Ben Purcell – Solid Waste Management Expert Martin Steiner – Solid Waste Management Expert

1. Modern Waste Management for KosovoWorkshops no 5 and 6 / July 24 and 26 2007, AFA-Hotel, Prishtina Ben Purcell – Solid Waste Management Expert Martin Steiner – Solid Waste Management Expert

2. Modern Waste Management for KosovoWorkshop no 5 July 24 2007 Waste Policy, Legal Framework and Landfill

3. BP Ben Purcell • Graduated as a civil engineer • 14 years’ experience in the waste management sector • Major projects include • Research into new operational practice for landfills • Design, construction and operation of composting and waste treatment facilities • Waste strategy • Waste policy review • International work covering Kosovo, the Russian Federation, Lebanon and Ireland.

4. MS Martin Steiner &European Environmental Engineers at a glance: • Independant Engineers & Consultants ...focussing on solid waste: - Waste Management Concepts(1992 - ´94 Zagreb, ´97 Ljubljana, 2004 Crna Gora) - Design & Optimization of Waste Treatment Plants (Vienna, Milan, Istanbul) - Consulting & Knowledge Transfer(Ljubljana 2004, Skopje 2007, …) - Solid Waste Audits(Zagreb, Sofia, many projects in Austria, Italy, and overseas)

5. MS Why is this workshop done, and what should be achieved? • Part of the present project “Institutional support to WWRO Water & Waste Regulatory Office”:TOR lists 3 key components for the “focus of the project”: • license administration  tariff questions • “waste handling procedures”. • Convey some understanding on how up-to-date waste management works • both in developed systems & developing / transitional countries • Supply a platform to decision makers to discuss how identified institutional weaknesses in Kosovo´s arrangements related to solid waste could be resolved and sustainably improved.

6. MS ´Driving forces´ for proper management of solid waste... (answers by a course in Ljubljana, 2004) • to create a revenue • health protection • to reduce waste amounts • environmental aspects (clean air & water, soil protection) • to reduce greenhouse gas emissions • to save resources (material, energy)

7. MS Source of White Drin river Lake in Tyrol / Austria Main driving forces for proper dealing with waste = main driving forces for environmental protection in general • Health • Cost aspects • Natureas a resource (eg. tourism)

8. MS Regular waste collection… …is not supposed to represent an issue of particular importance in EC legal framework …  European legal framework focuses on treatment and disposal… …as collection is anticipated an issue being already resolved rsp. satisfactorily organized by loweradministration levels…

9. MS 9 Council of Europe, Resolution No 1543/2007 Essential content of Resolution 1543, adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on March 16, 2007 […] There are significant differences between Council of Europe member states regarding solid waste management standards and practices. […] The Assembly therefore urges member states to develop an integrated approach to municipal solid waste management in order to contribute to sustainable urban development in Europe, in particular by: 1. ensuring compliance with occupational health and safety standards during the collection, processing and landfilling of all types of waste, in particular by banning any barehanded operations and any recovery of waste from landfills without proper protection and regular health checks for the persons involved; 2. establishing regular waste collection systems for all urban, suburban and rural areas (exceptions should only be granted for remote locations with approved, safe individual waste disposal facilities) and including in the relevant legislation phased targets for the provision of municipal solid waste collection systems in accordance with the requirements of European Union Directive No 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste; 3. enforcing compliance with strict standards for landfilling, for instance: - landfills must be fenced and patrolled; - waste accepted at landfills must be recorded; - waste placed in landfills must regularly be covered with suitable material (eg construction debris) in order to reduce odour, windblown litter and vermin; - adjacent groundwater must be monitored; 4. depending on local hydrogeology, suitable measures for groundwater protection (such as landfill liners and leachate collection, etc) must be put in place; 5. planning waste management through the development of strategies including the gradual reduction/ phasing out of the landfilling of specific waste streams, given their recyclability and/or the impacts related to their disposal (eg biodegradable waste);

10. MS Driving Forces for MSW Treatment • Utilizationof certain waste components • Minimizationof amounts to be landfilled • Stabilizationof residuals to be landfilled

11. MS About the European approach… …landfill emissions:

12. MS 12 Sanitary landfill: The Multi-Barrier-System Safeguard 1:Site selection (hydrogeology) Safeguard 2:Top sealing (capping) Safeguard 3:Leachate control (mineral liner, mineral + HDPE liner) Safeguard 4:Leachate collection and treatment Safeguard 5:Permanent covering during operation Safeguard 6: Diversion / Pretreatment of biodegradable waste About the European approach...

