olive mill waste case study analysis

1

Fostinone, L. Li, Y. Liu, X. Mišić, M. Paterakis, C. Phadtare, M. Venkat, K. Wuennenberg, L.

June 2015

OLIVE MILL WASTE:

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS FOR LESVOS ISLAND, GREECE

2

Acronyms BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

EC European Commission

EU European Union

GI Germination Index

IWG Industry and Waste Group

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NAIAS North Aegean Innovative Actions and Support

OMW Olive Mill Waste

OMWM Olive Mill Waste Management

OMWW Olive Mill Waste Water

OMWT Olive Mill Waste Treatment

OMP Olive Mill Pomace

SDP Solid Defatted Pomace

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plants

3

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5

2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................................... 15 2.4 SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING ARCGIS .................................................................................................. 16 2.5 CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 17

3 OLIVE OIL PRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 18 3.1 GLOBAL OLIVE OIL INDUSTRY ....................................................................................................... 18 3.2 OLIVE OIL INDUSTRY IN GREECE .................................................................................................. 18 3.3 PRODUCTION OF OLIVE OIL .......................................................................................................... 18 3.4 THREE-PHASE PROCESSING ........................................................................................................... 19 3.5 TWO-PHASE PROCESSING ............................................................................................................... 19 3.6 TERMINOLOGY: WASTE AND BYPRODUCTS .................................................................................... 19

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES ................................................................................... 22 4.1 OLIVE MILL WASTEWATER (OMWW) ............................................................................................ 22 4.2 OLIVE MILL POMACE (OMP) .......................................................................................................... 22

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OLIVE OIL BY-PRODUCTS ....................................... 24 5.1 IMPACTS OF OMWW DISPOSAL ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 24 5.2 IMPACTS OF OMWW DISPOSAL ON SOIL ......................................................................................... 25 5.3 IMPACTS OF OMWW ON AIR .......................................................................................................... 25 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OLIVE MILL POMACE (OMP) ........................................................ 25

6 LEGISLATION ...................................................................................................................... 27 6.1 OVERVIEW OF OMWW LEGAL FRAMEWORK: EU, GREECE AND LESVOS ...................................... 27 6.2 THE EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF WASTE AND WATER .................................................................. 27 6.3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE EU POLICY FOR GREEK NATIONAL LEGISLATION .................................... 30 6.4 OMWW MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PLANNING, LESVOS ISLAND ............................................... 31

7 SITUATION ANALYSIS ON LESVOS .................................................................................. 33 7.1 OVERVIEW OF WASTESTREAMS, INDUSTRIES AND PRACTISES ....................................................... 33 7.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE .............................................................................................................. 33 7.3 PRODUCTION OF URBAN SOLID WASTE ......................................................................................... 33 7.4 DISPOSAL ........................................................................................................................................ 35 7.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PROPORTIONATE TO TOTAL WASTE PRODUCTION ....................................... 37 7.6 TOTAL MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER .................................................................................................. 37 7.7 MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER PRODUCTION: ...................................................................................... 37 7.8 DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER ........................................................................................ 37 7.9 INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER AS A PART OF THE TOTAL WASTE WATER ............................................ 38 7.10 OLIVE OIL WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 40

8 SOCIAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 43 8.1 OVERVIEW FROM INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................................... 43 8.2 KEY INSIGHTS................................................................................................................................. 44 8.3 POMACE PELLET FACTORY: .................................................................................................... 45 8.4 POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 47

4

9 CASE STUDY: FACTS THAT ENABLED SPAIN TO TREAT ITS OMW ............................ 49 9.1 POLICY AND FINANCIAL AID .......................................................................................................... 49 9.2 MILL GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION AND COOPERATION ............................................................... 50 9.3 TECHNOLOGY ADVANTAGE ........................................................................................................... 51

10 FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT OPTIONS ........................................................................ 52 10.1 PRE-TREATMENT ........................................................................................................................ 54 10.2 EVAPORATION PONDS ................................................................................................................ 54 10.3 LIMING AND SEDIMENTATION ................................................................................................... 55 10.4 UTILIZATION .............................................................................................................................. 56 10.5 IRRIGATION ................................................................................................................................ 56 10.6 COMPOSTED OLIVE MILL POMACE ............................................................................................ 57 10.7 FROM POMACE TO ENERGY ....................................................................................................... 58

11 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................. 60 11.1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 61 11.2 PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS: SOLUTIONS FOR LESVOS ................................................................. 65 11.3 TRANSITION OF OLIVE MILLS TO TWO-PHASE PROCESSING ....................................................... 65 11.4 TREATMENT SOLUTIONS FOR CLUSTERED THREE-PHASE OLIVE MILLS ...................................... 66 11.5 TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR REMAINING THREE-PHASE OLIVE MILLS ..................................... 70

11.5.1 CO-TREATMENT OF OMWW WITH URBAN WASTEWATER ........................................... 70 11.5.2 POLYPHENOLS EXTRACTION AND INDUSTRIAL USE .................................................... 71

12 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 73

13 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 76

14 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 80

15 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................................... 87

16 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 88 16.1 OLIVE WASTE GROUP TASK ........................................................................................................ 88 16.2 STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 90 16.3 JUSTIFICATION FOR FINAL SOLUTIONS .................................................................................... 101 16.4 PHYSICOCHEMICAL TREATMENT ............................................................................................. 102 16.5 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ........................................................................................................ 103 16.6 OXIDATION AND ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESSES ........................................................... 103

5

1 INTRODUCTION

The research question central to this report is outlined below. What follows is a brief overview

of: characteristics of the Island of Lesvos, the significance of olive cultivation, production and

consumption of olive oil, the challenges and impacts as these relate to Lesvos Island, potential

solutions to olive mill waste, and a brief description of the purpose and sections of this report – these

sections will provide a deeper synopsis for the reader of aforementioned topics.

Greece’s Lesvos Island has a population of 86,436 (National Statistical Service of Greece 2011),

and is located in the north eastern Aegean Sea at 39°10′N 26°20′E. With a coastline of 370 km and an

area of 1,632 km2 (LI 2015), the island is Greece’s third largest, with its capital situated in Mytilene.

The Mediterranean sits at the heart of olive oil production contributing 99% of the globe’s

supply (Alfano et al. 2007), with 95% of the globes cultivated olive trees (Prosodol 2012). The region

has had a long history of cultivating olive trees, see Figure 1, and using olive tree products such as

fruits and oils both domestically and for export. The top three global olive oil producers and respective

European production (by proportion) include: Spain at 50%, Italy at 28% and Greece at 22% (EC

2012). Both international production and consumption of olive oil has expanded to a global scale,

indicated by Figure 2.

Research Question Within the current context, what transitional pathways exist for

Lesvos Island to effectively treat Olive Mill Waste?

Figure 1: Olive Tree Cultivation, Mediterranean: 1936. Bull 1936

https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Lesbos&params=39_10_N_26_20_E_type:city%2886436%29_region:GR

6

In terms of Greece’s role within the industry – the nation has more than 132 million olive trees,

producing approximately 350,000 tons of olive oil annually, 82% of which is extra-virgin (Prosodol

2012). Greece is also the world’s top producer of black olives and looks to the Pelopennese, Crete,

Aegean and Ionian Islands for critical supply (Prosodol 2012).

Lesvos Island is a key contributor to the nation’s historical and current olive cultivation and

olive oil production with 1/3 of it’s landscape under 600 mASL covered by olive trees (Schaelicke pers.

comm. a). This has and, although decreasing over recent decades (see Figure 3), still remains a

substantial part of rural heritage and employment with small-sized family owned groves and processing

mills forming a significant part of the landscape. Active olive cultivation is supported by 28.5% of the

Figure 2: Global Oilve Oil Production and Consumption. TN 2015

7

Island’s land surface, with 26% of this allocated to organic production, with speculation for market

increase driven by demand (Schaelicke pers. comm. a.).

Equally significant is the economic contribution the Island’s olive industry makes through

supplying 1/7 of Greece’s total production and 1% of the globe’s total olive oil supply (Schaelicke pers.

comm. a.). Given Greece is the globe’s third largest olive oil producer, Lesvos’s contribution is crucial

to the Island’s and nation’s economy and identity.

However, the industry does not exist without some significant challenges and impacts, at the

forefront of these is Olive Mill Waste (OMW) as reflected in this report’s Problem Statement below:

OMW in Lesvos is created during the winter season each year by the process of converting

olive fruits to olive oil. A three-phased decanter process is adopted, resulting in products of oil (18.4%),

liquid OMWW (45.8%) and semi-solid OMP (35.8%) (Schaelicke pers. comm. a.). Both OMWW and

Figure 3: Olive Production and Mills, Lesvos: 1984-2014. Schaelicke pers. comm.

Problem Statement Currently all 54 Olive Mills on Lesvos Island do not treat wastewater and solid waste (pomace). As a consequence, untreated Olive Mill Waste is discharged into streams, rivers, bays and the sea every November to March period.

8

OMP are high in polyphenols, making it highly recalcitrant and toxic to humans, animals and plants

(Kistner et al 2004). OMW on Lesvos Island has historically, and continues to be disposed to

waterways in an untreated form, effectively failing to meet EU and national legislation around pollution

limits, as well as compromising the ecosystem.

Attempts at treating OMW on the Island have been made in the past however, these have

unfortuntely not been successful. Expressed as a brief timeline, these include (Schaelicke 2015):

Up to 1999 Two mills, Alyfanta, Stipsi, treated OMWW by flocculation using lime for sediment

settling. Neither plant is operating today;

2004 Three mills, Vasilika, Afalonas, Anemotia, treated OMWW using a settlement tank

aiding natural separation of the solids, oils and liquid. In addition, subsoil infiltration

fields or anaerobic ponds were constructed to more fully manage the liquids. This

demonstration project formed part of a Research Program by the North Aegean

Innovative Actions and Support (NAIAS) and was based on a method proposed by the

Waste Management Laboratory of the University of the Aegean. None of these plants

are operating properly today;

2008 10 private mills, as part of a private enterprise, treated OMP through centralizing to

develop compost for fertilizer. Land close to the Gulf of Gera was purchased and

received local authority permission to be used in this manner. The company was sold

in 2011/12, following a breakdown in relationships and knowledge sharing between

the company and technical partner. The company no longer operates today.

2009 A mill in Pigi treated OMWW using a settlement tank and natural separation of the

solids, oils and liquid. In addition, two subsoil infiltration fields were constructed to

further treat the liquid waste. This demonstration project used the method proposed

by the Waste Management Laboratory of the University of the Aegean. There is no

current data to support whether this mill continues to treat OMWW today.

In addition to these attempts of Olive Mill Waste Treatment (OMWT), there are three pomace

treatment factories on the Island. All three take in three-phase pomace, of these:

Two factories have capacity to handle the entire Island’s pomace waste. The aim of

these factories is to extract olive oil by drying out the pomace using organic dissolvent.

One factory, established in 2012, is ready to treat two-phased pomace and anticipates

legislation and enforcement, will result in a doubling of capacity whereby olive mill

owners will be required to transition to two-phased processes where viable. This

9

factory dries the pomace and produces three different qualities of biomass (one in the

form of pellets), as well as secondary pomace oil that is sold to the Italian market (due

to legal restrictions on use of secondary extracted pomace oil in the Greek food

industry). This factory is currently experimenting with composting.

There are a variety of reasons why OMW is not responsibly addressed in Lesvos, these are

outlined below in Figure 4 and expressed as a simple PESTLE analysis using current available literature

and stakeholder interviews as discussed in the methodology section.

The PESTLE results linked to the Problem Statement is significant because:

a) Olive mills are failing to comply with current EU and national regulation on waste disposal

limits;

b) It is assumed from evidence elsewhere, but yet to be scientifically monitored on Lesvos Island,

that OMW is potentially harmful to water sinks and biodiversity - continual disposal of

Figure 4: PESTLE Analysis Results.

10

untreated waste with high levels of BOD, COD and polyphenols are likely to result in

environmental degradation;

c) Treatment options for OMW are practiced by other significant olive oil producers such as in

Spain and Italy, and even other parts of Greece such as Crete – solutions towards more

responsible OMW management do exist;

d) Broader solutions with co-benefits may exist where OMW is viewed as a resource and as

essential byproducts for feed-in stock of marketable goods creates new industries and revenue

streams for the Island while solving serious environmental and non-compliance OMW issues.

Such products already exist such as biomass grains and pellets for industrial and household

heating. Others might include saleable compost and extraction of polyphenols for the high-

end cosmetic market.

The focus of this report is OMW on Lesvos Island: where and how it is produced and possible

mitigation practices to manage the byproducts more effectively. Our specific Research Question is:

In terms of a methodological approach for this report, substantial literature research was

carried out, including the analysis of data and material provided by the Aegean University. A more

extensive desktop review was undertaken examining the global, national and local context. Here

various case studies were looked at more deeply to examine possible solution options for Lesvos, with

the case of Spain studied more extensively. GIS maps were produced from this combined data and a

process of elimination was devised to ascertain possible treatment options for all 54 mills on the island.

Options also examined other waste streams on the island especially that of key industries such as

poultry and dairy farms as well as slaughter homes and distilleries. Four stakeholder interviews were

carried out with representatives from: Olive mills (two mill Owners), pomace factory (one pomace

factory manager responsible for pellet manufacturing) and a regional administration representative

from the Region of North Aegean (responsible for enforcing business compliance and operating

approvals).

Constraints naturally restricted a more comprehensive report, these include but are not limited

to:

Time allocated for the exercise;

Research Question Within the current context, what transitional pathways exist for

Lesvos Island to effectively manage Olive Mill Waste?

11

Lack of prior knowledge especially in Greek language, culture and technical arenas;

Available and accessible data;

Assumptions based on social structure requiring deeper social research to prove/disprove.

OMWT solutions in any context are challenging. Literature states that 150+ patented

techniques were developed to address OMW during 1969-2003 – however, high cost prohibits

universal adoption of these solutions (Niaounakis and Halvadakis 2004). The Island of Lesvos is

particularly challenging due to the geographic confines and dispersal as well as the prevailing social and

governance mindsets existing. However, a number of treatment options and broader use of byproducts

are described in this report, many of these were eliminated based on justifications of unsuitability and

expense. The report does narrow down solutions for mills, and integrates GIS mapping to showcase

final results including:

Conversion from three- to two-phase processing and enabling of OMP utilization;

Sedimentation ponds for OMWW treatment and subsequent irrigation;

Evaporation ponds for OMWW treatment;

This report seeks to provide an overview of the current state and possible management options

for the olive oil industry’s byproducts in the form of wastewater and solid waste, for the island of

Lesvos, Greece. The Waste and Industry Group under the MESPOM Ecosystem Management Course

of the University of the Aegean, was tasked with analyzing product process and developing alternative

options for management of current olive mill waste and byproducts taking into account socio-

economic and geographical constraints, as outlined in Appendix A.

This report does not seek to provide a ‘one-size-fits-all’ comprehensive or tested solution, it

rather explores a combination of solutions adapted to different parts of the island.

The following Sections are presented in this Report:

Section 1 – Introduction: overview of the olive oil industry, olive waste challenges, impacts and

opportunities of Lesvos Island’

Section 2 – Methodology: overview of the approach adopted in developing the Problem Statement

and answering the Research Question;

Section 3 – Olive Oil Production: overview of the global olive oil industry, specific terminology,

production and impacts regarding olive waste management;

Section 4 – Environmental Challenges: overview of the impacts resulting from lack of effective

olive mill waste management regarding water, soil and air assets;

12

Section 5 – Environmental Impacts of Olive Oil By-products

Section 6 – Legislation: overview of EU and national level legislation and framework supporting

OMW management;

Section 7 – Situational Analaysis on Levos: overview of wastestreams, proportions, management

options and site locations;

Section 8 – Social Context Analysis: overview of the Island’s social characteristics based on key

stakeholder interviews, key insights and implications;

Section 9- Case Study: Facts that Enabled Spain to Treatment OMW

Section 10 – Feasibility of Treatment Options; overview of the solutions to treating OMW and

the process of elimination in filtering to suitable solutions for Lesvos;

Section 11 – Feasibility of Implementation

Section 12 – Recommendations; list of suggested actions contributing to responsible OMWT and

broader benefits to the Island through the lens of best and worst case scenarios;

Section 13 – Conclusion; critical summary of final comments regarding the opportunity for Lesvos

to transition to more effective OMW management;

Section 14 – References

Section 15 – Personal Communications

Section 16 – Appendices

13

2 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this assignment is to find a solution, or set of solutions, suitable for

transitioning Lesvos to better treat and/or utilize, olive mill byproducts. The type of methodology

adopted is therefore one of ‘problem solving’. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were

applied to better understand the current context, challenges, impacts and potential solutions. The entire

process conducted by the Industry and Waste Group (IWG) is diagrammatically represented by Figure

6. However, key steps included the following four focal points:

1. Literature Review;

2. Data Analysis;

3. Interviews; and

4. Develop Maps: Arc GIS.

In addition to this, the IWG identified and assessed inherent flaws, constraints and limitations

with both the body of work being reviewed and the development of feasible solutions from this.

2.1 Literature Review A Literature review was immediately carried out and based on:

a) Moodle document download and familiarization – the University of Aegean’s website

featured an extensive range of documents, data, maps and scientific articles under the

‘Industry & Waste Group’ heading. Some of these are featured in Figure 5.

b) Desktop review – a broader search was conducted for additional relevant material available

in the public arena and online. This included a range of reports, journals, meeting minutes

from the Regional Land use Council, media articles and websites.

A review of the existing literature at a global, regional, national and local scale was undertaken

to establish current challenges and approaches towards OMWM. This provided both a more

comprehensive understanding of the issue allowing the IWG to understand possible solutions around

the world; in addition to identifying key gaps in the available literature. Extensive literature regarding

the social aspects of Island communities responding to OMW, as well as the legislative framework of

Greece with respect to the EU regulations, and for Lesvos in specific was challenging to source, with

some available literature being translated by the IWGs Greek colleague. Key literature therefore

adopted for this study includes available documents from Moodle as well as those documents

14

supported by the European Commission For a full list of literature sourced to support this Report,

please see the Section called References.

2.2 Data Analysis Data sourcing largely focused on quantitative research: mills (sizes, locations, capacities,

production and discharges), waste streams (industrial, urban, olive mill specific), location of

infrastructure (WWTW and other industries), and geographic focus (waterways, bays, elevation).

Additional data was sourced online during the desktop review to facilitate data manipulation: to

support gap filling, to verify ‘suspect’ or outdated data, and to support calculations. Graphs were then

generated to diagrammatically represent the findings.

Figure 5: Literature, Aegean University Moodle Site.

