framework decisions, and agreements, the number of which is countless. At the international level, the absence of a global environmental organization modeled after, for example, the WTO hinders the implementation of existing international legislation and coordination for promoting a common strategy for a problem that knows no borders. Many academics avoid using the term “international environmental law,” arguing that such a thing does not exist, at least as a separate body, outside and beyond International Law.

In order to overcome difficulties and address the escalating environmental problems, it was deemed necessary to create a body of laws aimed at the protection of the environment, which would include not only international public law but also elements of private law and, in many cases, borrowings from national legislations (Birnie & Boyle, 2001, p. 1). Therefore, for the management of waste in the sensitive ecological environments of islands, there is no regulation at the international level; however, the general principles apply to islands as well: prevention and reduction of waste at the source, reduction of the use of substances that burden the environment, recovery and transformation into something useful, elimination or destruction (Dousi, 21.12.04, notes from a lecture).

3.2. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Δίκαιο

At the EU level, things are changing, as the institutional framework is quite rich, as has already been mentioned. Problems are identified in the reluctance of member states to incorporate Community Law into their internal legal systems and to apply it. Regarding waste management and with the aim of reducing their production, the main directive remains that of the Council of July ¹⁵, 1975 (75/442/EEC), which has been amended by directives 91/156/EEC, 91/692/EEC, 96/350/EC, and 96/59/EC. The deadline for the implementation of this legislation by the member states has expired since March 16, 1998. The institutional framework is complemented by “implementation measures” of the Commission, such as referrals to the ECJ, supplementary directives, the publication of non-compliance (name and shame), decisions, announcements, EU reports, etc.

The European Union provides strict technical requirements for waste and landfills (Directive 1999/31/EC, of the Council, of April 26, 1999). The Directive aims to prevent or reduce the negative impacts of waste landfill on the environment, and specifically on surface and groundwater, soil, air, or human health. It details the various categories of waste (municipal waste, hazardous, non-hazardous, inert) and applies to all landfills, which are defined as waste disposal sites, with the deposition of waste on or within the ground. Directive 1994/62 pertains to the management of packaging waste.

Critically assessing the Guidelines, we notice their fragmented nature and the continuous changes in the decisions, particularly those related to the compilation of the list of hazardous waste.

Of course, the active portfolio of the EU includes the constantly renewing action programs, as well as the (unfortunately unsuccessful) effort to incorporate the environmental dimension into all policies (mainstreaming). The EU’s international action also cannot but be recorded among its positive aspects. Now, how such a rich legislative framework is combined with an increasingly poor and health-threatening environment is a matter for reflection and study.

The problems should primarily be sought in the unwillingness of member states to comply with the legislation that their governments jointly decide at the European level but do not implement at the national level. Thus, the theory of the “two-level game” (Putnam, 1998) is confirmed, according to which member states operate based on their respective interests and in order to successfully address pressures within their own countries. The analysis of the two-level game largely explains the failure of European Environmental Policy within the member states. Scanlan, of course, would look for the culprits in the garbage of the culture and decision-making processes of our politico-economic system, where, that is, the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment is “discarded”….

3.3. Σε Εθνικό Επίπεδο ( casestudy in Greece…)

It is a common saying that in Greece, laws exist to be violated. Especially when it comes to European laws… There, we are champions! Kouroupitos in Crete has become globally famous, while about 1400 landfills across Greece complete the idyllic picture…. As the Assistant Ombudsman for Citizens’ Rights, Georgia Giannakourou, writes (2004, p. 43), in Greece, waste management has become one of the most complex environmental, legal, and social problems. The absence of organized facilities and the uncontrolled disposal and management of waste, the widespread social reaction against landfills, the flawed administrative procedures that lead to the annulment of related acts by the courts, as well as the repeated referral and condemnation of the country by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, form the broader institutional, social, and cultural landscape of our country in the field of waste management.

