Final products 

The success of biological waste treatment is ultimately defined by the quality and value of its outputs, which elevate waste from disposal to resource recovery. The main products are compost, produced through aerobic treatment, and digestate, the nutrient-rich liquid or solid derived from anaerobic digestion. Both serve as effective soil improvers or fertilizers and must undergo laboratory testing to verify their nutrient levels and suitability for agricultural application.

Biogas generated during anaerobic digestion is itself a marketable energy product. After cleaning, it can be used on-site in combined heat and power (CHP) systems or upgraded to biomethane for injection into the natural gas grid. However, raw biogas contains water vapour and harmful impurities, especially hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) and siloxanes, that must be removed. H₂S causes rapid corrosion of engines and pipelines and must be reduced to very low levels (typically <200 ppm). Siloxanes form abrasive silica deposits during combustion, damaging equipment.

Emission control 

Biological waste treatment facilities must tightly control air and water emissions, especially NH₃, VOCs, and CH₄, and manage odour impacts. Compliance is guided by the Waste Treatment BREF and its binding BAT-AELs, which set strict limits for pollutants (e.g., 5-40 mg/Nm³ for VOCs and 5-25 mg/Nm³ for NH₃). Anaerobic digestion plants must prevent methane losses through highly efficient biogas capture and use. Under the Industrial Emissions Directive, facilities must regularly monitor key emissions and meet wastewater limits such as 1-25 mg/L total nitrogen. 

Separation of impurities and contaminants

To ensure a high-quality soil improver, both anaerobic and aerobic treatment plants require thorough pre- and post-separation steps. The main objectives are to separate bio-waste fractions according to their suitability for composting or anaerobic digestion, and to remove all impurities and non-biodegradable contaminants. 

The choice of processing method depends on both the desired end product and the characteristics of the input material. Soil improvers can be produced through composting alone or through a combination of composting and anaerobic digestion. The technical systems used for the treatment processes are outlined briefly in the following section.

Aerobic treatment (composting) 

Composting is an aerobic process that depends on a continuous supply of oxygen (O₂) to support a diverse microbial community that transforms organic waste into a stable soil improver. The biological degradation follows a characteristic temperature cycle: it begins with a mesophilic phase, during which moderate temperatures support the rapid breakdown of organic acids, and then shifts to a thermophilic phase, 55-65 °C, for several days. This high-temperature stage is essential for hygienisation.

Anaerobic processes (fermentation)

Anaerobic digestion is the microbial breakdown of organic matter in the absence of O2, primarily yielding methane (CH4)-rich biogas and nutrient-rich digestate. The process is defined whether the feeding and discharge are continuous, and whether the feedstock is "wet" (slurry) or "dry" (solid).

Hygienisation: essential pre- or post-treatment step ensuring compost and digestate are safe for agricultural use. Separation of impurities is required before and after sieving. Under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR 2019/1009), compost must reach 70 °C for 2–3 days, while digestate from thermophilic anaerobic treatment must undergo 55 °C treatment followed by composting or pasteurisation at 70 °C; longer durations are required if these temperatures cannot be achieved. For sensitive materials such as animal by-products, waste must be shredded to 12 mm and heated to 70 °C for at least one hour to eliminate pathogens such as Salmonella and E. coli.

Maturing: final stabilisation phase for compost and solid digestate, ensuring the product is safe for crops and does not harm soil. 

The following collection strategies are presented with the understanding that effective organic waste management must be adapted to local conditions, as no one-size-fits-all solution exists for municipalities.

Community composting engages environmentally motivated citizens and can be supported by municipalities through dedicated spaces, areas for the use of soil improvers, and practical guidance. Within the Bin2Bean Living Labs, it is considered a complementary solution that raises awareness of bio-waste valorisation and soil health. While it ensures high input quality and low municipal costs, the total volume collected and the available application areas remain limited.