15

2.3 Interviews In order to gather a more in-depth and critical understanding of the social dynamics existing

among key stakeholders involved in the olive oil industry on the Island, qualitative research was

employed through face-to-face interviews. Specific steps included:

a) Reviewing existing literature to gain social insights into the current context and key

stakeholders regarding OMW on Lesvos Island;

b) Working with Mr. Dirk Schaelicke, University of Aegean to identify specific stakeholders

the University had a relationship with and to organize interview times;

c) Establishing objectives to guide the type of specific information able to be gained from a

short interview;

d) Developing set, open-ended questions of 10 to 15 in length (equivalent to roughly 45

minutes to 1.5 hours (depending on the response of each stakeholder);

e) Working Mr. Christos Paterakis, Master’s candidate at the University of Aegean, for

linguistic support to translate the four questionnaires;

STEP 1: Situational Analysis

STEP 2: Field Trip Observations

STEP 3: Interviews & Social Analysis

STEP 4: Lesvos Island OMWM Options

- Desktop Review (All)

- Data analysis, GIS Maps & Graphs (Mile, Chris, Krithi)

- Interview Logistics and Questions (Mel & Chris)

- Global Case Studies & Options (Laurin, Laura, Krithi)

- Relevant EU & National Policies (Lucy)

- Global Scenarios of Olive Oil Industry (Tony)

- Onsite Three-Phase Olive Mill

- Onsite Feta Plant and whey management

- Product process & waste stream/byproduct observations

- 4 x Stakeholder Interviews: Mill Owners, Regional

Government, Pomace Entrepreneur

- Positions of stakeholders & implications

STEP 6: Suitable OMWM Options

- Evaluating options for management solutions

- Conduct mapping & apply evaluation

- Context of social, political and economic aspects paired

with final suitable options

- Rationale & constraints justified

Methodology

STEP 5: Evaluating Options

- Investigate island-wide viable waste management

options weighing up pros and cons

Figure 6: Methodological Process Supporting Workflow.

16

f) Confirming and conducting interviews;

g) Cross -referencing understanding of responses from IWG team members who attended

the interviews (post-interview);

h) Writing-up and analyzing interview notes;

i) Integrating notes into the Report.

Selected and interviewed stakeholders included:

1. Mr. Tsanetos Manolis, Manager Olive Pellet Plant, Lambous Milous;

2. Ms. Maria Kanellos, Co-Manager, Kanellos Company, Alyfanta;

3. Mr. Bill Kokkinoforos, Manager, Mytilini Olive Oil, Moria; and

4. Ms. Martha Atsikmpasi, Head of Development Directorate, Department of Industry,

Energy and Natural Resources, Region of North Aegean.

Results from the interviews have been integrated into this Report and are largely available

under the Section of Social Context Analysis. Each stakeholder provided essential information adding

to insights on social structures and dynamics both across Lesvos and more specifically in relation to

the OMW problem. The range of responses provided clearly defined opinions that helped feed into

the simple PESTLE analysis conducted and shown in Figure 4. In essence these interviews were critical

in teasing out some of the social patterns, barriers and opportunities in transitioning the olive

community towards considering take-up of more responsible OMWM. Following the interviews the

key take-away showed that technological, economic and even legal barriers are insignificant compared

to social resistance to change. Reasons supporting this are explained throughout this Report.

2.4 Spatial analysis using ArcGIS A series of maps using software ArcGIS, were developed for this Report. Through this

approach, the IWG was better able to visualize the currently operating 54 olive mills with associated

OMW quantities on the Island. The maps therefore were essential in displaying the current situation

to allow deeper and more thoughtful analysis to develop solutions. The final maps include: olive mill

distribution, olive mills with the potential to change to two-phase, two-phase olive mills with roads

and quantity of pomace, suitable areas for siting pre-treatment units, potential irrigation utilization,

olive mills, waterways and other key industries, and other changing mills. All maps are displayed under

the Sections Situational Analysis and Feasibility of Treatment Options.

17

2.5 Constraints and Limitations Constraints and limitations impacted the quality of this Report in terms of a comprehensive

and optimal response to the Research Question. However, the IWG recognized outdated data and

information impacted a more integrated and effective analysis. Key constraints and limitations

included:

No one-size-fits-all – in approaching the assignment the IWG was informed that Lesvos has

tried unsuccessfully to implement some demonstration projects. Information throughout the

literature also suggested there is no ‘one’ solution to OMW and many that exist are ineffective

and expensive to pursue. The limitation of finding actively working solutions that could be

transferred to the unique situation of Lesvos was understood from the outset;

Out of season – the assignment and Report was researched during the Olive industry’s off-

season. It was therefore limiting in terms of observing mill operations and meeting more active

stakeholders, in addition to potentially observing OMW discharges (including observing water

discoloration and odor);

Time allocated for the exercise – a short and intense work period restricted the development

of a more comprehensive research exercise;

Lack of prior knowledge and a steep learning curve – lack of Greek language skills (Mr.

Christos Paterakis, the IWG team member did provide critical support, however much

information and particularly all interviews, was only available in Greek); the Greek and Lesvos

culture; and technical knowledge of OWM;

Available and accessible data – certain data inconsistencies and gaps were unable to be

resolved either because such information was unavailable, available in Greek, or incorrectly

noted;

Interviews – although these provided essential social insights, interviews were not random,

nor representative, but rather opinions of four individuals. In terms of attending interviews

and analyzing the interview responses, not all IWG members could attend nor understand the

interviews, hence the opportunity to dialogue the results was limited;

Assumptions – initial assumptions based on technological, legal and economic barriers proved

less significant. Social barriers were revealed towards the end of the interview period to be a

key reason for lack of OMWM on Lesvos Island. Social dynamics require a deeper

understanding to enable solutions focused research.

18

3 OLIVE OIL PRODUCTION

3.1 Global Olive Oil Industry The Olea europaea, better known as the olive fruit is a traditional tree crop of the Mediterranean

basin and the Middle East, with earliest records suggesting olives were turned into olive oil around

6000 BC (Schuster 2014). Olive cultivation is widespread throughout the Mediterranean and is of

critical importance for the rural economy, local heritage and environment. Today, the olive tree is being

cultivated in as far removed nations as: Australia, Japan and China, as well as parts of Africa. There are

more than 850 million productive olive trees worldwide, occupying a surface area of 8,514,300 ha

(FAOSTAT 2015). In 2009, a total of 2,911,115 tonnes of olive oil was produced (FAOSTAT 2015).

The olive oil industry from the Mediterranean Basin and Middle East provide 99% (Alfano et

al. 2007) of global olive production, with Spain leading, followed by Italy and then Greece. The biggest

export markets include the nations of: USA, Brazil, Australia, Japan, Russia and China (EC 2012).

3.2 Olive Oil Industry in Greece Greece has 840,000 olive producers contributing 19.7% of the EU’s olive oil production,

equivalent to 405,600 tonnes. This is harvested from 765,000 ha of productive trees and sent to 2,786

olive mills – of which 70% are three-phased processing mills (EC 2012). Greece is famed for its ‘yellow’

color of olive oil, compared to ‘green’ colored olive oils as found predominantly in other major

suppliers such as Spain and Italy. In addition, in Greece, the share of the family work force in costs is

very high, indicating both a high number of very small family farms and the lack of

marketing/professional guidance. In this Member State, olive oil farms are characterized by a

significant increase in margins and income indicators over the 2000-05 period but by an inverse trend

from 2005 to 2009. In comparison to other types of holdings, income trends for olive oil farms were

the worst for the period 2005 to 2009 (EC 2012).

3.3 Production of Olive Oil Olive oil production is carried out in mills and the extraction of the oil is either done through

traditional pressing (discontinuous process) or centrifuging (continuous process). The continuous

process is most prevalent today due to its positive impacts on production volume, minimization of

labor costs, smaller space requirements, better oil quality, improved process control and ease in

automation. Two technologies are established for performing the continuous process: three-phase and

two-phase processing (Azbar et al. 2004). Both technologies will be briefly described in the following.

19

3.4 Three-Phase Processing The three-phase method of processing olive oil, used on Lesvos Island at all 54 mills, first

requires the washing of olives and grinding them with hammers or stainless disks. The paste produced

is sent to a horizontal centrifuge that, with the addition of significant amounts of water, produces three

separate phases which are oil, vegetable water (OMWW) and OMP (RAC/CP 2000).

The OMWW has strong odor, and is a black and highly polluting liquid which requires

treatment before being released in the environment. The characteristics of OMWW are described more

detailed in section 4 along with its impacts on the environment.

3.5 Two-Phase Processing Two-phase processing came on the back of the three-phase method generating large quantities

of OMWW. Vastly used at olive mills in Spain since 1992, the two-phase process for olive production

is now seen as the more environmentally friendly production process due to less water consumption

and minimal wastewater generation (Prosodol 2012).

The two-phase process starts same as the three phase extraction: washing the olives, crushing

and grinding to create a paste. After this, the processes differentiate considering the decanter that is

used (Schaelicke 2012).

Decanters of two-phase production do not require the insertion of water after grinding. It

saves not only water but also energy, since the three-phase process inserts preheated water to the

decanter. While at the three-phase process the oil is treated only in horizontal decanters, the two-phase

requires a further process of centrifuging in a vertical centrifuge to purify the oil (Schaelicke 2012).

While the three-phase process has the disadvantage of producing large amounts of OMWW

and OMP, the output of the two-phase process is a larger quantity of moist OMP. Depending on the

utilization approach for OMP, this may requires another input of energy to have it dried. Therefore,

the energy that was saved at the extraction level may be transferred to treat the residues.

3.6 Terminology: Waste and Byproducts Since both continuous processing technologies for olive oil extraction also produce substances

next to olive oil, it is essential for further treatment and utilization to determine whether these

substances need to be considered as waste or by-products. The EC Directive 2008/98 stipulates the

need to specifically clarify the distinction between waste and by-products notwithstanding confusion

remains (Taccogna 2010). Pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC, a by-product is the object or substance

from a production process albeit the primary aim is not the production of that object or substance. If

such an item can fulfil the following conditions, it can be regarded as not being waste (Prosodol 2012):

20

The substance or object can be legally further used;

The further use of the substance or object is direct without further processing except

normal industrial practice;

The production of the substance or object is an integral part; and

The substance or object achieves all relevant requirements on product, environment

and health for particular use and will not result in negative environmental and health

impacts in general.

In addition, a following particular “Committee Procedure” has been provided in the Directive

to clarify the conditions and technical criteria in detail. The EC Commission is entitled to “adopt

measures to determine the criteria to be met for specific substances or objects to be regarded as a by-

product and not as waste” (Figure 7).

Kontos D. T. 1997

Olive mill Waste Waters (OMWW);

Virgin Olive Pomace (OP), by pressure mills (OPP), with around 30% moisture; by centrifugal

"three phases" mills (OP3), with around 50% moisture; or by centrifugal "two phases" mills (OP2),

with moisture more than 60%, and Solid Defatted Pomace (SDP), the byproduct of the extraction by

pomace industry with solvents of the residual oil from virgin pomace (Toscano and Montemurro

2012); crude olive oil cake, obtained by mechanical extraction and contains residual oil and stones;

exhausted or defatted olive oil cake, obtained by mechanical and solvent extraction and

contains stones and less residual oil than the previous one; olive oil pulp, obtained by mechanical

extraction and stone removal; exhausted olive oil pulp, after stone removal and solvent extraction;

Olive oil vegetation water (“black water” or alpechin), obtained by centrifugation or

sedimentation of the oil, which is black and sirupy with a distinctive odour (Alcaide et al. 2008).

21

Figure 7: A decision tree for waste versus by-product

22

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

The production of olive oil results in the generation of by-products. As indicated in the

previous section, the type of olive processing determines which by-products will be produced. On the

one hand, three-phase processing as prevalent on Lesvos results in OMWW as well as semi-solid OMP

production. On the other hand, two-phase processing results only in the generation of OMP with

comparatively high moisture content (Prosodol 2012). Both by-products contain several components

that can cause adverse effects on the environment if disposed without prior adequate treatment.

4.1 Olive Mill Wastewater (OMWW) OMWW results from three-phase processing and consist of various substances that are

potentially harmful for different spheres of the environment. It is characterized by a high degree of

organic pollution due to high chemical oxygen demand (COD values up to 220g/L) and biological

oxygen demand (BOD values up to 170g/L). Hence, the COD/BOD ratio makes the OMWW hardly

degradable (Demerche et al. 2013; Tsagaraki et al. 2007). Likewise, a high content of polyphenols (up

to 80 g/L) prevents OMWW to be easily biodegradable and causes its toxicity for many

microorganisms (Tsagaraki et al. 2007). Moreover, OMWW has a low pH value between 3 and 5.9, a

high content of solid matter (up to 20 g/L) as well as significant amounts of reduced sugars and high

phosphorus and potassium content. Many of these components can result in physiological alterations

at the organism as well as at cellular levels of species (Danellakis et al. 2011). The specific

concentrations of these different components in OMWW depends on various factors such as type of

olive processed, how immediately olives are processed after harvesting, and type of production process

(Tsagaraki et al. 2007).

Therefore, the release of untreated wastewater into watercourses, as it is prevalent on Lesvos,

causes negative environmental impacts for aquatic ecosystems such as surface freshwater in rivers and

lakes, groundwater, seashores and the open sea (Tsagaraki et al. 2007).

4.2 Olive Mill Pomace (OMP) OMP results as a semi-solid by-product from two-phase as well as three-phase processing as a

dark granular material comprising the olive seed, skin and residues. It consists of similar chemical

components like OMWW and hence is especially characterized by a low pH level, very high content

of organic matter and carbon, high levels of potassium, intermediate levels of nitrogen and usually also

contains phenolic and lipids compounds. In contrast to OMWW, OMP contains low levels of

23

phosphorus (Gómez-Muñoz et al. 2012). Figure 8 presents a comparison of some OMP characteristics

generated from two-phase and three-phase processing. A decisive difference is the higher moisture

and phenols content of OMP resulting from 2-phase processing.

Parameter Mediterranean 2-phase Mediterranean 3-phase

Moisture% 54 – 57 45 – 50

Phenols% 2.5 – 2.7 0.35 – 0.37

Total nitrogen% 0.43 – 0.48 0.50 – 0.90

Total carbon% 25 – 29 29 – 32

C/N ratio 59 – 60 57 – 59

Figure 8: Comparison of some OMP characteristics generated from 2-phase and 3-phase oil extraction processes (adapted from Nair and Markham 2008)

24

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OLIVE OIL BY-PRODUCTS

5.1 Impacts of OMWW disposal on the aquatic environment Olive mill wastewater is currently the major waste product of olive oil production on Lesvos

and is mostly deposed into the environment (Schaelicke 2015). The wastewater is either directly

released into the marine environment or reaches the open sea by rivers in a diluted form. Hence, it is

essential to investigate whether untreated wastewater can have adverse effects on the marine

environment.

So far, there are no studies accomplished about the negative environmental impacts of

OMWW on aquatic systems around Lesvos. Generally, the release of untreated OMWW in water

systems causes a prompt rise of microorganisms that consume large amounts of available dissolved

oxygen and therefore reduce its availability for other organisms. This may destroy the ecological

balance of an ecosystem (Camarsa et al. 2010). Likewise, the presence of high phosphorus content in

OMWW can lead to the growth of algae species and hence to eutrophication of aquatic systems. Again,

the ecological balance of groundwater and surface water can be demolished. Moreover, phosphorus

provides ground for pathogens to multiply and infect waters (Camarsa et al. 2010; Tsagaraki et al.

2007).

More specifically, results from Danellakis et al. (2011) indicate that olive mill wastewater

induces toxic effects in tissues of an examined invertebrate species. Impacts on the mussel species

Mytilus galloprovincialis were investigated as the species´ physiology is well known and it responds

promptly to environmental changes, hence making it a suitable bio-indicator of environmental

pollution in coastal waters. The study shows that olive mill wastewater induces cytotoxic, oxidative,

neurotoxic and genotoxic effects in tissues of mussels (Danellakis et al. 2011).

Further research provides evidence that aquatic organisms such as the river fish Gambusia affinis

and some crustaceans become intoxicated at very low exposure rates of untreated OMWW (Tsagaraki

et al. 2007). Likewise, research of Pavlidou et al. (2014) in Messinia, Greece, being a major olive oil

producing region in Europe, confirms that the disposal of untreated OMWW in watercourses alters

the chemical composition of freshwater as well as coastal waters. Negative impacts on a shrimp species

were detected which proves OMWW´s high toxicity in the aquatic environment. Furthermore, they

found that the riverine ecosystems needs a recovery period of more than 5 months (Pavlidou et al.

2014).

25

Finally, lipids within OMWW generate an impenetrable film on the surface of watercourses

that impedes sunlight and oxygen entrance as sources for microorganisms. This may have adverse

effects on plant growth in riverbank soils and may lead to soil erosion (Camarsa et al. 2010).

5.2 Impacts of OMWW disposal on soil The dispersion of untreated OMWW on soil can have adverse effects on its properties and

functionalities as well as on growing plants since OMWW contains polyphenols and organic acids that

are not easily biodegradable and have phytotoxic and antimicrobial impacts. The germination of seeds,

early plant growth and the formation of leaves and fruits may hence be inhibited for different types of

plants and crops (Barbera et al. 2013; Camarsa et al. 2010; Tsagaraki et al. 2007). Heavy soils such as

clay are prone to the accumulated salts in OMWW which may lead to the collapse of soil structure

(Barbera et al. 2013). Moreover, the high levels of potassium and organic acids alter the cation exchange

capacity of the soil and hence alter environmental conditions for microorganisms. As a result, soil

fertility and soil porosity can be deteriorated. Likewise, many studies agree that OMWW reduces

hydraulic conductivity and infiltration of soils (Barbera et al. 2013). Also, the composition of OMWW

may lead to the immobilization of nitrogen and may decrease the availability of magnesium (Tsagaraki

et al. 2007). Finally, OMWW may also contaminate groundwater through leaching (Camarsa et al.

2010).

On the other hand, OMWW can have beneficial impacts when dispersed on the ground since

its metabolization to humid material by insects and microorganisms could lead to soil enrichment due

to the availability of before mentioned nutrients (Barbera et al. 2013; Tsagaraki et al. 2007). This

potential of olive mill waste components can be utilized through composting and subsequent

fertilization of soil as presented later in Section 10.

5.3 Impacts of OMWW on air The disposal or storing of OMWW may also lead to air pollution since it can undergo

fermentation processes, resulting in methane and hydrogen sulfide formation. This is also why

OMWW is often characterized by strong odor which suggests to construct evaporation and

sedimentation ponds not close to inhabited regions or tourist sites (Demerche et al. 2013; Tsagaraki et

al. 2007).

5.4 Environmental impacts of Olive Mill Pomace (OMP) Various research studies detected that the phytotoxic and antimicrobial characteristics of

untreated OMP affect nitrification in the soil and inhibit the germination of seeds of different plant

26

species. The high carbon-nitrogen ratio and low pH in the OMP immobilize nitrogen in the soil (Nair

and Markham 2008). Similar to OMWW, OMP also adversely affects the cation exchange capacity of

soils, hence reducing soil fertility (Prosodol 2012). These findings suggest that the application of

untreated OMP on soils evokes negative environmental implications and hence may also reduce the

agricultural productivity of affected soils. Therefore, an effective treatment of OMP is advisable prior

to releasing it into the environment.

