Bosnia and Herzegovina Building Long-term Sustainability for Integrated Solid Waste Management Technical Assistance Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Review Strategic Directions and Investment Planning up to 2025 PART C BRCKO DISTRICT January 2018 BD Sector Reform Report LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BD Brcko District CAPEX Capital expenditure CII Commercial, institutional, industrial EC European Commission EP Environmental Protection EPR Extended Producer Responsibility EU European Union FBiH Federation of Bosnia i Herzegovina GDP Gross Domestic product HH Household ML Municipal Landfill MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management M+R Maintenance and Repair OPEX Operational expenses PA Public Awareness PET Polyethyleneterephthalate PPP Public Private Partnership RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RL Regional Landfill RS Republika Srpska SWM Solid Waste Management SSWMP Second Solid Waste Management Project TS Transfer Station VAT Value Added Tax WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WFD Waste Framework Directive WIS Waste Information System i BD Sector Reform Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Solid Waste Management (SWM) Sector Reform study was funded by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) as part of the World Bank-SIDA Partnership to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina’s efforts towards advancing in the solid waste management sector especially in view of its commitment to harmonize sector practices and approaches with EU legislation. The study consists of three separate reports covering the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District. The study was performed by a World Bank team led by Ms. Kremena Ionkova and included international and local experts in waste management, namely Mr. Gerard Simonis, Dr. Ali Reza Abedini, Dr. Irem Silajdzic and Dr. Drazenko Bjelic as well as Mr. Igor Palandzic, Ms. Lejla Arnautovic and Mr. Senad Sacic. The World Bank team would like to thank all counterparts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), including Ministries, Agencies, municipalities, representative organizations, waste collection companies and landfill operators in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District for their inputs, comments, cooperation and provision of information during the numerous visits in the first half of 2017. Suggestions and recommendations provided in this report are subject to the limitations inherent to availability of site-specific information, and based on authors assessment, experience and knowledge about the situations in BiH. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. ii BD Sector Reform Report PREFACE For the preparation of this study information was obtained during the many field visits and discussions with operators and municipalities. Furthermore, use has been made of existing information such as the Grontmij and Sweco reports prepared in the framework of SIDA financed projects, the State, Entities and Brcko District Waste Management Strategies, completed questionnaires from waste collection companies and operators, EU reports and regional studies. As far as possible, conclusions, recommendations and especially the many cost calculations were discussed and confirmed with operators in the field in order to obtain reliable and practical results. The study benefitted from the team’s extensive experience in the field of solid waste management both locally and worldwide, and especially in the EU member states and many EU accession states, which have gone through the process BiH is starting now. For the first time in BiH, this report presents a financial assessment of current waste management costs, and calculations on the financial impacts of harmonisation with EU legislation and shifting up in the waste hierarchy. During the preparation of this study the team encountered a strong conviction among many of the counterparts in BiH that investments in infrastructure would suffice to solve the problems in the sector. The team would like to emphasize that in the absence of strong institutional and financial framework at all levels for planning, implementation and operations it will be difficult to achieve sustainable waste management operations. In this respect, the team believes that substantial capacity building is needed at all levels. The setting up of public-private partnerships would greatly accelerate the development of efficient and effective waste management practises. A carefully prepared phased and prioritised implementation scheme addressing the prevailing problems in the field of solid waste management should be the basis for future development. The team is hopeful that this study will contribute to a better understanding of the prevailing conditions in FBiH and required actions in order to avoid disappointments as experienced in other countries under similar circumstances and in order to advance the sector in line with the EU Acquis in an environmentally and financially sustainable manner. iii BD Sector Reform Report ABSTRACT This report includes an assessment of the current municipal solid waste situation in BiH including investments and actions needed for improvement. For the first time special attention was paid to the cost aspects also taking into account the impact of EU accession requirements on the costs. Many of the most recent EU member states have undergone the same process as now experienced by BiH such as the need to improve the environmental conditions for waste disposal, improvement of the waste collection coverage, introduction of waste separation and recycling and consequently the resulting cost increases. These improvements will require extra investments leading to higher costs/ton for the waste generator following the EU principle of “Polluter pays” as incorporated in the BiH legislation. In spite of the fact that this principle is a legal requirement, Ministries and Municipalities remain reluctant to accept the fact that current tariffs have to be increased. Instead, it is assumed that the environmental conditions can be improved by maintaining the current tariff level, which is only 0.5% of the household spendable income while internal practises indicate 1-1.5%. In order to minimize the required tariff increase an assessment was made of the cost aspects of current operations. The study reveals that actual costs are rather high which might indicate in-efficiency but at the same time it appears that municipalities don’t have a clear cost allocation system for solid waste services (waste collection and disposal) as they carry out also other services such as street cleaning, snow cleaning, etc. In addition, the current tariff for households includes a 17% VAT surcharge while in international practises especially within EU member states the waste services for households are excluding VAT as tariff is considered to be a tax. An additional cost element for waste collection companies in BiH is the responsibility for concluding contracts with households and the collection of tariffs. This creates an extra financial risk for the companies in view of non-payments. International practises indicate that household tariffs are collected by municipalities (tax payment) on basis of a Municipal Regulation. Waste collection company collects only fees from commercial/institutional entities on basis of individual contracts. Substantial cost reductions could be achieved in case municipalities would take over the tariff collection from households and in case the government would introduce exemption of VAT payment for households. This would also lead to reduction of subsidies now paid by some municipalities for municipal waste management. The report also shows that costs will be reduced in case larger quantities of waste could be handled through cooperation of municipalities. Cost calculations are presented in the report comparing single municipal services with regionalized services for both waste collection and disposal. It appears that substantial cost reductions can be achieved especially for waste disposal assuming that municipal landfills mandated to comply with the EU design criteria (Directives) such as installation of bottom liner, leachate collection and treatment. However, establishment of regional landfills would result in extra transport costs for some municipalities. To reduce these costs implementation of transfer stations could be recommended. In the report calculations are presented showing that use of transfer stations would result in cost reductions only in case collection trucks have a small capacity, distance to regional landfill is more than 50km, distance between collection area and transfer station is minimal and the investment cost in transfer stations are very low. In addition, road conditions should allow high capacity truck transport between transfer stations and the regional landfill and annual volumes of waste should not be small. The report concludes that implementation of transfer stations requires a careful site-specific analysis. Another aspect that was analysed is the requirement of waste separation and sorting. Following numerous field visits and discussions with municipalities it appeared that there is lack of awareness iv BD Sector Reform Report about cost and benefits of separation and sorting of dry recyclables. Municipalities presented plans for setting up of “waste management centres” including landfill, sorting lines and other treatment facilities without prior calculation of the resulting costs/ton. This approach is clearly reflected in implementation of a few sorting lines by various single municipalities throughout BiH. All of these facilities are generating costs mainly due to low annual quantities handled, as well as use of sub- standard and low quality sorting- operations. Dry recyclable sorting lines can be revenue generating only if sufficient quantities (at least 3,000 tons/year) of pre- segregated dry recyclables are handled when small percentage of rejects are resulted. This is also pointing into the need for cooperation between municipalities. It should be noted that BiH is a scarcely populated country with more than 140 municipalities and thus small waste quantities for each single municipality. As shown by international practises, cooperation between small municipalities in waste collection and transportation is required to achieve larger waste volume operations and to lower the overall cost/ton, resulting in recycling initiatives to become more financially attractive. In addition, regional cooperation in BiH would make waste management more attractive for potential private partners with associated investments. Future role of the Municipalities is foreseen to be shift away from direct waste collection and disposal services and become shareholders of regional companies for collection and disposal, raising public awareness and dealing with potential complaint. v BD Sector Reform Report TABLE OF CONTENT C1 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES ....................................................................................... 1 C1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 C1.2 Population ............................................................................................................................... 1 C1.3 Waste generation ..................................................................................................................... 1 C1.4 Waste composition .................................................................................................................. 3 C1.5 Forecast of waste generation ................................................................................................... 3 C1.6 Forecast of waste composition ................................................................................................ 5 C1.7 Future waste management options .......................................................................................... 7 C1.8 Shortcomings ........................................................................................................................ 10 C2 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................. 11 C2.1 Legal framework and policies ............................................................................................... 11 C2.1.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 11 C2.1.2 Law on Waste Management .......................................................................................... 11 C2.1.3 Transposition of EU legislation .................................................................................... 12 C2.1.4 Brcko District Waste Management Strategy ................................................................. 13 C2.1.5 Brcko District waste management plan......................................................................... 14 C2.2 Institutional framework ......................................................................................................... 15 C2.2.1 Department for Spatial Planning and Property-Legal Affairs ....................................... 15 C2.2.2 Public Utilities Department ........................................................................................... 15 C3 EXISTING OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 17 C3.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 17 C3.2 Waste collection ....................................................................................................................... 17 C3.3 Waste disposal .......................................................................................................................... 