National estimates on grass residue availability

WP 2 – National estimates on grass residue availability

Disclaimer The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Le contenu de cette publication n'engage que la responsabilité de son auteur et ne représente pas nécessairement l'opinion de l'Union européenne. Ni l'EACI ni la Commission européenne ne sont responsables de l'usage qui pourrait être fait des informations qui y figurent.

Die alleinige Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieser Publikation liegt bei den AutorInnen. Sie gibt nicht unbedingt die Meinung der Europäischen Union wieder. Weder die EACI noch die Europäische Kommission übernehmen Verantwortung für jegliche Verwendung der darin enthaltenen Informationen.

El contenido de esta publicación solo compromete a su autor y no refleja necesariamente la opinión de la Unión Europea. Ni la EACI ni la Comisión Europea son responsables de la utilización que se podrá dar a la información que figura en la misma.

2

Abstract The GR3 project (grass to green gas) promotes the use of grass and other herbaceous residues from landscape management as a resource for biogas production in regions of Belgium, Italy, Germany, Denmark and Portugal. The projects goal is to contribute to the increased demand for renewable energy without competing with food production, to protect permanent grasslands from land use changes, and to increase ecological landscape management.

The goal of work package 2 in the GR3 project is to map the availability of different grass residue flows within the participating regions, as well as to catalogue the biomass quality of the different categories of grass residues which allows the identification of the most productive locations for grass residues that can be used for the production of biogas.

In the first place an inventory of the stakeholders witin the different regions has been made. The management of the green space in the partner regions differs. To cover these differences a guideline document for the inventory has been produced. The guidelines consist of a graduated system in which the different types of data are brought together in a precise way. Actual grass quantities, but also estimates based on surface areas and spatial analysis have been used. In addition, in each region contacts with grass producers were esthablished.

In Flanders there is a total amount of 59,390 ton grass residue available. The total available residue amount for Belgium is 112,900 ton dry organic matter. Calculated with an average biogas production of 272.8 Nm3 per ton for extensive grasslands and 500 Nm 3 for intensive grasslands, this amount is good for an annual biogas production of 31,876,000 Nm3. In Denmark there’s annually 298,000 ton grass residue available for biogas production, the residue amount is good for an annual production of 65,137,000 Nm3 biogas. The estimated grass residue amount in Veneto is 198,000 ton. This amount of residue is good for an annual production of 59,410,000 Nm3 biogas (calculated with an average production of 300 Nm3/t). For Italy the BGP is 980,265,000 Nm 3. Each year there’s an estimated 24,000 ton dry matter available for fermentation in biogas plants in Saarland. Extrapolated to Germany this corresponds with 3,335,280 ton dry matter annually. This amount is good for a yearly production of 733,761,600 Nm3 biogas. In the Lisbon region there is 14,305 t organic dry matter available for fermentation. For the whole country the estimated amount of organic dry matter is 441,000 t. This equals for an annual biogas production of 95,256,000 Nm3.

In this paper the data about the actual harvested residue amounts in combination with the mowed areas are the most reliable to work with. Some additional variables that can be taken into account are: the machinery used, the soil type, the weather and multiple other variables which all have an impact on the grass production. The integration of this kind of variables has proven to be very difficult with the currently available data. In future projects it might be important to focus also on these details.

Adaptation of machinery in a way that data are collected during the mowing process could help to improve the data quality. Nevertheless a large amount of data have been collected and for each region an as good as possible inventory has been carried out.

3

Table of contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 7 1

Data collection & processing ............................................................................................................ 8 1.1

Flanders ................................................................................................................................... 8

1.2

Denmark ................................................................................................................................ 10

1.2.1

Direct approach ................................................................................................................. 10

1.2.2

Indirect approach ............................................................................................................... 10

1.3

Italy ........................................................................................................................................ 12

1.4

Germany ................................................................................................................................ 14

1.5

Portugal ................................................................................................................................. 15

1.5.1

Data collection in official data records ............................................................................... 15

1.5.2

Data collection by survey ................................................................................................... 16

1.5.3

Assumptions for GIS calculations and estimations ........................................................... 17

1.5.4

Biogas Potential ................................................................................................................. 18

1.5.5

Cutting and period of harvesting ........................................................................................ 21

1.5.6

Method of mowing ............................................................................................................. 22

1.5.7

Storage .............................................................................................................................. 22

1.5.8

Current Disposal ................................................................................................................ 23

Results............................................................................................................................................ 24 2.1

Flanders ................................................................................................................................. 24

2.1.1

Stakeholders Flanders ....................................................................................................... 24

2.1.2

Overview stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 24

2.1.3

Grass residue production per stakeholder ........................................................................ 26

2.1.4

Grass residue per municipality .......................................................................................... 27

2.1.5

Inventory details ................................................................................................................. 27

2.1.6

National estimates Belgium ............................................................................................... 28

2.2

Denmark ................................................................................................................................ 30

2.2.1

Stakeholders Denmark ...................................................................................................... 30

2.2.2

Grass residue availability ................................................................................................... 30

2.3

Veneto ................................................................................................................................... 31

2.3.1

Stakeholders Italy .............................................................................................................. 31

2.3.2

Grass residue availability ................................................................................................... 32

2.3.3

National estimates Italy ..................................................................................................... 33

2.4

Saarland ................................................................................................................................ 34

2.4.1

Stakeholders Saarland ...................................................................................................... 34

2.4.2

Roadsides .......................................................................................................................... 34

2.4.3

Grass residue availability ................................................................................................... 36

2.4.4

National estimates Germany ............................................................................................. 36

2.5

Portugal ................................................................................................................................. 37

2.5.1

Stakeholder list in the region of lisbon ............................................................................... 37

2.5.2

Green waste available in portugal-official data .................................................................. 38

2.5.3

Green residue availability from Estradas de Portugal ....................................................... 39

2.5.4

Green waste - data evaluated from with gis ...................................................................... 39

2.5.5

Grass residue per municipality .......................................................................................... 41

2.5.6

Grass waste availability per municipality ........................................................................... 42

2.5.7

National estimates Portugal ............................................................................................... 42

Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 43 3.1

Belgium .................................................................................................................................. 43

3.2

Denmark ................................................................................................................................ 43

3.3

Italy ........................................................................................................................................ 45

3.4

Germany ................................................................................................................................ 46

3.5

Portugal ................................................................................................................................. 46

3.6

General conclusion ................................................................................................................ 47

References ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Annex I ........................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1

Stakeholders Flanders ........................................................................................................... 51

5.1.1

Municipalities ..................................................................................................................... 51

5.1.2

AWV ................................................................................................................................... 58

5.1.3

Waterways ......................................................................................................................... 60

5.1.4

Nature management organisations ................................................................................... 60

5.1.5

Airports .............................................................................................................................. 60

5.1.6

Harbours ............................................................................................................................ 61

5.1.7

Golfcourses........................................................................................................................ 61

5.1.8

LNE .................................................................................................................................... 61

5.2

Stakeholders Denmark .......................................................................................................... 62

5.3

Stakeholders Veneto ............................................................................................................. 63

5.4

Stakeholders Saarland .......................................................................................................... 64

5.5

Stakeholders Lisbon .............................................................................................................. 67

5

Figures Figure 1-1. Solid Waste operators in charge for waste management in Portugal. ................................ 15 Figure 1-2. Grass cutting mixed to solid wastes.................................................................................... 16 Figure 1-4. Test apparatus. ................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 1-5 – Roadside maintenance operations. A- Cutting Areas ....................................................... 22 Figure 2-1. Available grass residues per municipality in Flanders, ....................................................... 29 Figure 2-2. Grouped Water Authorities in the Veneto Region (Unione Veneta Bonifiche) ................... 31 Figure 2-3. Grass residue availability in the Veneto region. .................................................................. 32 Figure 2-4. Surface distribution in the field of landscape care and agriculture. .................................... 35 Figure 3-1. Current location of natural gas transmission lines and engines fuelled by natural gas (both connected or not to the district heating grid) on Funen, in relation to the methane potential in terms of manure and straw. Reproduced with permission from Hansen & Hansen (2014). ............................... 45

Tables Table 1-1. Overview of data source used for the grass inventory in Denmark ..................................... 11 Table 1-2. Conversion Factors used for evaluating grass quantities in Lisbon Region. ....................... 18 Table 1-3. Grass composition in Portugal. ............................................................................................ 19 Table 1-4. Biomethane potential of grass, according to Batch BMP tests carried-out at LNEG ........... 20 Table 1-5. Number of cuts. .................................................................................................................... 21 Table 1-6. Roadside cuttings. ................................................................................................................ 22 Table 2-1. Grass residue quantities orginating from natural grasslands in Flanders, green are reliable data, orange quite reliable and red are less reliable. ............................................................................ 26 Table 2-2. Residue quantities orginating from roadsides and the banks of waterways in Flanders. .... 27 Table 2-3. Inventory details. .................................................................................................................. 28 Table 2-4. Annual potential for the grass categories covered, Denmark .............................................. 30 Table 2-5. Estimates for calculating the grass potential of roadsides (Rösch, 1996). .......................... 34 Table 2-6. Road lengths in the Saarland. .............................................................................................. 34 Table 2-7: Residue produced by the Naturlandstiftung Saar und der Ökoflächenmanagement gGmbH [IfaS 2004]. ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 2-8. Potential residue production for roadsides in the Saarland. ................................................ 36 Table 3-1. Total grass potential resulting from landscape management. ............................................. 46 Table 3-2. Residue amounts in the partner regions. ............................................................................. 47

6

Introduction The GR3 project promotes the use of grass and other herbaceous residues from landscape management as a resource for biogas production in regions of Belgium, Italy, Germany, Denmark and Portugal.

The project partners are: -

University of Southern Denmark GERBIO (Germany) IZES (Germany) LNEG (Portugal) Veneto Agricoltura (Italy) University of Verona (Italy) DLV Belgium Ghent University (Belgium) PXL University college (Belgium) Pro Natura (Belgium) Inagro (Belgium

The projects goal is to contribute to increased renewable energy production without competing with food production, to protect permanent grasslands from land use changes, and to increase ecological landscape management.

The main objectives of work package 2 are identifying the stakeholders, mapping the availability of grass residue within the participating regions and cataloguing the biomass quality for digestion of different categories of grass residues. This inventory is made on the basis of the inventory guidelines and the methodology developed for Graskracht (Pasmans & De Vocht, 2013; Inverde, 2012). As a result of the inventory, the most productive areas and the stakeholders within these areas can be identified.

Chapter one of this paper describes how the data collection and processing has been executed in the partner regions. The first step in this process was identifying the stakeholders and gather their contact information. Secondly this chapter describes how data from these stakeholders has been converted, adapted, evaluated and how the data finally could be linked to the municipalities.

The results of the inventory can be seen in chapter two. In this chapter there can be seen how much grass residue each stakeholder in the different regions produces. In chapter two the collected data is evaluated and residue quantities per stakeholder and per municipality are calculated.

The problems encountered during the inventory are described and discussed in chapter three. On the basis of the problems encountered during this inventory, conclusions are drawn and recommendations for future inventories are made.

7

1 Data collection & processing The data collection and processing has been done based on inventory and data collection guidelines (Pasmans & De Vocht, 2013). In these guidelines there’s defined how the regional inventory should be carried out and how the collected data preferably should be processed. The first step of this process is finding potential stakeholders within the partner regions. The second step in the process is contacting the stakeholders and collecting the data. After the data collection the data will be scaled down to the level of municipalities within the regions. Finally a data quality assessment will be carried out, by this assessment the reliability of the data will be judged.

Finally a national inventory has been made by scaling up the regional data. As a consequence of this the accuracy of the national inventory depends on the quality of the regional inventory.

1.1 Flanders The data collection started by making an inventory of the organisations and authorities responsible for “landscape management”. Afterwards these organisations and authorities were contacted, after which data on yields and mown surfaces were received.

There’s a great distribution on data quality. Because of this distribution, the variables in the dataset got a colour code which indicates the quality (green=good, orange=average and red=bad). The variables get a green code when the exact value is known, in case there can be made an accurate estimation the variable gets an orange code. In the case there is no reliable data available the code red is given.

The grass production in both roadside management and nature management were mapped and divided into two categories. To create realistic figures the mown surfaces, and if possible the residue amounts, were requested from the authorities responsible for the management of grasslands in Flanders (ANB, Natuurpunt etc.). In the Southern parts of Flanders there are considerable areas of grass strips in the context of erosion control. Also these grass strips were included in the dataset.

Note: for grasslands and grass strips (erosion control) the potential production in ton dry matter was calculated. On the other hand the data from roadsides and waterway banks was delivered in ton wet weight. In the general overview these real production data are converted into ton dry matter using a conversion factor of 27%. This conversion factor is not exactly given, but depends on several parameters such as mowing time, vegetation type and the period between mowing and removal.

The following data was used to perform the calculations:          

Agency for Nature and Forest management: data 2011 Natuurpunt: data 2010 Recognised nature management organisations: data 2010 (LiLa 2009) Harbours: data 2010 Golf courses : data 2011 Agency for roads and traffic (AWV): data 2010 Navigable waterways: data 2008 Municipal roadsides: data 2010 Railways: data 2010 Department Environment, Nature and Energy (LNE): data 2012

The data submitted by the Agency for Roads and Traffic (AWV), the navigable waterways and railways are linked to line-shaped elements (roads, canals, rivers, etc.). These data are not available at the level of municipalities. If shapefiles of roads and waterways are available, the data was scaled down to the level of municipalities by using the clip tool in ArcMap 10. If it wasn’t possible to scale down until the level of municipalities, the data is displayed on provincial or regional level.

The generated data from roadsides and waterway banks on the one hand and the data related to nature management on the other, are per province collected in a database and are displayed in a 8

ArcMap file. In this file the residue quantities per municipality and the origin of the residue can easily be found.

9

1.2 Denmark The data for Denmark covers 5 main grass types (natural areas, sport courts, parks and gardens, buffer zones and other – this being airports).The layer of all Danish municipalities was retrieved from a publicly available GIS dataset (Danmarks Miljøportal; Table 1-1).

For all grass types, a dry matter content of 18% was considered, based on Møller et al., (2000). Two approaches were used in order to obtain the total yearly dry matter (DM) of grass residues produced from these 5 residual grass categories, namely a direct and an indirect approach.

1.2.1 Direct approach The direct approach is actually an approach per area. It covers the grass form natural areas, buffer zones and airports. In this approach, data were first obtained for the areas covered by the grass of interest (for each municipality of Denmark). Then, data on the yield of these grasses were obtained.

From this, the annual potential, in t DM per ha, could be calculated.

1.2.1.1 Area data The areas of natural grass (sub-categorized as dry hill, swamp, fresh- and salt-water meadows) as well as those for the buffer zones were directly obtained from publicly available GIS datasets (Table 1-1).

The data for airport grass were obtained from Statistics Denmark (Table FLYV1 of the Statbank); from there, the grass areas were roughly estimated as the total area (consolidated area) minus the various built-up and infrastructure areas (hangars, terminals, etc.).

1.2.1.2 Yield data The yield data for the various grass types from natural areas were taken from Birkmose et al., (2013); those of buffer zones and airport grass were based on expert judgements.

1.2.2 Indirect approach This approach covers the grass from sport courts and park & gardens.

For sport courts, the direct approach described above has been applied, but data could not be directly obtained for all municipalities. In fact, the total area of sport courts grass was obtained for 4 municipalities only (these are not publicly available; they were obtained directly from the stakeholders.

On the basic assumption that the amount of grass in a municipality is proportional to its population, an average “sport grass per capita” value was derived from the available 4 datasets. The population per municipality was retrieved from Denmark’s Statistics (Table 1-1).

For grass from parks and gardens, the overall potential for Denmark (in ton per ha per y) presented in Petersen et al., (2014) was used. However, this potential is for garden waste, not for grass only, and as such also includes branches and other foreign items. Based on Boldrin & Christensen (2010), it was considered that 75% of this is grass. This total amount was then distributed to all municipalities, on the basis of their population.

The roadside grass was estimated on the basis of the kilometers of road infrastructure. This information was retrieved from Statistics Denmark (2014; VEJ11: Road network 1st January by part of the country and type of road). From this, the potential was estimated considering 2 cuts; one being 1m wide, and one being 2m wide.

10

Table 1-1. Overview of data source used for the grass inventory in Denmark

Data

Data source

Natural grass areas (protected areas)

Public data (Danmarks Miljøportal; beskyttede naturtyper; http://internet.miljoeportal.dk/soegmiljoedata/soeg_areal /Sider/download%20data.aspx) Public data (Danish Ministry of the Environment 2014; PlansystemDK; Kommuneplan, vedtaget; http://kort.plansystem.dk/) Public data (Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries 2014; http://naturerhverv.dk/landbrug/kort-ogmarkblokke/miljoe-og-natur/ and from there click on the download link) Personal communication with 4 municipalities (see Table 2); Garden waste potential from Petersen et al. (2014), and 75% of this was considered to be grass, based on Boldrin & Chistensen (2010).

Denmark Statistics (Statbank, Table FLYV1) Denmark Statistics (Statbank, Table BEV107)

Municipality areas

Buffer zones

Sport courts Park & Gardens (private & public) Airports Population per municipality Grass yields

Yields from natural areas derived from Birkmose et al.

(2013); Yields from agricultural and sports areas are based on an expert judgement

Year represented by data 2012

2012

2012

2012 2008

2012 2013 2012

11

1.3 Italy When considering the Italian scenario it is important to distinguish between grass which is collected as waste (urban areas and roads, railways…) and grass wich is managed out of the umbrella of waste definition. The latter is coming from rural areas and landscape and river-channel management.

With specific reference to “wasted” grass coming from urban areas all companies involved in waste management are obliged to upload the data regarding the collection of different waste streams into a Regional portal managed by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Veneto Region (ARPAV). On the website of ARPAV (http://www.arpa.veneto.it/rifiuti/htm/banca_dati_ru.asp) it’s possible to find data of different types of collected urban waste, reported in tonnes per year and per municipality. As for grass, these data are collected together with clippings, branches, and catalogued with the European Waste Code 20.02.01.

