Skip to main content

Optimisation of Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategies for the Maximisation of Resource Efficiency

Final Report Summary - WASTECOSMART (Optimisation of Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategies for the Maximisation of Resource Efficiency)

Executive Summary:
Many share the vision of a sustainable society. This could be more than a distant aspiration - but it needs action. Innovative waste management is a part of the solution but we will not succeed if the responsible actors work in isolation from one Another. To succeed, actors all along the chain of waste management will have to cooperate. Only at that Point will we achieve substantial positive sustanability impacts.
With a holistic perspective and collaboration between science, industry and the public sector, waste can be handled more efficiently and even prevented. Through cooperation, new business models and incentives can be developed to maximise value from waste, leading to expanded and robust markets for products and materials recovered from waste. Creating platforms for cooperation and knowledge transfer, best practices can be highlighted and implemented. A total of six research-driven triple-helix regions (representatives from the scientific world, businesses, and public authorities) across Europe participated in the WASTECOSMART-project: Paphos region (Cyprus), Budapest region (Hungary), Piedmont region (Italy), Liverpool region, (UK), Amsterdam region (Netherlands), and Stockholm region (Sweden) and joined forces to formulate a Joint Action Plan within the WASTECOSMART Project, which identifies a way forward for innovative waste management for municipal solid waste.

Project Context and Objectives:
The WASTECOSMART-project aimed to tackle the increased amount of waste in Europe and to find strategies to maximize resource efficiency. The overall project objective was to strengthen and enhance the innovation capacity of regional research-driven clusters in resource efficiency. To achieve this, requires collaboration, research and technology development in the waste sector. A total of six research-driven triple-helix regions (representatives from the scientific world, businesses, and public authorities) across Europe participated in the WASTECOSMART-project: Paphos region (Cyprus), Budapest region (Hungary), Piedmont region (Italy), Liverpool region, (UK), Amsterdam region (Netherlands), and Stockholm region (Sweden).
The 36-month long WASTECOSMART-project was carried out mainly to promote transnational cooperation of research-driven regions in waste management, but also to assess regional needs in the waste sector, formulate waste management strategies, develop an action plan to reduce waste, support the less developed regions in waste management and unlock business opportunities in international markets. Each participating region has carefully crafted a triple-helix cluster with a strong interest in boosting research and innovation in resource efficiency and particularly the waste management sector.
WASTECOSMART was divided into several work packages (WPs) that together will fulfil the overall objectives. Aside from the work packages responsible for project management (WP1) and dissemination (WP2), the project has four main areas and work packages, all summarizing in common activities for the regions. WP3 included a structured analysis of the research capacities and research needs of each of the regions. These results were input for developing the Decision Support Framework in WP4 and to formulate the Joint Action Plan in WP6.
Work packages
WP3 – Identification and assessment of research capacities and technological capacity building needs
WP4 – Preparation of a Decision Support Framework for the design of Resource Efficiency Management Plans
WP5 – Pilot implementation to prepare end-users specific resource efficiency plans
WP6 – Developing Regional Research Agendas and a Joint Action Plan (JAP)
WP7 – Actions towards the implementation of the Joint Action Plan (JAP).

Project Results:
The first phase of WASTECOSMART was about to get to know each other and each other’s regions and to analyse the regions state of play and potential. The first 12 month of the project the partners have mainly been working with the analysis and therewith laid the basement for the next steps of the project and main objective of WASTECOSMART: the formulation and implementation of regional research and Innovation agendas and a Joint Action Plan (JAP) to improve resource efficiency within waste management. Furthermore a decision support Framework (DSF) was adapted to waste management and stakeholder workshops in all regions were held. Case studies and Best practices for optimised waste management were shared and pilots to test innovative waste management were identified and initiated. The JAP was finalised in the first half of 2015 and the partners of WASTECOSMART started working with measures towards the implementation of the JAP during summer 2015 to the end of the project.

Main results achieved:
- Formulation and implementation of 1 JAP
- Publication and Charing of best practices within and outside the Project consortium
- initiation of innovative waste management pilots in all participating regions
- Establishment of new cross regional and interdisciplinary partnerships within Europe and globally

1.2 Work progress and achievements during the period
Through its core methodology, WASTECOSMART highlighted and identified gaps and needs for innovation and research as well as good practices from 6 European regions and accelerated innovation in resource efficiency and optimised waste management.

By addressing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from an economic, innovation, research and policy perspective, WASTECOSMART boosted business opportunities for regional SMEs by identifying and promoting successful innovation systems, mechanisms, processes and incentives. The successful and advanced initiatives identified with WASTECOSMART offered concrete efficient practices for the regions engaged in the project. In the long term, WASTECOSMART set a package of tools useful for stakeholders from the entire waste management value chain to help them in identifying innovative waste management and new business opportunities.

1.2.1 WP2 Dissemination and Exploitation of project results
The main aim of Work Package 2 on Dissemination and Exploitation of project results (WP2) was

• To raise awareness and visibility of WASTECOSMART and its research-driven triple helix clusters;
• To promote the use of waste management DSS and the JAPS towards regional stakeholders;
• To facilitate networking between European and international partners;
• To encourage the use of innovative waste management systems and technologies;
• To ensure take-up of project results by policy and market in the participating regions and beyond.

Throughout the 36 months of the project life-time, these objective were successfully addressed and could be reached. All partners collaborated in the implementation of WP2 under the lead of GreenMatters.
The work of the Work Package 2 was organised in three tasks, namely Task 2.1 Dissemination and Exploitation plan, Task 2.2 Communication material and website, and Task 2.3 General dissemination activities for all stakeholder groups.

With regard to Task 2.1 a Dissemination and exploitation plan was elaborated by GreenMatters in cooperation with the project partners during the first six months of the project (resulting in Deliverable 2.1 submitted in M6). The plan provided guidelines for all partners regarding their communication and dissemination activities. It identified the target audiences, tailored key messages and established appropriate communication channels to reach the relevant stakeholders such as regional and local authorities as well as waste operators. The plan outlined as well the activities being undertaken to produce the project’s Communication materials (Deliverable 2.2) and a dedicated template was created to monitor the implementation of the plan. The plan was regularly updated throughout the project, and the updates were presented at the progress meetings to tune all partners’ dissemination and exploitation efforts.

With regard to Task 2.2 a visual and written identity was produced for the project. Based on the identity, WASTECOSMART communication materials was designed, developed and produced by GreenMatters (resulting in Deliverable 2.2 submitted in M6) including Word and PPT templates, a project leaflet in 6 languages (English, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese), a roll-up banner, two posters and a general PowerPoint presentation in English. A dedicated website ( was designed and constantly updated with relevant news and events (50 news articles, 60 events. 13 long features, 28 publications, 12 case studies). The WastEcoSmart website recorded 21,835 page views in 6,278 sessions from 3,792 different users. Most partners of the consortium have included pages on the project on their own websites and used their own media such as newsletters and Facebook pages to promote the project.

Acknowledging the power of social media, a twitter account was created for the project news with the intention to reach a different target group. The tweed is integrated into the homepage as rotating feed, linking both media effectively. 163 tweeds were sent under the twitter handle @WASTECOSMART, attracting 91 followers. WastEcoSmart also posted in five large pre-existing Linked-IN groups relevant to the project.