Recycling centres and dedicated garden waste collection sites provide an effective pathway for green waste such as grass, leaves, and branches. In the Living Labs, they serve as key access points, especially for residents unable to compost at home. Measures such as automated drop-off stations and decentralised neighbourhood points are explored to improve efficiency and accessibility.

Collection frequency should reflect local climate conditions. Warm and humid weather accelerates decomposition, increasing odour and quality issues if collection is too infrequent. Mitigation measures include closed bins, ventilation systems, and lids with odour-absorbing materials.

In densely populated areas, kerbside bins are often impractical, leading to the use of shared containers or underground systems. However, Bin2Bean findings show that while effective for residual waste, these solutions often lead to contamination when used for bio-waste. Causes include user anonymity, limited in-home storage, long walking distances, and insufficiently tailored communication.

Example from Haute-Savoie (France): BioCyclette

BioCyclette is an activity of a regional environmental association in the French Department of Haute Savoie. Cargo bikes with a capacity of 250 kg are used for collecting organic waste from restaurants and hotels.

Sound planning is essential for successful bio-waste management. The Bin2Bean Living Labs show that every stage of the value chain must align with local and regional conditions. Pilot projects are crucial for testing technical, economic, and social assumptions and should come before full-scale implementation, regardless of the business model.

Effective municipal systems start with clear targets based on the availability and quality of organic waste, market demand for compost and digestate, and the capacity of existing treatment facilities. In Bin2Bean, municipalities assess these factors in real conditions, mapping bio-waste flows and aligning collection with processing needs and market demand. Financial planning is equally important, covering costs such as personnel, logistics, and operations, while revenues depend on waste fees and product markets.

Pilot projects play a central role in the Bin2Bean approach. Living Labs are used to test and refine collection systems before scaling up, including bin types, placement, collection schedules, and the inclusion of commercial bio-waste producers. This iterative testing reduces implementation risks and supports evidence-based decision-making.

Citizen engagement is another critical success factor. Bin2Bean Living Labs combine awareness-raising on the link between organic waste, soil health, and climate benefits with practical measures that make separate collection easy and intuitive. Intrinsic motivation is reinforced through education and community involvement, while extrinsic incentives such as differentiated fees, feedback mechanisms, and regulatory enforcement support consistent participation.

Quality and safety monitoring across the entire chain ensures compliance, contaminant control, and proper nutrient content.

Strong collaboration between municipalities, operators, and farmers supports continuous improvement, builds trust, and strengthens long-term market viability.

The value chain: a challenging business

Organic waste valorisation typically occurs within local or regional value chains, supplying products such as compost, digestate, and biogas to farmers, gardeners, and potting-soil producers (see Figure below). These products are derived from diverse sources, including households, public parks, restaurants, and commercial activities. Although the value chain is relatively simple, ensuring consistent product quality and reliable supply is challenging.

However, market opportunities are growing: the EU’s CAP Strategic Plans (2023-2027) encourage replacing mineral fertilizers with organic alternatives like compost, increasing demand for bio-waste-based products.

Compost, digestate, biogas, and by-products are key outputs of organic-waste processing:

• compost: solid product of aerobic treatment, rich in humus and nutrients (N, P, K, trace minerals). It improves soil structure and biology, supports beneficial microbes, and contributes to long-term carbon sequestration. Requirements fall under FPR PFC 3(A).
• digestate: liquid, nutrient-dense residue from anaerobic digestion. Classified as a fertilizer under FPR CMC3/CMC4.
• biogas: produced during anaerobic digestion and upgraded to biomethane by removing CO₂, H₂S, and moisture. Must comply with RED III sustainability criteria.
• special chemicals: certain food-industry wastes (e.g., fruit peels) can be refined into higher-value chemicals such as organic acids.
• wood chips: woody fractions can be used as fuel or sold as raw material.

Bio-waste matters!

