Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

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

a b s t r a c t

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

Republic of Serbia expects to open Chapter 27 for negotiation in the coming year. Comparative analysis in
this paper shows current situation in waste management which should meet EU standards. The purpose
of this paper is to operationalize current knowledge of waste management practices in order to provide a
guideline for implemenetation of future projects and hereby make this knowledge applicable in every
municipality. The results were compared with a municipality of similar characteristics from Ireland, in
order to compare average situation in wate management in Serbia with one EU country. This paper
presents the ndings of the waste management benchmarking, and it sets out the policy priorities from
development perspective that need to be addressed to ensure that Serbia meets own waste management
needs. The results obtained in the study showed the obstacles, real costs and time requirements for
establishment of an efcient institutional system able to generate strategic decisions and ensure
adequate capacities for infrastructure project development and implementation in the waste management sector.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Municipal waste
Municipalities
Benchmarking
Assessment
Serbia

1. Introduction
Waste management presents one of the challenges that any
urban area in the world facing with. Although the quantity of solid
waste generated in urban areas developing countries is low
compared to industrialized countries, the municipal solid waste
management still remains inadequate (Prokic, & Mihajlov, 2012).
The main reason is that municipal authorities lack the resources
and trained staff to provide their rapidly growing populations with
the necessary facilities and services for solid waste management.
Thus, the problem of upgrading practices for the disposal of solid
wastes is far more difcult than in developed countries
(GamzeTuran, oruh, Akdemir, & Osman Nuri Ergun, 2009). Serbia
is in the process of upgrading its MSW management, but generally
it can be characterized as undeveloped, as waste management
consists of waste collection and land disposal only (Nemanja
Stanisavljevic, Ubavin, Batinic, Fellner, & Vujic, 2012). Many cities
in Serbia are facing serious problems in managing solid wastes due
to the existing solid waste management system that is found to be

Abbreviations: EU, European Union; LWM, Law on Waste Management; MoUD,

Ministry of Urban Development; MSW, Municipal Solid Waste; PET, polyethylene
terephthalate; SLB, Service Level Benchmarking; SWM, Solid Waste Management;
TQM, total quality management; US, United States; WEEE, waste from electric and
electronic equipment.
* Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.12.022
0197-3975/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

highly inefcient. Although strict regulations on the management

of solid waste are in place, primitive disposal methods such as open
dumping and discharge into surface water have been used in
various parts. For dealing with generated waste in an environmentally and economically sustainable way, landlling must be
replaced by other, more sustainable, more efcient and modern
processes (Karagiannidis, Kontogianni, & Logothetis, 2013).
Serbian approach to waste management is based on the EU
standards and adopted waste hierarchy principle prescribed in the
Law on Waste Management (Ofcial Gazette RS, No. 36/09, 88/
10), as well as in the National Waste Management Strategy,
2010e2019 (Ofcial Gazette RS, No. 29/10). This hierarchy states
that the most preferred option for waste management is prevention, followed by re-use and recycling, energy recovery and, least
favoured of all, disposal. Serbia is in the process to establish national targets for waste recycling, diversion of biodegradable waste
from landlls etc.
In order to ensure compliance with future EU targets, Ireland
has adopted new policies for continuing improvements in waste
management after the mid 2000s (EEA, 2013). The last decade has
seen signicant changes in waste management in Ireland. According to Environmental Protection Agency (2013a, 2013b, 2013c), ten
years ago recovery and recycling of household waste was 9% while
now it reachs 47%. In addition, 98% of construction and demolition
waste and 79% of packiging waste is recovered (EPA, 2013). The Irish
strategy is to divert over 90% of waste from the ladlling to a

454

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

signicant recovery of recyclable materials through the implementation of 10 regional waste management plans and inclusion of
stakeholders involvement programmes. Regional waste management plans were prepared according to principal drivers from the
EU Waste Framework Directive, the EU Packaging waste Directive
and the EU Landll Directive (Rudden, 2007).
Benchmarking method described below enables to make a
comparative identication of those key elements, that will help to
identify cities strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, municipal
benchmarking leads to more efcient municipal resources management and contributes signicantly to expenditure cuts, mainly
through a process of development and learning. Subsequently, this
analytical tool will serve as the basis for evaluating the results.

