UNEP/MAP and its RACs, ANGed, AEA, LMoEW, HMEECC, UNESCO

Elaboration of a Hot Spot inventory for the West Balkans and Turkey as complementary to the

and implemented by the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA)

UNEP/MAP and its RACs, ANGed, AEA, LMoEW, HMEECC, UNESCO-IHE, MIO-ECSDE, RAED, WWF MedPO, ACR+, ACWUA

Horizon 2020

Elaboration of a Hot Spot inventory for the West Balkans and Turkey as complementary to the MeHSIP

FINAL REPORT

June 2011

This project is funded by the European Union

1

and implemented by the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA)

in consortium with:

ECSDE, RAED, WWF MedPO, ACR+, ACWUA

Elaboration of a Hot Spot inventory for the West Balkans and Turkey as complementary to the

This project is funded by the European Union

2

REPORT COVER PAGE

Project Title:

Horizon 2020 Elaboration of a Hot Spot inventory for the West Balkans and Turkey as complementary to the MeHSIP (WeB&THSiS)

Project Number: ENPI/2009/220-191 (addendum to H2020 CB/MEP)

Country: Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Turkey

EC Consultant

Name: NKUA

Address: Panepistimioupolis, GR-15771

Tel. number: +30 2107274274, +30 2103247490

Fax number: +30 2103317127

e-mail: chaffner@gmx.net

Contact person: Christine Haffner

Signatures:

Date of final report: June 2011

Reporting period: September 2010-May 2011

Author of report: Christine Haffner and Dr. Anna Bramwell

Disclaimer

The authors take full responsibility for the contents of this report. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

3

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 4

1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 6

2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 9

3 Introduction and background of the Strategic Action Plan and the National Action Plans ................ 12

4 Project related findings .......................................................................................................................... 14

5 Prioritisation ........................................................................................................................................... 16

6 Coordinating Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................ 18

7 Country summaries ................................................................................................................................ 21

8 Proposals for Follow-Up Technical Assistance on a regional level ....................................................... 33

8.1. Dedicated investment facility for environment; Adriatic Sea Investment Facility .......................... 33

8.2. EBRD proposal for regional municipalities and IFI draw down loan: Small Municipal Infrastructure Facility for the Western Balkans (SMEIF) .................................................................................................... 33

8.3. Regional pilot projects for alternative low cost biological remediation for small and scattered communities (possibly through GEF). ......................................................................................................... 34

8.4. Developing Specifically Regional ‘Hot Spot’ investment projects ................................................... 34

9 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 36

Annex I............................................................................................................................................................. 40

Annex II ........................................................................................................................................................... 41

Annex III .......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Annex IV .......................................................................................................................................................... 45

Annex V ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

Annex VI .......................................................................................................................................................... 84

4

List of Acronyms

Barcelona Convention:

Convention for the protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean

BB: Baseline Budget BSIF: CBC: CB-MED:

Black Sea Investment Facility Cross Border Co-operation Capacity Building Mediterranean Environment Programme

DABLAS: Danube and Black Sea Joint Secretariat Financing Task Force DG: EEA SEIS: EBRD:

Directorate General of the European Commission European Environment Agency Shared Environment Information System European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EC: European Commission EIB: European Investment Bank EMWIS: EMP:

Euro-Mediterranean Water Information System Euro Mediterranean Partnership

ENP: European Neighbourhood Policy ENPI: EOP:

European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument Environmental Operational Programme

EU: European Union FEMIP: Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership GEF: Global Environment Facility GTZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GWP-Med: Global Water Partnership - Mediterranean H2020: Horizon 2020 ICZM: IFI-AG:

Integrated Coastal Zone Management International Financing Institution Advisory Group

IFIs: International Financial Institutions IPA: IPF:

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance Infrastructure Project Facility in the Western Balkans

IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management KfW: LBS:

Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Land Based Sources Protocol

MAP: Mediterranean Action Plan MED EUWI: Mediterranean Component of the EU Water Initiative MEDPOL: Mediterranean Pollution Monitoring Programme MeHSIP: MoE:

Mediterranean Hot Spot investment programme Ministry of Environment

MEP: Mediterranean Environment Programme MIO-ECSDE: Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable

Development MPC: Mediterranean Partner Country(ies) NAPs: NBB:

National Action Plans National Budget Baseline

NDA: National Diagnostic Analysis NIF: NIPAC:

Neighbourhood Investment Facility National Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance Co-ordinator

NKUA: OIZ:

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Organised Industrial Zones

PEIP: PMU PPF: PPP:

Priority Environment Investment Programme for South Eastern Europe Project Management Unit Project Preparation Facility Public Private Partnership

5

RBM: River Basin Management REC: Regional Environment Centre (Hungary) RENA: Regional Environmental Network for Accession ReREP: The Regional environmental Reconstruction Programme RMR: Review, Monitoring and Research SAP: Strategic Action Programme SEIS: Shared Environment Information System SIDA: SW: SWIM:

Swedish International Development Assistance Solid Waste Sustainable Integrated Water Management

TA: Technical Assistance TDA: TIDB:

Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis Turkish Industrial Development Bank

UfM: UNDP:

Union for the Mediterranean Union Nations Development Programme

UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme WB: WeBTHSIS:

World Bank Western Balkans and Turkey Hot Spot Investment Study

WBIF: WWTP:

Western Balkan Infrastructure Framework Waste Water Treatment Plant

6

1 Executive Summary

Project Context

The tenth anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Process in 2005 was marked by the endorsement of a timetable to de-pollute the Mediterranean Sea by 20201. Partners pledged to provide appropriate financial resources and technical support to facilitate its implementation. “Horizon 2020” includes investment, capacity building, monitoring and research components. It operates within the existing and developing policy instruments and supports the implementation of the commitments undertaken in the framework of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) as well as other regional agreements e.g. of the Barcelona Convention, while cooperating, coordinating and synergizing with all relevant (EU and other) programmes.

The investment component is aimed at the identification and development of projects which will reduce the most significant sources of pollution in the Mediterranean. The priority sectors are industrial emissions, municipal waste and urban wastewater, which are responsible for up to 80% of Mediterranean Sea point source pollution.

The first phase of development (2006-2009) took place against a backdrop of political interest in the Mediterranean region with the preparation and launch of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). The development of the UfM and its focus on concrete projects has given a positive boost; de-pollution of the Mediterranean is one of the six key initiatives supported by Mediterranean Heads of State at the UfM launch summit held in Paris in July 2008.

To address the investment component, preparatory work started in 2007 for a Mediterranean Hot Spot Investment Programme2. Launched under the umbrella of the European Investment Bank (EIB), it resulted in the Mediterranean Hot Spots Investment Programme (MeHSIP), funded by the European Union. It aimed to create a pipeline of priority hot spot investment projects, based on the UNEP/MAP National Action Plans (NAPs), for the ENP South countries. It led to the development of a short list of projects which appeared mature and bankable, and was followed up by a Project Preparation Facility which identified and supported project development.

According to the Terms of Reference, the objective of the current assignment was to expand the MeHSIP to also cover the Western Balkan Mediterranean countries (Albania, Bosnia& Herzegovina, Croatia and Montenegro) and Turkey. It aimed:

“(i) to identify and prioritize the projects addressing most regionally polluting industrial and/or municipal point sources of pollution per country and appearing to offer the best possibility of being bankable based on the hot-spot identification work of UNEP MAP and the country priorities identified in the NAPs and (ii) to assess the need for coordination on current and future technical assistance support. The work shall be carried out in close collaboration with UNEP- MAP, and in close coordination with other ongoing initiatives in the area, including the Regional Environmental Network for Accession (RENA) and Support to EU/IFI

Coordination in the Western Balkans and Turkey” (IFI-AG).

The definition and criteria for selection of hot spots, as used also in the original MeHSIP Hot Spot feasibility study3 focused on:

-Point sources on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea which potentially affect human health, ecosystems, biodiversity, sustainability or economy in a significant manner, and where high levels of pollution loads originating from domestic or industrial sources are discharged;

1 European Commission Staff Working Document SEC (2006) 1082 – September 2006

2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/med/pdf/mehsip_report.pdf

3 FINAL REPORT Horizon 2020 - Elaboration of a Mediterranean Hot Spot Investment Programme, (MeHSIP). Report

EIB, Femip, 11/09/2007. C. Haffner, C. Sommer, ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/med/pdf/mehsip_report.pdf

7

-Defined coastal areas where the coastal marine environment is subject to pollution from one or more points or diffused sources on the coast of the Mediterranean which potentially affect human health in a significant manner, ecosystems, biodiversity, sustainability or economy.

In the Methodology section we lay out our activities in carrying out this assignment. The Country Reports contain the main findings per country, with an annotated list of priority activities for each country (forty eight in total). We have added here our own proposals for a short list of high priority projects for each country, some sixteen in all. We give detailed recommendations for coordination of technical assistance and propose some regional projects for the next round of IPA programming. Our Conclusions and Recommendations are drawn from the findings of the country missions, together with desk studies carried out before and after the country visits. The updated project lists from the National Action Plans consisting of projects with clear funding gaps, projects which are partially funded and/or ongoing projects are attached in Annex V. The original long list of priority investment activities from the 2005 NAPs was attached to the Inception Report of this study.

Our main findings can be summarized as follows.

• Project identification and development is accession driven, and the National IPA coordinators (NIPACs) are responsible for coordinating project identification and development in each country. In some countries, the NIPACs play a more passive role, taking proposed projects without a strong linkage to a national strategy.

• Selecting priorities and projects for accession could be strengthened and needs to be done by a joint working group made up of the relevant EC’s services and dedicated specifically to Med/Adriatic Sea strategies 4

• It is clear that in the Balkans and Turkey the EU accession process is driving the political agenda and the project development priorities in the environmental sector. What makes the UNEP/MAP, MEDPOL process of coordination of the NAPs so valuable is that they are not only the results of a country-specific stakeholder dialogue but are also embedded in the Barcelona Convention process endorsed by the Contracting parties. The Barcelona Convention is part of the EU acquis.

• Results from the revision of the NAPs during a series of country missions with extensive stakeholder dialogues, show that in the field of solid waste and waste water an average of 20% of the projects still remain to be addressed, and a further 15% are only partly funded.

• Industrial pollution control and clean up is hampered by low compliance levels, ownership disputes, privatisation carried out without clarity on clean up liability, and by slow economic growth. Furthermore, industrial pollution is falling between various Directives and enforcement agencies, and needs special attention to turn into bankable projects.

• We noted generally a need for improved coordination and communication between different focal points in each country (e.g. for H2020, UNEP/MAP, MEDPOL, and for Global Environmental Fund (GEF) and that the knowledge of NAPs is generally low outside the respective MAP and MEDPOL focal points. For UNEP/MAP and MEDPOL the EU accession dimension will be increasingly important for the NAP monitoring process, to ensure both compliance with the Barcelona Convention and the EU Acquis.

• We found some confusion on hot spots, since the EC, UNEP and UNDP have different definitions. UNDP hot spots are widely known in Western Balkans and Turkey and these refer to old remediation sites- not related to the Barcelona Convention.

4 The IFI AG does not play the role of ‘Priority Projects for Accession Advisory Group’, which would demand a detailed

and specialized knowledge of the accession process and needs of the most costly investment heavy Directives, and is not within its mandate However, they could act as the Secretariat of such a group, assisting the services to manage regular meetings on this issue.

8

• The option of creating a Project Preparation Facility complementing the MeHSIP, for the specific context of the Western Balkan countries and Turkey, should be seriously considered, in view of the success of the MeHSIP in developing and managing its project pipeline in the Southern Mediterranean countries.

• Despite the national focus of EU accession, governments have expressed the need for regional projects and for taking on and sharing regional loans at national level for projects which would reduce pollution in the Western Balkan Mediterranean countries and Turkey. It is important to build on this willingness.

• Polluting discharges from small and scattered communities still need a regional strategy to make their reduction affordable, with countries sharing experience and exchanging data on efforts to solve the problem. In particular alternative methods of biological waste water treatment should be assessed and tried in coastal settlements.

• Even though a large number of funding tools are available in the region these do not cover either all three H2020 priority sectors since industrial pollution is often not represented, nor are all countries eligible; for example Turkey is not eligible for the Western Balkan Investment Framework (WBIF).

Union for the Mediterranean

EU Cooperation frameworks in the Mediterranean

MeHSIPCB MEP

EEA SEIS

HORIZON 2020

MonitoringCapacity buildingDe-pollution

WeBTHiS

RENA

EnlargementProcess

IPA

IFI-AG

WBIFWeBTHiS pipeline

H2020 Coordination mechanism

Coordination

Information

9

2 Methodology

In 2007 a feasibility study screened priority hot spot pollution sites identified in the National Action Plans (NAPs) for the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries. Joint missions with UNEP/MAP staff led to the development of a short list of projects which appeared mature and bankable. The study resulted in the Mediterranean Hot Spots Investment Programme (MeHSIP) with support from the European Union. A Project Preparation and Implementation Facility, (MeHSIP-PPIF) is coordinated by the EIB, in close cooperation with the the European Commission who also finance the facility, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) / Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), , and other IFIs.

With the extension of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) to cover the coastal states of the Western Balkans, the Commission under the framework of the ENPI Horizon 2020 Capacity building/ Mediterranean Environment Programme (ENPI-CB MEP), requested an exercise similar to that of the 2007 study to be carried out in Albania, Bosnia& Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Turkey. The objectives of the study were two fold; firstly to update and prioritise the NAPs, to result in a short list of priority bankable projects; and secondly to make proposals concerning the coordination of technical assistance in the region, relevant to this task. The first phase consisted of a desk study and the second included missions to each country.

During the Inception Phase we gathered information and data related to the main stakeholders: UNEP/MAP EIB, EBRD, World Bank and KfW. Interviews were held with, DG ENV, DG ELARG, and Europe Aid, RENA and IFI AG. The NAPs were screened against projects prioritised in the Priority Environment Investment Programme (PEIP) of 2009, and against projects already funded or partly funded under the West Balkans Investment Framework. The study was presented and discussed with key stakeholders at a coordination meeting (EC, UNEP/MAP, H2020, EIB, IFIAG, RENA, MeHSIP) on the 15th of September 2010 in Brussels. The planned methodology and work programme as well as the format for the Hot Spot Assessment project fiche were presented and adopted.

We attended a programming meeting of the DG Elarg Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction Multi-Country IPA Facility, where valuable country contacts were made.

Criteria were defined to assist in prioritising investment for ‘hot spots’ in the NAPs. This task was facilitated by the fact that there was a well established UNEP/MAP process and that the NAPs were developed under a comprehensive stakeholder participation process in each country and then endorsed by contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention. This process lent a robustness and inbuilt prioritisation process5 to the projects selected for the NAPs, as they had already been endorsed by each country’s government.

The definition and criteria for selection of hot spots, as used also in the original MeHSIP Hot Spot feasibility

study6 followed the same SAP/NAP methodology and focused on:

- Point sources on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea which potentially affect human health, ecosystems, biodiversity, sustainability or economy in a significant manner, and where high levels of pollution loads originating from domestic or industrial sources are discharged;

- Defined coastal areas where the coastal marine environment is subject to pollution from one or more points or diffused sources on the coast of the Mediterranean which potentially affect human health in a significant manner, ecosystems, biodiversity, sustainability or economy.

The 2005 NAPs were used as the basis for an update of priority hot spots which impacted on the Mediterranean Sea quality. The actions outlined in the NAPs were screened by us by selecting for investment related activities. This was because the NAPs contained many capacity building activities (including recommendations for legislation). One issue became apparent right away; Turkey was the only country to prioritise its projects, dividing them into high, medium, low priority. Turkey had carried out this

5 See section on prioritisation for more detail

6 FINAL REPORT Horizon 2020 - Elaboration of a Mediterranean Hot Spot Investment Programme, (MeHSIP). Final

Report EIB, Femip, 11/09/2007. C. Haffner, C. Sommer. ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/med/pdf/mehsip_report.pdf

10

exercise on the basis of cost-effective criteria. As far as we could tell, the other four countries in the study had not prioritised their projects. The second point was that in some countries the NAPs referred only to coastal hot spots, thus omitting pollution from upstream sources. Our revision of the NAPs reflected discussion in country on this point, and was especially relevant for Montenegro and Turkey.

The inception report was circulated for comments in October 2010. Comments were received from DGH Env and EuropeAid. It was approved by the EC in early November 2010.

In Phase II country missions were planned, carried out and followed-up with the aim of reviewing the long list of projects, updating them and prioritising them. This was done in coordination with the relevant Focal Points (H2020, UNEP/MAP. MEDPOL) and during meetings with key stakeholders such as : IFIs, the EC Delegation, Ministries of environment, other Ministries in charge of waste water/infrastructure/agriculture, environmental protection agencies, representatives of the IPF (in Albania and Bosnia) and NIPACs. Where existing, the H2020, UNEP/MAP and MEDPOL focal points were the first contacted in each country. Besides the collection and review of further data, the main task in country was the screening of the NAPs priority list of investment projects. This screening included accession compliance.

Apart from Albania, where a new Focal Point was being chosen, the countries were able to start the task of updating the list of projects in the NAP before or as we arrived. This made our task much easier, and we were able to complete the work earlier than forecast in the work programme.

In some cases (Croatia and Montenegro) inter-ministerial stakeholder meetings with competent authorities of key ministries and municipalities and key actors were organised by the Focal Points in order to update and exchange information. By discussing the project with the NIPACs in Croatia, Montenegro and Albania we were able to get an idea of the role of the NAPs and the process of prioritisation of projects/investments within national planning and strategies.

During country missions the following activities were also carried out:

• collection of information on financial/economic situation;

• assessment of donor and IFI commitments in country;

• identification of funding already committed or earmarked by the donor community;

• assessments from donors and IFIs of the various problems inhibiting investments and implementation;

• identification of key technical and strategic documents available from government authorities, EC Delegations and IFIs.

Following the information gathering and interview process, analyses were made of the institutional, legal and sector context to determine the possible obstacles, and gaps in smooth implementation of needed investments. Snapshots of the information gained can be found in the country specific reports. These reports are summaries only of the very rich information gathered. We have tried to represent the results of interviews while maintaining in some cases confidentiality, where necessary. One of the conclusions we came to in each country was that certain sectors were prioritised in some and not in others. The only exception to this was that Waste Water Treatment remained a priority in all five countries. This conclusion is further developed later in this report.

In 2010-11 we visited the EBRD in London and EIB in Luxembourg. Valuable information on regional municipal problems was gained during the former visit and useful assessments of EIB in Turkey from the second. We also attended two RENA investment working group workshops; one regional meeting in Macedonia in November 2010, and one national meeting in Bosnia April 2011.

Follow up. At the end of each country mission we sent the revised and updated NAPs back to the Focal Points for comment. At this stage the NAPs included some new projects proposed verbally by the Focal Points (e.g. from relevant authorities in Albania, Bosnia and Montenegro) Apart from Montenegro and Turkey, no comments were received. For Bosnia, we added one project that had not been in the NAP or

11

proposed by the Focal Point that is support for a GEF project proposed by the World Bank. This project is discussed in the section on Technical Assistance proposals.

We then divided the updated NAPs into two sections; one for priority projects that had not been funded or where funding was not completely secured); and the second part containing projects that were partly funded, under way or completed. There were forty seven projects in the first table. In May 2011 the revised NAPs were forwarded to the Focal Point in the country and copied to the interviewees where appropriate. No comments have yet been received from the countries.

A draft final report, containing some of the conclusions and proposals and country summaries was presented in Brussels to EuropeAid by the Team Leader on May 27th 2011. Discussions were held on the 28th May with DG ELARG and by telephone with DG ENV. Here emphasis was placed on the process of prioritisation, and the failure of countries to prioritise their projects proposals. With this guidance, the final report contains a chapter of this issue. The recommendations on the coordination of Technical Assistance have also taken account of this feedback. We are still awaiting confirmation of whether the RENA project is likely to result in the regular updating and management of lists of investment projects or whether it will focus on guidance to countries to carry out their own respective prioritisation and development of investment lists.

Pending further information on this point, we have proposed actions and priorities for further development of projects, based on the criteria discussed earlier. Among the forty-seven projects contained in the updated NAPs list of activities for which implementation has not yet started, or been fully completed, we received substantial and clear indications of which projects were considered major priorities. These can be found referenced in the country summaries (Chapter 7).

Recommendations were developed for enhancing coordination of technical assistance, based on our observations in-country, on data on project development and on desk studies. (see Chapter 6). We have made recommendations for some strategic or specific technical assistance recommendations in each country. Details can be found in Chapter 7. Recommendations have also been made for regional level projects as the next step in this process (in Chapter 8).

Reporting Phase III

1. Preparation and submission of Draft Final Report.

2. Dissemination of conclusions.

3. Preparation and submission of Final Report following comments of stakeholders on DFR.

For item two above, we propose presenting and discussing the findings of the study with stakeholders, in coordination meetings such as that of the Horizon 2020 steering Committee and the MEDPOL pollution reduction group. The World Bank Adriatic Sea study will meet in the autumn, and we are invited there to present our results. We propose also making a presentation at the next IFI advisory group meeting and are waiting to confirm the date of the IFI AG meeting on environment in 2011. The results of this study will also be presented to countries at a RENA organised investment group meeting/training with NIPACs in Skopje Oct 2011.

