Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Agricultural Waste Management in the Maltese Islands
(2015-2030)
DRAFT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
MINISTRY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
MALTA
December 2015
1
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 16
2. Policy and Legislation governing Agricultural Waste Management ............................................. 18
2.1 Agricultural Waste in the Maltese Islands .................................................................................. 19
2.2 Current waste management policy ............................................................................................. 19
2.3 EU Directives & National Legislation Relevant to Agricultural Waste Management.................. 20
2.4 Current Practice .......................................................................................................................... 25
2.5 Challenges associated with current practice & compliance ....................................................... 26
2.5.1 Cattle .................................................................................................................................... 26
2.5.2 Pigs ........................................................................................................................................... 26
2.6 Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 27
2.7 Barriers to the Implementation of Agricultural Waste Management Infrastructure ................. 28
3. Overview of the Agricultural Sector .................................................................................................. 29
3.1 Malta ........................................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Number of Agricultural Holdings ......................................................................................... 30
3.1.2 Employment ......................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.4 Livestock ............................................................................................................................... 34
3.1.5 Pigs ....................................................................................................................................... 38
3.1.7 Poultry .................................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.8 Goats and Sheep .................................................................................................................. 42
3.2 Gozo and Comino ........................................................................................................................ 43
3.2.1 Number of Agricultural Holdings ......................................................................................... 43
3.2.2 Employment ......................................................................................................................... 44
3.2.3 Cattle .................................................................................................................................... 47
3.2.5 Pigs ....................................................................................................................................... 50
3.2.6 Poultry .................................................................................................................................. 51
3.2.7 Goats and Sheep .................................................................................................................. 52
4. Forecast of the Livestock Sector (2016-2030) .................................................................................. 54
4.1 Cattle ........................................................................................................................................... 54
4.2 Pigs ............................................................................................................................................. 59
4.3 Goats ........................................................................................................................................... 63
2
4.4 Sheep........................................................................................................................................... 66
4.5 Potential Forecast Scenarios (Heads) ......................................................................................... 69
4.6 Potential Forecast Scenarios (Manure/Slurry) ........................................................................... 70
5. Strategic Options towards Manure and Slurry Management in Malta (2016-2030) ........................ 73
5.1 Scenario Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 75
5.2 Implications of this Analysis for Strategic Options ............................................................... 78
5.3 Discussion on a Potentially Realistic Scenario ............................................................................ 79
6. High-Level Assessment of Treatment Options .................................................................................. 82
6.1 Critical Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 83
6.2 Current Policy and Practice ......................................................................................................... 84
6.3 Technology options ..................................................................................................................... 85
6.3.1 Physical treatment: Mechanical Separation ........................................................................ 86
6.3.2 Aerobic treatment ................................................................................................................ 87
6.3.3 Aerobic treatment of slurries ............................................................................................... 88
6.4 Thermal treatment of solids ....................................................................................................... 91
6.5 Application in the Maltese Islands Context ................................................................................ 92
7. Determination of the Financial Costs of the Technological Alternatives for the Handling and
Treatment of Agricultural Waste .......................................................................................................... 96
7.1 Waste Generation ....................................................................................................................... 97
7.2 Waste Treatment .................................................................................................................. 98
7.3 Waste Disposal .................................................................................................................... 100
7.4 Technical Options available for generation, treatment and disposal ....................................... 106
7.4 Summary of Options ........................................................................................................... 108
8. Agricultural Waste Management Governance System .............................................................. 114
8.1 Stakeholders involved in the Governance System .................................................................... 115
8.2 Strategic Elements of the Governance System ......................................................................... 115
8.3 Functions of the System ............................................................................................................ 116
8.3.1 Administrative Role ............................................................................................................ 116
8.3.2 Strategic Planning .............................................................................................................. 118
8.3.3 Operational Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 118
8.3.4 System Development/Innovation ...................................................................................... 119
8.3.5 Corporate Structure ........................................................................................................... 119
8.3.6 Governance Structure Milestones ..................................................................................... 120
9. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 123
3
List of Acronyms
ABP – Agricultural By-Products
AWU – Annual Working Unit
COD – Chemical Oxygen Demand
COGAP – Code of Good Agricultural Practices
EC- European Commission
GHG – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
L.N – Legal Notice
MBBR – Moving Bed Reactor
MBR – Membrane bioreactor
MBT – Malta Biological and Treatment Plant
MDP – Malta Dairy Products
MEPA – Malta Environmental and Planning Authority
MS – Member State
MSDEC – Ministry for Sustainable Development, Environmental and Climate Change
NAP – Nitrates Actions Programme
NSO – National Statistics Office
ODZ – Outside Development Zone
PA- Partnership Agreement
PPP – Public Private Partnership
RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel
RDP – Rural Development Programme
SBR – Sequencing Batch Reactor
SEWCU – Sustainable Energy, Water and Conservation Unit
TSS – Total Suspended Solids
UAA – Unutilised Agricultural Area
WMP – Waste Management Plan
WSC – Water Services Corporation
4
Executive Summary
Background on Compliance Issues
Practices involved in the management of cattle manure and pig slurry in Malta require a review for
the country to meet its objectives and obligations with respect to water resource management and
related environmental issues, especially concerning groundwater and the treatment of waste water.
Farm Waste management in Malta is governed by the requirements of a number of EU Directives. Of
particular relevance is the Nitrates Directive as transposed by Legal Notice 343 of 2001 and by the
Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources Regulations, 2003.
These instruments provide for the designation of the entire territory of Malta and Gozo as Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones, the formulation of Code/s of Good Agricultural Practice and the preparation of
Action Programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones. The Waste Framework Directive
2008/98/EC as transposed by the Waste Regulations 2011 (L.N. 184 of 2011) is also to be complied
with.
Another important legislation pertaining to the management of livestock manure is compliance with
the Water Framework Directive and the Urban Waste Water Directive, whereby lack of compliance is
currently observed on account of the discharge of pig slurry into the sewer system. In a recent
Commission Staff Working Document1 on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive
Programmes of Measures, the Commission states that in its second River Basin Management Plan,
Malta must:
“Submit a plan on resolving the discharge of animal husbandry waste in the sewage collecting system
because the Maltese Waste Water Treatment Plants had a performance problem as regards
compliance with the COD standards. This was linked to farm manure discharges in the collecting
system.”
Objectives and Methodology
This report develops a plan to cater for the management of agricultural waste in Malta. The
background research to the report has considered all elements of waste generated by the sector
including streams which fall under municipal waste, waste which is of a more commercial/industrial
nature (particularly taking the form of packaging waste) as well as that pertaining to carcasses and
streams normally associated with abattoir processes. It however transpires that the main and pressing
challenges with respect to agricultural waste in Malta lies with the management of manure/slurry.
Other waste streams are found to present far less significant challenges as they are already subject to
management systems, wherein the main issues which could emerge in practice relate more to
enforcement rather than system design. The need for effective enforcement of rules in all aspects of
1 European Commission. 2015. Commission Staff Working Document Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
5
waste management is an obvious consideration and is not treated any further in this report.
Consequently, this report focuses entirely on issues related with the management of the generation,
transport, treatment and disposal of agricultural manure and slurry.
The approach taken in this report considers the need to safeguard the competitiveness of the livestock
sector whereby in spite of restructuring, significant imbalances between number of heads and
resources for manure/slurry management persist. Furthermore, the potential high cost of compliant
manure/slurry management compound other inherent competitiveness factors facing the sector.
This report and the options which are presented in it are developed within the context of a number
of uncertainties and risks which affect the potential solutions that may be considered. Of particular
relevance are uncertainties associated with the future development of critical activity variables
including:
The number of heads of different categories of livestock;
The mass/volume of waste generation, also affected by water added to pig slurry;
The quantity of N which can be applied to land, which may fall significantly in the coming few
years, and possibly stabilise later;
The amount of utilised agricultural land and crop patterns;
The feasibility of potential treatment options which depends on technical, environmental,
financial and economic constraints, and subject to the consideration that while a limited
number of options are apparently technically viable for Malta, others are still to be tested
within the local context;
The future development of cost variables such as inorganic fertiliser, technically feasible
treatment options, and of treatment options which are currently at an experimental or testing
stage.
There are also uncertainties associated with the behaviour and response of operators within the
livestock sector. Additional costs of operation to the cost of restructuring, an intensification of market
competition and the erosion of support schemes over the years are severely restricting their ability to
pay for waste management services as well as financial sustainability in general. There is also
uncertainty associated with the willingness of livestock and crop farmers to change their current
practices and to adapt to new operating requirements.
A snapshot of the livestock sector in Malta and Gozo is presented in Chapter 3 of the report
distinguishing between developments in the bovine, swine, ovine and other livestock sectors. The
analysis also distinguishes between developments in the Island of Gozo and Malta given that solutions
between the two regions may differ. In general, there has been a downward trend in most of the
sectors most notably in the bovine and swine sectors. Bovine farms in Malta which are mainly located
in the south and central part of Malta and Gozo reached a level of about 18,000 heads in 2008 and
then declined to 15,500 in 2013.2 The drop in heads and cattle farms post 2007 was mainly due to
2 NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries.
6
enforcement by the local authorities in relation to compliance with EU standards, significant increase
in the price of inputs as well as herd improvement programmes.
Similar to the trend in the bovine sector, the swine industry experienced a significant decline in heads
after 2007. In fact, the number of pigs registered in Malta and Gozo declined to about 46,000 heads
in 2011 from 73,000 heads in 2005. Again, this was an effect of the May 2008 deadline for applications
on planning permits to improve the manure storage and management system on-farms. There has
also been a decline in the number of sheep and goats as well as the number of poultry heads3.
The distribution of the farms by size and types of livestock is shown in Figure E.1.
Figure E.1: Geographical distribution of Farms
Future Scenarios for Waste Generation
In order to derive a forecast of the livestock sector and the related generation of manure/slurry up to
2030, a number of different assessments have been undertaken as presented in Chapter 4 of the
report. Forecasts are in part based on past developments which have been extrapolated into the
future taking into account log functions and autoregressive functions. Furthermore, a convergence
approach has also been considered whereby developments in the livestock categories in Malta are
compared to other countries within the EU, particularly Mediterranean countries which are subject to
similar terrain and climatic conditions, such as Cyprus and Greece. The cross country comparison is
3 NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries
7
undertaken on the basis of population as well as land area. Specifically for the bovine sector, the
forecasts also take into account an analysis of the farms which have already engaged in restructuring
and have invested to sustain their operations. An additional forecasting approach has been applied
for the swine sector to consider a scenario of consolidation of activity centred on the on-going viability
of relatively large operators.
Given the prevailing uncertainty in the development of the livestock sector as well as the relatively
long forecast horizon, which is here considered over fifteen years, the forecasts presented in the
report are not based on point estimates but are presented over ranges characterised by minimum
and maximum values. These forecasts are displayed in Table E.1 below.
Table E1: Forecast Scenarios
In terms of the cattle sector, both the minimum and maximum scenarios refer to a decline in the
number of heads which in 2030 may vary from 8,000 heads to 12,800 heads. It is to be noted that in
terms of the minimum scenario, the number of heads would be expected to decline in a persistent
manner over the forecasted horizon. On the other hand, the maximum scenario which considers the
sustainability of farms based on their willingness and ability to invest also features a decline in heads
up to 2020, followed by a stable situation thereafter.
In the case of pigs, the minimum scenario is taken to reflect the convergence approach which refers
to a decline in the number of heads from 42,700 in 2015 to 7,940 by 2030. On the other hand, the
maximum scenario also refers to a declining trend, albeit less pronounced, to 34,500 by 2030.
Two scenarios based on the minimum and maximum values are also presented for the sheep and goat
sector. In this case, the minimum scenario for both the sheep and goats sectors refers to a decline in
the number of heads. On the other hand, the maximum scenario which is based on the convergence
approach refers to a steady increase in the number of heads reaching 5,900 for goats and 15,300 for
sheep.
The forecasts for the volume of manure/slurry generated considers the above results values together
with agronomical values utilised by the Agricultural Directorate and presented in published sources.
More specifically, in the case of the cattle sector, there are a number of relevant literature sources
which feature a significant variability in the estimates of manure production per head. For the
purposes of this study, outcomes for values across these ranges are considered in order to derive
analyses relating to different scenarios.
The even wider range in the production of pig manure is due to the uncertainties owing to wide
variations in waste management practices across the country, particularly in terms of the use of water.
Relevant results are presented in Table E.2.
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
2015
2020 11.8 12.8 24.2 39.8 3.7 5.1 9.4 12.1
2025 9.7 12.8 13.9 37.0 3.1 5.5 8.3 13.6
2030 8.1 12.8 7.1 34.5 2.6 5.9 7.3 15.3
14.1 42.7 4.5 10.6
Scenario Ranges for Numbers of Heads (000s)
SheepGoatsPigsCattle
8
Table E.2 Scenario Ranges for Manure and Slurry Production
The manure generated in the cattle sector may vary from a minimum of 67,700m3 in 2020 to a
maximum of 131,800m3 in the same year, with the relative values falling in the project in accordance
with the expected development in the number of cattle heads.
The greatest uncertainty in the volume of manure/slurry lies with the pig sector whereby slurry may
vary from 7,100 m3 in 2020 to a significantly higher volume of 146,000m3 in the same year. Indeed it
is this sector which is considered to pose the greatest challenges in the implementation of the
agricultural waste management plan as current practices associated with the disposal of slurry cannot
be continued. It is however important to note that while this is considered as a significant challenge,
80% of the production of slurry is undertaken by a relatively limited number of farms, totalling
approximately 40, which may reduce the extent of challenges to implement solutions.
Considerations Impinging on the Derivation of Strategic Options
Chapter 5 of the report details the elements involved in the derivation of strategic options with respect
to manure and slurry management in Malta and describes a number of scenarios which can be
envisaged in future. The derivation of effective strategic options towards manure and slurry
management in Malta depends on the following four factors:
1. the characteristics of the underlying manure and slurry generation and sink mechanisms,
intended as the expected development of the livestock industry and the absorptive capacity of the
crop industry in terms of manure and slurry being generated;
2. the constraints governing the system, the principal of which may be categorised into:
a. the need for Malta to meet its obligations as a Nitrates Vulnerable Zone entailing potential
constraints at three levels:
i. a limitation not to exceed an application of N of 170kg/ha/yr on crop land;
ii. a limitation not to exceed the potential uptake by crops, which is estimated at around
110kg/ha/yr as per the Gross Nitrogen Balance (2007) study undertaken by the NSO;
iii. the need to potentially limit the application of N to crop land in a manner whereby crops would
be absorbing N already contained within the soil from over-application in previous years4, to be
as yet determined through specific studies regarding the N content in soil and rendered
4 This has been estimated at 116.9km or kg/ha in the 2007 Gross Nutrient Balance Study, the fourth highest among 19 EU Member States.
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
2015 80.5 145.4 12.5 157.3 1.2 1.4 94.2 304.1
2020 67.7 131.8 7.1 146.7 1.0 1.6 75.7 280.2
2025 55.4 132.0 4.1 136.4 0.8 1.7 60.3 270.1
2030 46.5 132.0 2.1 127.2 0.7 1.9 49.3 261.0
Scenario Ranges for Manure and Slurry Production (m3000s)
Cattle Pigs Goats and Sheep Total
9
effective through Fertiliser Plans at the farm level in conformity with the Code of Good
Agricultural Practice and the Nitrates Action Programme.
b. the need for Malta to eliminate lack of compliance with the requirements of the Water
Framework Directive and the Urban Wastewater Directive in terms of bathing water quality, which
issue is arising principally from the discharge of slurry into sewers.
c. the need for Malta to sustain the economic competitiveness of the livestock farming, as an
integral component of the multi-functionality of agriculture in Malta, which calls for the pursuit of
cost-effective solutions to manure and slurry management;
d. likewise, the need for Malta to sustain the competitiveness of crop agriculture, which entails
the optimum use of fertiliser while meeting the requirements of Nitrate Management Plans, which
influences:
i. the quantity of fertiliser used;
ii. the mix between locally-sourced organic fertiliser and imported non-organic fertiliser
3. the objectives to be optimised within the system which is taken to be the minimisation of the
financial and externality costs of the management system, considering:
a. manure and slurry management practices at the level of the livestock farms;
b. transport activities;
c. fertiliser costs applicable to crop farms;
d. the net costs of treatment to enable disposal in compliance with Nitrates and Water
Quality constraints, factoring revenues where applicable;
e. the costs of final disposal, including potentially, export.
4. the policy levers available, which could potentially include regulatory and financial
instruments influencing:
a. the general development of livestock farming in Malta;
b. the management of manure and slurry on livestock farms, including issues such as:
i. the extent of water which is used and added to the volume of waste,
particularly with regards to pig slurry;
ii. the extent and location of discharges to the public sewers, which although
currently not permitted by legislation in Malta, are in effect taking place and
could in future potentially take place in conformity with the Water Quality
Directive if effective prior treatment is undertaken;
c. the methods of use of fertiliser on crop land, particularly with regards to the mix
between organic and inorganic fertilisers;
d. the potential development of treatment infrastructures to enable the sustainable and
legal disposal of manure and slurry, whether centralised or decentralised, at the local
or farm level;
e. the potential engagement in export of manure and slurry;
10
f. effective governance to cater for the potential establishment of a centralised system
of manure waste management, possibly at the separate regional levels of Malta and
Gozo
There is also an element of dynamism in the agricultural waste management problem emanating from
factors including:
1. the measures adopted may themselves influence the development of livestock, and to a lesser
extent, crop farming in future years;
2. the adopted fertiliser plans which outline the extent to which N can be applied to crop land
may change in future as N content levels in soil are altered as a result of the actions taken.
Solutions must thus cater for risk through sufficient elements of flexibility, and evolve over time to
cater for expected changes in circumstances.
These considerations are presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the report. Possible scenarios focusing on
the management of cattle manure and pig slurry, with the understanding that these two elements
constitute well over 90% of manure and slurry waste streams in terms of volume, weight and mass of
N are presented in the chapter.
This scenario analysis aims to identify, the amount of manure and slurry which would require
treatment for eventual disposal and/or export, measured in terms of both kilograms of N and cubic
metres of material. This subsequently enables a mapping of policy alternatives under different
situations, including the identification of solutions which afford important degrees of flexibility in the
face of uncertainty.
The scenarios take into account the extent of use of inorganic fertiliser, which would thus crowd out
the use of manure as well as the extent to which an uptake of N by crops from soil content is prioritised
over the application of fertiliser.
In each scenario, it is assumed that the application of fertiliser would in no circumstance exceed the
potential uptake by crops during a particular year. It is further assumed that there is no disposal of pig
slurry into the public sewer network.
A discussion on a potentially realistic scenario upon which options are subsequently developed, is also
presented in the chapter based on the following considerations:
only manure is used for the purposes of application to crops;
pig slurry is by default to be subject to treatment so that it is neither applied as fertiliser nor
would it be discharged to public sewers; restrictions on the application of inorganic fertilisers
within the context of the observance of Nitrates Management Plans may not necessarily be
either feasible or totally desirable;
the restrictions on total N application associated with Nitrates Management Plans will have
to be adhered to.
11
Based on these considerations 2015 results indicate a likely range of N surplus of up to 40,000m3 per
annum of cattle manure, with an extreme maximum of just over 69,000m3 per annum. By 2020, these
indicators are expected at almost 35,000m3 and 63,000m3. By 2030, the surplus is expected at no more
than 12,000m3 per annum.
With the Malta North plant which will allow for the co-mingling of manure with municipal waste plant
(operated by Wasteserv Malta) having a capacity of 39,000m3 per annum, the implications for the
derivation of high level options therefore focuses on the need to:
manage pig slurry, in a range between 350,000kgs and 425,000kgs of N per annum, or up to
150,000m3, strongly depending on water content;
provide for potential additional capacity of around 60,000 m3 for cattle manure, and around
5,000 tonnes of manure of other animals;
devise a governance and management system for effective operation.
The rest of the report targets these considerations in a detailed manner over Chapter 6, 7 and 8
respectively.
Chapter 6 of the report presents a high level assessment of treatment options based on the
following critical objectives:
the continued banning of the application of slurry or liquids directly to land.
to effectively prevent the discharge of pig slurry to the sewage system which is considered
more important in light of the EC recommendation on the implementation of the Water
Framework.
The options which take into account international experience, consider from a technical perspective:
Mechanical Separation, Aerobic treatment, Aerobic treatment of slurries, Anaerobic Digestion,
Aerobic treatment (biological oxidation) and thermal treatment of solids
The chapter also considers the application of these technologies in the Maltese context, noting that
in the short-term, export of excess manure and slurry may be necessary.
Strategic Options and High Level Cost Estimates
Chapter 7 of the report articulates the options available for the management of cattle manure and pig
slurry, at different points of the future forecast horizon. It also discusses the financial implications of
the options. The analysis distinguishes between the options available at generation, treatment and
disposal stage. It is emphasised that this report is not indicating any one particular solution as being
the preferred one, but rather advocates the need for a mix of solutions which consider specific needs
and requirements of different farms at different points in time.
In terms of pig slurry, a key element of the management of waste rests on generation in the first place.
Emphasis on sustainable and efficient farming practices to minimise the number of heads and waste
is considered particularly important. The over abundant use of water has to be discontinued to enable
the efficient use of treatment and disposal options. At generation level, there is also the option of
diversification of farm land use, towards for example, sustainable rural real estate, or the outright
12
buyout of farms by Government to be utilised in consonance with national policy. The number of
heads may through a policy decision decline thus addressing the generation of slurry through the
diversification of farm land use which ties in with the sustainability of rural areas. Livestock farmers
could be presented with the option of diversifying the farm land use themselves or possibly with a pig
farm buy out scheme which can be implemented by the governance structure which is explained in
Chapter 8.
Table E.3: Options for the generation, treatment and disposal of pig slurry
Waste treatment options for pig slurry are not perceived to be available in the immediate short term
and the viability of the options presented in the matrix above from 2020 onwards remains to be
studied in technical detail. In particular, the options of producing fertilisers, thermal treatment and
disposal to sewer following the treatment of the slurry remains to be tried and tested within the local
context. The financially feasibility of these options also needs to be studied in greater detail. While
technically speaking, the digestion plants can treat pig slurry, the viability of these plants greatly
depends on the composition of the slurry in the first place, climatic conditions, and the availability of
inputs in consistent quantities and of consistent quality across different periods of the year.
It is to be noted that in the analysis, export is taken to absorb the residual of the waste volume which
is not treated. Export is thus considered as a stop-gap solution, and an expensive one, to be pursued
until other feasible options are developed in the medium to long term.
The options for the treatment and disposal of cattle and other livestock manure are presented
separately as shown in Table E.4. At generation level, the options are aimed at diversification of farm
land use towards sustainable rural real estate as well as further and enhanced emphasis on sustainable
and efficient practices to minimise the number of heads and volume of manure.
In terms of treatment, the Malta North Biological Treatment Plant is in the short term the only
treatment plant at a centralised level which can cater for part of the cattle and other livestock manure.
In the medium term, treatment of this manure can be further complemented by other digestion plants
or treatment options. It is however to be reiterated that in the case where the minimum scenario of
cattle manure materialises, the scope of having additional centralised plants may be limited.
2016/2018 2020 2030
Digestion Malta North Digestion Malta North
Digestion Other Malta Digestion Other Malta
Digestion Gozo Digestion Gozo
Fertiliser Production Fertiliser Production
Waste treatment to sewer Waste treatment to sewer
Thermal Thermal
Export Export Export
Sewer (after treatment) Sewer (after treatment)
Landfill (after treatment) Landfill (after treatment)
Waste Disposal
Waste Treatment
Pig Slurry
Waste GenerationDiversification of farm land use towards sustainable rural real estate
Emphasis on sustainable and efficient farming practices to minimise number of heads and waste
13
Finally disposal of manure must also be taken into consideration particularly following the treatment
of manure through digestion plants. In particular, this relates to the application of manure on crop
land, as well as the export option. The disposal of water which is generated through the treatment of
manure and any other output such as digestate will have to be disposed of in other manners following
treatment.
Table E.4: Options for the generation, treatment and disposal of cattle, and other livestock manure
An estimate of the financial costs of these options is presented in the report distinguishing between
three periods namely 2016, 2020 and 2030.
The total financial costs vary according to the volume of manure/slurry generated which in turn
depends on the number of heads and farming practices. Once again, a distinction is made between
the minimum and maximum scenarios.
A summary of the total annual financial costs for both the minimum and maximum scenarios is
presented in the Table below. Overall, the total costs which take into account the treatment and
disposal of cattle and other livestock manure and pig slurry could vary from €1.9 million to €22.8
million on an annual basis with the latter costs reflecting a greater reliance on the export option
particularly in the short term on account of the fact that the only existing option to cater for excess
cattle manure is the MBT plant. The maximum total costs of about €22.8 million in 2016 represents
31% of the turnover generated by the livestock sector. The imposition of this cost on the sector would
result in competitiveness issues and severely dent the sustainability of the sector. As a result, the
extent to which government can absorb part of these costs within the constraints of State Aid needs
to be studied.
In the 2020 and 2030 scenarios, the costs would be expected to decline reflecting the drop in the
number of heads of both cattle and pigs, though the costs in the maximum scenario remain significant
at an annual value of €17 million by 2030. In the case of the minimum scenario, it is possible for the
system to generate an overall revenue of €1.3 million. This also reflects the drop in livestock heads
but is also marked by the more efficient use of water in the management of agricultural waste. It is
also to be noted that the revenue is characterised by the sale of the cattle manure for application to
land which outweighs the costs of treating the excess of cattle manure and the disposal of pig slurry.