Task 2.3 was dedicated to general dissemination activities to all target groups. It has to be put in context of the other work packages that feature also specific knowledge exchange and networking activities among the six triple helix clusters, as well as targeted international knowledge exchange missions to the three non-EU partner countries Brazil, South Africa and India. As part of task 2.3 the following activities were implemented:

• 6 Regional networking workshops across Europe
• 9 Onsite replication seminars
• 15 Conference speeches, exhibitions and posters

GreenMatters coordinated the different general dissemination activities, presenting a planning and developing forms and templates for the partners to make economies of scale and ensure a uniform delivery to the outside even if events were locally organised by different WASTECOSMART partners. GreenMatters also promoted the networking workshops through the WASTECOSMART website and all other available media.

The WASTECOSMART Regional Networking Workshops aimed to raise the visibility of the project and to highlight how project results can be exploited and replicated. At the same time, the workshops intended to reach out to local stakeholders in order to support collaboration and knowledge exchange on sustainable waste management and the Circular Economy at local level. Between September 2014 and March 2016, six regional workshops were organised by each of the WASTECOSMART triple helix clusters, taking place.

• Stockholm (Sweden), 16 September 2014 – 15 participants
• Turin (Italy), 10 July 2015 – 95 participants
• Budapest (Hungary), 10 September 2015 – 48 participants
• Amsterdam (The Netherlands), 15 September 2015 – 96 participants
• Paphos (Cyprus), 6 October 2015 – 7 participants
• Liverpool (United Kingdom), 11 March 2016 – 11 participants

In total, the six regional networking workshops promoted the WASTECOSMART project to a total of 272 relevant regional stakeholders. Around half of the participants were representatives of the private sector, such as waste management and collection firms, as well as technology providers. They were interested to discover the business opportunities created by the alternative waste strategies developed for each region. Each workshop was also attended by local policy-makers, including national, regional and municipal representatives. Municipalities are particularly well placed to replicate the innovative strategies developed by the WASTECOSMART clusters. The remaining participants were interested parties from research institutes, universities and knowledge centres, waste and environmental consultancies, relevant NGOs and the media.

Nine on-site replication seminars were organised throughout the duration of the project. Here the objective was to go ‘on-site‘ and present WASTECOSMART to relevant audiences outside of the participating regions in order to promote wider replication and uptake. Seminar hosts were identified from the target group of Regions, Municipalities, Regional public bodies, Waste operators and Waste treatment facilities. The nine on-site seminars promoted replication and uptake of the WASTECOSMART approach and best practices to over 295 relevant stakeholders, in 8 countries.

At the seminars, after an introduction to the main waste management challenges in the host region, partners presented the WASTECOSMART approach and best practices. Specific attention was given to the Decision Support Framework and its use, innovative waste treatment technologies and the Joint Action Plans. Time was then allocated to a discussion session, allowing participants to ask for clarifications or further questions. Seminar hosts were also encouraged to foresee time for networking, to encourage stakeholders to discuss potential collaborations based on the opportunities presented to them. Where possible, the seminars also included physical visits and tours, such as to local waste treatment facilities.

Presentations of WastEcoSmart and its outcomes were made by consortium members at 15 different conferences and events between Month 9 and Month 34. The presentation ranged from full-fledged conference presentations along with abstract and full paper submissions to less formal interactive presentations of special bodies, such as the city planning officers of the UK or the city planning Board members in Sweden. All clusters participated in this outreach activity, multiplying the languages available for presenting. The goal of 12 presentations was exceeded with the following events (more details see D2.4):

15 October 2013 – City Planning Board in Sundbyberg, Sweden
11 May 2014 - SWOT analysis at Täby, Sweden
13 May 2014 - Meeting SÖRAB in Stockholm Region, Sweden
14 May – 19 December 2014 - Local Cluster meetings at Torino, Italy
5 June 2014 – Environmental techniques at Budapest, Hungary
17 June 2014 - EU funding at Liverpool, UK
16 September 2014 - How can the city work with waste prevention? At Stockholm, Sweden
2 November 2014 Project partners discussing waste prevention strategies in Stockholm
2-8 November 2014 - Zero Waste Week 2014 at 5 Brazilian cities
2 2 Project partners at Zero Waste Week 2014 in Brazil
9-10 October 2014 – WastEcoSmart paper and conference presentation at Budapest, Hungary
2 3 Abstract provided to the 18th International Conference on Waste Recycling in Miskolc, Hungary
2 4 Project partners at 18th International Conference on Waste Recycling in Miskolc, Hungary
3 July 2015 - 3rd WastEcoSmart Full Paper and presentation at 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, at Tinos, Greece
13 October 2015 - Annual Forum for Waste and Recycling Officers, at Nottingham, UK
23-25 June 2016, WastEcoSmart Full Paper and presentation at 4th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, at Limassol, Cyprus
23 February 2016 – WastEcoSmart presentation at Hamburg TREND 2016, at Hamburg, Germany
16 - 17 June 2016, WastEcoSmart decision-taking tool presentation at Territory matters: Keeping Europe and its regions competitive, at Amsterdam, NL
27-28 June 2016, Geodesign tool presentation at 13th International Conference on Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, at Eindhoven, NL Potential Impact
See section 4.4.1 for dissemination and exploitation impacts

1.2.2 WP3 Identification and assessment of research capacities and technological capacity building needs
Work Package 3 encompassed two significant deliverables, the first one involving the meta-analysis cluster report and the second one providing a map of existing cluster capacities and research activities of the regional clusters. The main objective of the work package was to identify and establish the requirements and the gaps related to developing research and technological capacities, resource efficiency needs, and solid waste management strategies. The work package aimed to produce a structured analysis of the research capacities and research needs of each of the regions and set the scene for future research and innovation.
The work package was finalised within period 1. Task 3.1 Identification and assessment of needs, research and innovation capacities
The methodology (Technology Innovation System Analysis, TIS) developed by SP as followed for D 3.1 involved initially the spherical identification and assessment of all actors that influenced the development, diffusion and use in waste management. The work performed applied to planning and performance of a self-assessment for the participating regions. All partner regions were supplied with a template consisting of questions and an interview part. The results were analysed under the lead of SP in cooperation with the Cyprus partners. An overview of the current status in waste management, an analysis of the main gaps and needs for each region, as well as identification of setbacks in improving waste management practices was assessed. Finally, a list of specifications as input (opportunities and gaps) for the Decision Support Framework (DSF) was composed.

