“Solid Waste Management in cross-border rural and coastal areas of South Eastern European region”

2nd Dialogue Platform

March 2016

Welcome

•Introductions

•Overview of the 2 days

•Purpose• Discuss findings of the Environmental

and Economic Impact Assessment Report

• Discuss best practices in Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Models and proposed ISWM concepts

• Agree on proposals for regional cooperation

Environmental Impacts

• Water pollution,

• Threats to the riverine wildlife (Drini E Bardhe and Lepenec)

• Destruction of protected areas: Lumi i Gashit in Tropoja; Lugina e Valbones in Tropoja; Tej Drini i Bardhe in Has; Korab-Koritnik; SharrNational Park.

• Human health problems in terms of potential injuries of people by sharp objects settled at the bottom of the rivers Drini E Bardhe and Lepenec as well as Fierza Lake

Environmental Impact Assessment

• Affected natural and tourist resources in the Sharra Region:

• Kukes: Valbona valley, canyons of Gryka e Gashit and Shishtavec, the skiing station of Shishtaves, the tower houses of Arren, Lake Fierze• Dragas, Prizren and Strpce: Sharr National Park; Brezovica ski centre;• Tearce and Jegunovce: Sharra Mountain

Economic Impact Assessment

• Cleaning of illegal dumps:

Waste Not Collected(tons/annum)

Unit Price for Clean Up(EURO/ton)

Total Clean Up Costs (EUR/ton

10,569 50 529,000

Economic Impact Assessment

BeachType

Costper km(EUR)

Year Location Sea

B34,450 2010

Touristic beaches NL & B 10municipalities NS

28,320 2010Touristic beaches; NL 6municipalities NS

39,190 2010 Spain: bathing beach MED31,796 2010 Portugal: bathing beach ATL

34,450 2010Touristic beaches NL & B 10municipalities NS

NB 214 2010 Sweden, non-bathing beaches BAL372 2010 Denmark, non-bathing beaches NS

B&NB 7,150 2010UK, also cleaning of lesstouristic beaches NS

3,750 2012Latvia (Riga) bathing & non-bathing beach BAL

11,000 2007 NL: average total coast length NS

8,278 2010Portugal: bathing & nonbathing beach ATL

Country GDP/capita US dollars (2014)

% of the GDP/capita for Spain US dollars (2014)

Unit Costs/km bathing beach (EUR)

Length of beaches (Km)

Total costs (EUR)

Albania 3,994.63 15 5,878 80 470,240

• Cleaning of debris Fierze Lake

Economic Impact Assessment

• Loss of power generation due to floating debris

Power

generation in

(kWh)

Estimated loss coefficient

0,25% 0,50% 0,75% 1,00% 1,25% 1,50%

523.000.000 1,307,500 2,615,000 3,922,500 5,230,000 6,537,500 7,845,000

Price

(EUR/KWh)0.00718757 0.00718757 0.00718757 0.00718757 0.00718757 0.00718757

Financial loss

(EUR)9,398 18,795 28,193 37,591 46,989 56,386

Additional 17,500 EUR are lost as a result of the reduced flow so the total loss at the

Fierza HPP is in the range of 73,886 EUR a year

Economic Impacts

• The statistics of tourist arrivals and average stays in the pilot municipalities is not available; there is only information on tourism statistics for Prizren according to which in 2013 there have been 8,109 tourist arrivals and 10,360 overnight stays (average 1.2 days duration of a tourist visit). Assuming one tourist spends 45 EUR per day, the revenues were in the range of 466,200 EUR.

• A comprehensive survey is needed to establish a reliable figure on the loss of non-returning tourists due to landscape disturbances by illegal dumping and floating debris in the rivers

• Decline of fisheries at the Fierze Reservoir has also been observed. Further monitoring is needed.

Impacting and Impacted Municipalities

Contributions Floating Debris• Impacting and Impacted Municipalities:

Marine Litter Problem

Exercise 01: Stakeholder Survey on

Illegal Dumping

Survey

1. How concerned are society / stakeholders with the issue of illegal dumping?

2. Who is responsible for illegal dumping and which factors contribute to this problem?

3. How likely and feasible is it for people to take particular actions?

ISWM Model Addressing:

Scarce information on the amounts, composition and spatial distribution of floating, settled and stranded floating debris at the Fierze Reservoir

Incomprehensive municipal and hence national statistics on waste generation, composition and management.

Insufficient waste management practices: lack of organisational and financial capacity to cover remote rural areas with an organised waste collection service; littering habits of population (and tourists) due to the low awareness on deriving adverse environmental and economic impacts; insufficient enforcement.