2016/2018 2020 2030
Digestion Malta North Digestion Malta North Digestion Malta North
Digestion Other Malta Digestion Other Malta
Digestion Gozo Digestion Gozo
Fertiliser Production Fertiliser Production
Thermal Thermal
Crop Land Crop Land Crop Land
Export Export Export
Sewer (after treatment) Sewer (after treatment) Sewer (after treatment)
Landfill (after treatment) Landfill (after treatment) Landfill (after treatment)
Waste Treatment
Cattle and Other Livestock Manure
Diversification of farm land use towards sustainable rural real estate
Emphasis on sustainable and efficient farming practices to minimise number of heads and wasteWaste Generation
Waste Disposal
14
Table E.5: Summary of Financial Costs
The Need for an Effective Governance Structure
It is evident that in order to ensure the optimal use and treatment of manure in compliance with the
regulatory obligations of the country, a holistic governance structure is required. This is proposed in
Chapter 8 of the report which outlines in detail a proposed governance structure, the overall objective
of which is to continuously update, co-ordinate and implement the agricultural waste management
plan as a matter of national policy with the involvement of all key stakeholders. The proposed holistic
system would cater for the registration/acceptance of waste produced, the oversight of application to
fields consistent with regulatory arrangements, the implementation/oversight of treatment
approaches leading to production of fertilisers, energy and other output as well as the disposal of
residual waste including export of untreated waste.
The governance structure could ensure that the national system enters into long term agreements
with producers and users of manure and providers of treatment/disposal facilities to safeguard the
sustainability of its operations. In the short term, policy makers may consider implementing the
system in a manner to cater for the production, treatment and disposal of slurry which as explained
in the context section of the agricultural waste management plan, is the agricultural waste which is
clouded in most uncertainty and which is posing the greatest challenges for treatment and disposal.
Eventually the structure could be rolled out to cater for manure generated by all livestock including
cattle, goat, sheep, poultry and rabbit.
It is possible for the national system to function through the utilisation of a number of facilities,
possibly operated by both public and private operators under the principle of a Public Private
Partnership (PPP). In terms of funding, it is proposed that the system could fund the cost of its
operations and of its constituent parts, allowing for an element of reasonable profit, where relevant,
and subject to public policy decision making with respect to the agricultural sector. The system could
be financed through a combination of revenue sources, applied in a standard manner across all
operators although the rates would vary by the type of livestock, given that cost of treatment for
manure/slurry varies. The cost would need to take into account and implement the principle of
Pig Slurry Min Max
2016 1,141 14,362
2020 648 13,367
2030 210 11,614
Bovine and Ovine Manure Min Max
2016 728 8,414
2020 326 7,312
2030 1,546- 5,505
Total Min Max
2016 1,869 22,777
2020 975 20,680
2030 1,336- 17,119
Annual Financial Cost (€ 000s)
15
recovery which on the one hand will dent the financial sustainability of the livestock sector and yet on
the other hand may be subject to State Aid scrutiny.
16
1. Introduction
This report develops a plan to cater for the management of agricultural waste in Malta for the 2015
to 2030 period. The background research to the report has considered all elements of waste generated
by the sector including streams which fall under municipal waste, waste which is of a more
commercial/industrial nature (particularly taking the form of packaging waste) as well as that
pertaining to carcasses and streams normally associated with abattoir processes. It however
transpires that the main and pressing challenges with respect to agricultural waste in Malta lies with
the management of manure/slurry. Other waste streams are found to present far less significant
challenges as they are already subject to management systems, wherein the main issues which could
emerge in practice relate more to enforcement rather than system design. The need for effective
enforcement of rules in all aspects of waste management is an obvious consideration and is not
treated any further in this report. Consequently, this report focuses entirely on issues related with the
management of the generation, transport, treatment and disposal of agricultural manure and slurry.
Practices involved in the management of cattle manure and pig slurry in Malta require a review for
the country to meet its objectives and obligations with respect to water resource management and
related environmental issues, especially concerning groundwater and the treatment of waste water.
Manure treatment has important national implications for waste management and the associated
environmental and regulatory connotations as both Malta and Gozo are regarded as Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones in terms of the EU Nitrates Directive. Compliance and observance of the Nitrates
Directive in Malta became mandatory upon accession in 2004. This implies that as from this date, the
disposal of manure on agricultural land had to be handled in a viable manner with regards to the
environment.
At present, livestock breeders either use a fraction of manure produced on their farms on land which
they own or (as is in most cases) they sell the manure to be used as a fertilizer by land users. The
manure is then applied to land in a way that is not necessarily compatible with the best agricultural
practices. Regulatory procedures have been in place from 2004. Additional measures have been put
in place in 2011, in the new Nitrates Action Programme and LN 321/2011. These introduce practices
which ensure the proper application of manure on fields mainly focusing on application methods, and
balanced fertilizer application whilst taking into consideration storage facilities. Nitrates application
across the entire agricultural territory is in the process of being duly registered, monitored and
managed. Waste, particularly pig slurry, is also being disposed to the sewer system in a way which is
incompatible with requirements for discharge in this regard.
A number of farms, mainly in the cattle sector, have developed infrastructure to store manure during
periods when it cannot be applied to fields. Structures are designed to separate the liquid from the
solid elements, with the aim to enhance environmental management practices. Other sectors have
been less effective in investing in the required agricultural waste management infrastructure.
17
This report builds on the previous agricultural waste management plan in Malta and seeks to extend
it further up to 2030. The report contains a context analysis which is structured over three chapters
with the second chapter presenting a review of literature spanning from relevant legislation, statutory
and policy documents, international experiences relevant to the management of agricultural waste.
The context analysis also reviews the current state of affairs in relation to the generation,
management and use of agricultural waste whilst identifying barriers hindering the development of a
sustainable system for the management of agricultural waste. A review and determination of current
agricultural waste quantities and future projections based on existing data and information, as well as
predictions for future changes in waste quantities taking into account sectoral developments is
presented in Chapter 3. Another important element considered in the report is the demand analysis
to determine the waste quantities that can be treated considering inter alia catchment area and
predicted waste generation quantities during the period of the proposed Plan and other factors
involving storage of manure, such as seasonal storage intended for land application. This is presented
in Chapter 4 of the report which provides the basis upon which the policy options are developed.
Chapter 5 details the elements involved in the derivation of strategic options with respect to manure
and slurry management in Malta and describes a number of scenarios which can be envisaged in future
in this regard. On these bases, a number of potential strategic approaches are outlined and a baseline
planning scenario is derived, for further consideration over the forthcoming phases of the assignment.
A more plausible scenario which takes into account the theoretical assumptions but is more
technically complacent with the situation in Malta is presented in Chapter 6 of the report which
provides a high level assessment of the treatment options. The options presented are based on a desk
study whereby the preliminary review of selected literature regarding the options for the
management of, in particular, cattle and pig manures has been undertaken. The desk study focuses
more intently on treatments that include de-nitrification of AD concentrate or raw slurries and for the
treatment of solids. The financial costs of the different options are presented in Chapter 7 which
provides a high level assessment of the costs and the ensuring costs per tonne of manure/slurry.
An important element of this report is the proposed development of a national system for manure
management which will address a number of market failures, including the insufficient availability of
cultivated land where manure can be applied, the vulnerability of the entire territory to Nitrates
contamination and the practical difficulties faced in terms of appropriate manure management by the
typically small and fragmented farm holdings in Malta.
The system will ensure an optimal use and treatment of manure and waste in compliance with the
obligations of the country and legal provisions in this regard. The system shall cater for the acceptance
of manure produced, and oversee its utilization through various options allowing for a combination of
approaches including application on fields, temporary storage, de-nitrification processes and the
production of renewable energy. There is a possibility for the national system to function through the
utilisation of a number of facilities, possibly operated by both public and private sector entities.
This report has been compiled by E-Cubed Consultants Ltd and ADI Associates for the Ministry for
Sustainable Development, Environment and Climate Change. The contents of the report have been
discussed with the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Farm Waste and the stakeholders within the
Committee.
18
2. Policy and Legislation governing Agricultural Waste Management
The management of agricultural waste must ensure that existing policy and legal requirements are
respected. This Chapter describes relevant policy and legal instruments that should be taken into
consideration when drawing up an agricultural strategy.
The policy and legislative context will be guided by recent developments in the implementation of the
Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Directive. The discussions and relevant reports /
presentations being undertaken by an ad-hoc Farm Waste Steering Committee regarding Untreated
Farmyard Waste Discharges into the Sewerage Network are also informing this document.
The context for the discussion on the management of agricultural waste will also be framed within
existing waste management plans and strategies that have been formulated over recent years notably:
- Waste Management Plan for the Maltese Islands 2014-2020
- Agricultural Waste Management Plan for the Maltese Islands, 2008
Important legislation that affects the sector of agricultural waste management includes:
- Council Directive 91/676 of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources as transposed by Legal Notice 343 of
2001 Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources
Regulations, 2003 and the Nitrates Action Programme (NAP)
- Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment as
transposed into Legal Notice 340 of 2001 Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001
- Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy transposed into Maltese legislation as Legal Notice 194 of
2004 (Water Policy Framework Regulations, 2004)
- Council Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives
as transposed by Legal Notice 184 of 2011 The Waste Regulations, 2011 as amended
- Council Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action
in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
- EC Regulation 1069/2009 laying down health rules concerning Animal By-Products and
derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation)
- Legal Notice 139 of 2002, Sewage Discharge Control Regulations, 2002
- Legal Notice 106 of 2007 Waste Management (Activity Registration) Regulations, 2007
- Legal Notice 321 of 2011 Nitrates Action Programme Regulations, 2011 as amended
19
Other documents that will also provide insight into the local issues associated with agricultural waste
management include:
- The Nitrates Action Programme, 2011
- The Code of Good Agricultural Practice (CoGAP)
- The Water Catchment Management Plan for the Maltese Islands, 20115
- Partnership Agreement of Malta 2014-2020
- The Draft Rural Development Programme 2014-2020
- Programming of European Funds for Malta 2014-2020
- A Proposal for a National Energy Policy, 2009
- Rural Policy & Design Guidance, 2014
- Malta’s Biennial Report on Policies and Measures and Projected Greenhouse Gas
Emissions 2009.
2.1 Agricultural Waste in the Maltese Islands
Manure production in Malta is primarily derived from the farming of cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep,
rabbits and goats. Other waste generated on farms is municipal solid waste, packaging waste, and
hazardous waste in the form of containers for pesticides, expired medicines, etc. Animal slaughter
waste from public and private abattoirs is another important waste stream. Waste from tuna penning
/fish farming activities also include carcasses and other fish parts. Waste from agri-industries such as
the dairy, tuna processing, and tomato processing are also generated.
2.2 Current waste management policy
Any policy for the management of agricultural waste must fit within the current / projected national
waste management policies. Of particular relevance is the Waste Management Plan for the Maltese
Islands 2014-2020 (WMP 2014-2020). It is understood that this document brings together the EU
requirements to have a Waste Management Plan as well as a Waste Prevention Plan. The Plan
represents government’s planning document in respect of waste management. It is intended to set
out a holistic strategic direction in which Government envisaged the sector to be taken forward.
Importantly the national policy in the waste management sector is based on four principles:
1. to reduce waste and to prevent waste occurring, with a view to achieving a zero waste society
5 The Second Management Plan is expected to be published by the end of 2015.
20
by 2050
2. to manage waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy, whereby it is recognised
that waste should be prevented or reduced, and that what is generated should be
recovered by means of re-use, recycling or other recovery options, in order to
reduce waste going to landfill, and to use the collection system to aid with
achieving these goals
3. to cause the least possible environmental impacts in the management of waste
4. to ensure that the polluter-pays principle is incorporated in all waste management
procedures.
The WMP 2014-2020 does not provide a framework for the management of manure as manure falls
outside the definition of waste as defined in the Waste Framework Directive. Although it identifies
that the Code of Good Agricultural Practice contributes to the better management of manure and it
identifies that Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant at Ghallis for the treatment of animal waste
there is no formal policy on the management of agricultural waste.
One of the options considered in the WMP 2014-2020 is to build capacity of waste collections systems
is the development is the development of an anaerobic digestion plant in Gozo for the digestion of
the organic fraction of MSW, animal manure and sewage sludge generated in Gozo. A civic amenity
site at Ta’ Qali is also planned to cater for the management of waste from the vegetable market
(Pitkalija) and the Marsa Thermal Treatment is planned to be upgraded to cater for the further
treatment of animal tissue waste.
Agricultural waste management is treated holistically in the 2008 Agricultural Waste Management
Plan for the Maltese Islands. This document comprehensively addresses all the waste streams
generated from the agriculture sector and provides recommendations for the management of these
wastes. The main recommendations emerging from the 2008 Plan are the construction of a number
of manure treatment plants in (i) Gozo (possibly also combined with the treatment of municipal solid
waste; (ii) the north of Malta (to treat 30% of manure/slurry generation, recommended to be
combined with treatment of MSW); and (iii) Siggiewi or another suitable location (to treat
approximately 25 - 35% of all the manure/slurry generation). The Plan stipulates a review after 2 years
to re-assess the need for investment in additional infrastructure (such as the possibility of constructing
a manure treatment plant at Sant Antnin, upgrading the Siggiewi plant, constructing a treatment
facility at Malta South or upgrading North Plant to take all of the manure/slurry generation.)
2.3 EU Directives & National Legislation Relevant to Agricultural Waste Management
Waste management legislation in Malta is shaped by the requirements of a number of EU Directives
mainly the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC as transposed by the Waste Regulations, 2011
(L.N. 184 of 2011) as amended. The regulations provide the general requirements of waste
management in the Maltese Islands. They lay down some basic waste management principles such as
21
the obligation to handle waste in a way that does not have a negative impact on the environment and
human health by managing waste sustainably in accordance with the waste hierarchy. The end of
waste status, polluter pays principle and extended producer responsibility are all enshrined in the
regulations.
Of particular relevance to the management of agricultural waste is the Nitrates Directive as transposed
by Subsidiary Legislation 504.43 Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from
Agricultural Sources Regulations as well as Subsidiary legislation 504.108 Nitrates Action Programme
Regulations.
The Nitrates Directive (1991) aims to protect water quality across Europe by preventing nitrates from
agricultural sources polluting ground and surface waters and by promoting the use of good farming
practices. The Directive also requires the designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, the formulation of
code/s of good agricultural practice and the preparation of Action Programmes in respect of
designated vulnerable zones. Monitoring of freshwater is also required and reporting to the
Commission is also an obligation.
The implementation of the Directive in Malta has brought about the designation of the whole Maltese
Islands as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone, the formulation of a Code of Good Agricultural Practice, and a
Nitrates Action Programme.
Of particular relevance to the management of agricultural waste is the Nitrates Directive as transposed
by Subsidiary Legislation 504.43 Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from
Agricultural Sources Regulations as well as Subsidiary legislation 504.108 Nitrates Action Programme
Regulations.
In order to implement the requirements of the Nitrates Directive, the Nitrates Action Programme
Regulations (LN321 of 2011) as amended require that:
All holdings greater than 0.5 of a tumolo prepare a fertiliser plan in accordance with the
requirements of the regulations;
Storage facilities for livestock manure must have a capacity of 5 months production of manure
and must be leak proof and connected to a cesspit that must also be leak proof and have a capacity
for 15 days of urine and washings;
Livestock manure can only be spread on fields between 16th March and 14th October if dry
matter is at least 30% in accordance with the requirements of the regulations;
Livestock manure is stored on fields subject to the provisions of the regulations;
Land application of slurry is not permitted;
For holdings greater than 1 hectare of continuous agricultural land a Nutrient Management
Plan must be formulated in accordance with the requirements of the regulations;
Farmers must keep farm records;
Fertiliser users must be registered and trained;
22
The drawing up of a National Nitrates Database by the responsible Government entity.
The requirements are also reflected in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice (CoGAP) specifically
through the legislative framework 504.108 which consists upon the Implementation by , the Maltese
Government are improving provisions concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused
by nitrates from agricultural sources, wherein it is being ascertained that the provisions are in place
to implement the Nitrates Action Programme Regulations.
The fact that pig slurry is being disposed of in the sewerage system is leading to various non-full
compliance concerns. Of particular relevance are Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste-water treatment as transposed into Legal Notice 340 of 2001 Urban Waste
Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 and the Sewage Discharge Control Regulations, 2002 (Legal Notice
139 of 2002).
The location of farms (mainly swine and bovine) with respect to water features including water
courses and springs can also be subject to non-compliance issues. In order to address the risks that
farms operations pose to the quality of these surface waters, the Agriculture Directorate has
performed an assessment to determine those farms that pose the highest risk to these water bodies.
Through this study, there is now a system in place to identify the farms that are located closest to the
water bodies and therefore that pose the greatest risk. The risk weighting assists the competent
authority during monitoring controls. It is noted that MEPA’s Rural Policy and Design Guidance 2014
new and relocated cow and pig farms are to be located 300 metres from public groundwater
abstraction sources, poultry, goat, sheep and rabbit farms are to be located 200 metres from public
groundwater abstraction sources and small farms 100 metres away from such sources.
In terms of the application of manure to land, another study is currently being conducted by the
MSDEC in order to determine crop yields. In this preliminary study a comparative study of different
yields based on different inputs is being investigated with the aim to inform the preparation of
fertiliser plans by the farmer. Of particular relevance are the estimates for farmers to consider fewer
inputs.
The Sewage Discharge Control Regulations do not allow for discharge of farm waste into the public
sewerage system. Trade effluent can only be discharged to the public sewerage system if a permit is
in place. The practice of discharging livestock slurry into the sewage system through a designated
point in the system or through the drainage network is therefore illegal, albeit common practice
locally.
The quality of effluent in the sewerage system also has an impact on the urban wastewater treatment
plants that are designed to treat domestic effluent. The latter is typically lower in Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Total Nitrogen6 figures than effluent containing
animal waste. This has an impact on the operation of the treatment plants; only recently (February
2015) did the Ta’ Barkat Treatment Facility stop operating because of the clogging of system from
animal waste (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150226/local/farm-waste-clogs-plant-
80-of-sewage-going-in-sea.557717). The implications on the urban wastewater Directive are also
6 Farmyard Waste Steering Action Committee (2014) Inception Report – Untreated Farmyard Waste Discharges into the Sewerage Network
23
important because when the treatment plants discharge raw sewage into the sea there is an
infringement of the Directive.
Schedule 1 of the Waste Management (Activity Registration) Regulations, 2007 (L.N. 106 of 2007)
provides a list of permitted waste disposal activities. The Legal Notice allows for on-site waste
treatment for farms that hold livestock. It includes a number of provisions such as reference to the
Code of Good Agricultural Practice, conditions for the construction of the manure clamp and cesspit,
ensuring that no manure is spread in the closed season, farms having an authorized slaughtering unit
should have a grease trap outside the slaughtering unit, connecting to the cesspit via a settling tank,
dead or fallen animals and slaughterhouse wastes are to be transported to the Thermal Waste
Treatment Facilities operated by Wasteserv Malta (WSM) for incineration, the operator of the
establishment is requested to keep records of the amount and volume of solid and liquid waste as
well as information on where such wastes are directed to, a registered waste carrier should transport
any waste generated by the establishment, consignment notes should accompany waste transfers
where applicable and a Waste Management Plan must be prepared.
Another important component of agricultural waste is animal by-products (APBs). They are regulated
due to the fact that they pose a potential risk to public and animal health and the environment. In
response to various crises affecting the safety of public and animal health and the environment in
2002, the European Commission introduced very strict rules for the collection, traceability, transport,
processing and safe disposal of ABPs (EC Reg.1774/2002). Following revisions, the new legislation (EC)
1069/2009 laying down health rules concerning Animal By-Products and derived products not
intended for human consumption, as well as its accompanying implementing Regulation 142/2011
were approved by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union and have been in
force since the 4th March 2011. The provisions include issues that are relevant to the livestock and
farming community, the collection and disposal industry, incinerator operators, sea fish and shellfish
industries, the pharmaceutical industry, the catering industry, food establishments, retailers,
supermarkets, butcheries, the Government and non-Governmental Organisations, and the
enforcement Authorities – Veterinary Services amongst others.
Animal By-Products have been divided into three categories, each representing a different level of risk
associated with the waste material:
Category 1 Material which is the highest risk, and consists principally of material that is considered a
TSE risk, such as Specified Risk Material. Pet animals, wild animals, zoo and circus animals and
experimental animals are also classified as Category 1 material. Catering waste from all forms of
international transport (i.e. which has come from outside the EU) is also Category 1.
Category 2 Material is also high risk material and includes fallen stock, manure and digestive content.
Category 2 is also the default status of any animal by-product not defined in Regulation (EC) 1069/2009
as either Category 1 or Category 3 material. Category 2 material includes manure, non-mineralised
guano and digestive tract content, ABPs collected during the treatment of waste water, ABPs
containing residues of authorised substances or contaminants exceeding the permitted levels as
referred to in Directive 96/23/EC, products of animal origin which have been declared unfit for human
consumption due to the presence of foreign bodies in those products, products of animal origin - other
than Category 1 material - that are imported or introduced from a third country or dispatched to
24
another Member State and fail to comply with Community veterinary legislation, animals and parts of
animals that died other than being slaughtered, foetuses, oocytes, embryos and semen which are not
destined for breeding purposes and dead-in-shell poultry.
Category 3 Material consists of low risk materials including parts of animals that have been passed fit
for human consumption in a slaughterhouse but which are not intended for consumption, either
because they are not parts of animals that we normally eat or for commercial reasons. They also
include former foodstuffs and domestic kitchen waste (within the scope of the Regulations).Different
waste streams must be handled accordingly and have different uses, depending on which category
they fall under.
In addition to regulations (EC) 1069/2009 and (EC) 142/2011, disposal of ABPs and derived products
should take place also in accordance with:
- Directive 2010/75/EU of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution
prevention and control)
- Council Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste as amended; and
- Regulation 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste as amended.
o In view of the current challenges related to agricultural waste management (see
section below), Directives that govern the marine environment are also of particular
relevance.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive calls for the achievement of Good Environmental Status of
EU marine waters by 2020. This status is defined by 11 descriptors. Descriptor 5 seeks to ensure that
eutrophication is minimised. The release of raw sewage or sub-standard effluent (due to the waste
treatment facilities not operating according to design requirements) is likely to result in potentially
significant nutrient load to the marine environment at the outfalls. Similarly, the Water Framework
Directive requires that Good Status is achieved in all waters by 2015. This is determined both in terms
of ecological and chemical quality. It is noted, however, that in Malta’s Water Management
Catchment Plan 20117 three water bodies have been identified as having potentially less than-good
ecological status as required by the WFD and in all instances exemptions have been requested to
extend the deadline for the achievement of good status from 2015 to 2021.
In a recent Commission Staff Working Document8 on the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive Programmes of Measures, the Commission states that in its second River Basin Management
Plan Malta must:
Submit a plan on resolving the discharge of animal husbandry waste in the sewage collecting system
7 MEPA. 2011. The Water Catchment Management Plan for the Maltese Islands 8 European Commission. 2015. Commission Staff Working Document Report on the progress in implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
25
because the Maltese WWTPs had a performance problem as regards compliance with the COD
standards. This was linked to farm manure discharges in the collecting system.
In terms of emissions, the Agriculture sector accounts for a very small share of national Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions, namely 2.7%.9 Methane is the main greenhouse gas emitted by the agricultural
sector, from enteric fermentation and manure management. Very small amounts of N2O are also
emitted from manure management and fertiliser use10.
2.4 Current Practice
In its Agricultural Waste Management Plan for the Maltese Islands, 2008, Sustech Consulting carried
out a thorough study to identify tonnage and volumes of dry and wet manure generated by livestock,
including cattle, pig, poultry (broilers and layers), and rabbits. The study identified that cattle is the
source of half of the dry manure, approximately a third of wet manure as well as half the nitrogen.
Whereas, whilst pig slurry represents over half the wet volume, dry pig manure only represents around
13% and contributes approximately 22% of nitrogen. Poultry dry matter represents around a third of
the total whereas wet matter constitutes just approximately 7%. Manure from rabbits represent very
little of the total (around 2% of total dry weight and less than 1% of wet).
- Manure and slurry from cattle and swine farms is stored on site in either cesspits or manure
clamps with bedding or separators in the case of cattle; swine farms do not currently use
separators (Envico Consultancy, 2013).11 Dry manure (from cattle) is then spread on fields
during the open season provided there is a demand for it.
- Pig slurry is in the main disposed of in the public sewer for want of alternative management
approaches which are in line with legal requirements in this regard.
- Poultry (broilers and layers) typically collect waste on a layer of bedding (broilers only) which
is then collected and used as manure in the open season. A manure clamp should also be
present on these farms.
- Sheep and goat operate a deep litter system.
A Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant is currently being constructed at Ghallis; this plant is designed
to treat 39,000 tonnes of manure mainly cattle and poultry. The quality of the output (compost) and
its use as a fertiliser on agricultural land is being discussed by the regulatory authorities. There was a
planning application for the relocation of dairy farms and the construction of a treatment facility in
Siggiewi. The state of the process is on hold. There was also interest in building a Mechanical Biological
Treatment Plant on Gozo but the call for studies issued was not awarded. In terms of animal by-
products, these are currently incinerated at the Marsa Thermal Treatment Facility. An autoclave will
9 Malta NIR 1990-2013. 10 MEPA. 2009. Malta’s Biennial Report on Policies and Measures and Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions 11 EnviCo Consultancy. 2013. Report on Volume Excretion Figures (per animal type) for three main animal categories (sows, heifers & calves). Directorate of Agriculture, Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs.
26
be operational by 2016 and will be able to treat category 1, 2 and 3 of animal by-products.
2.5 Challenges associated with current practice & compliance
2.5.1 Cattle
Various reports on the management of agricultural waste (Sustech Consulting, 2008 and EnviCo
Consultancy, 2013) describe how most cattle farms, through support of the 2007-2013 Rural
Development Programme, underwent restructuring with the aim of ensuring compliance with respect
to reception and waste storage structures. Of these, a number of dairy farms opted for: a) a solid floor
system where solid manure is than stored in an approved manure clamp and any effluent is deposited
in cesspits; and b) slatted floor system with a manure separator. However, as reported by the ad-hoc
Farm Waste Steering Committee (2014), in practice operational costs associated with running the
separator resulted in certain farmers choosing either to not install or operate it and subsequently
storing the manure on site for the entire closed season, or disposing of it to the sewerage system
without separation.
At this stage, in the remaining cases where existing farms have not restructured their onsite waste
storage infrastructure, either they agree to relocate to form a cluster and install common
infrastructure or be subject to necessary action to be undertaken by the Authorities.