The data with code 20.02.01 for the year 2012, divided for the 581 municipalities of the Veneto Region, were collected and then processed. Some of these data where then verified against data given directly by the main managing companies so to cross verify the data quality: all the collected and verified data were found to be consistent. Collected data regarding the “green waste” with code 20.02.01 were then processed to define the theoretical biogas potential of this wasted material. As a first step the data on green waste were transformed into “grass”, removing the mass referred to clippings, branches and other lignin-cellulosic materials. To do this, it was considered that, as a matter of fact, the material collected during the first mowing in spring (normally April) is formed by grass and clippings, while the second mowing (end of summer) is mainly formed by grass. However, according to personal communications gathered by technicians of the waste management companies operating in the region, grass represents more than 90% of the collected green waste. This grass was then transformed into dry and volatile dry matter considering an average dry matter content of 25% and a volatile solids content of 90% on dry matter. The values of 25% for dry matter, and 90% on volatile dry solids were chosen on the basis of experimental data collected in the lab of Chemical Environmental Engineering of the Department of Biotechnology of the University of Verona and other data found in literature (Pabon Pereira, 2009; Pick et al., 2012). These quantities were then associated with the shapefiles regarding the municipalities of the Veneto Region supplied by Veneto Agricoltura Spa. Therefore, the quantity of dry matter recoverable at a municipality scale was calculated.

As for the grass potentially recoverable in rural areas or deriving from landscape and water courses management, this was estimated by use of GIS extrapolation. In particular we identified the areas with a land use similar to landscape/meadows/river banks in the regional cartography (similar to the EU CORINNE but with a higher level of detail and precision.

As for the methodology we considered for this “new” datasheet the following points should be taken into account: a) The BGP of this stream is clearly lower than the values used in the first version of the file (it is now 300 Nm3 / ton DM instead of 700 Nm3/ton DM). The reason for this lower BGP is the source of the grass. Grass coming from parks/garden where material is mowed frequently (4-6 times per year) and has a high BGP. In landscape/natural areas 1-2 cuts are possible, and material is very dry (40% dry matter) and with a high lignin content. b) The grass quantity is now generally higher than the value considered for waste (waste grass should be considered part of this new value as it derives from parks/gardens/roads/sport facilities in urban areas). Unfortunately, this is not always true and in some cases the two numbers are similar or the official data for waste is higher.

The Veneto Region has one of the most detailed map regarding the use of land: starting from the data base G.S.E. Land - Urban Atlas then improved by using satellite immagines SPOT 5 (multispectral band 10 m, panchromatic band 2.5 m) and integrating the data with several database (DB TeleAtlas, 12

Roads Map, Numerical Regional Chart, DEM, and forestry maps), a detailed map for the “Land Use” for the Veneto Region was defined. This is a 1:10.000 map with a thematic area with detail of 0.25 ha and 5 levels of “land use” based on the Corine Land Cover nomenclature. The map can be found at: http://idt.regione.veneto.it/app/metacatalog/getMetadata/?id=551&isIe=false).

We have therefore individuated the areas dedicated to natural areas, meadows, water courses and considered an average production of grass equivalent to 6,5 ton DM per ha per year a value very robust for the Veneto Region and similar to other data present in literature also for other European Regions with similar climate conditions (Pick et al., 2012). In order to consider a reliable amount of usable grass we than applied a 25% capture rate of this grass available for anaerobic digestion (the rest is normally left in place).

In order to define the biogas potentially recoverable, thus the energy potentially associated to this waste stream, a value of specific biogas production (SGP, Nm3/kgVS) of 300 Nm3 per ton of DM was associated to the volatile dry matter calculated above. This value originated from both experimental data collected in the lab of Chemical Environmental Engineering of the Department of Biotechnology of the University of Verona and data found in literature (Steinberg et al., 2004; Pereira, 2009; Pick et al., 2012; Guerrero et al., 2014).

13

1.4 Germany Collecting detailed data in the Saarland has proven to be difficult. This also counts for a consequent and consistent composition of the data. Concrete numbers on residue amounts are only available for municipalities, private companies, composting plants and green waste collecting places (this data can be found in the stakeholderlist of the Saarland under biogasplants). The data in this table comes from plant managers. When they didn’t have any information the data were requested from the “Statistischen Landesamt” (the center for statistics). The delivered data contain estimated volumes, these volumes were estimated at the collection point when they residues were brought in. The weight of the collected volumes was estimated on 350 kg/m 3. Depending on the collecting point the woody parts of the residues are separated from the herbal parts. In general there has to be calculated with 1 part of wood and 2 part herbs.

Other residue potentials can be calculated on the basis of green spaces. The following green spaces have been be taken into account1: -

Airports Golf courses Camping places Roadsides Water way banks Green spaces in reserves

The persons responsible for the management of airports, golf courses and camping places weren’t able to report residue amounts. The green spaces around the airport of Saarbrücken are grazed by sheep. The green spaces around the smaller regional airports are often maintained by regional farmers which mulch the grasslands every 3-4 weeks. The golf courses and camping places only offer insignificant amounts of grass residues, but these amounts are carried to composting plants or collection places.

The roadsides in the Saarland have been the subject of several researches (Dinter et al., 1989; Rommeiß et al., 2007; Rösch, 1996; Kaltschmitt et al., 2009). On the basis of these researches the residue production per hectare and average surfaces of green spaces per kilometre highway and per kilometre motor highway have been calculated. This makes it possible to calculate the residue potential per municipality by multiplying the average grass production per kilometre highway by the length of the roads per municipality.

1

In Germany the data can’t be completely provided as some information, related to the inventory of grass from roadsides, does not exist as roadside grass is currently not harvested in Germany. Furthermore, municipality grass waste and grass residues from private areas can’t be assigned to yields or areas of origin as it’s mostly being collected on (supra-) communal collecting or composting sides.

14

1.5 Portugal 1.5.1 Data collection in official data records In Portugal the use of green grass in public or private spaces is, traditionally, a widespread well established practice. Grass collection and treatment is covered by the waste a management framework.

The management of urban solid waste in Portugal is provided by 12 multimunicipal systems (11 incorporated in EGF group, being the state the major shareholder, and Braval) and 11 intermunicipal systems making a total of 23 systems covering all over the national territory (Figure 1-1Fout!

Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.), excluding the islands. The EGF group (marked in figure Figure 1-1) operates in different areas of Portugal and manages around of 64% of the total waste produced.

Figure 1-1. Solid Waste operators in charge for waste management in Portugal.

Portugal adopted the European Waste List, known by the acronym (LOW), published on March 3, 2004 by Ordinance No. 209/2004, replacing the European Waste Catalogue (EWC). The green waste in Portugal is classified in section 20 of the list: "Municipal wastes� (household waste and similar commercial, industrial and services) including separately collected fractions, Subsection 02, "Waste of gardens and parks (including cemeteries)," and subcategory 20 02 01, "biodegradable waste".

Another code to identify green wastes corresponds to section 20 03, "other municipal waste" and subcategory 20 03 03, "Waste from street cleaning.�

All the waste management companies are required to be registered in the database and are obliged to provide, yearly, the data about the quantities processed, discriminated by LOW code. These data are recorded and available in the APA web portal, where it is also possible to find data about others categories of urban solid waste collected by the system and some comparative tables 2, depicting the evolution of waste collection in the last years.

2

http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=84&sub2ref=933&sub3ref=936

15

So as first step for the elaboration of this report it was performed a search into the website of the above referred national authority responsible for the public policies on waste management in Portugal, APA (Portuguese Environment Agency), for collecting the official data.

Nevertheless the estimation of the quantity of grass waste available for anaerobic digestion at national level revealed immediately as an arduous task. The amounts of green wastes received in MSW systems was very different from region to region and not in proportion with the population, indicating that the delivering of data to the official entity did not fit the same criteria in several regions. In addition, the code 20 02 01 encompasses all categories of green wastes. The quantity of lignocellulosic biomass is not discriminated from the biodegradable fraction, introducing uncertainty for quantifying the real available amount of herbaceous waste received in all systems.

Another relevant point is that until a volume of 110 liters the grass cuttings can be delivered in the normal solid waste containers and, in this way an unknown amount of grass cuttings goes to the treatment and disposal lines without any recording in the national database.

Figure 1-2 shows grass cuttings mixed to the municipal solid waste in street container, as delivered at the MSW treatment of TRATOLIXO

Figure 1-2. Grass cutting mixed to solid wastes.

The grass received in the containers is not clean and contains impurities, creating operational problems to them mechanical pretreatment system, and also the concentration of abrasive matter inside the digester.

1.5.2 Data collection by survey Taking into account the limitations of the official database, some enquires were prepared and sent to the companies and entities acting on the major sectors producers of green wastes, namely: 

Landscape and gardening companies;



Waste management companies



Roads of Portugal

16



Highways of Portugal



Golf courses national association

Data collection started by identification and selection of all the urban solid waste treatment systems, grass waste producers, namely landscape management companies and all the other above referred entities. A specific questionnaire for each one of these entities (see annex) was prepared and sent in order to obtain additional information about the green waste potential and the procedures currently used for its treatment and disposal. With this methodology it was expected to be able to receive and collect the information from different sources and to cross data with the official database, checking compatibilities.

The majority of the urban solid waste management companies cooperated to the inquiry and returned the questionnaires filled, with their available information. The data from the questionnaires were compared with the data from APA, showing reasonable agreement.

Relatively to golf courses, the National Association of Golf did not fill the questionnaire claiming not to have data. They informed that the courses contribute with minor amounts of grass residues into urban solid waste systems, once a major portion of greeneries are left on soil as fertilizer and the remaining is carried to their own (or external) composting unit. By this way the transportation and gate fee costs are avoided.

Furthermore, contacts have been established with managers of “Estradas de Portugal, S.A.” asking for their cooperation in this GR3 project. A specific survey was sent, envisaging data collection of the quantities of grass waste resulting from roadsides management. This company replied to the survey and also relied on the project, participating and cooperating in all the GR3 Regional workshops, where presented their needs and perspectives for evolution in green wastes valorization.

The other national companies in charge for the highways did not collaborate to our project and did not filled the questionnaire.

The majority of green grass in the urban territory of cities is processed by landscape and gardening companies, which also did not reply to the enquiries and did not provide any data. Subsequent telephone calls were made to obtain forms not yet received and, in a few instances, to collect company data through telephone conversations. The contacted respondents referred that they don’t release any green wastes, because they are processed in situ, by one of available alternative methods: mulching, burying, fine maceration, etc.. One of them expressly affirmed that wishes no further contact. So this sector has not express any interest on green grass valorization projects.

1.5.3 Assumptions for GIS calculations and estimations In addition to the official data records, in this project the estimation of the amount of green waste was performed calculating directly the areas of green spaces by mean of ArcGis program and assuming a suitable grass stand yield for each type of cover. This required collecting ArcGis shapefiles from municipalities and from the national geographic database, and computing green areas standing-up in Lisbon region. Then, by multiplying the area by the grass yield it was calculated the amounts of this waste available in each part of territory.

The files specifying the green areas were not available to general public. The majority of municipalities is provided with basic digital mapping shapefiles and agreed to deliver the program under official request. In one case the payment of a moderate fee was also requested. The municipality of Mafra has not yet available the digital mapping (shapefiles are under construction), making unfeasible the estimation of the green spaces in its territory. The received shapefiles did not discriminate and measure specifically the urban green spaces, obliging to recognise and classify them by comparison with satellite information, before proceeding to its measurement.

17

This work allowed a better estimation of the greeneries potential. Its result compared to the data recorded with code 20 02 01, accounting also lignocellulosic material, becoming possible differentiating the waste type in some regions, alleviating doubts and uncertainties.

The exposed methodology also allowed to calculate the green parks and classify them according to the irrigation procedure.

For the calculation of the potential grass cuttings, which can be harvested, in terms of ton of wet matter (WM), in Lisbon region, the values indicated in Table 1-2 were adopted.

Table 1-2. Conversion Factors used for evaluating grass quantities in Lisbon Region.

Irrigated park

Not irrigated areas

Number of cuts/year

18

4

Grass Harvest Yield t FM/h/Year

15

7,5

Moisture (%)

73

25

Methane Yield Nm3CH4/tDM

130

90

Biogas Yield Nm3Biogas/tDM

216

150

Methane cont. (%)

60

60

The moisture content in grass depends on various parameters as the intensity of cutting, irrigation, number of cuts and the period between cuttings. In this project it was considered an average value of 73 % of water content for irrigated areas and 25% for non irrigated areas.

The quantity of dry matter harvested in irrigated and not irrigated parks was calculated from data gathered from consultants and companies acting in green space design and management. In order to estimate quantitatively the methane production associated with this waste stream the yield factor obtained from Batch BMP tests carried-out at LNEG laboratory, checked with literature sources, was used.

1.5.4 Biogas Potential To determine the biogas production, it was defined that intensive grassland have a higher biogas potential due to their operations of maintenance and frequent removal, limiting drying and degaration.

After carrying-out laboratory tests, a methane yield of 130 Nm3CH4/t FM (216 Nm3 Biogas/tDM) was considered a suitable option for areas with frequent cutting and irrigation (intensive grassland) which includes urban gardens and parks, pastures, meadows, golf courses etc. and a value of 90 Nm3CH4/t FM (150 Nm3 Biogas/tDM) for the grass removed from areas without irrigation and a lower number of cuttings (extensive grassland) including roadsides, rainfed, slopes of road protection, airports etc. This corresponds to a loss of 35% of methane during storage due to degradation.

Data concerning biogas production from grass is missing in Portugal. In this purpose LNEG carried-out analytical determination and tests for Biomethane potential evaluation. Table 1-3 presents the results of grass composition in Portugal.

18

Table 1-3. Grass composition in Portugal.

Parameter

Irrigated Grass in Lisbon Campus (LNEG determinations)

Irrigated Grass Cascais (LNEG determinations)

pH

6,3

Humidity(%) TS (mg/gr of fresh matter) VS (mg/gr of fresh matter) Nitrogen KN(mg/g dry matter) Carbon [total](mg/g dry matter)

65,5 345

59,2 239

310

CQO Hydrogen[total](mg/g Dry matter) Sulfur [total](mg/g dry matter) Phosphorus (mg/g dry matter) Cellulose(%) Xylan (%) Arabian(%) Acetyl Groups(%) Hemicelulose(%) Lignin(%) Gross Calorific Value (GCV) [MJ/Kg] Ashes Production (%bs)

Not irrigated grass Cascais(LNEG determinations)

Grass and cutteries collected in Almada (Pereira)

-

Grass and cutteries collected in Almada street -

20,6 747

64,3 358

48,6 514

204

699

309

434

8

10,4

6,7

10,3

17,9

395

-

-

570

54,6

1180 55

324 -

946 -

1556 -

1537 -

20

-

-

-

-

0,7

-

-

1,25

1,93

19 9 2 1 13 14 16,35

-

-

-

-

11,76

-

-

-

-

Several Biomethanation kinetic tests were carried out in batch system in order to detect the biomethane potential of two types of grass, with thermal or enzymatic pre-treatment and at Mesophilic in thermophilic temperatures. The apparatus used is constituted by one-liter completely mixed glass (batch) reactors such as VDI 4630 (2006) 3 eudiometer measurement tube apparatus (Figure 1-3).

3

VDI 4630 (2006) Fermentation of organic materials Characterisation of the substrate, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests. VDI-Handbuch Energietechnik. VDI-Handbuch Landwirtschaft/Landtechnik

19

A – Reactor B – Thermostatic bath C – Gas sampling D – Eudiometer tube E – Solution reservoir F – Solution level regulation G - Magnetic stirrer H – Gas purge I – Water heater

Figure 1-3. Test apparatus.

All tests were done on three replicates to reduce the effect of substrates heterogeneities. The procedure was performed according to Field et al. (1988)4 and Soto et al. (1996)5 specifications, when sludge is used as inoculum. The results presented in the framework of this project deal with reactors placed in a thermostatic bath kept at 35°C to ensure mesophilic conditions. Each reactor was connected to a graduated column to measure, each day, the amount of produced biogas through liquid displacement. The columns were filled with a solution containing 1% concentrated hydrochloric acid and 20% sodium chloride to avoid biogas dissolution. To obtain anaerobic conditions, before use each reactor was purged with nitrogen gas for about five minutes. Two different substrates where compared: a fresh common garden grass (GG) from irrigated green area areas.

Table 1-4. Biomethane potential of grass, according to Batch BMP tests carried-out at LNEG

Irrigated grass and frequently cut 216 Nm3 Biogas/ton fresh matter 630 Nm3 Biogas /ton DM 700 Nm3 Biogas /ton VS 850 Nm3 Biogas /ton TOC

Non Irrigated grass and without frequently cut (Dry grass) 150 Nm3 Biogas /ton fresh matter 430 Nm3 Biogas /ton DM 500 Nm3 Biogas /ton VS 580 Nm3 Biogas /ton TOC

4

Field, J., Sierra Alvárez, R., Lettinga, G. 1988. Ensayos anaerobios. 4º Seminario de Depuración anaerobia de aguas residuales. Ed. Valladolid Universidad,Secretariado de Publicaciones,Valladolid, pp. 52-80.

5

Soto, M., Méndez, R., Lema, J.M. 1993. Methanogenic and non-methanogenic activity tests.Theoretical basis and experimental set up.Wat. Res.,27(8), 1361-1376.)

20

Methane content in biogas was, on average, 60% 1.5.5 Cutting and period of harvesting The cutting regime (frequency and time) and the use of appropriate equipment are the most important aspects to the maintenance and longevity of lawns. This technique differs with species and the type of lawns. In Portugal it is usual, especially in large turf areas, proceed to cut once (in winter/autumn) or twice a month (in summer/spring). However, during spring/summer season cutting operations are intensified reaching a cut per week, to avoid drying and wind dispersion. The ideal for obtaining maximum biomass potential would be to cut the grass every week throughout the year. The frequency of cuts is higher in species with fast growing and it increases with the amount of fertilizers and irrigation allocations that are applied. This frequency of cuts should always be higher in spring than in other seasons.

Table 1-5. Number of cuts.

Month

Average Number of cuts

Month

Average Number of cuts

January

0 to 2

July

2 to 4

February

1 to 2

August

2 to 4

March

1 to 2

September

2 to 4

April

2 to 3

October

1 to 4

May

2 to 4

November

1 to 2

June

2 to 4

December

0 to 2

As previously mentioned, it was observed that an intensification of grass cuts in green urban areas occurs in the spring/summer season, reaching a level of attendance of 4 times per month, contrasting with winter months. In some regions in the months of December and January cutting grass is avoided.

There are many aspects related to the grass cuttings. For the estimations in ArcGIS were assumed to perform on average 18 cuts per year in the intensive grassland and an average of 4 cuts/year concerning extensive grassland.