6 LEGISLATION

6.1 Overview of OMWW legal framework: EU, Greece and Lesvos In general, the majority of legislative EU acts regarding waste and water are in the form of

Directives, enabling each Member State to adopt and develop national legislation to manage these

areas. Since there are no particular provisions for the management of OMWW in the Common

Agricultural Policy (REACM 2009), Member States are obliged to impose their own laws and

regulations for OMWW management. This should be aligned with EU legislative norms for waste and

water treatment and quality. To fulfil this, national water quality standards and specific emission limit

values should be set and proper enforcement of these regulations should be ensured.

6.2 The EU Legal Framework of Waste and Water EU waste legislation has evolved and developed around challenges and problems that faced

over time (Harnnarong 2009) (Figure 9).

Tightening environmental controls in industrialized countries •Basel Convention

Pollution-control from waste management options

• Landfill Directive

• Incineration Directive

Mishandling of waste

• the first Waste Framework Directive

•Hazardous Waste Directive

•Waste Shipment Regulation

Pollution activities control from industial facilities

• Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive

Promote recycling, reuse, and recovery over waste disposal

• reinforced the notion of waste hierarchy

• re-affirmed the Polluter Pay Principle

•developed the concept of priority waste streams

Division of waste towards material recycling and biological treatment

• setting targets for collection, recycling and recovery of some key complex waste flows

•extended producer responsibility (EPR)

•developed the concept of priority

Figure 9: Evolution of EU Waste Legislation

28

The core legislation among EU legislative acts regarding waste management is the Waste

Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), which covers policies on waste oils and hazardous waste that

should be dealt with by the waste hierarchy of prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and finally disposal

(EC 2012). Relevant rules are regulated by thr Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) regarding the final

disposal of the substance. The existing waste legislations can be summarized as follows by Figure 10

and Figure 11.

Figure 10: Relevant EU Waste Legislation

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

Directive 67/548/EEC

Directive 92/32/EEC

Council Directive 96/61/EC

Directive 2008/1/EC

Commission Decision

2000/532/EC

Council Directive 75/442/EEC


Directive 2008/98/EC

Regulation1907/2006

Regulation 1013/2006






Council Decision 2003/33/EC


Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)

29

Figure 11: EU Legal Framework on Waste

The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, as the EU legislation on water management,

aims to preserve water quality and achieve an appropriate ecological and chemical status. The onus is

placed upon Member States to develop strategic plans and implement management for their water

resources. In particular, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC concerns the

discharge of wastewater from specific industrial sectors including OMWW only after treatment, in line

with relevant standards and provisions required by the Directive (Kapellakis et al. 2008). EU legislation

on water is presented as follows in Figure 12.

Framework

Legislation

•Waste Framework Directive

•Hazardous Waste Directive

•Waste Shipment Regulation

Legislation on waste

treatment operation

•Waste Incineration Directive

•Landfill Directive

Legislation on specific waste

streams

•Waste oil, titanium dioxide, sewage sludge, PCBs and PCTs, batteries and accumulattors, packaging wastes, end-of-life vehicles, waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE), Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), mining wastes

30

Figure 12: EU Legislation on Water

6.3 Implications of the EU Policy for Greek National Legislation As part of the European Union, the EU Directives have oriented legal framework for

sustainable waste management in Greece. Yet, this has not been fully explored in the Greek context.

Major EU Directives have been transposed to the Greek national legislation notwithstanding, the level

of implementation in Greece is still lagging behind especially regarding waste prevention and recycling

(Harnnarong 2009). This is due to the large amount of ingrained practice of uncontrolled dumping

that are difficult to behaviourally correct overnight. Further compunding this problem is the limited

geographical distribution of collective systems on the Island. In 1988, for instance, it was reported that

there were 50 uncontrolled dumpsites on the Island, which have been gradually closed and restored

since the EU Directive and fines on dumping came into effect.

Water Framework Directive

(2000/60/EC)




Council Regulation 807/2003/EC




Regulation 1882/2003/EC

Regulation 807/2003/EC







Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

91/271/EEC

Groundwater Directive

2006/118/EC

31

There are long-standing policies and particular regulations absent in Greece regarding OMWW

management (EC 2012). The principles of OMWW are based on the Law 1650/86 and 3010/2002

“For the Protection of the Environment”. This requires the local owners to conduct an environmental

impact assessment and prevent direct discharge of untreated olive mill waste to soil surface (EC 2012).

In addition, the recent Joint Ministerial Decision (KYA) 145116/2011, regulates the multi-purpose

reuse of treated water, with the use of biological treatment and disinfection units as the minimum

requirements (see Figure 13 below).

Figure 13: Greek National Legislation on OMWW

6.4 OMWW Management Policy and Planning, Lesvos Island Lesvos Island is responsible for adopting specific olive mill management practices and setting

wastewater limits at a regional level (EC 2006). The guidance of limits was set by the specific Law

1180/1981 (see Table 1), which focused on discharge from oil production and treatment. The

implementation and final issue of limits for wastewater discharging are depended on the prefectural

authority according to the location of the specific water recipient (Papadakis 2006).

Table 1: Wastewater Limits by Law - 1180/1981

Law 1650/86“For the

protection of the Environment”

The circular letterYM/578/23-1-1992

Joint Ministerial Decision (KYA)145116/2011

Olive mills obliged to provide an EIA

Efficient waste pre-treatment

Avoid disposal to various water resources

Regulates reuse of treated wastewater for several purposes, i.e. irrigation

32

Features of Treated Waste (Kg)

Maximum Value Monthly Average

pH 6-9 6-9

BOD5 4,00 2,00

COD 6,00 3,00

Suspended solids 5,00 2,00

Fats and oils 1,00 0,50

Phenols Total As required by the applicable current legislation

As required by the applicable current legislation

According to the Common Ministerial Decision (Φ15/4187/266/ΦΕΚ 1275Β/11-4-2012), all

treated wastewater discharged into surface water (streams, rivers, sea) by olive mills in Lesvos should

achieve the above-mentioned limits. The regional authorities are empowered to impose specific terms

to the olive mill operation (decision 2012), to enforce compliance.

33

7 SITUATION ANALYSIS ON LESVOS

Historically there has been very little waste management of any kind on the island. In the last

twenty-years this has started to change. The Municipality of Lesvos commenced recycling and solid

waste management by establishing much-needed infrastructure, such as a sanitary landfill (Schaelicke

pers. comm. b). In addition and more recently, increasing EU regulation is impacting national

environmental protection laws, and as a consequence more changes are afoot. This Section provides

and overview of current wastestreams, siting of infrastructure and management.

7.1 Overview of Wastestreams, Industries and Practises The following section conveys the current context of both solid and liquid waste in Lesvos

including: characteristics, production and disposal. The relevance of such data is to:

a) evidence current status of the waste management on the island and to outline problems,

and at the same time; and

b) begin to analyze how this context might be managed more responsibly given current island

geographic and industrial proximity, waste quantity and infrastructural knowledge.

Impacts are discussed in Section 8 and solutions in Section 10.

7.2 Municipal Solid Waste The population of Lesvos Island is 86,436 (Schaelicke pers. comm. b). According to the latest

Greek legislation (Spilanis pers. comm.), the whole Island is one single municipality with several

municipal units comprised from municipal communities. The largest municipal unit is the City of

Mytilini with a population of 37,890 (Schaelicke pers. comm. b), with further data showing us that the

population is largely permanent as opposed to transient or seasonal.

7.3 Production of Urban Solid Waste The average municipal solid waste production per capita per day is around 0,98 kg (Schaelicke

pers. comm. b). This number includes both municipal solid waste as well as industrial waste. The total

waste generation per year is around 165,160 tonnes.

34

Figure 14: Total Waste Profile, Lesvos. Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

Figure 14 above shows waste streams on Lesvos Island and clearly depicts agriculture and

animal husbandry as the main activities – this results in a large amount of organic waste both from

the process of food production and animal effluent.

Figure 15: Urban Solid Waste Profile, Lesvos. Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

35

Figure 16: Urban Solid Waste Profile in Greece. Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

The comparison of composition of urban solid waste profiles between Greece and Lesvos

shows similar patterns. The largest share is composed of food waste, or as is it labeled in the case of

Lesvos, fermentable waste. The second largest proportion is paper with an identical share in total

waste compostion. This suggests that urban solid waste management practices from the mainland can

also be implemented on Lesvos. Furthermore, it shows that there are no issues related to the urban

solid waste that is specific to Lesvos Island.

7.4 Disposal Disposal of all urban solid waste on Lesvos Island is carried out at a single location - a new

sanitary landfill with a total surface of 30,7 ha. From this 7,7 ha is for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

disposal and 7,5 ha is for inert waste disposal. Inert waste is that which will: not decompose, where

there is no risk of leakage to the ground, where there are no emissions to the air, or where there are

no potentially harmful substances. The total volume for MSW disposal is around 700,000 m3

(Schaelicke pers. comm. b.). However, the new sanitary landfill has been in service for only few years.

Prior to the construction of the new centralized landfill, many local landfills and uncontrolled

dumpsites were used. Figure 17 below shows both the new centralized sanitary landfill in addition to

previous landfills. Some of the previously used landfills are under the process of remediation, i.e. they

are being secured to prevent possible harmful environmental and human health impacts.

36

Figure 17: Current and Previous Landfill Sites, Lesvos. Kontos D. T. 1997

37

7.5 Industrial Waste Proportionate to Total Waste Production Beyond urban solid waste, a significant part of the total wastestream can be desribed as

industrial waste. This waste is coming from key industries on the Island and excludes waste from olive

processing. Other significant industries include: poultry houses, slaughterhouses, distilleries and dairy

units. Current industrial waste production is around 13,500 tonnes per year. However, 98% of this

figure is derived from poultry houses and this is diverted from landfill through being reapplied to

agricultural land in the form of manure and compost for land fertilization. The waste from the poultry

houses is estimated from the number of animals filling a poultry house across a complete year. Waste

from the slaughterhouses is sent to landfill.

Figure 18: Industrial Waste Profile (exc. Olive industry). Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

7.6 Total municipal waste water

7.7 Municipal waste water production: The per capita wastewater production on Lesvos is around 212 L/capita/day. A simple

calculation shows that the annual discharge of municipal wastewater is around 6,887,820 m3. However

this number does not include from industrial waste water.

7.8 Disposal of municipal waste water Figure 19 below shows the official wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) on Lesvos Island.

There is no available data on the current operational status of these treatment plants. The biggest plant

Distileries0% Slaughterhouses

2%

Poultryhouses98%

Industrial waste

38

is in Mytilene with a capacity of 10,000 m3 per day. The two other plants are much smaller with a

capacity of around 2,000 m3 per day, with the WWTP in Molyvos having a capacity of around 3,000

m3 per day. Combined, these plants combined meet the wastewater treatment needs of around 38,550

people, or 44,5 % of the total population of Lesvos Island (Schaelicke pers. comm. b.).

Figure 19: WWTP Sites, Lesvos. Kontos D. T. 1997

The technology used in these WWTP’s (e.g. Mytilene) is extended aeration without primary

settlement and biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal.

7.9 Industrial waste water as a part of the total waste water As in the case of solid waste production, industries on the island are also producing significant

amounts of wastewater. The estimation of total wastewater production derived from the industrial

sector is around 108,000 m3 per year (Schaelicke pers. comm. b). However, this estimation is quite

speculative. For instance, olive mill wastewater discharge is calculated as an average of a two-year

production (biennial cycles). In case of diary units, an estimation of excess whey as well as waste water,

is taken into account. The waste water is estimated based on an estimation that processing of 1 t of

milk will produce 1m3 of the wastewater. Furthermore, it is important to mention that all poultry

39

houses apply primary treatment of wastewater, in addition to some diary units. Olive mils, apart from

a few exceptions, do not have any kind of pre-treatment on site; none of these units are functional.

Figure 20: Total Wastewater Production Profile, Lesvos. Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

Figure 21 below shows diary unit locations along with the locations of differently sized olive

mills. The purpose of this figure is to stress geographic proximity – both between the industries and

in relation to the Island’s watercourses. As there is a lack of WWTPs and onsite pre-treatment, high

organic loads would be discharged almost directly to these watercourses presumably stressing the

environment. Given the locations of these industries with largely organic and therefore highly

concentrated wastewater, a solution might be co-treatment with other industrial wastewater.

40

Figure 21: WWTP and Olive Mill Sites, Lesvos. Kontos D. T. 1997

7.10 Olive Oil Waste Management

As shown in Figures 22 and 23, there are currently 54 olive mills operating on Lesvos Island

of varying sizes and technical capabilities (Schaelicke pers. comm. b). The words “currently operating”

refer to ‘mills that have been operating at least one year in the last three years’. Mill size is calculated

on the basis of average weight of olive processed in the last two operating years within the last three-

year’ time-span.

41

Figure 22: Olive Mill Sites, Lesvos. Kontos D. T. 1997

Figure 23: Olive Mills by Size and Location, Lesvos. Kontos D. T. 1997

Calculations of the wastewater were based on the equation which says that, for processing

100kg of olives, 135L of wastewater will be discharged. The graphs below show total olive processes

42

as well as total wastewater discharged per year, in the last seven years. The trend of biennial olive cycle

is clear.

Figure 24: Total Kilograms of Olives Processed, Lesvos: 2007-2014. Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

Figure 25: Total OMWW production, Lesvos: 2007-2014.. Schaelicke pers. comm. b.

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

70000000

80000000

90000000

100000000

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2012 2013-2014

43

8 SOCIAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS

Lesvos Island enjoys a unique culture and mentality as it relates to the olive oil industry.

Anecdotal feedback during this project exercise suggests this mentality may sit apart from the rest of

Greece and is characterised by a reluctance to change even in the face of possible beneficial gains

(Paterakis pers. comm.). Such anecdotes are supported by the historical inertia of the olive oil industry

in managing its liquid and solid waste, while others in Crete, Spain and Italy have progressed at large.

Furthermore, interview results support social resistance to transitioning the industry to more

responsibly manage waste products and to leapfrog into utilizing, and even marketing, niche

byproducts. There are a variety of assumed reasons for such resistance; these are steeped in governance

issues, legal expectations and social arrangements centred around small family holdings. The social

context is analysed crudely and outlined below in sections dealing with the overview of interviews, key

insights and possible implications.

8.1 Overview from Interviews Four interviews (see Appendices 20.2 for full interview notes), were conducted with key

stakeholders to ascertain insights into the historical, current and possible future social dynamics, central

to the olive oil industry and waste management options on Lesvos Island. Interviewees, their roles and

industry positions are described below in Table 2.

Table 2: Stakeholder Interviewees, Roles and Industry Positions

INTERVIEWEE ROLE INDUSTRY POSITION

1. Mr. Tsanetos Manolis,

Manager Olive Pellet Plant,

Lambous Milous

Pomace Factory

The first out of three pomace

factories to be equipped to

manage two-phase approach.

Processes three-phased

pomace with saleable

byproducts of: pomace oil,

pomace biomass, pomace

pellets and compost.

OMW Entrepreneur

Established factory to take the

first-mover advantage to

process two-phased pomace

and market byproducts

domestically and

internationally. Believes the

Lesvos Island market is viable

but sees social change

hindered by tradition and lack

of collective vision, as key

44

barriers.

2. Ms. Maria Kanellos, Co-

Manager, Kanellos

Company,Alyfanta

Olive Mill Owner

Family run mill formerly

treated wastewater through

holding tanks and lime, no

longer applies lime treatment.

Waste water released to the

sea.

Olive Oil Producer

Believes law will eventually

insist on transition. Will apply

the installed two-phased

decanter when forced. Has no

solution to wastewater.

3. Mr. Bill Kokkinoforos,

Manager, Mytilini Olive Oil,

Moria

Olive Mill Owner

Family run mill. No

wastewater treatment. Waste

water released to the sea.

Olive Oil Producer

Believes the 300-year practice

is organic and does not

negatively impact the

environment. No evidence

supports any negative impacts.

Would consider using a two-

phased decanter if the

authorities demonstrated cost-

effective solutions.

4. Ms. Martha Atsikmpasi,

Head of Development

Directorate, Department of

Industry, Energy and Natural

Resources, Region of North

Aegean.

Government Authority

Formerly worked under the

Prefecture level. Large

restructuring has resulted in a

change of governance and

procedures. Former

noncompliance OMWM

loopholes are now closed.

OMWW Compliance

2015 marks a new proactive

approach with 16

noncompliance fines issued

randomly across the mills.

Believe some concessions such

as reduced BOD loading limits

can be made in exchange for

Mill Owners implementing

some form of on-site OMWM.

8.2 Key Insights Interviewees were directly approached as opposed to randomly selected, and were limited to

four stakeholders in total as opposed to representatively sampled. Nonetheless significant information

was volunteered by each interviewee that adequately paints a picture of the social context and

complexity of relationships between government agencies, mill owners and pomace factory owners.

Key insights gleaned from the four stakeholder interviews included the following:

45

8.3 POMACE PELLET FACTORY: 1. Viable all-year round business: The four initial investors were set to recoup their financial

returns to breakeven within a 3-year period from when the business was established. The

factory is able to almost double its production if it can get the feedstock. Research and

Development is looking to use the off-season to produce biomass to energy (heating mainly)

from artichoke crops grown on Limnus island.

2. Low waste, high byproducts: The pomace pellet factory produces little waste as most is

reused or lost in the process via biomass, evaporation, water recirculation, packaged

byproducts of oil and pellets, and on-site composting. Four of the five byproducts are

repackaged into containers and sold to both domestic and international markets.

3. National waste laws act as barrier: Pomace oil once extracted from the process is prevented

from being sold on the local (Greek) market by national law. The law sees extracted pomace

oil as a waste product and not fit for integration into the food industry. Instead this product is

sold to the Italian market where is mixed with other oils and used in the food industry there,

or sold back to Greece.

4. A Threat: The pomace pellet factory buys pomace at 16 euro/kg (the same rate as the other

two pomace factories) from a few private mill owners. He has had to network very hard to

secure these suppliers and believes his business is viewed as a threat by olive mills cooperatives

and the two other pomace factories. The owner’s views are based on a lack of industry inclusion

and engagement with his factory. This may be a result of Mill Owner now having no excuse to

make a switch to two-phase production as prior to the establishment and operation of the

pomace pellet factory, Mill Owners could justifiably use the rhetoric of having nowhere to take

the solid waste, and therefore this supported not making any effort to switch to two-phase

processing or consider more effective waste treatment.

5. Installing two-phase decanters: Both the Mill Owners interviewed have two-phase

decanters procured with EU funds provided under a productivity and technology enhancement

program around 2005-2009. Mill Owners decided to upgrade technology and install a two

phase decanter in anticipation of eventual regulation changes. Neither Mill Owner intend to

make the shift from three to two-phase processing until there is no choice by law.