Evaluating the current status in waste management revealed that the three northern regions, Amsterdam, Liverpool and Stockholm have more advanced and comprehensive achievements in innovative and resource efficient waste management, especially when compared to Piedmont, Budapest and Paphos despite the fact that as regions in EU member states all members have, at least in theory, implemented the EU regulatory requirements. That being said, it is important to note that even for the three northern regions there exists the possibility for improvement especially regarding incentives for prevention, re-use and/or improving sorted waste quality that will result in a change in the public’s perceptive about “second-goods.” The policy in each of the six regions, as outlined in the EU waste management framework, is enforced almost universally by the Municipalities. It should be noted that for Paphos, the ministry of interior is responsible for further implementing the policy mainly due to size of the town and limited availability of resources. Reductions in landfilling are most effective in Stockholm and Amsterdam though incineration appears to be the go-to methodology for managing waste. The three southern towns Budapest, Paphos, Piedmont are less successful in reducing landfilling and they still have to make advancements in technology and infrastructure. Paphos still has to establish procedures for recycling waste streams. Budapest is applying an environmental protection fee in order to finance the collection and recycling of packaging. Liverpool has a partnership of two regional authorities in charge of handling waste and has focused its waste management on reuse, recycling and diversion from landfilling. The regulatory structures in all six regions have some similarities, however have very different effects on how things work for waste management. For example in Piedmont the regulations and procedures regarding licencing, taxes and disposal expenses inhibit new private companies from entering the field. On the other hand for Paphos private companies are discouraged not from the regulations but from the inability of authorities in enforcing said regulations, hence an investment in the field is considered a waste of money, by a lot of private companies.
The development of a new waste treatment infrastructure, such as recycling plants, is governed by a number of complicated socio-political factors that are elaborated through the general opposition of the public in housing waste management facilities close to their properties. The problem is manifested mainly in Liverpool and Stockholm. Amsterdam and Budapest face low recycling rates than expected, not due to waste treatment facilities but due to the limited accessibility of collectors to the historic city centers, which are densely populated. Budapest faces another significant problem due to illegal damping. Paphos and Cyprus in general has an added problem of limited information and hence inability to allocate the required budget for waste management. Furthermore, the current economic crisis that affects mostly Southern Europe has an advert effect on waste management development and namely the allocation of locations for waste treatment facilities.

The actors and networks that are currently involved in waste management are divided into four main categories. The public sector, who is responsible for designing, stating and enforcing regulation; the waste management operators (WMOs) responsible for the collection, processing and treatment of waste; the research and development, (R&D) that in addition to contributing significantly in the field of research on waste management usually form strong bonds with the local industry hence facilitating dissemination of their work,; and finally support actors and pressure groups such as NGO’s, Green parties etc. In Amsterdam, Liverpool and Stockholm the public sector are enforcing strong policies in waste management and drive the procurement of innovative solutions. In Budapest and Paphos the public sector is developing policies that conform to EU requirements, mainly through the transfer of experience from other European countries and not through the development of local innovation. The divide between North and South is also evident in WMOs and R&D as the Netherlands, UK and Sweden have well developed technology and knowledge, both in academia and in industry whereas Piedmont, Budapest and Paphos attempt to apply technologies developed elsewhere. In Paphos, any innovation that relates to waste collection comes from SMEs that collect in order to increase their income through the sale of recyclable materials.

The Technological aspects of waste management differ from North and South, with the North having implemented a more elaborate collecting system, more complex separation at source for recyclable materials or even separation and conversion of organic waste to biofuels. All regions implement composting and anaerobic digestion. Energy recovery is becoming increasingly more important though waste reduction comes into conflict with energy recovery goals. All regions are making advances regarding separation at source and remain dedicated to reducing waste, within the priorities and the capabilities of their region. There are several financial instruments that are applied or examined both as incentive or prohibiting measures. Task 3.2 Mapping existing cluster capacities and research activities
Deliverable 3.2 utilized a Technological Innovation System (TIS) framework in order to assess the dynamics and stakeholders, institutions and plants that affect the development and implementation of waste management. Through this TIS process the regions were able to understand the innovation processes and predict their outcome, namely how they influence the dynamic of the innovation system. The main objective of D 3.2 involved primarily the detailed current mapping of the economic, socio-political, legal and regulatory framework for waste mapping and to offer a detailed picture of the regions studied in this work and their dynamics.

In order to do so, a series of interviews in order to better understand the economic, socio-political, legal and regulatory framework for waste management in each region was conducted in each region. The interview results were assessed and evaluated with help of a SWOT analysis to identify the external and internal factors affecting the development towards resource efficient and innovative waste management. The experts’ interviews and the SWOT analysis combined to provide an action plan that will result in maximized resource efficiency in each region.

As EU members, all regions abide to the waste hierarchy as set forth by the European Commission of prevention-preparing for re-use-recycling-disposal in decreasing degree of how favoured the options are. These guidelines are shared by all six clusters though they may very slightly regarding how much weight each cluster places on each of the four criteria. The weight each cluster puts on each criterion depended heavily on where they are strongest and on which of these they are lacking. In addition each one of the regions has its one regional goals as they were revealed by the interviews performed. Naturally each region has its own strategy on how they approach their goals and what technology they employ in achieving them. Similarly, the regions have very different organizational strategies that stem from the current status of each cluster on waste management, its vision on how to achieve optimum waste management and its technical and financial capabilities. Great effort was devoted, always within the framework of the deliverable, in categorizing the technical strategies on collection, prevention, reuse and recycling, on technology, on separation and other and the organizational strategies on cooperation, roles, common vision, legislation, support and other. Finally the most important actors and networks were also identified and were defined for the following four categories: in formulating future visions and initiating projects, in attracting financial resources, in identifying first customers, in knowledge development and in entrepreneurial experimentation.

Subsequently a SWOT analysis was performed and in conjunction with a comparison map was used to identify research barriers and innovation gaps. These show how the six regions can use different combinations of internal and external factors to chart improvements in their operations regarding waste management and how though there may be similar strengths in various regions the range in opportunities dictates the optimum strategy.

A comparison of the regional SWOT analysis revealed the internal strengths and external opportunities. Resource efficiency is emphasized as an area of great external opportunities, and Piedmont, Stockholm and Paphos, though may approach this slightly differently see it as an important factor. The reduction of landfilling is seen as an important opportunity both for Piedmont and Budapest, whereas Paphos and Budapest state that an opportunity is the need for stricter regulations. Amsterdam states as its strength the implementation of a national waste plan. The three northern regions state that they have high availability of resources whereas Paphos and Piedmont are focused on achieving a high level of recycling. Furthermore, Paphos Budapest and Amsterdam believe there is a world market for reducing environmental impact whereas Liverpool points out to changes in attitude that result in great opportunities regarding the environment. All regions identify as knowledge development as a great strength and acknowledge the opportunity of an active network for knowledge and experience exchange. That being said, Paphos, Amsterdam, Budapest and Stockholm see openness to innovation as an opportunity for new entrepreneurial experimentation. Finally Liverpool, Piedmont and Paphos see as strength the potential for identifying and addressing sociopolitical challenges through waste management. Other regions see the potential of involving citizens in raising awareness and dissemination.

Within the framework of SWOT, the internal weaknesses and external threats were also identified and categorized under policies and regulations, recourses, markets, knowledge development, entrepreneurial experimentation and creation of legitimacy. Under policies and regulations, Paphos stated that there is limited knowledge and education, Liverpool also stated that but added that there is little business drive, Piedmont that citizens do not abide to the rules and regulations. Paphos and Liverpool further agreed that lack of consequences for violations is a drawback whereas Budapest claimed that too strict consequences result in standards that cannot be met. Paphos, Liverpool, Amsterdam and Budapest have lack of resources whereas in Stockholm stated that lack of incentives in utilizing the available resources is their problem, and finally Piedmont stated that resources are available but too expensive. Regarding markets, Stockholm and Liverpool identified lack of incentives and weak demand as the problem with weak market in their region, whereas cost was the problem with Paphos. Budapest, Paphos, Amsterdam see that education systems are not developed in their regions and Budapest, Amsterdam, Stockholm and Liverpool all highlighted lack of resources for R&D as a problem. Similarly entrepreneurial experimentation also suffers from lack of money in Paphos and Amsterdam whereas Liverpool and Stockholm further state that lack of success stories has an adverse effect.

