- COUNTRY OFFICE, MACEDONIA

Pre-feasibility Assessment of Options for Establishment of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System in the Polog Region, Macedonia
- Final Report -

Prepared by: PointPro Consulting

October, 2008

CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction
2.1 Background 2.2 Goals and Objectives of the Study 2.3 Methodology 2.4 Report Format

7 10
10 10 11 11

3. Site Information
3.1 Location 3.2 Geographical characteristics and climate 3.3 Demographics 3.4 Local economy structure

13
13 13 14 14

4. Institutional Situation
4.1 Legislation, Standards and Regulation Regarding SW Management 4.2 Institutional Framework for Environmental Protection

16
16 17

5. Description of the Current Status with MSW Management in the Region

5.1 Service coverage 5.2 Waste generation 5.3 SWM organizational aspects: collection, transport and disposal 5.4 Financial aspects 5.5 Current recycling efforts 5.6 Summary of identified problems

19
19 19 22 25 27 28

6. Technical Concept of the Project

6.1 MSW Generation Forecast 6.2 Proposed Concept for MSWM Improvement 6.2.1 Waste recycling/treatment 6.2.2 Waste storage and collection 6.2.3 Waste transport 6.2.4 Waste disposal 6.3 Management of hazardous, industrial and construction waste 6.3.1 Industrial hazardous and non-hazardous waste 6.3.2 Construction and demolition waste 6.3.3 Medical waste

30
30 31 31 32 34 35 45 45 46 46

6.4 Reclamation and closure of municipal landfills and illegal dumps 6.4.1 Identification and classification of municipal landfills 6.4.2 Proposed concept for reclamation of municipal landfills 6.4.3 Closure of illegal village dumps

47 47 48 49

7. MSW Service Organization and Management

7.1 Purpose 7.2 Potential SWM Organization Alternatives 7.3 Recommended MSW Service Organization 7.3.1Roles and Responsibilities of Organizations 7.3.2 Financial implications related to the Regional MSW organization

50
50 50 50 51 53

8. Public Participation and Project Promotion

8.1 Project Stakeholders and Roles 8.2 Promotional and Awareness Raising Campaign

55
55 55

9. Financial Analysis of the Project

9.1 Assumptions and approach 9.2 Financial Cost-benefit Analysis 9.2.1 Project costs 9.2.2 Assessment of project revenues 9.2.3 Project net financial benefit and performance 9.3 Tariff Structure and Affordability 9.4 Project financing plan

57
57 58 58 61 62 63 64

10. Environmental Assessment

10.1 Summary of Potential Adverse Environmental Impact 10.2 Summary of Positive Environmental Impact

67
67 71

11. Implementation Plan 12. Conclusions and Recommendations 13. References Annexes
Annex 1: Map of NW Region Annex 2: Existing municipal landfills in the Region Annex 3: Waste generation forecast

72 73 76

Annex 4: Additional waste container needs Annex 5: Waste transportation vehicles requirements Annex 6: Final waste disposal Alternative 1 Annex 7: Final waste disposal Alternative 2A Annex 8: Final waste disposal Alternative 2B Annex 9: Final waste disposal Alternative 2C Annex 10: Final waste disposal Alternative 3A and 3B Annex 11: Least-cost analysis Annex 12: Geological and Hydro-geological conditions of the Rusino site Annex 13: Topography map of the Rusino site Annex 14: Landfill layout and sections Annex 15: Leacheate generation potential Annex 16: Prioritization analysis for closure of existing municipal landfills Annex 17: Investment costs for landfill construction Annex 18: Project O&M costs Annex 19: Cost-Benefit Analysis Annex 20: Financing plan Annex 21: Survey of existing SWM practices in individual municipalities

Drawings
Fig. 5.1: Municipal waste collection Fig. 6.1: Waste composition Fig. 6.2: Landfill base lining Fig. 6.3: Landfill schematic layout Fig. 6.4: Methane emission potential of the Rusino landfill Fig. 6.5: Landfill closure (surface sealing) layers Fig. 6.6: Schedule of investment for landfill construction Fig. 7.1: Institutional Structure for Regional Solid Waste Management

Tables
Table 3.1: Basic data about the NW Region Table 3.2: Average monthly and annual air temperatures in the NW Region Table 3.3: Average monthly and annual precipitation in the NW Region Table 3.4: Statistical data on municipalities in the NW Region (2002) Table 3.5: Overview of labor structure in Macedonian statistical regions (2002) Table 3.6: Employment by economic sectors in Macedonian statistical regions Table 5.1: MSW service coverage in the NW Region by population Table 5.2: MSW service coverage in the NW Region by number of served settlem. Table 5.3: Annual volume and unit rates of MSW collection in the NW Region Table 5.4: Composition of collected waste as reported by Tetovo Municipality Table 5.5: Containers for waste collection in the NW Region Table 5.6: Vehicles used for waste collection and transport in the NW Region Table 5.7: Official municipal landfills in the NW Region Table 5.8: Waste fees in the NW Region Table 5.9: PE revenues from SWM Table 6.1: Waste generation forecast for the NW Region (2010 2035)

Table 6.2: Waste composition Table 6.3: Total needed number of incremental waste containers and bins Table 6.4: Summary of necessary waste transportation vehicles Table 6.5: Sites recommended for regional landfill by local authorities Table 6.6: Summary of least-cost analysis Table 6.7: Risk categories for closure of existing landfills and dumps Table 6.8: Summary of priority ranking for closure of existing landfills in NW Region Table 6.9: Unit costs for reclamation of municipal landfills according to risk class Table 6.10: Summary of investment costs for closure of existing landfills Table 9.1: Summary of project investment costs Table 9.2: Summary breakdown of investment costs for landfill construction Table 9.3: Summary of average annual O&M costs Table 9.4: Indicative summary breakdown of annual landfill O&M costs Table 9.5: Overview of landfill operating personnel Table 9.6: Waste collection and transport annual O&M cost Table 9.7: Summary of project replacement costs Table 9.8: Summary of other project costs Table 9.9: Summary results of the financial analysis Table 9.10: Unit costs for proposed SWM system Table 9.11: Waste tariff structure Table 9.12: Average monthly household fee for waste service Table 9.13: Average household fee for waste as % of total monthly income (2010) Table 9.14: Summary financing plan