12

3 Introduction and background of the Strategic Action Plan and the National Action Plans

H2020 and the UNEP Strategic Action Plan/National Ac tion Plan process

The Horizon 2020 initiative pollution reduction component envisaged finding concrete investments to reduce the pollution. In 2007 a study made an initial screening of the environmental infrastructure investments, based on the list of priorities identified in the 2005 NAPs. This initial screening then led to the development of the list of most mature and bankable projects which are now part of the MeHSIP-PPIF project pipeline.

The Mediterranean countries and the EU, as Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) and the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from land-based Sources (LBS Protocol amended in 1996) have committed to eliminate pollution deriving from land based sources and activities. UNEP/MAP and its marine pollution assessment and control programme, MEDPOL, carried out extensive preparative work in support of SAP-MED, including a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Mediterranean Sea (TDA-MED) prepared in 1997 and revised in 2004. This TDA-MED identifies the major sources of transboundary pollution and hotspots and provides a foundation for interventions at national and regional level that would benefit both the individual countries and the basin as a whole. The Regional report on Pollution Hot Spots and sensitive areas was developed. The Mediterranean countries fully recognized the need for a coordinated and innovative approach for the implementation of policy reforms, priority interventions and investments that address transboundary pollution and biodiversity conservation priorities identified in the two SAPs and the NAPs.

SAP-MED outlines the specific targets and activities agreed by the member countries to address the Mediterranean Sea environmental degradation. Key targets that address transboundary environmental issues, in line with the conclusions of the World summit on sustainable development, include:

− Dispose of municipal wastewater in conformity with the LBS Protocol in cities exceeding 100,000 inhabitants by 2005 and in other cities by 2025;

− By the year 2025, dispose of all industrial wastewaters, which are sources of BOD, nutrients and suspended solids, in conformity with the provisions of the LBS Protocol and reduce the inputs of such substances by 50% by the year 2010. All countries have constructed a National Baseline Budget of Pollutant inputs as of 2003 that is considered as the reference point for these reductions. The baseline budget is calculated for each pollutant and for each source and as a country total. The Contracting Parties have decided that the expected national reductions (e.g., 50 per cent or 25 per cent as agreed in the SAP) will be the aggregate result of the individual reductions effected on each source the amounts of which will be decided by the country for each source.

In order to achieve SAP-MED targets in pollution reduction through the implementation of the NAPs, the Contracting Parties to Barcelona Convention prepared a National Diagnostic Analysis (NDA)7, followed by a National Baseline Budget (NBB)8 for the emission of SAP designated pollutants, and finally a National Action

7 In the NDAs, all Mediterranean countries analyzed the environmental characteristics of their coastal areas and

highlighted the major pollution threats which could affect the quality of the marine ecosystem. The legal and institutional framework of each country was also assessed, along with the identification of existing gaps. The NDAs were prepared with active participation of public and private stakeholders, to enhance public participation in the prioritization of environmental issues in each country. The final NDA Reports represent therefore, not only the countries’ perception for the environmental priorities in the coastal area, but also an initial assessment of capacity building needs and priorities. 8 In the NBBs, a quantitative evaluation was made of measured or estimated pollutants’ emissions from LBS in all

Mediterranean countries. These reports gave for the first time a comparative regional estimation on the loads of pollutants that are discharged into the Mediterranean Sea. This is critical information, especially when planning pollutant’s emissions reduction on a regional base, as it is possible to assess the relative importance of emitted pollution on regional, national or sectoral (industrial sector) levels.

13

Plan (NAP) to reduce emission of pollutants from Land Based Sources. It is important to note that SAP includes longer term targets until 2025.

Based on the NDAs and NBBs, the countries presented in the NAPs specific actions to reduce pollution from designated sources, until the years 2010 and 2025. Actions included “hard” actions (example: construction of treatment plants) as well as “soft” actions (example: improvement of legislation and institutional framework). Many countries acknowledged that they had gaps and shortcomings on legal, institutional, financial and technical means to successfully implement the NAPs9.

The NAPs were finalized and endorsed by Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention in 200510. The NAPs are planned to be revised by MEDPOL every 5 years. A revision exercise has been launched by MEDPOL in 2010 and countries have been reporting on their current implementation status of the NAPs. The information received is not always complete nor is it always comparable and currently changes of staff within MEDPOL have resulted in delays in the overall progress assessment.

Generally speaking and judging from the diversity of the NAPs, one can conclude that the definition of a hot spot was not always clearly and uniformly understood. The guidance document noted that hot spots should include (i) coastal cities and urban agglomerations with considerable population and (ii) main industrial facilities discharging directly into the Mediterranean Sea. In all cases a Hot Spot is the coastal area that is subjected to significant pressures due to intense human activities. Some countries however report as a hot spot the city or industrial facility itself rather than the recipient of their pollution. This will need to be clarified in future guidance on reporting and monitoring.

9 For more information on the decision making process leading to the NAPs, NDAs and NBBs see in Annex

10 which have a chance to revise the target dates of the proposed targets in the SAPs every two years if necessary

Union for the Med. countriesParties to the Barcelona Convention

H2020 Focal points

Other key sector ministries

MAP and RACsFocal points

EUROMED Ministerial

Coordination of TA in the Mediterranean

Protecting Mediterranean coastal and marine environment

Environmentministries

COP to BC

H2020 Steering Group

Med Partnership MeHSIP

EUWI-Med

EEA SEIS

HORIZON 2020

European CommissionENP

Sustainable Med

TA

Institutions

CB-MEP

MAPFocal points

In-country coordination

UNEP/MAP5-year Work Programme

Regional coordination WB

GEF-UNEP/MAP

Monitoring and review WGEEA

Capacity building WGEU

Pollution Prevention WG EIB

Greek Env. MinSecretariat

Barcelona Convention Union for the Mediterranean

Policy framework

Bureau

EU DG ENV/ Aidco

14

4 Project related findings

With the assistance of the Focal Points and Ministries of Environment in the West Balkans and Turkey, we have updated the NAP project lists in the five countries. On average, some twenty per cent of the original projects still need to be funded. We found 47 priority projects in the five countries which need further assistance in order to be fully implemented. Partly completed and ongoing projects have also been listed. Based on the gaps, we consider waste water treatment (including sewers and collectors) to be the highest priority in Bosnia and Montenegro; solid waste in Croatia, Industrial pollution in Turkey, and both waste water treatment and industrial pollution in Albania. As mentioned earlier, that does not prevent waste water treatment remaining overall a high priority in all five countries. It only means that in some countries the process for meeting the UWWT directive is further advanced or secured than in others.

Below we summarise our findings on the main obstacles to fuller implementation of the NAPs, and suggest means of overcoming them.

Mapping out potential obstacles and proposed actions for implementing the NAPs

Problem/Need Proposed Funded by Main actors

Municipal support

EBRD/KfW facility IPF

WBIF EC Delegations, RENA, IPF

Prioritisation IFI-AG, IPF, MEDPOL RENA

EC EC Brussels coordination

Non point sources

GEF pilot project River Basin Management schemes

EC Bosnia IPA IPA

GEF Brussels coordination

Targeted Project Preparation and investment support

MeHSIP style Adriatic Sea Investment Facility

EC Multi country IPA

EC, consultants, MAP/MEDPOL

Industrial Pollution

EBRD/KfW/EIB IPA via financial imtermediaries

EC Brussels, EC Delegations, national development banks or other specialised banks dealing with industry

We looked at pollution projects upstream of the coasts (including into and from Lake Shroda /Skroda). There were two main polluters here; industries discharging untreated polluted water into rivers/lakes/sea, and non point sources. On-going industrial pollution is a somewhat politicised area. It is the ongoing assistance activities which are likely to lead to the cleanup of the remaining toxic waste from old industries. For example, the World Bank and Montenegro have agreed a 60m€ loan for cleaning up such sites and the sites are to be selected by the government. Most of the former toxic waste hot spots in Albania’s NAP have been cleaned up, with the important exception of Patros Marinza, the oil producing region on the coast and the related Ballshi oil refinery. Although not affecting the NAPs, we learned with interest that the Albanian hot spot study carried out by UNDP, which deals with the centre and north of the country, found that the remediation of hot spots was a difficult task if not impossible task, for various reasons, including unclear ownership, a site closed off by squatters, a partial re-starting of facilities or sale of facility.An important conclusion is that new investments should comply with EU regulations and that responsibility for existing on and off site pollution and toxic waste should be clear, monitored and enforced.

As for ongoing industrial pollution, we found that Ministries of Environment often put an unrealistic expectation on the permitting process of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), and that the incentive structure of Eco Funds could be increased. In the specific case of Turkey, we

15

recommended supporting the Turkish Industrial development Bank, as a means of reducing industrial pollution in the Sea of Marmara and the Eastern Mediterranean, without breaching EC competition rules by subsidizing individual privately owned enterprises. For Montenegro, the two to three polluting plants upstream should be included in the NAP with remediation plans attached.

16

5 Prioritisation

In the inception report of this Western Balkan and Turkey Hot Spot investment study (WeB&T HSiS) the main prioritization criteria we developed were:

1. National priority and high de-pollution potential (through the UNEP/MAP, MEDPOL NAP process)

2. Compliance with those EU Acquis that affect Horizon 2020 priorities (listed below)

3. Project maturity (feasibility study in the last 3-5 years)

4. Bankability and cost recovery

5. Clear ownership status.

During the country missions the NAPs were the basis for screening the priority pollution investment projects and particular attention was paid to the compliance with the EU Acquis. As far as stakeholder discussions and discussion with key actors allowed the first three criteria for prioritization were covered. For points 4 and 5 we relied on the verification of the information gathered during missions and the validation of information by focal points as a follow-up to the missions. In all countries the revised project list was sent back to the focal points for H2020, MAP and MEDPOL in order to coordinate the input to complete the update.

We observed both during our desk research and in the country missions that the current national prioritization process does not focus on the Mediterranean watershed, which should be seen as a sub set of the national priority set. However, there is some focus on the Danube basin. The Danube programme started in 1992, and was primarily driven by the involved Member States and the then pre-accession countries bordering the Danube. De-polluting investments have long been a focus of this programme. It appears that the Mediterranean watershed has received a lower priority to date.

Nonetheless, the pre accession and accession countries are committed either to implementing by the time of accession – or to showing that they have credible plans to implement -the EC Directives. Several pieces of the environmental Directives that have to be in place will have major impacts reducing polluting emissions to the Mediterranean. Examples are:

• Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)

• Dangerous Substances in Water Directive (2006/11/EC)

• Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

• Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)

• Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Proposal for a directive on industrial emissions 2008/1/EC, codified from previous IPPC directive 96/61/EC)

• Marine Strategy framework directive (2008/56/EC)

• Framework Water Directive (2000/60/EC )

It is important to note that the Barcelona Convention11 (1978, revised in 1995) is not only an international convention that each Mediterranean country has signed and ratified, but is part of the Acquis, as it was signed by the EC and incorporated into the body of EC law. Thus the accession and pre-accession countries have an incentive to comply with the Convention and its protocols which is actually stronger than that of the other signatories.

We believe that the study has resulted in a higher profile, both for the European Commission and the country NICAPS, for environmental investments in the Mediterranean watershed or basin, following two decades of focus on the Danube basin.

11

Signed 16 February 1976, in force 12 February 1978 (revised in Barcelona, Spain, on 10 June 1995 as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean )

17

Specific prioritisation issues

As an example of the need for close attention to prioritisation, we heard from KfW that one country had presented 75 projects to the West Balkan Infrastructure Framework (WBiF), and that most were returned unfunded. Another country had presented projects to the WBIF without having an IFI interested; again they were rejected. These were specific examples of a general problem; that for pre-candidate countries, the prioritisation process is not yet robust, and NIPACS sometimes do not have the tools to prioritise according to agreed detailed, costed and accepted accession plans. Priority plans have been developed in two of the three pre-candidate countries, but there are doubts as to whether they have been internalised. One report had proposed sixteen priorities for the Urban Waste Water Treatment but it had apparently not been adopted by the government. In this report only two of the sixteen priority projects were also in the NAP.

It seems that in the pre-candidate world the incentive structure for developing solid costed implementation plans is not completely understood and integrated into government structures. In the next section we have proposed a stronger inter-service upstream coordination framework in Brussels to assist with the problem.

During our missions and discussions, we found for Croatia and Turkey there were substantial processes in place to deal with waste water. Croatia had a major project developing waste water treatment in the Islands (funded through the WBIF), while they intended to meet deadlines for complying with the Urban Waste Water Directives for their major cities. In Turkey municipalities were able to borrow at low interest rates from the Illerbank, a government owned bank established for this purpose (the bank was privatised in April 2011). So effective was this financial intermediary that KfW was unable to disburse its loan funds for municipal services between 2004 and 2010. By the end of 2011 all municipalities in Turkey must have applied for government grants to complete their WW infrastructure. Given these ongoing processes, we concluded that WWT was not the main priority for extra assistance in these two countries. The Solid Waste sector has been the recipient of considerable investment by EIB and the World Bank, and priority for this sector seems to be located in Croatia and Montenegro. Our overall conclusions are presented in the next table.

Priority Areas within the NAPs

Country Waste water treatment

Old Industrial Pollution

On going Industrial pollution

Solid Waste

ALBANIA Yes Yes BOSNIA Yes CROATIA Yes, project

preparation Yes

MONTE NEGRO Yes Yes Yes Yes TURKEY Yes

18

6 Coordinating Technical Assistance

In the Inception Report we referred to the fact that this region differs from the South and east Mediterranean because of the accession and pre accession process. In this process, candidate countries have to show that they have realistic plans including detailed costing, to not only transpose but to implement the acquis. Both Croatia and Turkey already have deadlines by which certain directives (of which many are relevant to the NAPs) must be met, and Montenegro will now be asked to produce such plans. In order to be realistic, such plans have to be prioritized, and not consist of collections of wish lists from various Ministries. Part of the dialogue between EC and candidate countries is designed to ensure not just that specific projects comply with the acquis, but that in the broader strategic context the projects are designed to further total compliance with the acquis. Bosnia and Albania are both at an earlier stage in the process, but are or will be also required to prepare strategies for accession in the different sectors.

We stress again that the Barcelona Convention is a part of the acquis, and that waste water discharges and solid waste pollution will be sharply reduced once the relevant directives are in place. However industrial pollution is more difficult to reduce, as is old contamination. While many of the former toxic waste industrial hot spots have been eliminated (e.g. in Albania, most of the coastal ones) ongoing industrial pollution has not.

Is it possible to propose enhancement of coordinating mechanisms for technical assistance that will be suitable for both pre-candidate and candidate countries? We believe that it is. If not already happening, there is a case for pro-active coordination and guidance on priorities, led by DG Environment, since it is inter-agency coordination that is crucial at this stage. DGs Elarg, Env and Regio should be meeting regularly to ensure that the projects being funded not only comply with the directives (which should be a given) but they comply with the accession implementation plans. In this way any problems, such as the apparent difficulty in making clear priorities for project proposals, could be caught and solved before they get too out of hand.

Environm ent has traditionally played a weaker role in assistance; it was seen as ‘softer’ more nebulous and less connected to economic growth, with a broader range of actors. It was and is always easier to develop roads, railways and airports; to ensure electricity connections, than to spend many more tens of millions on less visible gains. The demands of meeting approximation and implementation of EU environmental legislation is particularly complex and costly and the Western Balkans are currently in the process of realizing the implications both in terms of funding and of technical capacities required to meet the challenge. It was not always clear what project prioritising process was followed in-country and what guidelines were provided. The active role of the EU delegation in this process is important. We recommend, if it is not already happening, that more attention be paid to information flow relating to political processes and an emphasis on the size and cost implications of the environmental acquis. In this process, a focus on the Mediterranean must be made by the EC in order to complement the ongoing emphasis on the Danube and Black Sea basins. The Mediterranean (including Adriatic) watersheds are just as complex. The meeting that took place in September 2010 where different consultants’ projects concerned with the Mediterranean Action Plan were presented and discussed was an excellent example of good practice in this area.

What of the role of the Mediterranean Programme and its structures in this? While there is no conflict between the aims of UNEP/MAP/MEDPOL and the EC led accession process, there is a danger that the roles of the institutions furthering the Mediterranean vision as a whole have lost visibility. It is crucial that MEDPOL be strengthened so that it can enhance its monitoring of the NAPs, and that pro-active guidance is provided on the implementation of the activities in the NAPs. It should enlarge the coastal hot spot approach to include upstream pollution from river basins, thus applying the River Basin Management approach. This would mean that non point sources and pollution from small and scattered communities would be covered by the NAPs. It is important to remember that even once the directives on urban waste water and landfill have been met, pollution from these other sources would still remain (the Nutrients Directive aims at tackling nutrient pollution, but lacks the specific targets on the investment heavy

19

directives). One estimate we were given in Turkey was that non-point sources amount to over half of nutrient pollution discharges to the Mediterranean.

A discussion of coordination of technical assistance can hardly omit the major actors in the process; however, these are very different in size and type. Following the PEIP, which ended in 2009, work on prioritisation of investment projects for accession has begun through the RENA project; the resources involved however are limited. The activity related to investment forms only one fifth of a three year consultancy project covering eight countries. It is unlikely to be able alone to catalyse the in-depth understanding of issues such as prioritisation; furthermore it is working with countries that we already found to have difficulties concerning effective internal communications. Our proposal therefore would be that the EC undertakes a significantly more pro-active guidance role.

The West Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF), which does not cover Turkey, receives project proposals from the countries, through the assistance coordinator in each country, the NIPAC. In order to be considered for EC, donor or other IFI support, these proposals should be attached to an IFI who is interested in funding the project.. We found this process was not always well understood in each country. In order for the projects concerned to be prioritized effectively and discussed with an IFI beforehand, a fuller coordination in country will be needed. Rather than a process of receiving proposals, we suggest the WBIF uses current or sets up new mechanisms to ensure this coordination. The IPF gives some support on this issue in some places, and this could be built on. The entity used should focus on environment, for the reason already mentioned; that it will always be easier for governments – and for IFIs – to fund infrastructure which is directly connected with economic growth, and does not include the municipalities, weak in all countries, with cost recovery and loan management problems in many.

Hence among our other specific proposals for regional technical assistance we include one to tackle these problems at municipal level through ongoing training of financial intermediaries and a draw down loan facility. A pilot project for this was already tested in Croatia and Serbia in 2002, funded from the CARDS Regional programme.

The fact that EU accession is driving the agendas in the Western Balkans and Turkey means that efforts will be needed to strengthen the attention paid to this dimension in the UNEP/MAP and MEDPOL process. MEDPOL will need to provide active guidance with the focus on River Basin Management and related support to the implementation of priority activities within the NAPs. The identification process initiated with the SAPs and NAPs is a valuable one which however needs updating in order to remain useful to donors and investors. MEDPOL remains key in the region for the monitoring of pollution and could profit from the lessons learnt from the example of the Danube and Black Sea programme for developing an integrated approach with the participation of key players in the region. MEDPOL can help with more frequent updates of the NAPs. MEDPOL should focus also on strengthening links to the key sector ministries involved in decisions about investment strategies. In general the proliferation of focal points added to confusion and duplication and one focal point should be responsible for inter-ministerial coordination for the de-pollution process.

It is also important to maintain the regionality of the programme. Chapter 8 presents some concrete proposals for four regional technical assistance programmes, that would help to fill gaps we perceived in implementing the NAPs, and which would also help in implementation of the acquis, while at the same time maintaining a homogeneity about the approach to common problems. All four would require relatively little in the way of extra funds, and cross-border money could be tapped, together with the pre-structural funds for the industrial elements. The Infrastructure Project Facility (IPF) in Bosnia carried out a pilot workshop between three countries to see if there was a demand for regional projects, and found that three were agreed on, and governments appeared willing to share the loan costs. This is a highly encouraging indication that there is an interest in and a market for regional projects, even investment projects.

As mentioned above, we strongly propose supporting the EBRD/KfW joint regional facility for municipalities. The GEF proposals in Bosnia for support to three pilot projects on low cost alternative

20

biological methods of water treatment for small and scattered communities is important for non-point source nutrient discharge, and should lead to replication in the region.

Finally, we propose the idea of an investment facility to help prepare and leverage prioritized projects in the West Balkans that would act as a mini IPF but focused on one sector.The project would build on the brand recognition and the tools of the MeHSIP, but work with all IFIs, rather than follow the model of the dominant role played by the EIB in the MeHSIP. The IFI-AG could help coordinate this facility, to prepare project to be processed into the WBIF, while MEDPOL would be deeply involved from start to finish in the process. There should be no duplication with the IPF, as this facility would focus on one sector, be geographically limited, and encourage IFIs to work with their special fields of expertise.

In Chapter 7 of this report we present a summary of priorities and projects in each country covered by the report. Here we also decided to present some simple recommendations for technical assistance in each country, which we hope will provoke interest. Each country’s is different; and aims to support the very different situations of the countries in implementing their NAPs. No extra funds would be required by these proposals, some of which are already being discussed (e.g. Turkey).

