Background For nearly 20 years, the European Commission has encouraged Member States to improve their management of waste. Several Directives have provided guidelines aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of waste. Recycling and recovery targets have been set for such areas as waste packaging, electrical and electronic waste (WEEE) and organic waste. Massive investments have been made in each country to implement the Commission’s aim of continuous improvement, resulting in numerous waste-recovery schemes. These have promoted a wide range of measures, including selective-collection schemes, establishment of waste-sorting centres, encouragement of composting and use of incineration. The producers of waste, who are ultimately responsible under regulation, have also implemented their own solutions. This has created many different systems and practices throughout the Member States as well as differing levels of waste-management capacity. In Germany for instance, which has taken a lead in this area, there has been some over-capacity at local authority level and consequent cost burden to the authorities and their taxpayers. Poor communication among waste producers and between producers and promoters of management schemes has hindered development of best practices. Effective ways of comparing the costs of schemes in different countries have been lacking. Objectives The Optigede project aimed to develop an integrated waste management policy with the help of co-ordination tools and methods which would harmonise local and regional initiatives at the inter-communal level. It planned to establish pilot partnerships between local governments and private enterprises to improve global waste management and demonstrate effectiveness. Within the French-German project, experiences were to be shared between seven local authorities varying from 37 000 to 510 000 inhabitants, one business association and three public and private bodies involved in waste management. They set out six objectives for the 39-month programme: 1. promotion of a local or regional approach 2. prevention or reduction of waste production 3. decrease in the quantity of hazardous waste discarded in household waste 4. optimisation of facilities and services 5. development of proposals for collection, recovery and disposal of special types of waste 6. optimisation of management costs The partners hoped to see a reduction in the volume of waste going to landfill of 20% by 2010. The project targeted: a 2 to 5% reduction of residual household wastes collected a 0 to 5% reduction of household wastes collection costs and a 5 to 40% increase in valorisation of waste from collection centresResults The Optigede project capitalised on its wide range of partners and experiences to develop effective tools for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management schemes. The project partners carried out a set of 152 actions all targeted towards optimisation of local waste management and developed according to individual needs. Techniques and outcomes were recorded in a series of 150 results sheets which are available on the project website to be downloaded by anyone. Integration of management policies and co-ordination between authorities and enterprises, one of the principal aims, was achieved through co-operation between the partners. Furthermore, the project engaged directly with nearly 300 local organisations, including professional agencies, private businesses, other public sector bodies and consumer organisations. Local networks were created for information exchange between local government and the private sector and will continue beyond the end of the project. However, no signed partnership agreement between local government and business has resulted. Progress achieved within each territory in terms of global waste management was evaluated by each partner based on 11 technical and economic result indicators: The project succeeded in reducing production of household waste in most of its localities by between 2% and 8%. Residual waste also decreased, but more drastically from 4% to 19%. Overall collection costs did not reduce because many schemes required initial investment in equipment, although it is expected that long-term savings will result. The increase of waste valorisation from disposal centres varied from 3.7% to 34.7%. Other environmental gains are claimed by the partners although not quantifiable because of lack of an original reference point. These include reduction in the amount of materials extracted from quarries - thanks to the recycling of construction waste; reduction in distances travelled, due to more localised management; reduction of rejection rates thanks to improved sorting and implementation of a special fee for professionals; fewer wild dumping sites; and reduction in involuntary pollution thanks to improved selective collection. In total, 380 people were trained through 14 training sessions on 10 different issues, including sessions on eco-responsibility, recycling units or electrical waste. Another major benefit delivered was the establishment of a method for tracking waste management costs, enabling analysis and comparison of cost-effectiveness of schemes in different countries. This tool proved highly effective in identifying key levers for optimizing costs in individual schemes. The project is highly transferable because the method has been adapted by the beneficiary for use in all European countries. Before the project’s end, 150 local authorities had already used the methodological guide as well as the cost assessment tool and they are likely to be transferred widely within the EU and beyond.