2.5.2 Pigs
As identified above, LN 139/02 does not allow for the disposal of animal liquid manure either directly
to the sewerage system or indirectly by bowser. Trade effluent disposal is only allowed where the
WSC has issued a public sewer discharge permit. However, in practice, the lack of any adequate farm
waste-water treatment plants or off-site biogas facilities has meant that the WSC has allowed for the
disposal of this waste fraction into the public sewer at three designated sites, namely, Mtarfa (site in
Gherreqin Road l/o Military Cemetery); Mqabba (site in the road to Mqabba); and Zejtun (site in
Zabbar Road); and Mgarr Road, l/o Xemxija, Gozo. However, due to the cost of transport and for
convenience sake, farmers use other, generally, inappropriate discharge points along the sewerage
network. The waste is generally not processed through a solids separator prior to disposal and this
can result in blockages of the sewage collection network, also affecting the wastewater treatment
plant operation. As a result the treatment operation has been compromised and recently (as reported
above) the Ta’ Barkat facility has closed for maintenance resulting in the discharge of raw sewage to
the marine environment. Overflows and infiltration of effluent are also known to occur. The current
system, therefore, of discharging into the sewerage network cannot continue. The revision of the
Malta Water Catchment Management Plan must include a commitment to address this issue.
From a data collection point of view, one of the challenges is the lack of a uniform collection of
27
agricultural waste data. While MEPA collects data on agricultural waste, the remit lies solely with the
reporting of data at waste management facilities and not at source. Given this challenge, the actual
quantity of manure by type of livestock tends to vary particularly in the case of the pig sector whereby
the differing use of water to liquefy the manure into slurry results in varying published levels of waste.
Through the various discussions with stakeholders, it has also been observed that there is
fragmentation in the authorities’ roles and responsibilities associated with agricultural waste
management.
2.6 Discussion and Conclusions
The current scenario with regards to waste management in the Maltese Islands as described above is
clearly unsustainable and has resulted in increased public costs and environmental pollution. There
are three major aspects that need to be addressed in order to improve the situation. Firstly, the
strategic framework for agricultural waste management is absent. The Solid Waste Management Plan
2014-2020 only addresses municipal and industrial waste; it does not address the complete spectrum
of agricultural waste streams but only those which may be accepted in existing or planned waste
management facilities. Moreover, the 2008 Agricultural Waste Management Plan for the Maltese
Islands has not been officially adopted, and would in any case need to be updated following
developments in waste management over recent years. The establishment of an Agricultural Waste
Management Policy for the Maltese Islands is therefore crucial.
Secondly, the necessary infrastructure to manage agricultural waste is inadequate. MEPA has
approved permits for a Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant at Ghallis with a capacity to process
39,000 tonnes of manure per annum. A plan for the construction of 12 farms, a dairy waste digester
and waste conversion facility in Siggiewi is still subject to planning scrutiny.12 However, the planned
infrastructure does not deal with pig slurry. This large waste stream remains unaddressed.
Poor management practices, means that pig waste management uses large volumes of water, which
explains the seemingly significantly higher amount of waste generated. This is an aspect that needs to
be tackled at farm level and precede any disposal and treatment options.
Enforcement is crucially important to ensure that the current scenario, already operating not in
accordance with good practice, at least respects the interim agreed operational conditions.
The provision of adequate infrastructure is addressed in the strategic direction given in Malta’s
Partnership Agreement (2014-2020). Thematic Objective 4c of the Partnership Agreement (PA)
specifically addresses the treatment of animal waste through improved management practices and
the development of common infrastructure. The PA recognises that animal husbandry creates large
volumes of solid or liquid residues and waste products. The PA states that investment in additional
common infrastructure for the management of animal waste which cannot be handled by the
Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plant (for example pig waste) will be carried out. Such
12 PA 07823/06
28
initiatives continue to be of significant importance given that the improved handling of animal waste
at source reduces the leakage of nitrates in the water system and reduces the need to remove nitrates
from the water system. Efforts will be directed to ensure continuous improvement through, though not
limited to increased education, support and technology.
It is understood that manure management will also be funded through the Rural Development
Programme 2014-2020 under investments in physical assessment (Article 17) and Co-operation
(Article 35). However, given that to date there are no planned facilities for agricultural waste
management and noting that such facilities would require planning permission and possibly an
Environmental Impact Assessment, the timing of funding these facilities in the 2014-2020
programming period is a key issue.
2.7 Barriers to the Implementation of Agricultural Waste Management Infrastructure
While it is clear that effort has been put into bringing the bovine sector in line with the requirements
emanating from the Nitrates Directive, there is still resistance to implement the necessary changes.
This resistance is likely to come from:
- The perception from the farmers that there is over-regulation and that too many conditions
are being imposed on them when they are facing increased competition from abroad;
- A cultural resistance to change;
- Costs of removal, storage, and treatment of manure also considering the double insularity
faced by Gozo;
- The inefficient capture, use and management of water that leads to wastes that have a high
water content;
- The lack of an agricultural waste management strategy means that there are no planned
facilities to address waste management from the sector with the consequent risk of losing
funding from the 2014-2020 period;
- Lengthy permitting procedures for waste management facilities especially for facilities that
require an IPPC permit; and
- Co-treatment of manure with MSW could result in compost that is not adequate from
spreading on agricultural land.
29
3. Overview of the Agricultural Sector
The Maltese agricultural sector is a diversified sector, comprised of various activities which can be
grouped under different categories including horticulture, fruit and citrus growing, mixed and general
field cropping, different crops and livestock, ruminants including sheep and goats and animals. In
2014, the agricultural sector represented 1.3% of the total Gross Value Added13 generated by the
Maltese economy and accounted for 1.5% of all persons employed. Even though the sector’s
contribution to economic activity is low, agriculture through its multifunctionality plays an important
role in rural landscaping, cultural heritage and the maintenance and preservation of the environment
in Malta.
The sector is confronted by various structural constraints which impose an additional burden on its
competitiveness. Given that land is scarce due to the small size of the island, the sector faces
urbanization pressures. The economic rental value of land results in significant constraints related to
the opportunity cost of land. In addition, the sector faces problems related to water scarcity whereby
most of the water supply originates from costly desalinization.
The Maltese Islands also depend on import costs and high and fluctuating cereal prices together with
the increase of other input prices which are making the situation in the agricultural sector
unsustainable. As is explained further below, the sector is fragmented and characterised by small
holdings whose costs tend to be high given their lack of ability to exploit economies of scale. This issue
has become increasingly evident in the case of investment required for agricultural waste
management as lack of restructuring has seen a number of farms close down over the last few years
shrinking further the agricultural sector.
This section examines the main components of the agricultural sector in Malta. This analysis, on the
structure and characteristics of the Maltese Islands’ agriculture, serves as the basis to form the right
policies for waste and manure management. Malta and Gozo including Comino are analysed
separately given the difference in the specialisation of the livestock sector in the Islands.
3.1 Malta
This section of the report focuses explicitly on the number of farms and the respective livestock
distribution of farms located in Malta. The subsequent section focuses explicitly on the number and
type of farms present in Gozo. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of presenting the trend in
the development of the sector, latest data published by the National Statistics Office is utilised. More
recent data provided by the Agriculture Directorate is utilised to provide a snapshot of the sector as
at March 2015.
13 NSO (046/2015), Gross Domestic Product for2014.
30
3.1.1 Number of Agricultural Holdings
On average, 73% of all holdings in Malta are relatively small and consist of less than 1ha of UAA.
Holdings with an area ranging between 1ha and 2ha of UAA represent 16% of the total hectares while
only 11% consist of an area greater than 2ha. It is to be noted that while the number of holdings in
Malta is relatively high, the holdings are small and fragmented thus severely limiting the potential for
these holdings to reap economies of scale.
Figure 3.1: Number of Agricultural Holdings by Size
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
Figure 3.2: Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) by Type
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
31
The Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) is the total area taken up by arable land, permanent grassland,
permanent crops and kitchen gardens used by the holding, regardless of the type of tenure or whether
it is used as part of common land. Figure 3.2 shows that the total UAA in Malta which increased
marginally from 2007 to 2013. Land in Malta is mainly cultivated for forage production. In fact, forage
on average represents 41% of land use, followed by market gardening (17%), Kitchen gardens (10%),
other areas including fallow land (10%), potatoes (8%), vineyards (7%) and permanent land (5%).
3.1.2 Employment
Total employment within the agricultural sector in 2013 amounted to 14,995 representing 7% of the
total employment in Malta (including part-timers). The employment growth rate in agriculture
increased by an average rate of 5% annually between 2007 and 2013 fuelled by an increase in part
time employment. As can be seen from Figure 3.3 the number of males working in the agricultural
sector is predominantly much higher than the level of women working in the sector.
Figure 3.3: Total Employment in Agriculture by Sex
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
The majority of workers in this sector, that is over 90%, are classified as part-time workers, clearly
indicating that agriculture is not the main source of income for most of the people representing the
farming community. Full-time employment amounted to 1,100 in 2013, that is 7% of all workers
engaged in agricultural activity. Between 2007 and 2013, full time employment declined by 24% while
part-timer employment increased by 12%.
32
Data presented in Figures 3.5 and 3.6 is based on the Census of Agriculture carried out in 2010. Full-
time persons engaged in agricultural activity aged less than forty-five amount to 34% of all full-timers
while part-timers within the same age-grop amount to just 24% of all part-timers. Persons within the
farming community aged between 45 and 54 amount to 54% of the total employed while those
exceeding 64 years of age amount to 21% of all people employed within the agricultural sector.
Figure 3.4: Employment in Agriculture by Type
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
This clearly highlights the fact that the sector is characterised by an ageing population where
employment is dwindling. The employment distribution between part-time employmnt and full-time
employment as well as the age distribution reflects the fragility of the sector in terms of its future
potential development. Indeed it can be argued that based on the presentation of employment data,
unlesee workers are enticed to seek employment in the sector, the downsizing in the sector is most
likely expected to continue.
33
Figure 3.5: Full-time Agricultural Employment by Age Group
Source: NSO, Census of Agriculture (2010)
Figure 3.6: Part-time Agricultural Employment by Age Group
Source: NSO, Census of Agriculture (2010)
Figure 3.7 illustrates the employment stucture by Annual Work Units (AWUs). On average, 75% of all
workers enaged in agricultural activity work less than 25% of 1 AWU and 23% work between 25% and
100% of 1 AWU.
34
Figure 3.7: Total employment (number of persons) in agriculture by Annual Work Unit (AWU)
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
3.1.4 Livestock
The livestock sector in Malta includes cattle (primarily dairy together with some specialized beef
production), swine, poultry (both layer and broiler), goat, sheep and rabbits. Cattle farms reached a
peak of 336 holdings in 2007 and then declined to 242 farms in 2013. The drop in cattle farms post
2007 is mainly due to enforcements by the local authorities in relation to compliance with EU
standards and also due to the fact that cereal prices have increased significantly.
Figure 3.8 indictates that from all cattle farms, dairy farms in Malta represent about 33% for of
holdings. Other farms rearing cattle reached a peak of 231 holdings in 2007 and fell to 154 farms by
2013. Despite the fact that there are more farms catering for beef, the total number of heads is
predominantly much higher for dairy farms.
35
Figure 3.8: Cattle Farms by Type of cattle in Malta
Source: NSO, Cattle Survey (2008-2014)
The decline in the number of farms is also reflected in a drop in the number of cattle heads. For the
period 2007-2014, the number of cattle heads in Malta was subject to a decreasing trend (Figure 3.9).
In fact, cattle heads declined by almost 3,164 heads or 24%, exceeding the 20% medium to long- term
decline predicted in the 2008 Agricultural Waste Management Plan. The decline was clearly significant
throughout the period post 2007, that is, just before the May 2008 planning permit application
deadline for investment in infrastructure with regards to the improvement of manure storage and
management. In addition, throughout the same period under review, dairy cattle were affected by a
disease outbreak which contributed to the decline in the dairy cattle population.
Figure 3.9: Development of the Number of Cattle in Malta, 2007-2014
Source: NSO – Agriculture and Fisheries (2011-2014)
36
Dairy cows in Malta are the most important component of the cattle industry. Indeed, as previously
indicated, dairy farms hold a significantly high proportion of all cattle heads, dominating the cattle
industry. Figure 3.10 shows that on average, 85% of all cattle heads are reared within dairy farms. The
bulk of the cattle stock is found on farms holding dairy cows, which farms are considered relatively
average in size for the Maltese scenario and their owners are mostly full-time farmers. This data also
indicates that dairy production remains the primary source of income for the local herdsmen.
Figure 3.10: Distribution of Cattle by Farm Type in Malta
Source: NSO, Cattle Survey
A further breakdown of the type of cattle held on farms in Malta as at March 2015 is presented in
theTables below.
In terms of dairy farms, over 60% of farms in Malta hold less than 100 heads while 38% hold between
100 and 400 heads. The majority of these are males which are within the younger age group while
females are predominantly over 2 years old.
Table 3.1: Population in Dairy Farms by age
Source: Agriculture Directorate
M0-6m M6m-1y M1y-2y M2+ F0-6m F6m-1y F1y-2y F2+ Total
Malta 409 405 388 78 650 703 1,367 4,393 8,393
Gozo 328 218 266 31 400 433 773 2,379 4,828
Total 737 623 654 109 1,050 1,136 2,140 6,772 13,221
37
Table 3.2: Number of Dairy Farms
Source: Agriculture Directorate
It is once again to be reiterated that the small size of these holdings poses investment challenges due
to the inability of these holdings to reap economies of scale. The distribution of the beef sector is
shown in Table 3.3 whereby as expected most of heads are male and over 6 months of age.
Table 3.3: Livestock in Beef Farms by age
Source: Agriculture Directorate
From a geographical perspective the majority of cattle farms are located within the Southern and
Northern districts although the predominantly larger ones are located in the Western region as shown
in Figure 3.11.
Table 3.4: Number of Beef Farms
Source: Agriculture Directorate
Malta Gozo Total Malta Gozo Total
0-100 48 14 62 60% 41% 54%
101-400 30 18 48 38% 53% 42%
Over 401 2 1 3 3% 3% 3%
Total 80 34 114 100% 100% 100%
M0-6m M6m-1y M1y-2y M2+ F0-6m F6m-1y F1y-2y F2+ Total
Malta 257 407 414 41 53 53 104 152 1,481
Gozo 10 9 12 - 2 7 12 9 61
Total 267 416 426 41 55 60 116 161 1,542
Heads Malta Gozo Total Malta Gozo Total
0-10 117 8 125 77% 80% 77%
11-50 33 2 35 22% 20% 22%
Over 50 2 0 2 1% 0% 1%
Total 152 10 162 100% 100% 100%
38
Figure 3.11: Bovine farms geographical distribution
3.1.5 Pigs
Similar to the trend in the cattle sector, the pigs industry experienced a significant decline in heads
after 2007 (Figure 3.12). In fact, the number of pigs registered in Malta declined by almost 15%
between 2007 and 2008, down to 61,183 heads. Again, this was an effect of the May 2008 deadline
for applications on planning permits to improve the manure storage and management system on-
farm.
Unlike the development within the cattle industry, the number of pigs following 2008 remained stable
while increasing in 2009 and 2010 only to decline significantly thereafter. From 2007 to 2013 the
number of pigs declined by 26,588 (-37%).
39
Figure 3.12: Development of the Number of Pigs in Malta, 2007-2013
Source: NSO , Pig Census (2011-2014)
A breakdown of the type of pig heads as at March 2015 shown in Table 3.5 indicates that the majority
in Malta are grow pigs followed by sows. In Malta, the majority of holdings, at 48% hold between 100
and 500 heads.
Table 3.5: Pig population by type
Source: Agriculture Directorate
The geographical distribution of the farms is shown in Figure 3.13. The majority of farms are located
in Malta, as opposed to Gozo and are mainly located within the Western district with only a few farms
located towards the North of the Island.
Sows Boars Gilts Grow Total
Malta 5,360 277 638 33,367 39,642
Gozo 508 11 57 1,965 2,541
Total 5,868 288 695 35,332 42,183
40
Table 3.6: Pig Farms by size
Source: Agriculture Directorate
Figure 3.13: Pig farms geographical distribution
3.1.7 Poultry
Consistent with other livestock categories, poultry heads have also decreased over the period of
analysis. In Malta, layer chickens have experienced the most drastic decline with a 47% drop
experienced between 2005 and 2013. (Figure 3.14). While the number of broilers has also declined,
the drop has been less significant.
Pig Farm
SizeMalta Gozo Total Malta Gozo Total
0-100 25 3 28 26% 27% 26%
101-300 33 5 38 35% 45% 36%
301-500 13 2 15 14% 18% 14%
501-999 17 1 18 18% 9% 17%
Over 1000 7 0 7 7% 0% 7%
Total 95 11 106 100% 100% 100%
41
Figure 3.14: Development of the Number of Chicken in Malta, 2005-2013
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
The geographical distribution of the poultry farms by size is shown in Figure 3.15. There is a
predominance of more broiler farms. These farms in Malta are mainly located in the Western and
Southern districts. About 22% of the poultry holdings in Malta hold over 5,000 broiler heads and 13%
hold over 5,000 layer heads.
Figure 3.15: Poultry farms geographical distribution
42
3.1.8 Goats and Sheep
The number of goats and sheep in Malta has also experienced a decline. Over the period 2007-2014,
figures for both species have declined with a steeper decline registered for sheep. In 2014 the total
sheep population amounted to 7,639. The amount of goats registered in Malta experienced, on
average, a decline of 5% annually.
Figure 3.16: Development of the number of Sheep and Goat in Malta, 2007-2014
Source: NSO – Agriculture and Fisheries (2011-2014)
A distribution of the livestock as at March 2015 is shown in the Table below. In terms of goats, the
majority are adult females. In Malta there are almost triple the amount of goats compared to Gozo.
In terms of sheep, the majority are ewes and in Malta there are about double the amount of sheep
than there are in Gozo.
Table 3.7: Goat and sheep population by age
KidsAdult
Male
Adult
FemaleTotal Lambs Rams Ewes Total
Malta 572 243 2,405 3,220 992 243 5,841 7,076
Gozo 213 55 976 1,244 666 51 2,392 3,109
Total 785 298 3,381 4,464 1,658 294 8,233 10,185
Goats Sheep
43
3.2 Gozo and Comino
This section focuses more intently on developments in the livestock sector in Gozo and Comino.
3.2.1 Number of Agricultural Holdings
The number of agricultural holdings, in Gozo and Comino, between 2005 and 2007 remained relatively
constant, to increase by approximately 16% between 2007 and 2010 and then stabilize again to an
amount of 2780ha of UAA in 2013 (Figure 3.17). On average, 75% of all holdings are relatively small
and consist of less than 1ha of UAA. Holdings with an area ranging between 1ha and 2ha of UAA
represent 15% of the total hectares while only 10% consist of an area greater than 2ha. As highlighted
in the holdings analysis for Malta, areas fragmented into small areas will put limitations on the
potential benefits that can be extracted from the agricultural land.
Figure 3.17: Number of Agricultural Holdings by Size
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
44
Figure 3.18: Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) by Type
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
Figure 3.18 shows that the total UAA in Gozo and Comino amounted to 2,135 ha in 2005 to increase
by 2% between 2005 and 2007. It continued to increase to 2,889 ha in 2013 representing a 17%
increase. About 63% of the land in Gozo and Comino is cultivated for forage production, followed by
market gardening (12%), Kitchen gardens (10%), other areas including fallow land (7%), permanent
land (4%), vineyards (3%) and potatoes (1%).
3.2.2 Employment
Total employment for Comino and Gozo within the agricultural sector in 2013 amounted to 4,071
persons. The employment growth rate in agriculture increased by an average rate of 8% between 2007
and 2013. Figure 3.19 shows that simliiar to Malta the number of females employed in agriculture is
significantly less than that of males. In fact, on average, for the period 2007-2013, males represented
around 80% of the total employed population in the sector. The number of males working within the
agricultural sector between 2007 and 2013 increased by an average growth rate of 7.8% while the
amount of females engaged in agricultural activity increased by almost 6.9%, on average.
45
Figure 3.19: Total Employment in Agriculture by Sex
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
The majority of workers in this sector, over 90%, are classified as part-time workers, clearly indicating
that agriculture is not the main source of income for most of the people representing the farming
community in Gozo. Between 2007 and 2013, the amount of full-timers in the sector ranged between
185 and 316 persons (Figure 3.20). Full-time employment amounted to 272 in 2013, that is almost 7%
of the all people engaged in agricultural activity in Gozo. Between 2007 and 2013, full time
employment decelined by almost 14%. On the other hand part-timers increased by 18%.
Figure 3.20: Employment in Agriculture by Type
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
46
Data in Figures 3.21 and 3.22 is based on the Census of Agriculture carried out in 2010. Full-time
persons engaged in agricultural activity aged less than forty-five amount to 59% of all full-timers while
part-timers within the same age-group amount to just 22% of all part-timers. Persons within the
farming community aged between 45 and 54 amount to 53% of the total employed while those
exceeding 64 years of age amount to 23% of all people employed within the agricultural sector.
Figure 3.21: Full-time Agricultural Employment by Age Group
Source: NSO, Census of Agriculture (2010)
Figure 3.22: Part-time Agricultural Employment by Age Group
Source: NSO, Census of Agriculture (2010)
47
Figure 3.23 illustrates the employment stucture by Annual Work Units (AWUs). On average, 70% of all
workers enaged in agricultural activity work less than 25% of 1 AWU and 18% work between 25% and
100% of 1 AWU.
Figure 3.23: Total employment (number of persons) in agriculture by Annual Work Unit (AWU)
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
3.2.3 Cattle
As shown in Figure 3.24 the livestock sector in Gozo and Comino is composed of cattle (primarily dairy
together with some specialized beef production), poultry (both layer and broiler), goat, sheep and
rabbits and swine albeit the latter category is less relevant than in Malta.
Figure 3.25 indictates that from all cattle farms, dairy farms in Gozo represent an average of 78%
during the period 2007-2013. Other farms rearing cattle reached a peak of 14 holdings in 2007 and
fell to 10 farms by 2013.
48
Figure 3.24: Distribution of all farms by size of livestock
Figure 3.25: Cattle Farms by Type
Source: NSO, Cattle Survey (2008-2014)
49
For the period 2007-2014, the number of cattle heads in Gozo was subject to a decreasing trend
(Figure 3.26). In fact, cattle heads declined by almost 1,395 heads or 13%. The decline was clearly
significant throughout the period post 2007, that is, just before the May 2008 planning permit
application deadline for investment in infrastructure with regards to the improvement of manure
storage and management.
Figure 3.26: Development of the Number of Cattle in Gozo and Comino, 2007-2014
Source: NSO – Agriculture and Fisheries (2011-2013)
Dairy cows in Gozo are also the most important component of the cattle industry. Indeed, as
previously indicated, dairy farms hold a significantly high proportion of all cattle heads, dominating
the cattle industry. Figure 3.27 shows that on average, almost all cattle heads are reared within dairy
farms. This data also indicates that dairy production remains the primary source of income for the
local herdsmen.
50
Figure 3.27: Distribution of Cattle by Farm Type
Source: NSO, Cattle Survey
As shown in Table 3.6, unlike the dairy farms in Malta which hold less than 100 heads, the majority
(53%) of farms in Gozo hold between 100 and 400 heads.
When it comes to beef farms in Gozo, as in Malta, they are small in size with about 80% of the farms
holding less than 10 heads (Table 3.4).
3.2.5 Pigs
Similar to the trend in the cattle sector, the pig industry in Gozo and Comino experienced a significant
decline in heads after 2007 (Figure 3.28).
51
Figure 3.28: Development of the Number of Pigs in Gozo and Comino, 2007-2013
Source: NSO , Pig Census (2011-2014)
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show that of the remaining 11 farms catering for pigs in Gozo, as at March 2015, 7
of them hold less than 500 heads.
3.2.6 Poultry
Figure 3.29 shows the level of poultry heads distributed between layers and broilers in Gozo. Unlike
Malta, the level of broilers have increased. On the other hand the number of layers have decreased
Indeed layer chickens have experienced minor trend changes over the analysed time period, ranging
from 54,932 to 110,917 heads between 2005 to 2013.
52
Figure 3.29: Development of the Number of Chickens in Gozo and Comino, 2005-2013
Source: NSO, Agriculture and Fisheries (2013)
3.2.7 Goats and Sheep
The number of goats in Gozo is also less than the amount of sheep (Figure 3.30). Over the period 2007-
2014, the level of goats remained relatively constant while the number of sheep heads, like Malta,
also declined. In 2014 the total sheep population amounted to 2,887 in Gozo while the goat
population amounted to 1,136.
Figure 3.30: Development of the number of Sheep and Goat in Gozo, 2007-2014
Source: NSO – Agriculture and Fisheries (2011-2013)
53
An analysis of the distribution of the livestock as at March 2015 presented in Table 3.7 shows that in
terms of goats, the majority in Gozo are adult females.
54
4. Forecast of the Livestock Sector (2016-2030)
In order to derive a forecast of the livestock, a comparative country analysis has been undertaken to
assess developments in the respective livestock sectors in Malta compared to other countries within
the EU, particularly Mediterranean countries which are subject to similar terrain and climatic
conditions, such as Cyprus and Greece. The cross country comparison is undertaken on the basis of
population as well as land area in terms of km2.
4.1 Cattle
The cattle population on a per capital basis is lowest in the Southern Mediterranean countries namely
Greece, Cyprus and Malta reflecting the climatic conditions of the region and the respective challenges
associated with the sustainability of the sector. According to data published by Eurostat, the cattle per
population in Malta as at 2013 amounted to 0.03 compared to a significantly higher ratio of 1.4 in
Ireland.
Figure 4.1: Cattle heads per Capita
Source: Eurostat
A cross country comparison is also undertaken based on cattle per km2. It is interesting to note in this
regard that the while Cyprus and Greece continue to register a relatively low ratio of cattle per km2,
Malta with a land area of 316km2 registers one of the highest ratios. Indeed, as at 2013, the total
amount of cattle in Malta amounted to about 50 heads per km2. This is also to be considered in light
of the fact that Malta registers the highest population density ratios in the EU at 1265 inhabitants per
km2. In making this analysis, Malta is even more at a disadvantage because of the virtually complete
absence of grazing land, as opposed to the three countries which feature a higher ratio of cattle per
km2.