13. Percentage of Biodegradable Municipal Waste of the total amount of MSW in relation to the relevant amount in 1995 MS „Slow“ member states (Majority of the „10 newcomers“, England, Spain...) „Quick“ member states (Germany, Austria, Benelux, Italy...) BMW Biodegr. Municipal Waste Targets given by EC Directive No 1999/31 („EU Landfill Directive“)

14. BP Waste management architecture Government or Federal level Obligation to EU Sets waste policy & national targets Transfer of responsibilty Province or Regional level Prepares & implements detailed strategies for delivering national targets Municipality level Carries out waste management operations (collection and perhaps disposal). Determines costs, control tenders for service delivery

15. Changes in waste management structure • The Kosova Waste Law (02/L-30) provides municipalities with the power and responsibility for waste management service provision • The Kosovo Status Settlement Proposal (Ahtisaari Plan, Ref S/2007/168/Add.1) proposes municipal control of publicly owned enterprises (PoEs) • But incorporated PoEs should be excluded from the transfer of power/ownership to the municipal level • Governance of incorporated PoEs should be exercised by KTA

16. BP Policy flows • The Government must set policy and objectives for waste management • Government should prepare a strategy for consultation • Strategy consultation with other stakeholders on policy decisions, e.g. environmental regulator, waste management organisations etc. • Strategy should deliver legislative objectives or targets; • Capacity for infrastructure investment and institutional strengthening; • Maximise the environmental benefit from the infrastructure investments.

17. BP European waste law • 2 No. legislative bodies in the European Union • The European Parliament (785 members) • The Council of the European Union (one minister from each member state) • Most decisions now are co-decisions but in some areas the Council has superior powers. • Directives (laws) must be passed by both houses before they can be adopted

18. BP Waste policy & law • Before law or directives, must come waste policy. • Bad policies make bad laws and vice-versa. Laws without policies are even worse. • Need to develop policy setting capacity to ensure consensus building before legal drafting • ‘The most useful step in improving the quality of legislation is the recognition that policy development is an essential precursor to drafting law’ • Laws without Policy, Kosovar Institute for Policy Research and Development, No. 4. November 2006.

19. BP European waste policy • European waste policy: three main pillars. • Waste prevention and minimisation • The less waste we generate, a reduction in its hazardousness makes the management of the waste easier • Recycling and reuse • Wastes, like packaging, that cannot be prevented should be recycled • Improving final disposal and monitoring • Where waste cannot be recycled or reused, it should be safely burned (incineration) and landfilled as a last resort. Both of these disposal methods are tightly controlled to minimise their impact or harmful effects on the environment.

20. BP European waste policy

21. BP European waste policy • Has it delivered? • No • Between 1990 and 1995, the amount of waste produced by 10% • Most of it (67%) was either incinerated or landfilled • By 2020, the OECD estimates we could be generating 45% more waste than we do today • and yes • Recycling rates have increased in England from 12% in 2000 to 27% in 2005 • Landfill has been reduced from 79% in 2000 to 62% in 2005 • Recycling rates have increased progressively in Europe. Paper recycling has doubled from 25% in 1991 to 50% in 2004.

22. BP European waste management • Turnover at over €100bn for EU-25 • 1.2 – 1.5 million jobs • Recycling industry provides the raw materials for: • 50% of the paper and steel • 40% of non-ferrous metals • EU disposes of almost half of its waste to landfill, almost a 20% to incineration and 30% is recycled or composted • Waste growth still a problem • 1990-1995 waste grew by 10% • By 2020, this could increase by a further 43% (Joint Research Centre) • Figures can be misleading: • Amount of plastic waste going to landfill increased by 27% (1990-2002) • Yet percentage of plastic waste dropped from 77% to 62%!

23. BP Directive on Waste • Directive on waste 2006/12/EC (05/06/07) • Defined waste as any substance or object (set out in Annex 1) which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard • The main thrust in-line with the Waste Directive (75/442/EEC): prevention and reduction of the harmful effects of waste production • Recycling and reuse and the use of energy recovery • Disposal as a final option with minimal impact on the environment • Establish a competent authority or authorities (for issuing permits etc) • Draw up, prepare waste management plans

24. BP Directive on the landfill of waste • Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC) • Written in accordance with the Waste Directive (75/442/EEC), now superseded • Central aim to prevent or reduce the negative effects on the environment on the landfilling of waste, during its whole life cycle • How? • Classifying landfills and design requirements, • Restricting waste input types (e.g. biodegradable matter, tyres, liquids) • Imposing tight controls on the management of landfill emissions, both liquid and gaseous • Aftercare periods for landfills

25. Other relevant directives • Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste • Established definition of hazardous waste, working method for the acceptance, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste • Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste • Council Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) • Council Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste

26. BP Where does this leave us? • Legislative guidance from Europe on: • how to define and categorise waste (waste directive) • how to manage wastes, from their collection through to their treatment and disposal • Policy guidance from Europe on: • waste hierarchy • thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling • Experience and best practice examples across many European countries on developing a waste management industry

27. BP Kosovo Waste Law (02/L-30) • The law was developed but where was the policy? • A waste strategy was prepared for the support provided by the European Union for the development of the regional landfills. • But we still need a clear policy on municipal waste. • How should Kosova manage its waste? • What targets should be set for waste management? • How is it to be funded now and in the future?

28. BP Kosovo Waste Law (02/L-30) • The Law has been based around the European Directive on Waste, though not fully and with no policy on waste behind the law. • It creates powers for both the MESP and the municipalities, though does not appear to make provision for KEPA or other competent authorities (KTA, WWRO) • But power brings responsibility for waste management plans, local plans • Are they being prepared?