Finally, the deliverable lists in great detail all interventions that are adopted by each region and the threats they are designed to minimize as listed in the previous paragraph in all six of the areas of weakness threats.

Significant results:
• Map with existing cluster capacities
• Network and involvement of regional stakeholders and focus group meetings Task 3.3 Kick-off for Neapolis Ecocity
A kick-off for Neapolis EcoCity was organized in connection to the WASTECOSMART kick-off meeting on Cyprus in September 2013. The ideas, options and barriers were presented by the Cyprus cluster region and combined with the study visit to the site for the Neapolis EcoCity. The project partners discussed the barriers and opportunities and gave direct feedback to the Cyprus cluster. The Neapolis EcoCity kick-off of was documented and more detailed information can be found in Deliverable 3.3 Documentation of the Kick off meeting.
The Neapolis EcoCity kick-off resulted in a Letter of Intent (Deliverable 3.4).
In addition, an Action Plan for Neapolis EcoCity (Deliverable 3.5) was composed by the Cyprus cluster and distributed to all partners.

Significant results:
• Neapolis EcoCity Action Plan Deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning as well as corrective actions
All work within WP3 was delayed due to a mismatch in the staffing made by the WP3-leader NUP. SP (coordinator) had to step in and support NUP to carry out the overall work to be performed within WP3 and to guide the partners through WP3. SP took over the lead of WP3 for the tasks where all partners were involved and provided the partners with templates and process leading. The staff of NUP was not capable of leading the WP or the tasks, but has been working with the regional cores in cooperation with the Cyprus cluster partners. Work within WP3 got delayed due to that. The staff has been replaced in summer 2014 and we have a good cooperation now. The delay of WP3 had direct impact on the start of WP4, 5 and 6 as the Work packages build on each other. WP4, WP5 and WP6 depended heavily on the results from WP3, thus they started later than planned. The project caught up again.

1.2.3 WP4 Preparation of a Decision Support Framework for the design of Resource Efficiency Management Plans
The objective of WP4 was to develop and adapt a systematic decision support framework (tool) that assesses gaps and needs including Regional Resource Efficiency Plans based on environmental, economic, social and technological criteria (assessed in WP3). WP4 aimed to develop a typology of resource management problems with relation to waste management, to formulate guidelines for applying the decision support framework and to demonstrate the features of the framework by applying it to three to five cases developed within the project.

During the first period of the project a systematic decision support framework was designed and produced by the WP-leader, in close cooperation with VUA, that assesses gaps and needs and Regional Resource Efficiency Plans based on environmental, economic, social and technological criteria (WP3). In addition, a typology of resource management problems with relation to waste management was developed to formulate guidelines for applying the decision support framework, to demonstrate the features of the framework. Moreover the software tool DEFINITE was adapted to waste issues. With this tool one can not only assess problems in relation to resource efficiency and waste management, but also show opportunities for innovation and solving these problems. Input dealing with Decision Support Framework and DEFINITE was delivered from WP4 to the manual (WP5). Task 4.1: Framing the problem
The objective of this task was to identify a typology of problems. The WP was started with a kick-off in form of a framing workshop during the 2nd project meeting held in Turin in March 2014. The framing workshop lay the base for a typology of problems which is based on the institutional setting, social and geographic conditions, cultural, technical options and economic conditions. The results from WP3 (TIS including SWOT and workshops) were used to identify waste management problems in all WASTECOSMART regions.

This typology of problems has three objectives:
• to identify if WASTECOSMART covers the relevant range of waste management problems;
• to identify if the alternatives generated within WASTECOSMART cover the relevant range of waste management problems;
• to help users of the results of WASTECOSMART to identify which of the case studies serves best as an example for their own study.

The work was based on the waste hierarchy pyramid. This hierarchy covers the full range of possible start situations for waste management. On the one extreme situation totally dependent on disposal and on the other end the yet non existing situation of total prevention. All WASTECOSMART regions fall somewhere in between. How far a region has climbed up on the pyramid can serve as way to classify waste management regions.

As a start the regions were classified based on the descriptions of the current situation (from WP3). And used relative weights in tons to describe the regions and asked the regions for their feedback and corrections. This information indicated that Paphos is close to the one extreme. It is also clear that all regions are far removed from the all prevention extreme. At present all scores are in weight. It will be interesting to see if this can be translated into value. It is to be expected that using values reuse and prevention will be more prominent.

Significant results:
• Long list of objectives and criteria Task 4.2: Development of the Decision Support Framework
The objective of task 4.2 was to develop and adapt a Decision Support Framework (DSF). The DSF developed and adapted is based on a multi-criteria analysis (MCA), where objectives and criteria are selected form the long list of objectives and criteria developed as part of task 4.1.

Using the long list as a starting point a decision support framework (DSF) was developed that can be used for the each problem/opportunity type as defined in Task 4.1. Users are allowed to alter both the criteria and the alternative to their specific resource efficiency problem. In this study weighted summation is used because it is simple and transparent. An appraisal score is calculated for each alternative by first standardizing the criterion scores. Next, the standardized scores are multiplied by its appropriate weight. This is followed by summing the weighted scores for all criteria. The MCA program DEFINITE has been used to develop and test the framework. But the framework is set up in a way that it can run in other programs as well. DEFINITE is, in fact, a whole tool kit of methods that can be used on a wide variety of problems. A prototype of DEFINITE is developed and has been tested by the partners of WASTECOSMART in Stockholm, Amsterdam and Liverpool region. The feedback from the test workshops and the test of the DSF fed back into the system and minor improvements were made before applying the DSF in the remaining regions.

Significant results:
• Decision Support Framework adapted to waste management
• Test and improvement of Decision Support Framework in Amsterdam, Liverpool and Stockholm region
• Input to the manual Task 4.3: Case studies
Based on the results of task 4.1 and task 4.2 as well as innovative concepts described in WP3, three to five pilot/demonstration projects were initiated across the regions. During the first period of the project two pilots were started, one in Amsterdam and one in Stockholm. These pilots are also used to test the prototype framework developed in Task 4.2.
Significant results:
• Report on testing of DSF and test workshops in Amsterdam, Liverpool and Stockholm region Task 4.4: Guidance, good practices
Input to the general WASTECOSMART toolbox manual was delivered dealing with the DSF and DEFINITE including instruction on how to use the tool and apply the results (part of deliverable 5.3). Furthermore, train-the-trainers workshops were given to support all regions in applying the WASTECOSMART toolbox in their regions
Significant results:
• Input to WASTECOSMART toolbox manual
• Train-the-trainers workshops held in all cluster regions Deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning
The WP leader of WP4 has changed the staff assigned to the project several times which, especially for the first part of the project (Sept 2013 – December 2014) caused some lack of focus for the WP leading. SP stepped in for a short period (40 hours) to avoid delays. After January 2015 all was managed well by coordinators Evelien Adriaan and Colette van der Minne. Potential Impact of the WP 4
The main impact of the work in WP4 is that it promotes value focussed thinking in decision making on waste management. Instead of starting from a technological perspective the approach adopted starts with the objectives that a waste management policy is to achieve. A major achievement of the WP is the long list of objectives and criteria. This long list provides a structured and systematic way of evaluating waste management policies. Discussions on definitions of the criteria within the various participating regions has resulted in a set of criteria with clear definition and interpretation. This list can easily be adapted and used in future waste management policy making all over the European Union and could be used as a standard.