55
Figure 4.2: Cattle heads per km2
Source: Eurostat
A snapshot of the development of the cattle sector in Malta between 2005 and 2014 allows for an
assessment of historic data which provides the basis of the forecast up to 2030. As can be seen from
Figure 4.3 cattle population in Malta has been persistently declining. This in part reflects the
restructuring process which has taken place within the sector whereby larger farms have invested in
appropriate facilities including waste management ones while the smaller and fragmented farms have
closed down as explained in further detail below.
Figure 4.3: Cattle Population MALTA
Source: Eurostat
56
It is interesting to compare the development of the sector with Greece and Cyprus. The cattle sector
in Greece has also experienced a persistent decline in cattle with heads falling significantly in 2013
and with a further decline registered in 2014. On the other hand, the cattle sector in Cyprus
experienced a decline in heads up to 2009 after which it rebounded. This however is to be noted within
the context that the number of heads in Cyprus are low reaching about 59,000 in 2014.
Figure 4.4: Cattle Population Greece and Cyprus
Source: Eurostat
In order to forecast the expected number of heads to 2030 and derive the volume of manure, four
different methods have been utilised. The first method considers the extrapolation of past data based
on a log function. This function takes into account the growth of the sector in percentage terms over
time. The second method also uses past data but extrapolates through the use of an autoregressive
function. This type of function used to forecast the number of cattle heads is undertaken through the
use of a linear combination of past values of the variables itself. It thus takes into account also the
predicted change in the number of heads over the forecast horizon. The third forecast method is based
on the concept of convergence and thus it considers how the cattle sector in Malta is expected to
develop taking into account the development of the same sector in Greece and Cyprus. The
convergence criteria is based on two indicators namely sustainability which takes into account the
analysis presented in Figure 4.4 and hence analysis of the number of heads per km2 while the indicator
on security is captured through the number of heads in relation to the population. Based on these two
variables a convergence value has been derived which takes into account the average value between
Greece and Cyprus and with a respective weight applied to sustainability and security which varies by
sector. In the case of the cattle sector, the value of the sustainability indicator is 4.07 in Greece and
5.46 in Cyprus. This is in turn considered in relation to the value registered in Malta which amounts to
47.1 cattle per km2 such that the forecast considers a decline in the ratio. In terms of the security
57
indictor the value in Greece and Cyprus is 0.06 per person and 0.07 respectively while the value in
Malta is 0.04 implying that convergence would require an increase in this indicator.
In this case the sustainability indicator is assigned a weight of 75%. Given the relative importance of
the cattle sector for dairy purposes, a weight of 25% has been applied to the security indicator. Based
on this analysis, the forecast of the number of cattle heads is expected to continue to decline albeit
to a lesser extent than through the use of the AR function. In fact, figures derived through the
convergence approach are similar to the forecast determined through the log approach.
In the case of the cattle sector, a fourth forecast method is utilised. The Agriculture Directorate has
presented an expert assessment on the sustainability of the dairy sector based on the number of farms
which have or have not restructured distinguishing between currently restructuring, those which are
to be relocated, have already applied for restructuring with the MEPA and those with are expected to
closed down also on account of the fact that they have as yet not restructured. As at March 2015,
there were 13,221 heads on dairy cow farms distributed in farms according to the breakdown
provided in the Figure below.
Figure 4.5: Total Heads on Dairy Cow Farms MALTA
Source: Agriculture Directorate
According to this data, over 75% of the dairy heads are located within farms which have already
invested in waste storage facilities. Of these, 56% of the heads are located within Malta and 44% are
located within the island of Gozo. About 7.5% of the dairy heads are located in farms which have not
to date undertaken any restructuring and which have already indicated that they will be closing down.
As can be seen from the Table below, the majority of these farms are located within Malta.
58
Table 4.1: Restructuring of Maltese Dairy Farms
Further analysis is presented in the Table below which provides data on the number of farms and the
average size of the farms. It is clearly evident that the largest farms have already invested on farm,
are currently undergoing restructuring or are in the process of applying with MEPA. In addition, the
larger farms will also be relocated so that they are moved out of residential zones. The smaller farms
have either not restructured or else have already indicated that they will be closing down. The
restructuring of the sector is likely to persist as smaller farms close down while the larger ones
maintain operation.
Table 4.2: Size of Restructuring Farms
The fourth forecasting methodology is thus based on this assessment whereby it is assumed that the
number of dairy heads in farms which have already invested , are currently undergoing restructuring
or will be relocated will continue to experience a decline in line with sectoral developments albeit of
1% per annum up to 2020. Thereafter, it is assumed that the number of dairy heads in these farms will
remain constant. On the other hand for farms which have already applied with MEPA it is assumed
that the number of heads will decline by 25% up to 2016, by 1% per annum up to 2020 and remain
constant thereafter. Farms which will be closing down are assumed to do so by the end of this year
while the number of heads are expected to decline by half in 2015 and by 100% in 2016. In order to
derive the total cattle population the number of beef heads are assumed to remain constant from
2015 onwards.
Total
HeadsMalta Gozo
Invested on Farm 10,096 56% 44%
Restructuring ongoing 467 69% 31%
Relocation list 958 100% 0%
Applied with Mepa 705 73% 27%
No restructuring 825 95% 5%
Closing down 170 100% 0%
Total 13,221 63% 37%
Number of
farms
Heads/
farm
Invested on Farm 76 132.8
Restructuring ongoing 3 155.7
Relocation list 7 136.9
Applied with Mepa 7 100.7
No restructuring 12 68.8
Closing down 9 18.9
Total 114 116.0
59
Based on this assessment, this forecast scenario which is also shown in the Figure below indicates that
while the decline in heads is expected to be maintained up to 2020, the number of heads are assumed
to remain constant thereafter as can be seen from Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Forecast Cattle Population
Source: Authors estimate
4.2 Pigs
A similar analysis is undertaken for the pig farming sector. Figure 4.7 and 4.8 refer to the convergence
criteria used for the forecast. In terms of pig population per capita, Malta and Greece register
relatively low ratios of 0.11 and 0.09 per capita respectively. On the other hand, Cyprus has to a
greater extent focused the livestock sector on pig farming with about 0.4 heads per population.
It is interesting to once again note that assessing the sustainability of the sector through the number
of heads per km2 indicates that Malta registers a high ratio of 154 per km2. Cyprus and Greece register
lower ratios with Cyprus registering a ratio of 37 heads per km2 while Greece registers a ratio of 9
heads per km2.
60
Figure 4.7: Pig Population per Capita
Source: Eurostat
Figure 4.8: Pig Population per km2
Source: Eurostat
In terms of developments in the pig farming sector in Malta over time, Figure 4.10 highlights a
persistent decline since 2005 with the number of heads amounting to 47,000 in 2014, almost half the
level registered in 2005. As identified in earlier sections of the report, the pig sector in Malta, unlike
the diary sector, has not invested in sound and sustainable agricultural waste management practices
to the same extent as the cattle sector. Furthermore as shown in Table 3.6 the pig sector in Malta is
characterised by a large number of farms which have a relatively low number of heads. Indeed, 62%
61
of the pig holdings hold less than 300 heads and about 7% of the holdings hold 37% of the heads as at
2015.
It is evident from Figure 4.9 that the trend in the number of heads in the pig sector is in decline also
in Greece and Cyprus. While Cyprus, like Malta has registered a persistent decline in the number of
pig heads, the declining trend in Greece, which is more pronounced, started in 2011.
Figure 4.9: Pig Population Greece and Cyprus
Source: Eurostat
A decline in the number of pig heads is also evident across most other EU Member States. This is due
to a combination of factors but the underlying reason is one of an economies of scale through
concentration as the smaller farms have closed down while the larger ones have maintained
operations. According to a report published by Eurostat, the decline in pig herds is also attributed to
the low profitability of the sector coupled with volatility in the feed prices.14 Enhanced competition
from China has also resulted in a decline in the sector.
14 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Pig_farming_sector_-_statistical_portrait_2014
62
Figure 4.10: Pig Population - MALTA
Source: Eurostat
Forecasts up to 2030 are shown in Figure 4.11 based on five forecast methods, three of which have
been explained above. The sharp decline in the sector is expected to persist albeit to a lesser extent
than that registered over the last ten years.
Figure 4.11: Pig Population Forecast
Source: Authors estimates
From a research perspective, while the autoregressive method is reported for the sake of
completeness, this scenario is discarded on the basis that:
63
- the forecast is based on a time series involving a considerable downsizing which is not likely to be
repeated in future;
- the sector may in future be affected by a number of considerations that are not subject to forecasting
at this stage.
In terms of the convergence approach, the value is assumed to depend entirely on sustainability and
not on security given the lesser importance of the sector with respect to security. Based on these
observations, the total number of heads is expected to continue to decline reaching 7,000 heads by
2030 from a current level of 47,000 heads.
The fourth forecasting methodology applied in this case is based on the latest data of pig heads as at
March 2015 which is used as a base to extrapolate data linked also to the AR function. According to
this fourth approach the total number of heads will continue to decline. As can be seen from Figure
4.11 this forecast methodology is very similar to the number of forecasted heads derived through the
AR function with the exception of the level shift downwards in 2015.
An additional forecasting methodology is applied to determine the scenario of pig heads over the
period of assessment. This methodology is based on a less steep decline in the number of heads as it
is assumed that only farms which currently have over 300 heads are likely to be maintained in the
future. This is based on the assumption that the viability of pig farms depends on the size of the farm.
In part, farms of a larger size are more likely to engage in investment for the management of slurry.
Smaller farms, partly due to their size, may find that it is less viable to engage in such investment.
Furthermore enhanced competition is likely to limit even further the viability of smaller farms which
tend to register higher per unit costs. Based on this forecasting assumption, the number of heads is
likely to decline in a progressive manner reaching 34,480 heads by 2030 implying that 82% of current
level of heads registered as at March 2015. This approach is based on a policy direction as to the most
likely future scenario which the relevant authorities would be contemplating as most likely to consider
for the purposes of waste management planning.
4.3 Goats
Contrary to the analysis presented for cattle and pigs, both Greece and Cyprus have focused in a more
intensive manner on the rearing of goats and sheep as is evident from the Figures below.
The number of goats per km2 are the highest in Greece followed by Cyprus. Malta at less than 15 heads
per km2 also registers a high ratio compared to other Member States. Similarly, the goat population
per capita is markedly higher in Cyprus and Greece. The significantly high ratio reflects the importance
of the cheese (feta) market in these two countries which is derived from goats and sheep. Malta on
the other hand, despite the use of goats and sheep milk for the production of cheeselets and similar
products , registers a significantly lower ratio on a per capita basis.
64
Figure 4.12: Goats per km2
Source: Eurostat
Figure 4.13: Goat Population per Capita
Source: Eurostat
While the goat population has been declining in Cyprus, Greece as well as Malta, there is scope for
the sector in Malta to develop further. Indeed small ruminant farming is an important economic
activity for European countries, especially those with a typical Mediterranean climate.15
15 Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections in Small Ruminants in the Greek Temperate Mediterranean Environment
65
Figure 4.14: Goat Population Malta
Source: Eurostat
Figure 4.15: Goat Population Cyprus and Greece
Source: Eurostat
A forecast of the number of goat heads up to 2030 is shown in Figure 4.16 If one is to extrapolate the
forecast based on historical data through the use of the log function or the AR function, the number
of heads would be expected to continue to decline. However if one is to consider the potential of the
goat sector in line with the strength of the sector in Greece and Cyprus, then the convergence criteria
66
allows for a forecasted increase in the number of goat heads. The convergence criteria is in this case
based on 85% sustainability and 15% security. As a result, the number of goat heads would increase
by about 1.6% per annum reaching 5,920 heads from the current level of 4,600 heads in 2030.
Figure 4.16: Goat Population Forecast
Source: Authors Estimate
4.4 Sheep
Likewise the sheep sector, which is also mainly utilised for the production of traditional cheeselets
and similar products, is also small in Malta compared to Greece and Cyprus. As can be seen from Figure
4.18, on a per capita basis, a proxy for sustainability, the ratio in Malta is among the lowest in the EU
while it is markedly higher in Cyprus and Greece.
In terms of sheep per km2 the ratio in Malta at about 34 heads per km2 compares well with Cyprus but
is lower than the ratio registered in Greece.
67
Figure 4.17: Sheep Population per km2
Source: Eurostat
Figure 4.18: Sheep Population per Capita
Source: Eurostat
The development of the sheep sector, gauged through the number of heads is shown in Figure 4.19
and 4.20. Unlike developments in Malta where the sector has registered a decline over the last ten
years, the trend in Greece and Cyprus is a growing one. In Malta the use of goat milk and larger
quantities of cow milk to produce cheeselets played a role in the decrease of the sheep population.
(MDP, 2010). Other factors which may have played a role in the decline of the sheep sector is the lack
68
of investment undertaken by the sector coupled with the fact that the ovine sector is mainly manned
by part-timers.
Figure 4.19: Sheep Population MALTA
Source: Eurostat
Figure 4.20: Sheep Population Greece and Cyprus
Source: Eurostat
69
The forecast of the number of sheep heads is shown in Figure 4.21. Once again, similar to the forecast
for goats, the extrapolation of data based on the log function and on the AR function results in a
persistent decline in the number of heads.
On the other hand, if one is to consider the convergence approach and apply a weight of 90% on
sustainability and 10% on security, the number of heads would be expected to increase and to reach
the levels registered in 2005. This implies an annual growth rate of 2.4% per annum up to 2030.
Figure 4.21: Sheep Population Forecast
4.5 Potential Forecast Scenarios (Heads)
Given the prevalent uncertainty in the development of the livestock sector as well as the relatively
long forecast horizon over a fifteen years, this section of the report presents forecast scenarios ranging
between minimum and maximum values rather than a point estimate. The values are based on the
forecasting methods exercises explained in the previous section. The section essentially focuses on
the main livestock sectors which contribute towards agricultural waste management challenges in
Malta. In this respect, the report focuses intentionally on the cattle and swine sectors. Other sectors
which pose less of an agricultural waste management challenge such as the poultry sector have not
been included for the purpose of generating a manure forecast. Indeed, poultry waste is relatively
contained in terms of total generation, tends to pose less of a nitrates management challenge due to
its physical characteristics, and is planned to be in good part catered for within the Malta North waste
treatment plant. Furthermore, data on the volume of manure generated by rabbit and horse
husbandry was not available, though it is also considered that these volumes are also relatively
contained when compared to those generated by cattle and pig farming.
70
Table 4.3: Forecast Scenarios
In terms of the cattle sector, both the minimum and maximum scenarios refer to a decline in the
number of heads which in 2030 may vary from 8,000 heads to 12,800 heads. It is to be noted that in
terms of the minimum scenario, the number of heads would be expected to decline in a persistent
manner over the forecasted horizon. On the other hand, the maximum scenario refers to values
derived from the analysis undertaken on the extent of restructuring undertaken by farms. In this case
the number of heads would be expected to decline further up to 2020 but it would be optimistically
expected to remain stable after 2020.
In the case of pigs, the minimum scenario is taken to reflect the convergence approach given that as
explained previously the AR approach has been discarded. The convergence approach refers to a
decline in the number of heads from 39,700 in 2015 to 7,940 by 2030. On the other hand, the
maximum scenario also refers to a declining trend albeit less drastic to 34,500 by 2030. As explained
in the previous section, this is based on the assumption that farms which currently contain over 300
heads are sustained over the timeframe.
Similarly, two scenarios based on the minimum and maximum values are presented for the sheep and
goat sector. In this case, the forecast values are derived from the three forecasting techniques used
for sheep and goat. The minimum scenarios for both the sheep and goat refers to a decline in the
number of heads. On the other hand, the maximum scenario which is based on the convergence
approach refers to a steady increase in the number of heads reaching 5,900 for goats and 15,300 for
sheep.
4.6 Potential Forecast Scenarios (Manure/Slurry)
This section of the report presents a forecast of livestock manure generation based on expected
developments in livestock heads presented in the previous section. This section also refers to the
minimum and maximum scenarios which are also ties to a varying level of waste per head.
71
Table 4.4: Scenario Ranges for Manure and Slurry Production
The volume in cubic metres per year of waste generated by type of livestock is derived through values
presented by the Agriculture Directorate as well as published sources. In this regard, it is to be
appreciated that the estimates of waste production are subject to significant uncertainty, which is in
part reflected in the available international literature in this regard, as well as the absence of
sufficiently detailed studies focusing on the Maltese context. This uncertainty is invariably reflected in
the estimates provided in this study, but does not significantly impinge on the conclusions derived and
on the policy recommendations, which are in themselves aimed at dealing with uncertainty through
the establishment of a variety of measures allowing for a significant degree of flexibility in effectively
meeting challenges once their extent is established to a reasonable degree of precision.
In the case of manure production, estimates of production per head which can be obtained from the
literature vary as detailed in Table 4.5. The annual production in cubic metres of a typical 450kg dairy
female cattle varies from just below 10 to almost 18 according to various international studies.
Adjusted for the distribution of cattle of different sex and age in Malta, and based on their space for
storage for manure as per planning requirements as shown in Table 4.6, an estimate of the annual
production per cattle head in Malta is obtained. These very between 5.72m3 to 10.33 m3, as shown in
Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Estimates of Manure Production Per Head of Cattle Livestock
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
2015 80.5 145.4 12.5 157.3 1.2 1.4 94.2 304.1
2020 67.7 131.8 7.1 146.7 1.0 1.6 75.7 280.2
2025 55.4 132.0 4.1 136.4 0.8 1.7 60.3 270.1
2030 46.5 132.0 2.1 127.2 0.7 1.9 49.3 261.0
Scenario Ranges for Manure and Slurry Production (m3000s)
Cattle Pigs Goats and Sheep Total
Source Country Context
Annual Production
Per 450kg
Reference Head of
Cattle (m3)
Annual Production
per Head adjusted
for Distribution of
Cattle in Malta (m3)
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries,
Government of Queensland, Australia
Australia 9.86 5.72
United States Department of Agriculture,
New JerseyUnited States 13.20 7.67
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
(2005)United States 14.78 8.59
Vanderholm (1984) New Zealand 17.79 10.33
Sources :
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/environment/intensive-livestock/cattle-feedlots/managing-environmental-impacts/manure-production-data
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nj/technical/cp/cta/?cid=nrcs143_014211
http://www.dairyingfortomorrow.com.au/wp-content/uploads/characteristics-of-effluent-and-manure.pdf
72
Table 4.6: Basis for Per Head Production Adjustment for Malta
For the purposes of this study, it is considered appropriate to use the lower and upper values of these
ranges, as well as an average of these values which stands at 8.08m3. This is consistent with guidance
given by the Agriculture Directorate. This provides a range of manure generation standing between
80,500m3 and 145,600m3 in 2015, as shown in Table 4.4. For 2030, the range is between 46,500m3
and 132,000m3.
The wide range in the production of pig manure is due to the uncertainty in the practice of waste
management practices particularly in terms of the use of water to dilute the manure. Greater
uncertainty lies with the pig sector whereby the volume of manure waste may vary from 12,500 m3 in
2015 to a significantly higher volume of 157,300m3. This sector which is considered to pose the
greatest challenges in the implementation of the agricultural waste management plan as current
practices associated with the disposal of this manure cannot be continued. It may furthermore be the
case that this sector imposes larger challenges also from the amount of generation in volumetric
terms.
As expected, the level of manure generated by the sheep and goat sector is significantly less reflecting
the number of heads. In this case the total volume of manure may vary in 2030 from 700m3 to
1,900m3, which do not represent significant changes from the estimated 2015 levels.
Males 0-
6m
Males 6m-
1y
Males 1y-
2y
Males
2years+
Females 0-
6m
Females
6m-1y
Females
1y-2y
Females
2years+
Total
Heads
Number of Dairy
and Beef Heads
(2015)
1,004 1,039 1,080 150 1,105 1,196 2,256 6,933 14,763
% of total 6.8% 7.0% 7.3% 1.0% 7.5% 8.1% 15.3% 47.0% 100.0%
Production
relative to Female
2years+ = 1*
0.179 0.179 0.248 0.248 0.179 0.179 0.248 1.000 0.581
*based on planning requirements for cesspit and clamp sizing
73
5. Strategic Options towards Manure and Slurry Management in Malta (2016-2030)
This section details the elements involved in the derivation of strategic options with respect to manure
and slurry management in Malta and describes a number of scenarios which can be envisaged in the
future in this regard. A number of potential strategic approaches are outlined in this section and a
baseline planning scenario is derived, for further consideration over the forthcoming phases of this
assignment. These scenarios presented are based on theoretical considerations and do not necessarily
reflect technical considerations. The derivation of effective strategic options towards manure and
slurry management in Malta depends on four factors:
1. the characteristics of the underlying manure and slurry generation and sink mechanisms,
intended as the expected development of the livestock industry and the absorptive capacity of
the crop industry in terms of manure and slurry being generated;
2. the constraints governing the system, the principal of which may be categorised into:
a. the need for Malta to meet its obligations as a Nitrates Vulnerable Zone entailing potential
constraints at three levels, from soft to hard:
i. a limitation not to exceed an application of N of 170kg/ha/yr on crop land;
ii. a limitation not to exceed the potential uptake by crops, which is estimated at around
110kg/ha/yr as per the Gross Nitrogen Balance (2007) study undertaken by the NSO;
iii. the need to potentially limit the application of N to crop land in a manner whereby crops
would be absorbing N already contained within the soil from over-application in
previous years16, to be as yet determined through specific studies regarding the N
content in soil and rendered effective through Nitrate Management Plans at the farm
level in conformity with the Code of Good Agricultural Practice.
b. the need for Malta to eliminate lack of compliance with the requirements of the Water
Framework Directive and the Urban Wastewater Directive in terms of bathing water
quality, which issue is arising principally from the discharge of slurry into sewers.
c. the need for Malta to sustain the economic competitiveness of the livestock farming, as an
integral component of the multi-functionality of agriculture in Malta, which calls for the
pursuit of cost-effective solutions to manure and slurry management;
d. likewise, the need for Malta to sustain the competitiveness of the horticultural sector ,
which entails the optimum use of fertiliser while meeting the requirements of Nitrate
Management Plans, which influences:
i. the quantity of fertiliser used;
ii. the mix between locally-sourced organic fertiliser and imported non-organic fertiliser
16 This has been estimated at 116.9km/ha in the 2007 Gross Nutrient Balance Study, the fourth highest among 19 EU Member States.
74
3. the objectives to be optimised within the system which is taken to be the minimisation of the
financial and externality costs of the management system, including those related to:
a. manure and slurry management practices at the level of the livestock farms;
b. transport activities;
c. fertiliser costs applicable to crop farms;
d. the net costs of treatment to enable disposal in compliance with Nitrates and Water Quality
constraints, factoring revenues where applicable;
e. the costs of final disposal, including potentially, export.
4. the policy levers available, which could potentially include regulatory and financial instruments
influencing:
a. the management of manure and slurry on livestock farms, including issues such as:
i. the extent of water which is used and added to the volume of waste, particularly with
regards to pig slurry;
ii. the extent and location of discharges to the public sewers, which although currently
not permitted by legislation in Malta, are in effect taking place and could in future
potentially take place in conformity with the Water Quality Directive if effective prior
treatment is undertaken;
b. the methods of use of fertiliser on crop land, particularly with regards to the mix between
organic and inorganic fertilisers;
c. the potential development of treatment infrastructures to enable the sustainable and
legal disposal of manure and slurry, whether centralised or decentralised, at the local or
farm level;
d. the potential engagement in export of manure and slurry;
e. effective governance to cater for the potential establishment of a centralised system of
manure waste management, possibly at the separate regional levels of Malta and Gozo
The system features elements of uncertainty and is dynamic, entailing that changes in circumstances
are expected over time, which may themselves depend on actions taken in earlier periods. The main
elements of uncertainty emanate from:
1. insufficient data regarding critical state variables, particularly:
a. the volume of pig slurry generation, as this depends on individual on-farm practices
particularly with respect to the addition of water – while this does not alter estimates for
the mass of N, which depend upon the better-measured variable on the number of heads
of livestock, this variable would be critical with respect to such issues as transport and
treatment;
b. likewise, the amount of cattle manure generation is subject to uncertainty, and is at this
stage considered within a range established on the basis of available literature and subject
to the guidance provided by the Agriculture Directorate, as discussed in Section 4.6;
c. the amount of N which will be permitted to be applied to crop land in future years,
particularly because the extent of N currently present in the soil, and the way in which this
is to be dealt with, are at this stage not known;
75
2. insufficient information regarding future trends in livestock farming, and to a lesser extent,
the value of utilised agricultural area. For the purposes of this study, a prudent approach is adopted,
whereby the number of heads will be assumed at maximum levels derived through the forecasts
provided earlier on;
3. uncertainty with regards to the effectiveness of policy measures, which will depend upon the
credibility of the governance system, the incentives provided and the extent to which operators would
have to deviate from their normal practices. For the purposes of this study, the likelihood and
potential extent of these types of risk will be indicated for suggested measures as may be relevant,
together with remedial measures as may be applicable. It is however to be noted that effectiveness
may be affected by the fact that the problem in Malta is one which is long-standing, and which has
time and again met with significant resistance to change;
4. uncertainty regarding the costs and potential benefits of key elements within the system,
including:
a. cost of inorganic fertiliser, whose price is typically volatile reflecting developments in
international commodity markets;
b. costs of treatment, which are themselves dependent on scale of infrastructures, and which
may in turn affect transport costs;
c. costs related to and availability of export markets.
The elements of dynamism in the problem emanate from factors including:
3. the measures adopted may themselves influence the development of livestock, and to a lesser
extent, crop farming in future years;
4. the adopted fertiliser plans which outline the extent to which N can be applied to crop land
may change in future as N content levels in soil are altered as a result of the actions taken.
Solutions must cater for risk through sufficient elements of flexibility, and evolve over time to cater
for expected changes in circumstances.