ISWM Model

Harmonised concepts for prevention of Floating Debris Floating Debris Hierarchy

Awareness

Extended Collection

Recycling

Clean-up

Monitoring Floating Debris and Illegal

Dumpsites

Harmonized Concepts for Prevention of Floating Debris

See you in 15 minutes!

Floating Debris Monitoring Methodologies1. DeFishGear:

• Methodology for Monitoring Marine Litter on Beaches

• http://mio-ecsde.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Beach-litter_monitoring-methodology_complete.pdf

• Methodology for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Sea Surface

• http://mio-ecsde.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Floating-litter_monitoring-methodology_complete.pdf

• Methodology for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Seafloor

• http://mio-ecsde.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Seafloor-litter_monitoring-methodology_complete.pdf

2. OSPAR guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the maritime area

• http://www.ospar.org/ospar-data/10-02e_beachlitter%20guideline_english%20only.pdf

3. UNEP/MAP MEDPOL Monitoring Guidance Document on Ecological Objective 10:Marine Litter (2014)

• http://rac-spa.org/nfp12/documents/working/wg.408_06_eng.pdf

4. The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP)

• http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Lippiatt%20et%20al%202013.pdf

5. National Marine Debris Monitoring Program (UNEP and Ocean Conservancy, September 2007)

• http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/NMDMP_REPORT_Ocean_Conservancy__2_.pdf

6. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas (JRC, .2013)

• https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/lb-na-26113-en-n.pdf

7. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment: Recommendations for Monitoring Debris Trends in the Marine Environment

• http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Lippiatt%20et%20al%202013.pdf

Scope Floating Debris Methodology

• Monitoring of litter on (deep) reservoir floor using bottom trawling method. Fisheries industry should carry out the activities.

• Monitoring of litter on shallow reservoir floor: divers` associations should be involved.

• Monitoring of litter on the water surface. Visual observation from boats are needed.

• Beach Monitoring: trained volunteers can implement this type of monitoring instead of professional surveyors.

• Monitoring of litter in biota. Involvement of scientific institutions and specialists on fauna, birds is required.

Floating Debris Monitoring at the FierzeReservoir

• Spatial distribution of survey sites: site selection strategies

• Method of monitoring

• Data handling & Reporting

• Allocation of necessary resources for floating debris monitoring

Regional Marine Litter Monitoring

Marine Litter Categories

Clas

s

Material

Composition

Litter

Code

Litter Form (And Examples)

1 Plastic PL01 Bottle caps & lids

2 Foamed Plastic FP01 Foam sponge

3 Cloth CL01 Clothing, shoes, hats & towels

4 Glass &

ceramic

GC01 Construction material (brick, cement,

pipes)

5 Metal ME01 Tableware (plates, cups & cutlery)

6 Paper &

cardboard

PC01 Paper (including newspapers &

magazines)

7 Rubber RB01 Balloons, balls & toys

8 Wood WD01 Corks

9 Other OT01 Paraffin or wax

Photo Guide Floating Debris Categories

Proposed Monitoring Method

Monitoring illegal Dumpsites

• No standardized methodology

• Two general methods: remote sensing and physical surveys

• Remote sensing requires high resolution satellite images and specialized staff to identify illegal dumps

• Physical survey comprises of:• Preparation: identification of survey zones and recruitment of surveyors.

• Waste categories; Visual observation and recording (visual observation sheets).

• Record keeping and reporting.

Monitoring of Illegal Dumps

Regional Monitoring

• Exercise 02: • Floating Debris Monitoring

• Monitoring Illegal Dumps

Focus Group Marine LitterWatch

• Download the Marine LitterWatch App

• Check the litter categories

• List those which you think are difficult to identify / characterize

• Propose monitoring sites for your municipality

• Propose frequency

• Identify Resources

Focus Group Monitoring Illegal Dumps

• Install TrashOut Mobile App

• Propose a date for clean up of illegal dumps in April 2016

• Select locations to clean up in your municipality

• List resources you need:• Number of people (volunteers)• Protective clothes• Plastic bags• Others?