The long list is integrated in the DSF and combined with multicriteria analysis. This approach adopted can be used in any future waste management problem.

The most innovative part of WP4 was the use of the DSF as part of management workshops. These workshops proved an effective way of interacting with stakeholders and experts to assess impacts and priorities and to provide insights in the relevant trade-offs within a waste management decision process. The approach adopted has already had follow-ups in the City of Amsterdam , Liverpool and Turin. In Amsterdam it was used to support the process to develop the municipal waste management plan, in Liverpool it was used to evaluate new waste management plans, and in Turin it was used to develop the waste management plan of the municipality of Collegno.

1.2.4 WP5 Pilot implementation to prepare end-user specific resource efficiency plans and determining further
This WP aimed to determine appropriate strategies for developing resource efficiency actions within the waste management strategies of each region on the base of the results of WP3 and WP4 as well as to identify research needs and innovation potentials. For this purpose, a pilot implementation of the Decision Support framework (DSF), developed in WP4, was applied. Through this application knowledge gaps and improvement opportunities in waste management and resource efficiency processes and technology was identified. The work in WP 5 together with earlier work served as the basis for developing regional research agendas and a Joint Action Plan (JAP) (WP6) for the project consortium. Task 5.1 Training and support
The aim of task 5.1 is to train and support personnel and decision makers in the local and regional authorities hosting the pilot implementation how to implement, use and evaluate the results from the SWOT (WP3) and the Decision Support Framework (DSF) developed and adapted in WP4. Some of the actions done to provide a good basis for the use of the WASTECOSMART toolbox have been:
• Detailed written instructions have been developed in WP4 in form of the WASTECOSMART toolbox manual.
• A train-the-trainer workshop was arranged in Amsterdam on the 24th March 2015. During this workshop the different clusters got an introduction in the methodology of the DSF-framework which enabled them to lead workshops in their regions.
• Regional working groups have been assembled to ensure competence and access to relevant data through the whole chain from minimization and collection of waste to utilization of products.
• Regular meetings are held in all regions during the pilot implementation. The project provided a support team to support end-users in the pilot implementation of the DSF in form av regional mentors and a DSF mentor. For this purpose kick-off meetings in form of workshops have been and carried out in every partner region to introduce the WASTECOSMART toolbox.

Three regions (Liverpool, Amsterdam and Stockholm) have tested the DSF to give feedback on improvements. The tests were carried out in the more advanced regions to later on be able to give best support to the less advanced regions. A report on the first round of tests is available including lessons learnt and summary of experiences and is included in the WASTECOSMART toolbox manual. The Regional Coordinators of the Amsterdam, Liverpool and Stockholm cluster support Budapest, Piedmonte and Pafos as mentors. Additionally Ron Janssen from VUA supports and coaches the clusters with his expert knowledge about the DSF.

The training and support program consisting of the WASTECOSMART toolbox manual, mentoring activities, workshops and train-the trainer etc. was slightly behind schedule due to the delays within WP3 and WP4. The delay of task 5.1 had a minor effect on the following tasks as they depend on the training and support material and was delayed as well.

Significant Results:
• WASTECOSMART Toolbox manual (Deliverable 5.3)
• Train-the-trainer session
• Mentoring system
• 6 workshops and 8 meetings in the preparation of the workshops Task 5.2 DSF application and pilot implementation
Task 5.2 has foreseen a test of the DSF in three WASTECOSMART regions. The DSF framework has been successfully tested in Amsterdam, Liverpool and Stockholm based on region relevant issues. Originally the test should have been carried out in well-developed and less developed regions, however to be able to offer best support for the remaining regions it was decided to test the DSF on more experienced regions.

The three different regions had different focus on the tests, thus providing a good basis for verification and fine-tuning of the framework. Amsterdam focused on increased material recycling, Stockholm focused on waste prevention and minimization and Liverpool on a combination of increased material recycling together with waste prevention. All the regions have succeeded in gathering focus groups with a wide range of competences, including competences/stakeholders that normally are not involved directly in the waste management. This mix of stakeholders created a creative environment and generated valuable feedback. A great effort has been put into developing alternative strategies to meet some of the main challenges in the regions. The tests have been a success and the feedback from the participants on the DSF framework has been positive. The experiences from the work and workshops on the DSF framework have been summarized in the workshop report submitted as D5.1. These experiences have also been used to fine-tune the DSF framework further. Following the improved DSF and the training and support in task 5.1 the DSF framework was successfully used by Piedmont, Budapest and Pafos in their workshops for the WASTECOSMART process.

Additionally the regions of Sundbyberg, Amsterdam, Liverpool and Pafos have made additional pilot implementation studies to generate additional information for the DSF or as a direct result of the WASTECOSMART methodology. In Sundbyberg the possibility to include collection of organic waste in existing collection infrastructure was examined, in Amsterdam the potential of source separation in multi-coloured bags was investigated with practical trials, Liverpool studied the possibility to apply a skill sharing programme to increase the textile reuse, while Pafos investigated the effects of removal of door-to-door collection of recyclables. The results from these pilots have been summarized in separate pilot reports.

During the project a number of good examples and best practices have been brought forward from the participating regions. During the third project meeting (Liverpool) there was a dedicated session to the exchange of experiences. In this session both best practices as well as worst practices were discussed. It was decided that the best practices should be published at the WastEcoSmart website (constituting the database of waste management). A template for reporting best practices has been developed. The template also contains a guide how to judge if a current practice should be considered as best practice or not. Each region has then contributed with examples of best practices from their region or country and these have been published in the best practice section of the website.

The work within this task started later than planned due to the delays caused by WP3 and WP4. Significant results:
• Testing reports and assessment of DSF in three regions (Stockholm, Liverpool and Amsterdam), report available (D 5.1)
• Pilot implementations in Amsterdam, Stockholm, Liverpool and Pafos. Reports from the pilot implementations.
• Collection of Best Practices ( and templates, D5.2) Task 5.3 Identification of innovation potentials
By mapping regional innovation capacities and dynamics as well as testing the DSF throughout the whole waste management value chain from generation and possibilities to minimization, collection, transport, treatment to utilization of products, knowledge about the needs of improvement, knowledge gaps, innovation capacities etc. were gained. The areas identified showed potentials and needs necessary to identify future research and innovation. The data collected was used in WP6 to formulate and establish 6 regional research agendas and 1 Joint action Plan (JAP).
The work within this task was delayed due to the delays within WP3 and WP4. This caused a delay in the task 6.4 Formulation of regional R&D and innovation Agendas.

Significant results:
• Report on the regional innovation potentials (D5.4) Task 5.4 Development of and include criteria for Green public procurement
Knowledge collected from the pilot implementation (Task 5.2) together with the work done in WP 3 was be used for development of criteria that can be used for green public procurement. Important parameters that support eco-innovation were identified in Task 5.4. A guide is included in the Joint Action Plan (JAP).

The work within this task was delayed due to the delays within WP3 and WP4. The delay caused no effect on other tasks.