6. Resisting change: Mill Owners are resistant to change, maintaining the understandable

rationale that they have carried out this work for hundreds of years; that this is part of their

heritage and they know what they are doing; and that the waste material is all natural and

46

organic, so not harmful to the environment. In addition, the obvious lack of locally evidenced

environmental impacts through research and monitoring OMW, continues to be used as a

justification by Mill Owners to continue to defer treatment. Mill Owners also feel if

government wants them to comply with strict regulation, then government should tell them

how - if this proves cost effective and simple to the Mill Owner, they will make the suggested

and supported changes.

REGION OF NORTH AEGEAN GOVERNMENT:

7. A Legacy of Poor Governance: Up to 2010/11, the former governance structure was at the

Prefecture level and was responsible for compliance of OMW. The Prefecture, with an Olive

Grove owner as its Head, effectively did very little to monitor Olive Mill Owners or their

OMW status. Licenses were thus approved year-on-year without compliance to national and

now EU effluent standards. A restructure in 2011 and a new Head meant scrutiny was now

being placed on OMW. However, a technical ‘loop hole’ allowed all 54 Olive Mill Owners to

continue to avoid compliance.

8. Regional Government Signals Change: In 2015, for the first time in history on the Island

of Lesvos, 16 fines have been issued to Mill Owners who have failed to comply with BOD

regulations. The Regional office has stressed it was always in favour of compliance and the law

was present, but not enforced. The fines of 500 - 1,000 euro, will be issued up to three times

to non-compliant Mill Owners with a final threat of potential closure.

9. Current EU and National Laws Too Strict: Government supports that current BOD limits

are too high, too strict and not realistic. The Regional office plans to seek a reduction -

essentially having the limits relaxed so that Olive Mill Owners have a possibility to comply.

10. Mill Owners Encouraged to “Do something”: The Regional office support Mill Owners to

implement whatever measures they can onsite to reduce waste. “Do something” will be viewed

more positively compared to do nothing. However the authorities do not have capacity to help

with any on-the-ground support, nor funding, nor do they seek to ‘compete’ with

environmental consultants that Mill Owners should hire to assist with such on-the-ground

waste management implementation.

11. Forming an Alliance: It is the belief of the Regional office that the Olive Mills and co

operatives have largely banded together in opposition to the enforcement of olive mill waste

compliance. The belief being a stronger collective group has more ability to uphold a veto.

47

However, the Regional office believes the Mills will start complying one-by-one and then

others will follow, effectively breaking the informal alliance.

8.4 Possible Implications On analysis, the insights provided by interviewees have some serious implications, especially

as these relate to olive oil waste management. The social dynamics around the olive oil industry likely

require further social science research to better understand the motives, attitudes, and behaviours of

specific industry stakeholders in transitioning towards shared risk and reward in more responsible

practice of olive oil waste management. This might include educational exchanges from operators in

Crete for example, or program brokerage for onsite treatments, and also research, development and

marketing for byproducts of the process. As it stands the key implications include:

⇛Social Barrier: OMWM is better understood post-interviews, to be a significant social

barrier as opposed to a technological, legal or political barrier. With a legacy of non-compliance and a

lack of on-the-ground demonstrations funded by Government, there is heavy resistance to change by

Mill Owners who both lack incentives and the mentality to make a responsible transition. A social

unwillingness and inaction results in delays to take up change options.

⇛Technical Solutions: Two-phase decanters are currently available and in many cases,

already installed within the Mills. It is understood that additional investment would be required

however to fully transition the Mill to a two-phase process - in any case, technology is installed but not

yet implemented. Mill Owners already have awared of their options for treatment and have even

suggested evaporation and sedimentation to the Regional office.

⇛Stress: Biodiversity and water resources may show stress if pollution continues,

compromising flora and fauna. OMWW is released in concentrated form (being a November to March

period) with high levels of polyphenals and BOD. The ecosystem may not have the capacity to restore

itself as it has traditionally, especially with other external stresses such as climate change and increased

run-off for example.

⇛More Fines: Mill Owners who remain noncompliant will likely face more frequent fines

given the Region’s mantra to take enforcement more seriously.

⇛Legal barrier lifted: The Region of North Aegean would both assist Olive Mill Owners

initiate compliance and likely gain reputation for this, in relaxing the current BOD limits by about

40%.

48

⇛Factions may compromise a positive transition: Despite an island setting and a heritage

industry, large communication gaps remain between organisations: Mill Owners, pomace

entrepreneurs, Cooperatives and likely the Union of Cooperative, as well as the Region of Northern

Aegean institute.

⇛Customised Waste Measures Inevitable: Mill Owners will eventually implement

customised waste measures because they are likely to respond to a range of current and future signals

such as: the impetus by government, a changing network whereby one-by-one Mills comply, an

evolving industry whereby all pomace factories can adequately process two-phased waste and finally,

broader market benefits of byproducts in demand (whether these be biomass, compost or beauty

products).

49

9 CASE STUDY: FACTS THAT ENABLED SPAIN TO TREAT ITS OMW

Spain is often mentioned as a case of success regarding OMWW treatment. In fact, even to

consider the scope of this study for Lesvos Island, the method adopted by Spain has been considered

as an example to be implemented in Lesvos to solve the OMWW issue.

There are a few facts that put Spain as a benchmark for addressing fast and effectively the

problem of olive oil waste. This section aims to suggest the main aspects of Spain’s transition to better

management practices and analyse if it can be adopted to Lesvos.

9.1 Policy and Financial Aid In 1982, a law was placed to forbid the disposal of OMWW into natural water courses or on

the soil. In order to aid the OMWW management, the government subsidized the construction of 1000

evaporation ponds off-season which improved the water quality in the river systems in Spain (Prosodol

2012). However, as evaporation ponds are infamous for its odour, Spain continued to research other

options.

The European regime for Olive oil production granted aids to 2.2 million of the 2.8 million

recorded producers of olive oil in the European Union. Of the total production aid granted (measured

by the “Maximum Guaranteed Quality” of the production) 42.8 % is allocated to Spain, 30.6 % to

Italy, and 23.6 % to Greece (Lacroix 2002). That gave Spain a financial advantage compared to other

Mediterranean producers countries to seek improvements in the olive oil production in general.

In 1992, Olive Mills of the Andalusia region were introduced to two-phase process. Soon

almost all olive mills in Spain would transfer to the two-phase process (Niaounakis and Halvadakis

2006).

50

Figure 26. Number of mills and production methods in Andalusia (IMPEL 2003)

Another policy that helped OMWT was implemented in 2002 and refers to operations of

valorisation and disposal of wastes (O.M. MIMAM 304/2002, 19 February 2002, activities of

valorisation and disposal of wastes). Spanish changed legislation to consider OMW a secondary

product that can be valorised to prevent soil and/or water contamination (Prosodol 2012).

However, the main policy that probably influenced Spain to switch to two-phase (probably

because there has not a single paper that affirms it) is the one that requires a permit for every

catchments of continental water over or under ground. Also an authorization of spill is required for all

activities that are susceptible to cause pollution or degradation of the hydraulic public network. This

law was first created in 1985, amended in 1999 and affects directly the evaporation ponds and irrigation

usage (Prosodol 2012). It is possible that bureaucracy for such permits pushed mills to adopt two-

phase systems.

9.2 Mill Geographic Distribution and Cooperation The concentration of olive mills in the Andalusia region can also be an important explanation

of why Spain was able to effectively implement OMW treatments. About 75–80% of the average

annual production of olive oil in Spain comes from the Region of Andalusia, where are located most

of the olive-mills that operate in Spain (1700 are there) (Lacroix 2002). Besides having fewer mills by

area, they have greater production among cooperatives (Lacroix 2002), which make the investment

more worthy.

Not only Andalusia, but throughout Spain, being clustered in cooperatives helps stakeholders

communication (with researchers, government and other institutions) and promotes faster decision-

51

making when choosing types of treatment, for example. According to Cooperativas agro-alimentarias

2010, in 2009 there were 1.744 olive mills in Spain, being 951 of them cooperatives.

Figure 27. Number of workers, number of olive mills and representing percentage. (Niaounakis

and Halvadakis 2006)

9.3 Technology Advantage The two-phase process still leaves some liquid effluent from the process and the moist pomace

is more energy demanding when compared to three-phase process. However, as Spain is the center of

attention and mills are big enough to justify investments, there has been water recycling, energy

recovery, composting and use in agriculture to compensate the disadvantages of two-phase systems.

Besides that, Spain is still pioneering research of other solutions. Below are some ongoing

projects:

Algatec: Financed by the European Union, Algatec is a project of recycling systems to

reuse water after the washing of olives. The process uses algae and sunlight to

decontaminate wasted waters. It has been tested in a Cooperative in Córdoba, however,

the return of investment is still unachieved (Penafiel 2012).

Olive oil power plant: the pilot project is being run in Granada and aims to address the

organic waste problem with energy creation. The technology can break down the toxic

compounds and provide enough energy to achieve 50% of the plant needs. The project

is a partnership of KTH Royal Institute of Technology in cooperation with PowerCell

AB, both Swedish, and is still being studied to become more effective and to lower

costs (Pultarova 2015).

52

10 FEASIBILITY OF TREATMENT OPTIONS

As mentioned earlier, olive mill wastewater is a cause for environmental concern and Lesvos

needs to address solutions in order to avoid pollution and to comply with regulations. Although Greece

is currently in the depth of an economic crisis, the lack of compliance with wastewater disposal

legislation poses a massive risk to environmental stability of its islands.

However, finding a single solution to the 54 mills is tricky one: each mill has different

economic, geographic, geological, elevation, transit network and water network characteristics. The

suggestion from the Spanish case study could be considered for Lesvos with certain caveats.

First, Greece has little to none financial aid from the EU when compared to Spain (Lacroix

2002). In Lesvos, at least, mills have no financial or technical support from the government (Bill pers.

comm.). Secondly, the Greek legislative system is mandated to imbibe the EU Water and Waste

Framework directives; there is, however, still a policy that treats by-products of OMWT as dangerous

oils, instead of valorisation as a by-product as exemplified by Spain in 2002.

Another point of discussion is regarding the characteristics of the olive mills. In Spain the olive

mills are geographically concentrated. They produce more olive oil individually and a vast majority of

them are Cooperative owned (Almazaras 2010). Meanwhile on Lesvos, the mills are sparse, small and

are reluctant to work collectively (Bill pers. comm.). These facts together suggest that the solution

found for Spain cannot be replicated for Lesvos directly.

Therefore, the pathways and solutions for OMWW and pomace treatments that will be

presented in the following content considers:

The recommendation of Camarsa et al. 2010 (Figure 28) regarding more appropriate

treatments for single or a group of mills

The reluctance of mill owners to adopt a treatment solution and their subsequent

unwillingness to change infrastructure and maintain treatment units (Bill pers. comm.)

The possibility of finding decentralized solutions for the mills in order to maintain the

distribution of income to different families and keeping olive oil quality (in comparison with centralized

solutions where revenue is concentrate and collective crushing of olives, resulting in reduction in

quality of olive oil produced) in mind, possible treatment alternatives have been explored (Figure 28)

(Kalogeropoulos et al. 2014).

53

Figure 28. Proposed treatment technologies. Source: Camarsa et al. 2010

The following section consists of a review of some of the management techniques that could

be adopted in Lesvos, considering the restraints mentioned above. Pre-treatment systems such as

evaporation or sedimentation ponds are analysed and the possibility for wastewater utilization for

irrigation is seen. Similar treatment and use options for the pomace have been considered and possible

use as compost and fuel pellets has been studied.

The scope of the review excludes a few technologies that would require more infrastructure

and maintenance. For example, below are some other treatment options for OMWW that will not be

analysed in detail in this study (however, reviewed in Appendix 20.3):

Aerobic or anaerobic treatment

Electrolytic control for odor

Phytoremediation

Biogas plants

Ultra membrane filtration

Wastewater network treatment

54

To sum up, the technologies for OMW for both two and three phase process that will be

analysed summed up at the table below.

Included Excluded

Pre-treatment

o Evaporation ponds

o Liming and sedimentation

Utilization

o Irrigation

o Composting

o Pomace to Biomass

Treatment

o Co-treatment with urban waste

water

Aerobic or anaerobic treatment

Electrolytic control for odor

Phytoremediation

Biogas plants

Ultra membrane filtration

Wastewater network treatment

10.1 Pre-treatment As seen earlier, the issue with olive mill wastewater management is not the dearth of treatment

technologies. A vast variety of treatment options have been piloted and implemented around the

world, effectively achieving the desired effluent quality. The issue on Lesvos however, is multi-

dimensional, involving the cost of treatment, political restrictions and the lack of willingness to adopt

any suggested changes. Considering these restrictions a review of the OMWW treatment literature was

conducted the following physical and physicochemical techniques were identified as possible methods

that could be implemented on the island. Although these processes do not result in the complete

treatment of the OMWW, the resultant effluent from these pre-treatment techniques are rendered fit

for land application and/or used for irrigation.

10.2 Evaporation ponds This is one of the most basic methods used for the disposal of OMWW. The evaporation unit

is essentially a large pond or a tank that has a large enough capacity to hold OMWW generated for the

season. The design criteria for the construction of evaporation ponds as given by Kohler et.al in 1955

estimated based on lake evaporation studies. Since then, there have been multiple equations suggested

taking various criteria into consideration. The equations used for the calculation of the size of these

ponds depends on data availability and the variability of the parameters considered. The components

55

to be considered in the calculation for the dimensions of an ideal evaporation pond are temperature,

wind velocity and direction, humidity, precipitation patterns (if applicable) and radiation data.

Considering the fact that the production season for olive oil, and the subsequent production of

OMWW is a seasonal activity, and the wastewater is generated in the winter, the evaporation pond

should be designed with a capacity equivalent to the total OMWW generated in the season. Due to

these constraints, evaporation ponds usually occupy a large area of land.

During the use of the evaporation ponds, the wastewater produced from the 3 phase

processing of olive oil production is diverted to the evaporation pond and is stored there for the rest

of the season (Niaounakis and Halvadakis 2004). As a result of degradation of the organics present in

the wastewater, there is a stench that is generated from the wastewater. This is one of the greatest

criticisms of adopting this process of disposal (Rinaldi et al. 2003).

The wastewater is stored in the evaporation tank throughout the production season and is

allowed to evaporate. Due to the high retention time in the evaporation pond, the base of the pond

needs to be appropriately sealed using compacted clay and cement in order to prevent any infiltration

and groundwater contamination (Kapellakis et al. 2006). The solids in the wastewater settle at the

bottom of the tank into a thick sludge. The thermal effect results in the formation of concentrated

cakes of organic olive mill waste that can be composted and applied on the soil (Rinaldi et al. 2003).

10.3 Liming and sedimentation One of the easiest physic-chemical treatment processes used in the pre-treatment of OMWW

is the treatment with the addition of lime, Calcium Oxide (CaO). CaO is a natural coagulant and results

in the formation of pollutant flocks upon addition to water with high metal ion and organic content

(Mitrakas et al., 1996). The flocks formed coagulate with the existing suspended solids in the OMWW

and aid settling and subsequent removal of solids from the effluent. Studies conducted revealed that

the pre-treatment of OMWW with lime followed by traditional sedimentation results in the increase

of the pH from the acidic range to a pH of 8 to 12 with a corresponding removal of 43% of phenols,

40% reduction in the chemical oxygen demand and 95% reduction in the oil and grease content of the

wastewater (Aktas et al. 2001). The application of further centrifugal separation or filtration processes

for the removal of the flocks results in polyphenol removal efficiency of 62-73% and 99.5% efficiency

in lipid removal. It has also been observed that the effluent produced as a resultant of liming has a

high biodegradability due to the presence of nutrients in the water (Beccari et al. 1999).

One of the drawbacks in implementing this technique of pre-treatment is the initial cost of

construction of the treatment unit. An ideal pre-treatment unit foe the application of liming comprises

56

of a mixing tank, where the flocculent (lime) is mixed with the waste water and a sedimentation tank.

The unit also needs to have sludge drying beds in order to dry the resultant sludge which can then be

composted and applied on land (Aktas et al.2001). Some of the other drawbacks include, initial cost of

construction, cost of lime and the cost of operation and maintenance of the plant.

Despite these drawbacks, liming is one of the most preferred techniques of OMWW treatment

as the resultant effluent is rich in nutrients and can be applied on land for irrigation, resulting in an

improvement in soils with low nutrient content (Rinaldi et al. 2003).

10.4 Utilization The resultant effluent of wastewater treatment from the technologies selected do not comply

with the standards prescribed by the EU for the subsequent release into any water body. Thus the

closed loop option of effluent utilization has been explored in this study.

10.5 Irrigation Under experimentation in small mills all around the Mediterranean, irrigation (or spraying) is

among the possibilities of OMWW treatment (Camarsa et al. 2010).

The process consists of pre-treatment of the OMWW, which aims to reduce the organic load

and solids quantity that significantly can reduce the odours that rise from fresh OMWW. Liming and

sedimentation can be applied, however, considering the mills size in Lesvos Island, the pre-treatment

could already present a challenge to workers.

A few studies suggest that the fresh OMWW could be directly sprayed to olive farm and there

would be no damage to soil or groundwater (Camarsa et al. 2010). The main concern of spraying

OMWW is due to the presence of polyphenols in the OMWW which have a strong phytotoxic and

antibacterial action. The studies carried out on this subject involved field and laboratory investigation.

They state that using OMWW for irrigation causes no harm to environment. On the contrary: the

OMWW contains large amounts of nutrients (potassium, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium,

iron) that improve soil fertility, can help compensate the high demand of water for irrigation and

enhance farms yield. In Cretan fields, after three consecutive years of research, polyphenols had higher

measurements after spraying but they decomposed rapidly enough to maintain the benefits of using

irrigation and safe groundwater (Chartzoulakis 2010). Also, in southern Italy, OMWW was sprayed on

durum wheat drops with and without pre-treatment. There had been some impacts in the beginning

of vegetative stage but durum wheat has good capability to recover (Rinaldi et al. 2003).

Besides the positive results, the use of irrigation as one option for OMWW treatment has

important and overall impediments clayey soils. OMWW increases the accumulation of salts, soil

57

structure can more easily disintegrate and cause severe erosion (Moraetis et al. 2011). Combined with

technical issues, authorities demand additional permits from the mills proving that the water is safe for

irrigation. Therefore, the adoption of irrigation with OMWW needs to be controlled not to cause

further soil damage (Chartzoulakis 2010).

10.6 Composted Olive Mill Pomace Pomace is one of the major by-products of the olive oil production process and results from

2-phase as well as 3-phase processing. As indicated in chapter 7, the environmentally harmful

composition of pomace necessitates treatment before it can be utilized or released into the

environment. One approach for utilization of pomace after extracting its final oil content, is to

transform it into organic fertilizer and soil conditioner for agricultural purposes and hence make it also

available for the improvement of soil fertility in olive farms (Gómez-Muñoz et al. 2012).