NATIONAL & KAPODISTRIANNATIONAL & KAPODISTRIANUNIVERSITY OF ATHENSUNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

Financing Coordination frameworks current status

WeB&TKHSiS

RENA

Pre-accession countries

RENA focal points

Albania, Bosnia HerzegovinaCroatia, Turkey, Montenegro

ENPI IPA

IPF

WBIF

IFI-AG

Project pipeline identification

Not covering Turkey

NIPACs

WG 1

IFIs (EIB, EBRD, KfW, WB)

UNEP/MAPMEDPOL NAPs

21

7 Country summaries

Albania CH AB Tirana, November 2010

Meetings • EU Delegation, Horizon 2020 Focal Point, Ministry of Environment, Forests

and Water Administration, Ministry of Public Works, Department of Strategy

and Donor Coordination, Prime Minister’s Office; UNDP; EBRD, INPAEL

Approximation project team leader; ECAT;

The Horizon 2020 focal point was being replaced during our mission, so we updated the NAP during our missions in discussions with Mr. Fatos Bundo and with the Ministry of Public Works. Further information was clarified in discussion with the EBRD, KfW and the EU Delegation. Funding gaps may have been filled in the six months during the mission. The main authors of the NAP were the ECAT, now an outside agency attached to the Ministry. They were not aware of any follow up to the NAPs, which they saw as a ‘one-off’.

The infamous coastal old industrial toxic ‘hot spots’ have been largely cleaned up through donor funds. On-going industrial pollution remains a problem. Feasibility studies exist for most WWTP and proposed landfills. Donor/IFI coordination continues to be successful. Oil contamination from Ballsh oil refinery has prevented progress on the Fier WWTP, since KfW support is dependent on preventing future pollution. The Patos Marinza oil production and refinery has been partly privatised (to a Canadian company with c 10€ allocated for clean up from an EBRD loan). The remaining oil production sites, amounting to some 40 ha., are leaching oil and toxic materials into rivers and sea. However state owned companies or facilities where ownership is not clear have not been proposed for funding. The experience of UNDP is relevant here. They inventoried a second and third wave of industrial pollution hot spots, in the centre and north of the country. However funds for clean up were not disbursed, due to the difficulty of access for remediation on sites that had a) been sold to foreign investors without liability, b) had been taken over by the former workers/management, c) were occupied by squatters moving usually from the poorer areas of the north. Of the high priority hot spots identified in the UNDP study, Elbasani is the most important priority to address in the context of coastal areas.

Albania appeared to be still donor dependent, with cost recovery problems at municipal level, and economic growth localised largely in Tirana. We heard anecdotal evidence of rural de-population and increasing economic problems outside of the city. Donor funds are slowly drying up, and the gap has not yet been filled by government or private funds. However, EU accession is a big ‘carrot’ and every effort is being made to reform the institutions needed to become a candidate country. As mentioned above, former employees and squatters have taken over numerous industrial sites, making remediation difficult.

The IPF is particularly active in Albania, with 13 projects. The former head of the Phare PMU in the Ministry of Environment is now team leader of an accession and implementation project (INPAEL).

Waste Water: a strategy exists in draft.

Solid Waste: a strategy has been adopted and approved by the government.

22

High priority activities proposed for funding:

WWT

• Tirana wider region • Vlora (proposed for IPF support, (our proposed priority) • Koplik city • Velipoja

• Kruja-Fushe • Fier; (funds available but oil contamination not treated) LANDFILL

• Shkodra city • Durres-Tirana region common sanitary landfill (our proposed priority

project)

• Fier, Divjaka, Lushnja, regional landfill INDUSTRY

• Shengin fish processing plant WWTP needed • Fushe-Kruja cement plant, EBRD loan but funds still needed

CLUSTER PROJECT (our proposed priority)

• Elbasani sewerage system, landfill and ferro chromium plant remediation; WWT and sewerage will be supported by IPA 2010 and by IPF; KfW interested donor, EIB co financing, funding gap; pollutes Shkumbin River which flows into the Adriatic Sea

TA Recommendations: • With Montenegro, flood protection for river Bona. To be brought forward from 2012

• Information on a potential Waste to Energy project based near Elbasani is attached in the priority shortlist of projects for Albania Annex.

23

Bosnia-Herzegovina CH AB Sarajevo, 10-16 April 2011

Meetings • EU Delegation, Horizon 2020 Focal Point, Ministry of Foreign Trade and

Economic Relations B & H (state level) Hydro-Engineering Institute, Sarajevo;

IPF, Ministry of Agriculture Waters and Forestry (B); Ministry of Environment

(B); KfW, EBRD, WB.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s coast line is small, about 45 kilometers. Most of the NAP projects concern the Neretva river basin, which empties into the Adriatic. Thus most of the projects are in the entity Bosnia and Herzegovina, as much of the entity Republic Sprska is in the north and north-west of the country, with little impact on the coast. The updated NAP however includes waste water and industry hot spots based in RS. The responsible unit in the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations was extremely helpful in providing contacts as well as information. We are very grateful for the support given by the Horizon 2020 Focal Point coordinator, who updated the NAP for us, and provided us with contacts for further interviews. We received very helpful information also from the IFIs and the IPF country office. In some areas information gathering was hampered by the structure of government in Bosnia-Herzogovina, with two entities (plus autonomous territory), plus state level. Some of the information we received about compliance levels for industrial regulations and municipal competences in both entities somewhat conflicted. This was in part due to the fact that much of the information was decentralized and available from the the four Water Agencies (of which the one most relevant to our study was Agency for the Water Area of the Adriatic Sea based in Mostar). The PMUs in the Federal Ministries and generally staff concerned with project development were noticeably active and competent.

Our conclusion was that despite two active Focal Points, the NAP was not integrated into government. This was probably due to the complex divisions of power and responsibility, the relative lack of involvement in political decision making at entity level, and the overall weakness of the public administration at Federal level, thinking.

Waste Water: Current levels of WW treatment are estimated at 2-3%, although this will rise to c. 25% after Sarajevo and Mostar WWTPs are completed. Thus needs are high, and we consider this the priority sector.The EIB has signed a framework agreement with the state to fund waste water treatment in 25 municipalities in Bosnia and 15 in RS. There have been delays in Bosnian municipalities signing up to this agreement; so far only 6 have done so. However, as we finished our field work there, another 7 municipalities expressed their wish to join the agreement, including Mostar, the major polluter of the Neretva River. While rejected for the 2011 IPA, Mostar WWTP is expected to be funded from the 2012 IPA. We consider this project relevant because of its size and importance and the fact that the funding is still doubtful, with a 22m€ funding gap. KfW and SIDA have scaled down their assistance support, because of uncertainty about the intentions of Mostar municipality.

Solid Waste: Two projects only are in the revised NAP; one of which will be operational by the end of 2012. World Bank loans cover most solid waste landfills.

Industrial pollution: Conflicting information was recorded about the efficacy of compliance mechanisms and the two environmental funds (one was started in RS in 2002; the other in the Federation in 2006). Waste water discharges from two industrial sites were highlighted, both situated in the Trebisnicka river basin.

24

High priority activities proposed for funding:12

WWTP

• Mostar NRB (our proposed priority) • Konjic NRB (our proposed priority) • Nevesinje TRB • Trebinje TRB

• Ljubuski TRB, NRB • Bileca TRB • Caplina NRB

SW

• Neum-Ston (joint with Croatia, funding gap), coastal/our proposed priority

• 3 GEF pilot projects alternative biological treatment (our proposed priority)

Industry

• Gacko power plant – industrial WWTP needed TRB • Trebinje tool plant converted to food, new WWTP needed TRB

TA Recommendations: • Capacity building at Ministry (federal ) level in, among other areas, water and waste management

• Strategy development to help in prioritizing water and waste investment

• Enhance capacities within the four Water Agencies for standard setting and compliance

12 NRB =Neretva River Basin ; TRB = Trebisnjica River basin - TRB

25

Croatia CH- Zagreb, 1 -4 February 2011

Meetings • Round table with Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning

and Construction: Directorate for EU, Directorate for Atmosphere and

Waste Management, IPPC; Meeting with Ministry of Waters, EU

Delegation, EBRD, Croatian Waters, Central Office for development

strategy and coordination of EU funds and EU delegation, the ECOFUND,

the WB.

• A clear message received from key stakeholders is that the NAP projects are still priorities and reflect hot spots. Some hot spots might change13. Also UNDP industrial hot spots are often discussed in parallel with the Barcelona Convention hot spots, calling for clarification from UNEP on this definition.

Accession negotiations for Croatia were closed in June 2011. It is a beneficiary of IPA component 3 as precursor to the Cohesion Funds. Their main priority is to implement heavy environmental investment legislation, with costs estimated at a preliminary 3.5bn€ for the waste and water sectors. This has had and will continue to have a clear impact on their NAPs.

Industry: There has been considerable improvement in industrial pollution linked to waste management, helped by some enforcement of IPPC. For example oil refineries are being refurbished with new technologies.

The Croatian plan to implement the EU Acquis is still short on financing specifics. They still need to find funding for 294 towns under the EU Urban Wastewater directive (UWWD). This means that waste water discharges are the min priority for implementing the Barcelona Convention. An implementation Plan for municipal utilities has been prepared separately.

The Ministry of Environment is responsible for solid waste (with the ECOFUND as implementation agency). In the WWT sector Croatian Waters is the implementing agency in charge of WWT strategy and Implementation Plan. One River Basin Management study has been completed. A draft national River Basin Management Plan is currently undergoing public consultation. It is planned to be adopted in November 2011.

The ECOFUND as part of the Ministry of Environment competence has its own funds (from environmental taxes/fees) concentrating on waste management, rehabilitation of old landfills and co-financing on energy efficiency.

However, for waste water treatment, the need for 100 m/year € (World Bank estimate) cannot be realistically met in view of current absorption capacity. Indeed Croatia is currently struggling to absorb the 30 m/year € planned investments in this sector.

Municipal infrastructures:

• Cities themselves do not have funds but are expecting pre-accession or structural funds.

• Market need assessment has been undertaken for EBRD/KfW for municipal financing tools (credit line/SME municipal fund). From the 150 municipal water companies only 10 are considered credit-worthy, including larger cities such as Split and Pula.

Industrial Pollution:

13 With respect to the results of the River Basin Management Study from Croatian Waters, to be followed up.

26

The Ministry of Environment drew up a list of facilities under the 2011 Plan for compliance with EU Acquis, which must comply by 2012. This list should be obtained and cross checked against the industrial projects in the 2005 NAP. We are currently waiting for this information from Croatia.

Challenges:

• Need for investments in all 3 sectors but absorption capacity is low.

• Disbursement and implementation capacity need to be developed.

• Proliferation of lists of projects within ministries and the confirmation of the need to coordinate (eg role of NIPAC is crucial).

• Project preparation needs are even more important yet there is a reduced absorption capacity (Ministries are struggling to prepare 1 or 2 projects/year) Insufficient coordination and communication between different divisions in Environment ministry (International relations division is responsible for Barcelona Convention and NAPs; EU integration division is coordinating the accession related activities including RENA, no project preparation capacities close to technical sectors,

High priority activities proposed for funding:

WWT • Split Kastela Bay: (high priority project)

• Zadar,

• Rijeka (high priority project) • Sibenik • Pula • Dubrovnik (high priority project) • Neretva river • Ston (Neum) Projects:

• Split Salin (not covered by IPA 2012)

• Pula (need to complete application IPA 2013/14- cohesion funds) • Sibenik (feasibilty study on upgrading or extension and link to IPPC). • Dubrovnik (feasibilty study on upgrading or relocation of WWTP)

SW

• Greater Split landfill (closure, remediation, location)(our high priority project)

IP

• Zadar - Industrial WWTP • Rovinj - Industrial WWTP

TA Recommendations: • Project preparation needs in line with priority projects in need of preparation

• Specific training on project preparation, funding and procurement for the municipalities

27

Montenegro CH AB Podgorica, 3-7 April 2011

Meetings: • EU Delegation, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, 3

Municipalities, Ministry for European Integration; Polluters (airport and

port/ shipyard Centre for Ecotoxicological Research of Montenegro; NIPAC,

EBRD, World Bank KfW.

Montenegro recently became a candidate country, and serious efforts are being made to adopt the acquis. Furthermore plans are now being made for applications for IPA 3 and 4. Environment will be one of the main priorities for OP 3.

We were not able to get a clear picture of the planning and strategic process. Communication flow inside the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism and between the Ministry and the EPA and other agencies and IFIs seemed poor. For example, three separate entities are monitoring pollution. Up to now, investments have been focused in the northern part of the country, which is the poorest, and has the most industry, including mines. Pollution from a few industrial plants up river affects the Adriatic coast. The NAP has taken the coastal priority approach of UNEP seriously, and tended to ignore the upstream issues. Industrial pollution is not seen as a priority because it is now dealt with by the new Environmental Protection Agency. IFI coordination did not seem active, and EBRD was disaffected about municipalities, whom they said had heavy borrowing restrictions – and were lent up already for 2011. They also complained that their proposals to cooperate with EIB were ignored or rejected (we noticed that Montenegro’s proposed projects put forward to the WBIF in March 2011 were all rejected as not having evidence of contact with EBRD). Our visit helped raise the profile of the NAP. Presentations on RENA and TAIEX were also made during the meetings.

The updated NAP was discussed with the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, in a stakeholders meeting, which included municipalities and port authorities. For the solid waste and waste water sectors, important information was gathered. For the industrial sector there is the assumption that the IPPC regulations recently introduced will solve the problems, and there seems to be an apparent lack of coordination and communication between the new Environmental Agency, the Ecotoxological Centre, the HydroMet centre, and the Ministry for Sustainable development and Tourism. Extensive follow up interviews and new information clarified information on a series of priority projects, which are listed below.

Hot spots are focused around the six main coastal municipalities, one of which, Ulcinj, is a long series of small towns, which are not covered in terms of sewerage treatment. The coast suffers from polluting discharges from small and scattered communities along the coast. It is intended to build large collectors to take sewage out to sea. The Neretva River has a new GEF project starting for its cross border component but we noted that for the Montenegran part of the Neretva river there is little pollution reduction activity, and two industrial plants seem to be responsible for most of the river’s pollution from Montenegro (and hence from Lake Skodra, into which the river drains before passing to the sea). The World Bank has signed a 60m€ loan agreement with the government to clean up to five hotspots. The project list below assumes that the government will decide to focus on the KAP, the cement works near Podgorica which pollutes coast via river and lake, and which will cost the most to clean up.

Waste Water: Of the coastal projects listed in the NAP, reflecting the Hot spot approach of UNEP, all six coastal municipalities have ongoing actions, whether project documentation or actual construction. The waste water will be disposed of by building several collectors to take the discharge out to sea. We wondered if the Adriatic Sea would not be deemed a ‘sensitive area’, but were told that at that particular part of the coast the sea’s flow was strong enough to disperse the wastewater. Small and scattered communities, and new developments built without waste water disposal, form a special problem along the coast, especially near Ulcinj. Investments in this sector in Montenegro have so far been concentrated in the

28

centre and north of the country, through EIB loans, since the discharges there affect ground water. The six municipalities are listed below, with the current state of play. 14

Commune State of play Cost of project Funding gap if known

Other

Hercegovini Construction to begin end of 2011 Total cost 25m€ Kfw to lend 8-13m€. Mun provides 7m€

3m€

Tivat Sewerage system under construction. Funding needed for a joint WWTP. Documentation prepared

23m€ including sewerage system, Mun provides 2.5m€

13m€ Airport at Tivat a pollution hot spot for coast

Kotor 1. Construction of sewerage network of the eastern part of the Old Town Kotor. Approx. 670 000 Euro. Project is prepared by Kotor town. 2. Construction of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant for Morinj. (2 million Euro). Project prepared by Kotor. 3. Reconstruction of sewerage system of industrial zone, app. 200 000 Euro. 4Construction of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant for Orahovac. 1,5 million Euro. Project prepared by Kotor.

KfW financed phase 1 with 5.3m€ loan, Mun will provide 2.4m€

4.37m€ Industrial zone includes reconstruction of electrical and mechanical equipment with cleaning of the pipelines

Budva Concession contract signed with private company. Project documentation under way

Bar Construction to begin end of 2011 32m€. KfW funding 8-13m€. Mun to provide 13m€

Ulcinj EIA and documentation prepared. 22m€ total cost 19.5m€ DM thinks KfW will fund one joint outfall to sea

Small coastal settlements on Morin Bay

Project documents exist for Perest and Kisan

No information

14

N.b. levels of treatment of the waste water discharges before being sent out to sea could not be determined.

29

Solid Waste: Most landfills are to be funded by an EIB loan. 120m€ will be invested up to 2014 for regional landfills and hazardous waste treatment. However, those planned for the coast suffer from the ‘NIMBY’ (Not In My Back Yard) effect; one has actually been closed down to please local residents. This is delaying decisions and hence activities.

Commune State of Play Cost of Project Funding gap Other Bar and Ulcinj Regional sanitary

landfill; feasibility study and EIA carried out

EIB, EBRD and WB financing first phase of 8m€

13.3m€ EIB is also funding 20 year old waste dumps clean up

Kotor Landfill; FS and EIA done

EIB funding 13.5.€ No agreement on site, opposition from local parliament. Earlier LF closed down

Hercegovi Completion expected 2012

EIB funded. Cost not known

Industrial pollution: Substantial pollution enters the Adriatic Sea from the estuary of the River Bojana, from the port of Bar shipyard, and (disputedly) from the old oil terminals in the shipyard. All agencies responsible for monitoring disagreed on the situation.

High priority activities proposed for funding:

• WWT Kotor municipality (coast), WWTP and collecting systems for Orahovic, Morini and Kotor old Town, and nearby settlements, 4.3m€ estimated (our high priority project)

• WWTP Ulcinj (coast), IPA proposal, some doc done, major funding gap 19.5m€ (our high priority project)

• Estuary/Mouth of River Bojana – trans boundary river – diffuse industrial sources upstream from GEF project starting soon

• Shipyard Bijela, min 2m€ for cleanup of toxic sludge (our high priority project)

• Support participation in regional projects proposed separately (EBRD help for municipalities; GEF project on low cost biological remediation of small and scattered communities

TA Recommendations: • Focus on municipal capacities, especially for managing funds ( see Regional TA EBRD proposal)

• Support for harmonisation with EU standards for WWTP and Landfill,

• Further assistance for the Environmental Protection Agency • Help improve coordination between Ministries and EPA • Promote effective privatisation of state owned heavy industry to

improve compliance levels

• Focus on costing of implementation of EU Acquis; need to be higher ( Italian twinning in place)

30

Turkey AB Ankara, 16-19 February 2011

Meetings • with EU Delegation, Ministry of Environment and Forestry: Horizon 2020

Coordination Unit Marine unit, IPPC unit, IPA unit; World Bank, KfW.

The updated NAP was discussed with the MoE, and additional information led to a new version being prepared. There is a fairly heavy process on going to comply with the key EU directives, and a priority environmental investment list exists. The IPA unit in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry had every year proposed projects form the NAP list, which had been incorporated into the overall country priorities. Nonetheless there were some gaps; and various reasons were given for some high priority projects not yet being carried out to date; political (mayor, region), city too small, impact on coast via river, seasonal tourism.

The criterion by which projects have been differentiated into high, medium and low, is that of cost-effectiveness; that is, how much reduction in pollution you get for your buck. Thus all industrial projects were grouped as medium priority, because of the high cost of new technology and remediation.

The MoE believes that discharges from waste water and solid waste are under control and under way, due to the country’s commitments on accession, and the very large sums coming from IPA (almost one billion € a year). Most recently, all municipalities have been ordered to apply for government grants by 2011 for waste water treatment. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry gives 45% of the estimated cost to municipalities, and has done since 2008; while a special bank was established some years ago, Illerbank, with the sole mandate of making low interest loans to municipalities for infrastructure. (The bank was privatised February 2011). The bank has crowded out assistance from IFIs in this sector. Despite the high rate of subsidy, municipalities have been known to close down or abandon their WWTP, because of the high cost of Operation and Management.

Cost recovery: is effective, with high collection rates for water and waste water. However user charges and rates are also high and Turkey faces a problem with ‘illegal’ water users, who are not connected but who take the water.

Industrial polluters: have been given medium priority only, and the MoE was anxious that focus should remain on the high priority list. However, despite the IPPC framework now established in the MoE, we consider that most impact would be gained by working on clean-up on the highly polluted areas of the eastern Mediterranean, Edirne, and south of the Marmara Sea. EU may not be able to fund such projects however, because of competition rules, plus the sheer size of the problem. Nonetheless, the EU could work with EBRD through financial intermediaries, such as the Turkish Industrial Development Bank (TIDB), which would then lend on to private industries. KfW ran such a programme for some years, but they (the German government) are now scaling down their assistance to Turkey. (This is partly because of Illerbank’s cheaper money and EC grants).The Turkish government has a department of the Ministry of Industry responsible for industrial clean up They have established ‘Organized Industrial Zones’, and once 40% of each zone has been occupied, the zone must clean up the industrial waste water. They are considered as ‘private’ under Turkish law, and can borrow from banks. However this regulation omits older and more scattered industries. Both the World Bank and KfW considered that pre-treatment for industrial waste water was still needed, and was a priority.

Non point source and scattered communities also need an integrated strategy to fund remediation. There is already a Turkish Watershed Management Plan in place. Responsibility is shared between the State Hydraulic Works, an agency under the authority of the newly-established Ministry for Water and Forestry, and the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Environment discussion with us estimated that over half of nitrate pollution comes from agriculture and welcomedt an EU project on the Nitrates Directive that has just started.