Biodegradable organic waste makes up about 34% of municipal waste in the EU, 86 million tons annually. To meet EU recycling goals (65% by 2035) and landfill reduction requirements (maximum 10% of municipal waste landfilled by 2035), municipalities are increasingly required to separately collect bio-waste (mandatory since 2024) and enhance its recycling.

Recycling bio-waste into compost, soil improvers, fertilisers, and biogas delivers significant environmental benefits and is a central focus of the Bin2Bean project, which aims to close the loop between urban bio-waste streams and soil health. Diverting organic waste from landfills prevents methane emissions, a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential approximately 25 times higher than CO₂. Incinerating waste, on the other hand, destroys valuable organic material and releases additional CO₂.

The need for such solutions is particularly acute in Europe, where many regions suffer from declining soil fertility, loss of humus, and increased erosion. Through its Living Labs, Bin2Bean assesses how improved bio-waste collection systems and economic incentives can enhance the availability and quality of compost and soil improvers, contributing to soil regeneration and climate resilience.

Despite these pressing environmental needs and policy ambitions, progress remains limited. In 2018, only 17% of municipal waste in the EU was composted or anaerobically digested, highlighting a significant gap between potential and practice. 

The Bin2Bean project is boosting the market deployment of safe, effective and sustainable soil-improvement solutions derived from bio-waste. Policy guidelines and waste-charging roadmaps are essential to support this transition. 

Turning Bio-waste into Soil Improvers: the Living Labs example

When properly collected and treated, bio-waste can be transformed into compost and soil improvers that support healthy soils and agriculture, while also generating renewable energy through biogas. Diverting bio-waste from landfills reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps address soil degradation, which affects about 46% of Europe’s land. Since bio-waste represents roughly one-third of EU household waste, improving its recycling can significantly reduce environmental pressures and reliance on landfilling and incineration.

Funded by Horizon Europe, Bin2Bean supports European cities in transitioning toward regenerative soil systems by promoting innovative and economically viable value chains that valorise bio-waste. The project operates three Living Labs in Amsterdam, Hamburg and Egaleo, where locally adapted solutions are developed, tested and validated for replication in other urban contexts. These Living Labs act as real-world environments to map waste flows, test soil improvers and co-design evaluation frameworks assessing safety, environmental performance and socio-economic impact.

Initial results show strong engagement of stakeholders and households through co-creation activities, awareness campaigns and strategies to improve separate organic waste collection. 

By generating experimental data and developing tools such as a scoring system to help cities identify suitable solutions, Bin2Bean contributes to key EU targets, including reducing landfill waste to 10% of municipal waste by 2035 and sustainably returning nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus to soils.

The Living Labs of Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Egaleo serve as inspiration and experimental testbeds for the Bin2Bean project. They help explore how different cities address waste system challenges and implement solutions for organic waste recycling. This abstract, dedicated to Egaleo Living Lab, dives into these questions through the lens of policy guidelines and roadmaps.

Greece’s waste management
Greece transposed the EU Waste Framework Directive into Law 4819/2021, defining its current waste system. Municipalities prepare local plans and organise separate collection in line with Regional Plans (PESDA). The National Waste Management Plan 2020–2030 promotes recycling through tools such as landfill taxes and PAYT schemes. PAYT became mandatory in 2023 for municipalities over 100,000 residents and will extend to those above 20,000 by 2028.

Egaleo Living Lab case
Egaleo, a dense city in Attica with 65,000 residents, faces waste challenges within its 6.5 km² area. In 2020, it produced 573 kg of waste per capita; about 13,000 tonnes were recycled, while 27,000 tonnes were landfilled. A 2019–2020 bio-waste pilot collected 800 tonnes but faced contamination and low public awareness, worsened during COVID-19.

Collection takes place 2–3 times per week, with plans to expand to apartment buildings using tagged bins to improve monitoring. Key challenges include limited incentives, low awareness, and the need for better communication and door-to-door schemes.