and prepare regional waste management plans based on the local

plans (Proki
c, & Mihajlov, 2012). The strategic and planning documents that came from primary legislation and from a series of bylaws adopted in the last three to four years are the Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2010e2019, Spatial Plan
of the Republic of Serbia 2010e2020, National Strategy for Sustainable Development and National Programme of Environmental
Protection. National Waste Management Strategy (2010e2019)
adopted in 2010, provide national targets for sustainable waste
management. It establishes system for the management of specic
waste streams. Therefore, main challenge in waste management in
Serbia is to ensure good coverage and capacity for collection,
transport and disposal of waste on compliance landlls (Filipovi
c&
Obradovi
c Arsi
c, 2012).

1.1. MSWM legislation: at a Glance

1.2. Benchmarking
The Republic of Ireland is an EU member since 1973. Legal basis
of Ireland's waste policy is inuenced by a range of EU Directives.
Waste Framework Directive sets out the management system
applicable to the municipality and it is an inseparable part of Irish
Waste Management Act 1996. Waste Management Act is covering
non hazardous and hazardous waste in Ireland. This legislation
contains a number of key legal obligations, including disposal and
recovery activities that require a waste licence (EPA). Waste management policy at the national level was set down in several documents issued by the Department of the Environment, Community
and Local Government. Government policy document Changing
Our Ways', published in 1998, was based on the integrated waste
management approach, and internationally adopted hierarchy as
the cornerstone of European waste policies and legislation. Preventing and Recycling Waste e Delivering Change was published in
2002, built on Changing Our Ways moving to concrete proposals to
give authorities more power undertake the problem of waste, while
Waste Management e Taking Stock and Moving Forward was
published in 2004, Last one, A Resource Opportunity e Waste
Management Policy in Ireland was published in 2012. The revised
Waste Framework Directive (2008) was transposed into national
law providing the legal basis for Irish national waste management
policy (ARO, 2012). In summary, the national policy framework for
modernising Irish approach to waste management was coordinated
and put in place in the form of 10 Regional waste management
plans (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 waste
management in Serbia is far below EU targets. Since the strategic
goal of Serbia is to join the European Union, Serbia goes through an
ongoing process to harmonise local laws with EU legislation.
Legislation may be considered to be one of the most appropriate
means of addressing environmental issues. Serbia adopted the Law
on Waste Management (Ofcial Gazette of RS, no. 36/09 and 88/
2010) in 2009, which sets the framework for waste management
in Serbia in compliance with the EU. The Law prescribes all relevant
aspects of waste management. Waste management consists of a set
of activities of joint interest which comprise implementation of
prescribed action plans to be carried out within waste collection,
transport, storing, treatment and disposal, including responsibility
for waste management facilities upon discontinuation of their operations. In 2009 Serbia also adopted a Law on Packaging and
Packaging Waste Management. This law sets forth environmental
requirements which packaging must meet in order to be marketed,
and it is in compliance with the EU regulation (The Ofcial Gazette
of the RS, no. 36/09). According to the LWM each municipality
have to develop a municipal waste management plan; subsequently, municipalities must then organize themselves into regions

The late 1970s and early 1980s were a time when benchmarking
was used in the management of industrial rms in the US (LuqueMartinez & Munoz-Leiva, 2005). Benchmarking has been a popular
in recent years as a practical method in developing critical areas of
business (Anand & Kodali, 2008). Benchmarking can be seen as an
important management tool of total quality management (TQM),
also for achieving or surpass the performance goals by learning
from best practices and understanding the processes by which they
are achieved (Ananad & Kodali, 2008), and as a continuous process
of identifying, understanding and adapting practice and processes
that will lead to better performance (Auluck, 2002; Kouzmin,