31

Both the MoE and the EU Delegation proposed more assistance from the EU in carrying out River Basin Management Studies. The EU has already assisted with the drafting of river basin management plans for the Bayuk Menderes basin and the Gedes basin (Aegean). They propose to fund more; while the State Hydraulic Works has carried out 11 River Basin Protection Action Plans (there are 26 river basins). The intention is to complete all the River Basin Protection Action Plans by the end of 2011 and then convert them into River Basin Management Plans. The World Bank has also funded two watershed projects (one for the Mediterranean side). It should be noted that Turkey plans at least 1500 small hydro power plants for its rivers, a plan which aroused controversy among environmentalists. The EC strongly supports a strategic approach based on River Basin Management.. However, the estimated cost of fulfilling plans is daunting. The Bayuk Menderes plan would cost 1bn€ to fulfill, and would probably take twenty years. Thus as ever there is a tension between the relatively quick results from one-off projects, and the slower but more sustainable results from long term plans.

Another project relevant to the MAP has started, which will further determine ‘sensitive’ areas (the first Communique concerning the identification of Sensitive and Less Sensitive Areas was published in 2009). Turkey has 8332 kilometers of coastlines, not including its islands, so the criteria of sensitivity become important. The MoE distinguishes between sensitive (liable for eutrophication and requiring tertiary treatment); ‘grey’ areas requiring secondary treatment, and non sensitive areas which have only primary treatment (under the law waste untreated water cannot be discharged). Coastal Management Plans should be published this year. We consider that consistency of approach is important in these studies, and recommend TA to achieve this. Monitoring is carried out by a range of institutions, including universities. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry consider that a project helping to align the data is needed.

The Turkish government has asked donors and IFIS to focus on the eastern Mediterranean coast (such as Adana Country, which is very polluted, with several Organised Industrial Zones, industrial run off pollution, sedentary sea waters, and Edirne (also industrial pollution, and politically sensitive). The Ministry of Industry and Trade worked with KfW for some years on these projects; - they have a department that deals only with small scale industrial estates and the Organised Industrial Zones.

Turkey is a beneficiary of IPA, which funds a high proportion of Turkey’s Environmental Operation Programme (EOP). The first priority under this programme is improved water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment, with ‘improved integrated solid waste management’ the second.

So far 40 projects were selected for the EOP. Projects proposed from the High Priority section of the NAPs for IPA support for 2011 include the following;

• 2 project hot spots in the Antalya basin – water and waste water;

• 1 solid waste storage plant for Izmir-Merkez

• Icel Erdemli sewage network extension and WWTP

• Solid waste storage for 3 provinces in the Ceyhan Basin

• Adana Ceyhan municipality; WWTP and rehabilitation of stormwater

• Sewage and WWTP for two provinces in the Asi river basin

• Edirne solid waste storage plant

An Adana-Ceyhan solid waste project dropped out of the IPA list because the promoters found other funds. According to the IPA unit in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, this is fairly common, and is the reason why more NAP projects are not submitted to IPA.

32

High priority activities proposed for funding:

• Landfill for Adana-Karatas • Landfill for Izmir Odemis and Izmir Konak; • WWTP for Antalya Doemealti; • WWTP for Izmir Selcuk; rehabilitation , advanced treatment and

extension of existing WWTP for Icel Tarsus and other hot spots in the Dogu Akdenis basin;

• WWTP for Mugla-Milas

• WWTP for Muga Ortca; • WWTP Icel-Tarsus • WWTP for Adana-Ceyhan; • Landfill for Adana-Ceyhan • Support for transporting solid waste Bahkesir; WWTP Bahkezir. • WWTPs for Bahkesir-Edremkit/Gure/ Bahkesir-Burhaniye/Pelitkoy • WWTP for Edirne-Enez (high priority project)

TA Recommendations: • a programme of support to the Turkish Industrial Development Bank (TIDB) to fund industrial pollution, together with support to EBRD to develop environmental remediation loans to groups of industries. (our high priority project)

• As 11 out of 26 river basin management plans have now been completed, we recommend a pilot project; choosing a basin giving onto the Aegean or E Med (both of which are ‘sensitive areas’) and bundling together finance for small investments including agriculture, in this one basin, involving the local and rural banks. (our high priority project)

33

8 Proposals for Follow-Up Technical Assistance on a regional level

One of the two specific objectives of the assignment was to assess the need for coordination on current and future technical assistance support. The following section highlights some of the conclusions based on the consultants’ assessment and discussion with main actors and develops proposals for follow-up on a regional level.

8.1. Dedicated investment facility for environment; Adriatic Sea Investment Facility

Justification

Environment is the financially heaviest part of the acquis, to which the countries have promised to comply, and is frequently a low priority in-country. The Adriatic has been somewhat neglected in favour of the Danube/Sava basin in the Balkans. Although the IPF has been set up to promote investment and does an excellent job, it deals with all sectors, and some relevant activities are excluded from their brief. Experience in CEE and the former Soviet Union showed that even relatively small investment facilities dedicated to environment infrastructure were highly successful in leveraging investment. IFIs could plan their investments long term in the knowledge that they would secure softening of the loan or other assistance (e.g. managing PMUs) through this facility. Compliance with EU acquis would be assured; currently much IFI investment dealing with sensitive waters does not include biological treatment or nitrate removal. Municipalities also gain by knowing that they had a specific ‘pot’ to dip into, and can learn from each others’ experience. Such a facility would also highlight the regional importance of polluting discharges to the Mediterranean.

Examples of previous such facilities include Black Sea Investment Facility, which followed the DABLAS financing committee; the Large Scale Infrastructure Facility for Central and Eastern Europe, 1997-2001, the Joint Environment Programme for Tacis, where 11m € leveraged over 1 billion € of environmental investment; the Municipal Services Facility, Russia. It was decided not to include Turkey in this proposed facility. Turkey already has a very large IPA contribution every year, and it has a credible government plan for dealing with waste water and solid waste discharges, which is in operation, together with substantial assistance to municipalities. The industrial and small communities’ problems still in their NAPs have been discussed in the Turkey report and the conclusion is that it is unlikely that they would benefit from such a facility. The door to this should not yet be closed however. Concerning the ongoing World Bank Adriatic Sea Environment Programme Study (ASEP), we understand that the conclusions of this study will be forwarded to the World Bank in Washington with a view to assessing the need for a new approach to Hot Spots and a new Environment Programme in the Adriatic. Both in time frame, geographical area, scope and aim, the study is complementary to our proposal. A meeting was planned with the team of consultants and the World Bank in May but has been postponed until autumn 2011. Any facility should be open to all IFIs to participate, coordinate with the WBIF, and be accession driven.

8.2. EBRD proposal for regional municipalities and IFI draw down loan: Small Municipal Infrastructure

Facility for the Western Balkans (SMEIF)

Justification

The project builds on a successful regional pilot (5m€) project operating in Croatia and Serbia, funded by the CARDS regional programme in 2001-2 (the loan disbursement took place mostly in Croatia). It is aimed at addressing the most difficult challenges in the Balkans for municipalities, who are key actors in environmental infrastructure and pollution reduction, namely constraints on borrowing, low capacity to manage funds, need for training and support. Because this project operates through local banks, it can reach the hundreds of municipalities concerned in an effective way. The SMEIF does not cover Turkey.

The project concept was extensively discussed with the Task Manager responsible in London, and in Montenegro and Bosnia with EBRD and the EU Delegation. A market needs assessment study has been carried out by KPMG. The project has been presented to the EU by EBRD and KfW jointly, requesting 30m €

34

for a total draw down loan package of 120 m €, which may be over ambitious in size. A decision is expected by the end of the year, and we recommend that this is taken into consideration, possibly at a scaled down level, and with an Adriatic ‘window’.

8.3. Regional pilot projects for alternative low cost biological remediation for small and scattered

communities (possibly through GEF).

Justification

Polluting discharges from small and scattered communities remains a major problem, probably responsible for most of the eutrophication pollution into the sensitive areas of the Mediterranean, and a problem that is expanding year by year, with increased coastal development, due to the high cost of linking such communities, and the problems of karst geology. The GEF has applied for funding of 1m€ to carry out three pilot projects in a river basin in Bosnia. There should be pilots carried out in the coasts of all the Western Balkans. While Turkey does not have the karst problem, their river basins are their main source of pollution, so this pilot could well be replicated there. Operational and Management costs have in the past been used to argue against such projects - reed beds and lagoons are examples. However, operating and monitoring costs exist for traditional technology too.

8.4. Developing Specifically Regional ‘Hot Spot’ investment projects

Justification

One of our findings was that the Bosnian office of the IPF held workshops with 3 other Balkan countries, Croatia, Montenegro and Albania, to see if there was a ‘market’ for regional projects involving loans. Four projects were chosen for support, and approved by three governments, who agreed to each take a share of the total loan. Although environment was not included in the projects chosen (the Cetine basin was proposed but was not perceived as bankable) this experience shows that there is a willingness to share loans for regional projects, and that some coordination mechanism could be used/set up to promote them. Existing mechanisms such as UNEP or the IPF could be used, but as IPF works on a country specific basis, a regional ‘window’ would need to be developed that would be better placed to encourage and develop the regional projects.

35

NATIONAL & KAPODISTRIANNATIONAL & KAPODISTRIANUNIVERSITY OF ATHENSUNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

Coordination of future WeB&T TA- Options

WeB&THSiS

RENA

Updating of MEDPOL NAPs

Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina

Croatia, Turkey, Montenegro

Coordination of focal points

IPF

WBIF

IFI-AG

WeB&T HSiS PPF

NIPACs

WG 1:-Methodology-WeB&T Pipeline update

EBRDSMEIF

36

9 Conclusions and Recommendations

Coordination of Technical Assistance

Recommendation 1: Project preparation and funding facility 15

The current funding instruments for the development, preparation and implementation of priority environmental projects with regional implication in the Western Balkans and Turkey do not prioritise the Mediterranean and give industrial pollution a low priority. Nor do they cover all the countries in our study. There is therefore a need to fill this niche. Experience with the Black Sea Investment facility and others have shown that a dedicated investment and project preparation facility can leverage multiples of its funding effectively. Such a facility will help raise the profile of the Mediterranean/Adriatic Sea in this region, and hence of the UNEP/MAP/MEDPOL process.

A separate Project Preparation Financing facility for a WeB&T HSiS Mediterranean Sea project preparation pipeline could be created. This could build on the visibility and brand recognition achieved by the MeHSIP, and use the project fact sheets and pipeline tools developed there. UNEP/MAP and MEDPOL could be closely involved.

Recommendation 2

EBRD/KfW Municipalities regional project should be supported by the EC.

A feasibility study was undertaken for EBRD for municipal financing tools such as training for Financial Intermediaries, local bank credit lines and a regional municipal fund. In general, the report confirms that an instrument is needed in the region and the response from the interviewed cities and banks is positive. We understand that ‘en principe’ there are positive reactions from the EC, although the final decision is subject to further discussions. Some countries have the capacity and the legislative base for municipal borrowing while others are not in that position yet. Such an initiative would require commitment and support from the governments involved; and in case of Montenegro, which has strict laws forbidding borrowing by municipalities, amendments in the respective laws to allow cities to borrow directly from the fund for the eligible projects.

Recommendation 3

We found a low level of knowledge or of interest in Public Private Partnerships (PPP) for utility management. This may be due to the long term presence of major donor finance, crowding out the need to use the emerging private sector. There is a need for training in this area. Most of the projects in solid waste and waste water treatment are the responsibility of municipalities.

Information and training on PPP should be promulgated. It may be possible to do this through RENA or through the EBRD project mentioned above. Legal constraints on the management and ownership of facilities need to be clarified and removed. Hands-on training on utility management, financing and procurement is needed.

Support for Prioritisation16

Recommendation 4

In view of the fact that there is a tendency towards a more integrated approach to assessing priorities in the environmental sector (from point source pollution to integrated water resource management and the ecosystem approach), there will be a need for a more integrated inter-sectoral consultation at EU, regional and national levels. A working group of the EC specialized services involved could be established and meet regularly to ensure that the respective strategies are agreed, and guidance on priorities can be given.

15

see Chapter 8 on regional technical assistance, which presents the proposals in more details and with justifications attached 16

The following section deals only with Horizon 2020 in the Western Balkans and Turkey. To avoid duplication and redundancies, this fact will not be mentioned again in this section unless essential

37

The responsibility for regional coordination in the end must lie with Brussels. DGs Elarg, Regio, Env and Devco are all involved in this process of helping to set priorities for the Mediterranean Sea and the Adriatic Sea via Horizon 2020 and the accession process. This coordination should be guided by the Commission itself. We do not think that consultancy projects, whether big or small, can substitute for this process, though a secretariat can help with technical matters. We propose that lessons from the DABLAS model should be used. In this, the two Danube and Black Sea secretariats met regularly, together with the representatives from the different EC funding instruments (Phare, Tacis, DG Regio) and IFIs. This was useful in blending scientific expertise and knowledge, with donors and IFIs, all sitting round the same table, and led to a number of projects being proposed and accepted for funding. Later a Black Sea Investment Facility successfully formalized the process. Following this model, a coordination mechanism should be initiated and managed in Brussels for the WeBT countries, in which UNEP MAP would be closely involved, playing the role that the Black Sea and Danube River secretariats played in the early DABLAS process.

The formation of DABLAS is an example of how getting EC services to meeting regularly, sometimes with IFIs and with client countries, can help develop and enforce relevant strategies. The EC can contribute effectively on prioritisation, and give accession/approximation guidance to the countries. This case should be easier than the Danube and Black Sea, which mixed member states, candidate countries and non candidate countries in the process.

Development of Horizon 2020- involvement of UNEP/MAP, NAPs, MEDPOL

Recommendation 5

We recommend that NAP priority investment activities are more visibly linked into the IPA programming process. In order to make this plausible, the activities identified in the NAPs need to be reviewed more regularly than every 5 years, and implementation guidance issued by MEDPOL, overseen by UNEP/MAP.

We saw a challenge in coordinating the ongoing accession process and its major financing instruments and the UNEP/MEDPOL/NAP process. We believe it is crucial that clear links at all levels are made to the Mediterranean programme and all actors in the UNEP/MAP network; and the Union for the Mediterranean should be supporting this process. The decision to fund West Balkans and Turkey as part of Horizon 2020 capacity building and investment has been a positive and welcome development in this direction, and the involvement of DG ELARG should be acknowledged with gratitude, and the good cooperation with DEVCO and DG ENV applauded.

The NAPs were important in helping each country to map out its coastal pollution, define priority actions to be addressed and getting different institutions working together. Reporting on the NAPs in the context of the SAP and the MAP structure helped keep the Mediterranean programme alive through peer review and regular meetings. While their existence has been overshadowed by the new planning and implementation strategies required by accession, this study has helped to raise awareness of both the accession and of the NAP process in the countries. To some extent the activities identified in the NAPs for new legislation and institution building have been addressed in the course of the accession process, with its emphasis on transposition of legislation and harmonization of implementation structures. The lists of investment activities to be tackled remain an important tool for monitoring progress on implementation.

The process relating to the SAPs and NAPs should be an asset to the accession process, and feed into it. In its turn the EU accession dimension needs to be more clearly integrated into the NAP revision and monitoring process as the countries are very much acquis driven. In this context the streamlining and coordination of focal points in country would be helpful.

The next step should be to work on the funding strategy for the NAPs. MEDPOL will be taking the lead in this process, as it is planning a staff position for a financing specialist responsible for the development of financing strategies and supporting the countries in the implementation of the NAPs. MEDPOL needs to be aware of and coordinated with the strategic guidance for accession referred to above.

Recommendation 6

38

There is a general move from hot spots based assessments of pollution from land based sources to a more integrated river basin management and ecosystem approach, as foreseen in the Land Based Sources Protocol of the Barcelona Convention, and the EU Integrated Water Framework Directive. The tendency to move to more integrated assessment of prioritiy actions is already integrated into most of the western Balkan countries and Turkey.

The Hot Spot definition used in the framework of H2020 needs to reflect this by taking into account the River Basin Management approach in line with Integrated Water Resource management. This would ensure that potential de-pollution investments are considered not only on the coast but also upstream and along river deltas.

Comparative advantage of the actors17

Recommendation 7

Regional Environmental Network for Accession (RENA). Reference has been made to the Priority Environment Investment Programme for South Eastern Europe (PEIP). We understand that the EC was expecting RENA to carry on their work. Given their limited resources for this task, the role of RENA in the management and update of priority list of projects with regional impact has to be clarified.

Recommendation 8

The West Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF) can profit from a stronger strategic approach, with more focus on the Adriatic Sea. The process could be more integrated with other actors, and could work closely with the proposed new coordination platform (Recommendation 4 above)

Recommendation 9

IFI-AG- the IFI advisory Group reflects coordination with the EU at a high level in order for awareness-raising to continue; a forum for discussion of policy-related issues. The discussion of priority environmental investment projects selected by the EC coordination group should be on the agenda of this group regularly.

Recommendation 10

NIPACs- are playing a key project screening role in-country. Closer attention could be paid to prioritisation and coordination in-country under the guidance of the coordinating EC group proposed above.

Recommendation 11

The role of the secretariat for the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) will need to be further elaborated in the assistance process. It is important that discussions and promotion of environmental investment projects in the Mediterranean be coordinated with the other key actors in order to avoid duplication of efforts and confusion (due to proliferation of project lists) at country level.

Finally, two recommendations without an actor attached to them.

(i) In the early 1990s attention was paid to the toxic industrial hot spots in Central and Eastern Europe, and to ensuring that liability for such hot spots was clearly enshrined in the agreements of privatisation. We found instances where a number of privatisations seemed to have taken place, either without clearly allocating responsibility, or without enforcing such liability. EC Delegations should keep a close eye on this situation, which falls between various directives, and remains a problem in the Western Balkans.

(ii) Several countries have one or more Ecofunds, some incorporated into the government’s main budget and some with separate power over their own expenditure. At least two are managed by their respective Environmental Protection Agencies. It is important that the Ecofunds are not simply ‘command and control’ vehicles, but that they include an incentive structure, so that compliance is

17 A description of the main actors can be found in Annex IV

39

encouraged, as well as non-compliance punished. Examples of this are allowances for water abstraction, and phased reduction schedules for reducing polluting discharges, together with financial assistance for remediation of polluting discharges to air and to water.

Upcoming meetings/workshops where results should be presented:

• IFI-AG Meeting of the Environment group scheduled for the fall 2011

• MedPartnership coordination meeting Oct 2011

• WB- Adriatic Hot spot study regional workshop for presentation of results, date postponed to September 2011

• Workshop on the investment component for NIPACs, 5th October 2011 Skopje

• Horizon 2020 Steering Committee meeting in 2012

40

Annex I

Project Assessment Sheet18

1. Project number

2. Country / Region

3. Title of project

4. Description of project

5. Country priority ( yes/no)

6. Level of country priority (high, medium)

7. In 2005 NAP (Yes/No)

8. Supported by NIPACS

9. IPA proposal involved

10. Compliance with Barcelona Convention

11. Compliance with Accession

12. Institutional Data

� Name of Organization Responsible for Project

� Legal Status

13. Financial/economic Data

� Type of investment required to reduce pollution to acceptable levels

� Cost of required investments

� Potential financing sources

� Gap known

18

Definition Hot Spot: Point source of pollution in a country, e.g. city, industrial settlement/industrial zone, solid waste dump site, deposit of hazardous materials, etc.

41

Annex II

WeB&T HSiS

Accession summary Country Accession

status Envt. Chapter open/closed

Active IFIs19 UNEP/MAP NAP implementation

TA requirements

Croatia Candidate Yes High High for Project preparation

Turkey Candidate No WB, EIB, KfW (KfW is winding down bilateral assistance programme)

High Medium to low

Montenegro Candidate No EBRD+ EIB+ Medium High for Ministry and municipalities, further development of ECOFUND, support to Environmental Agency

Albania Pre-Candidate

n/a EBRD +WB++ Medium High

Bosnia Pre Candidate

n/a EBRD ++ WB ++ EIB ++

Medium Strategy needed, further development of ECO FUNDS. Support to the establishement of a a State level Environmental Agency

Funding tools in 2011 (see Annex III below) Country Multi

beneficiary Programme (under IPA)

National IPA programmes

CBC as proportion of overall IPA

Other WBIF/IPF

Croatia Yes Yes Environmental Operational Progrmme IPA III

Yes 12% GEF Participation in the ERDF European Territorial Co-operation transnational programme (South East Europe and Mediterranean)

Yes

Turkey No Yes – Environmental Operational Programme IPA III

Yes 1% CBC includes participation in the Black Sea Basin programme;

No

19 + and ++ reflect borrowing capacity rather than interest level, e.g. borrowing capacity of municipalities for EBRD

42

but nothing on the Mediterranean

Montenegro Yes Yes IPA III expected to be on board in 2012 (CFCU currently being set up)

Yes 15% GEF Programme on financing the participation of Montenegro in the ERDF European Territorial Co-operation transnational programme (South East Europe and Mediterranean)

Yes

Albania Yes Yes Yes 12% UNDP (hot spots). Programme on financing the participation of Albania in the ERDF European Territorial Co-operation transnational programme (S/E Europe and Mediterranean). IPA Adriatic Cross-border co-operation-programme

Yes

Bosnia Yes Yes Yes, 4% GEF, Programme for Participation in ERDF territorial cooperation transnational programme

Yes

43

Annex III

Funding issues

Funding and programmes. EC funds and process for the Western Balkans and Turkey

The Instrument for Pre Accession (IPA), provides funds for national and regional programmes in the West Balkans. Croatia and Turkey have their own national IPA ‘window’, which is managed through DG Regio.20

The following table shows the IPA multi-country fund, which is managed by DG Elarg, for the Balkans and Turkey.