Within Bin2Bean, activities included deploying 120 bins (30–40 tonnes/month), involving 400 households, distributing 2,000 paper bags, and engaging 11 schools in recycling initiatives. Long-term success will depend on future municipal policies.

The Living Labs of Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Egaleo serve as inspiration and experimental testbeds for the Bin2Bean project. They help explore how different cities address waste system challenges and implement solutions for organic waste recycling. This abstract is specifically dedicated to Hamburg Living Lab.

Germany’s Waste Management

Germany’s waste framework has evolved from the 1972 Waste Disposal Act to the current Circular Economy Act, aligned with EU law since 2012. Municipalities are responsible for household waste and define rules on participation, collection, and service use. The system is decentralised, requires cost-covering fees, and allows differentiated pricing such as PAYT schemes and incentives for home composting.

Hamburg Living Lab case

In Hamburg, waste is managed by Stadtreinigung Hamburg (SRH), serving about one million households. Collection is mainly door-to-door with separate streams for residual waste, paper, packaging, and bio-waste; alternatives include bags or underground containers where space is limited. Twelve recycling centres complement the system. Bio-waste collection, introduced in the 1980s and mandatory since 1994, has improved over time, yet about 32% of compostable waste still ends up in residual waste. Garden owners may opt out if composting at home. Underground systems often face contamination due to low social control. Organic waste is treated at Kompostwerk Bützberg, producing energy and compost.

Hamburg applies a PAYT-based fee system linked to container size and collection frequency. Bio-waste bins are significantly cheaper than residual ones, while paper collection is free. A basic monthly fee applies, with total annual waste revenues reflecting broad system coverage.

Within Bin2Bean, activities involved UFS sites and thousands of users, combining surveys, workshops, and practical tools such as compost samples, biobags, and communication materials to improve waste collection.

The Living Labs of Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Egaleo serve as inspiration and experimental testbeds for the Bin2Bean project. They help explore how different cities address waste system challenges and implement solutions for organic waste recycling. This abstract, focused on the Amsterdam Living Lab, examines these issues through policy frameworks and implementation roadmaps.

The Netherlands’ waste management
In the Netherlands, the Environmental Management Act provides the legal basis for environmental policy, including municipal waste management through the National Waste Management Plan (LAP). Dutch policy prioritises separate collection, requiring municipalities to collect bio-waste separately from households and businesses.

Amsterdam Living Lab case
Amsterdam, with over 900,000 residents across 220 km², faces significant waste challenges due to high density, waterways, and limited space for containers. Underground infrastructure further restricts bin placement, especially in the city centre. The city’s seven districts manage waste collection independently, leading to different systems and bin types. As a result, bio-waste collection remains limited, with about 98% of food waste still incinerated.

Waste fees are a flat rate: as of May 2025, single households pay €352 per year and larger households €469, providing no financial incentive for separation. Initiatives such as “Afval naar Oogst” encourage voluntary food waste separation by allowing residents to bring organic scraps to community gardens for composting.

Bin2Bean Living Lab activities aim to improve separation and collection through technical and social innovations. A project lab is developing a kitchen sink grinder to reduce waste volume and recover up to 65% of dry matter for use in gardens and agriculture. The project also conducts life cycle assessments, socio-economic analysis, and business modelling using local datasets to support municipal decision-making.

In Europe, the shift toward a circular economy is well underway: waste is increasingly sorted and recycled, bio-waste is separately collected, polluters are held accountable, and landfilling is being strongly reduced. This transformation is driven by an evolving EU legal framework and ambitious environmental targets.

How the legal framework supports PAYT policies
The EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), adopted in 2008, lays the foundation for waste management across Member States. It defines key concepts, promotes protection of human health and the environment, introduces the waste hierarchy, and supports the transition to a circular economy. It also clarifies when waste becomes a secondary raw material. These principles underpin initiatives such as Bin2Bean, which tests innovative charging and bio-waste valorisation systems.