LoEfer,
Klages, & Korac-Kakabadse, 1999). The term benchmark
was originally used by land surveyors, and by denitionis a reference or measurement standard used for comparison (Auluck, 2002;
Ungureanu, 2011). Anand and Kodali (2008) compare 35 different
benchmarking models and note that most of them share several
key themes including measurement, comparison, identication of
best practices, implementation, and improvement. In fact, importance of benchmarking results from its applicability in a variety of
elds such as: Manufacturing Total quality (Concurrent engineering, Lean production, Innovation and product, development,
Manufacturing and engineering systems, Logistics, Company organization and culture, Environment, health and safety), Finance,
Marketing - Customer satisfaction, Plus many others (Kelessidis,
2000).
The main purpose of solid waste benchmarking is to compare
common elements in solid waste systems and to follow waste
handling from generation to disposal. Waste benchmarking becomes a valuable and powerful tool for representing the solid waste
system (NSWB, 2011). The Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD),
Government of India recognising its importance, has launched the
Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) initiative covering water supply,
wastewater, solid waste management (SWM) and storm water
drainage (The Ministry of Urban Development, 2010). Benchmarking has been widely applied to any part of waste management
system. For example, Folz (2004) use the benchmarking process to
achieve efcient recycling measuring service quality for municipal
solid waste recycling programs, and shows information from a
service-quality framework can be used in a benchmarking project.
Similarly, Lavee and Khatib (2010) use the benchmarking process to
investigate which underlying characteristics of municipalities
predict the potential for economically efcient recycling. The basic
concept of benchmarking is the recognition that certain municipalities are able to achieve better results in a certain eld than
others, reviewing progress towards targets it can eventually lead to
the establishment of best practices within a municipality or across
municipalities (Folz, 2004). Furthermore, municipal benchmarking
leads to more efcient municipal resources management and

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

contributes signicantly to expenditure cuts, mainly through a

process of development and learning.
1.3. Selection of the reference municipalities
The objectives of the study were to evaluate nowadays trends of
MWM via several indicators to evidence differences between municipalities in Serbia. Fifteen Serbian municipalities were selected
in order to assess a variety of different waste management practices
and verify the usability of the benchmarking method. These results
were compared with the results from an Ireland municipality of
similar characteristics. The selected reference municipalities and
some comparative data are presented in Table 1.
The municipalities cover a wide range of population from
Bogatic with population approaching 30,000 to small municipality
Gad
zin Han with three times less population. In order to assess
municipality's performance in waste management, it was decided
not to follow common practice and to classify municipalities according to any sets of criteria (e.g. a range of sizes).
2. Analytical framework
The proposed framework for benchmark analysis consists of
three major elements, which are (1) maping the situation in the
researched areas, (2) identicaton of the position of the respondent
(the city) in relation to the situation in other comparable cities
through the identication of its strengths and weaknesses, (3)
creating a new communication and knowledge platform: by
applying a system of continuous improvement through the transfer
of know-how and good practices, by encouraging open discussion
between central and local government (or between managing and
executive units), and by recommending optimization or introduction of functional systems applied to the local government level,
which could serve as a stimulus for their formalization and widespread dissemination. Concentrating on direct competitors and
knowing them strengths and weaknesses, benchmarking is vital for
 nsdo
ttir, Sparf, Hanssen, 2005). Dening
continuous success (Jo
aims and indicators in this framework is conditioned by the grade
of the current state and issue of waste management.
The purpose of benchmarking analysis is: (1) analysis of the
current situation (innovative itself), (2) denition of strengths and
weaknesses, (3) identication of positions in comparison with
peers, (4) sharing of good practices, (5) participation in round tables, workshops >platform for future exchange of experience, (6)
possibility of detailed analysis of the identied weaknesses. The
most central but challenging part of developing this framework is

Table 1
Selected municipalities.
Country

Municipality

Area (km2)

Total population

Ireland
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia
Serbia

Carlow
Aleksandrovac
Alibunar
Apatin
Bela Crkva
Bogatic
Gadzin Han
Knic
Krupanj
Kursumlija
Ljubovija
Merosina
Razanj
Sokobanja
Svilajnac
Vrnjacka Banja

897
387
602
330
353
384
325
413
342
950
356
193
289
525
326
239

54,612
29,389
22,954
32,813
20,367
32,990
10,405
16,148
20,192
21,897
17,052
14,812
11,369
18,571
25,511
26,492