18 C4 FINANCIAL ASPECTS ........................................................................................................... 19 C4.1 Tariffs ....................................................................................................................................... 19 C4.2 Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 19 C4.3 Main problems.......................................................................................................................... 20 C5 REFORM PROPOSALS .......................................................................................................... 22 C5.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 22 C5.2 Legal ..................................................................................................................................... 23 C5.3 Institutional ........................................................................................................................... 24 C5.4 Financial ................................................................................................................................ 25 vi BD Sector Reform Report C5.5 Operational aspects ............................................................................................................... 27 C5.5.1 Collection and disposal ................................................................................................. 27 C5.5.2 Separation at source ...................................................................................................... 28 C5.5.3 Required equipment ...................................................................................................... 29 C6 INVESTMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 31 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Annex C4.1: Collection and transport in 2015-BD............................................................................... 33 Annex C4.2: Landfill operations-2015 BD ........................................................................................... 35 Annex C5.2 Transport costs to Bijeljina (40km) .................................................................................. 39 Annex C5.3: Closing existing landfill with waste disposal on top BD ................................................. 41 Annex C5.4: Cost estimate mixed containers collection-BD................................................................ 43 Annex C5.5: Sorting line BD ................................................................................................................ 47 Annex C5.6: Cost/ton for various options-2025 ................................................................................... 49 LIST OF TABLES Table C1-1: Population in BD ................................................................................................................ 1 Table C1-2: Waste generation rate in BD ............................................................................................... 1 Table C1-3: Proposed MSW generation rates in BD as per 2013 ........................................................... 2 Table C1-4: Amounts of waste generated in BD (2013)......................................................................... 2 Table C1-5: Waste composition in BD ................................................................................................... 3 Table C1-6: Average monthly household consumption for 2004, 2007, 2011 in BAM ......................... 3 Table C1-7: Urbanization rate in BD 1991 vs. 2013 .............................................................................. 4 Table C1-8: Waste generation forecast for BD 2013-2025 .................................................................... 4 Table C1-9: MSW and waste from industries, forecast 2013-2025 ........................................................ 5 Table C1-10: Recyclable waste generation per capita 2013-2025 .......................................................... 5 Table C1-11: Waste generation per capita/day in different streams 2013 and 2025 .............................. 6 Table C1-12: Urban and Rural municipal waste composition 2015-2025 .............................................. 6 Table C1-13: Strategy objectives ............................................................................................................ 7 Table C1- 14: Three scenarios for the future of the waste management sector ...................................... 7 Table C1-15: Optimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ..................................................................... 8 Table C1-16: Realistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ........................................................................ 9 Table C1-17: Pessimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) .................................................................... 9 Table C1-18: Comparison of waste flows for the three scenarios for 2013 and 2025 ............................ 9 Table C2-1: Status of the transposition of the EU Waste Directives in BD ......................................... 12 Table C3-1: Collection capacity ........................................................................................................... 17 Table C3-2: Container capacity ............................................................................................................ 18 vii BD Sector Reform Report Table C4-1: Tariff comparison in BiH .................................................................................................. 19 Table C4-2: Annual costs (BAM) for waste collection services ........................................................... 19 Table C4-3: Collection costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ............................................................................ 20 Table C4-4: Landfill costs (BAM/ton).................................................................................................. 20 Table C5-1: Final closure existing landfill ........................................................................................... 27 Table C5-2: Collection, Transport and Disposal costs to Bijeljina (BAM/t excl. VAT) ...................... 28 Table C5-4: Required equipment without separation at source ............................................................ 29 Table C5-5: Required equipment with separation at source ................................................................. 29 Table C6-1: Required investments (BAM) ........................................................................................... 31 LIST OF FIGURES Figure C1-1: Urban and rural waste in BD (%) ...................................................................................... 2 Figure C1-2: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025 ............................................................................... 4 Figure C1-3: Changes in municipal waste composition 2013-2025 ....................................................... 6 Figure C5-1: EU Waste hierarchy ......................................................................................................... 23 viii BD Sector Reform Report C1 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES C1.1 Introduction Multiple data sources and information from previous sector reports and assessments were used for the purpose of this study. Where possible, the data were benchmarked with other two entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as countries with similar socio-economic conditions. In this report Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is defined as Municipal Waste (MW) generated by households and similar type of waste in nature and composition generated by commercial, institutional and industrial sector excluding municipal construction and demolition waste and waste from municipal sewage network and treatment. C1.2 Population The report “Census of population, households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013: Final Results”1, following the national census in October 2013 was used to provide the population data and their distribution to urban and rural population. Table C1-1 presents the summary data on population distribution in Brcko District (hereinafter called “BD”) indicating 83,516 citizens. In urban settlements live 45,516 citizens (54.50%) in a suburban (semi-urban) and rural areas live 38,000 citizens (45.50%). Table C1-1: Population in BD Urban % Urban Rural % Rural Entity Population population population population population Brcko District 83,516 45,516 54.50 38,000 45.50 C1.3 Waste generation Waste generation in BD was estimated on the basis of the review of official publications, available studies, interviews with key stakeholders, questionnaires and benchmarking. Table C1-2 gives the average waste generation rate as included in the Environmental Protection Strategy of Brcko District in BH 2016-2026 (hereinafter called “EP Strategy”). No further specifications on waste generation are given in the EP Strategy for urban and rural areas. Table C1-2: Waste generation rate in BD2 Average MSW generation per capita (kg/day) EP Strategy of Brcko 0.8 District in BH 2016-2026 The waste generation data from the Republic of Serbia have been used for comparison having in mind similar socio-economic environment and waste management structure as well as the fact that the annual quantities of municipal waste generated in Serbia are based on real measurement of waste in referent local self-government units3. On average, in the Republic of Serbia 0.87 kg of municipal 1 Census of population, households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013: Final Results, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, June 2016, available at http://www.popis.gov.ba/popis2013/doc/RezultatiPopisa_BS.pdf 2 Environmental protection strategy of Brcko District in BH 2016-2026, available at http://www.bdcentral.net/index.php/ba/trezor- akti/doc_details/7656-environmental-protection-strategy-of-brcko-district-in-bh-for-the-period-2016-2026 3 Univeristy of Novi Sad (2009) Determination of waste composition and estimated of waste amount in order to define strategy of recycling waste management in the framework of sustainable development in Serbia http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/otpad.pdf 1 BD Sector Reform Report waste is generated per capita/day (318 kg/cap/year). According to the National Waste Management Strategy4 for Serbia urban population on average generates 1 kg of waste per capita per day, whereas rural population generates on average 0.7 kg of waste per capita per day. In RS municipal waste generation is 272 kg/cap/year5. Based on questionnaires received during preparation of the present study, average municipal waste generation in urban areas in RS was approximately 1.05 kg/cap/day. Daily generation of waste per person in BiH according to the Agency for Statistics would be 0.86 kg/capita/day6. The figures of the Agency should be taken with some caution as (i) approximately 35% of the population is not covered by regular waste collection services and these amounts are estimated by the Agency and (ii) only regional landfills have weigh bridges and the quantities at the remaining landfills are estimated on basis of truck size and number of daily disposals. Combining the data and information given above, the present MSW generation rates are proposed as in Table C1-3 taking into account 54.50% urban and 45.50% rural population. Table C1-3: Proposed MSW generation rates in BD as per 2013 Urban MSW generation Rural MSW generation Average kg/capita/day kg/capita/day kg/capita/day 1.05 0.55 0.82 Based on data from Table C1-1 and Table C1-3, the amounts of waste generated in BD are calculated and presented in the Table C1-4Error! Reference source not found. including urban, rural and total waste generation in 2013. It is calculated that in BD 83,516 inhabitants produce around 25,073 tons of waste per year. Table C1-4: Amounts of waste generated in BD (2013) Urban waste Rural waste Entity Population Total waste (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) Brcko 83,516 17,444 7,629 25,073 District The distribution between urban and rural waste in BD is graphically displayed in Figure C1-1. These distributions are used for the forecast of waste generation. Brcko District 17,444 7,629 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Urban waste (tons/year) Rural waste (tons/year) Figure C1-1: Urban and rural waste in BD (%) 4 Republic of Serbia National Solid Waste Management Strategy 2010-2019 5 Environment, Statistical year book 2015, RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/static/uploads/bilteni/godisnjak/2015/05stn_2015.pdf 6 First Realise 2015, Agency for Statistic of BiH, available at http://www.bhas.ba/saopstenja/2015/KOM_2014_001_01_bos.pdf 2 BD Sector Reform Report C1.4 Waste composition To assess current MSW composition, existing information obtained from PU ”Komunalno Brcko” is summarized and presented in Table C1-5. Table C1-5: Waste composition in BD7 Waste Components (BD) (%) Organic 39 Plastic, PET, foil 12 Paper/Cardboard 25 Aluminum cans 4 Glass 6 Hazardous waste 1 Others 13 Total 100 According to the composition of the waste, the single dominant fraction in municipal solid waste in BD is organic waste from kitchens and gardens (approximately 39%), while the dry recyclables (plastic, glass, paper/cardboard, aluminum cans, PET, foil, metals) accounts for approximately 47% of municipal solid waste. C1.5 Forecast of waste generation Four factors are considered for the simulation of the waste