IPA €

2007 108,9

2008 135,7

2009 160,0

2010 157,7

2011 160,8

2012 164,2

Regional funds comprise about 15% of IPA; and national programmes take approximately 85%. DG Regio Directorate I, Unit 5, manages the funds for IPA 3, 4, and 5 for Turkey and Croatia. IPA funds affecting environmental investments (in water and solid waste) are implemented in Turkey and Croatia through their respective Environment Operational Programmes. The IPA finances up to 85% of the cost of the projects. For Turkey, the EOP allocation between 2007 and 2009 is 204 m€. For Croatia it is 54 m€.

One final comment on funding: The EIB has an ‘external lending mandate’ for the Western Balkans and Turkey between 2007-2013 of 8.7 billion €. It is clear that the funds are available to enable the West Balkans and Turkey to fulfill their commitments under the Barcelona Convention. The programming process however, is more complicated.

Programming process

National and regional funds are all committed after a dialogue with the National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC) in each country. The NIPAC is generally a senior figure in either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Finance. A multi annual programme is developed that lays down the broad lines of the programme, and the multi annual financial commitment is made here. The annual programme is where project fiches are prepared. These are as mature as possible to enable procurement to proceed quickly. A crucial part of dialogue is the preparation of a sector plan. Each country is asked to prepare this and it is discussed at regular meetings. This procedure is also in line with the Paris Declaration.

The programme in Turkey is both decentralised and deconcentrated, that is, run by the EC Delegation but with the Turkish government responsible for much of the procurement.

Regional funds are managed and contracted in Brussels. For the Western Balkans, this is done by DG ELARGE.

20

Europa web site; European Commission; Enlargement; Financial Assistance; 07-09-2010

44

The West Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF) in South East Europe.

The West Balkans Investment Framework developed from an earlier investment fund managed by EBRD, and consists of pooled funds, with the EC, donors and investment banks packaging projects using these joint funds. One entity, usually EIB or EBRD, is the lead investor. The WBIF inventory of projects supported breaks down the projects by sector. The sector ‘Water and Environment’ has been used here for the preliminary screening of the NAPs. However the municipal section will also in many cases cover waste water and solid waste provision. Support here is generally through dedicated loans made to local and national banks from EBRD and EIB. Turkey is not included; although the programming document that created the WBIF includes Turkey. The EBRD, unlike the IBRD, can lend to municipalities or state owned companies. However, ownership of the assets has to be clear before loans can be made.

This type of programme is especially important in SEE because provision of water waste water and waste services has been decentralised. This means that responsibility for funding and managing such investment and services is at local level. Understanding of corporate structure, cost recovery, public private partnerships and instruments for municipal borrowing is still weak in some areas.

Funding: conclusions

Since the civil war in former Yugoslavia, SEE has been the recipient of major funding from the EC, from Member States, the US and Canada. Joint donor/EC funding structures were established, while the World BanK ran an office coordinating the Stability Pact funding for many years. While the positive side of this is that the resources have been channeled into the region have been proportionately high, and donor coordination has been generally been excellent, it has discouraged certain essential economic, structural and legal reforms from taking place. In countries where reform moved more slowly, the availability of ‘free’ money has crowded out not only loans but the pressing need to develop a free market economy in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria.

In this context, the accession and pre-accession process has been extremely valuable. It has provided an incentive structure, with clear deadlines, a rationale for priority planning in all sectors, and the guarantee of some funding as a result of the process. Furthermore, SEE could rely on a well educated work force, open to reform, and with at least the skeleton of a European style government, with monitoring, enforcement and implementation structures un place, even where not fully functional.

The major challenge remaining is to ensure that financial packaging with cost recovery and operational and maintenance costs can develop further. The scale of the investments and funds required can seem daunting. Here the prioritisation process has been and will continue to be crucial. But here also it is essential to work with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that environmental investments are not downgraded in importance in comparison with transport and other essential infrastructure. Here the negotiations with the EC continue to be crucial.

45

Annex IV

Main actors in the coordination process

UNEP/MAP21 and the implementation of the Barcelona Convention

The UNEP/MAP institutional structure is made up of a Secretariat based in Athens. The MED-POL Programme (the marine pollution assessment and control component of the Mediterranean Action Plan) is in charge of coordination of the NAPs and activities related to the Dumping, the Hazardous Wastes and the Land-based Pollution Protocols to the Barcelona Convention. It also supervises six Regional Activity Centres (RACs) responsible for different activities.

The Land Based Sources Protocol signed in 1996 introduced the regional strategic plan (SAP) and the resulting National Action Plans (NAPs) to implement the objectives of the SAP. The SAP identified priority problems, remedial measures to solve these, put a cost on this regionally and defined deadlines to implement related measures. The SAP was based on the identification of Hot Spots work done previously and the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA). The Hot Spot exercise was based on a participatory and bottom up approach whereby countries guided by criteria, identified priority pollution Hot Spots in the respective countries. These were then adopted by the Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2005 to assist de-pollution of the Mediterranean through to 2025.

DABLAS Danube and Black Sea Programme

The DABLAS (Danube and Black Sea) Programme is one of the success stories in the Black Sea region. The Commission established the DABLAS Task Force in 2001, to prioritise a pipeline of investment projects suitable for IFI financing. An investment support facility was launched to assist IFIs in the preparation of investment projects, the BSIF22.

Since it started, Romania and Bulgaria have become Member States, and Turkey is an accession country. The countries are no longer in need of the same type of support as at the start of the process. Sector strategies which include financial and economic criteria have been developed. Water and waste water operations for water supplies now generate revenues to allow for investment in waste water treatment. Initial investment in larger schemes was followed by smaller investments. A new contract for the continued coordination of DABLAS activities is ongoing; an update of its pipeline in November 2010; DABLAS activitiesare being refocused towards further strengthening cooperation between the Danube and the Black Sea area.

The IFI Advisory Group (IFIAG)

The DG ELARG managed regional project “Support to IFI Coordination in the Western Balkans and Turkey” started activities in March this year. The project ensures the continuation of the work of the IFI Infrastructure Steering group under the Stability Pact for Southern Eastern European countries (SEE) and follows-up the activities of the EC-WB office which closed down in 2008. The IFI Advisory Group (IFIAG) concentrates on policy coordination in different sectors, including environment in the region. The IFIAG is a think tank on policy related issues and not project-specific. Participants include the EIB, the EBRD, the EC.

21

MAP is a regional cooperative effort involving 21 countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the European Union. Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols aim at protecting the marine and coastal environment and boosting regional and national plans to achieve sustainable development. The 22 Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention are: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, the European Community, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey. 22

Black Sea Investment Facility, Tacis, Regional Action Programme 2002.

46

Its objectives are to improve coordination of investment support to beneficiaries and increase beneficiary involvement in the IFI and donor coordination process and leverage grants for loans23.

In June 2010 the IFIAG held an environment meeting. A study of water and waste water in Turkey is being commissioned, while a West Balkans water and waste water treatment study will be published shortly. The next environment meeting of the IFIAG is scheduled for next February/March 2011.

Regional Environmental Network for Accession (RENA)

Reference has been made to the Priority Environment Investment Programme for South Eastern Europe (PEIP). To a large extent RENA took over and carries on their work.

PEIP ran from 2001-2009. It was funded by the European Union, and managed by the Regional Environmental Centre (REC - CEE). The REC – CEE is based in Szentendre, Hungary, and has regional offices in the Western Balkans and Turkey. It was founded in 1990 jointly by the United States, European Commission and Hungary. It has had the legal status of an international organization in Hungary since 1995.The REC acted as Secretariat to for the Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme (ReREP)24, which included numerous ‘Quick Start’ projects dealing with reconstruction in South East Europe.

For PEIP, the REC used its country offices and Focal Points hired for the programme to work with the environmental institutions in each country, including Ministries of Environment, implementation agencies, municipalities and water institutions. During the period 2007-2009, the PEIP maintained a list of priority environmental investments submitted by each country’s government. According to the PEIP final report25there were 121 projects listed and during this period fifteen projects were fully funded and were taken off the list.

RENA was intended to be in part a successor to the PEIP. RENA also includes a number of important accession programmes that were previously developed and funded as separate contracts; for example, Progress Monitoring, BERCEN, and directive specific projects managed under DISAE. As mentioned above, RENA thus devotes only a part of its resources to priority projects, compared with the PEIP, and therefore canot be seen as playing the same role.

GEF-Strategic Partnership and the World Bank’s Sustainable MED

GEF is operating a transboundary river management programme in the river basins of Neretva and Trebidnjica, which run between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. The GEF has also prepared a Croatia Coastal Cities project with help from the EC, which is now funded by a World Bank loan and further EC contributions.

The World Bank has its own Mediterranean programme, called ‘Sustainable Med’. It recently launched a pilot study to update pollution data in the Adriatic Sea, which will be the basis for an Adriatic Sea Environmental Programme. This study includes Italy and Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Albania, and is discussed in more detail in the next section.

The GEF Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (MedPartnership) is a regional initiative for implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas.

The MedPartnership, which was approved by the GEF Council in 2008 and began implementation in 2009 consists of two components: a regional component: ‘Implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas,’ and an investment component led by the World Bank. As mentioned above, funding (grants and loans) has been approved for several projects in this programme.

23

‘INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE Multi - beneficiary Programming 2011-2013, Sector: INFRASTRUCTURE Sector Plan’, EC DG Region, p 15 24

The Regional environmental Reconstruction Programme, http://archive.rec.org/REC/programs/REREP/ 25

Regional Environmental Centre, Strategic Moves. Eight Years of Environmental Infrastructure Investment Planning in South Eastern Europe, Szentendre, Hungary, p. 29

47

WB Adriatic Hot Spot assessment study

The Adriatic Sea Environment Program (ASEP) is a proposal by the World Bank to provide technical

assistance and investment funding to the riparian countries in the Adriatic to reduce the level of pollution of the Adriatic Sea. The Program is at the conceptual stage, and has not yet been approved by Bank management.

The objective is to (i) assess the hotspots, including developing a methodology of identification and assessment of these hotspots – the data will draw extensively on the list of pollution hotspots identified by UNEP/MAP in 2005; and on the basis of this (ii) organize a roundtable workshop/meeting with the riparian countries of the Adriatic to seek buy-in from the countries on the concept of ASEP.

The project does not refer to the accession/enlargement dimension, or to the Member States' existing obligations under the Acquis. To avoid duplications and develop the most effective complementarities, the current study has worked in close coordination with the World Bank team of experts, exchanging inception reports and organising a meeting with the experts. We propose to present the results of the current study at the roundtable workshop foreseen at the end of the Adriatic study.

The MeHSIP-PPIF

One year after its launch, the first results of the MeHSIP-PPIF include an updated Horizon 2020 project pipeline and identification of a first wave of projects: Netanya Landfill, Israel; El Ekaider Dump Site, Jordan; Al Ghadir Waste Water Treatment Plant, Lebanon; Solid Waste Management, Tangier, Morocco; Integrated De pollution Bizerte, Tunisia. Four of the short listed projects were on the original NAP list. The fifth was developed by the consultants in coordination with the country concerned (Morocco).

48

Annex V

Revised NAPs The following table of UNEP/MAP/MEDPOL NAP projects were updated during country missions held between January 2010 and May 2011, and indicates the current status of projects originally presented in the 2005 NAP exercise. The up-dated lists were sent to the respective H2020 and MAP, MEDPOL focal points prior to the country missions for revision. In most cases the actual discussion of projects took place during multi-stakeholder or bilateral meetings in-country. High priority actions for which funding is still needed and/or is being requested, can be found in table 1 of the respective country NAP revision. The second table contains on going or completed high priority projects. Medium and low priority projects follow. The information contained in this document reflects the status of information after country missions. These revised NAPs have now been sent to all 5 countries for verification and validation of information.

49

Updating of NAP projects in Albania26 The following table of UNEP/MAP MEDPOL NAP projects has been updated during missions indicating the current status of projects. Priority actions as confirmed by country missions for which funding is still needed, which has not been secured or where funding is currently being requested, figure in the first table. The second table refers to “ongoing or completed projects”. TABLE 1

Priority actions according to revision of the NAP of Albania (2011)

Current status (2011)27

Sources of information, contacts28

1. Sewerage system for Koplik town Feasibility study for water supply, sewerage system and WWTP, 2005 in English (state funds)

No owners Funding gap

2. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Velipoja community

See above and 2nd

phase in planning for WWTP? Design study ongoing IPA 2007?

Check funding gap

3. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Lezha and Shengjin

Bushad (spelling) commune, outside of Lezha, got permit from Ministry of Public Works to build landfill (2008?). 1

st phase seems

completed but there seems to be inter-communal conflicts and sanitary status of landfill cannot be confirmed.

more information needed from Min. Public Works?

4. Construction of a sanitary landfill for the town of Lac

Possibly to be covered by planned regional landfill (includes Phosphate from agriculture)

(more details needed on which regional landfill and stage of development)

5. Disposal of chemical stocks of the Chemical-Metallurgical plant of Lac

No information. Hot spot near sea, old plant phosphate and pesticide contamination

Information from Ministry of economy

6. Sewerage system for the town of Kruja Big town, high priority. Some works have been engaged by KfW, performance and sustainable issues? KfW retreated funds, not completed. Min. Envt. indicated need for WWTP (possibility to cover also Fushe?)

Clarification needed

7. Sewerage system for the town of Lac This remains medium priority, feasibility study done with state budget (2007); funding gap

projects 13, 14, 15 to be considered together funding gap?

8. Construction of a common sanitary landfill for Durres and Tirana region

High priority. Solid waste improvement of existing landfill through state budget (150 000 Euro). Preliminary design and study (EU-IPF- 1,5 mio Euro). Charging and cost recovery plan exists. IFC Preliminary studies for PPP for Durres and Tirana separately. IFC

30 mio Euro loan needed CEB/KfW (17,3 mio Euro) joint interested and support feasibility study IPA 10 mio euro 1,5 mio Euro national funds

26

These are the projects nominated by Albania in the context of the NAP 2005 28

Please add information on documents/studies available (including dates) and names of contact persons for the project

50

tender to select site for Durres landfill. Clarification needed on whether landfill or waste to energy incineration. (Italian aid emergency extension of existing capacity, then to be closed and encapsulated. Approved 8 mio Euro)

NB: cost recovery

9. Construction of sewerage system of Elbasan city

KfW feasibility study awaiting results Dec. 2010. Planned for IPF intervention, approved project design IPF, needs donors. IPA 2010 (also for water supply) and KfW/EIB co-financing indicated. Performance of company to be assessed. WWTP needed and Funding gap

The projects for the hot spot of Elbasan are to be considered together IPA 2010 water supply Funding gap CHECK MEMO ON WASTE TO ENERGY CONCEPT IN ANNEX – corresponding project fiche

10. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Elbasan

200 000 Euro feasibility study and project design (state budget) ongoing expected results end 2010. Prenias (spelling?) close to Elbasan and river: construction of landfill (500 000 Euro state budget). Financial programme Operational Programme component 3 to be finalized.

IPA 2010 fiche for 7 mio Euro Check PEIP Funding gap high priority

11. Technology up-grade on air emission at the Ferro-chromium plant (Elbasan)

Private sector? Information from Ministry of economy

12. Construction of sewerage system of Kavaja and Golemi beach

WWTP operational for city of Kavaja. CARDS detailed design of pipeline and connection to villages and tourist area. Connection to pipeline still needed.

IPA 2007/2009 and state budget Status/interest for Connection to pipeline

13. Technology up-grading and clean-up at the Patos-Marinza oilfields

Environmental Plan for Patos Marinza CARDS 2008 study. 900 000 tons of contaminated sludge. 37 mio Euro total needed to clean up, of which Canadian owned company. EBRD loan signed but no disbursement started for 50 mio USD and IFC for 50 mio USD (both contributing with 10 mio USD for environmental remediation). Canadian company: “Bankers” have concession for part of the site. replacement of old wells with new technology, reducing leaks. Re-development approach rather than rehabilitation per se. 2 state owned companies are still operating.

High priority funding gap

14. Construction of sewerage system of Lushnja and Divjaka (Lushna District)

Near lagune (Karavasta? Spelling?) dangerous chemicals left over from previous industrial activities. Municipal Infrastructure programme II (KfW and IPA 2010), for the sewerage system.

projects 36 and 37 to be considered together UNDP hot spot Funding gap

15. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Lushnja and Divjaka

Study (KfW) on the location of the WWTP WWTP funding gap

51

16. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Lushnja, Divjaka and Fier

Reclamation of existing landfill Fier (150 000 Euro state budget), near river, high priority. Berate region to be added. Regional landfill.

Feasibility study and funding gap

17. Construction of sewerage system of Tirana

WWT for wider Tirana, municipalities around Tirana ongoing. Preparation of project design JAIKA (67 mio Euro) starting. Phase 1: part of Tirana, 2 WWTPs planned (1 for Lana river, feasibility study completed?) Phase2: Collection of discharge to Tirana River, possible interest by JAIKA.

Related to project 62: see together JAIKA interest? Commitment phase 2? Status of feasibility studies? Funding gap PEIP figure

18. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Koplic town (2012)

= link to project in Shkodra Lake district, need for sewage system and WWTP (near Montenegro)

Funding gap

19. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Vlora Feasibility study (2005) Min. Envt. ? No connection yet, need for improvement from 65% upgrading, no project design, funding gap

Check current status funding gap

20. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Vlora

CARDS on contaminated soils. Current proposal by NL (oreo) based on SW strategy, Proposal pending for new Regional landfill, Total cost: 22 Mio Euro of which 1.3 Euro for design. Feasibility study (2005)? Possible inclusion in OP 3 for Vlora.

High priority Funding gap

21. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the town of Fushe-Kruja (2014)

Past KfW intervention, expropriation problems, no information Priority.

related to project 16, additional information needed on status

Priority activities to be added: Mr. Fatos Bundo to provide additional information (Ministry of Public works confirmed priority)

1. WWTP Berate, KfW/IPA 2010 sewage and water supply same as 36, study on location of WWTP not started yet. 2. WWTP Kucova 3. WWTP Gjirokostra 4. landfill Gjirokostra

Also: Albania Montenegro joint proposal for flood protection Bona river urgent. Memorandum of understanding between 2 countries signed between ministers (technical). 2012 Project fiche developed

52

TABLE 2 (ALBANIA)

Ongoing or completed Projects

22. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Shkodra city, the town of Koplik and the community of Velipoja

State owned budget for construction of SW landfill ongoing, 2.7 mio Euro. Completed landfill for communes Bustedi (spelling?), Shkodra and Lezha region.

Fiche to be completed by MoE

23. Sewerage system for Lezha city Constructed and completed IPA (2009): 17,6 EU, 5,5 CEB/KfW, (Total cost 48,9 mio Euro)

GEF/World Bank IPA 2009

24. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the town of Shengjin

Near Lezha WWTP to be completed April 2011 (secondary treatment);

- works on collectors started IPA 2007, - Sewage collection system, IPA 2009

State budget, EIB GEF/World Bank KfW for Lezha sewerage collection network

25. Wastewater treatment plant for the a fish conservation factory (Shengjin)

See above

26. Recycling and composting solid wastes of the city of Lezha

Dealt with, differentiated recycling bins, transportation of plastic and paper to recycling companies,

No investments

27. Recycling and composting solid wastes of the town of Shengjin

Dealt with, see above No investments

28. Sewerage system for the town of Fushe-Kruja

Not high priority, small town, feasibility study?

29. Reconstruction of the cement plant at Fushe-Kruja

Cement plant is still operating; ANTEA/TITAN Group (Greek) built a new plant. EBRD loan includes environmental/social management plan. Regularly monitored by EBRD environment team (last mission Nov. 2010).

Information from Ministry of economy

30. Sewerage system for Durres city and beach

GEF/ WB municipal project (Durres, Shenjin, Lezha…), feasibility study done, grant and loan mix with IPA 2007 (8,5 mio Euro). New component: WB/EIB rehabilitation and extension of sewerage network (70-80 mio Euro) start Dec. 2010.

31. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the city of Durres

WTTP under construction (GEF/WB and State funds), 12 mio Euro. To be completed in 2011.

Ongoing

32. Industrial wastewater treatment plant (chicken industry)

No information?