Concerning to roadsides, the operation is slightly different. In Portugal, the company “Estradas de Portugal, S.A.� which has under its jurisdiction more than 14,000 km of roads and which aims the financing, conservation, exploration, rehabilitation and widening of roads that are under their responsibility, provided some important data. The preservation and maintenance operations are carried out in all areas where vegetation occurs spontaneously and where it is necessary to control their growth. By mowing and cutting of vegetation, it is intended to contain the natural evolution without damaging the natural process of regeneration and self-seed of areas with herbaceous coating, giving a green appearance to the roadsides and making the roads more pleasant to the eyes. Thus, these activities, including their cleanings, are obligatorily performed across the available width, from the berm until the beginning of the slope plus a width of 3 meters measured along the slope (Figure 1-4).

21

Figure 1-4 – Roadside maintenance operations. A- Cutting Areas

This work is done by manual or mechanical resources, without burning and / or use of herbicides and without affecting the role of ornamental vegetation. The activities of mowing and cutting occur 2 times per year. In periods from April to June and from September to November, on the roads situated in northern area of Portugal, while between April and September it is performed in the roads located in southern area of the country.

Table 1-6. Roadside cuttings.

Harvest time

Periodicity

From April to June and September to November

2 interventions per year

Southern área of Portugal (Lisboa, Setúbal, Évora, Beja Since April to September and Faro)

2 interventions per year

Northern area of Portugal (Braga, Vila Real, Bragança, Viana do Castelo, Porto, Aveiro, Viseu, Guarda, Coimbra, Castelo Branco, Santarém, Portalegre and Leiria

1.5.6 Method of mowing For the selection of the most suitable machine to do the cutting operation, is required to consider the area to be treated, desired time work and shape, and the slope of terrain (presence of stones and other rigid vegetation like reeds). For example, in small gardens (less than 300 m 2), with a lower slope (< 5%) and complex (with flowerbeds, shrubs and trees) are recommended machines without traction; for gardens with medium to large areas (> 300 m2), with gentle slopes (> 5%), can be choice machines with traction with only 1 speed. In case of a large and complex garden, machines with traction and more than one speed are recommended (9). Brushcutter/Trimmers, Lawn mower, and Tractors are the most used equipments for grass mowing.

1.5.7 Storage In case of grass clippings not used for mulching, they can be collected and stored. Normally, this storage is placed in plastic bags or in containers of urban solid waste before routed to final destination and thus classified as temporary storage.

22

The storage capacity, namely the volume of plastic bags usually used to store grass waste is in the range from 80 to 120 liters and then 120 liters for the biggest bags. The urban solid waste containers have a storage capacity between 360 and 770 liters and are located in the street or in closed spaces (like university campus) and can be public or private.

Concerning roadsides and their surrounding areas which are under “Estradas de Portugal” jurisdiction, the collection is done by heavy vehicle once grass clippings are collected together with other green material. The procedure to storage this waste is similar to what some municipalities do once green waste collected is deposited in “Estradas de Portugal” facilities spread across the country to accumulate larger quantities and then forwarded to final destination.

1.5.8 Current Disposal Generally, the grass have different final destinations: a) its own deposition into the urban solid waste container with other urban waste, b) in some cases filed and abandoned in open places/land without any protection or treatment, c) be delivered/collected selectively in/by solid waste management companies or d) maintenance companies make their own compost. Some municipalities still making selective collection and store collected wastes in their own facilities (shipyard, usually limited area without roof) to accumulate larger amounts and then delivering it to the waste management operators.

In any case grass introduced into urban waste container or delivered selectively is incorporated in urban solid waste management process and routed to composting or landfill. However, part of grass clippings which are mixed with organic waste already is inserted in anaerobic digestion. It should be noted that nowadays, in Portugal, less waste are being sent to landfill due to recycling and reuse policies that provide, among other measures, that in 2020 the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill can only be a maximum of 35% of total sent in 2005 (12).

23

Results Within work package 2 (WP2) several tasks had to be done. Task one was making an inventory of regional stakeholders. By contacting the stakeholders there was made an inventory of the available residue quantities per stakeholder, after which the residue quantities were scaled down to the level of municipalities within the region/country.

2.1 Flanders 2.1.1 Stakeholders Flanders In Flanders there are several stakeholders who are responsible for the management of roadsides or natural grasslands. The stakeholders in Flanders are: the municipalities, the Agency for Roads and Traffic (AWV), LNE (erosion control), Waterwegen en Zeekanaal nv, nv De Scheepvaart, Infrabel (railway management), ports, airports, golf courses and various nature managing bodies like the Agency for nature and forest management (ANB) and Natuurpunt.

In Flanders the municipalities are responsible for the management of the roadsides along the municipal roads. The roads and traffic agency manages the roadsides along highways and motor highways. Waterwegen en Zeekanaal nv and nv De Scheepvaart are responsible for the management of the banks of the various canals and rivers in Flanders. Infrabel is responsible for the management of railway sides. Also the management of ports and airports releases a considerable amount of clippings annually, this also counts for the golf courses in Flanders.

The management of nature reserves releases a large amount of clippings every year. Where the other stakeholders mainly mow with flail mowers, the nature reserves are all mowed with circle mowers.

Because of this different machinery used the clippings from natural areas are generally coarser than the clippings from the other stakeholders.

In the annex, the contact data of the various stakeholders in Flanders can be found. Through this stakeholder list the various stakeholders in each municipality or region can be contacted.

2.1.2

Overview stakeholders

2.1.2.1 ANB The mowed areas were requested from the regional managers ofANB. As a result of this, concrete numbers were received from ANB Limburg, ANB Oost-Vlaanderen, ANB West-Vlaanderen, ANB Vlaams-Brabant and ANB Antwerpen. The Agency for Nature and Forest mows on a yearly base 1,646 ha grassland. Based on the mowed vegetation types there is an estimated annual production of 3.57 ton dry matter/ha/y. The grasslands are laying in nature reserves and are managed from a botanical point of view. De estimated production is realistic.

2.1.2.2 Natuurpunt Also Natuurpunt delivered the effectually mowed areas. Natuurpunt mows annually about 2,529 ha grassland. The average production of the grasslands is based on the vegetation types estimated on 3.15 ton dry matter/ha/y 2.1.2.3 Other nature managing organisations In Flanders 191.68 ha of grasslands are managed by other organisations than ANB and Natuurpunt.

To be able to determine the residue quantities who are annually set free in Flanders as accurate as possible, these (small) organisations were contacted and asked for data. Because data on the residue quantity was missing, an estimation on the annual production has been made. During the inventory and data clustering, a production of 4 tons dry matter/ha/y for grasslands and roadsides was considered realistic. For estimation from surface data, this value has been used.

24

2.1.2.4 AWV Roadsides highways and motor highways The Agency for Roads and Traffic is divided in several districts. Each district was contacted and requested for data. This data was delivered in the form of shapefiles of the districts, residue quantities and areas mown. The data considering the residue amount was delivered in ton wet weight. So the conversion factor of 27% had to be used to get the dry weight. According to AWV, 8,230.21 ha are mowed annually and the annual production is about 9,378 ton dry matter per year. This means that roadsides would produce a little more than 1 ton dry matter per year which is unlikely. This indicates that the mown area is not right, not completely mown, or that there is left a part of the residue on site.

2.1.2.5 Canal and river banks (W&Z en De Scheepvaart nv) W&Z and de Scheepvaart NV are responsible for the management of river- and canal banks in Flanders. Together both organisations are good for an annual grass residue production of approximately 2,550 ton dry matter. The residue quantities were traceable by collecting weighing vouchers delivered by contractors. Annually W&Z mows about 2,300 ha and De Scheepvaart nv mows an estimated 307 ha. The low residue quantities per ha indicate that also here the mown area is not right, not completely mown or that there is left a part of the residue on site. Besides the named areas and quantities there are still waterways where from no data is available.

2.1.2.6 Railways Infrabel doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have data available on the residue amount thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s yearly removed from railway sides.

In Flanders there is 1,811 km railway. Estimated that the average railway side is 4 meters wide and the average production is 4 ton dry matter a year, the yearly grass residue production is about 2,900 ton dry matter a year.

2.1.2.7 Roadsides in municipalities The municipalities report the residue quantities in wet weight on a yearly base to OVAM. According to OVAM these quantities increase in recent years due to better reporting by the municipalities. After conversion by 27%, the municipalities reported a total yield of 20,050.10 ton dry matter in 2010. Mown areas are not known. Remarkable is the difference between the separate municipalities. This indicates that the grass residue stream is not always kept separate. Probably municipalities do conflate the grass residue with other waste streams.

2.1.2.8 LNE Erosion protection Specific areas in Flanders are sensitive for erosion. Soil erosion can cause yield losses in agriculture and lead to a less fertile soil. Besides the eroded soil causes problems like clogged drains and waterways. In erosion sensitive areas farmers can sign contracts with the government with the aim to prevent erosion. One of the anti-erosion measures is the construction of grass strips on the edges of fields. The total area of these grass strips in Flanders is over 840 ha. Mostly this high quality grass is not valorized, because the farmers do not have cattle they can feed the grass to. In theory these grass strips produce at least 6 tons dry matter/ha/y and are good for an annual production of more than 5,000 tons dry matter.

2.1.2.9 Harbours From 3 harbours data was collected. Only the harbour of Antwerp was able to supply data on residue quantities and mowed area. The harbours of Gent and Zeebrugge delivered the mowed area. For Gent and Zeebrugge there was calculated with 4 tons dry matter/ha/y The total area of grassland in harbours is 497 ha, with an estimated production of 751 ton dry matter/year.

2.1.2.10 Airports In Flanders there are several commercial and non-commercial airports, 8 airports supplied data on the areas mowed. The airports werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t able to supply data on residue quantities, so the residue quantities had to calculated by multiplying the area by the estimated production of 4 tons dry matter/h/y. The airports are good for an area of 759.68 ha and an estimated production of 3,188.73 ton dry matter per year.

25

2.1.2.11 Golf courses The VVG (Vlaamse Vereniging Golf) was contacted to gather data on the grass residue produced by golf courses. Actually there are no mowed surfaces from golf courses in Flanders available. Also the yearly grass residue production is not known. To calculate the yearly grass production there has been calculated with the standard areas of 6, 9 and 18 hole golf courses. Also for golf courses there was calculated with 4 ton dry matter /ha/y. The total area of golf courses in Flanders is 763.25 ha. The golf courses are good for an estimated production of 3,242.09 ton dry matter per year.

2.1.3 Grass residue production per stakeholder The grass residue production in Flanders was calculated per stakeholder and afterwards linked to the municipalities (if possible) by using ArcGis 10. In Table 2-1 and

26

Table 2-2 the results of the Inventory can be seen, and by the colour the reliability of the data can be determined. From the line shape elements there are not areas displayed in the table.

Table 2-1. Grass residue quantities orginating from natural grasslands in Flanders, green are reliable data, orange quite reliable and red are less reliable.

Manager ANB Limburg ANB Antwerpen ANB Vlaams-Brabant ANB Oost-Vlaanderen ANB West-Vlaanderen Natuurpunt Erkende terrein beherende instanties Airports Harbours Golf courses LNE Limburg (erosion prevention) LNE Vlaams-Brabant (erosion prevention) LNE Oost-Vlaanderen (erosion prevention) LNE West-Vlaanderen (erosion prevention) Total

Grasslands Area (ha) 340.63 315.69 520.22 61.49 408.36 2,529.06 191.68 759.68 497.24 763.25 281.02 438.24 73.79 48.62 7,228.97

Residue (ton/dm/year) 1,286.68* 1,157.67* 1,599.22* 239.67* 1,591.56* 7,974.55* 662.17* 3,188.73* 751.0* 3,053.00* 1,686.13* 2,629.44* 442.75* 291.72* 26,554.29

*Average theoretical residue production, **Real amount of removed grass residue, converted to 27% dry matter

27

Table 2-2. Residue quantities orginating from roadsides and the banks of waterways in Flanders.

Roadsides Manager

Residue ton/dm/year (27% ds)

Navigable waterways Limburg Navigable waterways Antwerpen Navigable waterways Vlaams-Brabant Navigable waterways Oost-Vlaanderen Navigable waterways West-Vlaanderen Municipal roadsides Limburg Municipal roadsides Antwerpen Municipal roadsides Vlaams-Brabant Municipal roadsides Oost-Vlaanderen Municipal roadsides West-Vlaanderen Railways AWV (High- and motor highways) Limburg AWV (High- and motor highways) Antwerpen AWV (High- and motor highways) Vlaams-Brabant AWV (High- and motor highways) Oost-Vlaanderen AWV (High- and motor highways) West-Vlaanderen Total

291.23** 788.64** 309.51** 660.18** 503.78** 2,286.42** 7,868.05** 3,895.98** 3,393.07** 2,606.58** 2,900* 1,090.76** 1,231.94** 1,888.04** 2,817.68** 2,352.33** 32,834.65

*Average theoretical residue production, **Real amount of removed grass residue, converted to 27% dry matter

2.1.4 Grass residue per municipality The amount of grass residue per stakeholder was scaled down to municipality level. This was only possible for data that was directly linkable to municipalities. Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden. shows the amount of grass residue thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s available in every municipality in Flanders. In this Figure, the data not directly linkable to the municipalities is not included. In the attribute table in ArcMap 10 can be seen which stakeholder is responsible for which residue amount in every municipality.

2.1.5

Inventory details

28

Table 2-3 displays the details of the inventory. The grassland type (extensive grassland with a BGP of 272,82 Nm3/t (Inverde, 2012) and intensive grassland with a BGP of 500 Nm 3), the mowing period, the current disposal of the grass and the machinery used for cutting the grass. The mowing period for the grasslands in Flanders lays between June and September. Most of the grass is currently composted and a small part of the grass is mulched. An exception is a part of the grass from grass strips used for erosion prevention. A part of this grass is left on site.

29

Table 2-3. Inventory details.

Manager Municipalities

Grass type extensive

ANB

extensive

nv De Scheepvaart

extensive

Natuurpunt

extensive

Recognized nature management organisations Airports

extensive

Harbours

extensive

Golf courses

intensive

LNE (erosion prevention)

intensive

Railways

extensive

AWV (Agency for roads and traffic)

extensive

extensive

Mowing period JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember

Current disposal composting

Machinery used

composting

circle mower

composting

flail mower

composting

circle mower

composting

circle mower

JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember JuneSeptember

composting

flail mower

composting

flail mower

composting/mu lching composting/left on site composting

circle mower

composting

flail mower (90%)/circle mower (10%)

flail mower

flail mower/circle mower flail mower

2.1.6 National estimates Belgium In Flanders there’s an annual amount of 59,388.95 ton grass residue available. To calculate the national amount Wallonia has to be included. In Wallonia there are 7,734 km major roads, about 450 km waterways and about 2,950 km railway. Calculated with the average figures of Flanders the major roads, waterways and railways in Wallonia are good for an annual production of 16,991.30 ton dm grass. The total area of all the municipalities in Wallonia is 16.944 km 2. Calculated with the average Flemish numbers the Walloon municipalities are good for an annual production of 24,683.8 ton grass.

In Wallonia there is 220,944 ha Natura 2000 area. 15% of this area consists of grasslands. It’s not known which part of these areas are mown annually. We assume that a big part of these grasslands are not managed. For this study we’ll calculate with 10% of the grasslands. This 10% is good for an annual production of 11,827,6 ton (calculated with the Flemish average of 3,57 t/ha). The total production of Wallonia is 53,502.7 ton grass. Flanders and Wallonia are together good for 112,891.65 ton grass (DM). This amount is good for an estimated biogas production of 31,875,735 Nm 3 Biogas.

30

Figure 2-1. Available grass residues per municipality in Flanders,

31

2.2 Denmark 2.2.1 Stakeholders Denmark In Denmark, there is an important residual grass potential from the natural areas. As the focus was on the area of Funen, the key municipality stakeholders for that area were identified. All other key stakeholders (at the Danish level) for the other types of grass (roadside, park, etc.) or for biogas in general can be found in the Annex.

2.2.2 Grass residue availability Table 2-4 presents the results in terms of total annual potential in Denmark, for each grass category covered. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assumed that 50% of this potential can actually be used for biogas production (expert judgement).

Table 2-4. Annual potential for the grass categories covered, Denmark

Grass category

Grass type

Grass type area (ha)

Yield (t DM/ha)

Total (t DM/y)

1. Nature

Dry Hill

28.715a

2d

57.430

Freshwater Meadow

95.415 a

3.5 d

333.953

Saltwater Meadow

43.966 a

2d

87.932

0.5 d

47.750

2.5e

12.396

Swamp

95.141 a

2. Sports

Sport Court

4.958c

3. Park & Garden

Household Garden

31,386

Parks & Public gardens

24,904f

4. Others

Airport

2.0 e

Total of inventoried grass potential (note that roadside grass is missing, as well as military areas, among others) a Danmarks

1.023 596,774

Miljøportal (2014);

c

Specific information was obtained from 4 municipalities on Funen, namely Svendborg (Berit Jonstrup, Svendborg Kommune), Odense (Christoffer Kirk Strandgaard, Odense Kommune), Faaborg-Midtfyn (Erik Møller, FaaborgMidtfyn Kommune) and Nordfyns (Birgitte Birch Schmidt, Nordfyns Kommune). This information, as well as the total population in all municipalities (available from Statistics Denmark, 2014; see also Appendix 1) was used in order to extrapolate the area of sport courts in all other municipalities. For these 4 municipalities, an average sports area corresponding to 0.09% of the population was derived. Based on the rationale that the area of sports courts in a given municipality is proportional to its population (rather than its area), this ratio was used to derive the area of sport courts for all other municipalities. This is of course a rough approximation, but was judged as the best proxy under the restrained availability of data; d

Birkmose et al., (2013);

e

Expert jugement;

f

Petersen et al., (2014) report the total potential (year 2008) of garden waste in Denmark, and based on Boldrin & Christensen (2010), it is considered that only 75% of that is grass-based material (easily degradable grass and leaves; the rest being branches, stone and other foreign items). This total amount of park & garden grass was then distributed to each municipality proportionally to their population.

32

2.3 Veneto 2.3.1 Stakeholders Italy Municipal solid waste (MSW) management in the Veneto Region is organised in six homogenous geographical areas (Ambiti Territoriali Ottimali Omogenei, ATOO). The service for collection and management of MSW in these areas is defined every two years on the basis of a tendering procedure.

Beside waste companies, large amounts of grass are managed by the 21 Regional Water Authorities responsible for landscape management along water courses. These are then grouped in 10 larger authorities and a super-authority. In the Northern part of the Region, dominated by the presence of high sharp mountains, no authorities are present. Figure 2-2 gives a picture of the distribution of the 10 large authorities groups.

All the key stakeholders in Italy can be found in the Annex.