A central principle is the polluter-pays principle, introduced by the OECD in 1972 and later embedded in EU law. It requires those responsible for pollution to cover its environmental costs. PAYT systems directly apply this principle by linking waste fees to individual behaviour, an approach explored in Bin2Bean Living Labs.

EU targets reinforce this direction: by 2035, at least 65% of municipal waste must be recycled or prepared for reuse. Bio-waste is crucial in this transition. Since the end of 2023, it must be collected separately, and from 2027 only separately collected bio-waste will count toward recycling targets.

Recent reforms further strengthen ambition. A 2025 amendment introduced binding food waste reduction targets for 2030. The revised Landfill Directive limits landfill to 10% of municipal waste by 2035 and bans landfilling recyclable waste from 2030. To achieve these goals, Member States are encouraged to use economic tools such as PAYT, aligning regulation with incentives and supporting circular economy implementation.

User identification plays a key role in supporting such systems. Key questions include how it is implemented in the EU and which data protection rules apply. Properly designed identification can improve bio-waste quality, especially in multi-tenant buildings, while complying with GDPR. Municipalities use inspections, penalties, or ID-based schemes, as seen in Italy and France. Despite privacy concerns, these approaches can enhance separation, accountability, and traceability within legal limits.

Bio-waste quality and data protection regulation in the EU 

User identification can improve bio-waste quality, especially in multi-tenant buildings where shared containers increase contamination risks. In the Bin2Bean project, this is identified as a barrier to high-quality organic fractions for composting in dense urban Living Labs. Systems must comply with GDPR principles (lawful basis, data minimisation, transparency). Single-family homes are simpler; multi-tenant buildings are more complex due to liability and data governance. Municipalities already use inspections, penalties, or higher fees for contaminated waste. Privacy concerns may slow adoption, but risks are often overstated; well-designed systems can comply, though they require administrative effort.

User identification case #1 - Italy

A case in a small town in Italy (30,000 inhabitants) shows that user identification which aligns with data protection may be possible. Barcodes are assigned randomly to residual waste bags (“grey” - residual waste; “yellow” - plastics and metal) and given to each household. 

User identification case #2 - France

In Limoges, home to 130,000 residents, each household receives a personal badge, the key to the city’s bio-waste collection points. As the badge opens the bins, the system records household contact information and number of occupants. This data helps the city manage its bring-points efficiently, ensuring every resident plays a part in keeping Limoges’ bio-waste stream traceable.

Continuing the exploration of policy guidelines, this abstract examines waste charging systems, from traditional models to Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT), now adopted in several European countries.

Traditional Waste Charging Systems: Characteristics and Limits 

Waste charging approaches vary widely, from flat-rate or tax-based systems to more advanced models. However, as municipalities face growing pressure to reduce waste and improve recycling, traditional systems show clear limitations. Flat-rate schemes charge households based on size or property characteristics, regardless of waste produced. While simple to administer, they provide no incentive to reduce waste or improve separation. Similarly, tax-based systems linked to property or service use fail to reward better waste practices. Evidence from the Bin2Bean Living Labs shows these limits can negatively affect the quality of separately collected organic waste.

Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT): Overview

PAYT systems address these issues by applying the polluter-pays principle, linking fees directly to the amount of waste generated. By introducing variable pricing, PAYT encourages waste reduction and improved recycling. Common models include volume, bag, weight, and frequency-based systems. Although more complex to manage, PAYT has proven effective in reducing waste and enhancing separation.

Successful implementation requires identifying users or containers, measuring waste, and applying unit-based pricing. Resident engagement is essential to ensure proper participation and sorting. Measurement methods range from standard container volumes and prepaid bags to advanced technologies such as sensors or weight-based systems. PAYT typically combines a fixed fee for administrative costs with a variable fee covering collection and treatment, supporting both economic sustainability and public acceptance.