33. Solid waste collection facilities (containers and transport trucks) for Durres city and beach

Not investment To delete

34. Porto Romano: removal of liquid hazardous chemicals and treatment in

WB sanitation (deconstruction) of contaminated walls and digging of polluted soil; Pollutants easily identified from solid

projects 24 and 25 to be considered together Information from Ministry of economy

53

EU facility (chromium/lindane?), sent to Germany for treatment. Soil and walls deposited in confined disposal facility (ongoing). Hot spot taken care of

35. Porto Romano: construction of a landfill for toxic metals and contaminated inert demolition materials from an old chemical plant

Construction of a landfill for toxic metals ongoing WB/SIDA, follow-up monitoring planned by WB. Hot spot taken care of

WB/SIDA

36. Technological up-grading and waste minimization from tanning industries in Tirana district

Not priority. No information

37. Industrial wastewater treatment plants in Tirana district

Not priority, not needed, unclear project definition. JAIKA Japanese government design study, works have not started

38. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Kavaja and Golemi beach

Construction in the next 2 to 3 years. State budget and IPA 2007/2009. Covered

39. Technological upgrades for the reduction of wastes from the tanning industry (Kavaja district)

Private industry? No information. Not priority. Information from Ministry of economy

40. Technology up-grade on air emission at the Steel Production plant (Elbasan)

Information from Ministry of economy

41. Construction of sewerage system for Fier

KfW and IPA covered feasibility study (completed). Project design to be done by 2011.

projects 39 and 40 to be considered together

42. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Fier OP 3/IPA planned 12,5 mio Euro. Assess results of KfW study; issue of oil contamination of the river, possible prior clean up required before proceeding.

See concerns about pollution from Patos Marinza (38)

43. Programs for waste minimization at source, recycling and composting organic wastes in Fier

Not investment To be deleted

44. Solid waste collection facilities (containers and transport trucks) for Fier

Not investment To be deleted

45. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Fier

Same as project 38, a small reclamation of existing landfill site (150 000 Euro)

See 38

46. On-site treatment and removal of arsenic solutions at the Ammonia Factory (Fier)

Done by the EU. EU CARDS funds? Clarify

Information from EU delegation and Ministry of economy. Clarify

47. Construction of sewerage system for Ballsh (Mallakastra District)

Not high priority, small town, no studies done.

48. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Ballsh

Will be part of project 38 regional landfill.

54

49. Technology up-grade for the TPP in Ballsh to reduce air emissions

De-sulfurisation, water/oil separation during drilling to discharge only water. CARDS completed?

projects 48 and 49 to be considered together

50. Technology up-grade of the Ballsh Oil Refinery

Refinery privatised Information Ministry of economy

51. Construction of sewerage system for Vlora city (Vlora District)

CARDS: main collector, Connection to sewage system: 1 mio Euro state budget Completion of network IPA 2009: 3,5 mio Euro for project design

projects 50 and 51 to be considered together

52. Technology up-grade for compliance with the DCM on air emission

No information Information? Min of economy.

53. Construction of sewerage system for Saranda city (Saranda District)

KfW/IPA (remaining CARDS) Municipal Infrastructure Programme I, WB management of coastal areas, (ICZM) 2 mio Euro

projects 54 and 55 to be considered together multiple donor intervention for water and WWT

54. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Saranda

GEF/WB EIB and State budget, to be completed by 2011 (4 mio Euro)

To be completed

55. Construction of a sanitary landfill for Saranda

SW management World Bank Coastal Areas in South Albania, - 4,5 mio Euro, EIA done

Ministry of Public Works

56. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the municipalities of Lezha and Shengjin

IPA 2007/2009, State budget GEF/WB: joint WWTP for the 2 communes, under construction. (3.2 mioEuro Lezha)

Ongoing, related to projects 7 and 8

57. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the town of Lac (2013)

small village Not high priority,

58. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the town of Kruja (2014)

small village, see project 61, related to 16. Not high priority

59. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the city of Elbasan (2012)

High priority High priority see 32

60. Wastewater Treatment Plant for the city of Tirana (2013)

Total cost 246 mio Euro of which JAIKA 115 mio Euro and remaining funds to waste water collection system. (44 mio Italian soft loan). Detailed design completed.

Related to project 28.

61. Wastewater Treatment Plant for Ballsh (2012)

Too small Not priority

55

Waste to Energy Briefing Note (FROM EU DELEGATION)

Waste Areas of Elbasan; Berat; Fier & the city of Vlore

The INPAEL project team and the MoEFWA have agreed to designate 12 waste areas in the Republic of Albania based on the existing Qark administrative boundaries. At the present time there are a number of projects underway within these waste areas and waste management solutions in accordance with EC Directives are planned in 6 waste areas out of the 12 including a joint solution proposed by the INPAEL team for the Tirana-Durres waste areas. This leaves six waste areas which are not currently the subject of any national or international initiatives to provide long term waste management solutions.There is however a possibility to provide a solution to 3 of the six using the rail network in the centre of Albania and for the waste areas of Elbasan; Fier; Berat and the city of Vlore to consider a collective solution to their waste management issues. In addition this would be a welcome move by the MoEFWA as they are keen to see waste areas working together to achieve economies of scale in significant waste management infrastructure investment. It is clear that in terms of the waste management legislation from the European Union Albania will have to face several considerable challenges as a consequence of its complete reliance on land-filling, its poor capacities in the field of waste management; its historical legacy of industries producing hazardous waste and the extremely poor state of the majority of its waste management infrastructure. The country will have to consider all options in regard to waste management in order to meet the obligations of both the landfill and the waste framework directives. This would include recycling; landfill; composting and waste to energy as options for final waste disposal. The use of waste to energy would also have the added advantage of producing electricity which is at present an attractive option for Albania where regular electricity supplies can be problematic and where power outages are commonplace. The possibility of establishing a green power centre in the former industrial heartland to the south west of Elbasan would be a major economic boost for the local and regional economy and if that centre had an association of environmental sector businesses and sustainable manufacturing ventures it would bring much needed jobs and investment to this forgotten part of Albania. In addition if there was additional investment in the rail links between Fier, Elbasan and Vlore and an improved road link between Elbasan and Berat this would in turn open up new arterial routes for the transportation of goods and take the pressure off the already overburdened road sector. This concept of waste being transported by rail is not new in Albania and rail line existing between the major cities is currently being used to transport scrap metal in large quantities around the country. There is also the added advantage that depending on the configuration of the waste to energy plant it can either produce steam, hot water or electricity which could be utilised for specific industries to establish themselves within the green industrial park. The INPAEL team have produced 12 waste area profiles for the 12 waste areas and a significant amount of data is known about the waste areas in question particularly in relation to waste production and waste streams within the overall municipal waste stream. In addition there is a clear understanding of waste production per head of population in these areas and a clear indication of the recyclable component within the municipal waste. The waste to energy plant would need to be capable of serving a collective population of some 1 million people producing around 200,000 tonnes of waste per year at the present time with that latter figure expected to double in the next 10 years. Waste to energy on its own is clearly not a stand alone solution within the defined area of Elbasan; Berat; Fier and the city of Vlore and it would be part of an integrated waste management solution which would include recycling and transfer stations; composting and landfill. This integrated approach would provide the defined waste areas with opportunity to fully comply with the waste framework directive and the landfill directive as well as compliance with the directive specific waste streams set out as priority waste streams in the national waste plan. Whilst the INPAEL project has provided the MoEFWA with a significant amount of data regarding the waste management infrastructure and waste generation in the defined waste areas of Elbasan; Fier; Berat and the city of Vlore there are still several issues which would have to be addressed by a Feasibility study in regard to a waste to energy plant and its installation.

56

The feasibility study would have to address the following issues: 1. The suitability of Albanian legislation to the establishment of a public private partnership in the waste management sector 2. The ownership issues of a multi administrative region project and the mechanisms through which a multi municipality tie up could be achieved. 3. The specific requirements of the installation site, its selection, and any land ownership issues that may prove to be barriers to success of the project. 4. The status of the railways and an assessment of the rail infrastructure existing and that which will be required to load waste and transport it from the various generation points to the waste to energy plant. 5. The economics of the waste to energy plant in terms of the mechanisms to facilitate the use of the facility by a number of municipal authorities, the taxation to be levied; the returns from the provision of electricity and the ongoing costs of facility maintenance etc. This should also address the issue of revenue security for the waste to energy plant operator. 6. An assessment of the waste management infrastructure required in each of the participating waste areas and the city of Vlore in order to ensure best delivery of appropriate feedstock to the waste to energy plant while ensuring recycling potentials and composting potentials are also met. 7. An assessment of the type of landfill site required to deal with the waste to energy plant post combustion ash and its location. 8. The specific calorific values of the waste types generated in the project area and their quantities will have to be determined in order to establish the best mix of waste for the waste to energy plant and thereby what kind of pre selection will be required at the local municipal level. 9. An outline of the specific requirements of the waste incineration directive in relation to a municipal waste to energy plant. 10. A Best Practical Environmental Option assessment of the waste management options for the project area. 11. An assessment of public opinion in regard to the project area and the specifics of the installation site. Conclusion: An integrated waste management system for the project area with waste to energy at its core is an excellent solution for this region and indeed for Albania in general. Albania has an over reliance on landfill at present and despite there being around 60 to 100 landfill sites in the country at present these have been established in the last 20 or so years and the land availability now has greatly diminished. Space is now at a premium and with energy supply and distribution being a challenge to the Albanian government such a plant would be seen to serve as a solution to both of the above problems. The use of waste to energy is in line with government strategic thinking and the MoEFWA would welcome a feasibility study for such technology. The MoEFWA is particularly interested in the mechanisms for ensuring that different waste area can work as a collective to achieve economies of scale.

57

Bosnia & Herzegovina | Priority actions for 2011 according to update of NAP

TABLE 1 The following table of UNEP/MAP MEDPOL NAP projects has been updated during missions indicating the current status of projects. Priority actions as confirmed by country missions for which funding is still needed, which has not been secured or where funding is currently being requested, figure in the first table. The second table refers to “ongoing or completed projects”.

River basin Location Description of action Current status, ongoing activities, gaps Funding gap

Urban sewage

Neretva river basin Mostar PE 100-150,000 (seasonal variation)

Construction of main sewerage collectors and WWTP for Mostar

Prepared main design for dual main collectors and primary design for WWTP Mostar 1

st phase =100.000 PE) 46 mio € ?

(GEF/WB + SIDA – 5,6 M USD) 2010/2011: 2.700 m’ of right main collector to be constructed with WB fund. Mostar should be included in second wave of EIB loan municipalities, but no info on how much EIB loan will be.

Additional funding requested from IPA 2012 –? 7 or 4 million €? Total project estimated amount - WWTP - 15,7 M Euro, main collectors 15 M Euro. Current funding gap: 4-5 million €

Phase 2: extension of WWTP and network to 150 000 PE

More information required To be covered by EIB, KfW loans? Costing estimates? Funding gap?

Trebisnjica river basin

Nevesinje PE:10 000

Construction of collectors and WWTP

No designs for collection and disposition of WW in Nevesinje municipality. Technical assistance in preparation of project design and other economical, environmental and social analyses needed. Role of GEF/WB?

Rough estimation of funding gap: 12,5 million € for WWTP and collectors. Funding gap for project preparation and design approximately 1 million €.

New priority projects presented during country mission

Trebisnjica river basin New project

Trebinje WWTP exists Level of treatment?

Need for increase of sewerage network Rehabilitation of existing WWTP?

Possibly covered by EIB loan?

Trebisnjica and Neretva river basin? New project

Ljubuski WWTP exists Upgrading of WWTP needed? And increase of sewerage network to include new settlements?

GEF, IPA 2010 ?

New project Location for pilots to be determined

Alternative biological waste water treatment for smaller communities and settlements

GEF Water Quality Protection Programme for Neretva and Bosna includes Atlas of different alternative technologies to suit each municipality. Request for funding of 3 pilot studies.

Funding gap: 1,5 million USD

58

TABLE 2 (BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA) Ongoing or completed activities (additional information/confirmation of information below required)

River basin Location Description of action Current status, ongoing activities, gaps Funding gap

Coastal area Neum PE 20-50 000 (seasonal variation)

Sewage network construction and WWTP for Klek-Neum

Primary treatment exists and it is intended that treated water be channeled to Croatia for discharge. It is necessary to construct the rest (1,5 km) of the main collector to the border to Croatia. (during 2008 - 2010 FB&H constructed 1.500 m)

FB&H and Croatian governments are paying 400 000 € for completion of collector. Is the construction of improved WWTP for Neum an option?

Neretva river basin

Citluk and Medjugorje

Construction of separate collectors and separate WWTPs (2 X 6,000 ES)

Main collector from Čitluk and 1st phase.=7.000 PE constructed during 2007/2008 (own sources and loan). EC through IPA 2008 support construction of pump station and 2

nd phase =+7.000PE and

Munisipality Čitluk finance pressure sewage pipeline from Međugorje to WWTP Čitluk IPA 2008 + Budget of Herzegovina-Neretva Canton + Budget of Municipality of Čitluk) + IFI’s support or loans for construction of secondary sewerage network in settlements Međugorje and Čitluk

No funding gap

Neretva river basin

Konjic Construction of primary channels and secondary network and WWTP (10,000 ES)

Ongoing, WWTP covered. During 2009-2011 prepared Main design for sewage and Preliminary design for 1

st

phase10.000PE for WWTP Konjic GEF/ WB – “Neretva/Trebišnjica Management Project” + federal and municipal budget + IFI’s for sewerage system construction

Funding gap? EIB loan?

Trebisnjica river basin

Bileca Sanitation of existing sewerage system, construction of collectors

19, 5 million € total investment. First phase: 4 million € is under construction, financed by municipality, and partly supported by

Funding gap?

59

and WWTP GEF. Project preparation and design for other phases of project implementation, approximate value of 1 million €.

Neretva river basin

Caplijna PE: ?

Project elaboration and documentation for construction of main collectors and WWTP

IFI’s for technical assistance for design and for construction of main collectors and WWTP

Funding gap? Has this been requested through IPA?

Cetina river basin

Livno PE: 20,000

Project elaboration and construction of collectors and WWTP

Construction of primary channels and parts of the secondary sewerage network, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the existing sewerage system. During 2010/2011 prepared Study „Clean Water for Livno“-supported by WWF. In 2010 prepared Primary design for WWTP Grborezi (1.200PE)

Preparation of project documentation for WWTP Livno (1st phase 15.000 PE) IFI's support to construct 1st phase WWTP (estimated costs 4,2 M EUR) and to construct sewage and WWTP Grborezi (estimated. costs 0,5 M €)

60

Solid waste

New project Neum + Ston? Sanitary landfill Feasibility study done? Design of landfill missing? Design precondition for the loan? Rehabilitation of old landfills?

IPA 2011 request for construction? 2011 IPA 1,2 million € requested? WB loan 1,5 million € requested? Funding gap?

Neretva river basin

Mostar Regional sanitary landfill Ongoing Operational end 2012 2010 recycling facility covered WB loan 3,5 million €

No funding gap

Industrial wastewater (BOD5)

Neretva river basin

Mostar Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (textile, slaughterhouses, wineries)

Request information from agency for water management Mostar

Awaiting information

Neretva river basin

Citluk and Medugorje

Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (textile, slaughterhouses, wineries, milk products)

Request information from agency for water management Mostar

Awaiting information

Neretva river basin

Siroki Brijeg Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (meat industries)

Request information from agency for water management Mostar

Awaiting information

Cetina river basin Livno Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (textile)

Request information from agency for water management Mostar

Awaiting information

Cetina river basin Glamoč Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (textile)

Request information from agency for water management Mostar

Awaiting information

Metal industry

61

Trebisnjica river basin

Trebinje-tool industry

Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (metal industries - galvanization)

Since the one part of the factory has ceased production of metal tools, and started to produce food instead, the existing treatment of WW is not able to fulfill requirements of both. Thus, design of new purification plant which will satisfy needs of both productions is indispensable. Technical assistance in preparation of WWTP design that will satisfy requirements of both industrial productions is needed.

Funding gap 150 000 €. GEF project recommendations?

Neretva river basin

Konjic UNIS GAL Pretreatment/cleaner production of wastewater from industrial plants (metal industries - galvanization)

During 2011 it is expected to prepare main design for reconstruction of WWTP for joint industrial waste water for “SurTec Eurosjaj” and “Unisgal” Konjic (GEF/WB Neretva/Trebišnjica Management Project + own sources)

No funding gap?

Thermo power plant GACKO

Trebisnjica river basin

Gacko Monitoring of the smoke gas and other air emissions

System for transport and disposal of ashes and cinder – creation of a landfill site

Finalized

Finalized

�Treatment of wastewater The design of the industrial WWTP should be finalized by the end of 2011. Then, data on technological process and investments costs will be precisely known.

Funding gap will be defined after finalization of design.

62

Croatia

The following table of UNEP/MAP MEDPOL NAP projects has been updated during missions indicating the current status of projects. Priority actions as confirmed by country missions for which funding is still needed, which has not been secured or where funding is currently being requested, figure in the first table. The second table refers to “ongoing or completed projects”. TABLE 1

Priority actions according to update of NAP of Croatia- 2011 For wwt: According to the achieved agreement for accession of Croatia to the EU, the Rijeka agglomeration shall be required to meet the UWWTD requirements of implementing secondary treatment by the end of 2018.

Priority action Current status (2011) Barriers for implementation Needs for assistance

1. City of Split urban sewage collection and WWTP

Wastewater pre-treatment plant with a long submarine outfall is in function. The treated wastewater is discharged into the Brač channel. Preparation of design documents and application for financial support from EU funds was initiated. (IPA 2012). For Kastella Bay feasibility study ongoing with IPA funds to be completed end 2011. 2 WWTPs built (for 2 agglomerations in Split: Salin- 250000 p/e and Kastella- 80000 p/e) and primary collection system in place financed by WB Municipal Environmental Investments Programme (MEIP). According to Croatia’s accession agreement to the EU, the Split-Solin agglomeration shall be required to meet the UWWTD requirements of implementing secondary treatment by the end of 2018.

The significant amounts required for the implementation of the project are most significant barrier. The WWWTP in Split agglomeration requires upgrading but there is insufficient space for further development. If cannot be expanded, possible solution is transfer of waste water to other/new WWTP. (feasibility study WB). Connection to houses

Upgrading required for either solution: request for additional financial means. Immediate funding GAP: tertiary network. Connection to houses and meters (local goverment to cover). Transfer of ww to new WWTP and additional upgrading needed for new Salin WWTP. Additional funding requirements to be clarified (Plan on financing of heavy investments) Ministry of Water/ Croatian waters

2. City of Rijeka urban sewage collection and WWTP

Rijeka is a karst area and the city is sitting on its drinking water source which needs protection from leakages of ww. The

The significant amounts required for the implementation of the project are most significant

In accordance with the said barrier, at this stage it seems that the most significant task is to ensure additional

63

sewerage system is continuously expanded and improved. The WWTP is functional. Preparation of design documents and application for financial support from EU funds was initiated (IPA 2012). - WWTP needs upgrading to secondary treatment. Current location of WWTP not ideal for expansion. Feasibility study (WB) ongoing for identifying best location, and options for completion of network and upgrading (results expected end 2011). - Northern connections to be financed (WB? EBRD?) Port?

barrier.

financial means. Funding GAP EBRD and WB interested in results of feasibility study and options for implementation .

3. Greater City of Split solid waste management and disposal

Construction of integrated sustainable waste menegement center (WMC) at county level (305,500 pop) stage 1. Split falls under the new Lecevica regional waste managemtn center (ECOFUND financed) - closure and remediation of current landfill (Karpovac), to be financed by city/county, studies ongoing.

Adoption and implementation of the plans for regional waste management centers as part of the Waste management strategy.

MWC construction : 41,78 million Euros IPA(2007) preparation of study Funding gap: (25 mio Euro) - closure of current landfill, remediation and urban development, studies ongoing (landfill location is in the middle of expanding Split).

4. Greater City of Rijeka solid waste management and disposal

From IPA (2007) proposed: Construction of integrated sustainable waste menegement center (WMC) at county level (305,500 pop) stage 1; construction of 4 transfer stations (TS) on islands and 4 on mainland; pilot study to seperate collection of waste;

MWC construction and related activities –see current status: 55,7 million Euros IPA component 3, county waste management, center, ongoing EIB and grant

5. City of Pula urban sewage collection and WWTP

80 000 pop/equivalent (p/e)

This has been a priority for the last 10 years with a series of designs for WWTP. Pula is small and hilly town and the sewerage system is continuously re-designed and expanded; currently, the main coastal collector is being constructed for the area of

Significant amounts are required for designing, construction and maintenance of the sewerage system and wastewater treatment plant.

In accordance with the said barrier, at this stage it seems that the most significant task is to ensure agreement on technical solution and additional financial means.

64

the Pula bay. The wastewater pre-treatment plant is functional. According to the achieved agreement for accession of Croatia to the EU, the Pula-centre agglomeration shall be required to meet the UWWTD requirements of implementing secondary treatment by the end of 2018. WB Adriatic Programme (WB/EBRD) financed 1st phase of collectors

Political changes at municipality level, insufficient public participation. Cultural heritage of port to take into complex account technical solution (pumping stations). Commitment from municipality necessary as well as agreement on refreshing design for appropriate solution.

Estimate funding gap: ?

6. City of Sibenik urban sewage collection and WWTP

80 000 pop equiv.

The primary wastewater treatment plant with a 5,5 km long submarine outfall is constructed and in function. It is planned to construct a sewerage system in the south-eastern part of the town. According to the achieved agreement for accession of Croatia to the EU, the Šibenik agglomeration shall be required to meet the UWWTD requirements of implementing secondary treatment by the end of 2018 EBRD financed collectors and extension of network Business plan available for next steps.

The significant amounts required for the implementation of the project are most significant barrier. WWTP is relatively new but needs upgrade and extension of existing WWTP to secondary treatment at 50 000 p/e (feasibility?). Expensive as complex coastline, national parks and islands biodiversity.