5.1 Scenario Analyses
The considerations made above are here presented in terms of possible scenarios which would lead
to a better understanding of the extent of waste to be managed over different periods of time, thereby
leading to the formulation of potential options. In formulating scenarios, a number of key variables
are exogenously determined as anchors across all scenarios, while others are set at different levels
across scenarios so as to examine effects on the results. Within the latter set of variables, there would
be ones which are subject to uncertainty, or which can be influenced by policy.
76
The scenario analysis presented in this section focuses on the management of cattle manure and pig
slurry, with the understanding that these two elements constitute well over 90% of manure and slurry
waste streams in terms of volume, weight and mass of N. This is for the purposes of simplification of
analysis at this level.
This scenario analysis focuses on four representative years in the context of the horizon covered by
this study, namely 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. Its aim is to identify, in each of these years and subject
to different system conditions, the amount of manure and slurry which would require treatment for
eventual disposal and/or export, measured in terms of both kilograms of N and cubic metres of
material. This would subsequently enable a mapping of policy alternatives under different situations,
including the identification of solutions which afford important degrees of flexibility in the face of
uncertainty. The anchors which are held constant across all scenarios are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Anchor Variables for Scenario Analyses
The anchor variables relate to N generation through manure and slurry, and the potential uptake of
the same by crops in each year covered by the analysis. For the purpose of deriving the options, the
number of heads are conservatively considered, for the purposes of this analysis, at the maximum
levels obtained through the forecasting exercise presented earlier on. This is multiplied by the rate of
N generated per thousands of head per year, amounting to 51,887 for cattle and 9,993 in the case of
pigs17. The total N generated is estimated at 1,158,307kgs in 2015, dropping by 12.6% to 1,012,853
kgs by 2030, on account of the expected reduction in livestock heads. Out of the total, the share of N
generated by pigs is expected to fall from 36.8% to 34.4%. For the purposes of this exercise, the
conversion from N to cubic metres of cattle manure equivalent is affected on the basis of the average
level of manure generation per head from the range of estimates provided in Section 4.6.
The uptake of N by crops is based on an estimate of the 2015 value for utilised agricultural area, set
at 11,618 on the basis of the values reported by the NSO in the publication on Agriculture and Fisheries
in 2013. In recognition of a potential consolidation of future activity, this value is conservatively
estimated to drop by 0.5% per annum. The N uptake by crops is calculated on the basis of the
estimated uptake per hectare found in the 2007 Gross Nitrogen Balance study, which is approximately
110kg/ha. This implies an estimated uptake of 1,274,323 kgs in 2015, dropping by 7% to 1,182,022 kgs
17 These values are sourced from the Gross Nitrogen Balance Study, 2007, published by the National Statistics Office, and is consistent with a number of scientific sources.
2015 2020 2025 2030
Cattle
Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8
N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149
volume (m3) 113,891 103,391 103,391 103,391
Pig
Heads (000s) 42.7 34.9 34.9 34.9
N (kgs) 426,705 348,703 348,703 348,703
Total N (kgs) 1,158,307 1,012,853 1,012,853 1,012,853
UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776
N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022
N Application to Crop
Generation
77
in 2030. It is to be noted that the potential uptake of N is higher than the generation of N throughout
the forecast period.
The extent to which the N generated will however be absorbed by crops is in this analysis made
dependent on two variables which constitute the bases of the formulation of the different scenarios.
These are:
1. the extent of use of inorganic fertiliser, which would thus crowd out the use of manure, with
this variable considered at three different levels namely:
a. no use of inorganic fertiliser;
b. inorganic fertiliser is used to an extent of 25% of total intake by crops i.e. an annual
average of 306,947 kgs during the period;
c. inorganic fertiliser is used at a level of 635,000kgs, that is the value reported in the
2007 Gross Nitrogen Balance study;
2. the extent to which an uptake of N by crops from soil content is prioritised over the application
of fertiliser, which is also considered at three different levels:
a. no prioritisation, whereby all uptake will be satisfied through organic and inorganic
fertiliser, without there being any over-application of fertiliser;
b. 25% of crop uptake is prioritised to be taken from soil between 2015 and 2020;
c. 50% of crop uptake is prioritised to be taken from soil between 2015 and 2020.
Scenarios 2b and c are assuming a soil restoration period of five to six years, programmed to occur by
means of a reduction in fertiliser use, of different intensities. This will depend on the extent of N
content which is already existent in the soil.
Table 5.2: Scenarios
2015 Scenarios
Surplus N (kgs)m3 of cattle
manure eq
Surplus N
(kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eqSurplus N (kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eq
None 116,015- - 202,565 31,534 521,146 81,129
25% of crop uptake 202,565 31,534 521,146 81,129 839,727 130,723
2007 level 518,985 80,792 837,565 130,387 1,156,146 179,982
2020 Scenarios
Surplus N (kgs)m3 of cattle
manure eq
Surplus N
(kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eqSurplus N (kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eq
None 229,929- - 80,767 12,573 391,462 60,940
25% of crop uptake 80,767 12,573 391,462 60,940 702,157 109,308
2007 level 405,071 63,059 715,767 111,426 1,012,853 157,675
Surplus N (kgs)m3 of cattle
manure eq
Surplus N
(kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eq
None 199,168- - 169,169- -
25% of crop uptake 103,837 16,165 126,336 19,667
2007 level 435,832 67,848 465,831 72,518
None 25% of uptake 50% of uptake
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Soil by Crops between 2015 and 2020
Inorganic fertiliser
use
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Soil by Crops between 2015 and 2020
Inorganic fertiliser
use
None 25% of uptake 50% of uptake
Inorganic fertiliser
use
2025 Scenarios 2030 Scenarios
78
In each scenario, it is assumed that the application of fertiliser would in no circumstance exceed the
potential uptake by crops during a particular year. It is further assumed that there is no disposal of pig
slurry into the public sewer network.
In the 2015 simulation, results indicate possible surplus N values of between 200,000kgs and
840,000kgs, with a potential extreme value of 1,160,000 kgs. These correspond to an equivalent
volume of cattle manure18 of between 31,500m3 and 130,400m3, with a potential extreme value of
180,000m3. In the 2020 scenario, the maximum amount of N surplus is estimated at an equivalent of
157,700m3 of cattle manure. In the 2025 and 2030 scenarios, the results indicate that the maximum
surplus of N would be in a range between 68,000m3 and 73,000m3 of cattle manure equivalent.
These results are summarised in Figure 5.1, which shows the range of results for each year. Across the
time horizon of the analysis, a shift from the potential maximum to the most likely results can be
affected by limiting the application of inorganic fertiliser up to 25% of the total uptake by crops. Annex
1 to this report presents the full details of the simulation results presented here.
Figure 5.1: Potential Range of N Surplus
5.2 Implications of this Analysis for Strategic Options
The following general implications to be further considered in deriving strategic options which emerge
from this analysis are:
- the use of manure and pig slurry as a fertiliser for crops is not inconsistent with the country’s
obligations in terms of the Nitrates and Water Quality Directives in the long term. While it
18 This equivalent value captures N surplus arising from the aggregate of cattle manure and pig slurry, translated into a corresponding volume of cattle manure. The latter base is selected because of variations in the N content of pig slurry volumes.
79
is recognised that it is not currently permitted to use pig slurry as a fertiliser the use of slurry
at the level of developing the strategic options from a theoretical perspective is not ruled
out at this initial stage of strategic considerations – the implications of more realistic
scenario where such slurry is not applied to crops is considered further on;
- over the forthcoming 10 year period, the system needs to manage a total surplus of at least
580,000m3 of cattle manure equivalent, with a potential annual peak of around 120,000m3
and an average of 83,000m3.
The solution over the coming ten years can feature a mix of:
- limitations on the application of inorganic fertiliser;
- on-farm measures to improve the marketability and use of organic fertiliser including:
- reduction of water input to facilitate transport and excessive leaching of nitrates and other
constituents;
- treatment/processing so as to obtain better controllability of N content within organic
manure;
- extension of open season, in view of Malta’s climate, to obtain a more stable flow of activity
and better manage storage facilities;
development of treatment facilities for denitrification and production of energy and/or
compost, at capacity levels which are efficient in the context of the expected decline in
surplus N over the 10-year period;
consideration of exports of excess N for a short term period should such an approach be
needed and prove to be more financially viable.
The next step in this analysis, which will follow in the forthcoming phase of work, will be to develop
concrete scenarios based on estimations of actual costs and benefits in order to arrive at the
identification of a preferred solution. It is furthermore to be considered that the Malta North facility
for municipal and manure waste treatment, which is expected to come on line by 2017, will already
have a capacity to treat around 39,000 m3 of cattle manure. In this sense, it should already be an
important part of the solution which can be envisaged for the Island of Malta.
Due to issues of transport, it is likely that such solutions would need to focus on the Islands of Malta
and Gozo separately, and possibly at two distinct regions in Malta.
5.3 Discussion on a Potentially Realistic Scenario
A practicable approach to take this discussion forward is to view these conclusions in terms of a
potentially more realistic scenario whereby:
- only manure is used for the purposes of application to crops;
- pig slurry is neither applied to land nor discharged to public sewers;;
- restrictions on the application of inorganic fertilisers within the context of the observance of
Nitrates Management Plans may not necessarily be either feasible or totally desirable;
- the restrictions on total N application associated with Fertiliser Plans will are adhered to.
80
The scenario results in this approach, which are presented in full detail in Annex 2 are summarised in
Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2.
Table 5.3: Scenarios where Only Cattle Manure is Applied to Crops
Figure 5.2: Potential Range of N Surplus (Only Cattle Manure in Applied to Crops)
In this case, 2015 results indicate a likely range of N surplus of up to 64,000m3 per annum of cattle
manure, with an extreme maximum of just over 113,000m3 per annum. By 2020, these indicators are
2015 Scenarios
Surplus N (kgs)m3 of cattle
manure eq
Surplus N
(kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eqSurplus N (kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eq
None 542,721- - 224,140- - 94,441 14,707
25% of crop uptake 224,140- - 94,441 14,707 413,021 64,317
2007 level 92,279 14,370 410,860 63,981 729,441 113,591
2020 Scenarios
Surplus N (kgs)m3 of cattle
manure eq
Surplus N
(kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eqSurplus N (kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eq
None 578,632- - 267,937- - 42,759 6,659
25% of crop uptake 267,937- - 42,759 6,659 353,454 55,041
2007 level 56,368 8,778 367,063 57,161 664,149 103,424
Surplus N (kgs)m3 of cattle
manure eq
Surplus N
(kgs)
m3 of cattle
manure eq
None 547,872- - 517,873- -
25% of crop uptake 244,866- - 222,367- -
2007 level 87,128 13,568 117,127 18,240
None 25% of uptake 50% of uptake
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Soil by Crops between 2015 and 2020
Inorganic fertiliser
use
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Soil by Crops between 2015 and 2020
Inorganic fertiliser
use
None 25% of uptake 50% of uptake
Inorganic fertiliser
use
2025 Scenarios 2030 Scenarios
81
expected at almost 58,000m3 and 103,000m3. By 2030, the surplus is expected at no more than
19,000m3 per annum.
The Malta North plant having a capacity of 39,000m3 per annum can therefore be expected to play an
important role in dealing with the excess N from cattle manure, albeit not to the extent of providing
a full solution to the country’s requirements. This is furthermore subject to two important
considerations:
1. there may be scenarios where the surplus N from cattle manure may, over the period around the
year 2020, be around 60,000m3 per annum in excess of the treatment capacity of the Malta North
plant;
2. the governance and management systems to ensure the effective application of the required
cattle manure on fields and the delivery of surplus manure to the Malta North plant and additional
facilities are still to be put in place.
The implications of this approach for the strategic options analysis presented earlier on are therefore
to focus on the need to:
manage pig slurry, in a range between 350,000kgs and 425,000kgs of N per annum, or up to
150,000m3, strongly depending on water content;
provide for potential additional capacity/capability for managing up to 60,000 m3 for cattle
manure, and around 5,000 tonnes of manure of other animals per year;
devise a governance and management system for effective operation.
The next phase of this work will review a number of technological options in this regard, and provide
high level feasibility conclusions.
82
6. High-Level Assessment of Treatment Options
The previous section focused on nitrogen surplus from agricultural wastes in comparison with the
requirement for nitrogen as a fertilizer. This is important so that the Fertiliser Plans can be adhered
to. However, the management of nitrogen (and indeed other nutrient components) of agricultural
wastes represents only one part of the complex issue to be addressed. Also of particular importance
is the solid content in comparison with the liquid fraction, which is of relevance to the nitrogen
availability.
As noted above, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the quantities of agricultural wastes and
their properties, in particular relating to the composition of pig slurry, which is dependent on the
proportion of water added as a result of management practices in washing down as highlighted in the
Pig-slurry load to Malta North Sewage Treatment Plant Assessment Study Report (COWI, 2005). The
report notes that if water saving incentives were introduced, significant reductions in the volume of
pig slurry could be achieved, with favourable comparisons between Maltese pig management and that
in Denmark, where slurry production of 1m3 per annum per head is quoted.
Much emphasis has been placed around the world in recent years on nutrient management plans to
avoid nutrient leaching to groundwater (hence the Nitrates Directive) or to surface waters leading to
eutrophication. A great deal of research and effort has gone into management plans for animal wastes
and manures to optimise nutrient utilisation and minimise nutrient loss by run-off or leaching,
including restricting the period during which manures or slurry can be spread, taking into account the
season, weather conditions, topography and so on. Further effort has gone into developing techniques
to apply animal based fertilisers to soil to avoid ammonium nitrogen volatalisation; hence nitrogen
loss, thus maximise nutrient uptake, and minimise other environmental impacts such as odours
associated with land application. However, reliance on those management plans alone is not
applicable in the Maltese situation, where it can been seen from Table 5.3: Scenarios where Only
Cattle Manure is Applied to Crops that, taking nitrogen alone, there is a calculated excess of nutrients
arising from agricultural wastes in comparison with the requirement for soil crops.
Key strategic options for the management of nitrate identified above include:
1. Limitations on the application of inorganic fertiliser (maximising agricultural waste for nutrients;
hence reducing the requirement for further treatment of farm wastes);
2. On-farm measures to improve the marketability and use of organic fertiliser including:
a. reduction of water input to facilitate transport and excessive leaching of nitrates and
other constituents;
b. treatment/processing to obtain better controllability of N content within organic manure
c. extension of open season, in view of Malta’s climate, to obtain a more stable flow of
activity and better manage storage facilities;
83
3. development of treatment facilities for denitrification and production of energy and/or
compost, at capacity levels which are efficient in the context of the expected decline in surplus
N over the 10-year period;
4. consideration of exports of excess N for a short term period.
Of these, Option 1, 2a and 2c require policy decisions and/or financial incentives to drive changes in
agricultural practice. They also require detailed analytical studies to determine the level of existing
nitrates by parcel of land and the extent to which further nitrates can be applied to land. Option 4
requires the identification of markets but for the purpose of this report is studied at a high level in
particular taking into account the logistics associated with this option and the costs involved with
exporting manure/slurry. Further consideration is given here to technical options to Option 2b and 3,
although option 3 contains a number of options within it.
6.1 Critical Parameters
In looking further at the options, it is important to note that some significant policy decisions have
been taken, namely:
To ban the application of slurry or liquids directly to land.
To effectively prevent the discharge of pig slurry to the sewage system which is considered
more important in light of the EC recommendation on the implementation of the Water
Framework; and
To develop the Malta North anaerobic digestion system (MBT).
It is understood that, at least in part, the decision to stop accepting pig slurry to the sewage system is
due to the COD loading placed on the treatment system and the cost of treatment in comparison with
that for treatment of human sewage.
The physical attributes of the wastes are of importance. Slurry, by its nature, is high in liquids and low
in solids, whereas dry manure has a higher solids content. The distribution of carbon and nutrients is
related to a certain extent to the two fractions; carbon (and COD) and phosphorous tend to be
concentrated in the solids, nitrogen in the liquid fraction, although some nitrogen is found in organic
form, typically associated with the solids fraction and that can be released on breakdown of the
organic materials. The actual loading and concentrations of the available and organic nitrogen is likely
to vary depending on the source of the manure or slurry (for example in pig slurry, the majority of
nitrogen is likely to be found as available ammonium-nitrogen predominantly in the liquid fraction,
whereas in cattle farmyard manure, the majority of the nitrogen is likely to be found in organic form
in the solid fraction). This could influence the choice of options.
Other factors associated with the origin of the manure will influence options, in particular the
carbon:nitrogen ratio. Pig manure tends to have a low carbon: nitrogen ratio (in the order of 6:1 to
8:1, but again variable depending on the source), whereas cattle manure has a higher carbon to
nitrogen ratio. This is relevant when considering biological treatment options; good anaerobic
84
digestion requires a carbon:nitrogen ratio in the order of between 16:1 and 30:1 (various authors
quote different values depending on feedstock and process controls).
6.2 Current Policy and Practice
In recent years within Europe and elsewhere there has been a move to the development of anaerobic
digestion facilities as part of the management plan for agricultural wastes, including pig manure, for
instance as part of the BalticSea2020 foundation pig manure management plan19. One of the principal
drivers is the incorporation of anaerobic digestion in waste management strategies. Its benefit is the
production of “renewable energy”. As the animal wastes represent biogenic wastes containing carbon
that has been locked up in the recent past, it can be considered that CO2 would be released in any
case from these sources as a result of degradation (short cycle carbon). Other benefits of anaerobic
digestion of animal wastes are the improved fertilizer value as a proportion of the organic nitrogen is
converted to mineral fertilizer; hence facilitating more accurate control of nitrogen application to land.
The by-product of anaerobic digestion is a digestate that can be separated into a liquid fraction, in
which the majority of the nitrogen is found, and a solid fraction with the majority of the carbon and
phosphorous. When applied as part of an overall “closed loop” agricultural management plan, the
segregation of these fractions may allow more accurate dosing of nitrogen and phosphorous than
direct manure application (manure applications that comply with the nitrogen load allowed by the
Nitrate Directive maximum may provide an excess of phosphorous fertilization).
Whilst advantageous in agricultural fertilizer management, when taking account of the calculated
excess nitrogen requirements, these advantages do not provide a solution to agricultural waste
management in the Maltese context although the possibility of exporting the fertilizer remains an
option.
As identified previously, the Malta North anaerobic digestion facility is under construction, designed
to accommodate municipal waste and in the process will allow for the co-mingling of 39,000 tonnes
per annum of animal manure. However, whilst anaerobic digestion will reduce the organic loading,
the digestate will still contain a significant organic and nutrient content. It is understood that
discussions have been on-going with regulators regarding disposal options for the digestate from the
Malta North facility, including the use of the solids fraction as landfill cover. It is understood that the
use of digestate in the restoration of landfill has not been finalized.
Whilst anaerobic digestion reduces some of the carbon loading, it cannot be seen as a final disposal
option as it has only limited overall effect on the weight or volume requiring ultimate disposal; of the
39,000 tonnes per annum of manures to be treated at the Malta North plant, it is estimated that there
will be 27,300m3 of waste water (centrate) and 6,600 tonnes per annum of dewatered digestate. The
centrate and digestate require further treatment to minimize environmental impact at the point of
19 Frandsen, T. Q. Rodhe, L., Baky, A., Edström, M., Sipilä, I., K., Petersen, S.L., Tybirk, K., 2011. Best Available Technologies for pig Manure Biogas Plants in the Baltic Sea Region. Published by Baltic Sea 2020, Stockholm
85
final disposal. The decision to pre-treat by anaerobic digestion therefore is dependent on energy policy
and economics, rather than considering it as a final disposal route in its own right.
For anaerobic digestion, the process must be moved in the reaction vessel to maintain optimum
reaction conditions, which requires the materials to be in a liquid or semi liquid state, the preferred
liquid to solids ratio depending on the process design (even “dry” digestion processes have a higher
ratio of liquids to solids). A consideration is whether to add water to solid manures to increase the
moisture content or to “blend” liquid manures with dry manure to achieve the required moisture
level. Low solids slurries are likely to achieve a low rate of production of biogas in comparison with
the plant size, hence capital cost.
Given that the performance of anaerobic digesters is related to process variables such as nutrient
ratios, there is also a case for considering feedstocks from a number of waste sources including from
different industrial sectors, rather than considering animal manures in isolation (for example,
researchers have enhanced methane production rates by combining pig slurry with crop residues such
as straw, abattoir wastes, food industry wastes or organic fractions of household waste to improve
the carbon:nitrogen ratio). Greater control; hence process optimization, may also be achieved by
some pre-treatment, such as separating the solid and liquid fractions of slurries, to increase the
carbon:nitrogen ratio of the solid portion or to provide a high nitrogen feedstock to balance with low
nitrogen wastes from other waste sources.
Pre-treatment may also be beneficial as a pre-cursor to treatment options for specific components of
the agricultural waste stream, for example taking the higher nitrogen liquid fraction for denitrification
prior to discharge to sewer or sea or concentrating solids for biological or thermal treatment. The
Water Services Corporation (WSC) Strategic Plan 2012/16 includes under wastewater Treatment an
action step (2) to
“Develop sites that can handle receipt of farm liquid waste to have it partially treated prior to discharge
into our network”.
6.3 Technology options
For the purpose of the technology review, simple on-farm treatment, such as aerobic degradation by
composting (farmyard manure heaps) are not considered, as it is assumed that these options have
not, nor can provide the degree of management required to limit nutrient control to satisfy the
fertilizer plans.
A summary is given below of some of the main options likely to be applicable in the Maltese setting.
It should be stressed that this only represents a summary and that not all advantages and
disadvantages may be presented and these would require detailed consideration at the design stage.
It should also be noted that further enhancement techniques might be available for some treatment
options that may, again, be highlighted on further discussions with manufacturers and suppliers. Lack
of inclusion here, does not imply they might not form part of a strategy at a later date subject to a
financial case being put forward (an example being ammonium stripping to extract a high nitrogen
86
fertilizer, which has not been considered at this stage, as that will impact on nitrogen only and not
other nutrients).
6.3.1 Physical treatment: Mechanical Separation
This can be applied to untreated slurry as a pre-treatment or to the residues from anaerobic digestion.
It must be recognized that these techniques provide mechanical separation and will not reduce the
pollutant or nutrient loading (other than possible fugitive losses, for instance of nitrogen through
ammonia emissions). Therefore both the solid fraction (cake or thickened sludge) and the liquid
fraction will require further treatment.
In its simplest form a degree of mechanical separation can be achieved by settlement using a simple
thickener in the form of cylindrical chamber with a conical base, from where solids can be removed.
A limitation on this is that the process is slow in comparison with mechanical separation and produces
a thickened sludge rather than a solid, together with a liquid fraction with relatively little quality
control. Greater separation of solids can be achieved by electrolyte application.
More complex mechanical separation techniques suited to larger scale applications include:
Manure separators
Screw and auger separator
Sieve belt presses
Centrifuge and decanters
Filter presses
Most of these techniques are common to the wastewater treatment industry and are well proven, but
the efficiency and costs are dependent on the standard of liquor or cake required (particularly with
respect to solids content) and the physical composition of the manures or slurries at the input. As
mentioned previously, some degree of nitrogen and phosphate separation may be achieved by
mechanical separation. Enhanced separation can be achieved by the addition of metal salts such as
ferric chloride or polymer clarifiers to reduce the solids content in the liquor.
Physical separation of solid and liquid fractions could play a significant part in management of manure
and, in particular, pig slurries if the option for export of stabilized solids or thermal treatment of solids
are favored, provided that an outlet for the liquid fraction can be established. Transport of the
dewatered solid fraction, either for treatment or export, could be significantly reduced in comparison
with the un-separated slurry. The dry matter content of pig slurries is typically between 2% and 6%
(DEFRA 2010), although the degree of separation will depend on the mechanical technique employed
and the residual moisture content of the solid fraction (mechanically pressed digested cake from
sewage treatment, for example, has a dry matter content of around 20-25%, similar to a “dry” matured
farmyard cattle manure). Furthermore, complications of pumping or gravity discharge of the liquid
fraction would be significantly reduced (provided a suitable treatment/disposal option can be found
for the liquid). As the nutrient content would be likely to be lower than the untreated slurry or
digestate, the application of the solid to land may be more easily accommodated, although storage
87
would be required outside the growing season when land application is not permitted due to the
potential for nutrient leaching.
Further moisture loss in the solids fraction can be achieved by thermal drying, to achieve far higher
solid content, reducing the weight for subsequent transport (a typical figure of 95% dry matter is
quoted by DEFRA for thermally dried biosolids). The volume can also be further reduced by pelletizing
for use as a fertilizer or for use as a fuel in energy recovery (see below). Drying can be achieved by the
application of heat, normally in the form of waste heat from combined heat and power plants, but
solar energy can be used. Clearly, the use of solar energy (for instance in ventilated greenhouses)
requires less external heat, but a combination of solar and added heat can speed up the process and
minimize the moisture content. Where thermal drying using external sources is used, this will typically
produce a condensate high in ammonia, which will require disposal. Where solar drying is involved,
the odour issue of ammonia can be a significant consideration particularly in a country the size of
Malta with a high population density.
Due to the capital costs of industrial scale dewatering and drying systems, it is likely that regional
centers for the farming industry would be favorable balancing the need to minimize transport distance
against the capital cost. Location of such units would clearly be influenced by proximity to the source
of the pig production units and disposal options for the liquid fraction (for example if disposal to sewer
is an option, then proximity to a sewer is preferable).
6.3.2 Aerobic treatment
Composting is a form of aerobic digestion of solid manures, which traditionally has been carried out
on farms. However, farmyard composting tends to be poorly controlled in terms of aeration, leading
to anaerobic conditions and the release of ammonia and hydrogen sulphide leading to odour nuisance.
As previously noted, however, it is assumed for the purpose of this study that on-farm composting is
not currently carried out and is not considered further here.
However, there may well be benefits for larger scale composting facilities either for previously
untreated farmyard manure or digestate from anaerobic digestion in association with other waste
streams. Composting is typically carried out in turned “windrows” or aerated static piles, although
static piles are more prone to the development of anaerobic conditions, which can lead to emissions
of ammonia; hence odour, although there are mechanisms that can be employed to reduce that.