Figure 2-2. Grouped Water Authorities in the Veneto Region (Unione Veneta Bonifiche)

33

2.3.2 Grass residue availability The total quantity of collected dry matter associated to grass (collected as both waste and non-waste) at municipal scale is shown in Figure 2-3: it turns out clear from the reported map that recoverable dry matter of grass is extremely low in mountain and hilly areas, where grass is normally cut and left in place. In these specific cases the amount of collected grass is typically lower than 100 ton per year.

Figure 2-3. Grass residue availability in the Veneto region.

On the other hand, the main cities in the central flat area, namely Venice, Padova, Vicenza, Treviso, Rovigo and Verona, show the main collection yield: typical values of collection of grass are greater than 500 tons dry matter (DM) per year. This result is related to the presence of parks and gardens in these cities. Moreover, in Venice, Treviso and Villafranca (Verona) international airports are present.

On the other hand, other small towns located in the central flat area of the region, showed very low collection yields since these are rural areas where land is used for crops cultivation or husbandry, and mowed grass is normally cut and left in place.

Other areas with relatively high yields (generally > 600 tons DM/y) are touristic areas located along the Adriatic coast (Venice and Rovigo provinces) and the Garda lake (Verona province) where a number of camping places are present.

It is particular important to distinguish between “waste” and “non waste” grass since the former is delivered to treatment plants for organic waste, like composting plants or anaerobic digesters for waste (food waste, sludge …) while the latter can be used also in agricultural anaerobic digesters.

There are currently 13 AD plants for organic waste and 140 agricultural AD plants running in the Veneto Region. These AD plants are indicated with a blue dot in Figure 2-3.

34

Nowadays all the collected wasted grass is treated in the 21 composting plants operating within the Region and only 1 AD plant is using some grass to improve the dry matter content of the reactor.

Considering the grass potentially collectable in the landscape management in rural areas or in water courses management, equivalent to 495,000 ton wet weight or 198,000 ton dry matter, which can be used in the 140 AD farm plants, and considering a specific biogas production of 300 Nm3 per ton DM it can be calculated that some 59,000,000 Nm3 biogas per annum can be generated. This is equivalent to some 131,000 MWh of electric energy. This can cover the energy use of some 41,000 families (calculated on the basis of an average use of 3,200 kWh per annum per a famility of 2 adults and a baby).

2.3.3 National estimates Italy It is not possible to define a global figure for Italy since there is a lack of data regarding waste collection or land use mapping, especially in the Southern part of the country. However, as a first estimate, considering both population and extension of the Veneto Region, it can be extrapolated that the potential grass generation for Italy is around 3,266,800 ton of grass per year. This amount of grass residue is good for an annual production of 980,265,000 Nm3 biogas.

35

2.4 Saarland 2.4.1 Stakeholders Saarland A detailed stakeholder list of the Saarland can be found in the attachment. The list contains the biogas- and composting plants in the region as the persons responsible for the management of roadsides, waterway banks, airports, golf courses and camping places. Also the persons responsible for the management of nature reserves are listed.

2.4.2 Roadsides The residue quantities coming from roadsides in the Saarland can be estimated on the basis of several studies that have been executed (IZES, 2011). In Table 2-5. The estimates for calculating the grass potential of roadsides in the Saarland can be found.

Table 2-5. Estimates for calculating the grass potential of roadsides (Rösch, 1996).

Material Roadside grass

Kriterium Surface

Key figures 2.1 ha / km motorhighways 0.6 ha / km bei highways

Amount of biomass

8 – 13 t FM / ha*a

The roads in the Saarland can be differentiated by information delivered by the Saarländischen Landesbetriebes für Straßenbau (LfS; the Road management organisation in the Saarland) and the INTERREG project Ruben. In Table 2-6 lengths of the different road types in the Saarland can be found.

Table 2-6. Road lengths in the Saarland.

Road type

Motorhighway Highway Minor roads Total * ** ***

Total length [km] 240 302 1.433 1.975

Non-managed road** [km] 240 1.108

Managed road*** [km]

1.348

660

143 517

“Kreisstraßen” (a road type in Germany) do not exist in the Saarland Traced back in the project RUBIN (2007); without settlements Road parts with settlements next to them of which 21,6 % are motor highways

The effort that has to be made to harvest the grassy roadside vegetation is generally considered to be very high and hardly economically viable. In addition, the pollution is relatively high, so the collection of these amounts from the perspective of LfS is unlikely in the long term.

Additional grass potential in the area of infrastructure maintenance could come from the rail ways. In Saarland there is about 970 km railway. Quantitative data in this regard are not available, however, projects to optimize recovery of biomass are currently in preparation. Drive for these projects are the high harvesting costs. In addition, the effort that has to be done to harvest the grass next to the rail ways is much higher compared to roadside vegetation, since the accessibility due to rail traffic and possible cancellations by the work is not guaranteed.

An additional source area represents the grass from the care of water way banks. quantity data are hardly available. Also here the efforts that have to be done to harvest the grass may stand in the way in the long term.

36

Further potentials can be related to the management of nature reserves. In this context, especially in the "study biomass potential analysis for the Saarland" (IZES, 2011), the natural areas of Naturlandstiftung Saar und Ökoflächenmanagement gGmbH have been taken into account. Which contain herbaceous and woody biomass that is currently partly composted and partly burned. Big amounts of residue still remain in place (lack of sustainable value chains). An appropriate potential survey was carried out in 2004 and 2008 by the IfaS / Birkenfeld on behalf of Ökoflächenmanagement gGmbH. By an estimated 836 ha (as of 2007) of cultivated area, the following potentials were able to be calculated: Table 2-7: Residue produced by the Naturlandstiftung Saar und der Ökoflächenmanagement gGmbH [IfaS 2004].

Biomass Grass*

Quantities 2,510 t DM/y

*Calculated with a production of: 3 t DM/ha/y

In the meantime, the available surface potentials have increased to an approximate 1,800 ha, so that based on a linear increase it can be assumed that the potential is about 5,400 t DM/y.

To estimate other surfaces in the field of the nature management, the following very dary surface analysis is used. Reasons for the inaccurate estimation of potential are versatile. On one hand there’s a different area and yield estimation in the range of landscape management, On the other hand certain quantities are already being used (Figure 2-2) and the use of these amounts is also in the future not plausible from an economic or technical point of view.

Figure 2-4. Surface distribution in the field of landscape care and agriculture.

To determine the amounts of grass from landscape management data about green spaces is available at the State Office for cadastral, surveying and cartography (LKVL-ATKIS data) and the State Office of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (LAL). As a basis for the estimation of potential green areas only the green spaces of the State Office of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (LAL), which lay within protected areas were used exclusively. The total surface of these areas is 17,128 ha. To cover the need of cattle feed approximately 29,000 ha of green spaces are being used.

The green spaces collected by LAL can be used as a factor to reduce the total surface. After doing so 37

there’s a potential of 4,828 ha with an average grass yield of 3 ton DM per hectare left. This potential can be matched to surfaces in the ATKIS database categorised as a green area and which lay within protected areas. This hasn’t been done. The reason for this is the heterogeneous surface conditions and area types (sports, equestrian facilities, retail, allotment gardens, streams deer park, etc.) and their ownerships. Because of this the quantity and quality of the resultant potential is very hard to predict and there will be a high degree of uncertainty. Thus here the already derived 4,828 ha are used as a basis for potential estimates.

2.4.3

Grass residue availability

2.4.3.1 Residue amounts delivered to composting plants The total amount of green material delivered to municipal composting plants and collection places in the Saarland is 85,650 ton (wet weight). This yield consists of both grass (about 65%) and woody components (about 35%). This means that the grass yield is about 57,093 ton annually. In Saarland there has been calculated with a dry matter content of 15%. As a result for the Saarland there can be calculated with the following quantities: Grass residue delivered to composting plants

8,560 t DM/y

2.4.3.2 Roadside vegetation Based on the results shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6. The following residue potential can be calculated: Table 2-8. Potential residue production for roadsides in the Saarland.

Material

„Non managed road**

Managed road***

Biomass

1,169 ha 9,352 – 15,197 t WW/y

610 ha 4,880 – 7,930 t WW/y

Also here there is calculated with a dry matter content of 15%. As a result the following potential can be calculated for the managed roads: 961 t DM/y Roadside vegetation (managed roads) 2.4.3.3 Nature management In nature management there is a potential of 4,828 ha grassland. Calculated with an average production of 3 t DM/ha/y the following residue potential can be calculated: Nature management

14,484 t DM/y

For the resulting amount of 14,484 t DM/y there should be taken some reservations in to account. For sure there can be calculated with a potential about 5,400 t DM/y.

2.4.4 National estimates Germany In the Saarland there is 24,000 ton dry matter available for fermentation in biogas plants. Extrapolated to Germany this is 3,335,280 ton dry matter annually. This amount is good for a yearly production of 733,761,600 Nm3 biogas (calculated with a biogas potential of 220 Nm3/t DM).

38

2.5 Portugal 2.5.1

Stakeholder list in the region of lisbon

In the region of Lisbon there are several stakeholders who are responsible for the management of waste from urban green areas namely the municipalities, the public company responsible for the National Road Network (Estradas de Portugal, S.A), and the companies in charge for airports, golf courses, landscape and urban solid waste systems.

The municipalities are responsible for the management of urban green spaces like parks, public lawns and leisure gardens. The cultivation, cuts and removal of greens are carried-out directly or indirectly, provided by subcontractors, which are also responsible for private gardens. The main municipalities considered for the regional study in this project, are:       

Cascais Mafra Oeiras Sintra Lisboa Odivelas Amadora

The first four municipalities established a partnership in a multi municipal system called AMTRES (Association of Municipalities for Solid Waste Treatment), where all urban waste under their responsibility are delivered for treatment and disposal to TRATOLIXO, an Inter-municipal Company for Urban Solid Waste management (EIM). The urban waste produced in Lisboa, Amadora and Odivelas is delivered to VALORSUL, another intermunicipal waste system (EIM). Both these companies belongs to EGF GROUP (Empresa Geral de Fomento; www.egf.pt), which this way took the control of all the Municipal solid waste (MSW) of Lisbon region.

The public company Estradas de Portugal which regulates, as central institution, financing, maintenance, operation, rehabilitation and enlargement of all national and regional roads of the country is another relevant stakeholder.

The international airport of Lisbon is managed by ANA (Airports of Portugal), another regional and national stakeholder (like Estradas of Portugal), in charge for all the ten national airports (4 airports in the mainland and 6 airports in Madeira and Azores islands).

There are many golf courses and landscape companies acting in Portugal and in Lisbon Region.

In Annex I a detailed stakeholder list can be found. In addition to the stakeholders previously mentioned, the list contains others players acting in different regions of Portugal.

39

2.5.2 Green waste available in portugal-official data Taking into account the data collected by APA in 2012, the 23 SW systems received and processed a total amount of 4,525,178 ton of urban solid waste, including green waste. Table 2-9 presents the quantities of urban and green wastes received and managed by each MSW system.

This information corresponds to the official data submitted by the operators (Mapa de Registo de Resíduos Urbanos (MRRU)) to the integrated registration system (SIRAPA) of the Portuguese Environment Agency. Include also some extra information gathered from surveys. The LOW Code 20 02 01, which is shown in the table, corresponds essentially to the biodegradable waste from Gardens and Parks (greens, trimmings etc.). The LOW Code 20 02 03, which corresponds to street wastes, has a more relevant fraction of not biodegradable biomass as well some debris from the roads.

Table 2-9. Quantities of green waste received separately by each municipal solid waste plant in 2012.

Management System of Green waste (t) Street Waste (t) Total waste (ton) Urban Waste (LOW Code 200201) (LOW Code 200303) Operator 1 338 095 23 647 3 058 Operator 2 402 882 21 756 13 574 Operator 3 62 205 2 311 345 Operator 4 14 107 541 0 Operator 5 112 636 481 0 Operator 6 58 944 502 0 Operator 7 389 21 735 4 122 Operator 8 77 427 752 0 Operator 9 476 216 20 351 0 Operator 10 46 050 362 416 Operator 11 348 295 1 151 3 048 Operator 12 93 764 1 426 118 Operator 13 186 958 758 7 725 Operator 14 114 692 7 2 079 Operator 15 758 412 1 582 698 Operator 16 116 351 77 0 Operator 17 122 414 621 0 Operator 18 386 950 24 837 47 455 Operator 19 35 330 a a Operator 20 128 097 d d Operator 21 126 534 b b Operator 22 57 802 106 0 Operator 23 71 996 d d Subtotal 102003 82638 82638 Total 4 136 157 184 641 a – The green wastes are received and treated with municipal solid waste, so there is no information about the quantities. All wastes are disposed of in landfill. b- “Ambisousa” does not receive this waste separately. They do not have information about this waste. c- The green wastes (including grass from gardens) are treated by vermicomposting d- It was not possible to obtain any data Looking at the values concerning the different systems it is evident the disparity between the proportions of values registered in the two LOW codes in several region due, possibly, to different classification or interpretation criteria.

Globally the data recorded by the waste management authorities indicates that, in 2012, a relevant amount at of green waste in Portugal were collected, corresponding at least at 184,641 t/year. This estimation is probably significantly lower than the real amount, once:

40

-

A large portion of these wastes from landscape gardening companies are not delivered to the waste management system. Them are buried, mulched or left on soil, a solution for avoiding the gate fee payment and the purchase of nutrient or materials for soil amendment.

- Another portion is discharged in the general waste containers and recorded as solid waste by official data and treated with the urban waste. Consequently they are not recorded with the code 20 02 01.

This portion of the greeneries is delivered to landfills, composting, incinerators or even to Solid Waste AD plants, contributing already to biogas and electricity production, in the facilities (landfills and AD plants) provided with biogรกs to electricity conversion equipment.

- Another part of greeneries enters directly through flows for composting with other organic wastes from small private operators.

Thus, it is believed that the real values of herbaceous residues are somewhat different than those currently known and the green wastes may represent a bigger potential for biogas production (more than 2 million of m3/year) if an optimized procedure for its collection, treatment and disposal will be implemented.

2.5.3 Green residue availability from Estradas de Portugal With respect to the biomass removed from the roads, the official data provided by Estradas de Portugal, SA indicates that the area under their jurisdiction is about 11,000 ha, generating annually about 25,000 t of herbaceous green wastes (as wet weight), throughout the country, plus 7,500 t of lignocellulosic Waste, as reported in table 2-10.

Table 2-10 - Quantities of green waste from national roadsides

Material

Managed area

Quantity ton WW/Y

herbaceous waste Ligno Cellulosic Waste

11 000 ha 11 000 ha

25 000 7 500

2.5.4 Green waste - data evaluated from with gis In order to have a complete perspective on greeneries availability at national level a different estimation was performed by using the shapefiles and GIS information regarding the geographic map of the cover and land use in Portugal 6. This information, mapping the land use and occupation in vector format, provides a brief characterization of the entire national territory, categorizing the different areas, with a minimum mapping unit of 1 ha and a nomenclature with 193 classes at the most detailed level.

Based on the free available information (level 2), the data related to green areas (including urban green spaces, sports areas, cultural areas and leisure) were evaluated at national level and consequently it was estimated the total quantity of grass residues from these spaces produced yearly. Figure 3 represents the Urban green areas map of the country at Scale 1:1.950.000.

The main result from this estimation shows that about 364,000 ton/year of fresh matter may be collected from all the national green spaces, having an area above 1 ha.

The same procedure was used for all the national roads: national, highways and municipal, using the map and shapefiles provided by the national road plan and accounting an average shoulder and side line (buffer) width of 3 meters (courtesy from Estradas de Portugal). According to this approach the approximately 16,000 km of country roads and high roads can provide about 57,000 ton of fresh matter, considering a rate of 4 cuts/year. Figure 2-5 represents also the roadside green areas map of the country at Scale 1:1.950.000.

6

http://www.dgterritorio.pt/cartografia_e_geodesia/cartografia/cartografia_tematica/cos/cos__2007/ 41

Figure 2-5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Representation of green areas from a) Roads in Portugal; b) Urban green areas in country.

(Scale 1:1.950.000)

This balance does not include the companies dealing with the maintenance of small green spaces (less than 1 ha), which operates essentially in the urban area and normally does not deliver the waste to official operators, choosing to carry out a self-treatment (as composting or mulching) for soil amendment, avoiding the expensive gate-fee, transportation and the purchase of nutrients.

These companies operating in this sector did not take our survey and did not provide any written data about the amounts of grass processed. However through telephone and direct contact and measurement of grass cut in urban areas of Lisbon and Cascais regions, it was possible to get an approximate estimation of the quantities that are managed annually. Then, in the region of Lisbon it was evaluated by GIS, a proportion between the green areas of less 1 ha and the areas greater, obtaining a coefficient which was extrapolated to all the country.

With this procedure an amount of more than 20,000 ton/year (approximately) in wet weight, obtainable in Portugal from the small green areas. This amount probably is not recorded in official database and it is not included in the amount of 184,641 t/year declared by the MSW operators database.

So, as indicated in table 2-11, at national level the estimated amount of fresh biomass potentially recoverable from is 441,000 t, a value significantly higher than 185,000 ton of fresh matter declared by MSW operators. Average the DM content is 27% The average annual biomethane potential of this biomass is estimated to reach about 40,000,000 Nm3/y of methane, if totally used for AD. For this estimate it was considered a production rate of 150 and 90 CH4/Nm3 per ton of fresh residue, irrigated or without irrigation.

42

It is advisable to consider that only 25% of the available amount will reach a digester and the realistic national potential is about 10,000,000 Nm3/y of methane.

Table 2-11 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Total amount of green waste

Source

National Potential of Wet herbaceous waste (t/year)

Green National Areas (above 1 ha) Roadside Green National Areas (below 1 ha) Total

364 000 57 000 20 000 441 000

Biomethane potential (Nm3 CH4/Y) 32760000 5130000 2600000 40490000

Biogas potential (Nm3 Biogas/Y) 54600000 8550000 4333333 67483333

2.5.5 Grass residue per municipality shows the amounts of green waste received by Tratolixo and Valorsul from the municipalities and private entities through separate collection (code 20 02 01). This code includes waste from parks and gardens, which means that a large amount of this waste comes from cuts, pruning and the slaughter of trees.

Table 2-12- Quantities of green waste received at Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Plant

Green Waste (20 02 01)

Valorsul

Tratolixo

Total 2012 (t) Cascais

19,564

Mafra

1,832

Oeiras

1,951

Sintra

1,261

Private

2,298

Amadora

1,188

Lisboa

0

Odivelas

0

Total

28,094

Table 2-13 shows the estimated quantities of grass that are recoverable in wet and dry weight as well as the respective potential production of biomethane per municipality.

Table 2-13. Estimated recoverable grass per municipality and biomethane potential.