generation forecast: (i) population growth (ii) household income growth, (iii) urbanization process and (iv) increase in waste coverage from average 81% up to 88% in 2025. The following assumptions are used for the forecast of waste generation. Population growth. Although a negative population growth has been recorded in BD since 20028, for the purpose of this report it is assumed that the population number will not change up to 2025 year. Therefore, the forecast is using the results of the 2013 Census as a referent i.e. a population of 83,516 inhabitants9. Household income growth. Household consumption was selected as a representative measure of household income growth. Table C1-6 presents the average monthly consumption expenditure per households in BAM for 2004, 2007 and 201110. Table C1-6: Average monthly household consumption for 2004, 2007, 2011 in BAM Household 2004 2007 2011 Increase rate consumption Brcko District 1339.52 1318.47 1585.26 18.34 7 Project of Landfill Management, PU”Komunalno Brcko”, November 2015 8 Population, Statistical year book 2015, RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/static/uploads/bilteni/godisnjak/2015/05stn_2015.pdf 9 Census of population, households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013: Final Results, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, June 2016, available at http://www.popis.gov.ba/popis2013/doc/RezultatiPopisa_BS.pdf 10 Household budget survey in BiH, Agency for Statistic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2007, 2011, available at http://www. fzs.ba/index.php/anketa-o-potrosnji-domacinstavakucanstava-apd/ 3 BD Sector Reform Report In the seven years’ period, from 2004 to 2011, the household consumption increased by 18.34%. For the waste generation forecast, it is assumed that household consumption will continue to grow about 2.5% per year. Table C1-7: Urbanization rate in BD 1991 vs. 2013 Urbanization rate 1991(%) 2013 (%) Increase rate (%) Brcko District 47.25 54.50 7.25 Urbanization increase rate in BD over the time span of 22 years is 7.25% (see Table C1-7). It is expected that no significant growth will occur in the period until 2025 and current urbanization rate (54.50% urban and 45.50% rural) will be taken as a reference value. Table C1-8 presents the results for the waste generation forecast during 2013-2025. International experience indicates that 1% household income growth results in 0.5% urban waste generation per capita growth and 0.25% growth for rural waste generation per capita. Table C1-8: Waste generation forecast for BD 2013-2025 2013 2025 Change/year Population 83,516 83,516 0% Household consumption (BAM/year) 19,986 26,879 2.5% Urbanization% 54.50 54.50 0% Urban Population 45,516 45,516 0% Rural% 45.50 45.50 0% Rural Population 38,000 38,000 0% Urban SW kg/cap/day 1.05 1.22 1.25% Rural SW kg/cap/day 0.55 0.60 0.63% Urban Waste (t) 17,444 20,268 1.25% Rural Waste (t) 7,629 8,322 0.63% Total Waste (t) 25,073 28,590 1.11% During the period 2013 and 2025, the average annual waste growth rate is 1.11%. The average waste generation is expected to increase from 0.82 kg/cap/day to 0.94 kg/cap/day. Figure C1-2 presents the overall waste generation in BD for reference and forecasted year. 100% 80% 7,629 8,322 60% 40% 17,444 20,268 20% 0% 2013 2025 Urban Waste (t) Rural Waste (t) Figure C1-2: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025 4 BD Sector Reform Report Based on the information obtained from the PU “Komunalno Brcko”, approximately 3% of the total waste quantities disposed of at landfills is coming from private industry enterprises as non-hazardous waste. For total waste disposal 3% will be added to the municipal waste quantities in 2013 and 3.5% for 2025 assuming 1.11% growth/year. It is expected that in the future, the MSW collection coverage will increase from 81% up to 88% in 2025 (In 2013 about 19,800 tons was landfilled or a collection coverage of 81%). Thus, the overall forecast of waste is presented in Table C1-9. Table C1-9: MSW and waste from industries, forecast 2013-2025 2013 2025 MSW (t/y) 25,073 28,590 Enterprises’ waste (t/y) 752 1,001 Total (t/y) 25,825 29,591 C1.6 Forecast of waste composition Besides waste generation, waste composition will also change as a result of the economic growth of the country. European statistics 11 demonstrate that as income grows dry recyclables (mostly packaging) grow 50% faster than the overall waste growth on a per capita basis, while organic fraction is decreasing. Similarly, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in its publication on green economy12 suggests that packaging waste increases with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and income growth, while the organic fraction decreases in parallel. Future waste composition will have an important role in determining the type of waste management required at the local and national level. The following assumptions are made in order to forecast the most probable waste composition. It is assumed that dry recyclables fraction will grow 50 percent faster than the overall waste generation per capita. Per capita waste generation will grow from 300 to 342 kg/cap/year, which is around 14% increase in 12 years (Table C1-10). The increase in the recyclable fraction generated per capita, for the same period, will be approximately 21%. Table C1-10: Recyclable waste generation per capita 2013-2025 2013 2025 Waste 300 342 kg/cap/year Dry Recyclables 141 172 kg/cap/year % of recyclables 47% 50% Table C1-11 presents the forecasted changes in waste composition. 11 Generation and recycling of packaging waste (CSI 017/WST 002 - Assessment published Nov 2012 12 Green Economy Report, UNEP, 2011 5 BD Sector Reform Report Table C1-11: Waste generation per capita/day in different streams 2013 and 2025 2013 2025 Average kg/cap/day 0.82 0.94 Organics 39% 36% kg/cap/day 0.32 0.34 Recyclables 47% 50% kg/cap/day 0.39 0.47 Other 14% 14% kg/cap/day 0.11 0.13 Changes in waste composition 2013-2025 14% 14% 47% 50% Organics 39% Recyclables 36% Other 2013 2025 Figure C1-3: Changes in municipal waste composition 2013-2025 Table C1-12 presents the expected urban and rural municipal waste divided in the three different streams (organics, recyclables, other). Table C1-12: Urban and Rural municipal waste composition 2015-2025 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) 2013 2025 Organics 6,803 7,296 Dry Recyclables 8,199 10,134 Other 2,442 2,838 Total 17,444 20,268 RURAL WASTE (tons/year) 2013 2025 Organics 2,975 2,996 Dry Recyclables 3,585 4,161 Other 1,068 1,165 Total 7,629 8,322 6 BD Sector Reform Report C1.7 Future waste management options The EP Strategy was adopted by the Assembly of Brcko District. The strategy gives common objectives, but no specific targets with timeframe. Table C1-13: Strategy objectives13 Objectives Measures Deadline Promotion of cleaner production practice 2019 Establishment of integrated and reduction of waste generation waste management system Establishment of system of separate 2019 (waste generation, collection, collection and recycling of waste separation, transport, recycling, Locating and phased construction of Waste secondary raw materials, Management Centre with all necessary 2019 disposal) with special emphasis facilities for integrated waste management on municipal waste Development of financial model for integrated waste management 2023 Prevention of wild dumps 2019 The timeframe mentioned in Table C1-13 are quite optimistic based on experience from EU member states and other countries in the region. Considering the current baseline (81% collection coverage, almost no separation and recycling, poor basic service level including existing non-sanitary landfill) transformation of the waste management system in BD will require a coordinated effort at all administrative levels, significant development of human resources, increased public participation and quite important financial resources. Based on experiences from similar countries and conditions, as well as from RS and FBiH it is proposed to develop three scenarios – Optimistic, Realistic and Pessimistic. A forecast will be worked out for the three scenarios. The scenarios are given in Table C1- 14. Table C1- 14: Three scenarios for the future of the waste management sector Scenario Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Collection 100% in urban areas in 100% in urban areas in 100% in urban areas in Coverage 2025 2025 2025 80% in rural areas in 60% in rural areas in 50% in rural areas in 2025 2025 2025 BD average: 91% in BD average: 82% in BD average: 77% in terms of population terms of population terms of population 94% in terms of waste 88% in terms of waste 85% in terms of waste generated generated generated Source Separation 40% of the recyclables 30% of the recyclables 20% of the recyclables and 40% of the organics and 20% of the in 2025 in 2025 organics in 2025 No recycling for organics 13 Environmental protection strategy of Brcko District in BH 2016-2026, available at http://www.bdcentral.net/index.php/ba/trezor- akti/doc_details/7656-environmental-protection-strategy-of-brcko-district-in-bh-for-the-period-2016-2026 7 BD Sector Reform Report Scenario Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Organics 40%x36%=14% 20%x36%=7% 0% Diversion* Recyclables 40%x50%=20% 30%x50%=15% 20%x50%=10% Diversion Final Disposal The residuals after The residuals after The residuals after organic and recyclables organic and recyclables organic and recyclables diversion. diversion. diversion. Besides the municipal Besides the municipal Besides the municipal waste, an additional waste, an additional waste, an additional 3.5% landfill capacity is 3.5% landfill capacity 3.5% landfill capacity is required for the non- is required for the non- required for the non- hazardous industrial hazardous industrial hazardous industrial waste waste waste * For the organic fraction, it is assumed that there will be a market for good quality compost, and emphasis will be given to major organic fraction producers (schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, parks and green areas, etc.). The following tables present the evolution of each scenario, in urban and rural waste, between 2013 and 2025. Table C1-15: Optimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) Optimistic Scenario 2013 2025 Total Waste 25,073 28,590 Collection coverage 81% 94% Total waste collected 20,309 26,875 Organics 7,920 9,675 Organic Source Separation 0 4,117 Recyclables 9,545 13,437 Direct collection (10%) 955 1,344 Source Separation 0 4,837 Other 2,843 3,762 MSW to landfills 19,354 18,995 Industrial waste 581 665 Total landfill capacity 19,935 19,660 Diversion rate Negligible 34% 8 BD Sector Reform Report Table C1-16: Realistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) Realistic Scenario 2013 2025 Total Waste 25,073 28,590 Collection coverage 81% 88% Total waste collected 20,309 25,159 Organics 7,920 9,057 Organic Source Separation 0 1,811 Recyclables 9,545 12,580 Direct collection (10%) 955 1,258 Source Separation 2,577 3,396 Other 2,843 3,522 MSW to landfills 19,354 20,392 Industrial waste 581 714 Total landfill capacity 19,935 21,105 Diversion rate Negligible 22% Table C1-17: Pessimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) Pessimistic Scenario 2013 2025 Total Waste 25,073 28,590 Collection coverage 81% 85% Total waste collected 20,309 24,302 Organics 7,920 8,749 Organic Source Separation 0 0 Recyclables 9,545 12,151 Direct collection (10%) 955 1,215 Source Separation 0 2,187 Other 3,510 4,003 MSW to landfills 19,354 22,115 Industrial waste 581 774 Total landfill capacity 19,935 22,889 Diversion rate Negligible 10% Table C1-18 presents the results of the three scenarios for years 2013 and 2025. Table C1-18: Comparison of waste flows for the three scenarios for 2013 and 2025 2013 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Landfill capacity (tons/year) 19,935 19,935 19,935 Organic source separation (tons/year) 0 0 0 Recyclables source separation 0 0 0 (tons/year) 2025 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Landfill capacity (tons/year) 19,660 21,105 22,889 Organic source separation (tons/year) 4,117 1,811 0 Recyclables source separation 4,837 3,396 2,187 (tons/year) 9 BD Sector Reform Report Comparing the three scenarios, the following comments can be made: • All three scenarios are based on the assumption of important improvements in collection coverage that must grow between 80 and 90 percent. The investments required for those improvements are significant and they need to be prioritized and implemented latest 2020 to reach the targets in 2025. • All three scenarios assume the implementation of the EPR principle for packaging waste to support separation at source. For the organic fraction, in the realistic and optimistic scenarios, it is assumed that there will be a market for good quality compost, and emphasis has to be given to major organic fraction producers (parks/green areas, schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels etc.). This will be much more effective and efficient than capturing organics/kitchen waste from households. Substantial public awareness education will be needed to achieve the separation percentages. • All three scenarios involve substantial landfill capacities. The Optimistic Scenario requires a landfill annual capacity of 19,660 tons while the realistic one requires an annual capacity of 21,105 tons. It is clear that investments in new sanitary landfill development, expansion or upgrade of the current ones or transport of waste to another regional landfill are the core components of the waste management infrastructure required. Future planning will be based on the realistic scenario. C1.8 Shortcomings Currently, District planning and guidance for the implementation of effective and efficient waste management systems are hampered by the lack of reliable data on waste generators, quantities, composition, recovery, recycling, disposal, stakeholders and so on. No weighing scale is available at the landfill and quantities are thus estimated. Additionally, waste sampling and analysis tests are very limited. There is no waste separation system in BD. Waste source separation is a requirement stipulated by the law on waste that is incorporated in the EP Strategy to facilitate recycling. It is a District task to organize a system for waste sorting and establish an appropriate infrastructure to enable this process. The existing landfill is operating as a dumpsite. Important investments and capacity building are required to improve the operational conditions. 