Significant results:
• Report and recommendations for Green Public procurement within Waste Management (D5.5) Deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning
The work within WP5 depended heavily on the work performed within, and the results from WP3 and WP4. All work within WP3 was delayed due to a mismatch in the staffing made by the WP3-leader NUP as explained above. Furthermore, the WP leader of WP4 has changed the staff assigned to the project 5 times. This has caused repeatedly delays due to the lack of WP leading. SP had to step in and support AMEC as much as possible to avoid further delays. This caused delays within WP 5 however the project succeded to catch up by the end of the project..

1.2.5 WP6 Developing Regional Research Agendas and a Joint Action Plan (JAP)
The Key objective of this WP was the preparation of a Joint Action Plan (JAP) for resource efficiency and waste management in particular which served as a common R&D (Research and Development) and innovation agenda for the participating regions. The WP determined the R&D and innovation needs from WP3 and possibilities arising from the implementation of the DSF Tool in WP4 and WP5 and produced a short/medium/long-term Joint Action Plan. Additional research and innovation needs and possibilities of the clusters were identified and included. Further, R&D and innovation needs and opportunities within the regions in which the clusters are located were identified and formulated in regional R&D and innovation agendas. Lastly, this WP dealt with producing a viable Joint Action Plan, which includes a detailed schedule of R&D and innovation activities including possible sources of funding. For this purpose EU, National and regional funding opportunities were identified, analysed and matched to the R&D and innovation activities that were identified. Research funds analysis included HORIZON2020, international cooperation, national and regional funds. Task 6.1 Research Agenda Common Team
The project partners have established a R&D and innovation agenda Common Team (consisting of researchers, developers, companies, decision makers) to formulate regional research, development and innovation agendas and the Joint Action Plan (JAP). The team was selected during the first GA meeting.

Significant results:
• R&D and innovation agenda Common Team Task 6.2 Exit Strategies
Main outputs of WP3 and WP4 determined the starting point for an assessment of the main barriers, issues and risks that might negatively impact the WASTECOSMART project common desired outcomes. In particular, a wide analysis of the EU waste directives, expected targets and goals, allowed a deep understanding of cross regional common current situations, highlighting possible evolutionary paths that may help bridging the gap between EU guidelines and current issues. This mapping action proactively contributes in building a core pillar of an initial draft scheme of a Joint Action Planning, which will be discussed in March in a WP leaders’ meeting held in Bruxelles, prior to a subsequent official discussion in the next Consortium Meeting in Amsterdam at the end of March, 2015. Some of the “bridging-the-gap” suggestion may lead to further common projecting under i.e. H2020 calls. A set of suggested way-outs is also provided, thus giving to this task also a perspective not limited to the international cooperation, but also a glance on those financial risks (mainly: lack of funds and mismatch between innovation and local needs) that may lead to failure local actors’ involvement in waste management. Deliverable 6.1 – Exit Strategy has been edited, a strong cooperation amongst consortium has been experienced and a smart guidance has been provided by Project Coordinator in order to identify the peculiarities of this task if compared to already performed analysis in WP3. This process required a slight shifting in timeline, with the milestone set two months later than its initial schedule. No impacts in general to the project time planning.

Significant Results:
• Deliverable 6.1 – Exit Strategy Task 6.3 Funding roadmap
This task aimed at defining the sustainability not only of the proposed WASTECOSMART project outcomes but also of a mid and long term joint programming (both as consortium and at a regional cluster level). A “funds scouting” template has been designed by WP6 leaders and approved by Project Coordinator, then submitted to the referents of every clusters –who were indicated after the Liverpool Meeting. Gathering data allowed to define a consortium big picture, singularities, excellences and issues at a regional level, so that the Funding Roadmap, matched to a draft scheme of JAP can give as an output a list of possible actions for the next years and their economic viability through heterogeneous funding schemes, both deriving from public and private investors. Deliverable 6.3 – Funding Roadmap has been edited. Some clusters experienced issues in gathering information on waste-related funding opportunities at a local level, then this caused some delays in processing all data and building a general picture. This process required a slight shifting in timeline. No impacts in general to the project time planning.

Significant Results:
• Deliverable 6.3 – Funding Roadmap Task 6.4 Formulation of regional R&D and innovation Agendas
The research and technology transfer needs identified in WP3 to 5 will be highlighted as priority needs and opportunities. The R&D and innovation Agenda Common Team will form regional cluster groups to formulate regional research agendas on the base of WP3 to 5 and the results from the tasks above. The team members will meet in regular regional networking meetings including even participants from outside the consortium. Short, medium and long term regional R&D and innovation will be scheduled in line with European and national laws. This activity will include the financial and time schedule planning for the submission of research. In particular, a working paper has been proposed to consortium partners, in order to draft the overall objectives and their enabling actions coming from the application of innovation drivers in the field of waste management and treatment. The task is behind schedule and will be finalised by 30th April 2015. The delay effects the Joint Action Plan which will be delayed by one month.

Significant Results:
• 6 Regional R&D and innovation Agendas Task 6.5 Formulation of Joint Action Plan (JAP)
The work with the Joint Action Plan was started in February 2015. A meeting for mid of March 2015 is planned for WP-leaders and coordinator as well as the UK cluster leader to lay the base for the Joint Action Plan.
The Joint Action Plan is the shared program which identifies a way forward for innovative management for municipal solid wastes.
The bottom-up approach, from regional to European level, generates the JAP which inspire actions in the fields of waste collection and management and in the environmental waste related initiatives.

Starting with the determination of R&D and innovation needs and possibilities at regional level, all partners had defined the risks and the opportunities within each region in which clusters are located. In this way it was identified and formulated the R&D and innovation agendas for each region.

The analysis of each agendas permitted to identify the gaps between different cluster, resulting in an exit strategy in line with national laws and European targets. Thanks to the exit strategy, all the clusters described the regional situation with a common method, providing information on national targets, resource efficiency and information on waste policies.
The funding opportunities identified by each region were analyzed and composed including not only local and regional opportunities, but international and European ones, too.

Thanks to all the analysis realized, research and technology transfer needs were highlighted as priority needs and opportunities. In this way, the common agenda permitted to schedule short, medium and long term regional R&D in line with European laws.

The requirements and gaps of cluster regions, the innovation agenda and the regional R&D agenda were the driving forces in formulating the JAP. The results of WP3 and WP5, the end users’ requirements, were implemented by technology providers and research organizations. The JAP includes abstracts of research proposals and funding opportunities detailed. Thanks to the JAP was produced a framework for R&D and innovation projects. The common agreement signed by all clusters gave validity to the JAP and the agendas.
The JAP aims to promote cooperation and common approaches between entities operating widely across Europe. Its lifetime is beyond the WASTECOSMART project time. Because of its alignment with H2020 Framework Program, the JAP purpose is planning to set opportunities through funding schemes, opportunities through funding schemes. All the levels on which JAP may works, short term (planning capacity, data collection and analysis) and medium term (influencing policy, education, training, competence and skills) created a high sense of awareness: first in the project clusters, then in the involved municipalities. All participants found in the JAP the priority areas and the activities necessary for a common plan of research and innovation. The JAP, beyond the WastEcoSmart end date, creates the possibility of cross regional cooperation between actors throughout the entire chain of waste management, where new joint actions could be identified. Deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning
In WP3, the regional coordinators have planned and performed self-assessments for the regions in close co-operation with their regional partners using a modified and tailored analysis. The aim of this work package was to work out specific strengths, weaknesses, threads and opportunities that it was used as input for the Decision Support Framework (WP4) and the JAP (WP6). Unfortunately, all work within WP3 was delayed due to a mismatch in the staffing made by the WP3-leader NUP. SP had to step in and support NUP to carry out the overall work to be performed within WP3 providing the framework and the necessary tools to guide the partners through the WP3. The staff of NUP was not capable of leading the WP or the tasks, but has been working with the regional cores. Work got delayed due to that. The staff has been replaced in summer 2014 and we have a good cooperation now. WP4, WP5 and WP6 depended heavily on the results from WP3, thus they started later than planned. Potential Impact of Workpackage 6
The WP6 constitutes the main deliverable of the project. The proposed target was achieved. A Joint Action Plan (JAP) for resource efficiency and waste management has been done and implemented. Further, R&D and innovation needs and opportunities within the participating regions were identified and formulated from the implementation of the DSF Tool.