455

to dene a set of a few yet effective benchmarks. In order to facilitate comparison between municipalities and to support a discussion of the best practices, the present work introduces some
performance indicators that apllied on: (1) waste generation, (2)
waste collection and transport; (3) recycling activities and other
waste treatment options and (4) waste disposal. Indicators are used
at international and national levels in state of the measurement of
waste management performance and reporting on progress towards sustainable development. Quality is a key variable that
should 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 planning
to have adequate knowledge on the volume, type and composition
of waste (Ojha, 2011).
Over the last decade, the amount of waste generated in Ireland
has decreased by 17% since it peaked in 2007, reecting a decrease
in personal consumption which is on the other hand, related to the
economic recession. However, Ireland with approximately 4.6
million people belongs to the highest waste producers in Europe.
Overall municipal waste generation in 2011 was 2,823,242 t and
quantity of household waste disposed to the landlls was 750,066 t
(EPA, 2013).
Serbia has a population of approximately 7.5 million, whereas
57% of the population lives in urban areas. Only 70% of municipal
solid waste is collected (NWMS, 2010-2019), and it is important to
say that generated and collected waste in Serbia still show big
difference due to the high percentage of organized waste collection
in urban areas, but low or no waste collection in rural areas.
Furthermore, rate of waste generation is highly inuenced by
economic activity of each municipality. In other words, depends on
the degree of industrial development, living standard, lifestyles,
social environment, consumption and other indicators of each
particular community. Due to this reason, lack of coverage of the
whole territory of the collection service, dumping and illegal
dumping, utilization of waste food in rural areas for feeding the
livestock, illegal burning of waste in the open and others, the volume of generated waste can signicantly differ between the municipalities. It should be pointed out that amount differs from the
amount collected and disposed waste. Furthermore, in Serbia
denition of municipal waste may still interpreted differently,
which means that in some cases municipalities calculated all the
waste collected and disposed on the landll which often include
special waste streams as part of municipal waste, e.g. construction
waste, waste from electric and electronic equipment (WEEE), etc.,
which are by denition 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 is
related to commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, household waste
and street sweepings (EPA, 2013). Despite these caveats, some
interesting comparisons can be made. For accurate estimation
selected waste generation indicators are presented in Figs. 1 and 2.
The data in Fig. 1 shows the variation of municipal waste generation in Carlow Municipality and across the fteen selected
municipalities in Serbia. It is clear that the amounts of generated
municipal waste differ. Serbian municipalities such as Gadzin Han
and Merosina are rate the lowest in terms of municipal waste
generated per year. Municipality Carlow with 36,054 t generated
waste is near to the Municipality Sokobanja that reached production of 39,314 t/year and high when compared internationally.
According to the Municipality Sokobanja, the reason for high waste
production is 50,000 tourists who visit Sokobanja each year. The

456

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

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

municipality Knic also shows high municipal waste generation

correlated with the population. However, waste generation in Knic
should be monitored carefully and calculated exactly according to
the regulation.
The waste generation per capita is given in Fig. 2 and indicates a
range of 0.33e5.28 kg in Serbian municipalities, which shows that
some data have to be checked again. The deffernces between the
data, big range could be the following reasons. First, differences
between rural population and urban population and their generation of waste. It takes into account the rural population, in general,
could be less developed economically. On the other hand, rural
households burn much of waste themselves or use waste food for
feeding the livestock, which is very widespread. This gure can also
show mistakes in statistic or wrong calculation due to the fact that
data are collected directly from the municipalities.
However, most of the data from the municipalities include
Ireland Carlow Municipality with 1.4 kg per capita, oscillated
around 0.9e1.3 kg, which compliant the international standards.
Similarly to discussion on Fig. 1, the Municipality of Sokobanja has

the highest level of municipal waste generation per capita of all the
benchmark municipalities (Fig. 2). It is thus very useful for the
municipalities to compare these results and to learn also from the
mistakes in calculation. From Fig. 2 it can be concluded that without
municipalities of Knic, Sokobanja and Razanj, other municipalities
show 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 dependent
on the collection frequency, the points of collection and involves
gathering of waste and its transportation to the location where the
collection vehicle is emptied. Specically, the achieved level of
community service must be acceptable, whereas multiple resource
constraints must also be considered and met, which relate to labour, collection equipment, etc. Best-service performance also

Fig. 2. Average municipal waste generated per capita per day (kg/capita/day).