10 BD Sector Reform Report C2 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK C2.1 Legal framework and policies C2.1.1 General On the basis of an arbitral award passed on 5th March 1999, the Brcko District of BiH (BD) was formed as the third separate administrative unit under exclusive sovereignty of the State. The territory of the District incorporates the entire territory of the municipality Brcko, as it was on January 1st 1991. According to the Statute of the district Brcko, Official gazette of BD, no. 1/00 and 24/05, the environmental protection is under the Brcko District authority. Figure C2-1: Administrative Organization of Brcko District Brcko District has adopted a series of laws governing environmental protection and related secondary legislation (regulations, decrees and decisions): • The Law on waste management (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 25/04, 1/05, 19/07, 2/08 and 9/09) • The Law on environmental protection (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 25/04, 1/05, 19/07, 9/09) • The Law on air protection (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 25/04, 1/05, 19/07 and 9/09). • The Law on water protection (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 24/04, 1/05, 19/07) • The Law on nature protection (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 24/04, 1/05, 19/07 and 9/09). The Brcko District EP Strategy for period 2016-2026 includes the Brcko District Waste Management Strategy. C2.1.2 Law on Waste Management In Brcko District, The Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of Brcko District, no. 25/04, 1/05, 19/07, 2/08 and 9/09) establishes a general framework for all aspects of solid waste management in Brcko District, primarily: 11 BD Sector Reform Report • Planning the waste management (waste management strategy, regional and local plans for waste management), • License for waste management, • Waste management supervision, • Activity and responsibility related to the waste management (liabilities of the generator and reseller, waste collection system, treatment, collection, usage, transport, waste deposit, landfills, incineration) The purpose of the Law on waste management is boosting and ensuring the most important work conditions: • Preventing the waste generation, • Processing waste for reuse and recycle, • Separation of raw material from the waste and its usage in energy production, and • Safe waste disposal Based on this Law following statutory acts have been passed: • The Rulebook on waste management that is not on the list of hazardous waste or whose content is unknown (Official gazette of Brcko District, no. 32/06) • The Rulebook on content of the waste management adjustment plan for the existing treatment plant (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 32/06) • The Rulebook on conditions of the waste management responsibility transfer from the generator and reseller to the waste collection operator (Official gazette of Brcko District, no. 32/06) • The Rulebook on issuing licenses regarding the minor businesses activities within the waste management (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 32/06) • The Rulebook on waste categories with lists (Official gazette of Brcko District, no. 32/06) • The Rulebook on financial guarantees that can ensure cross border waste transport (Official gazette of Brcko district, no. 32/06) C2.1.3 Transposition of EU legislation The transposition status of EU legislation regulating municipal solid waste management is briefly presented in Table C2-1. Table C2-1: Status of the transposition of the EU Waste Directives in BD EU Directives Transposition status in BD Directive 2008/98/EC of the In BD, currently in force is the Law on Waste Management European Parliament and of the (Official Gazette of the Brcko District, number 25/04, 1/05, Council of 19 November 2008 on 19/07, 2/08 and 9/09), which among other things regulates waste and repealing certain waste management planning based on the fundamental Directives. Official Journal 312, principles laid down by EU legislation. The Law establishes a 22/11/2008 P. 3–30 general framework for all aspects of solid waste management and encourages prevention, recycling, reuse and usage of waste for energy recovery. Some of the definitions set in the Waste Framework Directive are transposed through the Law on Waste Management (waste, waste producer, waste holder, re-use). List of wastes is transposed through the Regulation on waste categories with lists Official Gazette of BD, No. 32/06). Establishing measures to encourage the re-use and recycling 12 BD Sector Reform Report EU Directives Transposition status in BD of waste (Art. 11) have not been implemented yet. Introduction of separate waste collection for at least paper, metal, plastic, glass (Art. 11) has not been implemented yet. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 The Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the disposal of waste, April 1999 on the landfill of waste. stipulates the conditions and criteria for determining the as amended by Regulations No. location, technical and technological conditions for the EC/1882/2003 and EC/1137/2008; design, construction and operation of landfills, the types of waste that cannot be disposed of in a landfill, criteria and procedures for the acceptance or rejection or landfilling, manner and procedure for the operation and closure of landfills, content and mode of operation of the landfill and subsequently maintenance after closure of landfills. These conditions have not been transposed yet. Directive 2004/12/EC of the Conditions of this directive have not been transposed yet. European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste - Statement by the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament Official Journal L L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 26–32 Directive 2006/66/EC of the Conditions of this directive have not been transposed yet. European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC , as amended by Directive No. 2008/12/EC and Directive No. 2008/103/EC; Commission Decisions 2008/763/EC, 2009/603/EC, 2009/851/EC; Directive 2002/96/EC of the Conditions of this directive have not been transposed yet. European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), as amended by Directive No. 2003/108/EC, 2008/34/EC and 2008/112/EC; C2.1.4 Brcko District Waste Management Strategy The Waste Management Strategy is a part of the EP Strategy for Brcko district, BiH, for the period 2016-2026. The Strategy was prepared by the Department for Spatial Planning and Property-Legal 13 BD Sector Reform Report Affairs of the Brcko District Government. The Strategy evaluates the waste management current condition, sets long-term aims for waste management and ensures conditions for rational and sustainable waste management. The Strategy was adopted in 2017. The Strategy contains mainly an analysis and assessment of the current waste management system with its shortcomings (legal, operational, financial, public awareness). No information is given on targets to be achieved for waste collection coverage, separation and recycling. However, 7 objectives are presented to improve the situation. The objectives include: • Adjustment of legal and sub-legal regulations with the EU regulations and international conventions (passing a new Law on waste management and adequate sub-legal acts in accordance with the EU Directives and international conventions). • Institutional strengthening of management structure in the Brcko District in order to improve and approximate the waste management to the best EU practice (creating an efficient company for waste management and establishing a data base on waste and more efficient reporting). • Setting an integral system for waste management (promoting the practice for cleaner production and decrease of waste generation, establishing a system for separate collection of waste and waste recycling, locating and phase based construction of waste management center with all necessary facilities for integral waste management, development of financial mode for integral waste management, as well as prevention of illegal dumpsites through enforcing inspection and cooperation with the population). • Setting a system for industrial waste management (defining a legal framework for managing hazardous and non-hazardous waste, determining regulations and technical guidelines related to the making an obligatory plan for waste management and stimulating the decision-makers and plan-makers to create quality plans as soon as possible, also prevention and decrease of generated industrial waste by applying the ecological license instrument, and designing and constructing of the integral waste management center, as well as enforcing a constructional waste pretreatment). • Setting a system for managing the waste from medical institutions and vet stations (conduct a revision and establish the regulations, prepare technical guidelines for managing the medical and vet waste, as well as hazardous waste, setting an information system for managing waste from medical, pharmaceutical, vet and hazardous waste by keeping a register on type and quantity of waste, waste separation and treatment of hazardous, contagious and other waste from medical and vet institutions, considering the possibility for construction of a plant for thermal waste treatment for medical and vet, as well as hazardous waste). • Setting a system for managing agriculture and forestry waste (passing sub-legal acts on special requirements related to different types of waste from agriculture and waste that can be used in agricultural production, making guidelines for managing waste from agriculture and forestry, setting a register for waste generated on all registered farms and forestry economies, making a technical guideline for treatment of animal corps and animal origin waste, promotion of new and alternative technologies for using by-products from agriculture and forestry as raw material in other production sectors). • Gradual improvement and gradual closure of existing landfills in the Brcko District (making a study on gradual improvement and gradual closure of existing landfills). C2.1.5 Brcko District waste management plan In accordance with the adopted Strategy for waste management it is necessary to make plans for waste management. As per the Law on Waste Management (Official gazette of Brcko District, no. 25/04, 1/05, 19/07, 2/08 and 9/09), the plan for waste management should include: 14 BD Sector Reform Report • A programme for collection of solid waste from households, • Strategic plans for using components from communal waste, • A programme for decreasing the percentage of biodegradable waste and packaging waste found in communal waste, • A programme for increasing a public awareness for waste management, etc. C2.2 Institutional framework Brcko District is a self-managing administrative unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is an official part of both entities. The legal power is in hands of the Brcko District Assembly, executive power is in hands of the Brcko district Government and court power is in hands of Brcko district courthouse. By the Brcko District Statute the issues regarding environment (waste management), housing, urban and spatial planning, public services are under the Brcko District authority. The following Departments are directly involved in waste management issues: C2.2.1 Department for Spatial Planning and Property-Legal Affairs The Department for Spatial Planning and Property-Legal Affairs within the Brcko District Government is responsible for execution of professional, administrative and other activities under their authority and which are related to: • Spatial and urban planning, • Issuing approval, licenses and other acts related to urban planning under the Department authority, • Environmental protection and eco-licenses, • Legalization of illegally built structures, • Ownership-legal issues, • Protection of cultural and historical structures and natural inheritance from the aspect of issuing urban approval and defining a procedure for establishing a list of protected structures, • And other issues under the Department authority defined by the law and other regulations. For more efficient execution of activities under the Department’s authority the following organizational sections are created: (1) Sub-department for spatial and urban planning, and enviornmental protection containing the following two services such as: • Service for spatial and urban planning and environmental protection; and • Service for legalization of illegaly built structures (2) Sub-department for ownership-legal issues C2.2.2 Public Utilities Department The Public Utilities Department performs the following activities: • Analysis of development trends in the communal domain • Preparation of strategy concepts for communal service development • Implementation of projects from the communal service development strategy • Conducting supervision and reporting to the Government on communal strategy implementation • Improving any modernization of communal infrastructure 15 BD Sector Reform Report • Preparation of draft laws and by laws • Managing demands and offers related to the communal services and prices • Managing, improvement and modernization of street illumination • Performing other activities in accordance with the Statute and laws of Brcko district that are under this Department’s authority. For efficient execution of activities related to the Department for communal issues following organizational sections are created: 1. Sub-division for development and strategy of communal services 2. Sub-department for capital investments. C2.2.3 Municipal enterprises Public company „Komunalno Brcko“ is entrusted with performing services of general interest in Brcko District, apropos distribution of electric energy, production and distribution of water, maintenance and arrangement of public areas, collection, transport and deposit of communal waste. The work unit Cistoca is in charge of collection, transport and deposit of waste. 