The analysis has identified regional and common opportunities as well as threats. The regional innovation and research potential within each region was identified resulting in a common Research and Innovation agenda to be able to jointly turn opportunities and threats into a practical roadmap for filling the gaps and needs of each region.

The pillars of the JAP are a joint output derived from the inside of the participating regions, which could be the base of further investigation and programming amongst UE and regional funded projects through transversal topics, spanning from the collection optimization and prevention aiming at reducing waste-streams and emphasizing recycle and reuse, to specific capabilities applied to definite industrial processes.

Thanks to a global mapping was possible to define a shared funding scheme for further actions, divided per type of subject and type of action.

Thanks to the WASTECOSMART consortium efforts, three mainl areas were identified during the JAP development; waste minimization, maximisation of value from waste and transfer of knowledge. The holistic perspective is to create real change within these three priority areas, which has allowed the formation of new project ideas supported by the project partners.

1.2.6 WP7 Actions towards the implementation of the Joint Action Plan (JAP) Workshops
The goal of the workshops organised throughout the lifetime of the WastEcoSmart project was to support project partners in the different phases of the project, both in their internal cooperation and in involving other interested actors. As the topics for the 7 workshops / cluster regions were not specified, each cluster had the chance to choose its special focus, best fitting its individual challenges and special needs. The use of a waste management Decision-Support Framework (DSF) was in the focus of many of the workshops, so the participants learnt a lot about effective ways of making waste management decisions, and how to use state-of-the-art technology in their everyday life. The workshops presented a good opportunity to bring different actors of the waste management industry together. Larger events enabled networking and collaboration with other organisations including the third sector, social enterprises and community organisations for development and delivery of projects particularly on re-use, waste prevention and changing behaviours. The results of the individual cluster workshops were taken to the regular project meetings, where a wider audience, and international one, could form an opinion and compare them with those of other regions. We found that this method was an efficient way of dealing with waste management issues, getting to know best practices from other clusters, solving regional waste management problems based on practical experiences. Task 7.2 Staff Exchange
The idea of the staff exchange activities is that professional staff is visiting each other’s regions to help project partners with less developed research or innovation potential either as a whole or in some critical branches essential in making waste management systems more resource efficient. The coupling of guest and host project partners was laid down by the partners, based on the assessment of the capacities and challenges of the individual regions formulated in the analysis in WP3. Experienced staff from one project partner visited staff in another project partner with less experience in a certain project topic, or vice versa. Task 7.3 E-learning
The eLearning tool was designed and developed to help end-users get familiar with the WASTECOMSMART IDEA, the WASTECOSMART Toolbox and present some practical examples of using them to support decision making, combined with the MCA method. The principle idea of Wastecocmart is about new innovation and new thinking, understanding the process; try to influence the direction and speed of the process, resulting from a complex interaction between many actors. The project aimed to work out specific strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities, using self-assessment tools. The work was based on a close cooperation with regional partners. The exercise in Part II is normally performed as an interactive session and aims to inspire and initiate innovative thinking for waste management. It is used as a start to enable actors from the entire waste management chain to map and identify key innovation needs for resource efficient waste management through innovative measures for: sorting, collection, industrial symbiosis, behavioral changes, involvement of the waste producer, prevention, reuse, and recycling. The exercise is done in plenum and all attendees have three colored cards (orange = disagree, blue = neither nor, green = agree) that they use to react on statements about their region done by the session leader. The statements are directly linked to one of the following key areas: Policy and Regulations, Resources, Markets, Knowledge development and Dissemination, Entrepreneurial Experimentation, and Creation of Legitimacy.
The eLearning tool is available even after the end of the project on the project website: For login and password use guest1/guest1...guest6/guest6. Task 7.4 Mentoring
The work of the mentors was coordinated by Geoview Systems Ltd, the WP7 work package leader. The methodology used was to separate the mentoring of the chosen main fields for development. Each topic was selected as a result of previous activities, was mentored by an expert, having the most relevant knowledge. The mentors kept online meetings reviewing the development of the project ideas. By leadership of the mentors a self-evaluation system was defined. So all partner could evaluate the pitches form the aspect: how far are the pitches in line with the strategic goals of regions, what is the innovation and global change in the project ideas. In the next step pitches were selected that most of the partner were interested in. During the meeting in Gothenburg common project proposals were defined. These ideas were linked with the actual calls for proposals. As results of the mentoring program there were several proposals submitted during the project, and there are others being elaborated. Task 7.5 Organization of three international site visits
The aim of involving key international markets in Wastecosmart project was to obtain a better understanding of waste management in those countries, and get an insight of the related opportunities for business development and research collaboration in these markets. The site visits combined specific introductory seminars presenting the local market and business conditions; site visits to for example waste dumps, recycling facilities, and relevant research institutes, match-making and networking events. The associated local partners in Brazil, India and South Africa established programs for the site visits and mobilized the local business and research communities. In Europe, GreenMatters supported the WASTECOSMART partners in the organization of the European delegation. Three associated partners from Brazil, India and South Africa added an international dimension to some of the project activities, and helped to identify and ensure an optimal approach to unlocking business opportunities and research collaboration on global markets with regard to resource efficiency and waste management. The associated partners are specialized in the area of environment and waste technologies and services combined with an in-depth knowledge of the home market and their specific entry conditions. They supported the Wastecosmart project initiated by SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut (Coordinator). Task 7.6 The regional innovation process
In the implementation of Task 7.6 - the regional innovation process – implementation of JAP, all partners and associated partners were involved in the elaboration of regional innovation plans with the active involvement of TTCs (technology Transfer Centres) and end-users in order to start the implementation of the JAP. In the realisation of the innovation based on R&D results, three different types of organizations - each with a different profile - were involved in the process “from idea to practice”: (1) research entities, (2) TTCs and (3) end-users. In elaborating the innovation plans, project results from WP3-6 were also taken into account, e.g. the identified research needs of end users (WP3), assessment variables (WP4), innovation potentials (WP5) and Research Agendas (WP6). Each region has elaborated its RIP with active involvement of research entities, TTCs, and end-users: „from idea to practice” based on the results achieved in the project. As a start, each region had to raise the questions of
- WHY to innovate? – because the answers provide the objectives of the innovation plans, and verify if the innovation targets are essential and “right”;
- HOW to innovate? – what is the innovation processes of our regions, what are the key steps to be taken that are accessible, understandable and systematic;
- WHAT results our regions want to achieve? – The answers clarify if we have the right innovations in our pipelines and gathers a strategic innovation portfolio as well;
- WHO innovates in our regions? – Who are the experts and organizations whose involvement insure the efficiency of our innovation processes and create an innovation culture in our field of developments;
- WHERE do we innovate? – verifying if we have the right tools and place to support innovation. Deviations from the Annex I
There was no deviation. Potential Impact of Workpackage 7
One of the main achievements of the workshops was the improved cooperation among regional authorities, research entities and the local business community, which could result in increased regional competitiveness in innovative waste management. With a smooth cooperation future research and technology transfer activities of the consortium clusters can be designed, promoted and coordinated more easily. The cooperation is something really important! During the phase of assessment of needs and barriers, the first thing mentioned by most of the clusters, was the lack of collaboration (“lack of collaboration with business, universities, local authorities, citizens, municipalities, urban areas in other countries etc.”.) and communication!
The aim of the eLearning tool was to help end-users use the Decision Support Framework (DSF). The workshops were held regionally, so that the different conditions of the cluster regions could have been taken into account, and at the same time national and regional databases were identified as inputs for the DSF. Each cluster considered environmental, economic, social and technological assessment variables and indicators, supported by available geographical information systems. The applied method was matched to the level of IT-competences in end-users’ organizations, as well as the national financial and legal conditions. In this respect the tool is not restricted to a pure manual of the DSF. The tool is accessible for all end-users on the project website and on the websites of the TTCs involved, the case studies in the partner countries’ languages, where it seemed reasonable. There were some countries, where the general command of English of the parties, end-users and experts involved, did not make the translation of the tool necessary.
The international site visits were planned to provide mutual learning, it was interesting to see what the other parties found interesting and relevant in the WastEcoSmart project. In South Africa, for example, they emphasized, that they’d welcome if we shared the outputs of the WastEcoSmart project as it will be of benefit for the delegation. As various countries were included as case studies in the WastEcoSmart project, and the learning from these case studies would be most beneficial for international practitioners. Particularly if the findings were practical and framed for different country "types" or economies, e.g. developed, developing, etc. The case studies might provide insight into different approaches to solid waste management and resource efficiency in a diversity of countries, each facing their own set of challenges and specific environmental and institutional conditions.
Innovation cannot finish after the closure of the WastEcoSmart project. It is a continuous process, starting with identification, that consists of the analyses of needs, generation of ideas, and assessing opportunities; followed by innovation, where we looking for solutions, selecting and refining them; and after all the planning, we reach the phase of implementation, where we finalize our solutions on the state of that very moment and after validation realizing innovation and make them operate.
WastEcoSmart Mentoring Reports and Regional Innovation Plans were developed to go on with smart and innovative solutions, as we have been working continuously on projects, initiatives together and also in our regions.