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

includes environmental aspects since best practices (economically,

technically, operationally, etc.) lead to the efciency and effectiveness of waste collection that are very important issues for public
authorities, private actors and the community (Karagiannidis,
Xirogiannopoulou, Perkoulidis, & Moussiopoulos, 2004). Waste
collection service in Ireland was changing rapidly. In the past, local
authorities collected almost all household waste. However, in
recent years it is an open market. Today, the private sector has
gained almost the entire national household waste collection
market. In the majority of local districts, even 32 of 34 private waste
companies play a major role in providing services to both public
and private sectors (OECD, 2013). In Serbia, municipal waste is
mostly collected by Public utility enterprises (PUCs), founded by the
municipalities. This service is dened by municipal Decision on
communal hygiene or cleanness in each municipality. The main
function of waste collection indicators is to reect trends in the
state of waste management at local and regional level. Generally
speaking, waste collection service does not reach the entire population of the urban areas. Percentage of population covered by
waste collection services in the municipality is generally between
80% and 100% for urban areas and mostly very low in rural areas.
Only municipalities Svilajnac and Vrnjacka Banja have 100% service
coverage in rural areas, then Gadzin Han and Alibunar have close to
80%, while others are below 50%, with Bogatic, Knic and Razanj
which have nearly no service coverage in rural areas. Organized
waste collection covered all urban areas, while coverage of the rural
areas was signicantly weak. The introduction of a reliable collection service often leads to the use of large and durable container,
because the storage volume required for domestic wastes is a
function of the number of people served, the daily rate of waste
generation per capita, and the number of days between successive
collections (UN-Habitat, 2010, chap. 5).
In Ireland different waste fractions are collected separately, using 2-bin system, for dry recyclables and residual waste and 3-bin
system for dry recyclables, organics and residuals (OECD, 2013).
Of serviced households, 96% have at least a 2-bin service, 39% have
an organics service in addition (3-bin) while 5% have a segregated
glass service in addition (4- bin) (EPA, 2013). In Carlow, the waste
generated from various sources is collected separately by the
implementation of 2-bin system for 72% of households, and 3-bin
system for 28% of households serviced by waste collecting system. In this municipality a 3-bin collection system is mandatory
starting from 2009 throughout urban areas greater than 1000
persons (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 individual housing. In the urban areas with collective housing and
high density of population, containers on the streets for separate
waste collection of PET, aluminium and cardboard packaging for
recycling are planned. Out of the fteen benchmarked municipalities, only in a few municipalities the waste generated from various
sources is collected separately. The predominant system for
collection in most of the cities includes containers for residual
waste e the containers are common for recyclable, compostable
and non-compostable waste (no segregation of waste is performed), and the waste is disposed at a municipal landll. Out of
the fteen benchmarked municipalities, the municipalities Alibunar, Bogatic, Gadzin Han, Ljubovija and Merosina have no containers for recyclable waste at all.
4.2. Recycling activities and other waste treatment options
During the last two decades regulation of waste management in
Europe has been focused on reduction of environmental impact
from waste treatment and conservation of resources from waste.