• Think of involvement of recycling companies

• Propose frequency

See you in one hour

Regional Waste Statistics

• Indicators:• Waste generation (kilograms per capita and year)

• Waste composition as per the COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 849/2010 of 27 September 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste statistics http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:253:0002:0041:EN:PDF

• Waste collection rate (tonnage of waste not collected and/or percentage of generated waste)

• Waste recycling rate (tonnage of waste separately collected by or voluntary drop off centers and/or percentage of generated waste)

Methodology for Waste Generation and Composition

Waste Generation

Measurement at weighbridge

Waste Composition

Sorting and measurement of 23 waste categories (List of wastes)

Waste Generation

1 2

Measurement of each truck

3

• Measure the net weight of the truck• Measure the weight of the full track

Waste Generation

Municipality DateTruck Plate

No.

Track Volume

(m3)

Net

Weight (t)

Gross

Weight (t)

Net Weight

Waste (t)Waste Type Settlement

Primary Segregated

Waste

Monday 11.03.2013

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,4 11,86 3,46 municipal Glass 40

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,4 11,66 3,26 municipal Foil 4,7

BG 191 - 393 12 11,38 14,6 3,22 municipal Plastics 12,2

Tuestay 12.03.2013

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,4 11,44 3,04 municipal Total: 132,4

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,4 11,58 3,18 municipal

BG 191 - 393 12 11,38 15,5 4,12 municipal

Wednesday 13.03.2013

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,2 11,34 3,14 municipal

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,2 10,16 1,96 municipal

BG 191 - 393 12 11,38 14,38 3,00 municipal

PK AAC - 56 2 2,72 4,06 1,34 municipal

Thursday 14.03.2013

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,2 11,56 3,36 municipal

BG 191 - 393 12 11,38 14,12 2,74 municipal

PK AAC - 56 2 2,72 4,3 1,58 municipal

PK AAC - 56 2 2,72 3,36 0,64 municipal

Friday 15.03.2013

PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,2 11,28 3,08 municipal

PK AAC - 56 2 2,72 4,17 1,45 municipal

BG 191 - 393 12 11,38 14,38 3,00 municipal

PK AAC - 56 2 2,72 3,32 0,60 municipal

Saterday 16.03.2013 PK 006 - YT 7,6 8,2 11,58 3,38 municipal

Waste CompositionPreconditions…

• Location for sorting

Collection and measurement…

1 2 3

• Identify sectors

• Provide scale, sieves, 23 bags / bins for sorting

3 different sectors

300-500kg per a sector Sorting location

Measurements4

23 bins / bags

5

Manual sorting

6

Measurements and recordings

7

Takes place one day a week

Municipality: Residential: Rural Multistory

Waste category Mass (kg): Total Percentage

OrganicGarden 38,00 27,3519,50 84,85 20,87%

Other biodegradable 36,00 16,3537,50 89,85 22,10%

Paper 15,00 7,05 2,05 24,10 5,93%

Cardboard 6,25 4,65 6,05 2,10 19,05 4,69%

CompositeAluminum 1,30 1,30 0,32%

Wax 0,35 0,35 0,09%

Glass 7,10 7,10 1,75%

MetalPackaging and other 15,35 15,35 3,78%

Aluminum cans 1,10 1,10 0,27%

Plastika

PET bottles and packaging plastics 5,35 3,85 9,20 2,26%

Plastic Bags 9,30 6,80 9,85 25,95 6,38%

Hard Plastics 8,75 8,75 2,15%

Textile 11,80 2,95 14,75 3,63%

Dypers 16,95 0,80 17,75 4,37%

C&D 2,70 2,70 0,66%

WEEE 0,55 0,55 0,14%

Healthcare 0,00 0,00 0,00%

Hazardous 1,65 1,65 0,41%

Others 0,00 0,00 0,00%

Leather 1,20 1,20 0,30%

Bulky 24,80 24,80 6,10%

Wood 1,00 1,00 0,25%

Fines<20mm 32,80 32,80 8,07%

<10mm 22,40 22,40 5,51%

Date 14.04.2014. Total 406,55

PRIMERI IZDVOJENIH VRSTA OTPADA PREMA KATALOGU SORTIRANJA

Garden Other Biodegradable PET and Packaging Plastics

Composite Glass Hard Plastics

Kočani Mass share

Waste category MultistoryIndividual

housingRural

Garden waste 2.79% 14.33% 2.90%

Other biodegradable waste 33.75% 34.66% 39.21%

Paper 10.26% 4.13% 5.40%

Cardboard 7.15% 2.55% 6.64%

Composite materials 1.73% 1.61% 0.82%

Glass 2.92% 4.02% 5.18%

Metals (ferrous) 0.72% 2.32% 0.47%

Aluminum (non-ferrous) 0.70% 0.22% 0.17%

PET 1.83% 2.64% 4.30%

Other plastic packaging waste 1.02% 0.55% 0.84%

Plastic bags 10.08% 6.89% 8.11%

Other plastic / hard plastic 2.42% 2.40% 2.11%

Textile 0.91% 3.04% 2.74%

Diapers 12.34% 13.83% 6.80%

Construction and demolition materials 0.31% 0.00% 1.00%

WEEE 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%

Medical waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Leather 0.41% 0.00% 0.00%