In accordance with the said barrier, at this stage it seems that the most significant task is to ensure additional financial means. Need fo feasibility study (2012) on extension and upgrade to secondary treatment. Funding GAP to meet full cost of project?

7. City of Dubrovnik urban sewage collection and WWTP

50 000 p/e

The inner area of the town of Dubrovnik and Rijeka Dubrovačka gravitate to the existing mechanical WWTP Lapad. The treated wastewater is discharged via a submarine outfall with a submarine section 1,500 m long, at the depth of 110 m. According to the achieved agreement for accession of Croatia to the EU and the Implementation Plan for Water Utility Directives, the Dubrovnik agglomeration shall be required to meet the UWWTD requirements of implementing secondary treatment by the end of 2018. WB Coastal cities project phase II financing

The significant amounts required for the implementation of the project are most significant barrier. Upgrading needed to secondary treatment. Relocation as option as difficulties of open works within city. Applications and construction permits.

In accordance with the said barrier, at this stage it seems that the most significant task is to ensure additional financial means. Feasibility study needed 2012, upgrading or re-location of WWTP. Not enough funds in Croatian waters for feasibility study now.

65

Summary of Croatian waters identified needs for assistance on WWT:

• Split Salin (not covered by IPA 2012)

• Pula need to complete application IPA 2013/14- cohesion funds

• Sibenik feasibilty study on upgrading or extension and link to IPPC.

• Dubrovnik feasibilty study on upgrading or relocation of WWTP TABLE 2 (Croatia)

Completed or ongoing projects no funding needs identified

5. MIRNA fish processing, Rovinj - Industrial WWTP

A part of the sanitary wastewater is connected to the Rovinj public sewerage system. The remaining sanitary wastewater should be connectedto the public sewerage systemby December 31, 2012. ByDecember 31, 2014, it is necessary to construct and put into operation a pre-treatment plant for technological wastewater and connect it to the Rovinj public sewerage system.

The company’s account has been blocked for the last five years; due to the difficult economic and financial situation, the very survival of the company is questionable, and therefore the implementation of these measures is also questionable.

In accordance with the said barrier, the most significant task is to ensure additional financial means for implementation of the said measures. IPPC unit in Ministry: To check if this project is in the compliance plan for IPPC and if requires assistance/extension after 2012 deadline.

6. ADRIA fish processing, Zadar - Industrial WWTP

The Gaženicapublic sewerage systemwith a submarine outfall is functional. Wastewater from the plant, after pre-treatment, should be connected to this sewerage system sometime in 2011. The deadline fro construction of a pre-treatment plant is December 31, 2010. The WWTP was not constructed and wastewater cannot be connected to the sewerage system. Until the completion of the pre-treatment plant, the existing submarine outfall was extended.

The most significant task is to ensure additional financial means for implementation of the said measures. IPPC unit in Ministry: To check if this project is in the compliance plan for IPPC and if requires assistance/extension after 2012 deadline.

7. JADRANSKA PIVOVARA Brewery, Split – Industrial WWTP

Production was stopped on April 1, 2010.The construction of a distribution centre is foreseen at the current location.

No need for assistance

66

City of Zadar urban sewage collection and WWTP

The following was implemented under the Coastal Cities Pollution Control Project 1: secondary wastewater treatment plant (100,000 PE), submarine outfall (3.12 km) Coastal Cities Pollution Control Project Phase 2 (planned): construction of collectors (medium zone of the city of Zadar).

See project no 5 Adria fish processing No funding gap, small extension of network to be taken care of community.

67

Priority environmental projects for Montenegro29

The following table of UNEP/MAP MEDPOL NAP projects has been updated during missions indicating the current status of projects. Priority actions as confirmed by country missions for which funding is still needed, which has not been secured or where funding is currently being requested, figure in the first table. The second table refers to “ongoing or completed projects”. TABLE 1

Priority environmental investments as defined during country mission 2011

Location Measures Time framework Current status (2011) Barriers for implementation

Needs for assistance

Waste waters treatment30

Ulcinj WWTP construction and sewerage system

Project documentation prepared with state budget EIA carried out

Funding required 22 mio €. IPA funds may be requested

Kotor Sewerage and WWTP Orahovic, Morinj, sewers for Old Town Kotor

Some project preparation carried out

Funding gap 4.3m€

Industrial pollution

Estuary/Mouth of River Bojana

Diffuse sources, 2 factory pollution sites, Aluminium and steel plant – Niksic ?

GEF trans-boundary river management plan starting soon, to cover lower half of river, MN and Albania

CAP Aluminium factory near Podgorica

(effluent feeds into Skoda Lake and River Bojana)

River Basin Management approach needed

100m€ estimated cost of clean up

29

Priorities identified in the NAP 2005 UNEP/MAP, MEDPOL 30

Total KfW loan for the four municipalities’ waste water treatment is 79m€ plus 15m€ from donors for TA

68

TABLE 2 (Montenegro)

Ongoing or completed activities (additional information/confirmation of information below required)

Waste waters treatment31

Location Measures Time framework

Current status (2011) Barriers for implementation

Needs for assistance

Herceg Novi WWTP construction 25 million € 2ndary treatment Municipality provides : 7 mio €

2008-2013 Project documents under preparation, Construction to start

- Completion of collecting system for small nearby settlements - Harmonisation with related EU legislation

Kotor WWTP construction, joint with Tivat, total cost estimated as 15m€, Sewage collectors 5,3 million € 2ndary treatment planned Municipality provides : 2,5 mio €

2008-2012 Tender procedure completed Joint WWTP for Kotor and Tivat planned 104 mio € ADDITIONAL INFO required on option chosen

- Completion of collecting system for small nearby settlements - Harmonisation with related EU legislation

Tivat (i) 7 million € (ii) 6 mio € (iii) 8,3 mio € Secondary treatment Municipality provides : 2,4 €

? (i) Sewerage system completed (ii) phase 2 in progress (iii) phase 3: documents under preparation

See above - Completion of collecting system for small nearby settlements - Harmonisation with related EU legislation

Bar WWTP construction and sewerage system 32 million € Municipality provides: 13 mio €

2008-2013

Budva WWTP construction and sewerage system

Concession contract signed with company WTE - documentation prepared, design approved

.

Solid waste

Podgorica Sanitary landfill Constructed ( 2006)

Bar and Ulcinj Regional (joint) sanitary landfill Construction started; design-

Site public land identified, EIA carried out

Local disagreement about suitability of

Total cost of phase 1 13.3m€World Bank loan 8m€; EIB will finance

31 Total KfW loan for the four municipalities’ waste water treatment is 79m€ plus 15m€ from donors for TA

69

build contract site choice. recycling centre from 27m€ framework agreement with MN govt

Kotor Sanitary landfill EIA and feasibility study done Problems with site identification, as location not agreed, local assembly against

13.5m€; EIB to fund

Herzi Govi Municipal landfill 2012- No location agreed Currently HG uses Kotor landfill;

EIB to fund

Bar Existing waste dumps Clean up package agreed EIB to fund

Industrial Pollution

Shipyard ‘Bijela’ Toxic sludge is contaminating sea sediment, -eutrophication of Boka Bay

Site is part of regular MEDPOL monitoring (station)

Recommended for further funding if aluminium plant is chosen for WB loans

Part of 5 hotspots (priority sites) under review by World Bank for government to select, 60m€ loan project; Bijela and CAP relevant to coastal pollution 2-20m€ estimated cost of cleanup; higher cost is for exporting the toxic sludge and contaminated grit

70

Updating of NAP projects in Turkey The following table of UNEP/MAP/MEDPOL NAP projects was updated during a country mission 16-17 February 2011, and indicates the current status of projects originally presented in the 2005 NAP exercise. The up dated list is based on an update made in 2010 which was amended with further information in February 2011. High priority actions for which funding is still needed and/or is being requested, can be found in table 1. The second table contains on going or completed high priority projects. Medium and low priority projects follow. TABLE 1

High Priority Actions

Basin Title Of Project Current Status (2011) Other/Funding needs if known

1 Seyhan Basin

Sewage and advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant for Adana-Karataş (sensitive area) county

Nothing exists; site is near gulf so is especially sensitive Not known ;

2Antalya Basin Antalya-Döşemealtı: waste water treatment plant Nothing exists

Not known. The town is small and lies inland

3 Kucuk-Menderes Basin

Landfill construction for the İzmir-Ödemiş and İzmir-Konak counties

Landfills do not exist in either county

4 Kucuk Menderes Basin

Izmir-Selcuk/Belevi Waste Water Treatment Plant needed Sensitive area

5 Dogu-Akdeniz Basin

Icel-Tarsus/Atalar Bahsis, Gulek, Yenice, Yesiltepe, Wastewater treatment Plant needed Inland, but affects river quality

6 Bati Aldeniz Basin

Mugla Milas/Bafa,Gulluk, Oren, Selimiye, Sewage and domestic WWTP for the county of Mugla-Milas Located on the coast. EIA under way

7 Bati-Aldeniz Basin

Mulga-Ortaca No waste water treatment plant

8 Ceyhan Basin Adana-Ceyhan Sewage and advanced domestic waste water treatment plant

needed IPA application made

9 Ceyhan Basin

Landfill construction for Adana-Ceyhan (hot spot), Adana-Kozan, K.Maraş-Merkez, K.Maraş-Elbistan, Osmaniye-Merkez, Osmaniye-Kadirli counties

Adana-Ceyhan sends waste to other facilities. K Maras-Elbistan proposed for IPA TA in 2011

EIA process under way Will need financial and technical support

10 Kuzey Ege Basin

Bakhazir -Ayvelik, Bahkezir Gomec countries– tourist area Both counties are hot spot

Balıkesir-Ayvalık (hot spot), Balıkesir-Gömeç (hot spot), Balıkesir-Edremit (hot spot), Balıkesir-Burhaniye(hot spot) Balıkesir-Burhaniye and Balıkesir-Edremit are sending their solid wastes to the nearest collection site (3 km).

Financial support needed.

71

Balıkesir-Gömeç to the nearest collection site (2km). Balıkesir-Ayvalık , to the nearest collection site (3 km)

11 Kuzey-Ege Basin

Rehabilitation of existing domestic wastewater plant up to advanced treatment for Balıkesir-Edremit (hot spot), Balıkesir-Burhaniye (hot spot) Tourist areas

Bahkesir-Edremkit/Gure no WWTP exists; Bahkesir-Burhaniye/Pelitkoy no WWTP

Small towns ; seasonal increase of P/E

12 Meric Ergene Basin

Sewage and advanced WWTP for Edirne-Enes country

Edirne-Enes WWTP needed. Ayyalt, Edremic and Burhanyz Hot spot also one of the most polluted parts of Turkey, with a lot of industrial pollution. Classified as ‘gray area’

72

TABLE 2 (Turkey) Ongoing or completed activities (additional information/confirmation of information below required)

Title of project Current Status Other

Seyhan Basin

Landfill construction for Adana-Seyhan and Adana-Yüreğir counties

No Information

Sending solid waste to the nearest solid waste disposal area for Adana-Karataş (sensitive area) county

As Adana-Karataş has no landfill, its domestic and medical solid wastes are sent to the nearest collection site that is 4 km. away.

Problem solved

Büyük Menderes Basin

Landfill construction for Denizli-Merkez and Uşak-Merkez counties

Denizli-Merkel has a landfill for domestic and medical solid wastes byt Usak Mendes does not have a landfill

Usak Merkez project has started

Sending solid waste to the nearest solid waste disposal area for Aydın-Didim (sensitive area) county

Aydın-Didim has a landfill for domestic solid wastes Done

Sewage and advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant for the Aydın-Didim (sensitive area) county

Didim-Yeniköy: WWTP will be commenced in 20.09.2011 Didim-Akbük: WWTP will be commenced in 01.01.2017 Didim-Merkez: physical and biological WWTP but not advanced WWTP exists

Didim-Akbuk; 2017 is the deadline; it will probably start earlier Didim-Merkez; a new treatment unit is being added

Antalya Basin

Landfill construction for Antalya-Serik (Culture and Tourism Ministry has already secured 520.000 $ for this project), Antalya-Merkez (hot spot), Antalya-Alanya (hot spot), Isparta-Merkez, Isparta Yalvaç counties

Antalya-Serik; a site area has been allocated Antalya-Merkez; working since 2003 Antalya-Alanya; a project is being prepared for the Min of Env Isparta M<erkez and Isparta Yalvac in operation

In operation or in preparation

73

Rehabilitation of the existing domestic wastewater treatment plants (e.g. increasing capacity, transforming physical treatment into advanced treatment etc.) for Antalya-Merkez, Antalya-Alanya, Antalya-Manavgat counties

Antalya-Merkez/Hurma: Advanced WWTP Antalya-Merkez/Lara: Advanced WWTP+SO Antalya-Merkez/Kundu: Physical+Biological WWTP Antalya-Alanya/Konaklı, Mahmutlar, Obaköy, Okurcalar, Türkler: Physical+Biological WWTP Antalya-Alanya/Avsallar: Advanced WWTP Antalya-Alanya/Cikcilli, Çıplaklı, İncekum, Kargıcak, Kestel and Tosmur: Connected to WWTP Antalya-Alanya/Demirtaş, Emişbeleni, Güzelbağ, Payallar WWTP will be commenced in 2013-2016 Antalya-Manavgat/Çolaklı, Merkez, Titreyengöl: Physical+Biological WWTP Antalya-Manavgat/Kumköy: Advanced WWTP Antalya-Manavgat/Evrenseki, Gündoğdu, Ilıca, Kızılot, Oymapınar, Sarılar and Taşağıl: WWTP will be commenced in 2011-2017

Antalya-Manavgat; IPA application for WWTP

Küçük Menderes Basin

Sending solid waste to the nearest solid waste disposal area for İzmir-Çeşme (hot spot) and İzmir Selçuk (sensitive area)

In operation

Rehabilitation of existing domestic wastewater plant up to advanced treatment for İzmir Selçuk (sensitive area), İzmir-Çeşme (hot spot), İzmir-Konak (Hot Spot) and İzmir-Bornova (Hot Spot) counties

İzmir-Selçuk: Connected to WWTP İzmir-Çeşme/Merkez, Alaçatı: Physical WWTP İzmir-Konak: Connected to WWTP İzmir-Bornova: Connected to WWTP

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plants for the İzmir-Buca and İzmir-Ödemiş counties

İzmir-Buca: Connected to WWTP İzmir-Ödemiş: WWTP exists İzmir-Ödemiş/Ovakent (will be commenced in 30.06.2011), Konaklı, Kaymakçı, Kayaköy, Gölcük, Çaylı (will be commenced in 31.12.2010), Bozdağ, Birgi, Bademli (will be commenced in 30.06.2011): WWTP Not Exists

Planned

Gediz Basin

Landfill construction for the İzmir-Menemen, Manisa-Salihli, Manisa-Turgutlu, Manisa-Merkez, Manisa-Akhisar counties

No Information

Sending solid waste to the nearest solid waste disposal area for İzmir-Foça (hot spot) county

No Information

74

Rehabilitation of the existing domestic wastewater treatment plant to the advanced treatment for the İzmir-Foça (hot spot) county

İzmir-Foça: Physical+Biological WWTP

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for the İzmir-Menemen county

İzmir-Menemen: Advanced WWTP

Doğu Akdeniz Basin

Landfill construction for the İçel-Silifke (hot spot), İçel-Tarsus (hot spot), İçel-Erdemli (hot spot), İçel-Mersin (hot spot) (capacity Rehabilitation) counties

Icel-Silifke; In operation from 2009 Icel-Tarsus on National Priority List Icel-Erdemli, EIA in process Icel-Mersin in operation

Sewage and Advanced Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant for İçel-Erdemli (Hot Spot) county.

İçel-Erdemli: Biological WWTP İçel-Erdemli/Kargıpınarı, Kızkalesi: Physical+Biological WWTP İçel-Erdemli/Arpaçbahşiş, Ayaş, Çeşmeli, Esenpınar, Kocahasanlı, Kumkuyu, Limonlu and Tömük: WWTP will be commenced in 2014-2017

Icel-Erdemli IPA application made

Rehabilitation of the existing Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plants (e.g. increasing capacity, transforming physical treatment into advanced treatment etc.) for İçel-Silifke (hot spot), İçel-Tarsus (hot spot) and İçel-Mersin (hot spot) counties

İçel-Silifke/Atakent, Narlıkuyu and Silifke: Physical+Biological WWTP İçel-Silifke/Akdere, Arkum, Atayurt, Taşucu, Uzuncaburç and Yeliovacık: WWTP will be commenced in 2014-2017 İçel-Tarsus: Physical+Biological WWTP İçel-Mersin: Advanced WWTP

Batı Akdeniz Basin

Landfill construction for the Muğla-Milas, Muğla-Fethiye, Muğla-Bodrum (hot spot) counties( in Western Med)

Mulga-Milas; area selected for landfill Mulga-Fethiye; in operation since 2009; Bodrum; area selected for landfill

Sending solid waste to the nearest solid waste disposal area for Muğla-Datça (hot spot), Muğla-Ortaca (sensitive area) and Muğla Dalaman (sensitive area)

Mulga-Datca; in operation since 2005 Mugla-Ortaca; in operation since 2002 Mulga-Dalaman; sends waste to Mulga ortaca

Sewage and advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant for the Muğla-Datça (hot spot) county

Muğla-Datça: Physical+Biological WWTP

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for the Muğla-Milas county

Muğla-Milas: Physical+Biological WWTP

On the coast. EIA under way

75

Rehabilitation of the existing Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plants (e.g. increasing capacity, transforming physical treatment into advanced treatment etc.) for Muğla-Ortaca (sensitive area), Muğla Dalaman (sensitive area) and Muğla-Bodrum (hot spot)

Muğla-Ortaca/Sarıgerme: Physical+Biological WWTP Muğla-Ortaca/Dalyan: Advanced WWTP Muğla-Dalaman: Physical+Biological WWTP Muğla-Bodrum/Bitez, Merkez, İçmeler, Göltürkbükü, Gündoğan and Yalıkavak: Physical+Biological WWTP Muğla-Bodrum/Konacık: Biological WWTP Muğla-Bodrum/Gümüşlük, Mumcular, Ortakent Yahşi, Turgutreis and Yalı: WWTP will be commenced in 2011-2017

Coastal or inland?

Ceyhan Basin

Sending solid waste to the nearest solid waste disposal area for Adana-Yumurtalık (sensitive area) county.

No Information

Rehabilitation of existing domestic wastewater plant up to advanced treatment for Adana-Yumurtalık (sensitive area) county.

Adana-Yumurtalık: Physical+Biological WWTP Adana-Yumurtalık/Kaldırım, Yeşilköy and Zeytinbeli: WWTP Not Exists

Asi Basin

Landfill construction for the Hatay-Dörtyol (hot spot), Hatay-İskenderun (hot spot), Hatay-Samandağ (sensitive area), Hatay-Antakya (hot spot), Hatay Kırıkhan (hot spot) counties

1st

two under construction. Others in operation since 2009

Sewage and advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant for the Hatay-Dörtyol (hot spot), Hatay-Samandağ (hot spot) and Hatay Kırıkhan (hot spot) counties.

Hatay-Dörtyol/Payas: Physical+Biological WWTP Hatay-Dörtyol/Altınçağ, Merkez, Karakese, Kuzuculu, Yeniyurt and Yeşilköy: WWTP will be commenced in 2011-2017 Hatay-Samandağ: WWTP will be commenced in 2014-2017 Hatay-Kırıkhan: WWTP will be commenced in 31.07.2011

These are only commitment dates. But municipalities will be fined if not done.

Rehabilitation of existing domestic wastewater plant up to advanced treatment for Hatay-İskenderun (hot spot) and Hatay-Antakya (hot spot) counties.

Hatay-İskenderun: Physical+Biological WWTP Hatay-İskenderun/Akçalı, Arsuz, Azganlık, Bekbele, Denizciler, Gökmeydan, Gözcüler, Karaağaç, Karayılan, Madenli, Nardüzü, Sarıseki and Üçgüllük: WWTP will be commenced in 2011-2017 Hatay-Antakya: Physical+Biological WWTP Hatay-Antakya/Avsuyu, Çekmece, Dursunlu, Ekinci, Gümüşgöze, Güzelburç, Harbiye, Karaali, Karlısu, Kuzeytepe, Küçükdalyan, Maşuklu, Narlıca, Odabaşı, Ovakent, Serinyol, Subaşı, Şenköy, Toygarlı, Turunçlu and Yeşilpınar: WWTP will be commenced in 2013-2017

MoE Finance Department checks if actually done

Kuzey Ege Basin

Tourist area

Landfill construction for the İzmir-Bergama county İzmir-Bergama has a landfill for domestic and medical solid wastes.