Composting can be carried out in enclosed conditions (in-vessel composting) reducing the potential
for amenity impacts. To improve the structure of the material; hence improve the maintenance of
aerobic conditions, courser materials are added, in much the same way as is straw in farmyard manure
clamps. This may have the additional benefit of improving the carbon:nitrogen ratio. Other waste
materials have been used rather than straw, such as wood chip, bark and greenwaste (garden waste).
Other sources, could be investigated and “co-mingling” of waste streams to balance the
carbon:nitrogen ration has benefits in achieving good compost quality and structure and as part of an
integrated waste management system. The benefit of composting of solids is that it produces a stable
residue, with some loss of nitrogen and carbon and reduction in ammonia emission on handling, but
just as with farmyard manure, it requires an outlet for the use of the compost. From the discussion of
88
the nitrogen requirements above, direct application to land for fertilizer may be a limiting factor.
However, composted biosolids also have a higher dry matter content; hence lower water content than
farmyard manures, which is a benefit when considering transport and may be a material consideration
in extending the land application season. Residual nitrogen is likely to be largely in organic form and
consideration of the rate of release, in particular carry-over to following growing seasons would
require consideration.
Composts can provide a useful soil conditioner and, when mixed with other materials can be used to
provide a soil forming material suitable in applications outside of agriculture, such as in landfill or
mineral works restoration or landscaping applications.
6.3.3 Aerobic treatment of slurries
This is used in some countries for the reduction of odours, particularly for pig slurries, and can be used
to reduce the nitrogen content. The efficiency is dependent on the retention time, technique
(continuous or sequential batch) and aeration rate. Problems can be encountered with ammonia
release, leading to odour problems, nitrous oxide emissions (a greenhouse gas) and foaming. Whilst
it may be of some benefit, it is considered unlikely to provide a significant solution in the Maltese
context.
6.3.3.1 Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is biochemical process involving hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and
methanogenesis, which although separate, can occur simultaneously within a digester vessel. The
feedstock (substrate) must be kept mixed to prevent stratification, which would lead to potential
inhibition of the different processes. Digesters can be designed to operate either within the mesophilic
range (32-450C) or within the thermophilic range (50-600 C).
Thermophilic processes produces gas more quickly, requiring a shorter retention time, but with higher
energy demand for the plant than mesophilic systems. It is more commonly used for “dry” (<80%
moisture content).
Mesophilic systems are commonly used for “wet” digesters (>80% moisture), and are more suitable
for feedstocks that can be converted to liquid e.g. foodstuffs or manures (pig slurry is likely to be well
in excess of 90% moisture, even if “thickened”). A pasteurization unit is used to heat the material
before or after digestion to achieve sanitization.
The size and design of anaerobic digesters is dependent on the input materials. Crudely, the higher
the organic solids content, the greater the reactor efficiency (ie the biogas production compared to
reactor volume). For low organic solids inputs, such as pig manure, the digester size; hence capital
cost, will increase, and the efficiency decrease, making the operating costs greater in comparison with
the benefits accrued from biogas production. If the efficiency of the reactor is sufficiently high, the
energy output can exceed the requirements, making the plant profitable.
89
The output from the reactor comprises a mixture of solids and liquid. The solid rich fraction (sludge)
contains stabilized organic solids (which are less odorous; hence cause less nuisance when spread),
organic nitrogen, insoluble phosphorous and micronutrients.
The liquid fraction will contain soluble nitrogen in the form of ammonium and soluble phosphorous
and potassium, together with dissolved organic compounds.
6.3.3.2 Aerobic treatment (biological oxidation)
As mentioned previously, whilst anaerobic digestion will reduce the organic carbon loading of
materials (through generation of methane and carbon dioxide), there will remain a significant
pollutant load, particularly in the form of ammonium nitrogen and dissolved organic compounds
measured as COD and BOD. Both of these contaminants are barriers to the discharge of effluent either
to the municipal sewage system or to controlled waters. Treatment of these can be achieved by
aerobic biodegradation.
This process utilises two types of bacteria:
Nitrifying bacteria for conversion of ammonium nitrogen via nitrite into nitrate. These
bacteria are autotrophic i.e. they use inorganic carbon as their food source.
Heterotrophic bacteria for conversion of dissolved organic compounds to carbon dioxide and
water.
Whereas heterotrophic bacteria are relatively robust over wide ranges of temperature,
concentrations, pH levels etc., nitrifying bacteria require close control over their environment to
ensure they thrive and operate efficiently. An aerobic bioreactor must therefore be designed to
provide this environment that controls:
dissolved oxygen
mixing
food and nutrient sources including inorganic carbon, ammonium nitrogen, potassium,
phosphorus and essential trace elements
pH at values between 7 and 9
temperature between 15 and 25°C
uniformity
The dissolved oxygen is provided by the aeration system, which also provides adequate mixing.
Nutrient is normally present in sufficient amounts in the concentrate, but is dependent on the
feedstock to the anaerobic digester. Where there are nutrient deficiencies, these require
rectification, such as the addition of phosphorous by phosphoric acid dosing.
90
The nitrification process generates acidity and it is often necessary to dose caustic soda solution in
order to maintain the correct pH level. The temperature will be maintained by heat generated by the
exothermic reactions although for seeding and any subsequent re-start operations an electric heater
is fitted. Uniformity is provided by blending the centrate in a balancing tank prior to treatment and
close control of input rates. The process typically creates foaming and this is controlled by dosing with
antifoam solution.
The anoxic denitrification process utilises the same heterotrophic bacteria which continue to oxidise
organic compounds with the formation of carbon dioxide and water but, instead of using dissolved
oxygen, they use combined oxygen from nitrate as their source of oxygen. During this process the
nitrate nitrogen is converted into nitrogen gas and alkalinity is formed with the advantages of
reducing total nitrogen, reducing the amount of aeration needed and reducing the requirement for
caustic soda dosing. This process is carried out in a separate bioreactor which receives untreated
centrate from the anaerobic digester and blends it with mixed liquor from the aerobic bioreactor
containing nitrate. The dissolved oxygen level in this tank is maintained at zero and adequate mixing
is provided.
Several different types of plant are suitable for treating AD centrate including:
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Moving Bed Bioreactor (MBBR)
Each of these has advantages and disadvantages, which would need to be explored in detail based on
the quality and quantity of effluent to be treated. Unsurprisingly, manufacturers of the different types
press the advantages of their system, with conflicting claims of the comparative capital and running
costs.
Typically an MBR uses the smallest size of bioreactor and, because of the high ammonia design
loading; the savings on capital costs of the bioreactor tanks can outweigh the extra cost of the
membrane filter system in comparison with non-membrane bioreactors. An MBR typically also has
advantages in footprint and quality of effluent (particularly for COD and suspended solids) in
comparison with other bioreactors, although manufactures may offer different opinions on this,
particularly with evolving technology.
The membrane filtration unit typically incorporates multi-tubular membrane modules through which
the activated sludge from the bioreactor is pumped at a constant flow rate. Mixed liquor is pumped
through the UF filtration modules to provide a clear permeate and sludge. The majority of the sludge
is pumped back to the bioreactor and the permeate discharged to holding tank or direct to sewer or
other disposal outlet such as surface water or sea, depending on the quality standards to be achieved.
91
6.4 Thermal treatment of solids
There are a number of techniques available that have been used in the sewage industry for the
treatment of sewage sludge that can, and are being used or considered more widely for the solids
content of digestate from anaerobic digestion, particularly where land-based applications are not
practical (as is the case in Malta).
Incineration has been the most widely used technique to date, particularly for biowastes such as
sewage sludge. Waste to energy, where energy recovery is incorporated, is preferable, but a barrier
to that is the relatively low calorific value of digestates and the high moisture content. If the calorific
value or the solids content is too low (with a dry solids content typically less than approximately 40%),
additional heat is likely to be required to maintain combustion. Where the calorific value is sufficiently
high and moisture content low (and the incinerator efficiency is high), the process can become auto-
thermal. Incineration with other, higher calorific wastes may be more viable to achieve auto-
combustion.
The process produces ash, which may be disposed to landfill or possibly used in construction materials,
depending on the feedstock. Air pollution control residues are also produced that require disposal.
Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation in the absence of oxygen, similar to the production of coke or
charcoal, and produces a “syngas” comprising hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide, and “char”.
Pyrolysis requires a relatively low moisture content (dry solids content of 65% or above), a calorific
value in excess of 10MJ/kg and pelletized, pourable or free flowing form, requiring a high level of pre-
preparation. At least one manufacturer (PYREG of Germany) offers the technology on a commercial
scale for the treatment of sewage sludge or biomass (so could well be applicable to digestate from
anaerobic digestion) and claims advantages including self-sufficiency in energy generation requiring
limited quantities of third party gas for start-up. The equipment is provided in modular systems with
limited footprint, so can be scaled up. The solid residue may have uses such as a soil additive for
compost, soil conditioner or fertilizer (char from sewage sludge is high in phosphate).
Gasification is thermal degradation in limited oxygen, like pyrolysis producing a syngas, but comprising
mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Also, like pyrolysis, it requires the fuel to be of low moisture
content and pourable or pelletized. It is reported (WRAP 2012) that pilot studies on digestate from pig
manure have shown that energy recovery can be achieved but that the additional gain over AD alone
is low.
Aqueous wastes containing organic material can be treated by wet air oxidation, that is oxidation by
molecular oxygen in the liquid phase, at high temperature (200–325°C) and pressure (up to 175 bar).
This method is suited to the treatment of domestic sewage sludge, so may well be used for animal
slurries. It is an enclosed process, with a limited environmental emissions in comparison with
incineration, although off-gasses such as ammonium will require treatment before discharge to
atmosphere. There are a low number of industrial reactors are in Europe, but they are apparently for
large scale waste water treatment works treating a high possibly as a result of the high capital
investment requirement, making them more suitable for large scale operations. There is a solid
residue requiring disposal and a liquid effluent that will require further treatment before discharge.
92
6.5 Application in the Maltese Islands Context
In the short-term, export of excess manures may be necessary, but that is likely to have high
operational costs as explained in the next section of the report. In addition, and in particular, it can be
considered unsustainable from an environmental perspective and counter to the proximity principle
for waste management. The following sections therefore focus more closely on the medium to longer-
term options.
In considering the application of technical options, a number of prominent factors must be considered.
As outlined above, the principle challenge for the agricultural waste sector is the excess nitrogen with
respect to the application to land and the Nitrates Directive (although other nutrients such as
potassium and phosphorous will also be significant). From a physical management perspective, the
low dry solids content of agricultural wastes is a significant factor. Other significant factors regarding
the management of agricultural wastes include amenity factors such as the release of ammonium and
hydrogen sulphide.
From previous studies and reports, there is significant uncertainty regarding both the quantity,
physical characteristics including the dry solids content of agricultural waste (particularly pig slurries)
and the chemical composition of wastes; hence their treatability. At this stage, therefore it is possible
to make general technology recommendations, which will require further investigations to ascertain
their feasibility.
For the purpose of this review, it is assumed that the quantities of agricultural wastes for treatment
are in the order of:
- Up to 150,000m3/a of pig slurry, with volume and nitrogen concentration strongly dependent
on water content
- Up to 60,000m3/a of cattle manure (again, with the volume dependent on water content)
- Up to 5,000t/a of other animal manure.
As previously mentioned, the strength of the pig slurry is unknown, but may be dilute, i.e. of low dry
solid matter, due to farm practices. Whilst this will not affect the total load of solids or nitrogen to be
treated, it will affect the quantity of slurry to be transported. Assuming slurry has to be transported
to central or regional facilities (or a port in the case of export) a reduction of 5% in water used on farm
in pig slurry generation would result in a reduction of vehicle trips of approximately 270, assuming
large, 28m3 tankers; if smaller tanker trucks were used, the figure would be correspondingly higher.
In addition, the solids content of the slurry would be increased, making subsequent treatment or
separation easier.
The potential for on-farm thickening or separation of slurries might also be considered, particularly
for larger units, reducing further the volume of slurry for transport to collection or disposal points.
However, unless there is an outlet (such as sewer discharge) for the liquor, there is little benefit in this
from the vehicle movement perspective, as the water will still be heavily contaminated with some
solids and significant nitrate loading which would require treatment, and, presumably transport off
site. There might, however, be benefit in the reduced quantity of thickened sludge for treatment if a
separate route, such as sewer disposal of the liquid fraction can be secured. Discussions with the WSC
are recommended to ascertain whether there is any further scope in this regard. A likely barrier to
93
this would be the need for regulation and quality control of the liquor for discharge to avoid repetition
of the problems encountered at treatment plants in the recent past.
If there is any potential for the discharge to sewer of liquor arising from thickening or clarification of
sludge, greater control could be achieved at local/regional physical collection/separation points using
mechanical means. Such units could be located, for instance, on larger pig units providing local
collection points. The principal advantages would be the minimisation of travel distance for farmers
to transport their raw slurry, possibly similar to that they enjoyed when previously discharging to
sewer discharge points, increased solids content of the slurry, making treatment by anaerobic
digestion more favourable, and reduced volume of the organic fraction, reducing transport
requirements to treatment plants. This approach could also be adopted as a means of reducing the
volume for export in the short-term; even greater reduction could be achieved by the use of
mechanical separators or presses, although the capital and operating cost would increase. There might
also be opportunity for the application of some of the nitrogen rich liquor as fertilizer to land, with
greater control of the rate of application of specific nutrients at the peak growing times, as the
nitrogen in the liquor is likely to be predominantly in the available form, maximising both crop yield
and minimising mineral fertilizer application. It is considered likely that this strategy might be
particularly applicable in Gozo, where the volume of pig units is low in comparison with Malta. It may
prove cost effective to transport thickened sludge to treatment facilities elsewhere, although the co-
treatment of cattle manure and pig slurry, together with other wastes on Gozo could render a
treatment facility there viable.
In the event that there is no prospect of discharge of liquor from the thickening of sludge, it might be
that local or regional collection points might still be favourable, rather than collection from individual
farm units. Such facilities would be likely to consist of simple tanks for untreated slurries. There is also
the possibility to add higher solids content manures, provided the material remains pumpable,
although this might add to capital and operational costs if additional agitation was necessary to keep
the material pumpable. The slurry would then be collected by tanker to treatment at a regional
treatment centre. The advantage of this localised collection over collection from individual farms
would be the reduction in time for collection rounds and fewer lorry movements in comparison with
individual farm collections. Assuming the addition of no other manures, the daily storage requirement
for 150,000m3 of pig slurry amounts to approximately 410m3 per day. Even assuming that several days
retention time were required, spread between a number of local collection facilities, with the size
dependent on the catchment and stock number of farms, the size of the facilities would be relatively
small. Indeed, smaller facilities could be established on a temporary basis with limited civil works by
using, for example, tanks fitted to roll-on-off skids that could be simply picked up full, and replaced by
an empty tank barrel.
The issue of the nitrogen and solids (carbon rich) fraction can be considered separately or collectively
with the whole product. In the simplest format, slurries, together with higher solids manures if
required, could simply dewatered to form a “cake” for disposal, with the liquid taken for treatment by
denitrifcation. This has a number of disadvantages in that the dewatering is likely to be energy
intensive and the solids will still be likely to have a high moisture content (depending on the technique
employed). Either additional drying would be required to achieve a dry solids content capable of auto-
thermal incineration or suitable for alternative thermal treatment by pyrolysis or gasification, so
additional energy sources would be required for disposal by that route, hence it is likely there would
94
be a significant operational cost as well as capital cost in that option. The cake would not be stabilised;
hence would be likely to be odorous to store or handle, for instance for treatment by aerobic biological
treatment (composting). Additional drying would be sure to lead to ammonium generation requiring
significant abatement. For the liquid fraction, there would still be a requirement for treatment to
achieve de-nitrification.
The treatment by anaerobic digestion of the slurry and manures offers potential advantages, in that,
provided the carbon (solids) content can be raised and the carbon:nitrogen ratio optimised, the
process can produce excess energy over the operating requirements, and the resulting solids are
stabilised. As explained earlier, anaerobic digestion of pig-slurry alone may not be advantageous due
to the low solids content hence rate of methane production in relation to the volume of the digester
vessel. Further analysis of the pig slurry is required together with the identification of potential higher
organic content waste streams, in the same way as some waste streams from the mechanical
treatment facility are intended for mixing with the cattle and poultry litter at the Malta North facility.
Slurry thickening or partial dewatering as pre-treatment of pig slurry may be an option, although that
will affect the operating costs. The liquor (centrate) will require treatment for de-nitrification, just as
the untreated liquor would if the raw manures were simply dewatered.
It would, therefore, seem logical that anaerobic digestion be considered further as part of the
agricultural waste strategy. This is consistent with the policies being adopted throughout Europe.
Germany and northern European countries have many anaerobic digestion plants operational over
many years and other countries such as the UK are adopting them as part of waste management
strategies. Examples of on-farm anaerobic digestion plants are common in Europe and the US and
further proposals are commonly coming forward for manure management, although it must be
recognised that in most cases, additional carbon sources are used in co-treatment. It is recommended
that anaerobic digestion be investigated as part of an integrated waste management strategy.
However, careful consideration given to other waste sources that might be used. In particular,
consideration must be given to the potential after use of the solid digestate and quality protocols for
saleable products.
As outlined above, solid digestate can be applied as a fertilizer of soil conditioner, but whether that is
feasible will depend on the requirement, which it has been shown earlier in this report, is likely to
change. Two broad treatment methods were discussed earlier, aerobic treatment, or composting, to
provide a saleable soil forming materials suitable for use in horticulture, or thermal treatment.
Composting will require a significant land footprint if windrow composting is adopted, a lower
footprint with static pile. It is likely that additional materials will be required to achieve the necessary
carbon:nitrogen ratio and provide an open structure to maintain aerobic conditions. Careful
consideration will be required in the location of composting plants as they can lead to odour nuisance
if not properly controlled, but logically, they would be located close to the source of the source
materials (ie the anaerobic digestion plants). Greater control over odours can be achieved over both
aerobic conditions and odours by in-vessel composting, but that will lead to a higher capital cost. The
choice of additional materials would also have to be carefully considered in the quality of the
“product’, as that would affect the suitability. Quality protocols are being adopted in European
countries for stabilised compost.
95
Of the thermal treatment options available, incineration offers some attraction, in that it may require
the least drying of the digestate residue, provided that there is sufficient support fuel in the form of
higher calorific waste available. If not, either support fuel will be necessary, or additional drying of the
digestate residue necessary, again with further cost. It has been identified that additional incineration
capacity would be required, incurring additional capital cost. Incineration also suffers from poor public
perception, although usually unfounded given the emissions standards required under European
legislation. It is noted that a policy for thermal treatment of household wastes and sewage sludge is
currently under consideration and it is recommended that potential synergies with that be explored.
Whilst the volume of agricultural wastes is significant, it should be recognised that the dry matter
content is low. Assuming a dry matter content of 4% for pig slurry and 15% for cattle manure, the total
solids content for the quantities outlined above is only 6000te/a for pig slurry and 16,200te/a for cattle
manure, assuming no loss during pre-treatment, for example by anaerobic digestion, although the
additional solids content of any co-digested wastes would have to be taken into consideration.
Of the alternative thermal processes, it appears gasification is less well tested in this application, whilst
pyrolysis has been developed at both pilot and commercial scale for sewage sludge and similar wastes.
From the research carried out to date, it appears that modular pyrolysis plants are available, affording
flexibility in approach, and again given the relatively low quantities of solid matter arising from the
agricultural wastes, it is recommended that this option be taken to the next stage of investigation. It
must be recognised, however, that for pyrolysis, the digestate residue must have a low moisture
content, so sludge drying would be necessary, increasing the capital costs.
For the liquid fraction of the digestate, or centrate, biological oxidation and anoxic denitrification
seem the obvious choice; the method is well understood in the waste water treatment industry, as
well as in the anaerobic digestion industry for centrate treatment. It is recommended that discussions
be held with WSC to ascertain whether synergies and cost savings can be accomplished by either
contributing to extending or upgrading existing treatment facilities.
The application of other technologies which are used in other Member States may be considered more
innovative for the application to the domestic sector. Of particular relevance here is the development
of fertiliser plants and the potential to treat pig slurry in a manner which allows for eventual discharge
into the sewer system. Both of these options have not been implemented in Malta and require further
in depth studies to determine their technical viability.
96
7. Determination of the Financial Costs of the Technological Alternatives for the Handling and Treatment of Agricultural Waste
This section of the report seeks to present a high level estimate of the financial costs of the options
presented in the previous section while taking into account the viability of the options from a short-
term, medium-term and long-term perspective. Further to the previous section, this section also
distinguishes between the generation, treatment and disposal of manure/slurry.
On account of the distinct composition and uncertainty associated with the composition of pig slurry,
the options analysis presented in this section shall also distinguish between the options available for
treatment and disposal for cattle and other livestock manure and pig slurry.
As stressed in previous sections of this report, there are a number of uncertainties associated with the
generation and treatment of manure/slurry and as a result one of the key facets of this report has
been to develop options which allow for flexibility. This is mainly due to the fact that forecasts of the
livestock units cannot be undertaken with a credible degree of precision. Taking into account the
downward trend of the recent few years would imply that livestock units are to continue to decrease
sharply. However the adoption of policy which considers the security of supply implies that
intervention would be required to avoid such a drastic decline in livestock units. This level of
uncertainty in the livestock units also translates into uncertainty in the generation of manure/slurry
and hence requires an element of flexibility in the derivation of options in a bid to cater for any of the
scenarios which might materialise in the future.
Further elements of uncertainty which underpin the need for flexibility is the management of manure
and slurry. This, in particular, holds for the generation of slurry where the use of water to dilute pig
slurry ranges significantly between farms. Furthermore, due to this uncertainty, the composition of
pig slurry continues to vary significantly limiting the potential treatment options.
Other elements of uncertainty include the soil nitrogen supply to determine the soil intake capacity.
Towards this end, a detailed study is required on nitrogen inputs which in turn will determine the
amount of manure/slurry to be treated and thereafter disposed. It is to be noted in this regard, that
the data is indirectly being collected through the fertiliser plans drawn up by the FASC on behalf of
the farmers but it remains unprocessed and hence has not been adequately analysed, as yet.
The final element of uncertainty which underpins this agricultural waste management plan is the
availability of options within the local context. It is to be noted in this regard that the Maltese Islands
are small in size and are characterised by a significantly high population density. As a result, the
application of treatment options at a centralised level which are adjacent to dwellings remains to be
studied. Furthermore options which may have been adopted in other countries need to be studied in
detail in order to determine their applicability within the local context.
The development of options within the local context will thus distinguish between:
- Pig Slurry
- Manure generated by cattle, poultry and ovine
97
Furthermore options are also derived at the levels of:
- Waste generation
- Waste treatment
- Waste disposal
7.1 Waste Generation
A key element in addressing agricultural waste management is the management of livestock heads. It
is evident from the economic assessment of the agricultural sector, that a number of farms,
particularly the smaller ones, are not financially sustainable. Despite the availability of financial
assistance offered through funding sources such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Rural
Development Policy, the enhanced and rigorous competition offered by larger scale farms which
benefit from economies of scale continues to dent the financial sustainability of these farms.
It is thus not surprising that the continuous reduction in livestock units is expected to be maintained
in the future. The uncertainty lies with the extent of this reduction. An option to address the reduction
in the livestock units in a sustainable manner and hence a reduction in the generation of
manure/slurry is through the encouragement of diversification of farming into rural activity. This
requires allowance for development permits in line with the Rural Policy Guidance issued by the Malta
Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) in 2014.
The ODZ policy (2014) states that there is scope for diversification of farms by small scale enterprises
such as small scale farm retail, farm-based visitor attractions and agro-tourism accommodation. The
policy also indicates that whilst established rural activities may not be well sited by today's standards,
their reasonable expansion on site needs to be considered. The conversions and changes of use are
ways of making efficient use of buildings constructed to meet economic and social needs which have
since changed. They provide a way of allowing necessary or desirable changes without too great an
impact on the open countryside.
There is thus already the basis through the ODZ policy to diversify the use of farms. This needs to be
extended to focus on the potential creation of dwellings within reasonable and approvable boundaries
that would generate employment and value added. It would allow for diversification of farm land use
towards sustainable rural real state of high value added. It may also be opportune to provide guidance
to farmers on the potential of diversification in this regard and to facilitate the process.
For farms which express a lack of desire towards diversification, the potential use of ‘buy outs of
production rights’ might be considered. This option has been used in countries such as Netherlands
which face an environmental challenge associated with manure/slurry whereby government opted
for a buy-out scheme in 2000 and 200120 which reduced the manure surplus significantly. In fact, over
5000 farms applied, with pig stocks declining from 13 million in 1999 to 11.5 million in 2002 (CBS
StatLine21). Similarly in the Netherlands, a social economic plan for animal husbandry was adopted to
focus on advising livestock farmers about future developments and about termination of farming.
20 ‘MINAS: A post mortem?’ , Rosklide University, Mallia and Right (2004) 21 http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/Start.asp?lp=Search/Search&LA=EN&DM=SLEN
98
Another key element in addressing waste generation is through enhanced emphasis on sustainable
and efficient farming practices to minimise number of heads and waste. This is to be further backed
by greater emphasis on enforcement to ensure that farming practices which are not in line with legal
requirements continue to be reprimanded in an effective manner ensuring that only sustainable
farming practices and farms are maintained.
7.2 Waste Treatment
This section provides a high level estimate of waste treatment taking into account the capacity
availability at the Malta North Biological Treatment Plant (MBT) as well as the costs associated with
other digestion plants and incineration. Detailed studies are required, to determine with more
precision, these financial costs which ultimately depend on the actual design parameters of the
technical options.
Malta North Mechanical and Biological Treatment Plant (Co-mingling)
The overall objective of the MBT is the treatment and disposal of municipal waste in Malta to
respect the limits established on the landfilling of biowaste whilst also contributing, albeit to a lesser
extent, to recycling targets and packaging waste targets.