ABBREVIATIONS

BOD Biological oxygen demand CEE Central and Eastern Europe EAR European Agency for Reconstruction EIA Environmental impact assessment EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental Facility ha Hectare IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management KfW Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau km Kilometer LDPE Low density polyethylene LO Landfill operator m meter masl. meters above see level MKD Macedonian Denar MOLSG Ministry of Local-Self Government MOEPP Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning MOH Ministry of Health MOF Ministry of Finance MOTC Ministry of Transport and Communication MSWM Municipal solid waste management ND Nominal diameter NGO Non-governmental organization NPV Net Present Value NSWMP 2006 - 2012 National Solid Waste Management Plan 2006 - 2012 NW North-West (Region) O&M Operation and Maintenance (costs) PE Public Enterprise PET Polyethylene terephthalate PIU Project Implementation Unit PP Polypropylene PSP Private (waste management) service provider PVC Polyvinyl chloride REC Regional Environmental Center for CEE RSWMPE Regional SWM Public Enterprise SEE South East Europe SWM Solid waste management UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VAT Value Added Tax WB The World Bank WM Waste management WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this Study is to assess the overall feasibility for establishment of an Integrated Solid Waste Management System in the Polog Region in Macedonia. The analyzed Region, which includes a total of 9 municipalities, faces a serious problem related to management of solid wastes. The major SWM problems identified with a Survey of current SWM practices in the Region that was carried out within activities for preparation of this Pre-feasibility Study, include: (1) significant portion of the population, especially in rural settlements, is not covered with the existing service; (2) the waste containers and the waste transportation vehicles used are obsolete and too expensive to operate and maintain; (3) current waste disposal practices are at an extremely low level, causing significant threat to human health and environmental pollution; (4) current waste tariffs and fee collection efficiency are insufficient to cover costs for SWM. The conditions and the overall situation in the Region are considered to be generally conducive for development of an affective regional waste management system that would address above-listed needs. It is considered that in the initial phase of establishment of the regional SWM system, the municipalities in the Region should firstly focus on setting up of appropriate mixed waste collection and disposal system, by extending the service coverage to all currently un-served settlements, increasing of the landfilling standards and practices, closing and/or remediating the existing dump sites, and bringing the waste fee collection ratio to a maximum level. The technical concept of the proposed regional SWM system is developed based on forecasted solid waste generation during the analyzed period of 25 years (2010 through 2035) and up-to-date national and EU standards and regulation regarding SWM, and refer to: (1) improved waste storage and collection; (2) modernization of waste transportation fleets; (3) construction of a central (regional) sanitary solid waste landfill; and, (4) closure of existing municipal landfills and clean-up of existing illegal village dumps. Regarding improved waste storage and collection, it is proposed that: (1) the current practice of using wheeled 1.1m3 containers in central parts and residential districts of urban settlements, as well as in central parts of larger rural areas/villages, is a proven good practice and should be sustained; (2) individual households located in urban suburbs should either continue using the waste bins presently at hand, regardless of their size and type, or use plastic waste bags; (3) individual households located in rural areas with limited access for larger vehicles should either use plastic waste bags or waste bins with smaller capacity; (4) individual households in rural settlements where the service will be introduced for the first time (within a 5-year period) should start using plastic waste bags, and gradually move to using own standardized waste bins; and, (5) the frequency of waste collection should remain as it is at present; the operator responsible for waste collection will have to determine the most cost-effective daily waste collection routes. As regards waste transport improvements, it is proposed that four types of waste compactor vehicles with capacities of 11, 15, 18 and 20 m3 are used. These vehicles will be used for emptying of the 1.1 m3 containers and individual household waste bins in areas with suitable access. In addition, smaller open-top vehicles should be used for areas (both urban and rural) that cannot be accessed by compactor vehicles. Regarding the requirement for improved waste disposal, based on adopted methodology for potential landfill site identification and least-cost comparative analysis of 6 potential alternatives regarding selection of location(s) for final waste disposal, it is concluded that construction/upgrading of the existing landfill in the locality of Rusino near Gostivar according to modern standards to be used as a final sanitary disposal site for the entire Polog Region (all 9 municipalities) is the most feasible alternative solution. Based on further assessments, it is concluded that there are no limitations in reference to the available waste disposal volume, as well as regarding the wider location and topographic

conditions for construction of central municipal landfill at the Rusino site. Additionally, as regards geological and hydro-geological conditions of the location, based on the present state of knowledge, it is concluded that the site meets the requirements for landfill locations according to the pertinent national standards and the EU Waste Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). This viewpoint, however, needs to be confirmed by further detailed field investigations, which is regarded as a priority consequent step. The main technical aspects related to construction of the Rusino landfill that are analyzed in this Study are focused on: (1) improvement of the landfill base; (2) installation of leacheate collection and treatment system; (3) installation of landfill gas monitoring and control system; (4) construction of a new access road; (5) construction and installation of additional necessary standard landfill infrastructure, such as fence, administration building, weighbridge, etc.; and, (6) introduction of modern waste disposal operations. With reference to management of hazardous, industrial and medical wastes in the Region, it is concluded that the most feasible solution is to closely follow all future developments related to establishment of listed systems on a national level, and undertake the necessary prospects for becoming part those systems. All major existing municipal landfills located in the Region (total of 3) are assessed as causing significant risk for environmental pollution, hence it is proposed to be closed; details regarding proposed method for closure and remediation are presented in the Study. As regards the existing village dumps, the number of which is immense, it is proposed that these sites are cleaned up and closed (banned) for further use. Responsibility for the clean-up and monitoring of future status is devolved to the municipal authorities. Concerning organizational and management aspects related to the future regional SWM system, the following is proposed: The existing public enterprises or private service providers should continue to provide waste collection activities within the territories of their municipalities and begin transporting the waste to the new central landfill in Rusino; A new regional organization Regional Solid Waste Management Public Enterprise should be established by the municipalities from the analyzed Region, that will be responsible for establishment of the SWM system, construction of the new landfill, and future management and co-ordination of all regional aspects; Daily operation of the new landfill should be delegated to a separate organization, either private or public, specialized in landfill operations.

The following scenarios related to assessment of the project financial viability have been analyzed: Scenario 1: the entire project investment, O&M and replacement costs are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of an initial waste tariff (26/ton), which remains fixed during the entire project life-cycle; Scenario 2: the total project investment, O&M and replacement costs are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of waste tariff, which is increased by 10% every 5 years; Scenario 3: 75% of the initial project investment (in 2010, 2011, and 2012) is covered by a grant, while all other expenses (residual investment, O&M and replacement costs) are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of the initial waste tariff, which remains fixed during the entire project life-cycle; Scenario 4: 75% of the initial project investment (in 2010, 2011, and 2012) is covered by a grant, while all other expenses (residual investment, O&M and replacement costs) are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of waste tariff, which is increased by 10% every 5 years.