16 BD Sector Reform Report C3 EXISTING OPERATIONS C3.1 General In Brcko District about 83,517 inhabitants are living on an area of 493km² or 169 persons/km². The waste management services are the responsibility of the public company “Komunalno Brcko” being also responsible for electricity supply, production and distribution of water, maintenance of public areas, waste water treatment and street cleaning. C3.2 Waste collection The working unit Cistoca carries out the actual services for collection, transport and disposal of waste. Besides waste collection, the company is also carrying out street cleaning, snow removal and maintenance of green areas. “Komunalno Brcko” is directly reporting to the Assembly (elected parliament). The waste collection system for households is a mix of (i) communal containers of 1,100 litres and (ii) the use of skip containers with a capacity of 5-7m³. The same type containers are used for the commercial and industrial Clients. Collection equipment consists of compactor trucks (6) of which 3 are leased, skip loaders (4) of which two are leased and three pick-ups. Waste is collected twice/week from households in the city and once/week in the rural parts. Collection is carried out for households 6 days/week or 300 days/year. No waste separation at source exists. The total annual waste generated is estimated at 25,000 tons. The waste collected from households is about 20,000 t/y or 67 t/day and about 800 t/y from industries. The collection coverage can thus be calculated at 80%. The collection capacity of the trucks is indicated in Table C3-1. The leased trucks are rather new i.e. from 2013 while the trucks owned by Brcko Utility Company are 15 years old. From this table, it can be concluded that the available load collection capacity (81t/d) is sufficient to meet the demand (67 t/d). Table C3-1: Collection capacity Truck type Number Capacity (ton) Total/day Trips/day Availability Total (ton) Compactor 3 7.3 21.9 1 2.6 2.6 1 6.8 6.8 1 7.2 7.2 Total 38.5 2 85% 65 Skip truck 2 9.5 19 1.5 85% 24 1 10.0 10.0 1.0 70% 7 1 7.0 7.0 1.0 70% 5 Grand total Including load efficiency 80% 81 The capacity of the reported containers (excluding any 120 litre and 240 litre containers) is indicated in Table C3-2. It can be concluded that the capacity is sufficient to justify 2/week collection from households and CII sector. 17 BD Sector Reform Report Table C3-2: Container capacity Type Number Capacity EfficiencyActual storage M³ Tons¹ Capacity (tons) 1,100 litre 500 550 110 90% 99 5-7m³ 134 804 160 90% 144 Total 243 Collection 20,000/300=67 t/d x 3.5 days (2/week collection) =233 tons ¹ 0.2t/m³ The total staffing involved in waste collection and disposal is reported at 57 persons or 2.75 persons per 1,000tons. The Key Performance Indicator for efficient services is 2 persons/1,000tons. C3.3 Waste disposal About 95% of the collected wastes in BD are disposed at a non-sanitary landfill without a weighing scale. Available data about waste quantities are estimated on basis of truck volume and assumed waste density. Landfill daily operational activities are done using a compactor (2005), an excavator (2004) and a rented bulldozer (1985). The landfill is located very close to the city center (2.5 km) and to the river (50 meters). A study was carried out to review alternative disposal sites for BD. Three possible scenarios were identified as (i) upgrading the existing landfill, (ii) a site in Kladje, and (iii) a site in Barnjaci. It appears that there is public opposition against all three options that were identified. Discussions are going on to transport waste to the sanitary RL in Bijeljina as a temporary solution until a new site is found and a new sanitary landfill is constructed. In addition to municipal waste, the current Brcko landfill is also receiving small amounts if industrial waste (reported to be about 3% by weight). Main problems as reported by the EP Strategy of Brcko District can be summarized as follows: • Tariffs are considered to be low to cover the actual costs • Public awareness is low • Financing is lacking • Regular training and staff capacity building is needed • Landfill is located very close to the city center (2.5km) creating a health risk for the population (water, air, soil) in addition there are numerous illegal dumpsites • Lack of reliable data on waste quantities disposed as there is no weighing scale • Low operational skills (environmental monitoring, waste acceptance procedures, waste covering, etc.) 18 BD Sector Reform Report C4 FINANCIAL ASPECTS C4.1 Tariffs The main revenues for collection, transport and disposal of waste from households are tariffs to be paid by the waste generator. Brcko District has a fixed tariff per household being BAM 5.64/hh/m excl. VAT and BAM 6.6/hh/m incl. VAT or BAM 79/hh/year or BAM 88/ton based on a waste generation of 0.9t/hh/year assuming a family size of 3.09 persons and a waste generation rate of 0.8 kg/cap/day. The current average spendable income of the households is approximately BAM 1,672/month. It can be concluded that the tariff paid by households for waste management is 0.4% of the spendable income, while international norms indicate 1-1.5%, as is the case in most EU member states. The average tariff collection rate improved over the period 2013-2016 from 65% up to 99% when utility company “Komunalno Brcko” became the tariff collector. The tariff has not been increased since many years. Komunalno Brcko complains that tariffs are too low to cover the actual costs. Komunalno Brcko is preparing tariff calculations to be sent to the Assembly for approval but there is reluctance to increase the tariffs for households for economic and political reasons. Comparison with FBiH and RS (see Table C4-1) shows that the tariffs in BD are lowest among the entities. Table C4-1: Tariff comparison in BiH BAM/ton FBiH RS BD Average tariff incl. VAT 113 142 88 Excl. VAT 97 121 75 Tariffs for municipal waste from the commercial and institutional sector are calculated per m² and per activity. The tariffs vary from BAM 13.2/m²/m for newsstands down to BAM 0.35/m²/m for budget institutions. The commercial/institutional sector can also be charged per container and the tariff for a 5-7m³ container varies between BAM 71.48-104.13 incl. VAT depending on the distance. The average tariff is BAM 88/container for 5-7m³ incl. VAT that is substantially lower than the household tariff, which is BAM 88/ton. Currently all services are subject to 17% VAT both for the households and for the CII sector. Komunalno Brcko reports that 90% of the actual population is being invoiced. A total number of 18,889 invoices are issued covering 58,556 inhabitants. This means that the current population is 58,556/0.9=65,000 inhabitants. The Census 2013 indicates a total of 83,500 inhabitants. It is reported that about 18,500 inhabitants could be living abroad and/or a substantial number are disposing illegally their waste. The average waste generation rate can thus be estimated at 20,000/65,000= 307kg/cap/y or 0.84kg/cap/day which is similar to what is mentioned in the EP Strategy. C4.2 Costs In addition to waste collection and disposal services the waste collection company can also be engaged for street cleaning, snow cleaning, green areas/parks maintenance. These services are organizationally and financially not always clearly divided from waste collection and disposal services; this hampers in many cases clear cost control for waste management services. In practice, the income from other services could compensate the losses in the field of household waste collection. The annual costs for SWM services are indicated in Table C4-2 while also a comparison with FBiH and RS is given. Table C4-2: Annual costs (BAM) for waste collection services Item Amount (BAM) % Salaries 1,021,354 43.3 Administration 285,436 12.3 Fuel 230,754 9.8 19 BD Sector Reform Report Tyres/spare parts 40,600 1.7 Lease 687,516 28.9 M+R 40,000 1.7 Amortization 49,811 2.1 Total 2,346,471 99.8 Cost/ton 117 Comparison with FBiH RS Cost/ton (excl. VAT) 111 130 From Table C4-2 it can be concluded that amortization costs are very low (2%) and no cost item for disposal is given. Apparently, there is no separate cost accounting for disposal. As the actual collection costs are difficult to assess an indicative cost estimate has been made for the collection of 20,000 tons by trucks with an average load of 6 and 10 tons and an average distance to the landfill of 10km. The calculations are shown in Annex C4.1. The results are summarized in Table C4-3. Table C4-3: Collection costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) Distance to LF 12m³ truck 20m³ truck 10km (6 ton) (10 ton) OPEX 15.6 18.3 CAPEX 25.2 24.1 Total 40.8 42.4 OPEX=operational costs; CAPEX= amortization costs. The utility company carries out both waste collection and landfilling but there is no strict division between the costs for collection and landfilling. Landfill gate fees are not imposed as it is considered to be included in the tariff. An indicative calculation is made to assess the costs for a sanitary landfill receiving about 20,000 tons per year. The calculation is given in Annex C4.2 and the results are summarized in Table C4-4. Table C4-4: Landfill costs (BAM/ton) OPEX CAPEX Total excl. VAT 20,000 t/y 26.81 37.13 63.94 The total cost for a WM system meeting all environmental criteria would thus be BAM 64/t for disposal and BAM 41/t for collection or BAM 105/ton excl. VAT as compared to the current costs of BAM 117/t excl. VAT and a tariff of BAM 75/t excl. VAT. It is emphasized that the reported actual cost of BAM 117/t might be doubtful as there is no separate accounting system for waste collection and disposal services. C4.3 Main problems Financing is the backbone for implementation of proper SWM services. The present problems in the field of financing can be summarized as follows: • Tariffs are low to cover operational and amortization costs for a professional collection and sanitary landfilling system and consequently funds are not available for new investments. In addition, there is a political unwillingness to increase the tariffs. • Amortization costs are hardly taken into account at the moment 20 BD Sector Reform Report • Cistoca as the WM operator is a part of the Brcko Utility Company and there is no separate accounting system and cost control for Cistoca. Moreover, there is no separate cost allocation system for collection and landfilling. • Tariff calculation guidelines are missing which would facilitate cost control of both collection and disposal. • VAT payment by households is making municipal waste management costly and is not according to practices generally adopted in EU member states and other countries (Municipal waste collection and disposal services for households is a tax). Waste separation activities are in its infancy. Public awareness raising programs and communication with waste generators hardly exist. 