Municipality

Estimated (Quantity DW t/y)

Estimated Quantity (WW t/y)

Amadora Odivelas Lisboa Sintra Oeiras Cascais TOTAL

987.7 458.4 9,463.7 796.1 1,361.5 1,237.5 14,305

3,655.4 1,697.5 34,923.2 2,933 5,024.9 4,578.1 52,812

Biomethane potential (Nm3CH4/Y) 128,401 59,592 1,230,281 103,493 176,995 160,875 1 859,637

Biogas potential (Nm3Biogas/Y) 214,002 99,320 2,050,468 172,488 294,992 268,125 3,099,395 43

2.5.6 Grass waste availability per municipality The estimated quantity of dry matter recoverable at municipal level is shown in Figure , drawn trough the overlapping of the shapefiles with the map provided by the satellite representing the green areas.

This allowed definition of map showing the areas with different production rate of grass waste.

The color used in this map allows distinguishing and discriminating the areas by its waste production rate. The area with lesser production of grass waste (<50 ton/year) has red color. It corresponds to the region classified and inserted in Natural Park of Sintra-Cascais, being mainly constituted by natural forest, with minor cuttings. Grass clippings when are cut are mostly left in place or reused locally. The central area of Lisbon is another low contributing area, having high density of buildings and small green spaces areas.

The figure depicts all the situations of grass yield in the metropolitan area of Lisbon and constitutes a valuable tool to identify the areas with major interest and plan a suitable optimized collecting system.

The municipalities of Lisbon (in general way) and Cascais display high number of public/urban gardens and parks in surrounding areas as well as various areas to practice sports, providing the most promising contribute to grass valorisation, with annual productions above 500 ton of dry matter per year, in each parish. The Lisbon International Airport is one of infrastructures of Lisbon area with higher potential of grass cuttings supply.

Figure 2-6. Grass waste availability in the Lisbon region.

2.5.7

National estimates Portugal

Portugal produces annually 441,000 t grass (fresh weight). This amount is good for an annual production of 67,483,333 Nm3 biogas, if all the grass will be used as feedstock for AD. However, taking in account that only 25% of the grass can be used by Anaerobic digesters, a realistic attainable potential is 16,870,833 Nm3.

44

Conclusions and recommendations 3.1 Belgium The given grass residue quantities are most likely an under estimation of the real grass residue quantities which are set free annually in Flanders and Wallonia. Certainly within the roadside management there is a great distribution on the data received. This indicates that not all roadside clippings are effectively removed. In other words: there remains an amount of residue on site. This is well visible while looking at the data related to the different administrative regions of the Agency for Roads and Traffic (AWV). Also between the different municipalities there is big difference in the yearly to OVAM reported amount of grass residue. Some municipalities hardly report any amounts of grass residues, while others report over 500 ton dry matter each year. Municipalities who only report little amounts of residue probably conflate the grass residues with other waste streams within the municipality. A nuance that needs to be made, is that in most cases there are more roadside clippings available in large municipalities then in small municipalities.

ANB, Natuurpunt and other organisations responsible for nature management in Flanders don’t mow all their grasslands annually because of financial reasons. So also at these organisations there is still a great potential.

A regular recurring problem is getting detailed data. Often only the yearly residue quantities or the mown surfaces are known. This makes creating a link between both variables in many cases very complicated. As a result, calculating potentials is very difficult and error prone. This applies for an even greater extent for Wallonia, because the clippings are left on site and no quantities are known. Other variables are often unknown in Belgium. The periods in which the mowing takes place and the machinery used can be found, but variables like time between mowing and collecting and the way of intermediate storage can’t be found.

In conclusion, it can be said that in Belgium there is a fair amount of grass residue available that potentially can be used for biogas production. The residue quantities of the municipalities increase every year, according to OVAM mainly due to better reporting. In addition, not all the residue sources are yet included in the inventory, which will be updated during the project. In the future, it is important to focus on the effects of variables as machinery used, mowing period, period between mowing and the period and way of intermediate storage of the residues. By focussing on these details it will be made possible to find out the optimal way for valorisation of grass residues. Collecting very detailed data can be done on relatively small scale in Flanders, such as on the level of one or several municipalities. For example, this can be done in the most productive municipalities.

3.2 Denmark There are a few limitations on the data presented in this report. First, it should be highlighted that these data are potentials, i.e. they are to be seen as a maximum that could be obtained. In practice however, the real potential for an eventual use in biogas plant is much lower. For the natural areas, the following areas could be removed from the total potential:   

areas where there is already a harvest or where grazing is happening; the so-called “A-areas”, with very high biodiversity value, where it would not be suitable and even damageable to harvest; all areas under 1 ha, which would in practice likely not be profitable to harvest.

A test-case was performed with the municipality of Faaborg-Midtfyn, where these areas were removed from the total potential. As a result, the potential for nature areas was cut by half. In fact, considering that the maximal harvest of 80% for straw with today’s technology described in Birkmose et al., (2013) applies for grass, and considering that the areas under 1 ha should be removed, a 50% cut-off appears 45

conservative, but reasonable. For public parks & garden, according to the figures found in Petersen et al., (2014), ca. 45% of the overall park & garden waste is today composted on-site; and ca. 54% composted centrally. Assuming the latter as the only potential (since it is already collected, it could simply be re-directed to biogas plants instead of composting plants), a conservative 50% cut-off can be estimated. Yet, the real potential is likely more than this since a share of the amount composted on-site could also like be harvested in a cost-effective manner. For household gardens, ca. 75% of the grass is today centrally composted; on this basis, a cut-off of 50% could here also be considered. To keep the estimate of the overall “realistic potential” conservative, the same 50% could be applied for airport as well as sports grass. In this case, the overall residual grass potential presented in Table 2-4 drops to ca.

298,000 t DM/y.

The data presented above are also based on a lot of diverse datasets. The overall potential presented is therefore subjected to some uncertainty. Among others: 







Yield data: In practice, the yield in natural areas would be expected to vary from one municipality, or rather say one specific area, to another. Moreover, some yields like those from sport areas, airports and buffer zones were based on expert judgements; evidences to document these yields further would thus contribute to significantly improve the quality of the estimates herein; Data from sports area: The data of only 4 municipalities were used to derive the potential for the whole of Denmark (through an average of the ratio sport grass to population). Here, there are thus two very uncertain data: the area and the grass yield for these. This estimate should thus be seen as a rough proxy and could thus be improved.

Data from nature and buffer zones areas: these data are from national datasets subjected to strict standards and verifications. Therefore, the uncertainty related to these data is judged acceptable. However, some overlaps and mistakes are possible, for example, some swamp areas reported here may belong to forestry sites and should thus be excluded from the potential reported herein. Doing this would require an access to the GIS dataset beyond what is publicly available; such data were not available to the authors at the time the assessment was performed.

Parks & Gardens: these data are based on a total estimate for Denmark, and attributed to each municipality proportionally to their respective population. Although the total is based on official values, the allocation per municipality should be seen as a proxy only.

Moreover, some types of grass were not accounted for in the results presented in Table 2-4, this includes among others, roadside grass (although this is likely of little interest for biogas plants, since it is typically more contaminated with a variety of foreign items) or grass from areas not included herein (e.g. military areas). The overall estimated potential will however not change much as a result of these omissions.

Table 2-4 shows that the greatest potential lies in the natural areas (in particular fresh meadows) as well as in the buffer zones. Yet, the Appendix shows that these are mostly found on North and West Jutland (Western Denmark). However, this does not necessarily imply that biogas plants receiving grass should necessarily be based there. In fact, there are many other parameters to consider. This includes the district heating infrastructure and the location of the natural gas grid. Further, there is, in Denmark, a political ambition to use 50% of the manure produced for biogas production; this involves that monodigestion of grass is an unlikely scenario, and that the locations where manure is generated must also be considered.

For the specific case of Funen, a recent study by Hansen & Hansen (2014) highlights the location of the existing natural gas transmission lines in relation to the methane potential in terms of manure produced by large pig and cattle farms and biomass from wheat straw. This is shown in Figure 3-1. Overlaying to this the maps of the residual grass potential, some areas of Western Funen (in the municipalities of Assens and Middelfart, among others) or North Funen (Nordsfyn municipality) appears particularly favorable for the establishment of future biogas plants to be built, with residual grass as a key substrate.

46

It should be noted that there is already one large biogas plant on Funen, located approximately at 55.315191°N; 10.315809°E (Fangel).

Figure 3-1. Current location of natural gas transmission lines and engines fuelled by natural gas (both connected or not to the district heating grid) on Funen, in relation to the methane potential in terms of manure and straw. Reproduced with permission from Hansen & Hansen (2014).

3.3 Italy The data of the Veneto region is mainly based on spatial analysis. In the current situation in Veneto municipal data is available, but all the data from companies and authorities working within the borders of these municipalities is missing. This might be a result of the current waste-status of clippings in Italy.

For example there are no figures available of the management of waterways, roads and landscape. The grass along waterways and roads is cut, but remains on site afterwards. Basic figures like areas and lengths are also missing, which makes it impossible to make any estimates based on this kind of data.

The amount of reported grass for the Veneto region is clearly low. The integrating of figures related to landscape management could make a significant difference.

47

3.4 Germany According to the collected data the project region Saarland is good for a yearly production of 24,000 ton DM. In Table 3-1 the origins of the different grass sources can be found.

Table 3-1. Total grass potential resulting from landscape management.

Origin Composting plants (delivered to) Roadsides Nature reserves Total

Area [ha]

Amount [t DM/y]

-

8,560

610

961

4,828

14,484 24,005

The in Table 3-1 displayed potentials should not be considered as exact numbers. From different residue sources like railway sides and waterway banks there is hardly data available. There should also be taken into account that the potentials are spread over a large surface which as a consequence asks for a bigger harvesting effort. Instead of the potential available amount of grass residue, in many cases rather the already available residue quantities are relevant, for which efficient logistic concepts are needed.

If all remarks are taken into consideration, there is an energy potential of about 31,000 MWh per year.

This would correspond with an energy recovery in the terms of the project orientation of GR3, thus use the residue amounts in an dry fermentation, with an average plant capacity of nearly 1.5 MWh (ASUE, 2011).

3.5 Portugal The collection of data and evaluation of grass trimmings potential in Portugal was carried out using all the available sources of information, namely the database from the Portuguese Environmental Agency (APA) and GIS maps, provided by the national geographic system, by the road traffic system and by municipalities.

In addition, several surveys were sent to the main stakeholders in order to get a wider picture of the national situation. Unfortunately, none of inquired private grass waste producers replied to the survey, unless very important data were provided by two major players: the companies in charge for Solid Waste system and National and Regional roads management (Estradas de Portugal).

The resulting data are not fully compatible in some sectors, but provide relevant obtainable information. Crossing the data with the results from calculations based in GIS direct counting, allowed establishing a reasonable realistic framework on the national and regional potential of green cuttings biomass.

Basically, the picture obtained indicates that about 441,000 ton/year can be considered as the maximum biomass potential, evaluated by the direct calculation and information. This amount is a little bit more than the double than the recorded value in the database as Green Waste (LOW Code 200201) and Street Waste (LOW Code 200303), accounting about 185,000 ton/year. The difference can be attributed to green waste collected jointly with the MSW and not accounted separately, the cuttings treated and disposed without being accounted as wastes in the national waste registration system (by Mulching, Trituration, composting and left on soil).

48

In the Lisbon region, the maximum potential estimated is about 52,000 ton/year, a value almost double than the recorded in the same municipalities (28,000 ton/year). Also in this region a substantial part of greeneries is not accounted by the official authorities.

The performed estimation provides a reasonable picture of the real amounts of grass wastes constituting a valuable basis for planning AD based plants and adequate for the objectives of this project. Getting more precise data require a much more extensive work and is not performable, in the actual environmental legislation framework, once the companies in charge for green spaces management clearly expressed their unavailability to provide any data concerning their activity.

Thus, a significant part of this potential is not recoverable in AD plants, due to the environmental legislation imposing to green waste the same rules applied to the ordinary contaminated waste. The serious barriers is that produced GW must be collected and delivered to licensed operators for its treatment and disposal, paying a relevant fee. Furthermore the investment on biogas production has not yet received enough incentives in Portugal and a tariff which facilitates its pay-back in a reasonably time is not available.

Only more favourable policies specially focused on green waste issues can attract new stakeholders and investors to modify the current adopted solutions, essentially based on on-site treatment. Joining the regional solid waste system entails high costs for transportation, gate fee, and loss of fertiliser. It is very difficult to convince an operator/grass waste producer that biogas production will offset these additional costs.

3.6 General conclusion In every partner region there is a substantial amount of grass available. The available amounts in each partner regions can be found in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Residue amounts in the partner regions.

Partner region Denmark Flanders Saarland Veneto Lisbon

Grass residue amount (ton DM/y) 298,000 59,000 24,000 198,000 14,305

Between the partner regions there are landscape and climatic differences. These differences have an impact on the vegetation and therefore also on the grass and potential gas production in each region.

Next to the landscape and climatic differences the landscape and waste management in the partner regions are organized in different ways. As a consequence there is also difference in data quality and availability (guidelines have been produced to cover this). The most reliable data is the combination of area and the produced grass quantity. Unfortunately this kind of data is rather exceptional in the current situation.

Most of the data in the different partner regions consists of estimates. These estimates were made by multiplying the area by the average production of a certain vegetation type. By doing this it was possible to calculate a maximum grass residue production. The numbers in this kind of estimations shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be considered as the residue amounts that potentially can be used for the production of biogas. There should be taken into account that itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impossible to mow in some areas (hard to reach, swamp, too small, etc.). This has already been taken into account for the data displayed in Table 3-2.

As previously mentioned the actual harvested residue amounts in combination with area are the most reliable data to work with. But also here some variables should be taken into account. For example, the machinery used, the weather and multiple other variables have an impact on the grass production.

The integration of this kind of variables has proven to be very difficult with the data available at the 49

moment. In future projects it will be very important to focus on this kind of details. For example this can be done by adapting machinery on a way that data are collected during the mowing procedure.

50

References ASUE (2011). Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Sparsamen und umweltfreundlichen Energieverbrauch e.V.: BHKW-Kenndaten. Frankfurt am Main : ASUE, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Sparsamen und umweltfreundlichen Energieverbrauch e.V.; Stadt Frankfurt am Main;, 2011.

Birkmose T, Hjort-Gregersen K, Stefanek K (2013). Biomasser Til Biogasanlæg I Danmark- På Kort Og Langt Sigt. Tjele, Denmark: AgroTech.

Danmarks Miljøportal (2014). Data om miljøet i Danmark. Søg miljødata, Danmarks arealinformation, download data. http://internet.miljoeportal.dk/soegmiljoedata/soeg_areal/Sider/download%20data.aspx Accessed 09.06.2014.

Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (2014). Geodata download. Forside, landbrug, kort og markblokke, miljø og natur. http://naturerhverv.dk/landbrug/kort-og-markblokke/miljoe-og-natur/ Accessed 09.06.2014.

Danish Ministry of the Environment, Nature Agency (2014). PlansystemDK, kommuneplan, vedtaget; http://kort.plansystem.dk/ Accessed 09.06.2014.

Dinter, S. & Moritz, K. (1989). Untersuchungen zur Schnittgutverwertung. Nr 7 Die Kompostierung von Schnittgut aus dem Straßenrandbereich. Stuttgart : Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen , 1989.

Guerrero et al. (2014). Assessment of Several Weeds for Bioenergy Production Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy. Accepted for publication Hansen JH, Hansen PS (2014). System integration of biogas in the future Funish energy system.

Agricultural biomass for biogas production. Master Thesis, University of Southern Denmark, Faculty of Engineering, Odense, Denmark.

Hansen TL, Boldrin A (2007). Bilagsrapport4: Haveaffald – systembeskrivelse. Modellering af behandlingen af haveaffald i Herning Kommune. http://www2.er.dtu.dk/publications/fulltext/2007/MR2007-301.pdf Accessed March 2016.

Inverde (2012). Graskracht – eindrapport. Brussel (België), 2012.

IZES (2011). Biomasse-Potenzialanalyse für das Saarland. Der Teilplan Biomasse zum Master-Plan Neue Energie. Saarbrücken : Auftraggeber: Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie und Verkehr des Saarlandes, Auftragnehmer: IZES gGmbH - Institut für ZukunftsEnergieSysteme, 2011.

Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H. und Hofbauer, H. (Hrsg.) (2009). Energie aus Biomasse. Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren. Heidelberg : Springer, 2009.

Meyer AKP, Ehimen EA, Holm-Nielsen JB (2014). Bioenergy production from roadside grass: A case study of the feasibility of using roadside grass for biogas production in Denmark. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93: 124-133.

Møller J, Thøgersen R, Kjeldsen AM, Weisbjerg MR, Søegaard K, Hvelplund T, Friis Børsting C (2000).

Fodermiddeltabel. Sammensætning Og Foderværdi Af Fodermidler Til Kvæg. Aarhus, Denmark: Landbrugets Rådgivningscenter, Landskontoret for kvæg.

Pabon Pereira C. (2009). PHD Thesis, 2009 Pasmans R. & De Vocht. (2013). WP 2: Inventory and data collection guidelines. Diepenbeek: PHL. Petersen C, Kaysen O, Priess Hansen J (2014). Organiske restprodukter - vurdering af potentiale og behandlet mængde. Miljøprojekt nr. 1529. Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://mst.dk/88105 Accessed 09.06.2014.

51

Pick D., Dieterich M., Heintschel S. (2012). Biogas production potential from economically usable green waste. Sustainability, 4, 682-702.

Retsinformation.dk (2011).

Lov om randzoner nr 591 af 14/06/2011. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/r0710.aspx?id=137429&exp=1 Accessed 09.06.2014.

Rommeiß, N., Thrän, D. und Schlägl, Th. (2007). Energetische Verwertung von Grünabfällen aus dem Straßenbahnbetriebsdienst. Bergisch Gladbach : Bundesanstallt für Straßenwesen, 2007.

Rösch, Ch. (1996). Vergleich stofflicher und energetischer Wege zur Verwertung von Bio- und Grünabfällen . Hohenheim : Dissertation an der Universität Hohenheim., 1996.

Stenberg B., L.S. Jensen, E. Nordkvist, T.A. Breland, A. Pedersen, J. Guomundsson, S. Bruun, T. Salo, F. Palmason, T.M. Henriksen and other. (2004) Near infrared reflectance spectroscopy for quantification of crop residue, green manure and catch crop C and N fractions governing decomposition dynamics in soil. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, 12(5).

Statistics Denmark (2014). StatBank Denmark. BEV107: Summary vital statistics by municipality, new increases/stock and sex; statbank.dk/BEV107 Accessed 09.06.2014.