Wood 0.00% 0.00% 1.33%

Other special waste streams 2.42% 0.00% 0.00%

Fine fraction < 10 mm 8.24% 6.81% 11.93%

Example

Regional waste statistics

• Harmonized methodologies

• Reporting streams

• Mechanism for data validation

• Mechanism for data sharing• Role of State Offices of Statistics

• Role of other stakeholders

• Role of NALAS?

• Web-based application?

• Disclosed to public?

See you in 15 minutes!

Alternative Concepts Rural Waste Collection

• Mixed Waste

• Segregated Collection

• Door-to-door

• Drop-off Points

Proposed Concept

• Segregated Collection

• Drop-Off Sites

• Rural Transfer Station

• Involvement of Rural Communities / Interface with the Municipal operators

• Involvement of Private Recycling Companies / Interface with the Rural Communities

• Home Composting

Rural Transfer Station https://www.h-gac.com/community/solid-waste-management/documents/guide_to_developing_community_solid_waste_facilities.pdf

Rural waste Collection• Volume of a truck is a function of:

• Total collected waste per a route• Compaction Ratio (usually 3)

• Number of containers is a function of:• Total waste collected per a route• Specific weight of a container (15kg=120 l bin; 120kg=1.1m3; 1090 kg=10,3 m3 etc.)

• Frequency of collection is a function of:• Waste generated• Volume of containers

• A 4 members` family needs two times weekly collection if a bin of 120 l is supplied

• A container of 1.1m3 can serve how many families of 4 members assuming weekly collection?

• http://msw.cecs.ucf.edu/Lesson3-wastecollection.html

Rural Waste Collection (Generation)

Kukespopulation waste/day (kg)

Zapod 0Bicaj 0Shtiqen 0Terthore 0Shishtavec 0Tropojan 0Surroj 0Arren 0Ujmisht 0Bushtrice 0Kalis 0Kolsh 0Malzi 0Gryke Caj 0

Dragaspopulation waste/day (kg)

Backa 52 36.4Brod 1544 1080.8Dikanc 124 86.8Globocice 960 672Kerstec 420 294Krusheve 857 599.9Kukalane 235 164.5Leshtan 783 548.1Mlike 92 64.4Orcush 60 42Radesa 1224 856.8Restelice 4698 3288.6Vranisht 352 246.4Zli Potok 610 427Pllajnik 405 283.5Xerxe 236 165.2

Tearce+Jegunovcepopulation waste/day (kg)

Staro selo 217 151.9

Rogacevo 347 242.9Jelosnik 213 149.1Brezno 127 88.9Varvara 150 105Ratae 411 287.7Otunje 100 70

Strpcepopulation waste/day (kg)

Sushice 268 187.6 5628

Rural Waste Collection

Analysis of collection time

Y = a + b + c(d) + e + f + g

Where:

Y = total collection time

a = garage to route time

b = actual time collecting waste

c = number of trips to disposal site

d = time to drive fully loaded truck to disposal facility, unload and return to collection area

e = time to drive to garage at the end of the trip

f = official breaks, including bathroom visits

g = other lost time such as traffic jams, breakdowns

f + g = off route time, usually a fraction of Y

Rural Waste Collection (Routing - Kukes)

Rural Waste Collection (Kukes)ROUTE 1 Kukes

Loc No. Location

Waste per

monthkm to

location

minutes between locations

1 Zapod 0 13.3 15.972 Shishtavec 0 13.6 16.333 Shtiqen 0 31.6 37.944 Bicaj 0 10 12.005 Transfer station 0 9.21 11.066 Terthore 0 0.35 0.427 Kolsh 0 10.7 12.858 Surroj c.point 0 14.6 17.53

Suroj 0 0Arren 0 0Ujmisht 0Bushtrice 0Kalis 0

9 Suka e Mamez Landfill 8.24 9.89bkm 124.08

Tot b (bkm+bc) 244.08

Rural Waste Collection (Kukes)

ROUTE 1 (yellow)Location No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

a+ea - garage to route time, e- time to drive to garage at the end of the trip 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

N Number of locations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Wg Waste generation per location (kg) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Wsw Waste specific weight 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98CR Compaction ratio 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

bcCollection time per location or pickup+put down time (min) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 0

bkm Time to drive between location (min) 16.0 16.3 37.9 12.0 11.06 0.4 12.8 17.53 9.89

d Disposal time (time at landfill 30 min) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30d In/out garage 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10f+g Off route time (15% of day) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72c Number of trips per month 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1YLOC Total collection time per location 56.0 31.3 52.9 27.0 26.1 15.4 27.8 32.5 136.9

406.0Y Total collection time (min)

Rural Waste Collection (Routing Dragas)

Rural Waste Collection (Dragas)ROUTE 1 drag

Loc No.