In order to be applied as a fertilizer, pomace needs to be composted. This is a bio-chemical

degradation process of organic materials which consists of three phases: an activation phase, the

thermophilic phase during which temperature increases, and a mesophilic phase that leads to cool

down of the compost (Muktadirul Bari Chowdhury et al. 2013). The compost mixture can be treated

in aerated or non-aerated piles and different approaches for ventilation and turning of the compost

mass can be applied. It is advisable to add a blend of organic components as bulking agents to the

olive mill pomace, such as olives leaves, twigs, straw, and manure, in order to optimize porosity and

temperature in the composting process. The total composting duration can vary significantly between

a month and up to a year depending on pomace type, bulking agents, volume of the compost pile

(influenced by porosity and moisture levels), and aeration system applied (Muktadirul Bari Chowdhury

et al. 2013). The composting process reduces the high levels of liquid in olive mill pomace and hence

also reduces its volume, both is especially beneficial for the moist and voluminous pomace of 2-phase

olive oil processing. Finally, composting is a necessary bioremediation process for decreasing the

polyphenol content and for generating pathogen-free compost (reached by temperatures above 55 °C)

(Muktadirul Bari Chowdhury et al. 2013). Research demonstrates that compost derived from OMW

materials contains satisfactory final carbon-nitrogen ratios but usually lacks in total nitrogen due to low

levels of nitrogen in the initial waste materials. This can be compensated by applying manure as a co-

composting material. Sheep and poultry manure appear to be the most effective bulking agents in

terms of optimizing microbial activities (Muktadirul Bari Chowdhury et al. 2013). Altogether, research

emphasizes that characteristics of produced compost from olive mill pomace are suitable for

agricultural purposes based on the organic matter and carbon, high level of potassium, low to medium

58

levels of nitrogen and phosphorus (depending on bulking agents), and lack of phytotoxicity (Gómez-

Muñoz et al. 2012).

For example, composts made from pomace and manure in Andalusia, Spain show typical lignin

and polyphenol contents lower than 20% and 2% respectively (Gómez-Muñoz et al. 2012).

Accordingly, a consortium of olive mills in Andalusia use their composted olive mill pomace as a

suitable fertilizers for organic farming. This process is funded and promoted by the Regional

Government of Andalusia (Prosodol 2012). Likewise, research in Australia demonstrates that both 2-

and 3-phase olive mill pomace can be converted into non phytotoxic compost with significantly lower

levels of phenols. The research report also presents a composting approach (Nair and Markham 2008).

Soils on Lesvos consist of cambisols, luvisols and leptosols (Soil Atlas of Europe 2014). These

type of soils are characterized by relatively low levels of organic content and climatic conditions in the

Mediterranean region also cause low decompositions rates. These unfavourable soil characteristics are

especially prevalent in regions that have been cultivated for a long time (Kizos pers.comm.). Due to

these conditions, olive farmers on Lesvos apply different types of soil fertilizers. These range from

purchased chemical to self-produced organic fertilizers, depending on income and availability of self-

produced fertilizers. Fertilizer application is performed infrequently and also differs from farm to farm

(Kizos pers.comm.). Altogether, these circumstances constitute a potential among olive and other

farmers for the utilization and purchase of composted olive mill pomace.

A further benefit of composted olive mill pomace is based on its high carbon content which

can increase the organic matter content in soil as well as the organic carbon. Reduced CO2 emissions

to the atmosphere and increasing carbon storage of the soil can result (Gómez-Muñoz et al. 2012).

Depending on the tier of utilization within the olive oil supply chain, the generation and

application of this organic fertilizer can either reduce costs from purchasing inorganic fertilizer for

olive farmers, or can provide a source of income when sold by an olive mill owner or by a waste

processing business (Gómez-Muñoz et al. 2012). Compared to other costly OMP treatment options

such as anaerobic digestion treatment for the generation of biogas, ultrafiltration or flocculation-

clarification, composting is a suitable technology that is economically feasible for small- or medium-

sized olive mills (<1000 t y -1) that are found on Lesvos (Muktadirul Bari Chowdhury et al. 2013).

10.7 From Pomace to Energy Biomass comes from renewable resources such as wood, manure, municipal solid waste and,

in this case, agricultural residues from olive oil industry. Bio-energy is any form of energy that is makes

use organic material which has stored solar energy from the sun. The utilization of this organic matter

59

addresses two problems of OMWM simultaneously: promotes acceptable disposal of OMW as clean

energy production and also minimizes space in landfills (García-Maraver et al 2010).

As biomass content presents difficulties to store, transport and use in its original form, to have

it compaction into pellets has become a common technique in developing countries (García-Maraver

et al 2010).

For every ton of olive, 500 kg of pomace for three-phase process and 800 kg for two-phase

will be generated. The advantage of the two-phase process having no OMWW leaves behind a wetter

pomace, which has a humidity of 60-62%, which is higher than from three-phase process (Schaelicke

2012). This pomace is also commonly called sludge (Prosodol 2012). The wet pomace needs an input

of heat to be dried in order to improve its calorific value. Nevertheless, both types of pomace are

important sources of energy because they present (IPTPO 2008):

Ensured annual production, relative concentration in a place

Acceptable humidity conditions, low sulfur content etc

Two and three-phase olive pomace have respectively an average calorific value of 19,000 and

14,000 kJ/kg. However, the more appropriate the technology for the characterisation of the biomass

(which sometimes also includes olive trees branches and leaves), better the efficiency (IPTPO 2008).

In Greece, pellets from olive oil production play an important role among the main sources of

energy (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Economic comparison among energy sources (REACM 2008)

60

11 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION

Although the issue of OMWW disposal in Spain and Italy is similar to that in Greece, these

solutions cannot be directly implemented on Lesvos due to economic, social, political and

environmental complexities of the island’s ecosystem. In order to counter these, a combination

scenario has been explored in this report.

As seen earlier, there are 54 olive mills on Lesvos, 28 of which are cooperative owned and 26,

privately owned. The provided data-set of olive mill characteristics states that all the olive mills on the

island release wastewater produced on site either into streams, rivers or into the open sea. The locations

of these olive mills are shown in Fig 30 and present their placement relative to the river and stream

system on Lesvos, highlighting the critically affected areas; the gulf of Gera being the most acutely

affected. This however cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, unfortunately, due to the lack

of impact studies about the release of untreated olive mill wastewater in the region.

Figure 30: Spatial distribution of olive mills and river network on Lesvos

61

Based on the case studies reviewed, and the current situation of Lesvos, in terms of economic

stability, social awareness and willingness to change and environmental concerns Lesvos is facing, a

multi-dimensional scenario has been developed. A spatial analysis of the wastewater pollution problem

on the island has been conducted in order to break the problem up regionally and propose individual

unique solutions based on insights from Spain and Italy, the two largest olive oil producers globally, as

well as other parts of Greece.

Spatial analysis based on GIS data collected by Professor Kontos of Univeristy of Aegean has

been used to understand the geographic and environmental conditions of Lesvos.

11.1 Methodology For the purpose of this report, only those olive mills that have been operational in the last 3

years have been considered. In order to understand the complexity of the situation, the olive mills on

the island were mapped and clustered based on production capacity of each mill. Mills were classified

as small, medium and large based on equal interval classification of the total production quantity

range in the last 2 years in order to include the biannual sequence.

Mills with the capacity to adapt to two-phase treatment were mapped against all the other mills

on the island, relative to the location of the OMP treatment unit in Pigi that also has the capacity to

process OMP from two-phase processing. The road network on the island was mapped in order to

understand the requirement for further infrastructure development for the transport of the OMP by

road. Fig 31, Fig 32 and Fig33 show the spatial distribution of the mills with the potential to change

to two-phase processing, their size, their relative position to the treatment unit in Pigi and the road

network on the island.

62

Figure 31: Spatial distribution of olive mills showing potential to change to two-phase processing

Figure 32: Spatial distribution of potential two-phase processing mills, location of OMP treatment

unit in Pigi and road-network on Lesvos

63

Figure 33: Spatial distribution and size of potential two-phase processing mills, location of OMP treatment unit in Pigi and road-network on Lesvos

Geographical locations of rivers, streams, wells and springs, human settlements, archaeological

sites and protected areas on the island were mapped in order to understand their relative locations to

the remaining three-phase olive mills and hence location of possible OMWW treatment units on the

island.

The geographic information gathered was first mapped. Separate maps of rivers, streams, wells

and springs, human settlements, archaeological sites, protected areas, soil type, land use pattern and

soil permeability were created in order to understand the geographic spread of the different attributes

on the island.

Specific buffer zones were created for the above mentioned attributed sites based on the

criteria specified by Kapellakis et al. in 2002 at the International Water Association Symposium on Water

Recycling in Mediterranean Region.

The attributes and their respective buffer zones are as shown in table 3.

64

Table 3: Attributed sites and respective buffer zones

Attribute Buffer zone

Springs and Wells 1 km

Human Settlements 2 km

Archaeological areas 1 km

Natural protected areas 1 km

Road network 200 m

Areas with clayey soils and soils with very high permeability were avoided

The geographical profile of the island provided the direction of slope and the relative position

of olive mills to one another.

The river basin profile of the island also provided the direction of flow of water in close

proximity to the olive mills aiding the process of identification of probable sites for placement of

treatment units.

Figure 34: Remaining three-phase olive mills, unsuitable and suitable areas for OMWW treatment

65

The buffer zones were then concatenated one after another to form one union layer on ArcGis

to form the exclusion layer. Areas with clayey soil and high soil permeability were also selected as a

part of the exclusion zone. The exclusion layer was placed on the base map of Lesvos along with the

layer of the remaining three-phase olive mills. This highlighted the areas on the island where OMWW

pre-treatment units can be located (shown in Fig 34).

11.2 Procedure of Analysis: Solutions for Lesvos The spatial analysis conducted has been aimed at identifying possible unique or regional

solution for the olive mills on Lesvos. In this scenario we examine the different solutions that can be

adopted in order to minimize the pollution load on the water bodies on Lesvos and sextionthe possible

implementation of the basic treatment procedures identified. The analysis has thus been performed

with an elimination strategy in mind, eliminating the number of olive mills with possible solution

available.

11.3 Transition of olive mills to two-phase processing Based on the data available, it is seen in Fig 31 that 20 out of 54 mills have the capacity to

transform from three-phase processing to two-phase processing of olive oil. Such a transition would

result in the reduction of wastewater disposed by 600 m3 per day. As it can be seen, a majority of the

larger mills are located around the Gulf of Gera; the transition to two-phase processing would thus

result in a drastic reduction on the pollution load on the ecosystem in this region.

Although the two-phase transition would remove the load off the water bodies on the island,

it would result in the production of semi-solid OMP. This OMP contains 60% humidity and would

need to be transported by road to the treatment unit. There is one existing OMP manufacturing unit

on Lesvos that can handle two-phase OMP with a capacity of 400 tons/day. Considering this

requirement, it can be seen from Fig 32 that all the olive mills have direct access to a road network

that may be used to transport the OMP.

Based on data collected over the last 30 years, and considering a ratio of 1:0.8 of total olives

crushed to the two-phase OMP generated, an average of 13564.398 tonnes of two-phase OMP will be

generated per season and considering a treatment capacity of 400 tonnes per day, the existing OMP

treatment unit will be sufficient to handle the proposed transition of 20 mills to two-phase processing.

66

11.4 Treatment solutions for clustered three-phase olive mills The location of the remaining 34 olive mills, that do not have the capacity to adapt to two-

phase processing, are as shown in Fig 35 along with the river basin profile of the island.

Figure 35: Olive mills with three-phase processing relative to the three water basins on Lesvos

Based on Fig 35 and Fig 36, it can be seen that most olive mills are in close proximity to one

another and can be clustered together to develop regional solutions. All mills in a 10 km radius to one

another, lying in the same river basin, on the same side of the elevation profile may be clustered and

regional OMWW treatment units may be established.

Fig 37 shows the different clusters of olive mills identified for which regional unique solutions

can be adopted along with the possible siting locations for these.

67

Figure 36: Lesvos Elevation profile

Figure 37: Olive mill clusters and their relative locations to the suitable siting locations for treatment units

68

As discussed earlier, some of the options for OMWW treatment such as evaporation ponds,

waste stabilization ponds, and liming and sedimentation units could be sited in the area´s identified

regions.

Considering the fact that the quality of effluent that results from these treatment options does

not comply with the regulatory quality criteria in order to release these effluents into water bodies, the

option of effluent use for agriculture has been explored.

Figure 38: Cultivated areas as probable sites for irrigation using OMWW pre-treated effluent

The soil profile data on Lesvos shows that the soil on the island are cambisols (more than 70%

of the area) chromic luvisols and eurilithic leptosols. Cambisols are soils that are in the earlier stages

of development and re quite young. These soils are in the transition stage of their development and

are quite stable in their structure. The soils are well drained and have a high water holding capacity.

The soils however, are low in nutrient content are present for a very short depth. Luvisols are present

in limestone soils, which are good and deep and productive, but not always high on organic content.

Leptosols are very shallow soils with a lot of rocks (Soil Atlas of Europe 2014)).

69

Fig 38 shows the area of agricultural land on Lesvos. Based on the different literature reviewed

and case studies analysed, the effluent could be used for irrigation of these cultivated areas on the

island.

The application of the pre-treated OMWW, as explained in section 10, would help improve

the quality of soil on Lesvos.

Based on the clustered approach proposed in Fig 37, there are 9 more olive mills that pose a

greater challenge for olive mill waste management than others. Fig 39 is a map showing the location

of these.

Figure 39: Remaining olive mills with more challenging waste management issues

In order to propose waste management solutions for these mills, more in-depth research needs

to be conducted and their potential to adapt to two-phase processing systems have to be evaluated.

Likewise, other OMWW treatment options such as private wastewater treatment units or the co-

treatment in municipal wastewater treatment units should be evaluated.

70

11.5 Treatment options for remaining three-phase olive mills In the following sections, one option for OMWW treatment is suggested by presenting a case

study, and options for further utilization of OMWW components are introduced.

11.5.1 Co-treatment of OMWW with urban wastewater Morocco, although not a leader in olive oil production, is a country facing difficulties in

managing OMWW. In Morocco, the extraction of olive oil is achieved either through discontinuous

press method or by continuous centrifugation method, from a mixture of olives and water. In both

systems, three phases are produced: olive oil, OMP and OMWW, which account for 20%, 30% and

50%, respectively, of the total weight of triturated olives (Sayadi et al. 2000).

The region of Marrakech is one of the biggest olive production areas in Morocco, facing a

serious OMWW problem. In addition, it is a region with hot climate where conditions for the treatment

of wastewater by stabilization ponds are very favourable. Waste stabilization ponds are a simple, low-

cost and low-maintenance process for treating OMWW, and well adapted to low socio-economic

conditions in developing countries (Hamouri et al. 1996).

A study was conducted to assess the feasibility of co-treating OMWW with urban wastewater

in a lab-scale experimental stabilization ponds and to evaluate the potential of this treatment in

removing phytotoxicity (Jail et al. 2010).

The experimental set up consisted a system of three stabilization ponds (systems 1, 2 and 3)

with intermediate connections to two smaller basin with conical bottoms, to facilitate sedimentation.

The capacity of each pond was 40L and based on an average 3L/day of evaporation loss and a hydraulic

retention time of 6.5 days, a constant flow rate of 12L/day was set. Specific dilution factor of urban

waste water to OMWW were calculated for each pond based on the permissible organic loading for

each pond using the global equation given by Mara and Pearson in 1987. The dilution factors set for

each pond were 316 for system 1, 117 for system 2 and 72 for system 3. Prior to starting the

experiment, the system was filled in with only urban wastewater for 10 days to ensure maturation of

the system and the development of algae on in the ponds to facilitate decomposition. The experiment

was carried on for a time span of 40 days with samples being collected at three day intervals in order

to check the level of treatment achieved (Jail et al. 2010). Phytotoxicity evaluations were also conducted

on the treated effluent through the application of the treated water on maize and tomato seeds. A

germination index (GI) was calculated by accounting for the number of grown seeds and the average

sum of seeds’ root elongation in a sample as related to the control.

71

The study concluded that it is possible to treat seasonal OMWW with perennial urban

wastewater as the characteristics of the treated effluent complied with the legal standards required for

the reuse of the water for irrigation purposes. The co-treatment allowed for the significant reduction

of organic matter, phenols and faecal microorganisms. The study was also able to successfully show a

significant reduction in the phytotoxicity of the wastewater (Jail et al. 2010).

Treatment by waste stabilization ponds has many advantages: technically feasible, low capital

investment, simple operation and maintenance, high performance, and it does not need energy to

function. The authors specifically mention in their conclusion that although this method is an effective

process for the co-treatment of OMWW and urban wastewater, due to the large dilution factors and

due to the seasonality of the OMWW generation, storage of the effluent becomes a necessity. So, it

may be one of the recommended extensive treatment systems in hot climates where land is available

at reasonable costs (Jail et al. 2010).

11.5.2 Polyphenols extraction and industrial use OMWW contain high concentrations of polyphenols. These are water-soluble and have

properties of antioxidants, antibiotic/antivirals and anti-inflammatory (Deeb et al. 2012). Other

compounds like flavonoids, anthocyanins, tannins, oleanolic acid, and maslinic acid are also present

within the olive fruit which are very toxic to plants, organisms and microorganisms. Therefore the

recovery of polyphenols from OMWW is vital, not only to reduce the intrinsic wastewater

environmental toxicity and obtain high-added value biomolecules but because these compounds are

used in a variety of industrial products and are expensive on the market and their extraction would be

profitable (Deeb et al. 2012).

The recovery of polyphenols from OMWW was mostly proposed by membrane

processes, liquid–liquid extraction, and solid phase extraction (Bertin et al. 2011). Liquid–liquid

extraction need to be assisted by surfactants and factors that affect the liquid-liquid extraction process

including the type of solvent used, the pH of OMWW, the ratio of solvent waste, and the number of

theoretical steps in a batch systems. Solid phase extraction can be a feasible alternative due to its

characteristic to be simple, effective and cheap (Allouche et al., 2004; Visioli et al., 1999).

Hydroxytyrosol can be used as a food preservative as well as in pharmacology and cosmetology

in topical preparations with anti-aging and anti-inflammatory action. Oleanolic acid regulates

cholesterol levels in blood and balances body weight. Maslinic acid has been widely investigated during

the last years and it seems to possess anti-inflammatory and antihistaminic activity. It also could be

72

used in pharmacology as an inhibitor of the AIDS virus. Anthocyanins are used as natural food

colorants (Ramos-Cormenzana and Monteoliva-Sanchez, 2000).

Based on a study conducted by Achak et al. (2009), banana peel charcoal may be used as a low

cost adsorbent for the extraction of polyphenols from OMWW. The results of the study showed that

at the dosage of 30mg/L of banana peel charcoal, there was 88% adsorption of phenolic compounds,

reaching equilibrium in a contact time of 3 hours. Desorption studies conducted show that the phenolic

compounds desorb from the adsorbent fairly easily in lower pH solutions. However, although the

adsorbent is quite cheap, the process of extraction is expensive and has not been piloted on a larger

scale in order to give more conclusive results (Achak et al. 2009).