21 BD Sector Reform Report C5 REFORM PROPOSALS The recommendations made in this chapter are based on the review of the current situation laid down in the previous chapters and on the Waste Management Strategy (as part of the EP Strategy) therefore the recommendations should be read together with the previous chapters and not in its isolation. Furthermore, the costs calculations are taking into account the targets as mentioned in the realistic scenario (see chapter 1). The calculations are indicative but meeting as near as possible the current cost levels by checking them with operators. C5.1 Background Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) have been recognized by the EU as a “potential candidate country” for accession. The obligations to be met include harmonization with the EU (environmental) Directives. Thereto the entities of BiH (Republika Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Brcko District have prepared Waste Management Strategies. The main objectives of the Strategy for Brcko District are (i) harmonization of legislation with EU Directives; (ii) Institutional strengthening including the setting up of a Waste Information System with reporting and database management; (iii) establishment of an effective and efficient waste management company; (iv) Establishment of an Integrated Waste Management system including separation at source; (v) Prevention of waste dumps through inspection and cooperation with the population; (vi) Gradual recovery and closure of existing municipal landfill. There are a number of main problems comprising: • Current household tariffs for waste collection and disposal are the lowest in BiH and not sufficient to meet the requirements of the EU Directives. The local authorities are reluctant to increase current tariffs. • The institutional capacity at municipal level is insufficient and needs strengthening to implement the required reforms. This includes legal, financial and operational aspects. • No separation at source is implemented although some pilot projects are carried out • Negative impact on the environment especially at the landfill • Insufficient monitoring • Insufficient public awareness and public cooperation • Lack of reporting and database management • Lack of reliable data for investment planning. BD is in the process of harmonization its legislation with the EU Directives. Investments in waste management facilities have to comply with a vast array of complex EU Directives, of which the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) lays down requirements for all types of waste unless they are specifically regulated by other directives. The WFD in particular requires drawing up of waste management plans (national, regional, local) in accordance with relevant EU directives. Waste management plans have to consider the shifting up in the “waste hierarchy” away from final disposal to incineration (WtE), separation and recycling, re-use and finally prevention (Figure C5-1). Every step higher in the waste hierarchy involves extra costs and these costs have to be borne by the waste generator following the principle of “polluter pays”. Taking into account the economic conditions in Brcko District the leading principle in introducing reforms should preferably be based on the least cost option meeting the environmental criteria. 22 BD Sector Reform Report Figure C5-1: EU Waste hierarchy All recommendations and calculations in in this report will be based on the realistic scenario for 2025 as mentioned in chapter 1 including the following main principles: ➢ 88% of waste will be collected covering 100% urban population and 60% rural population. ➢ 30% of packaging waste in the household containers (45-50%) will be separated at source. ➢ No separation of organic waste is proposed up to 2025 in view of cost/operational aspects and priority to separation of packaging waste. C5.2 Legal LEGAL ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS Laws Laws Bylaws The Law on waste: A new Law on Waste is needed to be harmonized with Strategies the EU Directives Plans Guidelines The Law on hazardous and non-hazardous waste management: To be adjusted to the EU Directives. Preparation of By Law on packaging and packaging waste: separate collection of packaging waste and recycling, tasks and responsibilities of EPR Scheme, harmonization with the EU Directives. Data reporting/Waste Information System (WIS). Setting up of data base on municipal waste with more efficient reporting Introduction through by- law of methodology for determining the waste quantity and composition. Alternatively, reference to the corresponding EU methodology can be made in amendments to the Law on Waste Management. 23 BD Sector Reform Report LEGAL ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS Development of a WMP. Within the EP Strategy for Brcko District 2016-2026 a Strategy for waste management has been developed and adopted in 2017. The plan for managing the waste in the District has not been made yet. This plan should be in accordance with the Waste management strategy for the District and with the Law on waste management. The plan must contain: • Programme on collection of solid waste from households • Strategic plans for usage of fractions from the communal waste • Programme for decreasing the percentage of biodegradable waste and packaging waste in the municipal waste • Programme for increasing the public awareness on waste management, etc. Technical specifications. Besides the legislation it will be necessary to prepare specific technical guidelines for implementation, such as: • Technical specifications for designing and closing landfills, transfer station, recycling plant, etc. C5.3 Institutional Authority Proposals Department of Public Strengthening of Department by creating a SWM section Utilities Problem: Present staff is very limited while they should be the initiator and accelerator for reforms implementation. Tasks: • Preparation of amendments to legislation (Law on Waste management, Tax Code in view of VAT payments by households), further harmonization with EU Directives • Introduction of economic instruments (environmental tax on use of non-sanitary landfill, on use of 10 years and more collection vehicles) • Preparation of by- laws such as a Municipal Regulation on SWM • Preparation of guidelines (financial, technical, operational, etc.) • Setting up of WIS (reporting, database management) • Development of WMP based on WM Strategy • Setting up and leading a Work Group with all stakeholders as members on implementation of Reforms • Preparing operational manuals (EPR systems, landfill operation) • Consultation with stakeholders (population, operators, other entities in BiH, etc.) Approach: • Employ staff members and • Contract outside company for one year for in-house working, capacity training and transfer of know how. Specialists to include: (i) legal; (ii) financial; (iii) SWM; (iv) public awareness. Contract party: Municipality 24 BD Sector Reform Report Utility company Assessment of operations Problems Operations are not clearly separated from other services of “Komunalno Brcko”. No clear cost allocation for the various waste management services (collection, disposal, street cleaning, green areas maintenance, etc.). Cost monitoring and efficiency assessment are difficult. Tasks • Creation of an autonomous SWM section inside “Komunalno Brcko” with own accounting system and introduction of Key Performance Indicators. • Preparation of an operational assessment study for waste collection and disposal of current organization (Cistoca) including staffing per activity, planning, contracting and tariff collection, payment procedures, accounting with cost allocation, M+R activities, PA, supporting activities. Approach Contract a specialized company with operational and consultancy experience in the field of waste collection and disposal. Contract party: Brcko District C5.4 Financial To overcome present problems a number of changes are recommended based on prevailing international practices especially changes in the tariff calculation and strengthening of the accounting principles within Komunalno Brcko. Tariff cost calculation guidelines are needed to achieve sustainable SWM systems with cost control mechanisms such as the introduction of Key Performance Indicators. The guidelines should take into consideration the following main aspects: • Sound economic principles based on full cost recovery (direct costs, overhead costs, financing costs, etc.) unless the Municipality decides to subsidize partly the waste management services. The tariff should include future landfill closure costs. Furthermore, it should be decided if and which part of street cleaning costs has to be included in the tariff. • Full amortization costs (depreciation and interest) should be taken into account with depreciation periods based on usable lifetime of the facilities. Normally this will be 20 years for civil works and 12 years for mechanical/electrical works and equipment. • No VAT tax for households as tariff for public services is considered to be a tax. However, the tariff for the CII sector will be subject to VAT as it is considered to be a commercial service charge. VAT exemption for households is based on Article 13 of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC stating amongst others “States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be regarded as taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities….” Although the Utility company in BD is transformed into a “limited company” there is no doubt that this company is operating under public law. Moreover, the market for household waste collection is a public activity in BD. VAT payment is a policy decision making waste management more expensive for the households which might result in the need for increased subsidies to finance the costs. In case national authorities are reluctant to introduce exemption of VAT on services it is recommended to discuss alternative taxation modes supporting the improvement of waste management such as introduction of landfill tax on the use of non- sanitary landfills to replace direct VAT payment on collection services. The introduction of a reduced VAT tariff for municipal waste management services could also be considered as is the case in some EU member states. 25 BD Sector Reform Report • No profit margin for public services to households while profit margin can be applied for services to CII sector. • Services to be covered by the tariff should be well defined (collection, separation/sorting, disposal, street cleaning, PA campaigns, etc.). Tariff calculations could be based on the “Tariff setting methodology for the water supply and sewerage services in BiH” as recently developed by UNDP. The current cost allocation system is not clear and no separate system exists for each activity carried out by Komunalno Brcko. Services by Cistoca might be subsidized by income from other services. It is proposed to set up an autonomous Cistoca for WM activities having its own cost allocation system. The system of Key Performance Indicators should be introduced for monitoring the efficiency of the operations. Furthermore, it is recommended that within Cistoca the cost allocation for collection and for landfilling will be separated. Tariff collection from households is currently carried out by Komunalno Brcko together with collecting the tariffs for water and electricity supply. The collection coverage is reported to be 99% of the issued invoices. Payment obligations of the households should be laid down in a “Municipal Regulation” wherein also the tasks and obligations of the stakeholders (BD Government, Komunalno Brcko, Cistoca, waste generators) are defined. Tariff collection from the CII sector could be by the service provider (Cistoca) based on individual contracts. The overarching legal system inside EU member states is collection of tariffs by the municipality and not by the waste collector (see Figure C5-2) but the municipality might outsource the collection of the tariffs. There are several options for collecting the tariffs viz. (i) inclusion in other municipal taxes such as property tax or together with other public utilities provision charges such as heating, electricity; (ii) direct user charge; (iii) pay as you throw but in this case recording of waste quantities will be needed making the system more expensive. In general, less administrative costs are involved having a fixed rate/household (current system) however some differentiation by number of persons (e.g. three groups: 1 or 2 or 3 and more persons) should be introduced to create a reasonable contribution. The disadvantage of a fixed rate system is the lack of incentives for waste separation. It is worthwhile to investigate the feasibility of setting-up by the waste collector of so-called “buying points” for dry recyclables (plastics, paper/cardboard, metals/cans). Experience shows that economic incentives in low-income countries are a valuable instrument to increase waste separation. Figure C5-2: General payment flow inside EU member states The proposed changes in the tariff calculation (no VAT) will have a positive effect on reducing any tariff increase. Moreover, it will be an incentive for private companies to conclude PPP’s and to invest. Tariffs for the CII sector should normally be higher than for households (profit margin, affordability principle). 26 BD Sector Reform Report The existing tariffs both for households and CII sector have to be reviewed taking into account the guidelines mentioned above and in order to meet the EU requirements. Increase of tariffs for households up to a maximum of 1% of the spendable income should be introduced in a phased way. Economic instruments (e.g. environmental tax on use of non-sanitary landfills, environmental tax on use of collection trucks older than 10 years) should be introduced to enforce Cistoca to invest in more environmentally friendly WM activities (sanitary landfill, new collection trucks, waste separation). C5.5 Operational aspects C5.5.1 Collection and disposal The EP Strategy proposes several possibilities to overcome the environmental problems with the current landfilling practices in Brcko. These possibilities include (i) rehabilitation of the existing site and continuation of disposal activities; (ii) construction of a new landfill at Barnjaci or Kladje. Regardless of the approach adopted to resolve the current situation, it would be good practice to consider a short-term (temporary) solution until the long-term vision is implemented. Possible short- term options are: i) Final closure of the existing landfill and temporary transport of waste to the regional landfill in Bijeljina ii) Quick remediation and upgrading of a small footprint of the existing site and continuation of disposal while a long-term solution is decided and implemented It is understood that the opposition of the population might delay the possible solution involving continuation of disposal at the existing site, which is very close to the city center and the river. However, public awareness campaigns can explain the benefit of upgrading the site and difference between sanitary operations vs. non-sanitary landfills. Option (i)- Final closure and (temporary) transport of waste to RL Bijeljina The cost estimate for final closure of the existing landfill covering 12 ha is shown in Table C5-1. Please note that the suggested material, quantity, and sequence are just for cost calculation purposes and may not reflect exact technical details and requirements for the actual work. Table C5-1: Final closure existing landfill Works Unit cost (BAM/m²) Shaping/levelling 3 Geotextile 4 Geomembrane 12 Clay (50cm) 8 Drainage gravel layer (30cm) 7 Gas wells 3 Soil and seeding 3 Total/m² 40 Various clean up works 3 Total cost (12 ha) 5,160,000 In case the amount for closing the landfill will be a loan at 3% and repayment through tariff increase over 20 years the annual cost would be equivalent to BAM 17/t (0,0672x5,160,000/20,500 tons). The average waste quantity (20,500 tons) to be landfilled annually up to 2025 is based on Table C1-16 – realistic scenario (Chapter 1) i.e. collected waste less separated dry recyclables. 