457

Illustrated by the waste hierarchy, the guiding principle of waste

prevention is prioritized over reuse, recycling, recovery and
disposal (Larsen, Merrild, Mrller, & Christensen, 2010). Developed
countries classied the recycling as strategic branch of the economy. Recycling is a key factor of the packaging waste management.
The goal of at least 25% recycling of the packaging waste was
reached in all EU member states in 2006. As one of the preconditions for the achievement of high recycling rates which many
developing country cities aspire to, is integrating source separation
of clean materials for recycling into the formal system, and supporting by policy instruments (Wilson, Araba, Chinwah, &
Cheeseman, 2009). Since Changing our Ways published in 1998,
in Ireland progress is being made towards improved recycling
infrastructure. With effects given to this policy approach in 2010,
Ireland achieved ahead of time the ambitious municipal waste
recycling target of 38% in 2010 (ARO, 2012). According to EPA's
National Statistics, Ireland's recycling rates have dramatically
increased in recent years. Ireland has surpassed with the 2011 EU
packaging 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 period
highest investment in the waste management sector will be in the
construction of waste management centres, rehabilitation of the
existing dumping grounds, as well as the investment in waste
recycling and composting. This is wery important because the
construction of recycling centres will enable an essential change in
the manner of waste management in Serbia, the amount of landlled waste will be reduced, which will prolong the lifetime of the
landlls, provide the raw material for the development of the
recycling industry and allow public utility (Filipovic & Obradovic
Arsi
c, 2012). For the part of recycling activities and other waste
treatment options, indicators are selected one for each following
part. First indicator in Fig. 3 shows the percentage of household
waste.
According to all of the above-mentioned data on Fig. 3, the level
of houshold waste recycling in most of the municipalities in Serbia
is still very low and much lower than in the EU. On the other hand,
Fig. 3 demonstrate that level of houshold waste recycling in Carlow
is very high by international standards. Seven out of fteen Serbian
municipalities have no houshold waste recycling. It can be seen
form Figs. 3 and 4 that some of the Serbian benchmarked municipalities, such as the municipalities of Krupanj, Ljubovija and Merosina registered high percentage of household waste recycled.
Looking beyond the data the most expected was a link to the
number of containers for separated waste collection, per cent of
recycled household waste and the recycling facilities. But interestingly, Ljubovija and Merosina responded in the questionnaire
that they have no containers for separated waste collection. On the
other hand, in Merosina there are 5 recycling facilities with the
licence and in Ljubovija there is only one. An indication of the range
of treatment facilities available across the benchmarked municipalities is provided in Fig. 4.
Although this indicator does not take the size of the facility into
account, it does highlight the decits in the existing waste infrastructure in the municipalities, in particular the absence of facilities
for recycling of waste in some of the municipalities. In 7 Serbian
municipalities there is no recycling facility with a licence from the
competent authority, but in Merosina there are 5 licenced recycling
facilities. On the other hand in Carlow there is only 1 (JWMPSE,
2012). When it comes to waste management and recycling in
Serbia, there is a distinct impression that a lot of work is needed on
comprehensive education of all categories of the population, in
order to introduce every citizen with these issues, possible solutions and common contribution to the establishment of waste
management system for the benet of all.

458

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

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

The current licenced Waste transfer station in Carlow is of 1150

tonnes capacity. There is a further 150 tonnes of waste licenced
capacity at recycling facility in the Carlow. Also there are 5
authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) with a permit for treatment
of End-of-life-Vehicles (ELVs). Furthemore, Carlow owns two biological treatment facilities which have a waste licences. The rst
Biological Treatment Facility held a Waste licence with threshold of
50,000 tonnes/year. Another facility with waste management
permit is for composting, with the capacity of compost of 25,000
tonnes/year (JWMPSE, 2012).
Applied waste treatment options in the municipalities as a third
indicator is highlighted in Fig. 5.
It can be seen that more than 90% of waste in Serbia is going to
the landll. On the opposite, less than 50% of Carlow's municipal
waste is disposed of on the landll. Carlow met EU target and
exceeded 50% recovery, and have substantially improved its performance. They have set a benchmark and other authorities must
follow that targets. In Serbian municipalities, recycling is present in
a small percentage, and other treatment options such as composting, anaerobic digestion or waste to energy are still not

developed in the benchmarked municipalities. This is mainly due to

the limited progress that has been made in waste treatment
infrastructure construction for preferred waste treatment options
such as recycling and biological treatment. According to the National Waste Management Strategy, 26 Regional waste management centers are planned to be constructed in Serbia including
recycling facility, composting plant and regional landll, in order to
meet the EU targets in the realistic period of time.
While signicant progress has been made in some municipalities in increasing the share of recycled packaging waste, dependence on landll still remains high in most of them. However, in all
of the benchmarked municipalities, except Bela Crkva, Krupanj,
Ljubovija and Merosina which show 3e4% of total waste recycled,
disposal on the landll remains the only waste management
option.
4.3. Waste disposal
According to the EPA's 2012 National Waste Report, only 41% of
municipal waste was consigned for disposal at 19 landll sites in

Fig. 4. Number of licenced recycling facilities in the Municipality.