It is to be noted that the plant is not aimed directly at resolving manure waste issues in Malta, and in
particular the compliance with the Nitrates Directive, but the co-mingling of manure presents an
opportunity to improve the overall performance of the waste management system. The treatment of
manure is undertaken to exploit opportunities provided by the establishment of the plant at
enhancing the efficiency of the overall waste management system in Malta.
The scope of co-mingling lies with the fact that there exists an economic opportunity to generate
overall improvements in the waste management system in Malta by co-mingling manure with
municipal waste which could potentially:
- improve the desirable qualities of the output from the municipal waste system;
- reduce the overall costs of treating manure waste in Malta, as compared to other
interventions aimed at achieving the Nitrates and related Directives which are expected
to be undertaken within the country.
The overall economic benefits of co-mingling municipal waste and manure are the significantly higher
yield of biogas which is generated with the use of cattle manure and other dry manure, the shared
use of processing plant and equipment as well as the enhanced stabilization of the AD process.
The inclusion of manure bears no burden on the financial aspect of the project from the operator’s
point of view or from a funding perspective due to the expected imposition of a full cost recovery rate
for the treatment of manure. Towards this end, the additional costs incurred to allow for the co-
mingling of waste is minimal compared to the total cost of the project with the additional investment
99
amounting to €2.2 million, construction and machinery of €1.5 million and civil works and other costs
of €0.8 million. The annual operational costs amount to €120,000.
The co-mingling aspect also generates a net disposal revenue on an annual basis. whereby the net
effect of revenue and costs coupled with the investment cost results in prime dynamic cost for the
treatment of manure of about €6/tonne.
Digestion Plant
An estimate of the cost of a digestion plant which caters solely for manure is also presented based on
technical parameters for a plant which was initially envisaged to cater for the treatment of 42,800m3
of cattle manure in Malta22. The technical parameters which are shown in the Table below indicate
that in the process of treating manure, the plant would generate output in the form of losses in terms
of water and nitrates occurring during the drying of the manure and liquid fertiliser which is to be
disposed of in sewer. The plant will also generate revenue through the generation of biogas as well as
through the generation of solid high quality fertiliser. One of the key aspects of the financial
sustainability of the plant is the application of the feed-in-tariff which for the purpose of the
assessment undertaken to determine the cost benefit analysis of the plant in line with EU funding
regulation, was estimated at €0.11/kWh based on the marginal cost of electricity. It is also to be noted
that the price of land has not been taken into consideration.
Table 7.1 Technical Parameters of an Anaerobic Digestion Plant
The investment cost of the plant, typical of this size, is estimated at €6.8 million of which €2.2 million
is machinery and equipment as well as annual operational costs of €0.5 million. Part of this operational
cost is the transport required to transport the manure of neighbouring farms to the plant and the
transport of liquid fertiliser to sewer. Based on these high level estimates, the prime dynamic cost of
22 Residents in Siggiewi have raised objections to the siting of the plant and the ensued activity that may occur on account of the location of the Plant. As a result the development of the plant remains uncertain.
Manure (m3) 42,800
LandfillLosses to air: Water 100 Losses to air: N 100 Biogas to electricity 1,500 Solid High quality fertiliser 8,500
Liquid Fertiliser to sewer 32,600
Input
Electricity (kwh) 1,070,584
Diesel (Litres) 15,000
Output
Electricity from manure (kWh) 2,400,000
Input
Energy Flow/annum
Output
Manure Plant
100
the plant based on a lifetime of 20 years and a financial discount rate of 5% is estimated at €20/tonne
of manure.
Incineration
Another treatment option considered in this section of the report is the possibility of incinerating the
manure/slurry. A feasibility study is currently being undertaken to determine the viability of
incineration for the treatment of municipal waste and other related waste streams. It is however to
be noted that following discussion with the contracting authority23, the study is not considering
specifically the inclusion of manure/slurry for incineration.
The costs of incineration presented in this section are based on a high level estimate of the cost of
incineration at the Marsa Thermal Treatment Facility operated by Wasteserv Malta. The incinerator
which is located in Marsa currently treats abattoir waste, clinical waste, refused derived fuel, and
other waste including industrial sludge. The costs of treating this waste amounts to about €430/tonne
of waste. It is to be noted that this cost reflects solely the technical parameters of the incinerator at
the plant and is not necessarily reflective of the costs of an incinerator which would cater for
manure/slurry.
Other technical options which have been presented in the previous section of the report require in-
depth studies of the input and the technical nature of the plants which might be innovative for the
local market and thus require experimentation to determine their feasibility. Of particular relevance
is the potential development of fertiliser plants which develop organo-mineral compounds, with high
iron and organic substance content which are pelletized through a procedure that preserves organic
substances by maintaining bacteria count. Such plants which cater for the generation of fertiliser
through the treatment of cattle manure currently exist in a number of EU countries. A project
promoter from Sicily indicated that it may be technically possible for these plants to also cater for pig
slurry. This however required further in-depth study to determine the viability of such plants.
7.3 Waste Disposal
Export of manure/slurry
The third element which is considered in this study is waste disposal whereby the costs pertaining to
the export of manure/slurry are considered in this section. Manure is classified as ‘Category 2’
according to ABP regulations and Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009. Article 21 indicates that the
competent authority may authorise the transport of manure between two points located on the same
farm or between farms and users of manure within the same Member State (MS) without a
commercial document or health certificate. However trade between Member States must follow the
procedure outlined in Article 48.1 of the EU Control Regulation which indicates that anybody
proposing such trade must notify the competent authorities in both the MS of origin and the MS of
destination. The Competent Authorities in the MS of destination will then decide whether the trade
can be allowed, and if so whether any additional conditions need to be imposed. This is a similar
23 MSDEC
101
procedure which is adopted in the Netherlands, which as explained further below, also
exports/imports manure/slurry to other Member States.
The technical and financial viability of the export option depends on a number of variables including
the volume of manure/slurry, the required frequency of trips to collect the manure/slurry from farms
as well as the frequency of vessel trips at the port. These issues determine the optimal size of trucks
and storage units required to transport the manure/slurry.
Given that in general, cattle and other livestock manure is expected to be catered for in the medium
term mainly on account of the existing MBT plant and the possible development of other similar
plants, this option focuses more intently on the export of pig slurry particularly in the short term.
A high level estimate of exporting slurry has been undertaken based on two options. Both options
presented hereunder are based on the costs that would occur to transport the level of slurry expected
to be generated in 2016 taking into account the minimum and maximum volume of slurry.
From a logistical perspective, the farms are rather dispersed and can be found in both Malta and Gozo.
The larger farms which hold over 300 heads are mainly based in Malta and can be found in the South
East and North of Malta with a few farms also located on the West side of the Island. The distribution
of pig farms across the Maltese Islands is presented in the Table below.
Table 7.2 Distribution of Pig Farms
Figure 7.1: Geographical Distribution of Pig Farms
Pig Farm Size Malta Gozo Total
0-100 25 3 28
101-300 33 5 38
301-500 13 2 15
501-999 17 1 18
Over 1000 7 0 7
Total 95 11 106
102
The total amount of pig slurry produced in 2016 may vary from as much as about 12,300m3 on an
annual basis to 155,600m3. Based on a truck size of 33,000m3 the total number of trips required on an
annual basis to transport the volume of slurry may vary from about 370 trips in the minimum scenario
to over 4,700 trips in the maximum scenario.
The first export option considered in the report, labelled as ‘Option 1’, is based on a setup that would
require the collection of slurry from different locations across Malta and Gozo and the transportation
of the slurry in 33,000 litres trailers. The slurry would be stored at a central location in trailers for 3 to
4 days reflecting the vessel availability to export the slurry. The diagram below shows the logistical
process required for Option 1.
In a scenario which generates the minimum volume of manure in 2016, this option would require four
trucks to collect the manure from the farms and eight trailers located at the central collection depot
to store the manure for eventual exportation. The financial cost of these trucks and trailers amounts
to about €600,000.24 The operational costs of this option consist of wages and transportation costs.
The latter amounts to an annual value of €1.6 million. The wages element is based on five truck
drivers25 earning about €18,000 per annum. The annual cost of fuel is based on 50,000 km travelled
per truck to collect the slurry.26 Shipment costs to Catania are based on the assumption that demand
for slurry uptake is available in Sicily. The shipping costs amount to about €1,000 per trip per truck. In
addition haulage costs are also taken into account based on the assumption of ongoing haulage rates
per km.
In the maximum scenario, this option would require six trucks to collect the manure from the farms
and over 100 trailers located at the central collection depot to store the manure for eventual
exportation. The financial cost of these trucks and trailers amounts to about €2.9 million.27 The
operational costs on this case amount to an annual value of €8.7 million.
The prime dynamic costs of this option taking into account a lifetime of 7 years for the trucks and
financial discount rate of 5% is estimated at €136/tonne in the minimum scenario and drops to
€108/tonne in the maximum scenario with the lower cost reflecting the greater utilisation of the
investment.
In total operational costs may thus vary from €1.6 million on annual basis to € 16.1 million in the
maximum scenario. The reduction in the volume of slurry is critical to minimise the transportation
costs.
24 A 33,000m3 truck is assumed to cost €30,000 and each tractor units cost €90,000 25 Standard logistical assumption based on 1.2 workers required per truck. 26 It Is further assumed that each truck can cover a distance of 2km per litre and the cost of diesel is taken at €1.36/litre. 27 A 33,000m3 truck is assumed to cost €30,000 and each tractor units cost €90,000
103
Figure 7.2: Export Option 1
Table 7.3: Financial Costs: Export of Slurry Option 1
Infrastructure Infrastructure
Total number of Trucks 4 Total number of Trucks 26
Total Number of Large Tankers 8 Total Number of Large Tankers 104
Cost (€) 611,042 Cost (€) 5,442,492
HR HR
Total Number of Drivers 5 Total Number of Drivers 31
Cost (€) 72,000 Cost (€) 466,499
Transportation Transportation
Fuel Malta 554,012 Fuel Malta 3,524,661
Ship To Catania 635,484 Ship To Catania 8,085,988
Haulage Sicily 317,742 Haulage Sicily 4,042,994
YEAR 1
Investment Cost 611,042 Investment Cost 5,442,492
Operational Costs 1,579,238 Operational Costs 16,120,143
Prime Dynamic Cost/tonne 136.23 Prime Dynamic Cost/tonne 108.56
MIN generation of pig manure MAX generation of pig manure
Option 1: Large Truck pickup on a weekly basis from each farm and straight to Port
104
The second option, labelled ‘Option 2’ is similar to Option 1 yet the workload of collecting the manure
is distributed. Option 2 requires that each farmer delivers the manure in smaller trucks on a regular
basis to one of the depots set up specifically for the system. These costs are considered to be sunk
costs. In each depot there will be numerous tanker trailers for the farmers to transfer the
manure/slurry from their truck into the trailer. Once the trailers are full, they will be transported by a
larger truck and shipped out based on a regular schedule similar to Option 1. This will reduce the cost
of the operation as the costs of the large trucks required to collect the manure is reduced.
Figure 7.3: Export Option 2
The costs associated with this option are shown in Table 7.4 below. In the minimum scenario, eight
tankers would be required to store the slurry and one 33,000 litre truck to transport the slurry for
105
exportation. The operational costs of this option amount to €1.1 million in the minimum case scenario
but rises to €13.1 million in the maximum scenario. It is to be noted that in the case of the maximum
scenario the number of large trucks required would need to increase to six to account for the large
volume of slurry.
The prime dynamic cost of this option ranges from €95.40/tonne of slurry to €87.21/tonne of slurry in
the maximum scenario.
Table 7.4: Export ‘Option 2’
The export option is considered as a stop-gap solution, allowing for flexibility albeit at a significant
cost. This cost can be mitigated, in the short run, through the continuation of current practices, until
more cost-effective solutions are developed in the medium term.
It is to be noted that the export option is also utilised by other European Member States which
generate an excess of manure/slurry. In some cases the untreated manure is exported whilst in other
cases it is the nutrients which are exported following treatment. In the Netherlands, excess manure
at farm level is transported to other farms. Pig and poultry farms have large manure surpluses. The
nutrients from the manure/slurry is exported to other countries such as Germany. The cost of
transport ranges from €5 to €20 per tonne as it only considers land transport and does not require
transportation via vessels as would be the case in Malta.
An overview of the procedure undertaken to export pig manure from the Flanders to the Netherlands
is shown in the figure below. In essence, there is the identification of the manure volume which is
based on an agricultural number in the Flanders and a client number in the Netherlands. These are
Infrastructure 0 Infrastructure 0
Total number of Trucks 1 Total number of Trucks 6
Total Number of Large Tankers 8 Total Number of Large Tankers 104
Cost (€) 334,417 Cost (€) 3,649,995
HR HR 0
Total Number of Drivers 2 Total Number of Drivers 7
Cost (€) 30,000 Cost (€) 108,000
Transportation Transportation
Fuel Malta 136,000 Fuel Malta 816,000
Ship To Catania 635,484 Ship To Catania 8,085,988
Haulage Sicily 317,742 Haulage Sicily 4,042,994
-
Investment Cost 334,417 Investment Cost 3,649,995
Operational Costs 1,119,226 Operational Costs 13,052,982
Prime Dynamic Cost/tonne 95.40 Prime Dynamic Cost/tonne 87.21
Assuming 7 year lifespan of investment
Option 2: Farmer Bring Manure to Govt Depot, offload into trailers and then trailers are rolled onto Vessel for
Export
MIN generation of pig manure MAX generation of pig manure
106
not recognised across borders but are specific to the region or Member State. Exportation also
requires veterinary authorisation but only one authorisation is required to avoid doubling this
administrative step.
In terms of the transport of the manure there is a sample analysis and authorisation undertaken to
export and import by the respective different authorities.
Figure 7.4 Procedure of exporting manure
Source: Organic Transport Fertiliser across borders – transparency in legislations
Other innovative technologies
Another disposal option which may be considered is the transformation of pig slurry into material
similar to human waste allowing for discharge to sewer. This option is still currently being studied and
hence the feasibility of the option from a technical, financial and economic perspective remains to be
seen. This option, can in the medium term be considered as an innovative approach which caters for
the treatment of waste.
7.4 Technical Options available for generation, treatment and disposal
This section of the report presents a summary of the options available in Malta up to 2030
distinguishing between treatment and disposal of pig slurry as opposed to cattle and other livestock
manure.
Pig slurry
The options, the technical details of which have been explained in previous sections of the report,
distinguish between the viability of options at generation, treatment and disposal. In terms of pig
slurry, a key element of the management of waste rests on generation in the first place. As discussed
107
previously, emphasis on sustainable and efficient farming practices to minimise the number of heads
and waste is considered particularly important. The over abundant use of water has to be discontinued
to enable the efficient use of treatment and disposal options. Indeed, whether the waste is treated
and biogas generated from it or whether it is exported requires more efficient use of water in pig
slurry. In the case of the former, the production of biogas and hence the feasibility of the option
depends on the extent to which the slurry is diluted while in the case of the latter, the cost of exporting
depends significantly on the volume of slurry.
At generation level, there is also the option of diversification of farm land use towards sustainable
rural real estate. The number of heads may through a policy decision decline thus addressing the
generation of slurry through the diversification of farm land use which ties in with the sustainability
of rural areas. Livestock farmers could be presented with the option of diversifying the farm land use
themselves or possibly with a pig farm buy out scheme which can be implemented by the governance
structure itself which is explained in the next section of the report. It is to be noted that pig farm buy
out schemes have been implemented in the Netherlands and Belgium to decrease manure surplus
(OECD, 2003). The case in the Netherlands can provide basic indications on the expected costs of such
a scheme; the Government in the first round of buy-out bought a total of about 5,000 farms. The total
cost to the government for the buy- out scheme has been estimated at €900 million.
It is to be noted that diversification from farming towards the creation of small businesses in rural
areas is a support measure which is supported by EAFRD. Diversification is also tangent to other policy
documents such as the National Tourism Policy (2015-2020) which identifies rural tourism as a niche
sector.
Table 7.5 Options for the generation, treatment and disposal of pig slurry
Waste treatment options for pig slurry are not perceived to be available in the short term and the
viability of the options presented in the matrix below from 2020 onwards remains to be studied in
technical detail. In particular the options of producing fertilisers, thermal treatment and disposal to
sewer following the treatment of the slurry remains to be tried and tested within the local context.
The financially feasibility of these options also needs to be studied in greater detail. While technically
speaking the digestion plants can treat pig slurry, the viability of these plants greatly depends on the
composition of the slurry in the first place.
2016/2018 2020 2030
Digestion Malta North Digestion Malta North
Digestion Other Malta Digestion Other Malta
Digestion Gozo Digestion Gozo
Fertiliser Production Fertiliser Production
Waste treatment to sewer Waste treatment to sewer
Thermal Thermal
Export Export Export
Sewer (after treatment) Sewer (after treatment)
Landfill (after treatment) Landfill (after treatment)
Waste Disposal
Waste Treatment
Pig Slurry
Waste GenerationDiversification of farm land use towards sustainable rural real estate
Emphasis on sustainable and efficient farming practices to minimise number of heads and waste
108
In the short term, export is considered as a viable option albeit a stop-gap one until other options are
developed in the medium to long term. Furthermore in the analysis, export is taken to absorb the
residual of the waste volume which is not treated.
Cattle and Other Livestock Manure
Similar to the generation of pig slurry, the options at generation level to address the generation of
cattle and other livestock manure are aimed at diversification of farm land use towards sustainable
rural real estate as well as further and enhanced emphasis on sustainable and efficient practices to
minimise the number of heads and volume of manure.
In terms of treatment, the Malta North Biological Treatment Plant is in the short term the only
treatment plant at a centralised level which can cater for part of the cattle and other livestock manure.
In the medium term, treatment of this manure can be further complemented by other digestion plants
or treatment options. It is however to be reiterated that in the case where the minimum scenario of
cattle manure materialises, the scope of having additional centralised plants may be limited.
Finally disposal of manure must also be taken into consideration particularly following the treatment
of manure through digestion plants. In particular, this relates to the application of manure on crop
land, as well as the export option. The disposal of water which is generated through the treatment of
manure and any other output such as digestate will have to be disposed of in other manners following
treatment.
Table 7.6 Options for the generation, treatment and disposal of cattle, and other livestock manure
7.4 Summary of Options
The high level financial estimates presented above are summarised in this section of the report for
three periods namely 2016, 2020 and 2030. Once again a distinction is made between the cattle and
other livestock manure and pig slurry.
2016/2018 2020 2030
Digestion Malta North Digestion Malta North Digestion Malta North
Digestion Other Malta Digestion Other Malta
Digestion Gozo Digestion Gozo
Fertiliser Production Fertiliser Production
Thermal Thermal
Crop Land Crop Land Crop Land
Export Export Export
Sewer (after treatment) Sewer (after treatment) Sewer (after treatment)
Landfill (after treatment) Landfill (after treatment) Landfill (after treatment)
Waste Treatment
Cattle and Other Livestock Manure
Diversification of farm land use towards sustainable rural real estate
Emphasis on sustainable and efficient farming practices to minimise number of heads and wasteWaste Generation
Waste Disposal
109
The total financial costs vary according to the volume of manure/slurry generated which in turn
depends on the number of heads and farming practices. A distinction is made between the minimum
and maximum scenarios.
Cattle and Other Livestock Manure
In 2016, the financial cost of treating and disposing cattle and other livestock manure may be as high
as €8.4 million on an annual basis if the maximum volume of manure materialises. In the case of the
minimum scenario, taking into account the revenue would be generated by the system on account of
application of manure to crop, the net costs would be limited to €0.7 million. Likewise, in 2020, should
the minimum scenario materialise, the system would create an overall revenue of €0.6 million per
year but could generate an overall cost of €7.4 million on an annual basis should the maximum
scenario unfold.
Table 7.7 Cattle and Other Livestock Manure: Financial Costs 2016
2016Prime
Dynamic
Cost Cattle and Other Livestock Manure Min Max Min Max
Production (m3 in 000s) 80.5 145.4
Applied to Crop 13.3 28.6 -24 319- 686-
Excess volume (Treatment or Disposal) 51.9 132.1
Treatment and Disposal
MBT (co-mingling of manure) 39.0 39.0 6 234 234
Other solutions 12.9 93.1
Digestion
Incineration
New Technologies
Export 12.9 93.1 91.3 1,180 8,500 Total Cost (€ 000s) 728 8,414
Total Financial Cost
(€ 000s)Manure Generation
0.0
0.0
0.0
110
Table 7.8 Cattle and Other Livestock Manure: Financial Costs 2020
On the other hand, as can be observed from Table 7.9 in 2030, the system for treating and disposing
of cattle and other livestock manure could result in financial outcomes ranging from an overall
revenue of €1.5 million to a net cost of €5.5 million.
This is essentially due to the fact that the decline in the livestock heads would result in a significant
drop in the surplus of manure to the extent that the manure and its application to land coupled with
the capacity available at MBT would cater for a larger proportion of the supply of generated manure.
Table 7.9 Cattle and Other Livestock Manure: Financial Costs 2030
2020
Prime
Dynamic
Cost
(€/tonne)
Cattle and Other Livestock Manure Min Max Min Max
Production (m3 in 000s) 67.7 131.8
Applied to Crop 12.1 21.9 -24 290- 526-
Excess volume (Treatment or Disposal) 45.8 119.7
Treatment and Disposal
MBT (co-mingling of manure) 39.0 39.0 6 234 234
Other solutions 6.8 80.7
Digestion
Incineration
New Technologies
Export 6.8 80.7 91.3 618 7,369 Total Cost (€ 000s) 326 7,312
Manure GenerationTotal Financial Cost
(€ 000s)
?
?
?
2030
Prime
Dynamic
Cost
(€/tonne)
Cattle and Other Livestock Manure Min Max Min Max
Production (m3 in 000s) 46.5 132.0
Applied to Crop 27.9 64.4 -24 670- 1,546-
Excess volume (Treatment or Disposal) 0.0 104.1
Treatment and Disposal
MBT (co-mingling of manure) 39.0 39.0 6 - 234
Other solutions 0.0 65.1
Digestion
Incineration
New Technologies
Export 0.0 65.1 91.3 - 5,941 Total Cost (€ 000s) 1,546- 5,505
Total Financial Cost
(€ 000s)
?
?
?
Manure Generation
111
Pig Slurry
The financial cost associated with the treatment and disposal of pig slurry is much more costly on
account of the greater reliance on export as an option to cater for its disposal. In 2016, the entire
volume generated would have to be exported on account of the fact that there are no treatment or
disposal facilities which can cater for the volume of pig slurry. As a result, the costs on an annual basis
could vary from €1.4 million to €14.4 million. It is to be reiterated once again that the variance in the
volume of pig slurry generated between the minimum and maximum scenarios is based on the
forecast uncertainty in the number of heads but also on the volume of water used to dilute the slurry.
The use of less water would result in a lower volume and hence lower export costs.
Table 7.10 Pig Slurry: Financial Costs 2016
Likewise the costs outlined in 2020 and 2030 also vary significantly. The costs presented in Table 7.11
and Table 7.12 respectively reflect the reliance on the export option at least in the short term as
dependence on technological options which can be applied in Malta and which can cater for pig slurry
remain to be studied in detail following the potential innovative element of applying these
technologies locally. In such a case the costs may vary from €0.6 million to €13.4 million in 2020 and
€0.2 million to €11.6 million in 20130.
2016
Prime
Dynamic
Cost
(€/tonne)
Pig Slurry Min Max Min Max
Production (m3 in 000s) 12.5 157.3
Applied to Crop 0.0 0.0
Excess volume (Treatment or Disposal) 12.5 157.3
Treatment and Disposal
MBT (co-mingling of manure) 0.0 0.0
Other solutions 12.5 157.3
Digestion
Incineration
New Technologies
Export 12.5 157.3 91.3 1,141 14,362 Total Cost (€ 000s) 1,141 14,362
Total Financial Cost
(€ 000s)Manure Generation
0.0
0.0
0.0
112
Table 7.11 Pig Slurry: Financial Costs 2020
Table 7.12 Pig Slurry: Financial Costs 2030
A summary of the total annual financial costs for both the minimum and maximum scenarios is
presented in Table 7.13. Overall, the total costs in the short term which take into account the
treatment and disposal of cattle and other livestock manure and pig slurry could vary from €1.9 million
to €22.8 million on an annual basis with the latter costs reflecting the greater reliance on the export
option particularly in the short term on account of the fact that the only existing option to cater for
excess cattle manure is the MBT plant. The maximum total potential costs of about €22.8 million in
2016 represents 31% of the turnover generated by the livestock sector. The imposition of this cost on
the sector would result in competitiveness issues and severely dent the sustainability of the sector. As
a result, the extent to which government can provide support within the constraints of State Aid need
to be studied.
2020
Prime
Dynamic
Cost
(€/tonne)
Pig Slurry Min Max Min Max
Production (m3 in 000s) 7.1 146.4
Applied to Crop 0.0 0.0
Excess volume (Treatment or Disposal) 7.1 146.4
Treatment and Disposal
MBT (co-mingling of manure) 0.0 0.0
Other solutions 7.1 146.4
Digestion
Incineration
New Technologies
Export 7.1 146.4 91.3 648 13,367 Total Cost (€ 000s) 648 13,367
?
Manure GenerationTotal Financial Cost
(€ 000s)
?
?
2030
Prime
Dynamic
Cost
(€/tonne)
Pig Slurry Min Max Min Max
Production (m3 in 000s) 2.3 127.2
Applied to Crop 0.0 0.0
Excess volume (Treatment or Disposal) 2.3 127.2
Treatment and Disposal
MBT (co-mingling of manure) 0.0 0.0
Other solutions 2.3 127.2
Digestion
Incineration
New Technologies
Export 2.3 127.2 91.3 210 11,614 Total Cost (€ 000s) 210 11,614
Manure GenerationTotal Financial Cost
(€ 000s)
?
?
?
113
Table 7.13: Summary of Financial Costs
In 2020 and 2030 the costs decline reflecting the drop in the number of heads of both cattle and pigs,
though the costs in the maximum scenario remain high at an annual value of €17 million. In the case
of the minimum scenario, it is possible for the system to generate an overall revenue of €1.3 million.