Based on the analysis, Scenario 4 has a positive NPV of 426,497 (@9% discount rate) and FIRR of 10.37% (which is above the projected threshold of IRR = 9%), meaning that assumed tariff increase can cover the remaining investment and entire projected O&M and replacement costs, thus enable sustainable, independent functioning of the SWM system. The proposed waste tariff structure is:

Year 2010-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035

Waste Tariff /ton 26.00 28.60 31.46 34.60 38.07 MKD/ton

1,596 1,756 1,932 2,124 2,337

% increase from 2010 100% 110% 121% 133% 146%

The project will result in important direct environmental and indirect social effects for the communities in the Region, which, along with the assessed financial sustainability, justifies the grant intervention for covering part of the initial capital costs for establishment of the SWM system. Based on the pre-feasibility assessment, analyzed and recommended regional SWM system for the Polog Region in Macedonia represents a costeffective solution for improved and sustainable waste management in the Region. It is recommended that the implementation (development) of the regional SWM system during the initial 4-year period (2009 through 2012) proceeds in a phased manner.

2. Introduction
2.1 Background For an extended period of time Macedonia has been suffering from a legacy of poor environmental management. On the other hand, however, a key strategic goal of the country since its independence in the early 1990-ties is its successful accession in the European Union (EU). Hence, stipulated by a number of obligations for membership in the EU, one of the key areas requiring severe, immediate and profound changes in Macedonia is improvement of its environmental performance, including moving towards sustainable waste management. The Government of Macedonia has adopted a new Law on Waste Management in 2004, which significantly contributed to the ongoing process of approximation of the national legislation and provided an up-to-date and comprehensive framework for waste management based on EU Directives and guidelines on waste management. Besides mentioned Law, the broad national policy concerning waste management has been formulated within the National Waste Management Plan (2006-2012), the National Solid Waste Management Strategy1, and the National Environmental Action Plan II. The Macedonian Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MOEPP) is the public authority in charge for planning, overseeing and controlling the management of wastes. Local self government units (LSG) are devolved the responsibilities for organizing and financing of waste management activities. At present, following the policy objectives and considerations outlined in above-mentioned documents, the establishment of regional integrated waste management systems is recognized as a priority task towards solving of current inappropriate management of municipal wastes. Furthermore, there is an officially developed definition of a waste management region, whereby the size of a region may vary and should enable development and functioning of a financially viable system based on economies of scale. Hence, the entire territory of the country has been provisionally divided in a total of 6 to 8 regions. During the period 2002 through 2006, a number of separate feasibility studies have been prepared which provide comprehensive recommendations for establishment of waste management systems in all but the following two regions: Strumica-Radovis Region and Polog Region2. In early 2007 the Macedonia Country Office of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) has initiated activities for assessment at a pre-feasibility level of possibilities for establishment of integrated solid waste management systems in the two referenced regions. The activities are financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. This report represents the Pre-feasibility Study for the Polog Region.

2.2 Goals and Objectives of the Study The overall goal of the project is to improve environmental conditions and to protect natural resources in the NW Region, by improving waste collection and transport, improving final waste disposal practices, and remediation of existing municipal landfills and village dumps. Improving the municipal waste management system in the 9 municipalities of the Region is in line with the National Solid Waste Management Strategy, the National Waste Management Plan (2006-2012), and the relevant national and EU waste Directives and environmental standards. The purpose of the Pre-feasibility Study for the NW Region in Macedonia is to: (1) Assess current practices and problems with SWM in the referenced Region;
1

At the time of preparation of this Study the Strategy is still at draft version, but expected to be adopted by the Government of Macedonia by the end of 2008. 2 There are two terms in use for both Regions: Strumica-Radovis or South-East Region, and Polog or North-West (NW) Region. The Polog and North-West (NW) terms are used interchangeably in this Report. 10

(2) Identify and evaluate the relevance and implementability of practical solutions for setting-up of Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) System in the Region; (3) Define ISWM implementation strategy and business model. 2.3 Methodology The Pre-feasibility Study for initiation and establishment of a regional SWM system for the NW Region in Macedonia has been prepared by PointPro Consulting, Skopje, Macedonia. Substantial support to the consulting team, especially related to the aspect of regional landfill site selection and design, has been provided by Dipl.-Ing. Norbert Leimbach from Germany. The Study is primarily intended for use by the Municipalities of NW Region and the REC project team as a basic decision-making tool for further development of the SWM system in the referenced Region. The tasks that were performed to assess the feasibility of establishing a regional SWM system included: Organizing initial (kick-off) implementation team; workshop, focused on mobilizing the project

Carrying out a Survey of current SWM practices and data collection. Four separate questionnaires were prepared and distributed to all municipal and utility stakeholders from the Region. The questionnaires refer to collecting necessary information regarding: (1) statistical data for the municipalities; (2) relevant data for the public utilities currently responsible for SWM in each municipality and their practices; (3) data regarding the municipal landfills currently in use; and (4) data regarding the identified illegal dumps within the boundaries of each municipality; Data analysis and preparing a SWM system concept; Identification, assessment and selection of a preferred alternative for the regional SWM system establishment and development, in particular to defining a suitable location for regional waste disposal site; Performing further technical and financial analysis, and assessment of projects net financial benefit/performance and environmental impact; Report writing. Available background information was provided by the REC Project team and all municipalities in the Region. Discussions were held with representatives from the Region and the REC Project team at several occasions, to review the study objectives and opportunities. Also, site visits were made at several occasions to various locations at every municipality from the Region, to review site conditions. In addition, the regional SWM system alternatives and development prospects were presented to and discussed with representatives of the MOEPP. The analysis carried out in the study refer to an accepted project period/life-cycle up to 2035 (or roughly 25 years). 2.4 Report Format The findings of the feasibility assessment are presented in Sections 3 through 12 of this report. Supporting information is provided in the Annexes. Technical information is presented in metric units and the costs are in Macedonian Denars (MKD) or Euro (). Section 3 of the report provides an overview of the project location, hydrology and climate conditions, and basic socio-economic indicators of the Region. Section 4 deals with the project strategic context, i.e. an overview of the current legislation, standards and regulations as well as of the institutional framework for environmental protection are presented. Description of the current status regarding solid waste management in the NW Region
11

service coverage, organizational and financial aspects and other shortfalls is presented in Section 5. The project technical concept, including: solid waste generation forecasts, proposed concept for SWM improvements, comparative analysis and selection of the most favorable waste disposal site/location, management of hazardous waste and closure of existing municipal landfills and village dumps are discussed in Section 6. Sections 7 and 8 provide explanation of MSW service organizational and management aspects and prospects regarding public participation in the project and awareness raising. Detailed financial analysis, including future tariff policy, is presented in Section 9. Section 10 provides a brief environmental assessment of the project. An overall project implementation plan and recommendations are provided in Sections 11 and 12 respectively.