Location Waste per

month km to location

minutes between locations

1 Mike 1932 3.59 4.332 Transfer st 1 38157 6.25 7.50

Globocice 20160Krusheve 17997Zli potok 12810Restelice 98658

3 Transfer st 2 35028 16.3 19.64Dikanc 2604Brod 32424

4 Transfer st 3 42147 13.3 16.02Leshtan 16443Radesa 25704

5 Xerxe 4956 4 4.826 Kerstec 8820 12.4 14.897 Dragash landfill 8.5 10.20

bkm 77.40Tot b (bkm+bc) 167.40

Rural Waste Collection (Dragas)

ROUTE 1 (Purple)Location No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a+ea - garage to route time, e- time to drive to garage at the end of the trip 15 0 0 0 0 0 15

N Number of locations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Wg Waste generation per location (kg) 483.00 9539.25 8757.00 10536.75 1239.00 2205.00Wsw Waste specific weight 98 98 98 98 98 98 98CR Compaction ratio 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

bc Collection time per location or pickup+put down time (min) 15 15 15 15 15 15 0bkm Time to drive between location (min) 4.3 7.5 19.6 16.0 4.8 14.9 10.2d Disposal time (time at landfill 30 min) 0 0 0 0 0 0 30d In/out garage 10 0 0 0 0 0 10f+g Off route time (15% of day) 0 0 0 0 0 0 72c Number of trips per month 1 1 1 1 1 1 1YLOC Total collection time per location 44.3 22.5 34.6 31.0 19.8 29.9 137.2

319.4Y Total collection time (min)

Rural Waste Collection (Dragas)

Number of containers needed & truck volume

Collection pointsWaste at location

No. of containers

needed Truck volume needed

Collection Frequency

Mike 483.00 5 1.642857143 1 time a monthTr st 1 9539.25 97 32.44642857 3 times a week

Tr st 2 8757.00 89 29.78571429 3 times a weekTr st 3 10536.75 108 35.83928571 3 times a weekXerxe 1239.00 13 4.214285714 2 times a monthKerstec 2205.00 23 7.5 1 time a weekTotal waste 32760.00 299 111.43

Costs km EUR/week EUR/mTruck (diesel engine) 64.34 8.49 33.97

Conclusions

Welcome back!

•Introduction

•How to extend rural waste collection

•How to improve recycling

•How to improve regional cooperation

Rural Waste Collection

• Exercise 03: • Waste Collection Organizational

Concepts for mixed waste

• Waste Collection Organizational Concepts for segregated waste

Focus Group Waste Collection Organizational Concepts for mixed waste

• Propose routing for rural collection in Strpce

• Calculate the length of trip

• Calculate the number of containers

• Calculate the volume of truck

• Propose location of transfer station(s)

Focus Group Waste Collection Organizational Concepts for segregated waste

• Propose routing for rural collection in Strpce

• Calculate the length of trip

• Calculate the number of containers

• Calculate the volume of truck

• Propose location of transfer station(s)

Focus Groups Presentations

See you in 30 minutes

Best Practice Recycling Croatia

Segregated Collection (Drop Off Sites)

Packaging within the system of deposit-refund scheme

• Beverage packaging made of PET,Al/Fe and glass with a volumelarger than 0,20 l. It is delivered toa specific collection point (usualy aretailer).

• Beverage: alcohol, non-alcohol,mineral water, syrups and otherfruit based beverages.

• Bar-code must be preserved

Deposit-Refund Site: 0,50 HRK refund.

Packing plastic packaging

Success Rate Deposit Refund Scheme versus Drop Off Sites

• In 2014.g. 576.667.826 bottles (PEC and aluminum cans) have been put on the market.

• Collected 534.786.659 bottles or 93,6%.

• Segregated only 15% of collected waste at drop off sites

Proposals for Plastics Recycling

• Establish Producer Responsibility Schemes

• Establish Deposit Refund Schemes

Conclusions and next steps