However, the quality of the environment in Greece is generally characterized as good, despite the fact that environmental policy, which has its origins in Article 24 of the Constitution of 1975, faces serious problems. The legislative framework for the alternative management of packaging waste and “other products” is defined by Law 2939/2001 (Government Gazette 179A), relevant presidential decrees, and a number of Joint Ministerial Decisions (JMDs). Greece has proceeded with the adoption of all relevant Community Directives – in practice, this is the problem. For waste management, the institutional arrangements mainly concern the implementation of Community Directives 94/62 on packaging waste and 99/31 on landfilling, which in their implementation should be accompanied by regional management plans (Pretz, Nikou, Kontos, 2001).

The major issue, therefore, is not whether Greece has adopted Community Law and whether it has legislation – albeit with imperfections and deficiencies – but to what extent there is a will to implement it. The repeated condemnations by the CJEU and the international disgrace demonstrate that the environment and good waste management are not among the high priorities of the Greek Governments. On February 3, 2006, the EU Commissioner for the Environment, Mr. Stavros Dimas, speaking at the International Conference “Waste Zero Hour,” organized by the Hellenic Solid Waste Management Company (HSWMC), announced that another condemnation of the country by the CJEU is imminent, as 60% of the produced quantities of waste are being sent to “temporary storage,” posing risks to the environment. If we take into account that Greece’s “heavy industry” is culture and tourism, which is mainly directed towards our beautiful islands, then the extent of the negligence of the Greek governments, as well as the local government officials, becomes more apparent.

On the major issue of waste, there are three predominant concerns, according to the (expert) president of the Central Union of Municipalities and Communities, Pάris Koukoulopoulos: The first issue concerns the delay in adopting a comprehensive waste management system, which requires complex processing at the source and at the collection site, with the implementation of recycling systems and the goal of landfilling as few residues as possible. At the European level, we have moved from landfills (sanitary landfills) to residual waste landfills, which will have a longer “life.” This change brings new problems in finding spaces, which has caused conflicts and social tensions in recent years. Everyone agrees on the plans, but in practice, almost everyone pushes their garbage into the “neighbor’s yard,” leading to dead ends for any environmental policy. The second problem arises from the state itself, which appears inconsistent regarding the obligations and policies it declares. Residual waste landfills require waste management on a larger scale, as they necessitate facilities with high construction and operational costs. Nevertheless, last September, the funding for a second landfill was included in the Cohesion Fund, on an island like Samos (Eleftherotypia, 02.04.05).

3.3.1. Δραστική μείωση στη πηγή, ανακύκλωση, εξαφάνιση υπολειμμάτων….

In an article of his in the magazine “Law and Nature,” from January 2006, the former Member of the European Parliament and member of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament Michalis Papagiannakis reminds us that, Community legislation stipulates that by 2007 all uncontrolled landfills must be closed, that by 2011 60% recovery and 55%-80% recycling of packaging currently thrown in the trash must be achieved, that by 2010 biodegradable urban waste must be reduced by 25%, and that efforts must be made to “compost” at the source, meaning at home. This percentage must reach 50% by 2013 and 65% by 2020. The goal is, therefore, to reduce materials at the production stage and then at the consumption stage, recover and reuse materials, recycle, and only at the end of this process should there be landfill. Many European cities already have programs aimed at reducing their waste to levels below 20% of the current amount.

One wonders what of all this is going to be implemented in Greece. At present, however, there is no sign of any shift towards a dynamic waste management policy. On the contrary, the competent Deputy Minister of the Environment, Planning, and Public Works, Mr. Kalogirannis, in an interview with “Eleftherotypia” on April 2, 2005, speaks of a possible revision of Directive 99/31 on waste and shifts the responsibilities for its implementation from the central government to the regions, while it is known that these are administrative branches of the central authority, without democratic legitimacy. Nonetheless, he rightly argues that “for the successful implementation of any management plan, active citizen participation and the contribution of the media to highlight environmental issues are essential prerequisites.”

4. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SOLID WASTE IN THE ISLANDS – Technology provides solutions

According to the technicians, there are essentially three main strategies for the management of solid waste on the islands:

Α. The strategy for on-site processing and disposal of solid waste

Β. The strategic transfer of solid waste to processing and disposal units in the mainland, and

C. The strategy of uniting the islands.

Source: Waste Management Plan of the South Aegean Region

Case A refers to either isolated islands or islands with high waste production, capable of financially sustaining a waste treatment and disposal facility. Case B involves the transportation either to the mainland or to a neighboring island that has relevant facilities, where this is possible, and Case C includes islands that are close to each other and are grouped into a management unit, operating jointly a waste treatment and disposal facility. It is noted that in this context, cases of islands are examined, which, beyond proximity, also exhibit characteristics of clear administrative and economic dependence on a certain island center, particularly with the aspect of potential transportation of waste from an island with lower waste production to the corresponding center.

In reality, the waste management strategy for the islands will always be a combination of the aforementioned strategies. However, beyond the technical parameters, a cohesive and integrated waste management strategy for the islands should also, where possible, include:

Creation of laboratories for the study of integrated systems and techniques for source reduction, collection, recycling, and disposal of waste.
Examination of the combustion solution with the aim of absolute energy utilization and always within the framework of Community requirements (Symeonidis, 2005)
Establishment of observatories on islands for monitoring developments in the environment
Awareness campaigns for the local population and tourists
Composting methods for fermentable materials
It is also urgent to formulate guidelines for universities and technological educational institutions for teaching and research in this new field (Panagiotakopoulos, 2003).

5. INTERMEDIATE EVALUATION OF THE SOUTH AEGEAN OPERATIONAL PROGRAM, REGARDING WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Intermediate Evaluation Report of the N. Aegean Operational Program (November 2005) does not award accolades for the progress of the ongoing projects, amounting to 200 million euros and co-financed by different operational programs and the Cohesion Fund – beyond the Operational Program – primarily concerning projects for sewage treatment, water supply, drainage, landfills, and the protection and promotion of the natural environment.

It finds it a basic need of the South Aegean Region to create Waste Disposal Sites (thus not sanitary landfills) as well as a transfer station for waste, where the establishment of a landfill is not deemed necessary.

It also points out that the gradual restoration of uncontrolled solid waste disposal sites is urgent, as well as the reduction of waste volume through the implementation of recycling-recovery methods for organic materials. According to the interim evaluation, there are seven landfills operating in the South Aegean Region, 44 controlled waste disposal sites, and a large number of locations where uncontrolled waste disposal is observed. Thus, the situation still does not show substantial improvement. It remains to be seen what solutions will be provided by the end of the Program, on 31.12.2008.

6. CONCLUSION

The problems examined, the weaknesses and deficiencies particularly of Greek policy, the administrative inadequacies, the ignorance of the public and the confusion of responsibilities, the explosive situation that prevails today make the need for a comprehensive revision of national waste management and restructuring plans immediate and imperative, both of legislation and of administrative, organizational, and social practices. Above all, there is an urgent need for immediate measures to protect the health of the residents of this country from the immediate threat of environmental pollution, as officially everyone is now talking about “zero hour.” As Konstantinos Simeonidis very aptly stated at a conference of the Hellenic Solid Waste Management Association, what is needed from everyone is less neglect, more information, less suspicion, more cooperation with all stakeholders, less dogmatism, and more realism.

In the case of islands, mass tourism, which is characterized by an increasingly strong monopolistic structure, despite its positive results in population retention and GDP growth, has shown its limits regarding its contribution to sustainable development. At the same time, challenges to the current tourism development model are multiplying, particularly due to the environmental pressures it creates (Spilanis). Therefore, special attention is needed in regional waste management planning, so that Community Directives 94/62 and 99/31 are strictly applied, giving absolute priority to waste prevention and utilization, especially through substantial reduction, reuse, and recycling, which are also the main goal of community policy. At the same time, the promotion of an alternative consumption model would certainly facilitate the implementation of any policy…

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Foreign language:

DHINDAW, J., 2004, “Developing a framework of Best Practices for Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Small Touristic Islands”, University of Cincinnati
EUROPA, SCADPlus, 07.03.2005 “Sustainable Development/Waste Management”
EUROPE, SCADPlus, 18.07.2005, “Waste Burial”
EUROPA, Environment -2.8. Waste Management, 26.01.2005
FLUCK, J., 1994, The term “waste” in EU Law, in “European Environment Law Review”, March 1994
HALVADAKIS, C., 1998, «Municipal Solid Waste Management in Aegean Islands”, University of Aegean
KARKAZI A., SKOULAXINOY S., MAVROPOYLOS A., FAGOGENI E., 2003, “Solid Waste Management in the Greek Islands”, Ninth International Waste Management & Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy, 6-10 October 2003
PRETZ, T., NIKOY, N., KONTOS, C., 2001, «The Effects of the European Directives 94/62 & 99/31 to the Waste Management Sector in Greece, 7^th International Conference on Environment, Science & Technology, Syros, Sept. 2001
PUTNAM, R., 1998, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics:the Logic of Two.level Games”, International Organization, 42(3), 427- 460.
SCANLAN JOHN, 2005, “ON GARBAGE”, Reaction Books Ltd., London, UK
UNEP, Islands Web Site, 10.02.1998, “Management of Wastes in small developing States”, Report of the Secretary General
VAGIANNI H. – SPILANIS I. (2004), “Sustainable tourism: utopia or necessity? – Greece” , in Bramwell B. (ed), Costal mass tourism. Diversification and sustainable development in S.Europe, Channel View Publications, p.269-29
WORKING PARTY ON ENVIROMENTAL PERFORMANCE, November 1999 meeting “Conclusions and Recommendations” 1995 –
ZAMMIT DIMECH, Fr., 2001, “A Solid Waste Management Strategy for the Maltese Islands”, October 2001

Greek-speaking:

ALEXAKI M., AGAPITIDIS G., 1999, “Waste Management in the Greek Region,” publication of the Hellenic Society for Local Development and Self-Government
DOUSHI, E., 2001, “The Community Environmental Policy and Its Impact in the Case of Greece,” University of Athens, Papazisis Publishing, p. 21 & 42
DOUSSIS, E., 2005, Lecture at the Master’s Program “European and International Studies,” 21.12.05
ISLANDS COMMITTEE of CRPM, 1994, “For a European Islands Policy,” Final Declaration, of the 15th Conference, Corfu, April 7-8, 1994
Committee of ISLANDS of the CRPM, 1996, Final Declaration of the 17th Conference, April 25-26, 1996, Malta.
Kalogiannis, St., 2005, “By 2008 all will have closed,” interview, Eleftherotypia, 02.04.2005
KOULOULOPOULOS, P., 2005, “Our country lives in the Middle Ages,” interview, Eleftherotypia, 02.04.2005
KOUTOUPA-REGKAKOU, E., 2005, “Environmental Law”, Sakoulas Publications
KOUFAKI, I., 1998, “Concept of Waste”, PerDik 1/1998 (Year 2)
MANIFESTO, 1995, “For a Community Policy for Sustainable Development of the Insular Regions of the EU,” adopted at the 2nd Conference Congress, Palma de Mallorca, 27-28/10/95
PAPAGIANNAKIS M., 2006, “Populism and Waste”, journal “LAW NATURE”, January 2006
SOUTH AEGEAN REGION, 2005, Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan
REGION OF SOUTH AEGEAN, 2005, Interim Evaluation of the Operational Program of South Aegean, 2000-2006
Spilanis G., 1993, “Island development and cooperation networks of the islands of the European community”, Journal “Topos”, vol. 6, pp. 5-28.
SPILANIS G., “For a European Island Policy”, Laboratory of Local and Island Development, University of the Aegean
SYMEONIDIS K., 1995, “Waste Management: Utilization or Disposal?” Proceedings of the TEE Conference “Environmental Technology in the Mediterranean Area,” November 9-12, 1995.
SIMEONIDIS CONSTANTINOS, 2005, “Waste, a problem of modern society: Can Technology provide sustainable solutions?” Conference EEDSA, Thessaloniki, February 2005
TO VIMA, 04.02.2006, “Towards a new condemnation for Greece regarding hazardous waste”, p.16
CHLEPAS-GIANNAKOURA-IKONOMOU, 2004, “Waste Management”, publications Ant. N. Sakoula, Athens-Komotini