Statistics Denmark (2014). StatBank Denmark. FLYV1: Public manned airports by airport and length of runway; statbank.dk/FLYV1 Accessed 09.06.2014.

Veith, H. (2014). Ökoflächenmanagement Saar. Mai 2014.

52

Annex I 5.1 Stakeholders Flanders 5.1.1 Municipalities Gemeente Naam BEERNEM Rita Vanhollebeke BEERSE Greet Kreintz m.a.

BEERSEL Katleen Claeys BEGIJNENDIJK Paul Rens m.a./Christel Cravillon BEKKEVOORT Marleen Michotte BERINGEN

Telefoon 050/78 84 49 014/61 19 71 02/382 08 65 016/53 66 62 013/35 05 50

Email rita.vanhollebeke@beernem.be greet.kreintz@beerse.be katleen.claeys@gem.beersel.be christel.cravillon@begijnendijk.be /paul.rens@begijnendijk.be marleen.michotte@bekkevoort.b e annie.vanschooren@beringen.be

Annemie Witters / Annie Vanschooren Wim Azijn m.a.

Gaby Debruycker Guy Trappeniers Monique Hemmerechts Gerda Vankelecom Eddy Joosen

011/43 02 41

03/750 14 80

milieu@berlaar.be technische.dienst@berlare.be guy.trappeniers@bertem.be monique.hemmerechts@bever.b e milieudienst@beveren.be

Karel Rausch Filip Konings m.a.

Alain Mangé

016/46 15 10 089/519200 050/42 99 42

Karel.rausch@bierbeek.be filip.konings@bilzen.be milieu@blankenberge.be

Els Vandamme m.a.

Sofie Cuypers Anne Van Riet m.a.

Dennid De Caluwè m.a.

Kristel De Meersman Bart Van de Weghe Karl Nuyens - Rita Jans Peter Van Mechelen m.a.

089/ 20 19 18 03/460 06 11 015/50 28 35 03/880 18 88 053/73 21 11 09/325 22 08 016/55 03 83 03/870 16 11

AFFLIGEM ALKEN ALVERINGEM

Annick Van De gucht Els Verwimp m.a.

Jan Declerck m.a.

053/66 25 26 011/59 99 46 058/28 88 81

ANTWERPEN

Wim Kerremans /Kristel Heyman Filip Goussaert Bram Bossuyt m.a.

Rudy Wouters Willy Van Rooten Marie-Jeanne Vlaes Stijn Verbeke Jan Passchier Gerda Bogaerts

03/217 28 11

Annemie Groenen m.a.

Dirk Van den Bosch

014/81 99 11 015/51 11 45

Viviane Douha Roland Deurinck m.a.

012/673619 03/890 69 00

els.vandamme@bocholt.be sofie.cuypers@boechout.be milieudienst@bonheiden.be milieu@boom.be leefmilieu@aalst.be bart.van.de.weghe@aalter.be Carl.nuyens@aarschot.be peter.vanmechelen@aartselaar.b e annick.vandegucht@affligem.be els.verwimp@alken.be grondgebiedszaken@alveringem .be/ jan.declerck@publilink.be kristel.heyman@ob.antwerpen.b e milieudienst@anzegem.be milieu@ardooie.be rudy.wouters@arendonk.be milieu@as.be milieu@asse.be milieu@assenede.be jan.passchier@avelgem.be gerda.bogaerts@baarlehertog.be milieudienst@balen.be dirk.vandenbosch@boortmeerbe ek.be viviane.douha@borgloon.be leefmilieu@bornem.be

BERLAAR BERLARE BERTEM BEVER BEVERENWAAS BIERBEEK BILZEN BLANKENBERG E BOCHOLT BOECHOUT BONHEIDEN BOOM AALST AALTER AARSCHOT AARTSELAAR

ANZEGEM ARDOOIE ARENDONK AS ASSE ASSENEDE AVELGEM BAARLEHERTOG BALEN BOORTMEERBE EK BORGLOON BORNEM

03/410 19 22 052/43 23 40 016/49 99 81 054/58 89 25

056/69 44 40 051/ 74 03 64 014/67 23 53 089/65 12 70 02/454 19 19 09/341 95 95 056/64 59 49 014/69 95 27

53

BORSBEEK BOUTERSEM BRAKEL BRASSCHAAT BRECHT BREDENE BREE BRUGGE BUGGENHOUT DAMME DE HAAN DE PANNE DE PINTE DEERLIJK DEINZE DENDERLEEUW DENDERMONDE DENTERGEM DESSEL DESTELBERGE N DIEPENBEEK DIEST DIKSMUIDE

Marc Tritsman m.a.

Nadine Meeus Sandy Casieris William Vercauteren René Van Dessel J.P. Declercq Patrick Hermans m.a.

Paul Vanacker m.a.

Ingrid Olbrechts Hendrik De Corte Dave Hendrickx m.a.

Krista Hautekeur m.a.

Ingrid Scheerlinck Kaat Louwagie Paul Cardon Inge D'hauwers .

Ingrid D'Hondt Krist Malisse Vital Swaelen m.a.

Dirk De Pauw

03/320 94 00 016/72 10 60 055/43 17 60 03/650 02 60 03/313 80 27 059/33 91 91 089/46 29 21 050/44 83 44 052/33 95 23 050/50 08 94 059/24 21 24 058/42 16 16 09/280 80 80 056/71 44 02 09/381 95 50 053/66 73 91 052/22 08 00 051/63 61 03 014/37 70 26 09/228 33 09

milieu@borsbeek.be nadine.meeus@boutersem.be milieu@brakel.be duurzaamheid@brasschaat.be rene.vandessel@brecht.be technische.dienst@bredene.be milieu@bree.be leefmilieu@brugge.be ingrid.olbrechts@buggenhout.be hendrik.decorte@damme.be dave.hendrickx@dehaan.be Krista.hautekeur@depanne.be ingrid.scheerlinck@depinte.be kaat.louwagie@deerlijk.be paul.cardon@deinze.be milieu@denderleeuw.be milieu@dendermonde.be planning@dentergemonline.com vital.swaelen@dessel.be milieu@destelbergen.be

Lieve Houtmeyers m.a.

Griet Onckelinckx Martin De Ruytter

011/32 35 31 013/31 21 21 051/51 91 67

DILBEEK

Oliva De Vidts-Eric De Jonge m.a.

Danny Klingeleers

02/467 21 11

milieudienst@diepenbeek.be milieuambtenaar@diest.be martin.deruytter@stad.diksmuide .be eric.de.jonge@dilbeek.be

Victor Vastesaeger Ann Hamers m.a.

Karel Boonen m.a.tot 20/4/2012 Nele Vanassche Rita Van Stappen Sonja Van Aert m.a.

Corry Van de Woestijne

02/377 06 31 015/30 72 66 03/289 21 21

Theo Vernaillen Didier De Beck Walter Cools m.a Odette Thoilants Raf De Smedt m.a./ Tim Lenaerts Marijke Mahieu Fockedey Sam .

054/59 61 80 09/384 53 11 014/56 62 66 011/58 65 00 089/654770

Dirk.waelput@stad.eeklo.be milieu@erpe-mere.be milieu@essen.be corry.vandewoestyne@evergem. be milieudienst@galmaarden.be milieu@gavere.be walter.cools@geel.be ot@geetbets.be leefmilieu@genk.be

09/239 43 67 054/43 44 45

leefmilieu@gent.be info@geraardsbergen.be

Dirk Schalenborg Jan Vandecasteele 059/ 27 02 21 Lieve Uytterhoeven

011/88 10 31 059/27 02 00

dirk.schalenborgh@gingelom.be milieu@gistel.be

016/77 70 35

lieve.uytterhoeven@glabbeek.be

Filip Mignon Hilde De Stordeur m.a.

Kirst Deleu

02/532 06 33 02/260 12 11

filip.mignon@gooik.be kirst.deleu@grimbergen.be

DILSEN DROGENBOS DUFFEL EDEGEM EEKLO ERPE-MERE ESSEN EVERGEM GALMAARDEN GAVERE GEEL GEETBETS GENK GENT GERAARDSBER GEN GINGELOM GISTEL GLABBEEKZUURBEMDE GOOIK GRIMBERGEN

089/79 08 29

09/218 28 37 053/63 00 33 03/670 01 42 09/253 11 12

danny.klingeleers@dilsenstokkem.be info@drogenbos.be ann.hamers@duffel.be milieu@edegem.be

54

GROBBENDONK

Luc Van Vlasselaer

014/51 10 20

HAACHT

Willy Van Horenbeeck (voorlopig)016/269 471 Johan de Smet Ronny Wuestenberghs m.a.

Stefan Bonhomme Pieter Cools Dirk Vermorgen Cindy Brenkers m.a.

016/60 05 22

luc.van.vlasselaer@grobbendonk .be milieudienst@haacht.be

053/85 86 05 013/61 81 24

leefmilieu@haaltert.be milieudienst@halenl.be

02/363 22 11 013/67 01 90 052/47 55 65 011/44 50 40

stefan.bonhomme@halle.be pieter.cools@ham.be div@hamme.be cbrenkers@hamont-achel.be

Yves De Bosscher Hilde Pootemans Trudo Vaes m.a.

056/73 33 11 011/23 90 11 011/73 01 45

yves.debosscher@harelbeke.be leefmilieu@hasselt.be trudo.vaes@hechtel-eksel.be

Peter Vanelderen Suzy Van Loo/ Wilfried Wouters m.a.

Theo Segers Nadine Mattheus Koen Dierckx m.a.

Sofie Poelmans Patrick Gevers Van Steenkiste Filip Judith Van Meensel Mr. Markovic Ilse Van Daele m.a./ Geert Caekebeke Raf Vandenborn

011/48 01 01 015/22 86 90

peter.vanelderen@heers.be ww@heist-op-den-berg.be

03/288 26 20 016/21 13 72 014/28 50 50 014/50 21 21 013/55 17 85 02/396 13 64 014/54 13 11 012/23 55 57 053/60 70 70

theo.segers@hemiksem.be nadine.mattheus@herent.be informatica@herentals.be milieudienst@herenthout.be patrick.gevers@herk-de-stad.be filip.vansteenkiste@herne.be judith.van.meensel@herselt.be

011/53 73 71

gemeente@heusden-zolder.be

Caroline Oost m.a.

Philip Peetersille

057/45 04 50 016/76 81 85

Ivan Op de Beeck Denise Wijnen Peggy Van den Broeck Frank Renard m.a.

Sonja Leemans m.a./ Ingrid Brosens Freddy De Cuyper Joke Vandebeek m.a.

02/657 90 50 089/51 03 10 016/62 11 69 051/20 30 30 03/340 19 11

milieu@heuvelland.be philip.peetersille@hoegaarden.b e milieudienst@hoeilaart.be denise.wijnen@hoeselt.be daniel.lauwereys@holsbeek.be frank.renard@hooglede.be milieu@hoogstraten.be

Adelien Vergote m.a.

Koen Boonen m.a.

Christiaan Serrus Wouter Verachtert m.a.

Heidi Christiaan m.a.

051/59 11 36 Eric Marreceau m.a.

Patricia Ryelandt m.a.

Jan Feys m.a./Brigitte Loosveld Nikolaas Croene Marc Konings m.a.

Willem Van Essche m.a.

051/46 07 31 03/460 33 44 02/687 70 07 015/22 40 11 051/58 91 01

freddy.decuyper@publilink.be secretariaat@houthalenhelchteren.be milieu@houthulst.be koen.boonen@hove.be christiaan.serrus@huldenberg.be milieu@hulshout.be milieudienst@ichtegem.be

057/22 85 63 051/31 13 01 051/337319

leefmilieu@ieper.be milieu@ingelmunster.be milieudienst@izegem.be

050/81 01 11 03/620 22 60 016/65 99 04

nikolaas.croene@jabbeke.be milieu@kalmthout.be milieudienst@kampenhout.be

HAALTERT HALEN HALLE HAM HAMME HAMONTACHEL HARELBEKE HASSELT HECHTELEKSEL HEERS HEIST-OP-DENBERG HEMIKSEM HERENT HERENTALS HERENTHOUT HERK-DE-STAD HERNE HERSELT HERSTAPPE HERZELE HEUSDENZOLDER HEUVELLAND HOEGAARDEN HOEILAART HOESELT HOLSBEEK HOOGLEDE HOOGSTRATEN HOREBEKE HOUTHALENHELCHTEREN HOUTHULST HOVE HULDENBERG HULSHOUT ICHTEGEM IEPER INGELMUNSTER IZEGEM JABBEKE KALMTHOUT KAMPENHOUT

055/45 52 35 011/60 05 11

dragan.markovic@devoor.be milieu@herzele.be

55

KAPELLE-OPDEN-BOS KAPELLEN KAPRIJKE KASTERLEE KEERBERGEN KINROOI KLUISBERGEN KNESSELARE KNOKKE-HEIST KOEKELARE KOKSIJDE

Dirk Van Delm

015/71 32 71

info@kapelle-op-den-bos.vera.be

Ronny Denisse Els De Vilder Hilde Versmissen Evi Hens m.a.

Hilde Snoeks m.a.

Anne Debyttere m.a.

Marc D'Hooge Marleen Vandewalle Robrecht Hindryckx m.a.

Jan Vandromme m.a.

03/664 73 70 09/323 90 10 014/85 00 01 015/50 90 90 089/70 03 00 055/23 16 43 09/325 7474 050/63 01 97 051/58 92 01 058/53 30 30

KONTICH KORTEMARK KORTENAKEN KORTENBERG KORTESSEM KORTRIJK

Frank Van den Bergh Greet van Staeyen m.a.

Thomas Erwin m.a.

Yves Marteau Paul Wagemans Lode Valcke m.a. en de heer Mattelaere Luc Ooghe m.a.

Veerle De Booser m.a.

Ann Vanaerde m.a.

Jean-Marie Ongenaert Severine Domus wn.m.a.

Edith Wylock m.a.

Patrick Vansomeren/magda houbaer Frank Petitjean Sabine Galle m.a.

03/450 78 40 051/57 51 34 011/58 62 72 02/755 22 65 011/37 91 40 056/27 70 00

Ronny.denisse@kapellen.be els.devilder@kaprijke.be hilde.versmissen@kasterlee.be milieudienst@keerbergen.be hilde.snoeks@kinrooi.be milieudienst@kluisbergen.be milieudienst@knesselare.be milieu@knokke-heist.be robrecht.hindryckx@publilink.be milieu@koksijde.be of jan.vandromme@koksijde.be milieu@kontich.be greet.vanstaeyen@kortemark.be erwin.thomas@kortenaken.be yves.marteau@kortenberg.be milieudienst@kortessem.be rudy.mattelaere@kortrijk.be

02/719 20 40 03/740 02 10 09/333 71 21 056/73 71 11 013/67 01 10 09/369 00 26 089/73 07 72

info@kraainem.be milieu@kruibeke.be ann.vanaerde@kruishoutem.be milieudienst@kuurne.be severine.domus@laakdal.be ruimtelijke.ordening@laarne.be leefmilieu@lanaken.be

011/88 03 00 057/49 09 10

Nathalie Willems m.a..

Johan De Smet Marnix Vanneste m.a.

Elvire Van Ysacker Karel Van Belle Fabian Spreeuwers m.a.

052/41 11 11 053/80 15 10 056/50 91 80 051/33 63 00 02/531 02 21 011/34 19 41

fpetitjean@landen.be milieu@langemarkpoelkapelle.be nathalie.willems@lebbeke.be milieu@lede.be technische.dienst@ledegem.be milieudienst@lendelede.be karel.vanbelle@lennik.be milieu@leopoldsburg.be

Yvan Decupere - Bruno Dewelde Franky Vanhaste m.a.

Johan Asselberghs

016/23 45 67

bruno.dewelde@leuven.be

051/72 94 30 053/66 60 39

Bart Verreth m.a.Danny Dewelde Monique De Henauw m.a.

Leo Pellis m.a.

Verhoeven Mark m.a.

Koen Laurent m.a.

Mevr. Govaerts Lien Vlaeminck m.a.

Wim De Buysser m.a.

Katrien Dedeken Yvan Bynens

03/491 13 41-42 055/43 10 10 014/88 20 10 02/380 62 15 03/460 13 37 011/78 91 30 058/28 80 20 09/355 51 51 09/340 94 63 011/54 47 61

franky.vanhaste@lichtervelde.be johan.asselberghs@liedekerke.b e Danny.dewelde@lier.be

KRAAINEM KRUIBEKE KRUISHOUTEM KUURNE LAAKDAL LAARNE LANAKEN

LANDEN LANGEMARKPOELKAPELLE LEBBEKE LEDE LEDEGEM LENDELEDE LENNIK LEOPOLDSBUR G LEUVEN LICHTERVELDE LIEDEKERKE LIER LIERDE LILLE LINKEBEEK LINT LINTER LO-RENINGE LOCHRISTI LOKEREN LOMMEL

monique.dehenauw@lierde.be leo.pellis@lille.be mark.verhoeven@linkebeek.be koen.laurent@lint.be luc.veldhaens@linter.be milieu@lo-reninge.be milieudienst@lochristi.be katrien.dedeken@lokeren.be milieudienst@lommel.be 56

LONDERZEEL LOVENDEGEM LUBBEEK LUMMEN MAARKEDAL MAASEIK MAASMECHELE N MACHELEN MALDEGEM MALLE MECHELEN MEERHOUT MEEUWENGRUITRODE MEISE MELLE MENEN MERCHTEM MERELBEKE MERKSPLAS MESEN MEULEBEKE MIDDELKERKE MOERBEKE MOL MOORSLEDE MORTSEL NAZARETH NEERPELT NEVELE NIEL NIEUWERKERK EN NIEUWPOORT NIJLEN NINOVE OLEN OOSTENDE OOSTERZELE OOSTKAMP OOSTROZEBEK E OPGLABBEEK OPWIJK OUD-HEVERLEE

Iris Bauwens Rudy Van Hove m.a.

Sofie Hoste Daniël Jacobs Gemma Besard m.a.

Johan Winters Veronique Vastmans m.a./Frank Houben Sylvia Speeckaert Cedric Depuydt Peter De Cap Emmanuel De Winter m.a.

Jan Boons m.a./Hilde Vandenbergh Benny Peusens

052/33 22 04 09/370 70 20 016/63 40 35 013/53 05 84 055/33 46 40 089/56 05 92 089/76 96 10

Leo Vander Kerken m.a.

Sabine Goemare Hannelore Zoetardt m.a.

