Regional Council of Eastern Macedonia–Thrace unanimously rejects environmental study for waste-to-energy plants
The Regional Council of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (EMT) has unanimously rejected the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) concerning the creation of a network of Waste-to-Energy units that would process Refuse-Derived Fuels (RDF/SRF) from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The plan included the construction of one such incineration plant in either Rhodope or İskeçe. Although council groups approached the issue from different political and ideological positions, they ultimately reached a unanimous negative decision.
Concerns Raised by Regional Authorities
The SEIA outlines Greece’s national plan to transition from the current linear model of landfill-centered MSW management to a modern, efficient, and environmentally friendly circular economy model through energy recovery by 2030. However, EMT regional services identified several issues in the study.
According to their assessment, the SEIA lacks essential analytical data regarding current waste management conditions, existing flows, infrastructure, and capacities. It also fails to provide clear conclusions on siting criteria, technology choices, or compliance with Best Available Techniques (BAT). Many aspects are described only “indicatively,” with critical decisions deferred to later stages. The basic scenario is promoted without adequate supporting evidence.
The study also does not sufficiently demonstrate compatibility with central EU and national strategic frameworks—such as the European Green Deal, Circular Economy Strategy, and national/regional waste management plans (ESDA, PESDA). Environmental impacts—particularly emissions, residue management, greenhouse gas output, and risks to local ecosystems and public health—are not supported by robust quantitative or qualitative analysis. The lack of geographic specificity further prevents proper assessment of cumulative or local impacts, such as air and water quality, soil, landscape effects, or mitigation measures.
Opposition’s View: Many Weaknesses in the Study
Christos Metios, head of the main opposition, noted that waste incineration can reduce landfill volume and generate energy, serving circular economy goals and creating jobs. However, he highlighted serious drawbacks, including pollutant emissions and insufficient evaluation of health and environmental impacts in the SEIA. He stressed the need for clear information on plant location to address public concerns, reiterating his group’s negative stance on the study.
Strong Rejection of Incineration from Other Political Groups
The Independent Unifying Initiative, led by Stergios Iliopoulos, expressed categorical opposition to waste incineration altogether, calling it outdated in Europe and counterproductive to recycling and sustainable development. Iliopoulos warned that such plants incentivize production of waste to meet minimum feedstock requirements, thereby weakening recycling efforts. He raised concerns about impacts on agriculture and tourism and urged the council to take a political stand rejecting such facilities in the region.
The Communist-aligned “People’s Rally” (Laïki Syspeirosi) also condemned incineration—labeling it “carcinogenic”—and called for public mobilization to prevent plants in Rhodope or İskeçe. They demanded abolition of what they consider an anti-people legislative framework and insisted on adequate state funding, no private involvement in waste management, and infrastructure planning based on environmental and public health protection.
Regional Governor: Many Ambiguities in the Study
Regional Governor Christodoulos Topsidis underscored that waste-to-energy incineration is legally part of Greece’s national waste strategy, derived from a 2021 law that aligns with EU directives and applies only to non-recyclable materials. He emphasized that incineration does not replace recycling but follows it within the circular economy model.
However, Topsidis noted numerous ambiguities and inconsistencies in the SEIA. It does not align with regional waste planning, includes unclear estimates of waste volumes, lacks sufficient technical justification for energy recovery, and raises siting and spatial planning questions. Given these issues and the concerns documented by regional services, he confirmed the administration’s negative position.