The Bin2Bean project is boosting the market deployment of safe, effective and sustainable soil-improvement innovations derived from bio-waste. Policy guidelines and waste-charging roadmaps are essential to support the implementation of such a green initiative.

The Role of Economic Instruments in Waste Charging Systems

Municipalities in the European Union manage waste collection, transport, recovery, and disposal, within national regulatory frameworks. Achieving EU recycling and landfill targets depends on local implementation, funded mainly through citizen fees. While awareness supports behavioural change, economic instruments are key, applying the polluter-pays principle to align incentives with environmental goals and promote waste reduction and better source separation.

The Bin2Bean Living Labs in Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Egaleo illustrate how economic instruments operate in different local contexts.

• In Amsterdam, where waste charging systems are relatively mature, the Living Lab focuses on optimising existing variable fee structures and combining them with targeted communication actions to further improve participation and bio-waste separation quality.
• In Hamburg, economic instruments are complemented by strong operational and quality-control measures. Waste charging is integrated with actions aimed at reducing contamination in bio-waste streams, demonstrating how financial incentives and regulatory tools can work together to enhance collection and material quality.
• In Egaleo, where waste charging systems are less developed, the Living Lab explores the gradual introduction and acceptance of economic incentives. Pilot actions assess how financial mechanisms, supported by community engagement, can improve source separation in transitioning waste management systems.

Overall, Bin2Bean highlights that economic instruments are most effective when embedded in a broader governance framework combining financial incentives, communication, and local adaptation.

The cornerstone of European legislation defining 'organic waste,' more specifically 'biowaste,' is the Waste Framework Directive (2018). This directive, particularly in Article 22, requires EU member states to ensure proper management of biowaste. This includes separating and recycling biowaste at its source or collecting it separately to prevent contamination with other waste types.

The directive categorizes biowaste as follows:

• Biodegradable garden and park waste.
• Food and kitchen waste from homes, restaurants, catering services, retail stores, and food processing facilities.

It is important to highlight that the definition excludes forestry and agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, and other biodegradable waste such as natural textiles, paper, and processed wood.

In addition to the definition, the Waste Framework Directive introduces the "waste hierarchy," a priority order for waste management and disposal. The hierarchy stipulates that waste prevention is the absolute priority, followed by reuse, recycling, and other forms of recovery. Landfilling is the last resort, to be used only when all other options have been exhausted.

In summary, the European regulatory framework for bio-waste is based on two fundamental principles:

● Obligation of separate collection: Bio-waste must be separated from other waste to allow for its recycling and eventually the production of high-quality compost and digestate. These products can then be used in agriculture to restore soil health.

● Waste hierarchy: Waste prevention is the priority, followed by reuse and recycling. Landfilling is the last (and least preferred) option.

The Waste Framework Directive provides a general framework, leaving Member States the freedom to adopt specific measures for managing bio-waste based on their needs and local context. However, the common goal is to promote an effective and efficient bio-waste management system that contributes to environmental protection, soil health, and food safety.

• Handbook of recommendations and good practices – a European perspective

The right separation of biowaste is a crucial step in an efficient and sustainable waste management system. This can positively influence the quality of the biowaste (less impurities), thus making the quality of the derived compost or digestate superior. 

Tools for Separation

Biowaste bins - These are small containers, generally 5 to 10 liters, placed in the kitchen to collect organic waste produced at home. The small size of the bio-bucket encourages frequent emptying, reducing bad smells and hygiene problems.

Bags - These can be used inside biowaste bins to facilitate the emptying and transport of organic waste. Compostable bags, certified according to the EN 13432 standard, are recommended by some municipalities and waste management operators. However, the use of compostable bags is a subject of debate, as their presence can affect the composting process.

Waste bins for separate collection -These are larger containers placed outside of homes or at collection points, used by waste management services to collect bio-waste. The size of the bins varies depending on the type of collection, population density, and the amount of bio-waste produced.