Jean Van Assche m.a./Renaat Schoukens Ivo Adam m.a./Karien Roelkens Karen Sterkens Suzy Vanhoutte m.a.

Frank Lammertijn Eddy Louwie hoofd milieudienst Hans Vande Putte

02/267 23 58 09/252 10 23 056/529 372 052/37 08 11

benny.peusens@meeuwengruitrode.be leo.vanderkerken@publilink.be milieudienst@melle.be hannelore.zoetardt@menen.be renaat.schoukens@merchtem.be

09/210 32 11

milieu@merelbeke.gov.be

014/63 94 00 057/22 17 10 051/48 80 80 059/31 30 16

karen.sterkens@merksplas.be bevolking@mesen.be milieu@meulebeke.be Eddy.louwie@middelkerke.be

09/349 05 01

Leo Lodewijckx m.a.

Brenda Quaghebuer m.a.

Erik Mertens Anja Geirepat m.a.

Patrick Simons De heer Van Melckebeke m.a.

Kristel Vermeiren Rachel Van Acker

014/33 07 11 051/77 70 06 03/444 17 17 09/382 82 82 011/64 10 09 09/321 92 46 03/451 11 10 011/68 24 85

milieu@moerbeke.be / hans.vande.putte@idm.be leo.lodewyckx@gemeentemol.be brenda.quaghebeur@publilink.be td@mortsel.be milieudienst@nazareth.be patrick.simons@neerpelt.be christiaan.vanmelkebeke@nevel e.be milieu@niel.be info@nieuwerkerken.be

Luc Leye m.a.

Mevrouw Chris Daems + Eric Coenen Ann Wittouck m.a.

Daisy Colsoel m.a.

Jacky Dereu m.a. en Dewulf Ronny Meerpoel Patrick Keirsebilck m.a.

Saskia Vandamme

058/22 44 22 03/410 02 66

milieu@nieuwpoort.be chris.daems@nijlen.be

054/31 33 08 014/26 31 11 059/ 80 55 00

ann.wittouck@ninove.be daisy.colsoul@olen.be Jacky.dereu@oostende.be

09/362 50 09 050/83 31 00 056/67 11 24

ronny.meerpoel@oosterzele.be milieu@oostkamp.be milieu@oostrozebeke.be

Martijn Reynders m.a.

Erik Roelands Marleen Vandenbempt m.a.

089/81 01 06 052/35 51 23 016/38 88 75

martijn.reynders@opglabbeek.be eric.roelands@opwijk.be milieu@oud-heverlee.be

02/254 12 44 050/72 89 30 03/310 06 35 015/29 75 48 014/24 99 49 011/790 170

milieu@londerzeel.be milieudienst@lovendegem.be milieudienst@lubbeek.be milieudienst@lummen.be gemma.besard@maarkedal.be edith.stevens@maaseik.be leefmilieu&groen@maasmechele n.be sylvia.speeckaert@machelen.be milieudienst@maldegem.be leefmilieu@malle.be milieudienst@mechelen.be jan.boons@meerhout.be

57

OUDTURNHOUT OUDENAARDE OUDENBURG OVERIJSE

Luc Nuytkens

014/46 22 11

luc.nuytkens@oud-turnhout.be

Ann Lootens m.a.

Kurt Van Craeynest Jean-Pierre Maervoet

055/31 46 01 059/56 84 20 02/687 71 50

OVERPELT PEER PEPINGEN PITTEM POPERINGE PUTTE PUURS RANST RAVELS RETIE

An Stevens Christel Simons Mieke Denys Ann Dejonghe Tine Ryon m.a.

Jeroen Op de Beeck m.a.

Ronny Segers m.a.

Claudine Desmet Joseé Slegers Dirk Sterckx m.a./ Johan Wuyts Francine Thewissen Nancy Gabriels Martine lakiere Anja Van Lierde m.a.

Johnny Vanhee Yvan De Cupere m.a.

Mieke Dhoore Godefried Happaerts m.a.

Frank De Groot m.a.

Marc Verbruggen m.a.

011/80 94 00 011/61 07 00 02/356 58 84 051/46 03 50 057/34 62 80 015/76 78 95 03/890 76 15 03/485 79 69 014/65 67 04 014/38 92 45

milieudienst@oudenaarde.be milieu@oudenburg.be JeanPierre.Maervoet@overijse.be ann.stevens@overpelt.be christel.simons@peer.be mieke.denys@pepingen.be ann.dejonghe@pittem.be Tine.Ryon@poperinge.be milieudienst@putte.be ronny.segers@puurs.be claudine.desmet@ranst.be josee.slegers@ravels.be johan.weyts@retie.be

Els Vandenberg Dirk Vercammen m.a. en Tonny Van De Velde Sandra Liessens m.a.

Rolf Van Steenkiste m.a.

03/380 16 00 03/685 04 62 052/39 98 60 02/609 86 00

milieudienst@sint-amands.be rolf.van.steenkiste@sintgenesius-rode.be

Martine De Cock m.a.

03/727 17 00

milieu.groen@sint-gillis-waas.be

Eric Willems m.a.

015/30 50 38

milieu@skw.be

Veerle De Booser m.a.

Annemie Van Paemel m.a.

09/379 80 65 053/60 72 20

milieu@sint-laureins.be milieu@sint-lievens-houtem.be

Paula Bourdeau m.a.

09/282 17 40

Machteld Michiels m.a.

03/760 90 00

Ben Van Hoorebeeck

02/371 22 88

Peter Wiame Karel Lemay

011/70 18 80 056/45 55 57

milieudienst@sint-martenslatem.be Machteld.michiels@sintniklaas.be ben.vanhoorebeek@sint-pietersleeuw.be peter.wiame@sint-truiden.be Karel.lemay@spiere-helkijn.be

Ivan Janssens Jeroen Vermeersch m.a.

Birgit Volkaers

03/568 80 80 051/70 06 00 02/758 02 07

RIEMST RIJKEVORSEL ROESELARE RONSE ROOSDAAL ROTSELAAR RUISELEDE RUMST SCHELLE SCHERPENHEU VEL-ZICHEM SCHILDE SCHOTEN SINT-AMANDS SINTGENESIUSRODE SINT-GILLISWAAS SINTKATELIJNEWAVER SINT-LAUREINS SINT-LIEVENSHOUTEM SINT-MARTENSLATEM SINT-NIKLAAS SINT-PIETERSLEEUW SINT-TRUIDEN SPIEREHELKIJN STABROEK STADEN STEENOKKERZ EEL

012/45 29 21 03/314 63 01 051/26 21 11 055/232711 054/32 61 61 016/44 14 44 051/70 84 14 03/880 00 60 03/871 98 30 013/77 14 25

ROLmilieu@riemst.be nancy.gabriels@rijkevorsel.be milieu@roeselare.be milieu@ronse.be johnny.vanhee@roosdaal.be yvan.decupere@rotselaar.be mieke.dhoore@ruiselede.be milieu@rumst.be frank.de.groot@schelle.be marc.verbruggen@scherpenheuv el-zichem.be els.vandenbergh@schilde.be milieudienst@schoten.be

ivan.janssens@stabroek.be jeroen.vermeersch@publilink.be birgit.volkaers@steenokkerzeel.b e

58

STEKENE TEMSE TERNAT TERVUREN TESSENDERLO TIELT TIELT-WINGE

Jan Van Dooren m.a.

Franky Eeckelaert m.a.

J. Thiebaut Kristien Minten m.a.

Philippe Luts Jan De Craemer m.a.

Katrien Van Robaeys m.a.

03/790 02 11 03/710 12 12 02/582 83 81 02/769 20 56 013/66 17 15 051/42 60 65 016/63 40 08

TIENEN TONGEREN

Brigitte Reniers m.a.

Linda Lousbergh

016/80 57 91 012/39 02 03

TORHOUT TREMELO TURNHOUT

050/22 11 39 016/53 16 66 014/44 33 11 058/33 55 00 02/255 47 20

martine.michiels@veurne.be pascale.fraipont@vilvoorde.be

057/40 00 99 04/381 90 40 014/50 11 01

milieu@vleteren.be judith.voets@publilink.be nele.vleugels@vorselaar.be

VOSSELAAR WAARSCHOOT WAASMUNSTER

Eddy Reynaert Peter Crabbé Marc Machielsen m.a./Eric Verstraelen Martine Michiels m.a.

Willy Mertens m.a. Pascale Fraipont Lien Vlaminck Judith Voets Nele Vleugels m.a./Paula Claes Frans Van Reusel m.a.

Johan De Muynck Jean Van Herreweghe

jan.vandooren@stekene.be milieu@temse.be jurgen.thiebaut@ternat.be milieu@tervuren.be philippe.luts@tessenderlo.be milieudienst@tielt.be Katrien.van.robaeys@tieltwinge.be brigitte.reniers@tienen.be marcel.schoefs@stadtongeren.b e milieudienst@torhout.be peter.crabbe@tremelo.vera.be milieudienst@turnhout.be

014/61 16 39 09/377 18 05 052/46 00 11

WACHTEBEKE WAREGEM WELLEN WEMMEL

Frank Van Wiele Bart Van Walderen m.a.

Sylvio Amor Kristel Vanderhaegen m.a.

09/349 05 01 056/62 12 80 012/670700 02/462 05 60

WERVIK WESTERLO WETTEREN WEVELGEM WEZEMBEEKOPPEM WICHELEN WIELSBEKE WIJNEGEM

Conny Volckaert m.a.

Anne Verachtert m.a.

Saskia Van der Stricht m.a.

Herman Vanhoute m.a.

Bart Villé m.a.

056/300101 014/54 75 75 09/369 34 15 056/41 59 91 02/783 12 66

Brecht Looman m.a.

Dirk De Samber

052/43 24 00 056/67 32 40 03/288 21 52

WILLEBROEK WINGENE WOMMELGEM

Bob Dumez Jan Albers Nick Van Keer m.a/ Freddy Lorent Christophe Poupaert m.a.

03/860 03 55 051/65 00 64 03/355 12 50

milieu@vosselaar.be johan.demuynck@waarschoot.be jan.van.herrewege@waasmunste r.be milieu@wachtebeke.be milieuzorg@waregem.be sylvio.amor@wellen.be kristel.vanderhaegen@wemmel.b e conny.volckaert@wervik.be milieu@westerlo.be milieudienst@wetteren.be Maarten.tavernier@wevelgem.be milieu.wezembeekoppem@wezembeek-oppem.be milieudienst@wichelen.be dirk.de.samber@wielsbeke.be ruimtelijke.ordening@wijnegem.b e bob.dumez@willebroek.be jan.albers@wingene.be nick.vankeer@wommelgem.be

Wilfried Pockelé Robert Verbiest Guido Declercq m.a.

Hilde Dobbelaere m.a.

Eric Van Holewinckel m.a.

Karine Vandersleycke m.a.

Rony Sanchez Wim Van Heule

03/690 46 00 03/484 30 20 02/717 89 40 050/28 82 26 052/45 98 10 09/342 20 20 015/61 11 20 09/384 10 56

VEURNE VILVOORDE VLETEREN VOEREN VORSELAAR

WORTEGEMPETEGEM WUUSTWEZEL ZANDHOVEN ZAVENTEM ZEDELGEM ZELE ZELZATE ZEMST ZINGEM

056/68 81 14

christophe.poupaert@wortegempetegem.be groen@wuustwezel.be milieu@zandhoven.be milieudienst@zaventem.be hilde.dobbelaere@zedelgem.be milieudienst@zele.be karine.vanderslycke@zelzate.be rony.sanche@zemst.be milieudienst@zingem.be

59

ZOERSEL ZOMERGEM ZONHOVEN ZONNEBEKE ZOTTEGEM ZOUTLEEUW ZUIENKERKE ZULTE ZUTENDAAL ZWALM ZWEVEGEM ZWIJNDRECHT

Monique De Feyter Sophie Steyaert m.a.

Kristel Ceulemans Jeroen Coens Marc De Geyter m.a.

Griet Smeesters Patrick Van De Fonteyne m.a.

Filip Tant m.a.

Frans Beckers Veerle Mertens Yvan Van Assche Manu Van Kogelenberg/Karel Boonen m.a.

5.1.2 AWV organis Afdeling ation AWV

District

AWV

Antwerpen

AWV

Antwerpen

District 112 Puurs

AWV AWV

Antwerpen Antwerpen

District 112 Puurs District 114 Geel

AWV

Antwerpen

AWV

Antwerpen

AWV

Antwerpen

AWV

Antwerpen

AWV

Antwerpen

District 121 Antwerpen District 121 Antwerpen District 121 Antwerpen District 123 Brecht District 125 Vosselaar

AWV AWV

Limburg Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

AWV

Limburg

District 711 SintTruiden District 711 SintTruiden District 712 Hasselt District 713 Neerpelt District 714 Tongeren District 714 Tongeren District 715 Maaseik District 715 Maaseik District 716 Genk

03/380 13 00 09/370 75 75 011/81 04 11 051/77 71 34 09/364 64 92 011/78 91 70 050/41 75 77 09/388 81 91 089/62 94 20 055/4805 70 056/76 55 85 03/252 91 91

monique.defeyter@zoersel.be sophie.steyaert@zomergem.be leefmilieu@zonhoven.be jeroen.coens@zonnebeke.be milieudienst@zottegem.be Griet.smeesters@zoutleeuw.be patrick.vandenfonteyne@skynet. be milieu@zulte.be milieudienst@zutendaal.be veerle.mertens@zwalm.be ivan.vanassche@zwevegem.be milieudienst@zwijndrecht.be

person

e-mail

Katrien De Cock

Els Guns

Katrienm.decock@mow.vlaandere n.be hendrik.keymeulen@mow.vlaande ren.be Kelly.cleymans@mow.vlaanderen. be Steven.cloet@mow.vlaanderen.be Anne.Heiremans@mow.vlaandere n.be Peter.Daems@mow.vlaanderen.b e maarten.debruyne@mow.vlaander en.be Ivo.huysmans@mow.vlaanderen.b e Luc.borremans@mow.vlaanderen. be Jan.vannuffelen@mow.vlaanderen .be Gijs.moors@mow.vlaanderen.be Eline.Bouveroux@mow.vlaandere n.be Christiaan.Ceyssens@mow.vlaand eren.be Wim.Meermans@mow.vlaanderen .be Bart.aendekerk@mow.vlaanderen. be Els.guns@mow.vlaanderen.be

Kris Huygen

Kris.Huygen@mow.vlaanderen.be

Jan Moors

Jan.Moors@mow.vlaanderen.be

Wilfried Paredis

Wilfried.paredis@mow.vlaanderen. be Pieter.vermeir@mow.vlaanderen.b e

Henk Keymeulen Kelly Cleymans Steven Cloet Anne Heiremans Peter Daems Maarten De Bruyne Ivo Huysmans Luc Borremans Jan Vannuffelen Gijs Moors Eline Bouveroux Christiaan Ceyssens Wim Meermans Bart Aendekerk

Pieter Vermeir

60

AWV

Limburg

AWV

OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen OostVlaanderen Vlaams Brabant Vlaams Brabant Vlaams Brabant Vlaams Brabant Vlaams Brabant Vlaams Brabant Vlaams Brabant WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen

AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV AWV

District 716 Genk

Christel Wathion Peter De Backer

District 411 Gent

Lieven Brabants

District 411 Gent

Erik Castelein

District 411 Gent

Stefaan desloover Jean Pierre Defrenne Filip Cassiman

District 412 Oudenaarde District 413 Eeklo District 414 SintNiklaas District 414 SintNiklaas District 414 SintNiklaas District 415 Aalst District 421 Gentbrugge District 421 Gentbrugge District 421 Gentbrugge

District 211 Halle District 212 Vilvoorde District 212 Vilvoorde District 213 Leuven District 213 Leuven District 214 Aarschot

District 311 Brugge District 311 Brugge District 312 Kortrijk District 312 Kortrijk District 313 Ieper District 314 Diksmuide District 314 Diksmuide District 315 Oostende

Koen Dujacquier Niki Eerebout Sara Kinds Lieven Desadeleer Lieven Brabants Erik Castelein Sandrine Demolie Tim Lonneux Magda Guillemyn Gwendy Aerts

Christel.wathion@mow.vlaanderen .be Peter.Debacker@mow.vlaanderen .be Lieven.brabants@mow.vlaanderen .be Erik.castelein@mow.vlaanderen.b e Stefaan.desloover@mow.vlaander en.be Jeanpierre.defrenne@mow.vlaand eren.be Filip.cassiman@mow.vlaanderen.b e Koen.Dujacquier@mow.vlaandere n.be Niki.Eerebout@mow.vlaanderen.b e Sara.kinds@mow.vlaanderen.be Lieven.desadeleer@mow.vlaander en.be Lieven.brabants@mow.vlaanderen .be Erik.castelein@mow.vlaanderen.b e Sandrine.demolie@mow.vlaander en.be Tim.Lonneux@mow.vlaanderen.be

Paul Bossuyt

Magda.Guillemyn@mow.vlaander en.be Gwendy.aerts@mow.vlaanderen.b e Paul.bossuyt@mow.vlaanderen.be

Stefan Dirckx

Stefan.dirckx@mow.vlaanderen.be

Marc Marteau

Marc.marteau@mow.vlaanderen.b e Mieke.pappaert@mow.vlaanderen. be Hubertjm.decraemer@mow.vlaand eren.be Jeroen.Bonte@mow.vlaanderen.b e Silvie.decloedt@mow.vlaanderen. be Heidi.debouvere@mow.vlaandere n.be Ilse.dewicke@mow.vlaanderen.be

Mieke Pappaert Hubert De Craemer Jeroen Bonte Sylvie De Cloedt Heidi Debouvere Ilse Dewicke Joannes Dewicke Isabelle Brackx Geert Lievens Peter Inghelbrecht

Joannes.dewicke@mow.vlaandere n.be Isabelle.brackx@mow.vlaanderen. be Geert.lievens@mow.vlaanderen.b e Peter.inghelbrecht@mow.vlaander en.be 61

AWV AWV

WestVlaanderen WestVlaanderen

District 316 Pittem

Rik Loyson

Rik.loyson@mow.vlaanderen.be

District 321 Jabbeke

Bert Brugghe

Bert.Brugghe@mow.vlaanderen.b e

5.1.3 Waterways organisation Waterwegen en Zeekanaal Waterwegen en Zeekanaal Waterwegen en Zeekanaal De Scheepvaart NV

Department Afdeling Bovenschelde Afdeling Zeekanaal Afdeling Zeeschelde

person Sofie Derous

e-mail Sofie.Derous@WenZ.be

Wim Debbaudt Kristel Geens

Wim.Debbaudt@WenZ.be

Gert Peeters

G.Peeters@descheepvaart.b e

5.1.4 Nature management organisations organisation person ANB Ruben Gybels

Kristel.Geens@WenZ.be

e-mail ruben.gybels@lne.vlaanderen. be Kathleen.bervoets@natuurpunt .be Stefan.versweyveld@natuurpu nt.be John.van.gompel@pandora.be yves-baptiste@teletnet.be