73

12 RECOMMENDATIONS

With a production equivalent to 1% (Schaelicke pers. comm. b.) of the world’s total, Lesvos’

olive oil industry contributes a great deal to the economic development of the island. The olive industry

is deeply interlinked in the socio-economic, political and environmental regime of Lesvos and thus is

complex to manage. In the research and analysis presented in this Report, the economic, social,

political, legal, environmental and technical aspects of OMWT on Lesvos, have been identified. Based

upon this, a best and worst case transitional pathway for Lesvos has been developed that integrates

the Island’s pressing OMWM issues. These are outlined in Figure 41 in the Section under Conclusion

(following). The ‘Best case scenario’ is one that is highly recommended and could be considered to be

proposed to key stakeholders of the olive industry on Lesvos.

Based on the review of the political regime, with regard to the olive industry on Lesvos, we

understand that Greece at a national level, and the Region of North Aegean have the legislative capacity

to monitor and penalize olive mill owner’s actions of water pollution from direct disposal of OMWW.

This power of enforcement supporting compliance had not been implemented due to a legacy of poor

governance, as descried earlier. Improved enforcement of such penalties could aid greater compliance

and bolster improvement of water quality in the waterbodies on and around Lesvos Island.

Literature on pollution due to improper handling of OMWM specific to Lesvos is extremely

limited and almost unavailable. Further research on impact analysis of OMW on identified sensitive

zones could result in more informed decision-making. In addition, this may lead to greater awareness

and possible cooperation among Cooperative owned olive mills, and the private olive mill owners,

enabling a degree of unification and shared action and accountability for such problems stemming

from the Industry.

Based on the exclusion analysis conducted, the transition of 20 mills with the capacity to change

to two phase processing techniques, along with the implementation of suggested pre-treatment of

OMWW and subsequent utilization for irrigation, would not only result in a drastic reduction in the

environmental pollutant load as detailed in Figure 40, but also generate revenue and a source of biofuel

for the island in the form of olive pomace pellets.

74

Figure 40: Current Situation Versus Recommended Future Scenario

Further research needs to be conducted in order to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of

treatment of OMWW along with wastewater from other industries and the economic feasibility of

setting up privately owned WWTP onsite at the mill premises.

On further research of the by-products of the OMWT processes, the extraction of polyphenols

stands out as one of the most economically profitable sources of income. A cost-benefit analysis of

the extraction of polyphenols on Lesvos Island could be conducted in order to determine feasibility

of implementation.

Olive pomace oil gained by secondary centrifugation of three phase pomace is another useful

and marketable by-product. This oil is prohibited for use in Greece as it has been defined as a ‘waste’

product in Greek legislation preventing it from being used in industrial food manufacturing. A possible

shift in the policy or an exception for secondary sourced pomace oil, could save and make the industry

money. For examples costs associated with international export and subsequent import for food

manufacturing could be avoided.

In addition to these crucial recommednations discussed above, other key recommendations

include:

1. Monitor and test water during the on- and off-season to establish baselines and use such

baselines as strategic arguments to change behaviour;

2. Assess social motives, attitudes and barriers towards responsible OMW management;

3. Explore research and development of OMW byproducts for uptake in other processes with

the possibility of resulting in new markets – such as polyphenols in cosmetics and pomace as

75

compost and biomass;

4. Research the possibility of further support from the EU in on-the-ground transition of mills

to integrate customized waste management systems; and

5. Encourage the Region of North Aegean to follow-through on commitments to reduce

unrealistic limits of OMWW environmental limits for discharge.

76

13 CONCLUSION This section provides a critical summary of the findings and solutions offered as these relate

to the Research Question: Within the current context, what transitional pathways exist for Lesvos Island

to effectively treat Olive Mill Waste? Concluding remarks also focus briefly on a future outlook

based on two scenarios: a worst case scenario - essentially business as usual or worse; and a

best case scenario, within the context of a PESTLE analysis, as shown in Figure 41.

Figure 41. Worst and Best Case Scenarios

77

Key findings from this report can be summarised as follows:

In terms of solutions to OMW – there are no highly suitable option(s) for treatment and

utilization on Lesvos Island due to the high level of trade-offs required for any integrated

or ‘optimal’ solution. Effective treatment options are available and have been outlined in

the body of this Report – suffice to say these are basic treatment options. This is essentially

based on the social barriers (discussed below), size of the mills - which are generally small,

and geographic dispersal of the mills – which is generally broad;

Social barriers, many based on tradition and prevailing mindsets, are significant and

require a deeper understanding as an entry point to better transition to effective OMWM

scenarios;

Available technology does currently exist for 20 mills to enable a switch from a three

phase to a two phase process effectively reducing the OMWW component and problem;

Of the 34 mills remaining, 25 mills could be clustered in their respective regions based

on the construction of regional WWTW;

Of the final 9 mills remaining, no specific treatment solution has been identified,

suggestion to co-treat with municipal and industrial wastewater, or alternatively to

construct an on-site mill-based treatment facility;

Polyphenols can be extracted from OMWW by a number of ways. In general this

remains at an experimental lab level and requires a high level of infrastructural investment.

The assumed implications of this, even at a global scale include delay in extracting

polyphenols at source, i.e. onsite at olive mills. It is difficult to suggest when this technology

may come to market at the Lesvos scale and at a cost-effective price, or alternatively how

to ship OMWW for extraction elsewhere.

Spain as the globe’s leading oil producer managed to convert to a largely centralized two-

phase process on the back of significant Government subsidies, Greece is unlikely to

follow in these footsteps both due to financial inability, in addition to the special

characteristics of Lesvos’s olive mill’s geographical spread;

Mill location at watercourses is significant for a large number of mills, providing the

current opportunity of direct disposal of untreated OMWW;

78

Organic waste comprises a large part of Lesvos’s industrial waste stream – especially

poultry and dairy farms as well as slaughterhouse, providing the possible opportunity of

co-treatment/utilization;

A Governance shift is currently taking place with compliance now being enforced. Plans

to continue increasing compliance of olive mills are being activated through carrot and

stick approaches of reducing environmental limits of OMW discharges, as well as direct

fines;

Comprehensive EU Regulations exist and are transposed at a National level – however

at the Prefecture level, i.e. Lesvos Island, there is an opportunity to identify and set Island

specific OMWW limits. The Island’s focus is now on reducing EU specified disposal limits;

Lesvos is failing to address recycling, reuse and recovery of wastewater, effectively

leaving a hole in the regulation;

There is a lag at the National level in implementing transposed EU

Regulations regarding wastewater in comparison to other EU Member States;

In terms of terminology, Olive Mill Waste and Olive Mill Byproducts are defined as

separate products under the EC, however at a local Lesvos level these terms don’t appear

to be differentiated;

Olive oil quality produced by two-phase decanting is a higher grade and the functional

properties of oil the oil are recognized as superior for health;

These concluding comments suggest that there are some basic responses to OMW on Lesvos

Island for pre-treatment, discharge and utilization of pomace as biomass and/or compost. Certainly

substantial, perhaps even radical improvement of the situation will be made if Olive Mill Owners take

up the invitation from the Region of North Aegean to “just do something”, in terms of onsite and

small-scale mitigation works. In addition if efforts are made by the 20 mills identified to switch to a

two-phase process and to deliver OMP to one of Island’s current three treatment factories, this will

also drastically reduce the OMWW volumes and associated water pollution. In combination with this,

if clustering of 25 mills was achieved and serviced by WWTPs, with the final nine mills having their

OMWW co-treated with other industrial streams, these transitions would result in significant decreases.

The current context of Lesvos Island as it relates to the olive industry and OMW in particular,

has revealed through qualitative and quantitative research, to be in need of critical change, most

79

significantly, but not only, at a social level. This conclusion supports the key recommendations and is

essentially drawn on the need and opportunity to:

1. Comply with EU and National level regulations for environmental limits regarding

wastewater discharge – even if those limits are to be reduced through the Region of North

Aegean’s negotiations;

2. Reduce ecological stresses from untreated discharges of OMP and OMWW, most

significantly to waterways and biodiversity;

3. Organize as a supportive collective to optimize human (knowledge), social and natural

capital as a means of maximizing the Olive industry’s potential – this includes: shared

customized on-site OMWM solutions, research and development in utilization of

byproducts, marketing of the industry’s differentiation (e.g. higher levels of extra-virgin

olive oil).

80

14 REFERENCES

Aktas, E., Imre, S., and Ersoy, L. 2001. Characterization and lime treatment of olive mill wastewater.

Water Resources 35, 2336–2340.

Alcaide, E. and Ruiz, Y. 2008. Potential use of olive by-products in ruminant feeding: A review.

Animal Feed Science Technology 147: 247-264.

Alfano, C., Belli, G., Lustrato, D., Vitullo, D., Piedimonte, G., Lima, G. and Ranalli. 2007. Modern

strategies for oil mill residues exploitation: environmental and energetical opportunities. Proceedings of

International Conference on International Conference New technologies for the treatment

and valorization of agro by-products, Oct 2007, Terni, Italy.

Allouche, N., Fki, I., and Sayadi, S. 2004. Towards a high yield recovery of antioxidants and purified

hydroxytyrosol from olive mill wastewaters. J. Agric. Food Chem 52:267.

Almazaras. 2010. Manual de ahorro y eficiencia energética del sector [Olive oil mills: handbook of

efficiency and energy saving in the sector]. Cooperativas agro-alimentarias. Project CO2OP.

Accessed on June 13, 2015. URL: http://www.agro-

alimentarias.coop/ficheros/doc/03198.pdf

Azbar, N., Bayram, A., Filibeli, A., Muezzinoglu, A. Sengul, F. and Ozer, A. 2014 Critical Reviews in

Environmental Science and Technology (May/Jun): Vol. 34 Issue 3: 209-247.

Barbera, A.C., Maucieri, C., Cavallaro, V., Ioppolo, A. and Spagna, G. 2013. Effects of spreading

olive mill wastewater on soil properties and crops, a review. Agricultural Water Management

119: 43-53.

Battista, F., Fino, D., Erriquens, F., Mancini, G. and Ruggeri, B. 2015. Scaled-up experimental biogas

production from two agro – food waste mixtures having high inhibitory compound

concentrations. Renewable Energy 81: 71-77.

Beccari, M., Majone, M., Riccardi, C., Savarese, F., and Torrisi, L. 1999. Integrated treatment of olive

mill effluents: effect of chemical and physical pretreatment on anaerobic treatability. Water

Science Technology, 40, 347–355.

Bertin, L., Ferri, F., Scoma, A., Marchetti, L, and Fava, F. 2011. Recovery of high added value natural

polyphenols from actual olive mill wastewater through solid phase extraction. Chemical

Engineering Journal 171(3):1287-1293.

Bull, W. E. 1936. The olive industry of Spain. Economic Geography, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April): 134-137.

http://www.agro-alimentarias.coop/ficheros/doc/03198.pdf

http://www.agro-alimentarias.coop/ficheros/doc/03198.pdf

81

Camarsa, G., Gardner, S., Jones, W., Eldridge, J., Hudson, T., Thorpe, E., and O´Hara, E. 2010.

LIFE among the olives. Good practise in improving environmental performance in the olive oil sector.

Luxembourg: European Commission and Environment Directorate-General.

Cayueala, M.L., Bernal, M.P. and Roig, A. 2004. Composting Olive Mill Waste and Sheep Manure for

Orchard Use. Compost Science and Utilization 12(2): 130-136.

Chartzoulakis, K., Psarras, G., Moutsopoulou, M. and Stefanoudaki, E. 2010. Application of olive

mill wastewater to a Cretan olive orchard: Effects on soil properties, plant performance and

the environment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138(3):293-298.

Chipasa K.B. 2001. Limits of physicochemical treatment of wastewater in the vegetable oil refining

industry. Journal of Environmental Studies (3): 141-147.

Danellakis, D., Ntaikou, I., Kornaros, M. and Dailianis, S. 2011. Olive oil mill wastewater toxicity in

the marine environment: Alterations of stress indices in tissues of mussel Mytilus

galloprovincialis. Aquatic Toxicology 101: 358-366.

Deeb, A., Fayyad, M. K., amd Alawi, M. A. 2012. Separation of Polyphenols from Jordanian Olive

Oil Mill Wastewater. Chromatography Research International.

Demerche, S., Nadour, M., Larroche, C., Moulti-Mati, F. and Michaud, P. 2013. Olive mill wastes:

Biochemical characterizations and valorization strategies. Process Biochemistry 48: 1532–1552.

European Commission (EC), Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2012.

Economic Analysis of The Olive Sector. July 2012 Accessed 11 June, 2015. URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/olive-oil/economic-analysis_en.pdf.

European Commission (EC). 2006. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC BREF).

Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the, Food, Drink and Milk Industries.

Accessed 11 June 2015. URL:

http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/fdm_bref_0806.pdf

_______________________. 2007. Communication from the commission to the council and the

European Parliament: On the Interpretative Communication on waste and by-products.

Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 21.2.2007. Accessed on 11 June, 2015.

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0059&from=EN.

_______________________. 2012. Country Factsheet Greece. European Migration Network. 18

December 2012. Accessed on 11 June, 2015. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/olive-oil/economic-analysis_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/country-factsheets/country_factsheet_greece_2012_en_400018.pdf

82

affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/country-

factsheets/country_factsheet_greece_2012_en_400018.pdf.

________________________. 2015. Joint Research Center. European Soil Portal- Soil data and

information systems. Soil Atlas of Europe. Varese, Italy: European Comission. Accessed 11

June 2015. URL: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/Soil_Atlas/Download.cfm.

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

(IMPEL). November 2003. Impel Olive Oil Project. Accessed 11 June 2015. URL:

http://www.installationsclassees.developpement-

durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/olive_oil_project.pdf

Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT). 2015. Accessed 11 June

2015. URL: http://faostat.fao.org/site/636/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=636#ancor

García-Maraver, A., Ramos-Ridao, A. F., Ruiz, D.P., Zamorano, M. 2010. Quality of pellets from

olive grove residual biomass. International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power

Quality (ICREPQ’10) Granada (Spain), 23th to 25th March, 2010.

Gómez-Muñoz, B., Hatch, D.J., Bol, R., and García-Ruiz, R. 2012. The Compost of Olive Mill

Pomace: From a Waste to a Resource - Environmental Benefits of Its Application in Olive

Oil Groves. In: Sustainable Development - Authoritative and Leading Edge Content for Environmental

Management, ed. S. Curkovic.

Hamouri, B., Handoufe, A., Makrane, M., Touzani, M., and Benchoukroun, T. 1996. Use of

wastewater for crop production under arid and saline conditions: yield and hygienic quality of

the crop and soil contamination. Water Science and Technology 33: 327–334.

Harnnarong, F. 2009. Moving Up the EU Waste Hierarchy in Remote Area- Exploring the Case of

Lesvos Island, Greece. Thesis for the fulfilment of the Master of Science in Environmental

Sciences, Policy and Management. Lund, Sweden and Mytilene, Greece. June 2009.

Institute of Agriculture and Tourism Poreč Croatia (IPTPO). 2008. Market of Olive Residues for

energy. December 2008. EU Intelligent Energy. Accessed on 24 June, 2015. URL:

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-

projects/files/projects/documents/report_on_best_practices_m.o.r.e._en.pdf.

Jail, A., Boukhoubza, F., Nejmeddine, A., Sayadi, S. and Hassani, L. 2010. Co-treatment of olive-mill

and urban wastewaters by experimental stabilization ponds. Journal of Hazardous Materials:

893–900.



http://faostat.fao.org/site/636/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=636#ancor

83

Kalogeropoulos, N., Kaliora, A. C., Artemiou, A., and Giogios, I. 2014. Composition, volatile

profiles and functional properties of virgin olive oils produced by two-phase vs three-phase

centrifugal decanters. Food Science and Technology (September) 58(1):272-279.

Kapellakis, I., Tsagarakis, K., Avramaki, C., Crowther, J., and Hytiris, N. 2002. Potential for olive

mill wastewater reuse: the case of Messara basin in Crete. In Proceedings of the IWA-Regional

Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, ed. Angelakis, A.N. et al, 515–524.

Iraklion, Greece:IWA.

Kapellakis, I., Tsagarakis, K., Avramaki, C., and Angelakis, A. 2006. Olive mill wastewater

management in river basins: A case study in Greece. Agricultural Water Management, 82, 354–

370.

Kistner, T., Nitz, G., and Schnitzler, W.H. 2004. Phytotoxic effects of some compounds of olive mill

wastewater (OMW). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 13:1360-1361.

Kohler, M., Nordenson, T., and Fox, W. 1955. Evaporation from Pans and Lakes. Research Paper 38.

Washitong: U.S. Dept. Commerce, Weather Bureau.

Lacoix, E. 2002. The olive oil sector in the European Union: Fact sheet. European Commission,

Directorate-General for Agriculture. Accessed on June 13, 2015. URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/fact/oliveoil/2003_en.pdf

Lena, P.D. 2015. Il confronto non è più sulla quantità ma sulla qualità di un’olivicoltura globalizzata.

[The comparison is no longer on quantity but on the quality of olive growing globalized].

February 2, 2015. Technical Closely,The ark olive oil. Teatro Naturale (TN). Accessed 24

June, 2015. URL: http://www.teatronaturale.it/strettamente-tecnico/l-arca-olearia/20578-il-

confronto-non-e-piu-sulla-quantita-ma-sulla-qualita-di-un-olivicoltura-globalizzata.htm

LesvosIsland (LI). 2015. The Island. Accessed on June 24, 2015. URL:

http://lesvosisland.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=191&Itemid=6

9&lang=en

Mara, D. and Pearson, H. 1987. Waste Stabilization Ponds: Design Manual for Mediterranean Europe.

Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

McNamara, C., Anastasiou, C., Mitchell, and Mitchell, R. 2008. Bioremediation of olive mill

wastewater. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation: 127–134.

Mitrakas, M., Papageorgiou, G., Docoslis, A., and Sakellaropoulos, G.1996. Evaluation of various

pretreatment methods for olive mill wastewaters. European Water Pollution Control 6:10.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/fact/oliveoil/2003_en.pdf

84

Moraetis, D., Stamati, F.E., Nikolaidis, N.P., and Kalogerakis, N. 2011. Olive mill wastewater

irrigation of maize: Impacts on soil and groundwater. Agricultural Water Management

98(7):1125-1132.

Muktadirul Bari Chowdhury, A.K., Akratos, C.S., Vayenas, D.V. and Pavlou, S. 2013. Olive mill

waste composting: A review. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 85: 108-119.

Nair, N.G., and Markham, J. 2008. Recycling Solid Waste from the Olive Oil Extraction Process. RIRCD

Publication No. 08/165. Kingston: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Niaounakis, M. and Hakvadakis, C.P. 2004. Olive-mill Waste Management: Literature Review and Patent

Survay. Athens: Typothito George Dardanos.

_________________________. 2006. Olive Processing Waste Management: Literature Review and

Patent Survey. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Olive Pellet (OP). Learn about the pellet and earn money. 2015. Accessed on June 25, 2015.