27 BD Sector Reform Report Cost calculations for waste transport to Bijeljina including operational and amortization costs are presented in Annexes C4.1, C5.1 and C5.2 for (a) direct transport by the collection trucks and (b) construction of a low-cost transfer station with high capacity long haul transport to Bijeljina. The results of the cost calculations are summarized in Table C5-2. The cost difference between direct transport and via a transfer station is marginal when using a 7.5 tons truck, while direct transport is lower when using a 10 tons truck. In both cases (direct transport or via transfer station) the disposal costs in Bijeljina and the cost for closing the existing landfill in Brcko have to be added. The disposal cost in Bijeljina indicated in the table is based on a proposal submitted by Bijeljina Regional Landfill to Brcko District (BAM 55/ton including VAT). It can be concluded that there is a cost saving in using a 20m³ collection truck for direct transport to Bijeljina as compared to using a transfer station. Therefore, any procurement of new trucks by Komunalno Brcko/Cistoca should give preference to large trucks in case direct transport is envisioned to be implemented. Suitability of large trucks and their mobility throughout the collection routes in the city shall be investigated. Table C5-2: Collection, Transport and Disposal costs to Bijeljina (BAM/t excl. VAT) Assumed 21,500t/y 12m³ collection truck 20m³ collection truck Collection and Transport to Bijeljina 60.23 55.63 Transport via Transfer Station Collection and transport to Transfer Station 40.81 42.41 Transfer Station 2.95 2.95 Transport Transfer Station to Bijeljina 15.44 15.44 Total (via Transfer Station) 59.20 60.80 Disposal in Bijeljina (excl. VAT)¹ 47 47 Cost of LF closing in Brcko 17 17 Grand total (BAM/ton) 123.2 119.63 ¹ Based on offer from Bijeljina of BAM 55/ton incl. VAT. Option (ii)-Upgrading and (temporary) continued operations at existing landfill A cost estimate is presented in Annex C5.3 including operational and amortization costs for upgrading the existing landfill and continuation of waste disposal on top. It shows a total investment of about BAM 7.5 million based on construction of bottom closure for a 5-year disposal cell of 150x150 m (BAM 3.5 million) and a temporary closure (BAM 2.85 million) of remaining area (95,000m²). The operational costs/ton for this option are indicated in Table C5- 3. Table C5- 3: Continued landfill operations (BAM/t excl. VAT) 12m³ collection truck 20m³ collection truck Collection 40.8 42.4 Disposal 52.4 52.4 Total 93.2 94.8 Temporary closure remaining area 8.5 8.5 Grand total 101.7 103.3 C5.5.2 Separation at source In the EP Strategy, no targets are indicated for separation of waste. However, in order to meet the requirements of the EU it will be needed to implement separation. The maximum quantity available of dry recyclables based on the realistic scenario (see chapter 1) in 2025 can be estimated at 30% x 50% x 0,9 x 25,159=3,400 tons/year (10% of packaging waste is collected from CII sector before waste is disposed in containers). 28 BD Sector Reform Report Introduction of separation at source using 240 liters containers for dry recyclables and 1,100 liters containers for mixed waste will increase the collection costs with average about BAM 25/ton (see Annex C5.4). There are various options for further handling of the pre-separated dry recyclables viz.: Option (i): Transporting the separated materials together with the mixed waste to a sorting line at RL Bijeljina and selling it. A cost calculation for this option is given in Annex C5.6 showing a cost of BAM 141.79/ton excluding any revenues from selling the materials to the sorting line. Option (ii): Construction of a sorting line at Brcko landfill. The costs for installation of a sorting line with an input of 3,400 t/y are presented in Annex C5.5. It shows a small revenue of BAM 0.55/ton based on the following assumptions (i) 30% separation at source by the inhabitants; (ii) current sales prices which can fluctuate strongly over time; (iii) staffing costs only 50% for sorting line; (iv) rejects at sorting line of 25%. The total cost for this option is calculated in Annex C5.6 showing a cost of BAM 119.89/ton. Option (iii): Selling the pre-separated materials to a trader in Brcko. It is not recommended to introduce separation at source of organic waste and composting up to 2025. The first priority is separation of dry recyclables and this will require a substantial effort in the field of PA awareness raising and logistic organization. Moreover, a market survey is needed to assess the demand for any compost. C5.5.3 Required equipment In Table 5.4 the required equipment is indicated in case household waste collection will be carried out using 1,100 liters containers without separation at source. The number of containers is calculated on basis of waste quantities to be collected without taking into consideration the service level i.e. walking distance by inhabitants. Also in Table C5-4 is indicated the required equipment in case the waste will be transported to a regional landfill at 40km distance. Table C5-4: Required equipment without separation at source Municipal landfill (10km) Regional landfill (40km) Truck capacity 12m³ 20m³ 12m³ 20m³ Number of trucks 7 6 9 8 Number of containers-1,100 liters 850 850 850 850 Source: Annex C4-1 In case separation at source will be introduced the required number of equipment will increase as indicated in Table C5-5. Table C5-5: Required equipment with separation at source Municipal landfill (10km) Regional landfill (40km) Truck capacity 12m³ 20m³ 12m³ 20m³ Number of trucks 13 12 17 14 Number of containers -1,100 liters 900 900 900 900 - 240 liters 1,195 1,195 1,195 1,195 Source: Annex C5.4 Bulky waste can be collected through so-called “bring stations” or by “door-to-door” service on request. As no reliable statistical information is available it is not recommended to construct “bring stations” but to introduce door-to-door collection. Normally most of the bulky waste (furniture, mattresses, timber, etc.) is collected with opened trucks. A number of flatbed trucks might be needed for collection of white goods and electrical appliances as it is expected that the EPR scheme for WEEE might contract the waste collection company. Any need to be established once the WEEE Scheme will contract the collection company. A rough estimate can be made based on the EU 29 BD Sector Reform Report requirement of minimum 4kg/cap/year to be collected or approximately 260 t/y or 0.8 t/day or one truck. Also, private companies could be hired by the WEEE scheme. For the collection of industrial waste, it is proposed to use large containers (5-7m³). The number of containers and the number of skip trucks will depend on the number of contracts. 30 BD Sector Reform Report C6 INVESTMENTS The expected investments (BAM excl. VAT) are indicated in Table C6-1 for the following options: Option (i): Waste collection without separation at source and disposal at the upgraded municipal landfill (at 10km distance) or direct transport to a regional landfill (40 km to Bijeljina) with final closure of the landfill in Brcko. Option (ii): Same as Option (i) with separation at source and construction of a separation line at the ML in Brcko. Option (iii): Final closure of the existing landfill (12 ha) in case a new landfill site has been selected. Table C6-1: Required investments (BAM) Description Municipal landfill Bijeljina RL Equipment and infrastructure (i) Collection without separation: Trucks 1,670,000 2,190,000 Containers 510,000 510,000 ML Brcko upgrading -New cell with supporting facilities 4,140,000 -Temporary closing remaining part 2,850,000 -Equipment 500,000 Final Closure existing ML in Brcko 5,160,000 (ii) Collection with separation: Trucks 3,230,000 3,970,000 Containers 720,000 720,000 Sorting line at ML 2,400,000 ML Brcko upgrading 7,490,000 Final closure existing ML in Brcko 5,160,000 (iii) New site/regional landfill: -Final closure existing landfill 5,160,000 -Trucks (incl. separation at source) 3,230,000 -Containers (incl. separation at source) 720,000 -Sorting line 2,400,000 Cost for new landfill- ESIA 150,000 - Construction To be investigated Institutional support Department of Public Utilities 500,000 Komunalno Brcko/Cistoca 500,000 31 BD Sector Reform Report ANNEXES 32 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C4.1: Collection and transport in 2015-BD Distance to landfill 10km to MLF 40km to RL Collection system Container system 1100.00 1100.00 inhabitants Census 2013 83516.00 83516.00 living abroad 19500.00 population 64016.00 Generation (kg/cap/day) 0.80 0.80 waste quantity (tons/year) 24386.67 24386.67 collected 20484.80 20484.80 Collection truck-airvolume (m³) 12.00 20.00 12.00 20.00 compaction 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 volume/truckx90%(m³) 32.40 54.00 32.40 54.00 load/truck(550kg/m³x0.9) 5.94 9.90 5.94 9.90 Price truck (KM) 220000.00 300000.00 220000.00 300000.00 Price container -1100 litre (KM) 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 Working days/year 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 Calculation trucks/containers Time/shift (minutes) 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 Fueling 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Garage to collection area 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Lunch break 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Landfill to garage Available for collection and transport 410.00 410.00 410.00 410.00 Cycle time truck Collection/container (minutes) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 containers/truck 29.45 49.09 29.45 49.09 collection time (minutes) 147.27 245.45 147.27 245.45 transport to landfill 15.00 15.00 50.00 50.00 Unloading at landfill 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 transport to collection area 15.00 15.00 50.00 50.00 total(minutes) 192.27 290.45 262.27 360.45 trips/shift/truck 2.13 1.41 1.56 1.14 Weight/shift/truck (tons) 12.67 13.97 9.29 11.26 shifts/day (8-10 hrs./day) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity/year/truck 3799.91 4192.39 2785.73 3378.23 Number/trucks 5.39 4.89 7.35 6.06 truck availability 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 actual truck number 6.74 6.11 9.19 7.58 containers/day (collection 2xweek) 677.18 677.18 677.18 677.18 filling degree 80% 846.48 846.48 846.48 846.48 33 BD Sector Reform Report Investments (KM) Collection trucks 1482486.16 1832318.48 2022209.25 2273910.10 Containers 507887.71 507887.71 507887.71 507887.71 Operational costs Wages 1 Driver+2 loadersx1,15=3.45/truck 18.60 16.86 25.37 20.92 Average costs (KM/year) 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 Costs/year (KM) 223181.55 202287.96 304434.41 251039.68 Total Including management (25%) 278976.94 252859.95 380543.01 313799.59 Fuel km/cycle garage to collection area 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 collection route 15.00 25.00 15.00 25.00 To landfill 10.00 10.00 40.00 40.00 to collection area 10.00 10.00 40.00 40.00 Total km/day 429.29 334.81 1128.83 754.53 Total km/year 128788.00 100442.02 338649.16 226358.72 Litre (0,3 litre/km) 38636.40 30132.61 101594.75 67907.62 costs/year ( KM1,9/litre) 73409.16 57251.95 193030.02 129024.47 lubricants (1.5ltr/100km) 7727.28 6026.52 20318.95 13581.52 Tyres 4-6/truck;30,000km 17.17 20.09 45.15 45.27 Cost (600KM/tyre) 10303.04 12053.04 27091.93 27163.05 M+R Truck (5%) 74124.31 91615.92 101110.46 113695.51 Containers (2%) 10157.75 10157.75 10157.75 10157.75 Total 84282.06 101773.68 111268.22 123853.26 Insurance Trucks (1,0%) 14824.86 18323.18 20222.09 22739.10 Sub-total OPEX 469523.34 448288.33 752474.23 630160.99 Miscellaneous (10%) 46952.33 44828.83 75247.42 63016.10 Total OPEX 516475.68 493117.16 827721.65 693177.09 Amortization Trucks (7 years, 3%) 237939.03 294087.12 324564.58 364962.57 Containers (7 years, 3%) 81515.98 81515.98 81515.98 81515.98 subtotal CAPEX 319455.01 375603.09 406080.56 446478.55 Grand total 835930.68 868720.26 1233802.21 1139655.64 Cost/ton(KM) 40.81 42.41 60.23 55.63 Average KM/ton 41.61 57.93 34 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C4.2: Landfill operations-2015 BD Assumptions Quantity (tons/year) 20484 Annual increase: 1% 1st cell (tons/5 years) 104980.5 Average /year (tons) 20996.1 Storage density (t/m³) 0.7 Storage height (m) 20 Storage volume 1st cell (m³) 172467.96 Storage area: 150x150m² 22500 service area 150 x30m² 4500 Civil works Description unit total units cost/unit total(KM) Service