12

3. Site Information
3.1 Location The Polog statistical Region is situated in the north-west part of Macedonia; it includes the 9 municipalities listed below; map of the Region is given in Annex 1. The Region borders Albania to the west and Kosovo to the north. Within the country it borders the Skopje Region (to the east) and the Southwestern Region (to the south). The total area of the Region is 2,417 km2, or 9.5% of the country territory. The total number of settlements in the Region is 184. Basic information about the region is given in Table 3.1 below. Tearce Jegunovce Tetovo Zelino Brvenica Bogovinje Vrapciste Gostivar Mavrovo i Rostusa. Albania Serbia Kosovo Bulgaria

3.2 Geographical characteristics and climate Two major geographical formations are located within the boundaries of the Polog Region: the Polog Valley and the Mavrovo National Park. The Polog Valley, surrounded by the Shara, Suva Gora and Zeden mountains, extends in the north-east to south-west direction and it includes major part of the low area of the Region. The Mavrovo National Park with a territory of approximately 500 km2 is situated at the south-west section of the Region. Both basins are especially important for development of the Regions local economy; they are also of specific importance and vulnerability related to waste management.
Item Municipalities Settlements Area (km ) Population Households Population density (inh/km ) Urban population Rural population
2 2

North-West Region 9 184 2,417 304,125 69,091 126 139,390 164,735

Table 3.1: Basic data about the NW Region (2002)

The climate in the Region is Continental, characterized by cold winters and warm and fairly rainy summers. The winter temperatures may fall below -20C, while summer temperatures can rise to 40C.

13

Average monthly and annual air temperatures in oC I II III IV V VI VII Station

Tetovo Gostivar -0.5 -0.8 2.1 1.9 6.5 6.0 11.2 10.5 15.7 15.3 19.2 18.8 21.3 20.4

VIII
20.8 19.7

IX
16.6 16.0

X
10.8 10.5

XI
4.9 4.6

XII
0.7 0.4

Annual
10.8 10.3

Table 3.2: Average monthly and annual air temperatures in the NW Region

The annual average precipitation reaches around 500 mm/sqm and have a continental regime, with maximum values in November through February and minimum in the period July through September. More detailed information regarding the climate in the Region is given in Tables 3.2 and 3.3.

Average monthly and annual precipitation sums in mm I II III IV V VI VII Station

Tetovo Gostivar 71.1 66.2 61.9 63.6 59.3 61.8 48.2 56.5 66.0 62.4 42.0 47.1 33.4 42.4

VIII
40.7 30.2

IX
53.3 51.3

X
59.3 71.3

XI
84.2 93.4

XII
76.0 65.0

Annual
491.8 511.0

Table 3.3: Average monthly and annual precipitation in the NW Region

3.3 Demographics The population of the Region equals 304,125 (69,091 households)3, or 15% of the countrys total population (Table 3.4). The entire Region is predominantly rural, with over 50% of the population living in settlements with less than 5,000 inhabitants. Tetovo, the fifth biggest city in the country with a population of 72,944 and Gostivar which is the eight biggest city in the country with population of 50,974, are located in the Region. Other larger settlements are: Bogovinje, Vrapciste, Tearce, Zelino and Brvenica.
% of total population in the Region 100% 2.83% 26.65% 8.35% 9.53% 28.47% 5.21% 7.38% 8.02% 3.55%

Municipality Polog Region Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

Population 304,125 8,618 81,042 25,399 28,997 86,580 15,855 22,454 24,390 10,790

Area (km) 2,417 663.19 513.39 157.98 141.65 261.89 164.3 136.54 201.04 176.93

(%) of total Project Area 100% 27.44% 21.24% 6.54% 5.86% 10.84% 6.80% 5.65% 8.32% 7.32%

Table 3.4: Statistical data on municipalities in the NW Region (2002)

3.4 Local economy structure The total labor force in the Region amounts to 71,0894 persons, of which 35,638 are employed while 35,452 are unemployed (unemployment rate is 49.9%). From this point of view, the Region is in inferior position compared to the national average. For comparison,
3 4

Source: State Statistical Office of R. Macedonia. Source: same as above 14

brief overview of labor structure in all 8 statistical regions in Macedonia is given in Table 3.5. The gender structure in labor shows unequal distribution between men and women, with men covering 73.9% of the total employed force (26,350 of the 35,638 in total) while the women fraction is only 26.1% (9,288 employed in total). These figures represent a significant difference compared with the national average for both men (62% on national level) and women (38% on national level).
Labor Structure in Regions Polog Strumica-Radovis Pelagonia Region North-eastern South-western Vardar Eastern Skopje Macedonia average Total Labor Force 71,089 77,056 104,016 60,020 68,789 56,440 83,685 222,581 743,676 Employed [total] 35,638 50,559 62,551 30,841 39,589 31,672 54,779 154,915 460,544 Unemployed [total] 35,451 26,497 41,465 29,179 29,200 24,768 28,906 67,666 283,132 Unemployment Rate 49.9% 34.4% 39.9% 48.6% 42.4% 43.9% 34.5% 30.4% 38.1%

Table 3.5: Overview of labor structure in Macedonian statistical regions (2002)

Overview of employment structure by major economic activities is given in Table 3.6 below. According to the statistics, for the Region as a whole, industry and services are the dominant sectors. Nevertheless, agriculture also has an important role, especially in the predominantly rural municipalities of the Region.
Employment Structure in Regions Polog Strumica-Radovis Pelagonia Region North-eastern South-western Vardar Eastern Skopje Macedonia average

Agriculture 9.9% 35.7% 17.7% 8.3% 4.5% 12.9% 12.3% 1.5% 10.9 %

Industry 31.2% 28.2% 41.0% 43.0% 40.3% 40.0% 49.0% 31.0% 36.4 %

Services 50.0% 35.6% 40.9% 46.8% 52.3% 46.6% 38.4% 66.0% 50.9 %

Unknown 8.9% 0.5% 0.3% 1.9% 2.9% 0.5% 0.4% 1.5% 1.8 %

Table 3.6: Overview of employment by economic sectors in Macedonian statistical regions

15

4. Institutional Situation
4.1 Legislation, Standards and Regulation Regarding SW Management Major applicable legislation Law on Environmental Protection (6/2004): is a framework law regulating all measures and activities for environmental protection in the country. The law has been prepared in the course of approximation of the Macedonian legislation to that of the EU. All relevant EU policy-making principles and directives have been transposed into the law. The law is effective starting from January 1, 2005. Law on Waste Management (6/2004): includes: Definition of waste, Priorities and principles in waste management, polluters pays principle, needs for strategic planning in waste management, needs for Strategy on Waste management / responsibility of the National government, needs for National and Local Waste Management Plans and Programs, Rules for waste handling, List of waste, Rules for handling hazardous waste, characterization of waste, Appropriate packaging and labeling of the hazardous waste, Conditions for establishing a landfill, Acceptance of waste in different classes of landfills, Rules for incineration and co-incineration of waste, Operational plans and environmental audit for the installations for incineration or coincineration of the waste, Rules for Delivery and receipt of the waste for incineration or co-incineration, Rules for Export of waste, needs for monitoring, Needs to establish Cadastre of waste generators, rules for financing waste generators. Draft By-Law on Hazardous Waste Management is in process of discussion among relevant institutions. The Draft Regulation on Hazardous Waste Management, regulates properties and contents of wastes which render them hazardous, identification of the hazardous properties of wastes by reference of concentrations of the dangerous substances, conditions of the buildings for storage and processing of hazardous waste, packaging and labeling of hazardous waste, hazardous waste assessment procedure (i.e. sampling, standards for conducting chemical analysis of waste, waste assessment report form). Law on Local Self-Government (2002): the Law regulates: the responsibilities devolved to Local Self-Governments (Municipalities) including communal works for SWM; citizen participation in the decision-making process on municipal level; municipal administration; municipal property; mechanisms for cooperation between municipalities and the central Government; etc. Law on Communal Works (1997; 2002; 2004): that regulates the basic conditions, organization and financing for carrying out communal works of public interest, and among other on SWM.

