Danko Fundurulja

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF FINANCING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTSFEASIBILITY STUDY OF FINANCING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

Wastemanagement consist of:

• MAKING• COLLECTING(TRANSPORT)• LOOKING AFTER

Waste Management sheme

IVO• Waste prevention• Waste evaluationMaterial recycling and reuseBiological recycling and reuse (MBO)Power recycling• Residual waste landfilling

RECYCLING (separation on place of making)

• Treatment type of material separated fromwaste and its reuse

• Including: collecting, separating,treatment, marketing and new productmaking or material from used materials

Container for separate collection of packaging glass

Recycling point

Recycling yard

SOLUTION TO THE WASTE PROBLEM

• Forming a cadastre which consisted in the existing state and larger landfills in the RH

• Adopting appropriate laws• Providing the financial funds for solving

the problems

CATEGORIES OF LANDFILLS

• Legal landfills• Landfills in the legalization process• Official landfills• Landfills under negotiated conditions• - “Wild” landfills

EXISTING STATE – TILL 2004 YEAR

• 154 functional “official landfills”• total 580 ha (1,5 m2/resident included in

the organized waste collection)• 36 (23%) “official” landfills comply with the

legal regulations (only 5 working permitions, construction permits)

EXISTING STATE REVIEW• the first waste landfill project for Poreč area – made in

1976. y.• the first rehabilitation project of the existing dump for

the Banjole landfill in Pula– made in 1978. y. • Umag, Dubrovnik (1982y), Sisak (1984y), Garešnica

(1986y) landfill – obtained first construction permits• in 1990s the elaboration of rehabilitation designs for a

series of landfills begins • - the rehabilitation of the largest dump area in this part

of Europe started – landfill “Jakuševec” in Zagreb

COMPARISON DATA 1995. and 2004.

average 0,71(0,49 – 1,01)

0,62

- the specific quantity of organized collected and removed communal waste per resident(kg/resident/day)

86%57 %- population participated in organized coolection of waste

1.310.643 978.542- total communal waste (t)

2004.1995.

LEGAL REGULATIONS

36/96Regulation on emissions into the environment cadastre

13.123/97, 112/01Regulation on conditions for waste treatment12.

53/96, 97/05, 115/05Regulation on package waste treatment11.27/96Regulation on types of waste10.

107/95, 150/05Water Act959/00, 136/04

Regulation on environmental impact assessment

858/93, 33/05Fire Protection Act7

59/96, 94/96, 114/03, 100/04Occupational Safety Act6

30/94, 82/94, 68/98, 35/99, 61/00,32/02,100/04

Physical Development Act5

52/99, 57/99, 75/99, 175/03, 100/04

Building Act482/94, 128/99Environmental Protection Act3.34/95,178/04Waste Act2.

36/95, 70/97, 128/99, 57/00, 26/03,82/04,178/04

Communal Economy Act1.Official Gazzette, numberRegulationNo.

COMPENSATION FOR COLLECTION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL

0,1 EURO/m2HOUSEHOLDS

HRK/m2

HRK/person

HRK/household

HRK/bin removal

ECONOMY

cost is generally agreed on

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF WASTE TREATMENT IN COMPARISON WITH THE

STATE IN 2004 y.

5Share of sanitary landfills (%)

154187Official landfills

00County and regional centers for waste management

negligible95 %Quantity of deposited biodegradable waste as opposed to waste produced in 1995

9795 %Quantity of deposited communal waste

12Quantity of treated communal waste

2 %6 %Quantity of separately collected and recycled waste

86 %80 %Population included in organized waste collection

20042005OBJECTIVES

• proper city finances = budgetary finances which returns fromcompensation

• credit – depends on creditor conditions(grace period possible, rate of 8 - 14%, paying of in various variants)

Investing plan towards planned phasesInvestingInvesting plan plan towardstowards plannedplanned phasesphases

11.391.000,0017.087.000,00

Enlargingconstruction(10 years)

11.261.000,006.711.000,005.881.000,0017.437.000,00

Enlargingconstruction(20 years)

8.215.000,00

Remediationand closure of existing landfill

IV phaseIII phaseII phaseI phase

Varijante Sanacija Novo odlagalište

Varijanta 1 Grad – vlastita sredstva –

Varijante Sanacija Novo odlagalište

Varijanta 1 Grad – vlastita sredstva –

Varijanta 2 Grad uzima kredit(5 godina, 12 % kamata)

–

Varijante Sanacija Novo odlagalište

Varijanta 1 Grad – vlastita sredstva –

Varijanta 2 Grad uzima kredit(5 godina, 12 % kamata)

–

Varijanta 3 Grad uzima kredit(5 godina, 12 % kamata)

Grad uzima kredit(4 × 5 godina, 12 % kamata) ili(2 × 5 godina, 12 % kamata)

Varijants Remediation New landfill

Varijant 1 City – own finances –

Varijant 2 City takes credit (5 years, 12 % interest)

–

Varijant 3 City takes credit (5 years, 12 % interest)