URL:http://www.olivepellet.gr/en/index.php

Papadakis, G. 2006. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a Decision Support Tool (DST) for the

ecoproduction of olive oil. ECOIL. LIFE+ project. Deliverable 2, Task 1, Recording and

assessment of the existing situation, Chania, Greece. Accessed on June 11, 2015. URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPa

ge&n_proj_id=2743&docType=pdf

Paraskeva, P. and Diamadopoulos, E. 2006. Technologies for olive mill wastewater(OMW)

treatment: a review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 81:1475–1485.

Paredes, C., Bernal, M. P., Roig, A. and Cegarra, J. 2001. Effects of olive mill wastewater addition in

composting of agroindustrial and urban wastes. Biodegradation 12:225-234. Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pavlidou, A., Anastasopoulou, E., Dassenakis, M., Hatzianestis, I., Paraskevopoulou, V., Simboura,

N., Rousselaki, E. and Drakopoulou, P. 2014. Effects of olive oil wastes on river basins and

an oligotrophic coastal marine ecosystem: A case study in Greece. Science of the Total

Environment 497-498: 38-49.

Penafiel, P.P. 2012. New System Recycles Waste Water from Olive Mills. Olive Times. February 8,

2012. Accessed on June 11, 2015. URL: http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-making-

and-milling/recycle-water-from-olive-mills/24641

Plaza, C., Senesi, N., Brunetti, G. and Mondelli, D. 2005. Cocomposting of Sludge from Olive Oil

Mill Wastewater Mixed with Tre Cuttings. Compost Science and Utilization 13 (3): 217 – 226.

http://www.olivepellet.gr/en/index.php

85

Prosodol-life. 2011. Olive Oil Production in the Mediterranean. Olive Oil Production. Accessed on

June 24, 2015. URL: http://www.prosodol.gr/?q=node/203.

Prosodol. 2012. Integrated Strategy of Action, Measures and Means Suitable for Mediterranean

Countries. Analysis of national and European legislative frameworks for Oil Olive Waste and

Soil Protection. April 2012. Accessed on June 24, 2015. URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showF

ile&rep=file&fil=PRODOSOL_Analysis.pdf.

Pultarova, T. 2015. Olive oil power plant launched in Spain. Engeneering and technology magazine.

January 26, 2015. Accessed on June 11, 2015. URL:

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/jan/olive-oil-power-plant.cfm

Ramos-Comerzana, A., and Monteoliva-Sanchez, M. 2000. Potencial biofarmaceutico de los residuos

de la industria oleicola ‘‘Potential biofarmaceutical use of the wastes of the olive oil industry’’.

Ars Pharmaceutica 41(1):129.

Regional Energy Agency of Central Macedonia (REACM). 2008. One joint report for the 5 Regional

“state of art” reports from each involved area describing the current olive-milling residues

market (with a focus on energy uses). July 2008. Market of Olive Residues for energy

(MORE). EU Intelligent Energy. Accessed June 15, 2015. URL:

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/project

s/documents/m.o.r.e._regional_situation_olive_milling_residues_market_en.pdf.

Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production (RAC/CP). 2000. Pollution prevention in Olive oil

production. Autonomous Government of Catalonia Ministry of the Environment Centre for

Cleaner Production Initiatives. Mediterranean Action Plan. November 2000. Accessed June

15, 2015. URL:

http://www.industry.org.il/_UploadsCl/dbsAttachedFiles/oliveoilproduction(1).pdf.

Rigane, H. and Medhioub, K. 2011. Cocomposting of Olive Mill Wastewater with Manure and Agro-

industrial Wastes. Compost Science and Utilization 19(2): 129 –134.

Rinaldi, M., Gianfranci, R., Introna, M. 2003. Olive-mill wastewater spreading in southern Italy:

effects on a durum wheat crop. Field Crops Research 84 (2003) 319–326.

Sayadi, S., Allouche, N., Jaoua, M., and Aloui, F. 2000. Detrimental effects of high molecular mass

polyphenols on olive mill wastewater biotreatment. Process Biochem 35, 725–735.

http://www.prosodol.gr/?q=node/203

86

Schaelicke, D. 2015. Olive Oil Production Using Two Phase Centrifugation. Main differences

between two phase separation process and three phase separation process. Internal report.

Available from Department of Environmental, the University of Aegean, Mytilene, Greece.

Schuster, R. 2014. 8,000-year old olive oil found in Galilee, earliest known in world. Accessed June

11, 2015. URL:http://qz.com/306571/the-global-olive-oil-market-is-having-its-worst-year-

ever/

Soil Atlas of Europe. 2014. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for

Environment and Sustainability. Accessed June 17, 2015. URL:

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/Soil_Atlas/Index.html.

Taccogna, G. 2010. The legal regime of olive pomace deriving from olive oil extraction at olive mills,

waste, by-products and biomass. Department of Public and Procedural Law, University of

Genoa. On behalf of ARE s.p.a. - Agenzia regionale per l’energia della Liguria, member of

the community project: “MORE: Market of Olive Residues for Energy”.

Toscano, P. and Montemurro, F. 2012. Olive Mill By-Products Management, Olive Germplasm -

The Olive Cultivation, Table Olive and Olive Oil Industry in Italy. Dr. Innocenzo

Muzzalupo (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0883-2, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/52039. Accessed June

17, 2015. URL: http://www.intechopen.com/books/olive-germplasm-the-olive-cultivation-

table-olive-and-olive-oil-industry-in-italy/olive-mill-by-products-management.

Tsagaraki, E., Lazarides, H.N., and Petrotos, K.B. 2007. Olive Mill Wastewater Treatment. In

Utilization of by-products and treatment of waste in the food industry, ed. V. Orepoulou,

and W. Russ, 133-157. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Vasilopoulos, C. 2012. New Phase for Greek Olive Mills. Olive times. July 9, 2012. Accessed on June

13, 2015. URL: http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-making-and-milling/new-phase-

olive-oil-mills-greece/27303.

.

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/Soil_Atlas/Index.html

http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-making-and-milling/new-phase-olive-oil-mills-greece/27303

http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-making-and-milling/new-phase-olive-oil-mills-greece/27303

87

15 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Bill Kokkinoforos, Manager of Vasilios Pr. Kokkinoforos Ltd (Olive Mill Operator). Formal

interview. Mytilene, 12 June 2015.

Christos Paterakis, Master’s candidate at the University of Aegean, Greece. Email communication,

02-27 June 2015.

Gomos Mantzoros, Manager of Olive Pellet Plant of Lambous Milous. Formal interview. Mytilene,

11 June, 2015.

Kizos, Thanasis. Associate Professor of Rural Geography, University of the Aegean, Greece. Email

communication, 17 June 2015.

Maria Kanellos, Co-Manager of the Olive Mill at Alyfanta. Formal interview. Mytilene, 14 June 2015.

Martha Atsikmpasi, Head of Development Directorate, Department of Industry, Energy and Natural

Resources, Region of North Aegean. Formal interview. Mytilene, 16 June 2015.

Schaelicke, Dirk. Process and Environmental Enigneer. Department of Environment, University of

the Aegean, Greece. Lecture Slides Communication a., 02-27 June 2015.

Schaelicke, Dirk. Process and Environmental Enigneer. Department of Environment, University of

the Aegean, Greece. Moodle Resource Online Learning Communication b, 02-27 June 2015.

Spilanis, Ioannis. Associate Professor. Department of Environment, University of the Aegean,

Greece. Email communication, 17 June 2015.

88

16 APPENDIX

16.1 Olive waste group task

Not many years ago, waste generation and the management practices of the municipal

authorities and industries on Lesvos Island were rather unfamiliar and neglected

environmental issues.

Greece’s obligation to integrate European environmental directives into national

Greek environmental policy has brought about significant changes. Previously inexistent

infrastructure has given its place to waste management infrastructure to comply with

European standards. Over the last twenty years the island witnessed extensive infrastructural

works and now waste treatment of most municipal solid and liquid waste takes place. Major

projects include the operation of a central landfill, the construction of sewage and storm water

networks in towns and villages, and a growing number of wastewater treatment plants. First

efforts were made by the Municipality of Lesvos to recycle solid waste on the island. Although

there is still much is to be done, infrastructure has drastically improved the overall municipal

waste management situation.

Industrial activities are limited on Lesvos. Agriculture on the other hand, is a vital

source of income for the island’s inhabitants. The olive and olive oil industry and dairy product

production industry -supplied by locally produced raw materials- are highly important to the

small-scale island economy and its primary sector.

Industrial waste, namely dairy and olive processing waste, remains a largely neglected

and persisting problem on Lesvos. A holistic approach has never been applied to the waste

issue on Lesvos, and so by products with agricultural origin are on the annual agenda of

problems for Lesvos policy makers.

The group should identify all significant waste streams on Lesvos and present a brief

overview of the economic contribution, environmental impact and current management

situation of theses streams. The ultimate aim of the assignment is to suggest alternative

89

solutions and develop scenarios for the olive processing waste and by products management,

taking into account the socio-economic and geographical restraints of the island. First of all

the waste management problem in the olive producing sector on Lesvos needs to be identified

based on current data about the quantitative, qualitative characteristics of wastes and by

products and the analysis (understanding) of the production processes currently applied, the

spatial distribution of facilities, topography, socio-economic behaviours. Current waste

generation and management practices need to be evaluated. Environmentally relevant policies

and management trends implemented in Greece and other countries, social and financial

factors of the local community should also be taken into account.

Dirk Schaelicke

MSc., BSc. Process & Env. Engineering

Waste Management Laboratory

Department of Environmental Studies

University of the Aegean

90

16.2 Stakeholders interviews

INTERVIEW 1: Olive Pellet Plant of Lambous Milous

Interviewee: Gomos Mantzoros

Contacts: http://www.olivepellet.com/en/index.php

Location: Pigi

Date: 2 pm, 10 June 2015

QUESTIONS

1. How long have you operated this mill?

Ownership: Private owned. Four investors of 25% share each with a total of euro 1.5M. Operations run by 2 of them. One is Gomos Mantzoros. Start in 2011, this is the fourth years. Capacity: about 170 tons pomace / day, intents to increase to 200 tons by 2015 winter. Totally there are three pomace oil extraction plants. The other two could only treat pomace waste from 3 phase. Olive Pellet Plant of Lambous Milous could do 2 and 3 phase both. Machinery is from Turkey (not very good - fire outbreak), Germany and some local customization (especially with most recent add-ons/expansion through learning as they go).

2. What is the size of your production? I.e. inputs, outputs - olive fruit tonnage, cooperative size and square.

Operating period: Winter (same as the olive mills) 1st year 2011-2012: Testing 500 tons of pomace 2nd year 2012-2013: First full operation but very less products due to low season of olives 3rd year 2013-2014: 100% capacity 24 hours per day whole summer almost two months and still kept running 20 days after peak season. Inputs: 6000 tons of pomace with 50% humidity Outputs: 6500 tons of products and by-products in the third year, 40% consumed factory-self, 30% products sold, 15% humidity, industrial or Lampante Olive Oil 3% and and 12% others (dust and wastewater) Olive material inputs and outputs (product and waste): Inputs: All energy needs by the factory are covered by burning de-oiled dry pomace. Staff size: Staff members 20 at the beginning, currently has downsized to 10. Output products and waste: Fuel, Olive Pellet (150 euro/ton => market 190 euro), Olive Pits (0.5% humidity and 180 euro/ton => market 220 euro), Dry Olive Pomace with pieces of olive pit (5% humidity, 120 euro => market 145 euro), Animal Feed: Dry Olive Pomace without pit (150 euro/ton) suitable for many kinds of animals, Oil (1.2 euro/L), Waste water, Dust: Onsite composting trial being carried out now. Intention to sell if successful. Market: 300 customers currently and 1st year export production to 100% Italy and Spain. 2nd year, 50% export and 50% domestic. 3rd year, 100% domestic market

91

3. Can you provide a brief description of your products and how they are made?

Process applied: Separation of pits, Secondary centrifugation of Pomace, Drying, and Pellet production. Two Different production lines: Industrial Oil (lampante) separation and by products utilization and Olive Pellets production. Industrial Olive Oil Production Line and Management of by products: Using “fresh” pomace coming directly from the Olive Mills. The plant can process pomace coming from mills operating the 3 phases or 2-phase extraction process. (Claims he can process 300t of 2-phase pomace or 200t of 3-phase pomace. The 200t have to become 300t by adding OMWW or water). Steps of Process: Storage tank for 2phase pomace or storage room for 3 phase pomace(4…% oil); 2phase pomace is fed directly to the line, 3 phase pomace is mixed with Water or Olive mill wastewater to increase humidity; A depitting machine separates the pieces of broken pits; Homogenization of depitted olive pomace (2 Malaxers); Separation of remaining olive oil using 3 phase Decanter. Process is known in Spain as “repasso” – remaining oil within pomace is separated; the final product is olive oil of usually low quality (industrial – lamp ante). End product: Industrial or Lampante Olive Oil, Olive Pits. By Products: Olive Wastewater, Pomace with high humidity content 65%. Management of By Products: Olive Wastewater is recycled in order to increase humidity of 3-phase pomace in the beginning of the process. Excess Waste Water is evaporated using an industrial liquid gasifying combustion device. Pomace is dried using industrial dryers (at 60% humidity 100t/day capacity) including two dust particle cyclones for reduced particle emission. An industrial sieve separates the pomace into Dry Pomace with and without wood particles. 1.5t/hr to dry the pomace (5% humidity left) which is dried using 0.5t solid fuel (dried pomace with pits/wood). End product: Evaporated Olive Waste Water, Dry Olive Pomace containing parts of olive pit, Dry Olive Pomace without pit .By Products: Separated Dust arising from Dust Cyclones (maybe for composting step). Olive Pellet Production Line: Using deoiled dry pomace coming from one of the two other pomace oil extraction plants; Prior drying of pomace if needed; Pellet Machine with capacity about 4 tons per hour. Step of process: the dryer is used in case humidity of the raw material is too high; the pit machine can also work with other raw material (they could think of using also wood coming from pruning of olive trees, or by products within the factory). End product: Dry Olive Pellets.

92

4. Where does the feed-in stock come from? I.e. waste byproduct from Lesvos farmers vs. olive acreage owned by factory. How do you manage outreach to farmer supply chains?

Buys the pomace for euro 16/t from the mills. If the mills change from 3 to 2 phase, the price will be reduced because the production of the dried pomace will require more water to add humidity to the dry byproduct. The shift from a 3 to a 2 phase will overall have an environmental benefit as there will be less waste to deal with in terms of wastewater byproducts, i.e. there will just be the solid waste (dried pomace) to manage.

5. What are the key drivers, benefits and risks/impacts of your factory and products? e.g. waste management, GHG reductions, local rural employment- clarify

Economic crisis has assisted the business because its sales have increased due to industry and householders switching from oil to the pellets based on pricing. The risk to the business is if Government were to tax solid fuels, this would remove the incentive for existing and prospect customers.

6. What applications are olive pellets and core used in?

Products prices: Best quality (yellow pits - wooded biomass) sold for euro 180/t. Second best (grey) euro 120/t. Animal feed is euro 150/t. Oil is euro 1.20/L (depending on international demand - currently this pomace oil is sold to Italy, Spain and Cyprus - there is a regulation in Greece prohibiting the sale of oil byproduct on the domestic market. Therefore Greece exports this second quality oil, it is then mixed abroad and then Greece buys it back for industrial use.

7. What response have you had from the municipality, market and consumer base?

No government support in terms of seed funding, relationship building or networking. There is a tendency for Greek family businesses to operate with individual motivates rather than join collectives and operate with a common/shared vision with mutual benefits. Businesses are therefore run less strategically and more in terms of leaving a family legacy - heritage. The focus is on family benefits.

8. Are you aware of any EU regulations related to solid and liquid waste management?

No programs from the EU that can be of use and there are no funds available that he knows of.

9. In your opinion, what can the Lesvos olive industry do better to optimize potential - what’s stopping Lesvos from reaching this point and what could be some solutions to this problem?

8 mills are planning to change their processes from 3 to 2 phase - there is a Greek Regulation stating this shift but no mills to date have made the change. He believes this is the best overall solution and that there will be no other choice, Greece will need to follow Spain and Italy’s example.

10. Thinking about the future, what is the potential for your business and what are the

Gomos would like to see production increase in terms of both the island utilizing unproductive olive trees as well as accepting more feedstock from existing mills - especially the larger operators (there are 5 in particular). His strategies for gaining

93

consequences from the Lesvos olive industry?

more feedstock: 1 build good relationship with certain mills and offer higher price for pomace 2 give certain mills own products e.g. pellets for energy use for free or lower price than market. He also want to keep the price the same rather than to incentives the mill owners with a cheaper deal of less than euro 16/t. In the future, Limnus Island will provide the opportunity to have the factory operating in the offseason. To do this the factory will plant artichoke (not liked by rabbits) and process 500t/yr. or more in following years based on degree of success. The factory will convert this to biomass pellets. Gomos is also looking forward to make the payback period less than 6 years.

INTERVIEW 2: OLIVE MILL OPERATOR

Interviewee: Maria Kanellos

Contacts: www.cherouviem.gr

Location: Alyfanta

Date: 5 pm, 11 June 2015

QUESTIONS


Established 1901 by great grandparent. Updated first in 1984. Last update was in 2011. Machinery is all-Greek – the decanter is the most important machine and is Italian. Started the operation of the waste treatment with lime in 1997 and was successful as a method in treating wastewater. The season starts October and ends end March/start April. Don’t bottle but export to Italy and in Greece (Crete and Athens).

2. What is the size of your production? I.e. inputs, outputs - olive fruit tonnage, cooperative size, and square

Capacity of the whole island pre 2005, amount of tonnage of olives were 40,000/yr on average. Post 2005, this changed to 10,000 tonnes. The capacity of this particular mill is 150,000 tonnes/yr of olive oil in a very good year. Capacity is 4-5 tonnes / hr (medium – high capacity). Mill works in 3 phases. Has equipment within 5 minutes to switch to 2 phases – however, the cost of this switch is very high based on energy consumption and less energy efficient machinery.

3. What positive and negative changes have you encountered over the years?

No cooperation with the pellet factory. Pre 2005 production of olive oil was subsidized and at this time Spain was 3rd after Greece and Italy – subsidies at this time were high. From 2005 subsidies to the farmers were given based on hectares and were lower – i.e. bigger farms get higher subsidies – caretaking of olive trees are not an outcome. So olive trees have been abandoned. EU Policy favours Spain. Previously an average production was

94

40,000t/yr, now it has gone down to 10,000t/yr – this 25% reduction could be related directly to the EU Policy.

4. What role has the economic crisis played in terms of your operations?

Has not changed the productivity or the amount of olive oil for sale.

5. How do you deal with waste materials from the process – both solid and water wastes?

Mill has a license but because of the strict laws, the license was under threat of non renewed by municipal government. Feel the rules are completely unfair because they do not protect the mill owners or the farmers or even the olive oil industry of the island. They tried to find a solution but have not yet found a way to overcome those problems – regarding wastewater management. Sell pomice to Dipi Pomice Factory.