Natuurpunt

Kathleen bervoets

Natuurpunt

Stefan Versweyveld

Natuurpunt Natuurwerkgroep De Gavers vzw Durme vzw

John Van Gompel Yves Baptiste

LiLa vzw

David beyen

Orchis vzw Vrienden van Heverleebos en Meerdaalwoud vzw Isis vzw

Patrick Meylaerts Niko Boone

kristof.sc.scheldeman@vzwdur me.be david.beyen@limburgslandschap.be patrickorchis@gmail.com niko.boone@telenet.be

Rene Van Dingenen

werkgroep.isis.rene@scarlet.be

5.1.5 Airports organisation Luchthaven Brussel Luchthaven Antwerpen Luchthaven Oostende Vliegveld Genk-Zwartberg Vliegveld Grimbergen Vliegveld Kortrijk Vliegveld Hasselt-Kiewit

Kristof Scheldeman

person Christel Vandenhouten Sonja Roefs Tom Robeyn Michel Notelaers Patrick Rosseau Bruno Desmedt Danny Schoefs

e-mail Christel.vandenhouten@brusselairport.be Antwerpairport@vlaanderen.be tom.robeyn@mow.vlaanderen.be Limburgse.vleugels@pandora.be Patrick.Rosseau@amcor.be bruno.desmedt@skynet.be danny.schoefs@hasselt.be

62

5.1.6 Harbours organisation Haven Antwerpen Haven Gent Haven Zeebrugge 5.1.7

person Sven Heyndrickx Marijke De Vreese Paul SchroĂŠ

e-mail Sven.Heyndrickx@haven.antwerpen.be M.devreese@havengent.be ps@mbz.be

Golfcourses

organisation Vlaamse vereniging voor Golf VZW

5.1.8 LNE organisation LNE

person Marc Verneirt

e-mail m.verneirt@golfvlaanderen.be

person Karel Vandaele

e-mail karel@land-en-water.be

63

5.2 Stakeholders Denmark Contact details of key stakeholders handling grass and/or biogas for Funen and Denmark Institution Assens Kommune Faaborg-Midtfyn Kommune (overall, environment & energy) Faaborg-Midtfyn Kommune (roadside grass) Faaborg-Midtfyn Kommune (grass overall) Kerteminde Kommune Langeland Kommune Nordfyns Kommune Nordfyns Kommune Nyborg Kommune Middelfart Kommune Odense Kommune Svendborg Kommune Svendborg Kommune (GIS) Ærø Kommune Danish Biogas Association Agro Business Park A/S / Biomass Innovation Network Agro Business Park A/S Danish Energy Agency (biogas overall) Danish Energy Agency (biogas TaskForce) Danish Agrifish Agency Danish Agrifish Agency Arkil (roadside) Hede Danmark (roadside, park for Funen) Hede Danmark (nature areas for Funen) Hede Danmark (recycling, environment)

Postcal code 5610 5600 5600 5600 5300 5900 5400 5800 5800 5500 5000 5700 5700 5970

Name of contact person Municipality stakeholders (Funen region) Else Marie T. Kristiansen Anders Johan Møller-Lund

Erik Møller Mogensen Karin Skovhus Frederik Møller Pedersen Finn Granhøj Rudi Saltofte Olesen Birgitte Birch Schmidt Per Jürgensen Vicki Marie Munkgaard Schmidt Christoffer Kirk Strandgaard Lene Rubæk Jultved Berit Jonstrup Jess Heinemann Biogas stakeholders (Denmark) Bruno Sander Nielsen Knud Tybirk Torkild Birkmose Governmental stakeholders (Denmark) Søren Tafdrup Bodil Harder Tanja Elisabeth Erbs Susanne Kromann Helle Roadside & Public Parks/Gardens (Denmark) Jess Bach Palle Plehn Andersen Kurt Beck Erik Ervolder Olesen

Phone number (+45)

Fax (+45)

Email

6474 6913 7253 2197

6474 6913 7253 0531

emtok@assens.dk ajoml@faaborgmidtfyn.dk

7253 2213 7253 2016 6515 1481 6351 6047 6482 8111 6482 8004 6333 7154 8888 4827 6551 2457 6223 3420

7253 0531 7253 0531 6515 1525 6351 6000 6481 2074 6481 2074 6333 7001 8888 5501 6591 9681 6222 8810 6222 8810

6352 5025

emmog@fmk.dk kskov@faaborgmidtfyn.dk fmp@kerteminde.dk figr@langelandkommune.dk rso@nordfynskommune.dk bbs@nordfynskommune.dk pju@nyborg.dk Vicki.Schmidt@middelfart.dk chrks@odense.dk lene.jultved@svendborg.dk Berit.Jonstrup@svendborg.dk jhm@aeroekommune.dk

3339 4267 4030 1141 3031 3977

BSN@lf.dk kt@agropark.dk tsb@agropark.dk

3392 6771 3392 6797 2523 8448 4526 3554

st@ens.dk bha@ens.dk taer@naturerhverv.dk sukr@naturerhverv.dk

7350 7334 2778 6504 2324 5135 2179 8929

jeb@arkil.dk paan@hededanmark.dk kub@hededanmark.dk eeo@hededanmark.dk

64

5.3 Stakeholders Veneto Companies responsible for the collection and management of municipal sold waste: Company ACEGA APS Spa AIM Vicenza Spa, AMIA Verona Spa ASM Ambiente Spa BELLUNUM srl ETRA Spa VERITAS Spa

Province Padova Vicenza Verona Rovigo Belluno Padova & Vicenza Venice

Regional Water Authorities responsible for landscape management along water courses: Consortium Consorzio di Bonifica Veronese, Consorzio di Bonifica Adige Po, Consorzio di Bonifica Delta Po, Taglio di Po Consorzio di Bonifica Alta Pianura Veneta, San Bonifacio Consorzio di Bonifica Brenta, Cittadella Consorzio di Bonifica Adige Euganeo, Este Consorzio di Bonifica Bacchiglione Consorzio di Bonifica Acque Risorgive Consorzio di Bonifica Piave, Montebelluna Consorzio di Bonifica Veneto Orientale Portogruaro Consorzio di II Grado LEB, Cologna Veneta

Province Verona Rovigo Rovigo Verona Padova Padova Padova Venezia-Mestre Treviso Venezia Verona

65

5.4 Stakeholders Saarland Biogas plants Betreiber

Analgenstandort

Fam. Peter Wirth Hubert Selzer & Ökostrom Saar GmbH H.-W. Gitzinger*** Stefanie Laub

Diersdorfer Hof Markushof

66780 66663

Rehlingen/Siersburg Losheim-Rissenthal

Von-Vah Str. 41 Eichenlaubhof, Trierer Str. Brunnenstr.10

66693 66709

Mettlach-Faha/Weiten Weiskirchen

265 200

66649

Oberthal-Gronig

300

Zur Niederhaardt 6

66693

Mettlach-Faha

190

Wendelinushof Sonnenhof Trierer Str. Mastauhof 2 Kastanienhof 1 Biehler Hof Waldwieser Str.; L 173 Lehnenhof

66606 66606 66822 66424 66687 66606 66663

St.Wendel St. Wendel-Dörrenbach Lebach-Hahn Homburg Wadern-Münchweiler St. Wendel-Dörrenbach Merzig-Fitten

66793

Saarwellingen

Obere Blies GmbH & Co KG Bernhard Schmitt & WAT Karlsruhe Wendelinushof Fam. Schneider Ökostrom Saar GmbH Martin Maas Josef Fontaine Thomas & Tim Bettinger Bioenergie Merzig GmbH Michael Lehnen

Leistung [kWel] 190 800

200 700 800-1.245* 190 230 265 2.000** 265

* wärmegeführt ** Gaseinspeisung (5 MW Gasleistung) *** kein Gras als Inputmaterial

Nature reserves

Organisation

Adresse

Person

Ministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz, Saarland Abteilung D, Referat D/1 - Naturschutz Landesamt für Umwelt- und Arbeitsschutz

Keplerstraße 18 66117 Saarbrücken

Udo Weyrath

Don-Bosco-Straße 1 66119 Saarbrücken

von Tilli

Naturlandstiftung Saar

Feldmannstr. 85 66119 Saarbrücken Saarpfalzkreis Dezernat Umwelt, Bildung und Bauen Am Forum 1 66424 Homburg

Eberhard Veith

Trierer Straße 51 54411 Hermeskeil Paradeplatz 4 66440 Blieskastel

Gudrun Rau

Naturschutzprojekt Auf der Lohe

Naturpark Saar-Hunsrück e. V. Biosphärenzweckverband Bliesgau

Dr. Gerhard Mörsch

Anita Naumann

66

Composting plants

Organisation Gemeinde Kleinblittersdorf

Adresse Rathausstraße 16-18 66271 Kleinblittersdorf Rathausstraße 26-28 66333 Völklingen Niederlosheimer Straße 66679 Loseim am See Betzenhölle 31 66538 Neunkirchen Nenninger Str. 4 66706 Perl-Besch Auf dem Dickenberg 66346 Püttlingen

Person Daniel Schubert

Adresse Lindenallee 2a 66538 Neunkirchen

Person Hr. Wender

Adresse Balthasar-Goldstein-Straße 66131 Saarbrücken Flugplatz 66798 Wallerfangen Zum Flugplatz 33 66646 Marpingen

Person Edith Noll

Organisation Golfplatz Bostalsee

Adresse Heidehof 3 66625 Nohfelden- Eisen

Person Ines Ziegler

Golf Club Katharinenhof e.V.

Katharinenhof 1 66453 Gersheim - Rubenheim

Fritz Schwarz

Golf-Club Saarbrücken e. V.

Oberlimberger Weg 66798 Wallerfangen-Gisingen Golfpark Allee 66606 St. Wendel Websweiler Hof 66424 Homburg/Saar

Jochen Friedhoff

In den Weihern 21 66687 Wadern-Nunkirchen

Elke Sachse

SIUS GmbH , Gemeinde Völklingen Gemeinde Losheim EVK Ebert Vegetation und Kompostiertechnologie GmbH Terratec Bodensanierungsgesellschaft mbH* Schmeer Umwelt GmbH

Herr Dietz Herr Ludwig Herr Ebert Herr Poth Herr Bender

*88% grass Roadsides

Organisation Landesbetrieb für Straßenbau (LfS)

Airports

Organisation Flughafen Saarbrücken Flugplatz Düren Flugplatz Marpingen

Pascal Schu Joachim Trautmann

Golf courses

Wendelinus Golfpark Saar Websweiler Hof e. V. Golfpark Weiherhof GmbH

Pia Maurer Konrad Hirsch

67

Other stakeholders

Organisation

Adresse

Person

Bauernverband Saar e.V

Alexander Welsch

Landwirtschaftskammer des Saarlandes

Heinestraße 2-4 66121 Saarbrücken Dillinger Str. 67 66822 Lebach

Ministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz, Saarland

Keplerstraße 18 66117 Saarbrücken

Direktor Robert Zimmer; Präsident Richard Schreiner; Dr. Klaus-Peter Brück; Martin Schunck; Martin Beier Dr. Günther Linckh; Dr. Hilmar Nauman; Alfred Hoffmann

68

5.5 Stakeholders Lisbon Municipalities Municipality

Address

Lisboa Av. 24 de Julho, 171C 1399-021 Lisboa Amadora

Rua Luís Gomes, 5 B – Mina Amadora 2700-529 Amadora

Contacts dmau.daep.dmev@cm -lisboa.pt Tel.: +351 21 391 23 00 higiene.urbana@cmamadora.pt Tel.: +351 21 436 90 40

geral@ecoambiente. pt Mafra Parque Industrial da Abrunheira Quinta do Lavi, Edif. 2, 2710-089 Abrunheira, Sintra

Geral: +351 21 915 60 90 Depto. Técnico: +351 21 915 60 94 geral@cm-odivelas.pt

Odivelas Paços do Concelho - Rua Guilherme Gomes Fernandes Quinta da Memória 2675-372 Odivelas Largo Marquês de Pombal 2784-501 Oeiras Largo Dr. Virgílio Horta 2714-501 Sintra

Oeiras Sintra

Complexo Multiserviços, Estrada de Manique, nº 1830 Alcoitão, 2645-138 Alcabideche

Cascais

tel: (+351) 219 320 000

dae@cm-oeiras.pt 800 201 205 (nº verde) Tel: +351 219 238 500 municipe@cm-sintra.pt nuno.vinagre@cascaisam biente.pt

Roadside management organizations Organization

Adress

Brisa - Auto-Estradas de Portugal, S.A

Quinta da Torre da Aguilha - Edº Brisa, EC Carcavelos 2776-956 Carcavelos

Estradas de Portugal, S.A.

Praça da Portagem 2809-013 Almada Rua Antero de Quental, nº381, 3º

Ascendi, S.A.

Auto-Estradas do Atlântico, S.A.

4455-586 Matosinhos Catefica - Apart 327 2560-587 Torres Vedras

Contacts Tel: 214 448 627 Email: contacto@brisa.pt ana.martins@estradasdep ortugal.pt Tel: +351 212 879 485 Telef: 229 997 490

http://www.ascendi.p t/ Telef: 261 318 500

aea@aeatlantico.pt

69

Organizations responsible for the processing of Municipal Solid Waste Company

Adress

Contact

TRATOLIXO

Estrada 5 de junho, nº1 – Trajouce 2785155 S. D. de Rana

+351 21 445 95 00

VALORSUL

Plataforma Ribeirinha da CP, Estação de Mercadorias da Bobadela, 2696-801 São João da Talha - Loures

+351 21 953 59 00

Golf courses Adress

Lisbon Sports Club Oitavos Dunes – Links Golf

Penha Longa Hotel & Golf Resort

Contacts

Casal da Carregueira 2605-213 Belas Quinta da Marinha

Tel.: +351 214310077

Casa da Quinta nº 25 2750-004 Cascais

info@oitavosdunes.pt

Estrada da Lagoa Azul

Tel.: +351 21 924 90 31

Linhó 2714-511 Sintra

reservas.golf@penhalonga.com

geral@lisbonclub.com Tel.: +351 21 486 06 00

Tel.: +351 21 468 13 76 Clube de Golfe do Estoril

Av. Da República, s/n – 2765-273 Estoril, Portugal

Av. Avelino Teixeira da Mota, 1950-037 Clube de Golfe Bela Vista Lisboa

ROYAL Óbidos SPA & Golf Resort

Belas Clube de Campo Golfe

Hotel Quinta da Marinha Resort Clube de Golfe Paço do Lumiar Pestana Golf Resort

Cabeço da Serra - Óbidos 2510-665 Vau, Portugal ou R. Frederico George nº 37 Alto da Faia 1600-468 Lisboa, Portugal Alameda do Aqueduto, Escritórios

cge@mail.telepac.pt reservas@golfestoril.com Tel.: +351 218310860

golf.reservations@royalobidos.com Tel.: + 351 21 962 66 40

2605-193 Belas

golfe@planbelas.pt

Rua do Clube, Casa 36

Tel.: +351 214860180

2750-715 Cascais

golf@onyriaresorts.com

Rua Principal – Quinta dos Alcoutins 1750-038 Lisboa Quinta da Beloura Rua Mato da Mina, n.º 19 2710-692 Sintra

Tel. 21 759 17 19

golf@golfepacodolumiar.pt Tel.: +(351) 210424300 Tel.: +(351) 210424398

guest@pestana.com

70

Airports Airports

ANA - Lisboa

Adress

Rua D - Edifício 120 - Aeroporto de Lisboa - 1700-008 – Lisboa

Contacts

Lisbon.airport@ana.pt Tel: + 351 21 841 35 00

Landscape protection management Company Parques e Jardins – Projetos e Construções Lda.

Address

Contacts

Rua Baltazar Lopes, nº 25

Pots & Plants

2795-030 Linda-a-Velha Rua da Milharada, nº 31 B 2745-822 Massamá

Spaces with Life

Estrada dos Foros de Amora, nº99 r/c Dto Mail: info@spaceswithlife.com 2845-554 Amora

Campestris

Mail: parquesejardins@sapo.pt Telf: 210 963 793; 210 961 778 Mail: pots.plants1@gmail.com

Rua Prof. Reinaldo dos Santos, 48 B 1500Telf: 217 718 010 508 Lisboa Mail: info@campestris.pt

Verde Selvagem – Jardinagem Lda.

Estrada Santa Eulália S/N, Casa das Hortências 2679-351 Ponte de Lusa, Loures

www.verde-selvagem.pt/

Green Core

----

www.greencore-jardinagem.com/

jardins@verde-selvagem.pt Mobile: 962 948 799

geral@greencore-jardinagem.com

Jardim Jovem

Rua do Geraldp, Lt 8, Loja Amoreira

Telf: 214 689 805

2645-200 Alcabideche

Mobile: 963 927 128

www.jardimjovem.pt/ jardimjovem@mail.telepac.pt Landscape

Bom Jardim

Aquarella Piscinas e Jardins

Relva Viva

Rua Armando Cortez, nº 1, 2ºDireito 2770-233 Paço d’Arcos Rua Joaquim Eira, nº 478 – 3º Esq. 2750-390 Cascais

Telf: 214 569 530

www.jardins-landscape.com/ geral@jardins-landscape.com Telf: 210 138 567; 214 863 313 Mobile: 919 671 495/ 497

www.bomjardim.pt/ Praceta do Poeta IBNE Mucane, nº 83, Lote 11 2645-030 Alcabideche Parque Industrial Quinta Lavi. Escritório nº9, Bloco B 2710-161 Sintra

comercial@bomjardim.pt Mobile: 963 722 347; 96 810 19 93 http://www.aquarella.pt info@aquarella.pt

Telf: 213 558 232; 216 058 534 Mobile: 925 040 040

www.relvaviva.pt/ geral@relvaviva.pt

71

Jardim Vista

Lisboa: Estrada Octรกvio Pato. Centro Empresarial Talaide Telf: 219 619 213 2785-601 S.D. de Rana Mobile: 916 141 942; 934 485 165

www.jardim-vista.com/ Horto do campo grande

Campo Grande, 171

info@jardim-vista.com Telf.: +351 217 826 660

HCG

1700-090 LISBOA

loja@hortodocampogrande.com teleflora@teleflora.pt http://www.teleflora.pt

72