This also reflects the drop in livestock heads but is also marked by the more efficient use of water in
the management of agricultural waste. It is also to be noted that the revenue is also characterised by
the sale of the cattle manure for application to land which outweighs the costs of treating the excess
of cattle manure and the disposal of pig slurry.
Pig Slurry Min Max
2016 1,141 14,362
2020 648 13,367
2030 210 11,614
Bovine and Ovine Manure Min Max
2016 728 8,414
2020 326 7,312
2030 1,546- 5,505
Total Min Max
2016 1,869 22,777
2020 975 20,680
2030 1,336- 17,119
Annual Financial Cost (€ 000s)
114
8. Agricultural Waste Management Governance System
It is evident that in order to ensure the optimal use and treatment of manure in compliance with the
regulatory obligations of the country, a holistic governance structure is required. This section thus
focuses on the development of a proposed centralised system under the auspice of the Ministry for
Sustainable Development, Environment and Climate Change (MSDEC).
The overall objective of the governance structure is to continuously update, co-ordinate and
implement the agricultural waste management plan as a matter of national policy with the
involvement of all key stakeholders. The proposed holistic system would cater for the
registration/acceptance of waste produced, the oversight of application to fields consistent with
regulatory arrangements, the implementation/oversight of treatment approaches leading to
production of fertilisers, energy and other output as well as the disposal of residual waste including
export of untreated waste.
The governance structure could ensure that the national system enters into long term agreements
with producers and users of manure and providers of treatment/disposal facilities to safeguard the
sustainability of its operations.28 In the short term, policy makers may consider implementing the
system in a manner to cater for the production, treatment and disposal of slurry which as explained
in the context section of the agricultural waste management plan, is the agricultural waste which is
clouded in most uncertainty and which is posing the greatest challenges for treatment and disposal.
Eventually the structure could be rolled out to cater for manure generated by all livestock including
cattle, goat, sheep, poultry and rabbit.
It is possible for the national system to function through the utilisation of a number of facilities,
possibly operated by both public and private operators under the principle of a Public Private
Partnership (PPP). In terms of funding, it is proposed that the system could fund the cost of its
operations and of its constituent parts, allowing for an element of reasonable profit, where relevant,
and subject to public policy decision making with respect to the agricultural sector. The system could
be financed through a combination of revenue sources including fees on the producers of manure,
applied in a standard manner across all operators although the rates would vary by the type of
livestock, given that cost of treatment for manure/slurry varies. The cost would need to take into
account and implement the principle of recovery which on the one hand will dent the financial
sustainability of the livestock sector and yet on the other hand may be subject to State Aid scrutiny.
This section of the report thus seeks to provide an overview of the proposed governance system taking
into account the stakeholders involved, the strategic elements of the system, its functions as well as
the corporate structure.
28 It is suggested that the livestock limit is established in L.N 94 of 2015 Schedule 4. In terms of the application of manure to land, the limit could be set at less than 2 tumoli.
115
8.1 Stakeholders involved in the Governance System
The proposed system is a centralised system which would operate under the auspices of the MSDEC.
The direct key stakeholders who would be involved in the governance system are all livestock farmers
which are the generators of the manure/slurry and crop farmers. The Agriculture Directorate and
Directorate for Environment and Climate Change both have a key role to play in the effective
management of the system. Other interested parties who should be involved in the governance
structure are the crop producers, the Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Unit (SEWCU) in
particular the water unit, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA), providers of
agricultural waste management services such as transport providers, treatment providers and other
relevant entities as well as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
8.2 Strategic Elements of the Governance System
The scope of the governance system will be to implement the Agricultural Waste Management Plan
with respect to the collection, treatment and disposal of manure/slurry while ensuring compliance
with key legislation. The role of the governance structure will not be to regulate but to ensure
adherence with regulatory requirements. Indeed the scope of the governance system will be to
manage the system but not implement enforcement. This role will remain under the responsibility of
respective competent authorities such as the Agriculture Directorate . It is however to be noted that
the effectiveness of the governance structure depends on the enforcement of regulatory
requirements.
One of the key strategic elements of the governance structure is to encourage the minimisation of
waste generation. This not only entails the monitoring of heads but also establishing a system which
incentivises the efficient generation of manure/slurry including the discontinuation of abundant use
of water leading to high volumes of diluted slurry.
The objective of the centralised governance structure is to optimise the management options
discussed in the previous section of this report. This entails avoiding any duplication of efforts in
catering for the use, treatment and disposal of manure while ensuring a steady stream of manure to
be treated and disposed of and thus ensuring the effective utilisation of any agricultural waste
infrastructure. The governance structure should also serve as a reference entity to stakeholders and
a one stop shop for all entities involved with manure/slurry management.
The governance structure also has an important strategic role to play in developing a technological
mix of treatment and disposal options which are efficient and minimise costs. As a result, while in the
short term, export seems to be the most viable solution particularly in terms of managing slurry, the
governance structure should ensure that less costly innovative solutions are sought in the medium to
long term.
As explained in previous sections, a number of options which may be technically viable remain
untested in Malta and thus the applicability of these options remains to be studied. In particular, the
wide range of water volumes used in pig slurry limits its treatment and disposal options. Furthermore,
116
the limited land area in Malta coupled with the high population density restricts the availability of land
upon which large scale treatment and disposal facilities could be located. Therefore an additional key
strategic element envisaged for the governance system is the promotion of innovative technologies
and the setting-up of pilot projects to cater for manure and slurry, particularly in the medium to long
term.
8.3 Functions of the System
It is proposed that the governance system which may be established through a legislative framework,
would have four key functions namely an administrative role, strategic planning, operational
monitoring and development of the system in an innovative manner.
8.3.1 Administrative Role
The administrative role of the governance system entails the registration and licensing of all
manure/slurry producers. It is to be noted in this regard that the role of the governance structure will
not be to duplicate functions which are already undertaken by other government departments but
rather to utilise existing structures and provide one full picture. Towards this end, it is understood that
the Agriculture Directorate already has a registry of licensed manure/slurry producers whereby the
registry contains relevant data such as the location of farms and number of livestock held. This is useful
in this regard.
Following the collection of registry information on manure/slurry producers, the volume of
manure/slurry to be produced by each producer for a 12 month forward looking period will be
determined. This will be based on available literature and expert opinion whereby the expected
volume of manure/slurry would depend on the type of livestock, number of heads as well as other
parameters such as conformity with environmental and animal husbandry regulations and good
animal husbandry practices. Towards this end, current on-farm practices are to be considered taking
into account the inefficiencies which exist in terms of the use of water particularly for slurry produced
by pig farms. Once the volume of manure/slurry is established, the governance structure would have
to ensure a declaration and authorisation for the generation of manure/slurry by the producers.
The structure would also require registration and licensing of manure/slurry users as well as the
volume of manure/slurry29 to be used by each user on a 12 month forward looking basis taking into
consideration the Fertiliser Plans. The Agriculture Directorate has a registry of the number of farmers
and the respective land area upon which crops are grown. Soil analyses is currently being undertaken
as part of the fertiliser plans to collect data will allow for a detailed estimate of the extent to which
fertilisers can be applied to land varying by land parcels. It is also to be noted that farmers are,
29 While the application of slurry to land is currently not permissible, it may be considered as an option following the required pre-treatment.
117
according to legislation, obliged to maintain data on the use of manure/slurry according to a
predetermined template set by the Agriculture Directorate. Once the users are registered, the
governance structure would have to ensure a declaration and authorisation for the use of
manure/slurry by land owners. Excess manure/slurry would need to be catered for through pre-
established treatment and disposal options.
The Agriculture Directorate is also in the process of developing a registry for manure/slurry
transporters. The transporter will be legally obliged to register and to maintain a registry of the volume
of manure transported. Transporters will also be legally obliged to maintain information on the source
of origin of the manure/slurry and the end user of the manure/slurry. It is proposed that the services
providers are periodically identified through a request for proposals following public procurement
rules. This process should also entail the identification of services provision as well as minimum and
maximum capacity levels on a 12-month forward looking basis.
The system would also require the registration of and licensing of manure/slurry treatment providers
which should also be periodically identified through a request for proposals which also follows public
procurement rules. This could include proposers of new treatment proposals, which require a period
of experimentation to ensure feasibility for Malta. The treatment providers would also be required to
provide a minimum and maximum capacity level on a 12-month forward looking basis.
In terms of the export option, the governance system would also require the formulation of
agreements with competent authorities abroad regarding the quantity of waste to be exported and
the characteristics of the manure/slurry which can be exported on a 12 month forward looking period.
Following the registration of manure/slurry producers, users, transporters and treatment service
providers the governance structure requires the formulation of contracts for the retrieval of manure
from farms, for transport, application to land, treatment and export with relevant counterparts
spanning a 12-month basis. These contracts will provide specific details such as the waste volumes
and prices as well as all operating parameters with counterparties involved affecting the relevant
characteristic of such waste. This thus includes the type of on farm waste management practices,
transport modalities, characteristics of waste sent to treatment facilities and other relevant
parameters. These contracts would be legally enforceable instruments which induce appropriate
practices by all parties involved. The breach of the contract would be subject to fines and revocation
or limitation of operating licences. This is similar to the Manure Transfer Agreement which was
adopted in the Netherlands in 2001 whereby livestock farms sign an agreement which states that the
surplus amount of animal manure is contracted by other farms that can adequately accommodate the
manure. When farms with a surplus amount of animal manure are not able to submit such a manure
transfer agreement, the license for animal production for the next year is lost.
Administrative simplification is to be ensured through integration with existing administrative
registers/databases/licensing/permitting systems. Furthermore it is suggested that farms falling
within the livestock limit as established in L.N 94 of 2015 Schedule 4 are exempted from the system.
Likewise, it is suggested that crop farmers with an area of less than 2 tumoli of utilized land are
exempted from the system.
118
8.3.2 Strategic Planning
The second function of the proposed centralised governance structure focuses on strategic planning
and determining the destination of the manure/slurry produced on a 12 month forward looking basis
on a weekly frequency basis. The system will account for the supply of manure/slurry as well as
demand and cater for the treatment and eventual disposal including export of manure which is not
applied to land.
The governance structure also has a key role in establishing the cost/prices of manure and slurry
produced in Malta and applied at farm gate. The cost will have to be pre-determined based on the
upcoming 12 months. The value derived will take into account all elements of the system including
generation, transportation, treatment and disposal including export and would need to establish
prices to be paid for internal transport, sale, treatment and export of manure and slurry within the
context of overall financial sustainability of each activity. Ultimately the cost/price of manure and
slurry in Malta to be paid/received by farmers within the context of the overall cost, revenues and
financial sustainability of each activity will have to be determined for each type of livestock category
or groups of livestock. The prices, incomes payable and receivable by all operators in the system on a
12-month forward looking basis should be announced to ensure transparency.
As explained in the previous section, the cost of treatment and disposal varies significantly and it is
the role of the governance structure to determine a national cost which takes into account all of the
different elements. It is to be noted in this regard, that given the various uncertainty elements in the
generation of manure/slurry which exists by the different type of livestock and the various treatment
options which also depends on the manure/slurry generated by the livestock, it is suggested that the
price varies by livestock particularly distinguishing between the management of manure generated by
cattle, goats, sheep and poultry as opposed to slurry generated by swine.
It is to be noted that the rate would need to take into account the financial sustainability of the
agricultural sector and may thus be subject to support from public resources subject to the resolution
and monitoring of State Aid issues.
8.3.3 Operational Monitoring
The third function of the proposed governance structure is the operational monitoring of the system.
The centralised governance structure must oversee the operation of the contracts and compliance of
the contracts by all parties involved in the system including the waste producers, transporters, users
of manure, treatment service providers and exporters. Deviations from contracts should be penalised
accordingly.
The governance structure must also coordinate with relevant authorities involved in compliance with
legislative and regulatory requirements. It is once again stressed that the role of the governance
structure will not be to regulate but to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements through the
setup of the system.
119
In the absence of private operators who would partake in the treatment and disposal of the
manure/slurry, it is proposed that the governance structure should be directly involved in the
transport, treatment and exporting activities. It is thus not excluded that the governance structure
engages in a private public partnership agreement to undertake these activities.
8.3.4 System Development/Innovation
The final function of the governance structure will be to spur innovation and not rely on short term
solutions such as export. The governance structure will need to develop the system in a manner which
considers technologies which might be tried and tested abroad as explained in the previous section
but which may be experimental to Malta. Therefore the governance structure would be involved in
the formulation of contracts with entities testing innovative treatment technologies in Malta. The
governance structure could also pre-determine the financial support if relevant, to determine these
technologies including aspects such as land use on behalf of Government. These contracts would also
establish the delivery of manure to ensure utilisation of testing infrastructure. Following the
experimental stage, which may vary depending on the type of technology, the governance structure
should also be involved in the decision making regarding the acceptability of the system.
This element is considered particularly important given the use of partnership agreements expected
under the recently approved RDP 2014-2020 where expenditure has been allocated for encouraging
co-operation. Of particular relevance is the support for pilot projects and technologies whereby
manure is considered as a relevant area of intervention. The management of farm waste has been
identified as a weakness in the Programme and measures identified inthe Programme will seek to
address nitrate pollution by targeting livestock farming and prioritising investments in manure
storage.
8.3.5 Corporate Structure
As explained above, in the absence of private operators which partake in the treatment and disposal
of manure/slurry, the governance structure could be based on the principle of a Private Public
Partnership (PPP). The private operators would be established through a request for proposals with a
five year operational horizon to minimise State Aid issues. These operators could also involve waste
producers and/or treatment services providers which can also apply through an RFP as a group or
participate with other groups. The five year period is considered adequate to cater for development
in the number of farms and heads of livestock as well as technological solutions. It also not excluded
that that the private operators, as a group, are represented under a single entity which is also selected
following a request for proposal.
The Government could allocate a financial support element to the PPP to sustain its operation on a
five year forward looking basis. This could be spelled out in the initial request for proposals, and
estimated at levels which are consistent with climate emissions, water and other environmental cost
120
savings due to the operation of the system. This support would ultimately have a significant influence
on the final cost of the system to farmers and would be subject to state aid considerations.
From a corporate structure point of view, the system would require a Management Board and
Secretariat as well as Executive functions Rural Development Policy across the EU supports the set-up
of co-operations which allow for the set-up of adequate organisation structures for biomass delivery
with emphasis on the utilisation of agricultural waste and residues for renewable energy production
or for bio-based products.
In order to operate the system, it is envisaged that a chief executive officer is required, one or two
agricultural engineers, an environmental specialist in waste management, a logistics officer to cater
for the transport of manure/slurry as well as two legal officers to monitor and update contracts as
well as four support staff.
The operational cost is likely to approximate €450,000 per annum including salaries, renting of office,
running costs and external support. Thus is to be considered in addition to the support to be allocated
by Government to the system in order to alleviate the burden on livestock farmers, subject to State
Aid considerations.
8.3.6 Governance Structure Milestones
A tentative structure of the milestones for the implementation of the Governance structure is
presented hereunder. These milestones take into consideration the deadlines established by the
European Commission in relation to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive
Programmes of Measures, whereby the Commission states that in its second River Basin Management
Plan Malta must submit a plan on resolving the discharge of animal husbandry waste in the sewage
collecting system.
Towards this end, the approval of the Updated Agricultural Waste Management Plan including the
Governance Structure is aimed towards the end of the year, December 2015. Following approval, the
set-up of the Governance Structure should be developed by January 2016 with recruitment of staff
occurring by the first quarter of 2016.
The business plan for the Governance Structure is aimed for completion by May 2016 after which
there will be the issuance for the request for proposals and transformation of the structure in to a
private public partnership by July 2016.
The implementation of Business Plan will include the following elements:
Determination of solutions for each of the 40 largest pig operators by December 201630
Drawing up of contracts with each operator and roll out of solution implementation by June 2017
Determination of solution for each of the largest 50 cattle operators by July 201731
30 Suggested largest pig operators which is to be approved by policymakers. 31 Suggested largest cattle operators which is to be approved by policymakers.
121
Drawing up of contracts with each operator and roll out of solution implementation by October
2017
Following the initial operational developed of the governance structure, it is suggested that there is a
gradual rollout to all other livestock operators such that by the end of December 2017, all livestock
operators falling outside the limit set by LN 94 of 2015 are included in the structure.
122
Figure 8.1: Governance Structure Milestones
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecGovernment approval of the Updated Agricultura l
Waste Management Plan including the
Governance Structure
Setting up of the Governance Unit
Recruitment of s taff
Drawing up of bus iness plan
Issuance of RFP and transformation of
Governance unit into PPP
Implementation of Business Plan which includes the
following elements:
Determination of solutions for each of the 40 (?)
largest pig operators
Drawing up of contracts with each operator and
rol l out of solution implementation
Determination of solution for each of the largest
50 (?) cattle operators
Drawing up of contracts with each operator and
rol l out of solution implementation
Gradual rol lout to a l l other l ivestock operators
2015 2016 2017
123
9. CONCLUSION
This Agricultural Waste Management Plan has been developed in a manner which takes into account
the legislative framework under which the livestock sector must operate as well as current practices
in the treatment and disposal of waste distinguishing between the generation of slurry and manure.
The specific constraints in developing the options outlined in the Plan have mainly focused on
adherence to the Nitrates directive, Water Framework Directive and Urban Wastewater Directive.
As explained in the report, there are a number of uncertainties associated with the generation of
manure/slurry including albeit not restricted to the uncertainties associated with the forecasts of
livestock heads, the mass of waste generation which is also affected by the water added to the pig
slurry, the amount of nitrates applied to land as well as the future development of cost variables.
These elements of uncertainty and risk have set the framework for the development of options which
cater for a degree of flexibility.
In the short term, the system will have to rely on the export of agricultural waste with the option
serving as a stop gap solution until other technical options are developed and implemented. In the
medium to long-term the system will need to implement innovative solutions which take into account
the specific characteristics of the Maltese Islands. It is emphasised that this report is not indicating
any one particular solution as being the preferred one, but rather advocates the need for a mix of
solutions which consider specific needs and requirements of different farms at different points in time.
The critical activities in the development of the system are to:
To obtain forecasts for application of N to land on basis of soil sampling under Nitrates Action
Plan
Promotion of efficient on-farm practices to minimise generations of waste
Obtain decisions regarding whether the development of digestion plants in Malta and/or Gozo
are politically/socially acceptable and consider the environmental and planning feasibility of
the infrastructure
Obtain policy decisions regarding change of use of farms
Promote experimental and innovative methods of treatment and disposal to determine the
technical viability of these options for Malta
These pillars of the agricultural waste management plan cannot be considered in isolation. A coherent
and flexible policy mix is required to contribute towards a compliant and cost effective system. This in
turn requires a framework of effective supervision and enforcement of legislation. The effective
supervision requires the development of a governance structure which can focus on each elements of
the pillar including the minimisation of waste generation, compliance with legislation, optimisation of
management options as well as promotion of innovation at least within the local context.
124
REFERENCES
Envico Consultancy, (2013), ‘Report on Volume Excretion Figures (per animal type) for Three Main Animal Categories (Sows, Heifers & Calves)’. European Commission, (2015), ‘Commission Staff Working Document Report on the progress in
implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures.
Frandsen, T. Q. Rodhe, L., Baky, A., Edström, M., Sipilä, I., K., Petersen, S.L., Tybirk, K., (2011). ‘Best
Available Technologies for pig Manure Biogas Plants in the Baltic Sea Region’
Ministry for Sustainable Development. The Environment and Climate Change, (2014), ‘Waste
Management Plan for the Maltese Islands 2014-2020 (WMP2014-2020)’
MEPA, (2011), ‘The Water Catchment Management Plan for the Maltese Islands‘
MEPA, (2009). ‘Malta’s Biennial Report on Policies and Measures and Projected Greenhouse Gas
Emissions’.
National Statistics Office, (2013), ‘Agriculture and Fisheries’.
National Statistics Office, (2010), ‘Census of Agriculture’.
Sustech Consulting, (2008), ‘Agricultural Waste Management Plan for the Maltese Islands’.
Mallia and Right (2004), MINAS: A post mortem?’, Rosklide University,
125
Annex 1: Detailed Scenario Results (Cattle Manure and Pig Slurry Applied to Crops)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cattle Cattle Cattle
Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8
N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149 N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149 N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149
volume (m3) 113,891 103,391 103,391 103,391 volume (m3) 113,891 103,391 103,391 103,391 volume (m3) 113,891 103,391 103,391 103,391
Pig Pig Pig
Heads (000s) 42.7 34.9 34.9 34.9 Heads (000s) 42.7 34.9 34.9 34.9 Heads (000s) 42.7 34.9 34.9 34.9
N (kgs) 426,705 348,703 348,703 348,703 N (kgs) 426,705 348,703 348,703 348,703 N (kgs) 426,705 348,703 348,703 348,703
Total N (kgs) 1,158,307 1,012,853 1,012,853 1,012,853 Total N (kgs) 1,158,307 1,012,853 1,012,853 1,012,853 Total N (kgs) 1,158,307 1,012,853 1,012,853 1,012,853
UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776 UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776 UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776
N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022 N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022 N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022
N (kgs) 116,015- 229,929- 199,168- 169,169- N (kgs) 202,565 80,767 199,168- 169,169- N (kgs) 521,146 391,462 199,168- 169,169-
GNB/ha -9.99 -20.29 -18.02 -15.70 GNB/ha 17.44 7.13 -18.02 -15.70 GNB/ha 44.86 34.55 -18.02 -15.70
Cumulative starting in 2015 -9.99 -85.68 -181.48 -265.78 Cumulative starting in 2015 17.44 78.84 51.60 -32.70 Cumulative starting in 2015 44.86 243.37 284.69 200.38
Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3):
Cattle - - - - Cattle 31,534 12,573 - - Cattle 81,129 60,940 - -
N (kgs) 202,565 80,767 103,837 126,336 N (kgs) 521,146 391,462 103,837 126,336 N (kgs) 839,727 702,157 103,837 126,336
GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3):
Cattle 31,534 12,573 16,165 19,667 Cattle 81,129 60,940 16,165 19,667 Cattle 130,723 109,308 16,165 19,667
N (kgs) 518,985 405,071 435,832 465,831 N (kgs) 837,565 715,767 435,832 465,831 N (kgs) 1,156,146 1,012,853 435,832 465,831
GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3):
Cattle 80,792 63,059 67,848 72,518 Cattle 130,387 111,426 67,848 72,518 Cattle 179,982 157,675 67,848 72,518
No prioritisation of Uptake of N from Soil by Crops
Surplus (assuming inorganic at 2007 level, 635000kg):
Surplus (assuming 25% inorganic):
Surplus (assuming no inorganic):
N Application to Crop
Generation
Surplus (assuming inorganic at 2007 level, 635000kg):
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Crops at 25% of Uptake
Generation
N Application to Crop
Surplus (assuming no inorganic):
Surplus (assuming 25% inorganic):
Surplus (assuming inorganic at 2007 level, 635000kg):
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Crops at 50% of Uptake
Generation
N Application to Crop
Surplus (assuming no inorganic):
Surplus (assuming 25% inorganic):
126
Annex 2: Detailed Scenario Results (Cattle Manure Only Applied to Crops)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cattle Cattle Cattle
Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 Heads (000s) 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8
N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149 N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149 N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149
volume (m3) 113,928 103,424 103,424 103,424 volume (m3) 113,928 103,424 103,424 103,424 volume (m3) 113,928 103,424 103,424 103,424
Pig Pig Pig
Heads (000s) - - - - Heads (000s) - - - - Heads (000s) - - - -
N (kgs) - - - - N (kgs) - - - - N (kgs) - - - -
Total N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149 Total N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149 Total N (kgs) 731,602 664,149 664,149 664,149
UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776 UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776 UAA (ha) 11,618 11,330 11,050 10,776
N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022 N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022 N uptake by crops 1,274,323 1,242,781 1,212,021 1,182,022
N (kgs) 542,721- 578,632- 547,872- 517,873- N (kgs) 224,140- 267,937- 547,872- 517,873- N (kgs) 94,441 42,759 547,872- 517,873-
GNB/ha -46.71 -51.07 -49.58 -48.06 GNB/ha -19.29 -23.65 -49.58 -48.06 GNB/ha 8.13 3.77 -49.58 -48.06
Cumulative starting in 2015 -46.71 -291.17 -542.80 -786.89 Cumulative starting in 2015 -19.29 -126.64 -309.71 -553.81 Cumulative starting in 2015 8.13 37.89 -76.63 -320.73
Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3):
Cattle - - - - Cattle - - - - Cattle 14,707 6,659 - -
N (kgs) 224,140- 267,937- 244,866- 222,367- N (kgs) 94,441 42,759 244,866- 222,367- N (kgs) 413,021 353,454 244,866- 222,367-
GNB/ha -19.29 -23.65 -22.16 -20.63 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 -22.16 -20.63 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 -22.16 -20.63
Cumulative starting in 2015 -19.29 -126.64 -241.16 -348.15 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 -55.40 -162.39 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 -55.40 -162.39
Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3):
Cattle - - - - Cattle 14,707 6,659 - - Cattle 64,317 55,041 - -
N (kgs) 92,279 56,368 87,128 117,127 N (kgs) 410,860 367,063 87,128 117,127 N (kgs) 729,441 664,149 87,128 117,127
GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GNB/ha 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative starting in 2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3): Treatment volumes (m3):
Cattle 14,370 8,778 13,568 18,240 Cattle 63,981 57,161 13,568 18,240 Cattle 113,591 103,424 13,568 18,240
No prioritisation of Uptake of N from Soil by Crops
Surplus (assuming inorganic at 2007 level, 635000kg):
Surplus (assuming 25% inorganic):
Surplus (assuming no inorganic):
N Application to Crop
Generation
Surplus (assuming inorganic at 2007 level, 635000kg):
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Crops at 25% of Uptake
Generation
N Application to Crop
Surplus (assuming no inorganic):
Surplus (assuming 25% inorganic):
Surplus (assuming inorganic at 2007 level, 635000kg):
Prioritisation of Uptake of N from Crops at 50% of Uptake
Generation
N Application to Crop
Surplus (assuming no inorganic):
Surplus (assuming 25% inorganic):