Other relevant legislation Lista na vidovi na otpad (Slv. 100/05) Pravilnik za formata i sodr`inata na baraweto za dobivawe na dozvola za prerabotka, tretman i/ili za skladirawe na otpad, forma i sodr`ina na dozvolata kako i minimalnite tehni~ki uslovi za vr{ewe na dejnosta prerabotka, tretman i/ili skladirawe na otpad (Slv. 23/2007) Obrazec za Pravilnik za formata i sodr`inata na dnevnikot za evidencija za postapuvawe so otpad, formata i sodr`inata na formularite za identifikacija i transport na otpadot i formata i sodr`ina na obrascite za godi{en izve{taj za postapuvawe so otpad (Slv. 07/06)

16

Obrazec za Pravilnik za formata i sodr`inata na baraweto, formata i sodr`inata na dozvolata za sobirawe i za transportirawe na komunalen i drugite vidovi na neopasen otpad, kako i minimalnite tehni~ki uslovi za vr{ewe na dejnosta sobirawe i transportirawe na komunalen i drugi vidovi na neopasen otpad (Slv. 8/2006) Pravilnik za postapuvawe so otpad od proizvodi koi sodr`at azbest (Slv. 89/06) Pravilnik za minimalnite tehni~ki uslovi vo pogled na za{titata na `ivotnata sredina koi treba da gi ispolnuvaat pretovarnite stanici, kako i rokovite za ~uvawe na otpadot vo pretovarnata stanica spored vidovite na otpad (Slv. 39/2007) Pravilnik za na~inot i uslovite za skladirawe na otpadot, kako i uslovite {to treba da gi ispolnuvaat lokaciite na koi{to se vr{i skladirawe na otpad (Slv. 29/2007) Uredba za opredeluvawe na proektite i kriteriumite vrz osnova na koi se utvrduva potrebata za sproveduvawe na postapka za ocena na vlijanijata vrz `ivotnata sredina (2005) Uredba za strategiite, planovite i programite, vklu~uvajki gi i promenite na tie strategii, planovi i programi za koi zadol`itelno se sproveduva postapka za ocena na nivnoto vlijanie vrz `ivotnata sredina i vrz `ivotot i zdravjeto na lugjeto (2007) Pravilnik za postapkata za dobivanje A intehrirana ekolo{ka dozvola (Slv. 4/2006)

4.2 Institutional Framework for Environmental Protection The following section provides information on the major Government institutions and other stakeholders directly or indirectly concerned with this project and their responsibilities:

Organization

Responsibilities
Government Institutions Monitoring of the state of the environment; Proposing measures and activities for environmental protection (waters, soil, air and ozone layer, waste management, protection against noise and radiation, protection of biological diversity, geological diversity, national parks and protected areas); Environmental impact assessment; Rehabilitation of polluted parts of environment; Wastewater discharge; Protection of national parks and other protected areas. According to the Law on Waste Management the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health shall jointly regulate the rules for handling of MeW and their enforcement: MeW separation, packaging / labeling, optional pre-treatment, transport and final disposal/incineration Shared, but unclear, responsibilities exist between the Sanitary and Environmental Inspectorate regarding inspection over medical waste management issues The Ministry of Health is also responsible for regulations on toxic management. Customs, as a Department of the Ministry of Finance (MOF), is in charge for monitoring of imported hazardous and nonhazardous goods; The MOF is in charge for the allocation of annual budgets of Ministries, including the MOEPP;

Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MOEPP)

Ministry of Health (MOH) Ministry of Finance(MOF)

17

Ministry of Transport and Communication (MOTC) Ministry of Local Government (MOLSG) Self

The MOF performs monitoring over the spending of the budget for the Environmental Programme (former Environmental Fund); The MOF provides co-financing for projects under international financial support (grants, loans etc.); The MOF is in charge of allocation of budgets for municipalities; The MOF is in charge of the final approval of waste fee levels, proposed by municipalities; The appointment of new employees in the state institutions (MOEPP and other ministries) is subject to approval by the MOF. It should be noted that the MOF plays an important role in financial decision making with regard to the implementation of the NWMP. It participates in the selection of priority measures to be taken and related allocation of funds. Implementation of financial/economic instruments in terms of administrative procedures and earmarked funds allocation is another important pre-requisite to implement the NWMP, to be regulated and carried out jointly by the MOEPP and MOF. According to the WML, the Ministry of Transport and Communication (MOTC), in cooperation with the MOEPP, shall further specify minimum technical requirements for licensing of collectors/transporters of MSW and hazardous waste; The State Communal Inspectorate remains responsible for monitoring and inspection of the Communal Public Enterprises (in line with the Law on Public Works). The inspection of municipal landfills has been shifted to the Environmental Inspectorate; The issuing of construction permits for any new infrastructure, including WM logistics/infrastructures, is in the responsibility of the MOTC; Construction and demolition waste management is to be jointly regulated by the MOEPP and MOTC. The Ministry of Local Self Government is in charge of monitoring over the municipal decentralization process; With respect to inter-municipal cooperation in view of the establishment of regional administrations (NUTS regional units), a strong involvement of the MoLSG in the establishment of regional WM systems will be required. Other stakeholders Organizing collection, transportation and disposal of municipal wastes; Supervising transportation and disposal of industrial nonhazardous waste; Deciding on the location of waste management facilities; Issuing local regulations on waste management; Financing and supervising dump/landfill closures and termination of waste management facilities; Participating in regional projects (including a share of the cost). is an association comprising all municipalities, and deals with issues regarding municipal functions, negotiations with government on financing of municipalities, preparation of legislative acts, consulting, etc.