Potential Impact:
As typical in European projects, dissemination activities start right at the beginning of the project and last until the last day, albeit with differing intensity. The work intensity peaked in the first six months of the project where the dissemination plan was drawn up and all general communication material was developed. A slowdown ensued while the other work packages started to produce results that were worth the while communicating about. Dissemination and exploitation activities took up again after the middle of the project and gained in intensity up to the end when the full project results were available and ready for sharing with external stakeholders.

The work of the Work Package 2 was organized in three sections covering the three main tasks planned under Work Package 2, namely Task 2.1 Dissemination and Exploitation plan, Task 2.2 Communication material and website, and Task 2.3 General dissemination activities for all stakeholder groups.

With regard to Task 2.1 a Dissemination and exploitation plan was elaborated by GreenMatters during the first six months of the project (Deliverable 2.1). The plan provided guidelines for all partners regarding their communication and dissemination activities. It identified the target audiences, tailored key messages and established appropriate communication channels to reach the relevant stakeholders such as regional and local authorities as well as waste operators. The plan outlined as well the activities to be undertaken to produce the project’s Communication materials (Deliverable 2.2) and a dedicated template was also created to monitor the implementation of the plan.
With regard to Task 2.2 a visual and written identity was produced for the project. Based on the identity, WASTECOSMART communication materials have been designed, developed and produced by Greenovate! (Deliverable 2.2) including Word and PPT templates, a project leaflet in 6 languages (English, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese), a roll-up banner, two posters and a general PowerPoint presentation in English. A dedicated website ( has been designed and was constantly updated with relevant news, events and features, as well as case studies. Social media was used, too with Twitter and Linked-IN.
With regard to Task 2.3 the project partners presented the WASTECOSMART project at 15 workshops and conferences, including some with full-paper-submission. Six regional networking workshops were organised in Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK to promote the project results to regional stakeholders of relevance. The interactive workshop encouraged debate attracted 272 participants.

Nine onsite replication seminars were held in countries not part of the WASTECOSMART project to reach out further to interested stakeholders, sharing the project results beyond the cluster regions in view of replication and uptake of project results. During these seminars the DSF and the JAPS were promoted and distributed.
The nine seminars were organised in Brazil, Norway, Greece (Athens and Heraklion), South Africa, India, Belgium, Ireland and Iceland, attracting 295 participants overall. They were organised by SP, Atlantis GreenMatters and VU Amsterdam.

The project successfully implemented its dissemination and exploitation activities throughout the project life-time and reached out to triple helix audiences of public authorities, industry and academia in the project countries and beyond, including in the international partner countries Brazil, South Africa and India. Strong interest in the topics of WASTECOSMART was present among all audiences reached, especially in view of the legal requirement to implement the EU waste Directives and the Circular Economy Package. It is expected that further interest beyond the project end will persist, and all consortium partners are committed to share their experience and explain the results of the project further on.

The WASTECOSMART project aims at strengthening and increasing regional innovation capacities for resources efficiency and integrated waste management through cooperation, research and technological development. Six research-driven triple helix clusters (science, industry and public sector) have been formed in Paphos (Cyprus), Central Hungary, Piedmont (Italy), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Stockholm (Sweden) and Liverpool City Region (United Kingdom) joined efforts to meet this challenge. The WASTECOSMART team also collaborates with international partners to promote international collaboration and opportunities in waste management.

Communication and dissemination play a crucial role in creating awareness of the WASTECOSMART projects results ensuring that targeted information reaches the most relevant stakeholders in a concise and an effective manner. This is especially important for the WASTECOSMART project, which is seeking to have a widespread impact throughout Europe.

The dissemination and exploitation activities of the WASTECOSMART project focus on the following 5 objectives:

• To raise awareness and visibility of WASTECOSMART and its research-driven triple helix clusters;
• To promote the use of waste management Decision Support Framework (DSS) and the a Joint Action Plans (JAPS) towards regional stakeholders;
• To facilitate networking between European and international partners;
• To encourage the use of innovative waste management systems and technologies;
• To ensure take-up of project results by policy and market in the participating regions and beyond.

This document reports the progress of the WASTECOSMART dissemination and exploitation activities for the period from September 2013 to August 2016 (M1-M36). The corresponding Work Package 2 ‘Dissemination and exploitation of project results’ is led by GreenMatters sprl with the support of all project partners and structured into three individual tasks:

• Task 2.1 Dissemination and exploitation plan
• Task 2.2 Communication material and website
• Task 2.3 General dissemination activities for all stakeholder Groups

List of Websites:

Coordinators: Anna Sager ( and Frida Jones (