Main collection methods

Door-to-door collection: Door-to-door collection is considered the most efficient method for collecting bio-waste, as it ensures greater citizen participation and better quality of the collected material. 

Street collection points: This method involves placing containers for the collection of bio-waste at strategic points in the territory. Although cheaper than door-to-door collection, collection using street collection points can lead to a lower quality of the collected material and a greater presence of impurities.

Collection centers: Collection centers, or eco-islands, offer citizens the opportunity to dispose of various types of waste, including bio-waste, in a separate manner. This method is particularly useful for collecting bulky waste (like prunings) or waste produced in limited quantities

• Handbook of recommendations and good practices – a European perspective

The distinction between fertilizers and soil improvers is fundamental to understanding how to care for the soil and promote healthy plant growth. Fertilizers, as the name suggests, have the primary purpose of providing nutrients to plants to promote growth. They are like an immediate "meal" for plants, rich in essential elements such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K).

Soil improvers, on the other hand, work in a more holistic way, focusing on improving the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil itself. Instead of providing an immediate injection of nutrients, they work to create a healthy and fertile environment in the long term. Soil improvers, like compost, do not just "feed" the plants but "feed" the soil, promoting a vibrant and resilient ecosystem.

The Benefits of Soil improvers: Increased Organic matter

Soil improvers, especially compost, are rich in stable organic matter, which significantly contributes to the soil's organic matter content. Organic matter is the lifeblood of the soil, playing a crucial role in a number of essential functions, including: 

• Nutrient supply: Organic matter acts as a slow-release nutrient reservoir for plants. While fertilizers provide an immediate injection, organic matter releases nutrients gradually over time, ensuring a constant and balanced supply.
• Soil structure: Organic matter improves soil structure by binding soil particles into stable aggregates. This creates a porous environment that promotes air circulation, drainage, and root penetration. A well-structured soil is less prone to compaction and erosion.
• Water retention: Organic matter acts like a sponge, absorbing and holding water in the soil. This is especially important in arid or drought-prone regions, improving plant resistance to water scarcity.
• Biological activity: Organic matter provides food and habitat for a wide range of beneficial soil organisms, including bacteria, fungi, earthworms, and insects. This soil biodive

• Handbook of recommendations and good practices – a European perspective

Another very important benefit of Soil improvers is the capability to increase carbon sequestration 

Carbon sequestration: Compost plays a crucial role in carbon sequestration, a process that helps mitigate climate change. This process is defined as a persistent increase in soil organic carbon resulting from the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The repeated application of compost can increase the soil organic carbon content by up to 90% compared to unfertilized soil and up to 100% compared to treatments with chemical fertilizers. Studies have shown that, over a period of 4-12 years, between 11% and 45% of the organic carbon applied to the soil as compost remained as soil organic carbon.The main benefits of soil carbon sequestration include:

• Mitigating climate change: Soil carbon sequestration reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Improving soil health: Soil organic carbon contributes to soil structure, water retention, and fertility.
• Reducing methane emissions: Applying compost to soil can reduce methane emissions from the decomposition of organic waste in landfills.

The effectiveness of carbon sequestration through compost application depends on several factors, including the amount of compost added, the maturity and stability of the compost, and soil conditions. It is important to note that the soil's ability to sequester carbon does not increase linearly with the application of compost. The greatest benefits are observed in the first 20 years or so, after which the increase in soil organic carbon slows down as a new equilibrium is reached.

• Handbook of recommendations and good practices – a European perspective

Soil improvers, such as compost, can help suppress plant diseases. This occurs through the promotion of beneficial microorganisms in the soil that compete with pathogens. The effectiveness of disease suppression depends on several factors, including:

• Compost inclusion rate: High amounts of compost, often with inclusion rates below 20% v/v in the soil, are often necessary to achieve significant disease suppression in the field.
• Type of compost: Different types of compost can have varying disease suppression capabilities. For example, compost derived from green waste may be effective in suppressing certain soil pathogens.
• Soil type: The effectiveness of disease suppression can vary depending on the soil type.
• Type of disease: Compost may be more effective in suppressing certain types of diseases than others.