Municipalities Union of the municipalities (ZELS)

18

5. Description of the Current Status with MSW Management in the Region

The information presented further in the Study regarding the current status of SWM in the NW Region is a compilation/summary of data gathered through a Survey conducted under the project activities. As described before, the summary is based mainly on responses to a questionnaire and field visits. More detailed information collected during the Survey for each individual municipality is presented in Annex 21. It is important to note that the intent of this part of the report is not to criticize current management practices of any of the interviewed companies. This section is intended to document findings and to provide critical, independent assessment of the current PE operations and needs for improvements.

5.1 Service coverage All of the 9 municipalities in the Region have some form of organized solid waste management service and reported on the current collected and disposed of waste quantities. However, the extent of service coverage, in terms of covered area and population, varies considerably between the municipalities (Table 5.1 and 5.2). It can be concluded that by and large the service is centered around urban areas (larger towns and villages) leaving majority of the smaller, rural settlements without organized service at all. For the Region as a whole the fraction of un-served population vs. total population is 65%; nevertheless, the percentage of un-served population varies between the minimum of 39% in Vrapciste to nearly 95% in Jegunovce, Zelino and Mavrovo-Rostuse. With respect to service coverage by number of served settlements, the situation is even poorer. The overall percentage of covered/served settlements equals only 24%, whereas the maximum percentage is in the municipality of Tearce (57%) and the minimum in Jegunovce (6%). Another example of destitute service coverage is the Mavrovo-Rostusa Municipality, where the fraction of served settlements is only 10% while major part of the municipal territory is within the Mavrovo National Park.

Municipality

Total urban population

Total served urban population

% of served urban population

Total rural population

Total served rural population

% of rural served population

Un-served population as % of total population

Polog Region MavrovoRostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

88,762 0 35,847 0 0 52,915 0 0 0 0

79,477 0 26,561 0 0 52,915 0 0 0 0

90% Rural 74% Rural Rural 100% Rural Rural Rural Rural

304,125 8,618 81,042 25,399 28,997 86,580 15,855 22,454 24,390 10,790

57,655 525 4,033 15,478 10,818 11,759 7,193 6,033 1,400 416

19% 6% 5% 61% 37% 14% 45% 27% 6% 4%

65% 94% 74% 39% 63% 54% 55% 73% 94% 96%

Table 5.1: MSW service coverage in the NW Region by population

5.2 Waste generation Before going deeper into the aspect, it should be pointed out that the existing data regarding waste generation in the Region is on the whole unreliable. Considering the above-discussed fact that the current SWM service covers only a fraction of the total population (served
19

settlements), moreover even where there is an organized waste collection service currently used methods of estimating waste quantities are inadequate, hence there is no inclusive

Municipality NW Region MavrovoRostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

Total population 304,125 8,618 81,042 25,399 28,997 86,580 15,855 22,454 24,390 10,790

Number of settlements 184 42 35 15 14 20 10 13 18 17

Served settlements 44 4 5 3 8 4 5 7 7 1

% of Served settlements 24% 10% 14% 20% 57% 20% 50% 54% 39% 6%

Table 5.2: MSW service coverage in the NW Region by number of served settlements

information concerning solid waste generation in the Region, either regarding the total volume or composition of the waste currently generated. There are no weighbridges installed in any of the official landfills in the Region, whereupon the quantities of waste are often based on the volume of waste transportation vehicles and average number of vehicle-trips to the landfills, which tends to importantly overstate the waste quantities as the vehicles are frequently not full. On the other hand, individuals and businesses often transport and dispose of waste to the landfills with their own vehicles, and as there are no guards and/or tipping fees on the landfills, these wastes are not recorded. Furthermore, there are no records on many illegal dumps in the Region where the local population especially the part of population not covered with the existing service tends to dump solid waste indiscriminately. Gathered information regarding the volume of currently collected municipal solid waste is summarized in Table 5.3 and Fig. 5.1 below. The figures concerning average unit waste generation (in tons/capita/year or kg/capita/day), hence the total volume of collected waste, shown in the table are estimates and vary significantly; they are presented herein as an approximation of the magnitude of the problem.
Municipality Polog Region Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce Average rural pop. Average urban pop. Served population 153,536 525 46,998 15,478 10,818 64,674 7,194 6,033 1,400 416 Waste Collection (t/year) 63,355 120 21,500 4,500 3,000 30,540 1,780 1,510 300 105 t/c/y 0.413 0.228 0.457 0.291 0.277 0.472 0.247 0.250 0.214 0.252 0.252 0.465 kg/c/day 1.131 0.626 1.253 0.797 0.760 1.294 0.678 0.686 0.587 0.691 0.689 1.274

Table 5.3: Annual volume and unit rates of MSW collection in the NW Region (2007)

The average unit municipal waste generation for the Region as a whole equals 413
20

kg/cap/year, with average for urban settlements of 465 kg/cap/year and 252 kg/cap/year for rural settlements. These figures are higher than the average national statistical data of 300 kg/cap/year for urban and 200 kg/cap/year for rural settlements5; the reason for this is considered to be the inaccuracy in waste generation/collection monitoring, as explained above. The total collected MSW in the Region equals 63,355 tons annually. Regarding composition of collected solid waste, all of the surveyed PEs and private service providers reported that the waste they collect and dispose of includes all standard components found in MSW streams, such as: organic waste, paper, plastics, glass, textiles, bulky waste, etc; however, only the PE of Tetovo Municipality provided information related to the percentage/fraction of each component. (Table 5.4). Based on information from the NWMP 2006-20126 regarding the composition of MSW on a country-wide level, 73% of the waste stream is generated by households and the remaining 23% by the commercial sector.
Fig. 5.1: Municipal waste collection
% of total collected Mavrovo-Rostuse 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

Evidently, as it is the case in other regions in the country, organic materials constitute by far the largest share of the waste stream, averaging to about 25% and in some municipalities to over 40%. The organic materials discussed here, however, do not include a large amount of agricultural waste. The agricultural waste in the Region, especially in rural areas, is in deed not part of the current MSW stream; by and large local farmers either cart and dump the waste from their farming activities on illegal dumps, or deal with it in some other way7. The organic materials being part of collected MSW, though, include significant amount of garden waste (especially in urban areas) and waste collected from green markets. As for the other components of collected MSW, most important are: paper and cardboard, plastics, ashes, and other waste (fines). Of these, ash is a critically important component; it is present in significant quantities, since the entire Region is not served with district heating, and poses specific problems for management as hot ash damages waste containers and other equipment. As regards industrial waste, as pointed earlier, in most cases the municipal PEs and private service providers deal only with collection and transport of a portion of the waste generated by industrial plants which is compact and manageable (municipal-waste-like) for them. As elsewhere in the country the bulky industrial solid waste is being disposed of at separate landfills or collected, transported and disposed of at either separate municipal or microregional industrial landfills by the individual industrial plants. One major industrial landfill was
5 6

Calculated as an average based on information from various studies for other regions in the country. National Waste Management Plan 2006 2012; Government of Macedonia, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning; 2005. 7 As elsewhere in the country, the agricultural wastes including animal manure are either used as compost (fertilizer) or burned. 21

reported to exist in the Region, i.e. the one located in Jegunovce Municipality used by a ferrosilicon producer Silmak dooel.