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

459

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

Ireland. In developed countries, where it is possible to use signicant nancial resources, the most common are sophisticated
techniques, such as incineration. This major changes in Ireland that
before predominantly reliant on landll in managing waste, was
attributed to increasing use of incineration (EPA, 2012). In Carlow
there is a Landll and Civic Amenity site located at Powerstown
with a capacity of 42,500 tonnes/year. This facility accepts all
municipal waste and in addition providing recycling facilities for
hazardous and non-hazardous waste. It is expected that many of
the landlls will be closed and be replaced by an integrated regional
facility. Carlow County Council aims to ll its Powerstown landll
by 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 of
waste which is disposed of on uncontrolled landlls or open
dumpsites (Josimovic, & Mari
c, 2012). Recent investigation shown
there are 164 ofcial landlls and 4400 of dumpsites in Serbia
(Atanasijevic, Pocajt, Popovi
c, Red
zi
c, & Ristic, 2013). Waste separation is on very low level (SNR, 2012). There are 7 regional landlls
constructed by now in Serbia according to the EU standards. Still,
only 11,9% of generated municipal waste is disposed of on those
sanitary landlls, the rest is disposed of on the municipal disposal
sites, which are more or less neglected (SNR, 2012).
Landlls, especially old one slacking modern environmental
technology, are sources for local pollution due to the fact that thay
have related implications such as long-term methane emissions,
local pollution concerns, settling issues and limitations on urban
development (Krook, Svensson, & Eklund, 2012). Furthmore, all of
these factors are causing impact on the environment and public
health. As already mentioned, the National Waste Management
Strategy recommended construction of regional waste management centres. The data collection in this segment of waste management in Ireland and in Serbia is focused on issues related to
unofciall municipal tips. Landll characteristics in all the municipalities highlighted there include practically no leachate collection
and treatment, no landll gas collection, no bottom layer, no electricity, no water supply etc. There is only soil covering of the waste
landlled from time to time.
For this indicator - number of illegal dumpsites in all the municipalities, comparative data are given in Fig. 6. This comparison
shows that the number of illegal dumpsites which exists in all the
municipalities is high, especially in Gadzin Han, Knic, Sokobanja

and Svilajnac. Also, it was noted that although Carlow has a operational licenced landll, there are 8 unlicenced unofcial landlls
which have been investigated by the Local Authorities in Ireland.
One of them is dened as a high risk site. On the territory of the
Municipality Carlow, there is one local authority owned low risk
site, the remaining sites are on private lands (JWMPSE, 2012).
5. Conclusion and recommendations
Benchmarking, as a tool that can help municipalities to improve
municipal waste performance, now is in a rened stage of both
theoretical development and practical application. With regard to
waste management performance in the Municipality Carlow in
Ireland, the case study is performed in Serbian municipalities in
waste management area, demonstrated that municipalities vary in
their nancial capacities, policy priorities, as well as local needs,
preferences and supports. Solid waste systems throughout Serbian
municipalities vary dramatically in terms of services provided,
disposal rates, disposal options and methodologies for measuring
waste and recycling rates etc. The benchmarking analysis has
provided the background to address current shortcomings in all
parts of municipal waste management.
This research suggests that municipalities should turn their
attention and put their efforts into the following key issues:
Particularly, the provision of reliable data on waste volume in line
with the National Waste Management Strategy and the Law on
Waste Management. It is difcult to make performance comparison
among municipalities, when it is obvious that current situation in
municipalities is characterized by rather unreliable and incomplete
data on municipal waste generation; Support to the benchmarkbased research on costs and cost structures, i.e. the economic side
of waste collection and management; Preparation of the technical
documentation for Regional Waste Management Centres and construction of Regional Waste Management Centres with regional
landlls as well; Organization of nancially sustainable waste
management scheme through the principle of full costs recovery
for the services of collection, treatment and disposal of waste, as
well as the introduction of stimulation instruments for re-use and
recycling of waste, as per the National Waste Management Strategy.
In that case there would be no motivation for reducing the volume
of waste at source and no motivation for recycling and rehabilitation of the existing dumpsites in the municipalities.