Some examples of pathogens suppressed by compost, include Fusarium oxysporum and Pythium spp. 

Most of the research on disease suppression by compost has been conducted in lab environment, and further research is needed to fully understand the effectiveness of compost in suppressing diseases in field conditions.

In general, the use of soil improvers like compost can help create a healthier and more resilient soil environment, which can help reduce the incidence of plant diseases. However, it is important to use compost appropriately and in combination with other disease management practices to achieve the best results.

Key points:

• Compost promotes beneficial microorganisms that compete with plant pathogens.
• The effectiveness of compost in disease suppression depends on factors like the amount of compost used, the type of compost, soil type, and the specific disease.
• More research is needed to understand how compost works in larger, field-based environments.
• Using compost in combination with other disease management practices is recommended for optimal results.

• Handbook of recommendations and good practices – a European perspective

The Bin2Bean project will support European cities by promoting innovations that aim to valorise bio-waste and optimising their recycling into soil improvers through innovative and economically viable value chain. Partners follow the PLAN-DO-CHCEK-ACT approach outlined below

PLAN - MAPPING CONTEXTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Beginning with an in-depth analysis of local, national, and EU contexts regarding bio-waste collection and recycling into soil improvers, the project will first assess the state-of-the-art within cities, identifying challenges and opportunities that the project could address and proposing scenarios to guide the selection of the most suitable approach for their context. For each LL, 5-10 solutions will be selected for a further screening and implementation.

DO - DEVELOPING AN IMPROVED EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

The development and validation of an improved evaluation framework for safe and sustainable soil improvers from bio-waste, based on social, economic and environmental indicators and adapting to local contexts, is a relevant and crucial step for the selection of the most valuable selected solutions.

CHECK - TESTING THE PERFORMANCES OF SOLUTIONS

After testing the performance of soil improvers on experimental sites and assessing end-user acceptance, data will feed into decision tools for cities and end-users— a scoring system and FARM MAPs—to select the most suitable and promising solutions

ACT - LOCAL BUSINESS MODELS AND STRATEGIES

Local business models and go-to-market strategies will be developed for selected solutions and end-users acceptance and willingness to adopt will be assessed in order to increase their market uptake and the transition from innovation to practical implementation.

ACT - ADVISING CITIES

Advise cities on boosting the production of soil improvers from bio-waste at the local level is at the core of the BIN2BEAN project which will update local regulations and policy actions based on project results and support the creation of new local funding opportunities to foster the development and deployment of selected solutions. As one of the main project output, the project will deliver a toolbox for cities will include a roadmap, guiding local authorities to implement the BIN2BEAN approach in their cities.

The effectiveness of source separation of biowaste depends on several factors, including:

Awareness and information: Correctly informing citizens about the environmental benefits of bio-waste separation, the guidelines to follow, and the treatment processes is fundamental to ensuring high participation and good quality of the collected material. In Rural context, it is pivotal to make clear that biowaste streams are a precious resource that can be exploited and the land can benefit from it.

Convenience: Easy access to collection systems, collection frequency, the practicality of separation tools, and the management of hygiene aspects are crucial factors in encouraging citizen participation.

Trust in the system: Transparency in waste management processes and demonstrating the use of compost and digestate derived from bio-waste help to increase citizens' trust in the effectiveness of separation.

Social norms: The perception that other people are correctly separating bio-waste and social approval of this behavior can encourage participation.

Conclusions

Source separation of biowaste is an essential process for creating a sustainable and efficient waste management system. By adopting an integrated approach that combines information, incentives, and measures aimed at increasing convenience and trust in the system, it is possible to maximize citizen participation and ensure effective recycling of biowaste.

• Handbook of recommendations and good practices – a European perspective