Waste composition Paper Glass Plastics Rubber Metal Organic waste Construction debris Textile Other waste Total

(%) 25% 4% 5% 1% 0% 40% 5% 4% 16% 100.0

Table 5.4: Composition of collected waste as reported by Tetovo Municipality (2007)

The current generation volumes of the remaining important types of wastes hazardous waste and construction/demolition debris are also not available. As elsewhere in the country there is no separate collection of hazardous waste, with the exception of medical waste; however, in the Polog Region even the medical waste, although separated by the health organizations, is not properly treated but disposed of at the municipal landfills. Similarly, the construction waste is also a particular problem, since it is present in significant amounts, and with few exceptions (e.g. Tetovo) it is being indiscriminately dumped by the generators at illegal dumps, ravines, along public roads, riverbeds, etc. More information on the current landfilling practices is provided further in this document. 5.3 SWM organizational aspects: collection, transport and disposal Based on the Law on Local Government (Official Paper No.: 5/2002), municipalities in Macedonia are devolved prime responsibility for provision of a number of public services, including for waste management. At present, in the Polog Region there are two types of waste service organizations: 1. Semi-autonomous public enterprises (PE) that are fully owned by the municipalities are in charge for daily operation of the service. The PEs differ in size (number of employees) according to the size of the community and service coverage, however a common aspect for all of them is that SWM is not the only public service they deal with. As a matter of fact, traditionally and in all the cases in the Polog Region, prime responsibility of the PEs is the provision of water supply and wastewater management services while SWM is somewhat an inferior-type service, often carried out by a separate smaller department within the organization; the larger PEs, i.e. the ones that service larger towns, are also often responsible for street cleaning, greenmarket management, funeral services, etc. In some municipalities, e.g. Gostivar, there are two PEs (Komunalec, Gostivar and Higiena, Cegrane) providing service to larger settlements in the municipality. The PEs have autonomous management and independent (from the municipalities) bank accounts; however, members of the management boards, as well as the executive managers, are nominated by the municipalities. In addition, since quite often due to inappropriate tariff policy and very limited fee collection efficiency the expenses for services provided by the PEs cannot be covered by service fees, the PEs are funded by allocations from the municipal budget. Hence, in reality, PEs act as branches of the local governments.

22

2. Private companies carrying out the service under contractual agreement with one or several municipalities. There are currently two private service providers in the Polog Region: Eko Flor Plus and GM. Eko Flor is in effect a foreign8 strategic investor. The representative office of the company is based in Bogovinje and provides services to a total of 17 individual settlements from the following municipalities with which the company has signed long-term contracts: Jegunovce, Bogovinje, Brvenica, Tearce and Vrapciste. The company provides free of charge waste collection containers to individual households, public institutions and industry. The company collects the waste once per week from each served settlement, and transports it either to the Rusino landfill (located near Gostivar and used by Tetovo Municipality) or the Drisla landfill near Skopje. Recently, the company has also initiated recycling activities. GM is a also a privately owned company, which has started their operations in the Polog Region quite recently and currently provides waste collection and transport services to only 4-5 settlements in Zelino Municipality. Collected waste is transported to the Rusino landfill near Gostivar. The company does not provide waste containers to its customers free of charge, but rather offers them on competitive basis to those interested to purchase. The company also possesses a land property in Zelino, where it has initiated activities for establishment of waste sorting and recycling facility, though the entire process is currently at a very early stage. As a general conclusion for the Region, there is no real local competition in providing the SWM service; as noted above, each municipality has either its own PE responsible for the service, or part of the settlements are being serviced by small PE and other are serviced by private companies (e.g. Bogovinje and Vrapciste municipalities). Furthermore, rationalization of the waste collection and transport has not yet really started. Nevertheless, based on conducted interviews with municipal authorities during this Survey, in all the cases the municipalities are acutely aware of the need to modernize their MSWM services, in order to make it efficient, financially viable, and environmentally sound. A fraction of municipalities in the Region are also considering either fully privatizing the SWM service. Waste collection and transport Most of the municipalities in the Region use three types of waste containers: 1,100 litters (1.1 m3), metal or plastic bins of 120 litters, and old metal barrels of 80 liters. Additionally, some municipalities use large metal open containers (skips) with volume 5 to 7 m3. The 1.1m3 containers are used mostly in residential parts of towns dominated by multi-story buildings, while the 120 litter bins and barrels are used by private households. The 1.1m3 containers, along with the 5m3 skips, are also used by larger public institutions and the industry. The types and numbers of waste containers used in the Region are indicated in Table 5.5. Significant percentage of used containers are damaged and need to be replaced. As regards waste transportation vehicles, most of the smaller municipalities use traditional trucks or tractors that haul un-compacted waste, while the larger municipalities (in deed towns) in addition to these also use more modern compactor vehicles with volume of 5 to 15 m3. By and large the vehicle fleets in use are quite obsolete, with majority of trucks being older than 15 years and by the end of their operational life, thus causing extremely high expenses for operation and maintenance. Collected waste is being transported directly to the nearby landfills. Although details regarding existing daily routes of the waste transportation vehicles were not obtained, it was stated that in the biggest towns major part of the vehicles need to make several routes during the day in various parts of the settlements to achieve the required service coverage (waste collecting frequency). Data on the vehicle fleet deployed by the
8

Head office of the company is based in Croatia. 23

Polog Region PEs and private service providers is presented in Table 5.6 and in the individual surveys (Annex 21).

Collection containers Municipality Open skips (5, 7, 9 m3) Container (1.1 m3) 120 150 Bin (60, 100, 120 l) 30 16,840 984 400 24 506 2,700 1,564 1,369 300 102 34 776 24,289 1,900 11,925 Metal barrel Begs and other Total volume of collection containers (m3) 136 1,820 137 921 188 164 36 12 3,413

Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Vrapciste* Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica* Tearce* Zelino Jegunovce* TOTAL

10

1,500 400

10,000 1,925

* Includes waste containers provided by local PE and private service company.

Table 5.5: Containers for waste collection in the NW Region

The frequency of waste collection varies depending on the size of the town and the size of containers for waste collection. In the central parts of the larger towns (Tetovo and Gostivar) the frequency of collection is in general 6 times per week. In sub-urban parts of the towns waste collection is carried out twice per week, while in smaller, rural settlements the collection usually takes place once per week. It was reported that the current waste collection frequency in those towns/areas where it is organized is satisfactory; a major problem, however, remains the significant number of settlements which are not part of the existing SWM service.