460

M. Ilic, M. Nikolic / Habitat International 53 (2016) 453e460

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

This work has shown explicitly how a benchmarking analysis

can be applied for waste management in Serbia in order to measure
progress in modernizing and improving the solid waste management system. For waste managers, obtained results will be a good
basis for future decisions and directions of Serbian waste management development.
References
Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Benchmarking the benchmarking models. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 15(3), 257e291.
A Resource Opportunity. (2012). Waste management policy in Ireland. Avaliable
from: 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 forecasting
of municipal waste generation using articial neural networks and sustainability 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. Available
from: https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Bulletin 2: Household waste statistics for
2013. Available from: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/household/
EPA_HH_2013_bulletin_nal_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.
EPAs National Statistics. (2014). Progress towards EU waste recycling, recovery and
diversion 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 manegement
planning in the Republic of Serbia- current situation and prospect. Bulletin of
the Serbian Geographical society, 4, 143e156.
Folz, H. D. (2004). Service quality and benchmarking the performance of municipal
services. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 209e220.
GamzeTuran, N., oruh, S., Akdemir, A., & Osman Nuri Ergun, O. (2009). Municipal
solid waste management strategies in Turkey. Waste Management, 29, 465e469.
Improving urban services through service level benchmarking. (2010). The ministry
of urban development. Government of India. Available from: http://www.
urbanindia.nic.in/programme/uwss/slb/Flyer.pdf.
nsdo
ttir, H., Sparf, A.M., Hanssen, J. O., 2005. Environmental benchmarking: a tool
Jo
for 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 landll site selection

enviromental sciences. In S. Curkovic (Ed.), Sustainable development- authoritative and leading edge content for enviromental management chapter 22 (pp.
514e538).
Karagiannidis, A., Kontogianni, S., & Logothetis, D. (2013). Classication and categorization of treatment methods for ash generated by municipal solid waste
incineration: a case for the 2 greater metropolitan regions of Greece. Waste
Management, 33(2), 363e372.
Karagiannidis, A., Xirogiannopoulou, A., Perkoulidis, G., & Moussiopoulos, N. (2004).
Assessing the collection of urban solid wastes: a step towards municipality
benchmarking. 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., LoEfer,
E., Klages, H., & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1999). Benchmarking
andperformance measurement in public sectors. The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 12(2), 121e144.
Krook, J., Svensson, N., & Eklund, M. (2012). Landll mining: a critical review of two
decades of research. Waste Management, 32, 513e520.
Larsen, A. W., Merrild, H., Mrller, J., & Christensen, T. H. (2010). Waste collection
systems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment for the
municipality 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 (Ofcial Gazette of RS, no 36/
09).
Law on Waste Management (Ofcial Gazette of RS, no 36/09 and 88/2010).
Luque-Martinez, T., & Munoz-Leiva, F. (2005). City benchmarking: a methodological
proposal referring specically to Granada. Cities, 22(6), 411e423.
National Waste Management Strategy. (2010-2019). Ofcial 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 landlls 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 managementin a developing country (Serbia). Environment Protection Engineering,
38(1), 81e90.
Rudden, P. J. (2007). Report: policy drivers and the planning and implementation of
integrated waste management in Ireland using the regional approach. Waste
management & research, 25(3), 270e275.
State of the Nation Report. (2012). Landlling practices and regulation in Serbia.
Avaliable from: www.iswa.org.
The Joint Waste Management Plan for the South East Region, (2012). Available
from:
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 business
environment. CES Working Papers, III(3), 440e451.
Wilson, C. D., Araba, O. A., Chinwah, K., & Cheeseman, R. C. (2009). Building recycling rates through the informal sector. Waste Management, 29, 629e635.