area m² 4500 35 157500 Garage/ repair shop incl. tools m² 125 750 93750 Gas flare 250000 Electricity network 75000 Water supply system 100000 Fence m 660 100 66000 Gatehouse area m² 250 600 150000 Portacabin offices 100000 Surface water ditch m 510 350 178500 Leachate ponds l.s. 2 75000 150000 Subtotal civil works (20 years depreciation) 1320750 Storage cell m² 22500 70 1575000 Closing after 5 years m² 22500 50 1125000 Subtotal civil works (5 years depreciation) 2700000 Grand total civil works 4020750 Equipment Compactor/bulldozer l.s. 1 400000 400000 Excavator l.s. 1 235000 235000 Weighbridge l.s. 1 80000 80000 Aerators leachate ponds 2 30000 60000 Wheels washing 1 70000 70000 Various tools 1 20000 20000 Total equipment 865000 Amortization costs/year Civil works Cell (5 years,3%) 589410 35 BD Sector Reform Report Remaining works (20 years,3%) 88754.4 Equipment (10 years,3%) 101378 Total amortization 779542.4 OPEX/year Wages month Landfill manager 1 3000 36000 Assistant manager 1 2000 24000 Gatehouse weighbridge operator 2 1500 36000 Site controller 2 1500 36000 Drivers 2 1500 36000 Guard 2 1200 28800 Technician workshop 1 1500 18000 Engineers 1 2000 24000 Administrator 2 1500 36000 Secretary 1 1500 18000 Sub-total 292800 Overhead 336720 Energy Bulldozer/Compactor (6hrsx300daysx250kW) 1 ltr=10.6kwh 360000 64528.30 Excavator (3 hours x 300 days x150kw) 108000 19358.49 Site: 50kWx10hrsx300days 120000 14040 Leachate aerators (8hrsx15Kwx2=240kwh/day) 87600 10249.2 Sub-Total 97926.79 M+R Civil works (0.5%) 6603.75 Equipment (5%) 43250 Sub Total M+R 49853.75 Waste covering 15% of tonnage x KM 5/ton 22500 Insurance equipment 865 Environmental monitoring 30000 Office Consumables 15000 Phone, utilities 5000 Audit 5000 Total 25000 Total OPEX 26.81 562865.54 Total CAPEX 37.13 779542.4 Grand total 1342407.94 Cost/ton (excl. VAT) 63.94 Cost/ton incl. VAT 74.81 36 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C5.1 Transfer Station-BD Ramp Cost estimate Civil works Ramp 75000 Pavements (m²) 75000 Utility connections 20000 Total ramp 170000 Amortization costs Civil works (20 yrs/3%) 27285 Operational costs Wages Coordinator 1 17820 Holidays, sickness (15%) 20493 Overhead (25%) 25616.25 Energy Site (25kW;300days;10hrs/day) 60000 7020 M+R Civil works (2%) 3400 OPEX 36036.25 CAPEX 37111 Grand total (BAM) 63321.25 Cost/ton (BAM excl. VAT) 21500 2.95 37 BD Sector Reform Report 38 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C5.2 Transport costs to Bijeljina (40km) Trailer with compression Collection truck 10 t Collection truck 6,0 t Quantity (t/y) 21500 21500 21500 Days/year 300 300 300 Distance (km) 40 40 40 Truck (tons) 20 10 6 Time available 480 480 480 Lunch break 30 30 30 Fueling etc. 20 20 20 Available/day 430 430 430 Trips/day Loading 90 0 0 To RL (40km/hr) 60 60 60 Back from RL 60 60 60 Unloading at RL 20 20 20 Total/trip (min) 230.00 140 140 Trips/day 1.87 3.07 3.07 Km/day/truck 149.57 245.71 245.71 Cap/day (tons) 37.39 30.71 18.43 Cap/year(tons) 11217.39 9214.29 5528.57 Trucks 1.92 2.33 3.89 Trucks Availability (80%) 2.40 2.92 4.86 Cost/truck 400000.00 300000.00 260000.00 Investment (BAM) 958333.33 875000.00 1263888.89 Amortization (7 yrs., 3%) 153812.50 140437.50 202854.17 Operational costs Wages Driver (x 1,15 x 1,25) 49593.75 44275.00 73791.67 M+R (5%) 47916.67 43750.00 63194.44 Fuel Km/year 86000 172000.00 286666.67 Liters/year 25800 51600.00 86000.00 Cost (BAM 1,9/liter) 49020 98040.00 163400.00 Lubricants 5160 10320.00 17200.00 Total 54180 108360.00 180600.00 Tyres 28.67 34.40 38.22 Cost 17200.00 20640.00 22933.33 Insurance (1%) 9583.33 8750.00 12638.89 OPEX 178473.75 225775.00 353158.33 Cost/ton 8.30 10.50 16.43 CAPEX 153812.50 140437.50 202854.17 39 BD Sector Reform Report Cost/ton 7.15 6.53 9.44 Total cost/ton 15.46 17.03 25.86 Truck trip (excl. VAT) 309.10 170.33 155.17 Cost/km 3.86 2.13 1.94 Cost/ton km 0.19 0.21 0.26 40 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C5.3: Closing existing landfill with waste disposal on top BD Annual waste quantity (tons) 22500 Construction costs Item units unit cost Total(BAM) Waste shaping, leveling, compaction 25000 7 175000 Gas relief zone with pipes (30cm) 25000 6 150000 Geotextile 25000 4 100000 Sand, bentonite layer 25000 35 875000 Geotextile 25000 4 100000 Clay for embankments (6m³xlength) 450 16 43200 Drainage gravel with leachate pipes 25000 12 300000 Subtotal (first cell of 150x150m) 25000 69.728 1743200 Civil works Fencing (m) 450 100 45000 Weighbridge 80000 Leachate treatment 700000 gas wells, piping and flare 400000 Roads and ditches 450 700 315000 Fire fighting 100000 Monitoring 30000 Wheels washing 70000 Various tools 20000 Subtotal works 1760000 Total 3503200 Temporary closing remaining area (110000- 2500) 95000 30 2850000 Grand total 6353200 Equipment Compactor 300000 Dozer 200000 Total 500000 Engineering /design (10%) 635320 7488520 Amortization costs First cell (5 years) 1743200 380540.56 Civil works (20 years) 1760000 118272 Temporary closing (20 years) 2850000 191520 Equipment (12 years) 500000 50000 Design (20 years) 635320 42693.50 Total 783026.06 34.80 Operational costs 41 BD Sector Reform Report Wages Landfill manager 1 3000 36000 Assistant LF manager 1 2000 24000 Weighbridge operator 2 1500 36000 Site controller 2 1500 36000 Drivers 2 1500 36000 Guards 1 1200 18000 Engineer workshop 1 1500 18000 Administrator 2 1500 36000 Secretary 1 1500 18000 258000 Overhead (25%) 322500 Energy Site (50kW, 300 days, 8hrs/day) 96000 0.117 11232 Compactor (250 kW x 6hrs, 300 days) 360000 1ltr=10,6kW 64528.30 Dozer (200 kW,6 hrs,300 days) 288000 51622.64 Leachate treatment 365 100 36500 total 163882.943 M+R civil works (0,5%) 1760000 8800 Equipment (5%) 500000 25000 Total 33800 Waste covering 15% x tons x 5km 22500 0.15 16875 Insurance equipment 500000 0.01 5000 Environmental monitoring 30000 Office 15000 Total OPEX 587057.94 26.09 Total cost/ton 60.89 42 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C5.4: Cost estimate mixed containers collection-BD 10 km to LF 40 km to RL COLLECTION Large truck (20m³) Small truck (12m³) 20m³ 12m³ Assumptions Mixed containers Mixed containers Mixed containers Mixed containers Container system (liters) 1100 240 1100 240 1100 240 1100 240 Waste volume/year(ton) 25160 25160 25160 25160 Recyclables:30%x50,56% in 240 ltr 21725.36 3434.64 21725.36 3434.64 21725.36 3434.64 21725.36 3434.64 Collection truck-air volume 20 20 12 10 20 20 12 10 compaction 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 volume/truckx90%(m³) 54 54 32.4 27 54 54 32.4 27 Load (550kg/m³/300kg/m³) 9.9 5.4 5.94 2.7 9.9 5.4 5.94 2.7 Price truck (KM) 300000 300000 220000 220000 300000 300000 220000 220000 Price container -1100 litre(KM) 600 150 600 150 600 150 600 150 Working days/year 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Waste density (kg/m³) 185 80 185 80 185 80 185 80 Calculation number trucks and containers Time/shift (minutes) 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 Fueling. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Garage to collection area (10km-20km) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Lunch break 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Landfill to garage Available for collection and transport 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 Cycle time truck Collection/container (minutes) 5 4 5 4.00 5 4 5 4 Containers/truck 49.09 225 29.45 112.50 49.09 225 29.45 112.5 43 BD Sector Reform Report Collection time (minutes) 245.45 900 147.27 450.00 245.45 900.00 147.27 450.00 Transport to landfill 15 15 15 15.00 50 50 50 50 Unloading at landfill/sorting line 15 15 15 15.00 15 15 15 15 Transport to collection area 15 15 15 15.00 50 50 50 50 Total (minutes) 290.45 945 192.27 495.00 360.45 1015.00 262.27 565.00 Trips/shift/truck 1.41 0.43 2.13 0.83 1.14 0.40 1.56 0.73 Weight/shift/truck (tons) 13.97 2.34 12.67 2.24 11.26 2.18 9.29 1.96 Shifts/day 1 1 1 1.00 1 1 1 1 Capacity/year/truck 4192.39 702.86 3799.91 670.91 3378.23 654.38 2785.73 587.79 Number/trucks 5.18 4.89 5.72 5.12 6.43 5.25 7.80 5.84 Truck availability 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.80 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Actual truck number 6.48 6.11 7.15 6.40 8.04 6.56 9.75 7.30 Containers/day (collection 2 x week) 718.19 954.07 718.19 954.07 718.19 954.07 718.19 477.03 Filling degree 80% 897.74 1192.58 897.74 1192.58 897.74 1192.58 897.74 596.29 Investments (KM) Collection trucks 1943283.14 1832507.12 1572265.07 1407830.87 2411617.42 1968248.39 2144673.64 1606918.06 Containers 538645.24 178887.60 538645.24 178887.60 538645.242 178887.60 538645.24 89443.80 Operational costs Wages 1 Driver + 2 loadersx1,15=3.45/truck 17.88 16.86 19.72 17.66 22.19 18.11 26.91 20.16 Average costs (KM/year) 12000.00 12000 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000 12000 12000.00 Costs/year (KM) 214538.46 202308.79 236697.36 211942.54 266242.56 217294.62 322870.87 241914.21 Total Including management (25%) 268173.07 252885.98 295871.70 264928.17 332803.20 271618.28 403588.58 302392.76 Fuel km/cycle 44 BD Sector Reform Report Garage to collection area 5 5 5 5.00 5 5 5 5 Collection route 255.00 90 15.00 45.00 25.00 90 15.00 45 To landfill 10 10 10 10.00 40 40 40 40 to collection area 10 10 10 10.00 40 40 40 40 Total km/day/all trucks 355.08 257.65 455.29 301.22 800.22 386.67 1197.19 559.25 Total km/year 106524.76 77294.96 136587.36 90364.90 240066.93 116000.61 359157.65 167776.21 Litre (0,3 litre/km) 31957.43 23188.49 40976.21 27109.47 72020.08 34800.18 107747.30 50332.86 Costs/year ( KM1,9/litre) 60719.11 44058.13 77854.80 51507.99 136838.15 66120.35 204719.86 95632.44 Lubricants (1.5ltr/100km) 6391.49 4637.70 8195.24 5421.89 14404.02 6960.04 21549.46 10066.57 Tyres 4-6/truck; 30,000km 21.30 15.46 18.21 12.05 48.0133868 23.20 47.89 22.37 Cost (600KM/tyre) 12782.97 9275.39 10926.99 7229.19 28808.03 13920.07 28732.61 13422.10 M+R Truck (5%) 97164.1569 91625.36 78613.25 70391.54 120580.871 98412.4195 107233.68 80345.90 Containers (2%) 10772.9048 3577.75 10772.90 3577.75 10772.9048 3577.752 10772.90 1788.876 Total 107937.06 95203.11 89386.16 73969.30 131353.78 101990.17 118006.59 82134.78 Insurance Trucks (1,0%) 19432.83 18325.07 15722.65 14078.31 24116.1742 19682.4839 21446.74 16069.1806 Sub-total OPEX 475436.54 424385.38 497957.54 417134.86 668323.35 480291.39 798043.84 519717.83 Miscellaneous (10%) 47543.65 42438.538 49795.75 41713.49 66832.3354 48029.14 79804.38 51971.78 Total OPEX 522980.19 466823.92 547753.29 431213.17 735155.69 528320.53 877848.22 571689.61 Amortization Trucks (5-7 years, 3%) 311896.94 294117.39 252348.54 225956.85 387064.60 315903.87 344220.12 257910.35 Containers (7 years, 3%) 86452.56 28711.46 86452.56 28711.46 86452.56 28711.46 86452.56 14355.73 Total CAPEX 398349.50 322828.85 338801.11 254668.31 473517.16 344615.33 430672.68 272266.08 Grand total 921329.69 789652.77 886554.39 685881.48 1208672.85 872935.86 1308520.90 843955.69 Cost/ton (KM) 42.41 229.91 40.81 199.70 55.63 254.16 60.23 245.72 45 BD Sector Reform Report Combined KM/ton 68.00 62.50 82.73 85.55 Average 65.25 84.14 Annex C4.1 (only 1,100 litres containers) 40.81 42.41 55.63 60.23 Average 41.61 57.93 Difference 23.64 26.21 46 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C5.5: Sorting line BD Sorting line calculation Separation at source Quantities (2025) 5 tph Input quantities (tons) 3400.00 Composition Paper/Cardboard (%) 53 1351.50 Plastics (%) 27 688.50 Glass (%) 13 331.50 Cans (%) 7 178.50 Saleable recyclables 2550.00 Sorting line (5tph installed capacity) Annual capacity-300 days (tons) 9600 Input (tons/year) 3400.00 Rejects (impurities in pre- sorted materials) 850 25% to landfill Output of saleable materials (tons/year) 2550 Cost calculation Investments Item Costs (KM) Total M/E works 1500000 Civil works 900000 Total 2400000 Costs/year Amortization 210480 61.91 M/E works (12 years, 3%) 150000 Civil works (20 years, 3%) 60480 Operations Transport landfill rejects 5 4250.00 M+R 54000 M/E (%) 3 45000 Civil (%) 1 9000 Labour (one shift) 76176.00 Manager 1 2000 24000 Engineer 1 1500 18000 Baler 1 1300 15600 Drivers 1 1300 15600 Sorters 6 1000 12000 Guards 1 1000 12000 Administration 1 1500 18000 115200 47 BD Sector Reform Report Working time 50% 66240.00 Overhead (15%) 76176.00 Energy 70246.4 Site (10kW, 8 hrs/day, 300 days) 19200 2246.4 20 kWh/ton 0.117 68000 68000 7956 Office 5000 Total (excl. VAT) 420152.40 123.57 Cost/ton 123.57 Revenues (assumption: operator =collector) Savings on landfill 51000.00 Quantity (tons) 850 Disposal: KM/ton (excl. VAT) 60 Sales ex sorting line 422025.00 Paper/cardboard 140 1351.50 189210.00 Plastics (mixed) 300 688.50 206550.00 Glass 20 331.50 6630.00 Cans 110 178.50 19635.00 Sub total 2550.00 422025.00 Total 422025.00 Price KM/ton 124.13 Net result (KM/ton) 0.55 48 BD Sector Reform Report Annex C5.6: Cost/ton for various options-2025 Without waste separation at source With waste separation at source ML Brcko RL Bijeljina ML Brcko RL at Bijeljina tons/year unit rate cost/year tons/year unit rate cost/year tons/year unit rate cost/year tons/year unit rate cost/year Collection and transport 25160 41.61 1046908 25160 57.93 1457518.8 25160 41.61 1046907.6 25160 57.93 1457518.8 Disposal 25160 60.89 1531992 25160 47 1182520 22610 60.89 1376722.9 21760 47 1022720 Final Closure ML Brcko 25160 17 427720 25160 17 427720 Subtotal (BAM/ton excl. VAT) 102.5 2578900 121.93 3067758.8 Separation at source Collection 25160 23.64 594782.4 25160 26.21 659443.6 Sorting 3400 -0.55 -1870 3400 TBD Total (BAM/ton excl. VAT) 119.89 3016542.9 141.79 3567402.4 Note: Disposal cost in Bijeljina based on offer of BAM 55/ton incl. VAT. TBD = to be discussed (selling rate of dry recyclables) 49