By Eleftheria Tiliakou, No Filter
As we approach the end of 2025, instead of offering yet another annual review, I choose to focus on the issue that, in my view, has the greatest impact on our island: modern waste management — and the profound benefits it can bring to public health, the environment, economic development, and the international image of our community.
Let us be clear, without euphemisms or embellishments: baling is not waste management. It is the storage of a dead end. It is the technical version of “let’s see how it goes.” And as long as it is presented as a serious option, a problem that should have been solved years ago is simply perpetuated.
This is precisely why baling is no longer funded as a standalone or permanent solution. Under modern funding instruments — the NSRF and the Recovery Fund — it may only be approved as a temporary, transitional measure, strictly embedded in a clear plan leading to processing units, recycling, and safe final disposal. When it appears on its own, without a final destination, it is considered bad practice and treated with suspicion. We have already seen what happens on nearby islands: what was supposed to be “temporary” became permanent. No recycling, no processing, no real volume reduction — only the postponement of responsibility.
And yet, while there is a concrete, institutionally approved and funded proposal by the South Aegean Waste Management Authority (FODSA) for an integrated waste management system for Kalymnos and Kos, some choose to invest once again in doing nothing.
The FODSA proposal is neither arbitrary nor experimental. It provides for modern treatment facilities, pre-processing, material recovery, reduced landfilling, and a clear institutional framework through public–private partnerships. In other words, it follows exactly what national and European planning requires. And let’s be honest: whoever happened to be mayor of Kalymnos today would be forced to follow the same path. There is no other technically and financially viable alternative.
This is where political hypocrisy begins.
The appeal filed by the Municipality of Kos before the Council of State, aimed at blocking the transfer of waste from Kalymnos, is presented by some as “institutional self-defense.” In practice, however, it acts as a brake on an overall solution. More troubling still, within Kalymnos itself, there are voices that almost hope Kos will prevail — not because they have a better proposal, but because they do not want the current municipal administration to receive political credit for solving the problem.
Let us be blunt: if anyone else were mayor today, regardless of political affiliation, they would be pursuing exactly the same FODSA solution. Not out of ideology, but because there is no realistic alternative.
Yet we now witness a paradoxical stance: people presenting themselves as “defenders of Kalymnos” while indirectly supporting a legal action that freezes the solution for Kalymnos. They side with Kos not out of environmental concern, but out of narrow political calculation. They would rather see baling continue than allow their political opponents to score a success.
This is not environmental sensitivity. It is political tactics.
Baling has failed wherever it has been treated as a strategy. It is not a solution; it is delay wrapped in plastic. And those who defend it today are not defending the environment or the island — they are defending a convenient deadlock.
Because the truth is uncomfortable but simple: those who fight to prevent a solution, or who promote the position of the Municipality of Kos, do not do so for the common good. They do it to solve the political problem of a small circle, at the expense of everyone else.
The Council of State does not rule based on political preferences. It does not distribute praise or blame. It examines legality — nothing more. It checks compliance with the Constitution, EU law, environmental licensing, spatial planning, and procedural correctness. Shouting, press releases, pseudo-patriotism, and tactical outrage mean nothing before it.
And finally, the great misunderstanding: waste is not only a cost — it is also an economic resource.
In modern Europe, waste management is a fully developed economic sector. When done properly, it generates energy, secondary raw materials, stable revenue, investment, and jobs. That is precisely why major private groups are interested in such projects. Not out of charity, but because properly designed waste facilities are economically viable over the long term.
Baling, by contrast, produces nothing. It recovers nothing. It creates no value. It is pure expense — a dead-end with plastic wrapping.
And yet some insist on defending it, as if it were a “clean solution.” In reality, they are defending stagnation. Because once a modern processing facility operates with transparency, measurable results, and economic returns, the narrative that “nothing else can be done” collapses.
This is the core of the matter: the problem is not technical. It is political. When a solution exists, is feasible, and economically sustainable — yet is blocked — we are not dealing with ignorance, but with fear of losing control, influence, or political narrative.
Waste management is not a poor relative of local governance. It is its future. That is why serious investors are interested in it. And those who pretend not to understand this leave behind not only waste, but lost opportunities.