76

Sewage and advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant for the Balıkesir-Ayvalık (hot spot), Balıkesir-Gömeç (hot spot) counties

Balıkesir-Ayvalık: WWTP will be commenced in 01.01.2014 Balıkesir-Ayvalık/Altınova and Küçükköy: Biological WWTP Balıkesir-Gömeç/Merkez and Karaağaç: Physical+Biological WWTP

Balıkesir-Edremit/Akçay, Kadıköy and Zeytinli: Connecte to WWTP Balıkesir-Edremit/Merkez and Altınoluk: Physical+Biological WWTP Balıkesir-Burhaniye: Physical+Biological WWTP

Meriç–Ergene Basin

Landfill construction for the Edirne–Merkez, Kırklareli–Lüleburgaz and Tekirdağ–Çorlu counties

EIA process under way, and potential projects for IPA TA

Turkey

Strategic Action Programme to address Land Based Sources of Pollution – Monitoring the status of Implementation Priority actions for 2010 according to NAP of Turkey

Medium Priority Actions

Basin List Of Projects Current Status (2010) Barriers for

Implementation Needs for Assistance

Seyhan Basin

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for Adana-Seyhan and Adana-Yüreğir counties

Adana-Seyhan: Connected to WWTP Adana-Yüreğir: Connected to WWTP Adana-Yüreğir/Çelemli: WWTP will be commenced in 01.01.2017

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Textile Industry in Seyhan Basin has physical+biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Food Sector in Seyhan Basin has physical+biological WWTPs

77

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Other organic chemical industries, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Chemical Industry in Seyhan Basin has physical+chemical+biological WWTPs except for the organic chemical indutry

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Pulp and paper industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Pulp and Paper Industry in Seyhan Basin has physical+chemical+biological WWTPs

Antalya Basin

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

No Information

Büyük Menderes

Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Industrial organized district industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Aydın IODI: Physical+Biological WWTP Aydın ASTIM IODI: WWTP is under construction Denizli IODI: Physical+Chemical+Biological WWTP Uşak Leather and Textile IODI: Physical+Chemical+Biological WWTP

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for Denizli-Merkez and Uşak-Merkez counties

Denizli-Merkez and Pamukkale: Physical+Biological WWTP Denizli-Merkez/Karahayıt and Bağbaşı Connected to WWTP Denizli-Merkez/Aşağoşamlı, Gözler and Irlıganlı, Pınarkent and Uzunpınar: WWTP Not Exixts Uşak-Merkez: Advanced WWTP Uşak-Merkez/Güre: Biological Natural WWTP Uşak-Merkez/Bölme and İlyaslı: WWTP Not Exixts

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

No Information

Development of “Good Agricultural Practices” to be implemented in the basin. No Information

78

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Textile Industry in Büyük Menderes Basin has Physical+Chemical+Biological and Physical+Biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Tannery industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Paper and Food industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Food Industry in Büyük Menderes Basin has Physical+Biological and Physical+Chemical+Biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of other organic and inorganic chemical industry -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Chemical Industry in Büyük Menderes Basin has Physical+Chemical and Physical+Chemical+Biologic WWTPs

Gediz Basin

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for Manisa-Salihli and Manisa-Turgutlu counties

Not Exist Financial Financial

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

No Information

Development of “Good Agricultural Practices” to be implemented in the basin. No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Tannery industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector (especially olive oil production), -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

79

Asi Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Metal industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Küçük Menderes Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Textile Industry in Küçük Menderes Basin has biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Metal industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Food Sector in Küçük Menderes Basin has chemical+biological and biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Pulp and Paper Sector, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Pulp and Paper Industry in Küçük Menderes Basin has chemical+biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Other organic chemical Sector, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Other Organic Chemical Industry in Küçük Menderes Basin has physical+chemical and chemical+biological WWTPs

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

Summer Housing Complexes in Küçük Menderes Basin have biological WWTPs

Doğu Akdeniz Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

80

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Petroleum Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Metal industry,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Paper Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

No Information

Meriç – Ergene Basin

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for Edirne – Merkez, Kırklareli – Lüleburgaz , Tekirdağ – Çorlu counties

No Information

Development of “Good Agricultural Practices” to be implemented in the basin.

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Pulp and Paper Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

81

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Other inorganic Chemical Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Metal industry

furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Kuzey Ege Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Tannery industry,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Wastewater Treatment Plant for summer housing complexes and accommodation facilities

Summer Housing Complexes in Kuzey Ege Basin have biological WWTPs

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for the İzmir-Bergama county

Izmir-Bergama sewage was constructed and WWTP is under the bidding process.

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Food Industry in Kuzey-Ege Basin Physical+Chemical+Biologic and Physical and Biological WWTPs

Ceyhan Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile industry,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Textile Industry in Ceyhan Basin has physical+biological WWTPs

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Food Sector in Ceyhan Basin has physical+chemical WWTPs

82

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Aquaculture Production,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Sewage and domestic wastewater treatment plant for K.Maraş-Merkez, K.Maraş-Elbistan, Osmaniye-Kadirli counties

Osmaniye-Kadirli has a sewage and It’s WWTP is under the bidding process. K.Maraş-Merkez has a sewage and It’s WWTP is under the project process. K.Maraş-Elbistan has a limited sewage and not a WWTP.

Batı Akdeniz Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Aquaculture Production,

-furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Mining activities, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

83

Turkey

Strategic Action Programme to address Land Based Sources of Pollution – Monitoring the status of Implementation Priority actions for 2010 according to NAP of Turkey

Low Priority Actions

Basin List of Projects Current Status (2010) Barriers for

Implementation Needs for Assistance

Doğu Akdeniz Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Mining activities, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Textile industry, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Ceyhan Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Other Organic Chemical Industries, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

Other Organic Chemical Industry in Ceyhan Basin has physical and physical+biological and physical+chemical+biological WWTPs

Development of “Good Agricultural Practices” to be implemented in the basin. No Information

Antalya Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Aquaculture Production, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters produced during the production activities of Food Sector, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Mining activities, -furnishing Wastewater Treatment Plants in areas in lack of the latter, -Rehabilitation of current Wastewater Treatment Plants

No Information

Meriç – Ergene Basin

Treatment of industrial wastewaters stemming from Electronic industry effected in lack of wastewater treatment plants, improving the current wastewater treatment plants

No Information

84

Annex VI

Interviews carried out during field missions Albania

Name Position Address and telephone E mail Fatos Bundo Director of Integration and Projects

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration

Durres Str, 27, Tirana Tel/fax +355 4 224 3578

fbundo@moe.gov.al

Valbona Kuko Director of Department of Strategy and Donor Coordination Council of Ministers

Blv Deshmoret e Kombit 1, 1000 Tirana Tel +355 4 22 77 358

vkukp@km.gov.al

Taulant Zeneli General Director Ministry of Public Works and Transport General Directorate of Policies in Water Supply

Sheshi Skenderbeg no 5, Tirana +355 4 222 7204

Taulant.zeneli@mpptt.gov.al; tzeneli@gmail.com

Dr Narin Panariti Deputy Team Leader INPAEL32

Blvd Zhan d’Ark Tower 5 Floor 5 Apt 25 Tirana +355 4 222 6493

Narin_panariti@yahoo.co.uk; narin.panariti@gmail.com

Marieta Mima Director ECAT Rr Abdyl Frasheri, Pali 16, shk 6, ap 53 Tirana

ecat@ecat.tirana.org; mima@ecat-tirana.org

Adriana Micu Cluster Manager UNDP Responsible for Hot Spot study

Papa Gjon Pali II St, ABA Business Centre 6

th floor Tirana

+355 4 2276 620

Adriana.micu@undp.org

Fabio Serri Head of Office EBRD

Abdi Toptani St, Torre Drin, 4th

floor, Tirana + 355 4 2232 898

serif@ebrd.com

Agron Hetoja Country Manager IPF

Str 34/1 Ismail Qemali 5th

floor Tirana +335 4 22 59 637

Agron.hetoja@wbif-eu.ipf

Antoine Avignon Project Manager, Environment, EU Delegation

ABA business centre, Rr Papa Gjon Pali II, 17 floor, Tirana +355 4222 8320

Delegation-albania@ec.europa.eu

32 CARDS project Implementation ofo the National Plan for Approximation of Environmental Legislation Albania

85

Ms Etleva Canaj (telephone interview)

MAP and MEDPOL FOCAL POINT Director of Environment and Forestry Agency Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration

Rruga “Halil Bega”, nr. 23 Tirana Albania Tel: 3554 22371242 – Mob. : 355 - 0682072317 Fax: 3554 2371243

E-mail: etlevamoe@abissnet.com.al, etlevacanaj@yahoo.com

Ms. Elvana RAMAJ Former National H2020 Focal Point, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration, Biodiversity Department

Rruga e Durresit No. 27 Tirana Tel: +355 4 2233855 27

eramaj@moe.gov.al pabeshi@moe.gov.al (director of general policy) cc: lefter.klimi@albemb.com

Redi Baduni Newly appointed National Horizon 2020 Focal Point Director of Environmental Protection Department Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration

Rruga e Durresit No. 27 Tirana +355 4 222 4572

rbaduni@moe.gov.al

Bosnia-Herzogovina

Name Position Address and telephone E mail Reuf Hadzibegic National Horizon 2020 focal point

Assistant Minister Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations B and H; Section for Natural resources, Energy and the Environment

Musala 9, 71000 Sarajevo Tel/fax +387 33 206 141 Tel +387 33 22 00 93

Raef.hadzibegic@mvteo.gpv.ba

Nermina Skejovic-Huric Senior Advisor for programmes and projects Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations B and H

Musala 9, 71000 Sarajevo +387 33 55 23 66

Nermina.skejovic-huris@mvteo.gov.ba

Tarik Kupusovic National Coordinator, Office for MAP; Director of Hydro-Engineering Institute Sarajevo

Stjepana Tomic 1, 71000, Sarajevo Tel/fax +387 33 20 79 49

Tarik.kupusovic@heis.com.ba; map.office@heis.com.ba

Amra Kraina Expert Advisor and Head of Projects, Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Marsala Tita St 15, Sarajevo +387 33 21 28 33

amrak@fmoit.gov.ba

86

Amer Husremovic Chief of department for development of water projects Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry

Marsala Tita St 15, Sarajevo +387 33 23 68 49

sektorvoda@fmpvs.gov.ba; amer.husremovic@hotmail.com

Pierre Bay Deputy Project Manager for Federation B-H 15 municipalities sub project (Cowi-IPF consortium)

Dzenetica Cikma 1/5, 71000 Sarajevo +387 33 94 12 71

pbay@wbif-opf2.eu

Svetjlana Vukmirovic Country Manager for B-H, IPF Dzenetica Cikma 1/5, 71000 Sarajevo +387 33 94 12 72

Svjetlana.vukmirovic@wbif-ipf.eu

Jasmina Hadzimesic Programme Manager for environment and infrastructure EU Delegation

Skenderija 3a, 71000 Sarajevo +387 33 254 799

Jasmine.hadzimesic@eeas.europa.eu

Gabriela Husic Project coordinator for B-H KfW

Zmaja-od-Bosne 7-7a, Importanne Center, Tower 03, 5

th floor, 71000

Sarajevo +387 33 590 409

Gabriela.husic@kfw.de

Vesna Francic Sr Operations Officer World Bank country office

Fra Andela Zvizdovica 1, 71000 Sarajevo +387 33 251 504

vfrancic@worldbankorg

Josip Polic Principal Banker EBRD

Fra Andela Zvizdovica 1, B/15. 71000 Sarajevo +387 33 667 945

polick@ebrd.com

Croatia

Name Position Address and telephone E mail Davor PERCAN

EC Delegation Task Manager - Environment, Energy and Natural Resources

DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA 6, Trg žrtava fašizma 10000 Zagreb Tel.: +385 (1) 4896500 Fax.: +385 (1) 4896555

Davor.PERCAN@ec.europa.eu

Richard Maša

Head of Operations Section II, Infrastructure, Agriculture, Regional Development, CBD, Environment and Energy;

phone: +385 1 4896 578 e-mail: richard.masa@ec.europa.eu

Marijana Mance Kowalsky, Exec.MA Director and H2020 FP

Directorate for International Relations and Sustainable Development

Ul. Republike Austrije 14

<marijana.mance@mzopu.hr>

87

Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Construction

10000 Zagreb T. +385.1.3782 154 F. +385.1.3717 149

Marina Prevec

Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction, Directorate for Int. Rel. and Sust. Development

Republike Austrije 14 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia www.mzopu.hr tel: +385 1 3717 174 fax: +385 1 3717 135

marina.prelec@mzopu.hr

Biserka Puc,

Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction, Directorate for Int. Rel. and Sust. Development Directorate for EU Head of Department for European Integration;

Phone: +385 1 3782 118 e-mail: biserka.puc@mzopu.hr

Vedrana Aužina Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction, Directorate for Int. Rel. and Sust. Development Head of Section, Department for Infrastructure Development Programme,

Phone: +385 1 3782 190 vedrana.auzina@mzopu.hr

Damir Rumenjak

Directorate for Atmosphere and Waste Management Head of Department for Integrated Environmental Protection Requirements

Phone: +385 1 3782 197 e-mail: damir.rumenjak@mzopu.hr

Anita Matić Directorate for Atmosphere and Waste Management Senior Advisor in the Department for Atmosphere and Soil Protection,

Phone: +385 1 3782 171 e-mail: anita.matic@mzopu.hr

Ivana Husnjak Directorate for Atmosphere and Waste Management Junior Advisor in the Department for Special Categories of Waste,

Phone: +385 1 3717 207 e-mail: ivana.husnjak@mzopu.hr

Darko Rajhenbah,Head of Department,

Ministry of Regional development forestry and water management. Directorate for Water Policy and International Projects

Phone: +385 1 6307 348, e-mail darko.rajhenbah@voda.hr

Panayotis Thanou European Commission DG Regio

EC Commission Bruxelles

Panayotis.thanou@ec.europa.eu

88

Component 3 Tel: 93133

Davor Indić,

EBRD local office Principal Bankar, Municipal & Environmental Infrastructure

Phone: +38516000 310; e- mail: indicd@ebrd.com

Mira Medic focal point for RENA mira.medic@mzopu.hr

Natasa Vetma World Bank Country Office in Croatia Operations Officer, Environment and Energy

nvetma@worldbank.org Tel: +385 1 2357246

nvetma@worldbank.org

Mr. Stipe Gabric World Bank Coastal cities sgabric@worldbank.org.

Damir Tomasović

Central office for development strategy and coordination of EU funds Head of Section for coordination of projects in environmental protection and energetics,

Phone: +385 1 4569 181; e-mail: damir.tomasevic@strategija.hr

Ivica Popović

Croatian Waters Head of Water Protection Department,

Sanja Barbalić

Croatian Waters Director of Water Management Institute,

Phone: +385 16307 305, +385 1 6307 303

e-mail: sanja.barbalic@voda.hr

Aleksandra Čilić, Suada Mustajbegović

Environmental Protection and energy efficiency fund Head and Coordinator for Environmental Protection Projects and Programs

Phone: +385 1 5391 881 e-mail: aleksandra.cilic@fzoeu.hr

89

Montenegro

Name Position Address and telephone E mail Jelena Knesevic Horizon 2020 Focal Point

Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica Tel: +382 20 466 231

Jelena.knezevic@mrt.gov.me

Stanisa Stankovic Deputy Minister, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, responsible i.a. for water projects

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica

Stanisa.stankovic@mrt.gov.me

Ivana Vojinovic Deputy Minister, Sector for Environment

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica Tel: +382 29 446 232

Ivana.vojnovic@mrt.gov.me

Snezana Didanovic Expert responsible for waste water strategy. Commune development department, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica Tel: +382 67 821 370

Snezana.Didanovic@mrt.gov.me

Igor Jovanovic Expert responsible for solid waste Commune development department, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica Tel: +382 67 263 592

Igor.Jovanovic@mrt.gov.me

Danilo Kujovic

Environmental Protection Agency Tel: +382 67 225 519 Danilp.kujovic@epa.org.me

Daliborka Pejovic

Director, Environmental Protection Agency

Tel: +382 20 466 epamontenegro@gmail.com

Dragan Asanovic

IPPC and permitting department,Environmental Protection Agency

Tel: + 382 67 263 540 Dragan.asanovic@epa.org.me

Pavle Duraskovic MEDPOL Focal Point; Senior Advisor, Montenegro Hydrometeorological Institute

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica Tel: +382 20 655 365/183

Pavle.djurascovic@meteo.co.me; pavle.djurascovic@hmz.gov.me

Ivana Pavicevic Montenegro Hydrometeorological Institute, adviser on International Relations

IV Proleterske 19, 81 000 Podgorica Tel: + 382 20 655 548

Ivana.pavicevic@meteo.com.me

Ana Misurovic Director, Centre for Exotoxicological research of Montenegro

Tel: +382 67 620 626 anajuceti@t-com.me

90

Aleksandr Drljevic Deputy Minister of Ministry for European Integration and NIPAC

Sanka Dragojevica 2, 81000 Podgorica, Tel: + 38220 241 709

Aleksandr.drljevic@gov.me

Sanela Ljuca Operations analyst World Bank country office

Svjetska Banca, Bulevar Svetog Petra Cetinskog 6, 81000 Podgorica Tel: +382 20 663 353

sljuca@worldbank.org

Zeljko Uljarovic KfW office (telephone interview) environment expert

Bulevar Dzordza Vasingtona bb, Ulaz VI, 81000 Podgporica Tel +382 20 228 170

Zeljko.uljarevic@kfw.me

Milica Knesevic KfW office; energy sector expert Bulevar Dzordza Vasingtona bb, Ulaz VI, 81000 Podgporica Tel +382 20 228 170

Milica.knezevic@kfw.me

Milos Grkinic Assosiate banker, EBRD EC Palada, Sendara Jola Piletica bb 81000 Podgorica Tel: +382 20 237 173

grkinicm@ebrd.com

Radoslav Ralevic Associate banker and municipal expert, EBRD

EC Palada, Sendara Jola Piletica bb 81000 Podgorica Tel: +382 20 237 173

ralevicr@ebrd.com

Sladjan Maslac Task Manager Operations Section EC Delegation

Vuka Karadzika 12 81000 Podgorica Tel: +382 20 444 600

Sladjan.maslac@eeas.europa.eu

Tvrtko Crpulja Municipality of Kotor Tel: +382 69 341 055 tvrtko@t-com.me

Jelena Stijepcevic Municipality of Kotor Tel: +382 69 304 716 Kabinet.kotor@t-com.me

Ana Popovic Municipality of Budva Tel: +382 69 675 085 urbanizam.bd@t-com.me

Jelena Bastrica Municipality of Budva Tel: +382 67 240 294 jelenabastrica@gmail.com

Ranko Boskovic Director, Tivat Airport (query pollution hot spot )

Tel: +382 32 670 960 Ranko.boskocovic@apm.com.me

Nikitovic Zoran Director HEMOSAN (Waste Managament Company, responsible for waste removal and management at shipyard (pollution hot spot) )

Tel: +382 67 314 218 hemosan@t-com.me

Snezana Milosevic Representative of the Port of Bar (pollution hot spot)

Tel: +382 67 317 019 Snezana.milosevic@lukabar.me

Ministry of SD and T; reps of RENA working group II and the Italian twinning project were present at the workshop, but no cards were exchanged

91

Turkey33

Name Position Address and telephone E mail Ufuk Kuculay Horizon 2020 focal Point, Head of

Regional and Bilateral Relations Division, Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 5403

ukucukay@cevreorman.gov.tr

Gulsun Yesilhuyuk City Planner, Regional and Bilateral Relations Division, Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 5387

gyesilhuyuk@yahoo.com

Ahmet Rifan Ilhan Cco-author of NAP and MEDPOL focal point, now in Marine and Coastal Management Department, Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 6678

ailhan@cob.gov.tr

Zakir Turan Head of Section, Marine and Coastal Management Department, Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 6629

zturan@cov.gov.tr; zakirturan@yahoo.com

Sibel M. Gugver Marine and Coastal Management Department, Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 6636

Petin Basarisoy IPA, Department of European Integration, Ministry of Environment and Forestry,

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 5970 (?)

Ozge Altunbulak IPPC unit , Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 6422

oaltunbulak@cob.gov.tr

Funda Yetgin Coordination department, Ministry of Environment and Forestry

Sogutuzu Cad 14/E 06560 Beslepe Ankara +90 312 207 5434

fyetgin@cog.gov.tr

Gurdogar Sarigul Sector Manager, Environment and Sustainable Development EC Delegation

Ugur Mumcu Caddesi 88, 1st

floor Ankara +90 312 459 8700

Gurdoger.sarigul@eees.europa.eu

Esra Arikan Environment Project Manager World Bank Office, Ankara

Ugur Mumcu Caddesi 88, 2nd

floor Ankara

earikan@worldbank.org

33

EIB office was in Istanbul and it was not possible to visit them during the mission. The EBRD office dealing with Turkey was in Kazakhstan, and information was exchanged by e mail.

92

+90312 450 8377

Julide Oguz Senior Project Coordinator, KfW Ankara

And Sokak 8/21 Ankara +90 312 4288415

Julide.oguz@kfw.de

Ramazan Yildirim General Director of small scale estates and industrial zones directorate, Ministry of Industry and Trade

Eskisehir Yolu 7 no 154, 06520 Ankara Tel: + 90 31 228 59465

ramazany@sanayi.gov.tr

Kemal Devrim Oguz (telephone interview)

Deputy General Director of small scale estates and industrial zones directorate, Ministry of Industry and Trade

Eskisehir Yolu 7 no 154, 06520 Ankara Tel: + 90 31 228 59465

oguzk@sanayi.gov.tr

Aysun Nemisoglu (telephone interview)`

Deputy Director General, Ministry of Industry and Trade