29. BP Other issues (Waste Law) • Does the MESP and the municipalities have the institutional capacity to administer licensing and enforcement (what about KEPA) • Municipalities should determine tariffs based on a competitive tender arrangement with the service providers. • Confusion over Ecological Permits, Waste Management Licences, • And the environmental regulator should be independent of the municipality and ideally from government control

30. BP Waste management plans • Compliance with waste policy & target acheivements • Outline waste characteristics, the treatment and disposal capacity • Development of technological solutions • Investment requirements • Comprise three main elements • Background to waste management • Status (i.e. waste streams, sources, quantities and options) • Planning objectives and action for collection, treatment and disposal options, including financial investments

31. BP Waste management plans General considerations & background consultation Status (waste quantities etc) Planned Revision consultation Planning consultation Implementation

32. BP Waste management structure Government (Department of Food, Environment & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Responsible for waste policy, laws and regulations Waste collection authority (Municipalities) Waste disposal authority (Regional Organisation) ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (Environmental Regulator. Licenses, inspects, enforces) (Non-governmental organisation) Direct Service Organisations Private Operators Private operators for recycling, treatment and disposal

33. BP Essex County, Eastern England • Essex population: 1.32m • Waste generation: 720,000 tonnes of municipal waste per annum (0.54kg/h/a) • 75% landfilled, 25% recycled in 2003/04 • Area – 3,469km2 • Population/km2 - 377 • Kosovo – 2.4m • Area – 10,877km2 • Population/km2 – 200 • Waste generation estimate: 0.44kg/h/a

34. BP Essex County, Eastern England • Essex waste management cost: €100m/a • Per head of population per annum: €76 • Equivalent to Kosovo waste charge at an occupancy of 6 = €38/mth per household • GDP - €28,000 per head • Kosovo – €6.3m (4.8m collection + €1.5m KTA) • Per head of population per annum: €2.63 • Equivalent to waste charge of: €3.5/mtn per hh • GDP - €850 per head

35. BP Essex County, Eastern England Description Essex County Kosovo Waste charge per annum € 100m € 6.3m Equivalent household charge in Kosovo € 38/mth€ 3.5/mth GNDI (Gross National Disposal Income) € 21,500€ 1,320

36. BP Essex County, Eastern England • Municipal waste in Essex collected by each collection authority • Disposal of 75% of its waste to about 6 privately operated landfills, 3 main landfills (diagram). • Landfills operated by 3 different waste management contractors. • Essex County Council charges households as part of a general rates bill (including other services e.g. schools, transport, health care and waste) • Essex provides funding for each collection authority to operate a collection service • Essex tenders the disposal of waste between a number of waste management contractors • Best value tender is awarded for long-term contracts (+10 years) • All collection and disposal operations regulated by the Environment Agency

37. BP Waste management structure

38. BP What is the policy Government Minister for Waste (Ben Bradshaw) Department of Food, Environment & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) • Waste policy (2007) to comply with European Directives: • Divert waste from landfill and increase our recycling rates • Improve public environmental consciousness (concerns for dangerous climate change. • Raise our target, deliver quicker progress to reach European levels of recycling and diversion. ‘No strategy (to deliver the policy) can stand still. Alongside our plans to deliver, we will continue to develop and adapt our approach to take account of new thinking, new evidence and new approaches.’

39. BP Policy Objectives The Government’s key objectives are to: • Decouple waste growth (in all sectors) from economic growth - waste prevention and re-use; • Deliver the Landfill Directive diversion targets; • Increase waste diversion from landfill, integrate treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste; • Secure infrastructure investment; • Maximise the environmental benefit from the infrastructure investments.

40. BP Achieving those objectives • Incentivise efforts to reduce, re-use, recycle waste and recover energy from waste; • Reform regulation to drive the reduction of waste and diversion from landfill while reducing costs to compliant businesses and the regulator; • Target action on materials, products and sectors; • Stimulate investment in collection, recycling and recovery infrastructure, and markets for recovered materials • Improve national, regional and local governance, with a clearer performance and institutional framework

41. BP Key data

42. BP Key data

43. BP Key data

44. MS 44 1.000 t/a Other Recycleables kg/ inh .a 3.500 Packagings ( Plastics , Metals) 400 3.000 350 Biowaste 2.500 300 Glass 2.000 250 Paper 200 1.500 Bulky waste 1.000 Residual MSW 500 Waste from households , total 0 1986 1996 1974 1982 1984 1992 1998 1988 2000 1972 1990 1994 1976 1980 1978 Waste disposed of year Case study Austria

45. MS 45 Since January 1, 2004 it is forbidden in Austria to dispose of untreated Municipal Solid Waste on any landfill !

46. MS Specific generation rates of MSW, recyclables and compostables by country. 2005 data. Source: CoE

47. MS Data on landfill levies (on municipal or national level) by country. 2005 data. Source: CoE

48. MS 48 !!! in any European country Two reasons for separate collection & treatment: QUALITY aspects !

49. MS Focus of inter-national donorsin Kosovo so far Procedures and elements of a modern solid waste management concept

50. MS KLMC sites visited by IPA during preparation of a cost assessment study