City takes credit (4 × 5 years, 12 % interest) or (2 × 5 years, 12 % interest)

Varijant 4 City – own finances Concessionaire – own finances(9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)

Varijant 5 City takescredit (5 years, 12 % interest)

Concessionaire – own finances(9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)

Varijant 6 Concessionaire – own finances (9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)

Concessionaire – own finances(9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)

• proper city finances = budgetary finances which returns from

compensation• credit – depends on creditor conditions

(grace period possible, rate of 8 - 14%, paying of in various variants)

Variants review toward types of financesVariantsVariants reviewreview towardtoward typestypes of of financesfinances

• Without finances for closure and monitoring which collect separatelythrough fee

• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation

Parallel variants review in view of relationinvested/returned

ParallelParallel variantsvariants reviewreview in in viewview of of relationrelationinvestedinvested//returnedreturned

1,211,311,001,09Index:

12.571.36913.562.62410.383.01911.292.210obligations and totally invested,kn:

Difference amount of refund per

42.490.44743.481.70240.302.09741.211.288Total amount of refund per obligations,kn:

3.188.3633.188.3633.188.3630Addition on risk/profit, kn:

9.383.00610.374.2617.194.65611.292.210Interest, kn:

29.919.07829.919.07829.919.07829.919.078Returned by amortization, kn:

29.919.07829.919.07829.919.07829.919.078Total invested finances*, kn:

Variant 6Variant 5Variant 4Variant 3Variants

• Review relates on 10-year landfill work

• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation

Difference of invested and returned financesdepending on financing variant

DifferenceDifference of of investedinvested and and returnedreturned financesfinancesdependingdepending on on financingfinancing variantvariant

12,571,36913,562,624

10,383,01911,292,210

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

Varijanta 3 Varijanta 4 Varijanta 5 Varijanta 6

kuna

11,292,21010,383,019

13,562,62412,571,369

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Godina

kn/m

2 /mj.

Varijanta 3 Varijanta 4 Varijanta 5 Varijanta 6

• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation

• Correction in view of fee effectiveness ( 80% )

Parallel review compensation rate movementfor households toward variants (10 years)

ParaParalllellel reviewreview compensationcompensation rate rate movementmovementforfor householdshouseholds towardtoward variantsvariants (10 (10 yearsyears))

• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in

calculation

Parallel review compensation rate movementfor new landfill work

ParalParalllel el reviewreview compensationcompensation rate rate movementmovementforfor new new landfilllandfill workwork

New landfill, kn/m2/mjYear Varijant 3 Varijant 4 Varijant 5 Varijant 62001 0,16 0,17 0,17 0,172002 0,45 0,33 0,33 0,332003 0,45 0,34 0,34 0,342004 0,44 0,38 0,38 0,382005 0,44 0,36 0,36 0,362006 0,45 0,38 0,38 0,382007 0,26 0,40 0,40 0,402008 0,26 0,39 0,39 0,392009 0,27 0,39 0,39 0,392010 0,27 0,43 0,43 0,43

• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation

Parallel review compensation rate movementfor waste looking after

ParalParalllel el reviewreview compensationcompensation rate rate movementmovementforfor wastewaste lookinglooking afterafter

Waste looking after, kn/m2/mjYear Varijant 3 Varijant 4 Varijant 5 Varijant 62001 0,44 0,45 0,45 0,452002 0,86 0,71 0,74 0,752003 0,86 0,72 0,75 0,752004 0,87 0,77 0,80 0,802005 0,88 0,76 0,80 0,782006 0,89 0,78 0,82 0,792007 0,60 0,73 0,73 0,732008 0,61 0,73 0,73 0,732009 0,62 0,75 0,75 0,752010 0,64 0,79 0,79 0,79

Parallel review fee structure for waste lookingafter in relation to fee effectiveness

ParallelParallel reviewreview feefee structurestructure forfor wastewaste lookinglookingafterafter in in relationrelation to to feefee effectivenesseffectiveness

2002. 2002. yearyear, , varijantvarijant 33

kn/m2/mj.

Type of cost Fee 100% Fee 80% Remediation 0,13 0,15 New landfill 0,45 0,54 Collecting and transport 0,28 0,34

Total fee 0,86 1,03

Note: assumed inflation includeed from 3% per year

• Economic activity increase in next period willinfluence on fee amount for waste looking after

• Fee expences per m2 will decrease because of wastequantity increasing and fixed expenses portion pertreated waste unit will also decrease

• Supplying conditions influence on fee amountspecially in variant 3 and variant 5

INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSION

For variant selection it is needed to take care of:

• Disposable own financial city finances (which will beused for remediation of existing landfill or construction of new landfill)

• Possibility of taking over credit obligations formentioned activities

• Possibility of finding out suitable concessionaire

• Dynamics of paying off invested finances – suitabledynamics of paying off will influence on suitable feefor waste looking after

INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSION

IPZ UniprojektTERRA

Babonićeva 32Zagreb

tel: +385 1 4635 496

funda@ipz-uniprojekt.hr

http://www.ipz-uniprojekt.hr