6. Do you feel this is effective?

Not effective. Has the lime treatment – but now this is no longer an acceptable solution by the municipality.

7. Have you observed any consequences of releasing olive mill waste –at your site or from other mills on the island?

8. What are your challenges in meeting council requirements for compliance of wastewater and solid waste management?

Try to keep organic values of BOD (5) and COD of wastewater under the limits as much as they can….but it is not possible. This is the main reason why licenses are threatened not to be renewed. All Mill owners wastewater limits are 5+ and they find it difficult to keep under 5.


Mill has been provided with a 50% subsidy from the EU – focus is on helping olive mill owners to upgrade their technological capacity to produce more – not wastewater related. See Qu. 3.

10. What could help you meet or go beyond compliance? E.g. Municipal support, CAP increases, technological changes, coop communications

Technological changes have been introduced – to allow for the switch from 3-2 phase. Hopes that they have support from Municipality and Govt. but understands they are in trouble now and trying to find the correct solution – not yet managed.

11. In your opinion, how could olive mills on Lesvos stay viable for the future without impacting the environment badly?

Believes no mill owners can afford to make the switch from 2-3 phase because of the cost in changing machinery and energy demand increases. Solutions can be good for the environment but not economically viable - believes the final product quality is the same – no difference. Only way for the future is to take care of the olive trees to increase production. Secondly could bottle their own olive oil and to diversify into bottling organic (bio) olive oil – exporting to European countries where the prices are much higher.

12. Do you see a role the Aegean University and

Have not yet communicated with the university as we are a private mill – but hopes in the future they could

95

students could play to assist OMWM – if so what?

collaborate with the University and find some solutions not only on wastewater management but generally – e.g. organic products, how to market to local community.

13. In light of current reality - what impact on olive mills does Greek EU membership hold?

Olive Oil is a necessary export product for Greece, any further reductions will have an impact.

INTERVIEW 3: OLIVE MILL OPERATOR

Interviewee: Bill Kokkinoforos

Contacts: www.mytileneoliveoil.gr

Location: Moria

Date: 10 am, 12 June 2015

QUESTIONS


Established 1984, updated technology/machinery in 2005.

2. What is the size of your production? I.e. inputs, outputs - olive fruit tonnage, cooperative size, square meterage.

902 t/olives input; 200 t olive oil output. Medium capacity 3.5t/hr. Products not sold to the cooperative – instead they bottle at their own nearby bottling plant. Export to Austria, USA, Germany and Taiwan.

3. What positive and negative changes have you encountered over the years?

Farmers in Lesvos did not previously cultivate the olive tree as much, not caring as much. However the economic crisis has impacted a change and now more trees are being actively cultivated (because can make money at the mill from sales) – production is increasing.

4. What role has the economic crisis played in terms of your operations?

See above. In the 2013/14 period, this was called the ‘black year’ for olives. Spain and Italy suffered major losses, however Greece was not impacted and was able to capitalize on the situation by increasing from 1.20 euro/L to 2.20 euro /L.

5. How do you deal with waste materials from the process – both solid and water wastes?

Constructed three tanks – settling/sedimentation phased ponds whereby the first tank has more solids and the final tank has more liquids. The solids are collected and used as compost on his own garden. The liquid is discharged into a river nearby the mill – no chemical or mechanical treatment. The 3-tank process was developed mainly to collect the solid waste material. Pomice is sold to all three factories.

6. Do you feel this is effective?

Believes this is effective and believes he does not pollute the environment. He said “How can a natural product pollute the environment”. Feels there is no need to construct a treatment plant. To solve the environmental problem I did make an investment buying a decanter that

96

switches from 3 phase to 2 phase in just 1 hour – and has made this investment in order to meet any regulations if/when they come into place. Other mills have made the same investment and are waiting for the law to change!

7. Have you observed any consequences of releasing olive mill waste –at your site or from other mills on the island?

Waiting for the municipality to find a solution that is economically feasible for the mill owners. If such a solution is found, they will follow it, otherwise they will reject it!

8. What are your challenges in meeting council requirements for compliance of wastewater and solid waste management?

Many problems with the law and local authorities. Every October this is heightened because the local Authorities do not give them the license to operate and then the mill owners have to wait…eventually they get the license – maybe 1-2 months later, which has an impact on olive production.


Doesn’t know anything about the EU laws and they wait for the EU to suggest to them an economically feasible way to teat the OMWW. The EU did provide funds/subsidies to support olive mill owners to renew their equipment (as he did in 2005). I’m hoping the EU will start a new funded program on OMWW treatment. The municipality is not helpful in progressing this or helping them comply with the law.

10. What could help you meet or go beyond compliance? E.g. Municipal support, CAP increases, technological changes, coop communications

Has heard that in Spain, 2-phase mills don’t produce high quality olive.

11. In your opinion, how could olive mills on Lesvos stay viable for the future without impacting the environment badly?

12. Do you see a role the Aegean University and students could play to assist OMWM – if so what?

13. In light of current reality - what impact on olive mills in Lesvos does Greek EU membership hold?

Don’t have any problems with the current crisis – but the production of olive oil could be improved by cultivating more trees and with people needing jobs they can go back to work. This would increase profits for Lesvos.

97

INTERVIEW 4: Region of North Aegean, Development Directorate, Department of Industry, Energy and Natural Resources (second grade self-governmental institution)

Interviewee: Martha Atsikmpasi (Head of Department), Chemical Engineer

Contacts: ??

Location: Date: 12.30 PM, 16 JUNE

QUESTIONS

1. Can you please briefly describe your role as it relates to the Olive Industry?

Σχετικά με την ελαιοπαραγωγή στη

Λέσβου – ποιο ρόλο ακριβώς έχετε ως

υπηρεσία.

Region of North Aegean is the region of responsibility. Responsible for ensuring that business compliance is achieved, one area is compliance with environmental regulations, other compliance areas relate to installations and operations. If so completing paper work for another department to approve license to operate for businesses. Does not issue liecenses themselves. If not, completing paper work to issue a fine. This year, and for the first time, 16 fines have been issued randomly across small-med and large olive mills.

2. What key changes have you observed over the years in this role? (olive mills / pomace extraction plants)

Ποιες βασικές αλλαγές παρατηρούνται

όλα αυτά τα χρόνια σε αυτή τη θέση και

σε σχέση με τα ελαιουργεία /

πυρηναιλουργεία;

Feel the department has not changed its view at all. We have always supported full compliance as the Department is not in favour of approving licenses without treatment of OMW. In the past the Prefecture was the governance body which no longer exists, and was responsible for allowing non-compliance on a year-by-year basis. The Head at the time was a Lesvian olive farm owner and was in favour of no change to the current structure – this resulted in annual deferments/delays to compliance. Essentially up till 2010/11 the Prefecture provided licenses to pollute through a political loop hole. In 2011 however the Prefecture structure was replaced with the Region of North Aegean, and a new Head from Limnus Island. Since this time they have tried to close this loop hole and manged so in 2014 by aligning policies with the new governance structure. This restructure and change now means that compliance is more able to be enforced legally with consequences for Mill owners.

3. What critical changes do you see coming up for the (Olive Oil ?) industry – both positive and negative?

Negative - giving licenses to mill owners that do not process their waste water. Only two staff persons available for checking and control of the mills – under-resourced.

98

Ποιες σημαντικές αλλαγές βλέπετε στο

μέλλον, για τη (ελαιοπαραγωγική?)

βιομηχανία - τόσο θετικές όσο και

αρνητικές ;

a)With a new Head of the Region and closed loop holes in law, increased pressure to comply with OMW standards will be applied. Saying this however, we feel the nationally set standrads for BOD and COD limits are too stringent and not reflective of technical treatment options and economic/financial reality of mill owners. We see a more flexible approach reducing these limits to allow for compliance and encouraging Mill Owners the chance to do ‘something’ – anything that suits them, to reduce OMW through treatment options. This could be evaporation ponds or irrigation with extra water for dilution (suggested by OM owners) like adopted in Italy. b) We do not support centralisation of say 5 big mills as this creates concentrated waste (and concentrated pollution in case of non-compliance) and reduces rural employment opportunities. In addition, they are not likely to comply with the laws. We prefer to stay with the heritage of the small farm holder and small Mill operaters. c) We are aware of an informal collective made up of OM Owners and the two pomace factories (minus the pellet factory) forming an alliance against any changes and compliance (= building up negotiation power). The idea is to keep a collective and if one Mill owner separates by implementing compliance and treatment, then the band is vulnerable and others are likely to follow. The Region will try to negotiate with the mill owners in order to find a common solution. The Environmental Ministry awaits proposals from both sides.

4. Data checking/verification (number of farmers, acreage, production, waste, number of fines and amount etc.) (Records they keep in the Department) You consider that fines are bearable?

Έλεγχος των δεδομένων / επαλήθευση

(αριθμός των αγροτών , εκτάσεων , την

παραγωγή , τα απόβλητα , τον αριθμό

16 fines have been issued randomly this year (irrespective of mill size) for the first time based on mill investigation and discovery that no waste management was in place. These fines are bearable ranging from just 500-1,000 euro. The fines do not imply that mill owners´ non-compliance in 2015 is allowed but the fines are a penalty for having no waste management system

99

των προστίμων και το ύψος κλπ)

(Ύπαρξη βάσης δεδομένων.)

Θέμα προστίμων – γενική τοποθέτηση,

είναι αρκετά, είναι υποφερτά.

in place. The idea is to issue fines up to 3 times in a row if non-compliance continues to occur. Following this the threat of shutting down the Mill is there. More weight is given to the area of Gera which is the most sensitive recipient – Chris can explain more.

5. What is the current level of compliance with the existing legislative (environmental) framework for olive mill operators for both solid and liquid waste management? Are there any pressures by the government?

Ποιο είναι το τρέχον επίπεδο της

συμμόρφωσης με την ισχύουσα

νομοθεσία για τους ιδιοκτήτες

ελαιοτριβείων , για την διαχείριση

στερεών και υγρών αποβλήτων ;

Υπάρχουν πιέσεις από την κεντρική

κυβέρνηση ως προς το θέμα των

αποβλήτων?

Lack of compliance by all Olive Mill Owners is a casualty of the legacy of poor Governance by the prefecture allowing non compliance for so many years. Then there was a big staff transition from last winter to this summer, has impacted ability to monitor compliance. 2015 is signaling a change with fines being allocated. At the same time the national standards are too high/stringent and would effectively mean 99.9% of OMW needs to be treated, this is not realistic at all and we would like to reduce these limits to allow for compliance. Flexibility will be possible site-by-site depending on what measure the Mill Owner wants to implement. Sediment holdings usually remove 30-40% of solids, but this is still not enough to meet BOD standards. They do not do anything to treat waste water except the five that build in the past different ways of treatment. Chris can explain more here. Mill owners start to communicate with the department and suggest treatment possibilities like irrigation. According to Martha Atsikmpasi, irrigation is difficult to achieve due to geographical conditions on Lesvos. Only some regions are suitable for this approach.

6. From Departments perspective – what are the key benefits and key negative impacts the Lesvos olive producers and mills contribute (plus pomace extraction plants)?

Από την πλευρά της Διεύθυνσης σας -

ποια είναι τα βασικά πλεονεκτήματα και

ποιες οι βασικές αρνητικές επιπτώσεις

των ελαιοπαραγωγών και των

ελαιοτριβείων της Λέσβου (και

πυρηναιλουργείων) ;

This Department has always supported no pollution. There should be no destruction of production Necessary to find a solution, the Region wishes that the olive mills position will be more responsible.

100

7. In your opinion what are the biggest barriers in a) Official Institutions working better with olive producers/mills; b) olive producers/mills improving operations (environmental compliance)?

Κατά τη γνώμη σας, ποια είναι τα

μεγαλύτερα εμπόδια σε α) H Υπηρεσία

να επικοινωνεί καλύτερα με τους

ελαιοπαραγωγούς / ελαιοτριβεία ? β ) οι

παραγωγοί ελιάς / ελαιοτριβεία να

βελτιώσουν την περιβαλλοντική τους

λειτουργία;

The politicians used to give out licenses all the previous years without checking the limits or the environmental impacts. They did not push the owners to do something Thoughts to concentrate on bigger units but this method may cause other problems such as unemployment - Would not be ideal for mills to centralise as noted above.

7. What possible solutions are available currently or in the future to ensure Lesvos remain a viable and sustainable olive producing island? Financial crisis has change your plans?

Ποιες πιθανές λύσεις είναι διαθέσιμες

(σήμερα ή στο μέλλον) για να

εξασφαλίσει τη Λέσβο, ώστε να

παραμείνει βιώσιμη και αειφόρο νησί

που παράγει ελαιόλαδο ;

Η οικονομική κρίση – πως επηρέασε τα

σχέδια σας?

According to Martha Atsikmpasi, olive mills on Lesvos are able and aware of immediate options to treat the waste water, including evaporation ponds and anaerobic digestion. Moreover, there is one pomace treatment plant existent that could also treat 2-phase pomace of 4 or 5 olive mills, and hence would allow a shift away from 3-phase processing for some mills. The department is aware that some mills have the technological ability to switch to 2-phase processing and the department would be fine with this step. The Region may only propose: Technical solutions that are acceptable, i.e. Change the reuse (waste water) law; Change the limits of the existing low, more flexible Change from 3 phase to 2 phase; Flocculation; two hours decanting; lime treatment.

8. How are EU regulations related to solid and liquid waste management communicated and responded to here? (Lesbos)

Πώς σχετίζονται, μεταφέρονται και

εφαρμόζονται οι κανονισμοί της ΕΕ για

την διαχείριση στερεών και υγρών

αποβλήτων εδώ στη Λέσβο;

Greek laws are harmonized with the EU, so there are not big differences or big gaps that may cause problems. Big units will not apply, extended environmental impacts. Greek legislation is sufficient but there is no application

9. Thinking about the future, what can the Governmental Institutions do differently to ensure the industry remains sustainable while legal and

Flexibility of standards, signaling through fines. We do not offer direct support for on-the-ground implementation as this is not our role. Also it outcompetes other commerical sectors

101

environmental minimums are met…or exceeded?

Προβληματισμός σχετικά με το μέλλον ,

το τι μπορεί να κάνει η Υπηρεσία

διαφορετικά, ώστε να εξασφαλιστεί η

ελαιοπαραγωγική βιομηχανία να

παραμένει βιώσιμη, ενώ τα νομικά και

περιβαλλοντικά να πληρούνται ;

such as environmental consultants. It is up to the OM Owners to decided what measures they want to take for OMW. Note: There is no specific Olive Council existing that provides a roundtable for different stakeholder. There is only a Council for Island Planning of the region, being a part of a ministry.

10. In your opinion does Lesvos have the potential to become a global leader in sustainable and responsible olive production?

Κατά τη γνώμη σας, η Λέσβος έχει τη

δυνατότητα να γίνει ένας παγκόσμιος

ηγέτης στην αειφόρο και υπεύθυνη

παραγωγή ελαιολάδου ;

11. In your opinion what does your Department need from the State, EU, industry or residents to fulfill and exceed your role in responsible and sustainable olive production?

Κατά τη γνώμη σας, τι χρειάζεται η

Υπηρεσία από το κράτος , την ΕΕ , τη

βιομηχανία ή τους κατοίκους, για να

εκπληρώσει και να ξεπεράσει το ρόλο

της, στην υπεύθυνη και βιώσιμη

παραγωγή ελαιολάδου ;

Not aware of any EU Programs providing funding to support OMW transition in Greece. Previously (one or two decades ago) there was a national program for SME focused on technology/ equipment improvement for enhanced productivity and OM owners were able to update their machines every couple of years but they did not utilize the funding to install waste management facilities. Currently, there are no national schemes in place that address environmental issues of SME. Martha Atsikmpasi wishes that a solution will be given soon, and mentions that if only one make the start, all the other will follow; basic condition is the change of low.

16.3 Justification for Final Solutions

Several treatment methods and technologies have been proved by current research for

the OMWW disposal including physicochemical treatment, biological treatment, oxidation and

advanced oxidation processes etc. However, most of the methods are still far from realistically

102

application and promotion due to economic and technical inefficiency. And problems cannot

be fully solved since the need to dispose of other by-products deriving from these process

remains (Paredes et al. 2001). Moreover, phytotoxic effects and negative effects on soil

properties have been observed when OMWW is used directly as an organic fertiliser (Tomati

& Galli 1992).

In fact, almost all treatment practices designed for industrial and domestic wastewater

have been adopted on OMWW, whilst none of them was proved to be widespread promoted

(Tsagaraki et al. 2006). Given the characteristics of small-scaled, seasonal processing and

geographically dispersed for oil mills in general, effective and affordable methods should be

developed to actually solve the problems.

16.4 Physicochemical Treatment

The promotion of physicochemical treatment is limited by its technical inefficiency,

adverse environmental impacts and high pre-investment. The effectiveness of this treatment

is affected by variable factors including the nature of organic matter, the concentration of

components and the operation and design of the facilities. Hence, the effect of pollution

removal may vary widely (Chipasa 2001).

None of the common physical processes alone - such as dilution, evaporation,

sedimentation, filtration and centrifugation – is able to appropriately decrease the organic load

and toxicity of OMWW in line with the limits (Paraskeva and Diamadopoulos 2006). In the

cases of evaporation and sedimentation, further treatment was required in order to satisfy the

discharge requirements. In addition, open sedimentation or evaporation sites will produce

considerable odor problems.

Even the thermal treatment methods including combustion, co-combustion and

pyrolysis that aim to recover energy and fuel the olive industry, will create significant problems

such as costly facilities and emission of toxic substances into the atmosphere (Paraskeva and

Diamadopoulos 2006).

103

16.5 Biological Treatment

Biological methods aim to remove the pollution load in OMWW by using

microorganisms to break down the chemicals, which can be further divided into aerobic and

anaerobic processes based on the type of microorganisms used (Tsagaraki et al. 2006).

However, aerobic processes can only work efficiently and economically under the low

concentration of OMWW feed, and it will produce a number of secondary sludge that required

further processing. Furthermore, aerobic treatment is proved unsuitable for efficient treatment

of OMWW since it fails to achieve the expected removal efficiency of certain pollutants

including polyphenols and lipids (Tsagaraki et al. 2006). In addition, to use anaerobic digestion

for OMWW treatment can generate problems of necessary addition of alkali and nitrogen,

limited efficiency in the removal of aromatics, and difficulty to scale up (Paraskeva and

Diamadopoulos 2006).

16.6 Oxidation and Advanced Oxidation Processes

Recently there has been increasing interest in oxidation and advanced oxidation

processes for the treatment of OMWW. The addition of oxidizing agent would breakdown

recalcitrant and toxic compounds, leading to high degree of OMWW treatment (Paraskeva

and Diamadopoulos 2006). Whilst most of the oxidation processes lack of effectiveness either

due to the costly antioxidants or the low interval of COD (Tsagaraki et al. 2006).

olive mill waste case study analysis

Documents