Equipment Municipality Truck, Tractor, Trailer Compactor vehicles 2 9 1 2 1 1 1 9 4 1 4 27 2 1 Skip vehicles Total volume of collecting equipment (m3) 23 72 10.5 8 170 74.5 13 371

Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce TOTAL

* Includes waste collection vehicles owned by local PE and/or private service company.

Table 5.6: Vehicles used for waste collection and transport in the NW Region

Waste disposal As elsewhere in the country, every settlement town and village in the Region has its own landfill or dump, and most settlements have several. Except for the landfills that are used by
24

bigger towns and operated by the accountable PEs, often designated as municipal landfills, the sites/dumps used by the villages are not regulated, although some are authorized by municipal councils as official waste disposal sites. List of the official municipal landfills in the Region is given in Table 5.7 and more detailed information in Annex 2; exact locations of the municipal landfills and larger identified illegal dumps are shown on Annex 1 and the maps attached to the individual municipal surveys.
Year of construction 1971 2002 2005

Municipality Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Gostivar Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo, construction waste Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

Landfill Name Susicki Most (Old Landfill) Susicki Most (In-use Landfill) Rusino

Railway station

n.a

Table 5.7: Official municipal landfills in the NW Region

Current landfilling practices in the entire Region are at an extremely low level. Even the official municipal landfills cannot be classified as sanitary landfills. The solid wastes are commonly dumped over the edge of the sites/dumps. In some cases, though very seldom, a bulldozer is used to compact the deposited waste and place cover material over a portion of the exposed waste. However, in all cases there does not appear to be an accessible amount of soil for creating a waterproof cap/soil cover, resulting in significant volumes of disposed of solid waste always opened to the atmosphere. Spontaneous landfill-fires occur frequently. The sites are not fenced; non-authorized persons freely approach the sites. No attempt is made at any municipal landfill to segregate residential, commercial or industrial recyclable wastes. The types and amounts of chemicals being disposed are also not known. There does not appear to be an alternative program for disposal of hazardous waste. Based on information from the NWMP 2006-2012, the total volume of deposited waste at the Susicki Most landfill near Gostivar is estimated to be approximately 720,000 m3. The status of waste disposal sites used by villages where there is no organized service, also termed as illegal or village dumps, is even poorer than the municipal landfills. As a matter of fact, the exact number of such dumps is not known, as the local population in spite of the existence of designated village waste disposal sites quite often violently dumps the waste at ravines, along public roads, riverbeds, etc. An attempt was made with the Survey for registering as many of the illegal dumps as possible, however, only the larger village dumps in the Region were identified. These sites are indicated on maps attached to the individual municipal surveys. 5.4 Financial aspects Waste fees and subsidies from municipal budget allocations are the two sources of funds for recovery of the expenditures for waste management. In larger municipalities, municipal capital investment funds are often used for various small-scale waste management-related investments, such as: fencing of municipal landfills, purchase of waste equipment, closing or cleaning of illegal dumps, etc.

25

Waste fees currently levied are set-up either as flat charges per household or charges based on owned property (dwelling and yard area). The fees differ significantly between municipalities; information regarding the fees is given in Table 5.8 below and in the individual municipal surveys.
Collection efficiency (%) 60-70% 2 MKD/m2 200 MKD/m 2.1 MKD/m2 0.5 MKD/m2 300 MKD/m 2.1 MKD/m2 30% 55-60% 60%

Municipality MavrovoRostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

Households 1.0 (1) +0.3 (2) MKD/m2 1.0 MKD/m2 160 MKD/m 150 MKD/m 40 MKD/p 195 MKD/m 195 MKD/m 175 MKD/m 195 MKD/m

Commercial 3.8 (1) +1.25 (2) MKD/m2 6-10 MKD/m2 250-900 MKD/m2 17.5 MKD/m2

Industries

Hospitals

Other

1.98 MKD/m2

192.5 MKD/m

212 MKD/m

(1) Dwelling area; (2) Yard area; (3) Office/covered area; m: month; p: person

Table 5.8: Waste fees in the NW Region

The figures in Table 5.8 represent current waste fees free of taxes; an 18% VAT is levied on the rates. No information was made available regarding when if at all, recently listed rates have been raised. Nevertheless, an important aspect is that the fees are in no way related to the volume of generated waste, therefore not providing any incentives for waste avoidance or reduction efforts. As regards to the waste fee collection efficiency/ratio, except for the case of Gostivar, reported percentages (Table 5.8) are within the average for the country. Another important aspect related to waste fees is the marked difference between the fees levied to the business sector (commercial enterprises and the industry) compared to households. That is, as elsewhere in the country, the public service fees charged to businesses (not only for SWM) are notoriously higher than the fees for the individual households, regardless of the waste generated. Table 5.9, below, provides summary of the total (for all public services provided) annual revenues and revenues only from MSWM in the Polog Region municipalities in 2007. Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain information for all municipalities in the Region, as well as only the waste management-related costs borne by the PEs/municipalities. The reason for this is that the traditional accounting systems used by the enterprises9 recognize only total expenditures and expenditures by certain categories such as labor, material, etc., however not related to the types of services provided. On the whole, municipalities in the Region that did provide information have billed a total of 81,912,27 MKD (1,331,907) from SWM fees in 2007, serving a population of 138,49010. Hence, on average, the annual revenue per person was about 592 MKD (9.6), or roughly 50 MKD (0.8) per month. It is concluded that practically all municipalities in the Region are caught up in the vicious cycle of experiencing poor operational efficiency and encountering service performance problems, which leads to inadequate cost recovery and the lack of financing for modernizing the service. Furthermore, capital expenditures from municipal budget allocations are minimal.
9

The two private companies involved in SWM service provision did not provide information regarding their costs. 10 Only population covered with the current service in the referenced municipalities is taken into consideration. 26

Overall, the attitude of the municipalities is such that they expect the central government to grant funds for financing of the much-needed service modernization.

Municipality

Total annual Revenues (MKD)

Annual Revenues from SWM (MKD)

Revenues from Households (MKD) 2,745,826 21,805,537

Revenues from Commercial Sector (MKD) 1,529,943 8,519,474

Revenues from Others Sources (MKD)

Ratio SWM/Total Revenues

MavrovoRostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce

7,010,617 n.a. n.a. n.a. 102,828,709 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

4,275,769 31,768,274 504,000 2,865,227 42,499,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

1,443,263

20,508,000

21,991,000

61% n.a. n.a. n.a. 41% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Table 5.9: PE revenues from SWM

On the whole, raising the level of cost recovery from fees by increasing the tariff collection efficiency ratio and increasing the fees seems desirable and reasonable in terms of fiscal soundness and as a way of funding modernization of the service. However, given the extremely low fee level and fee collection efficiency at present it is hard to judge whether, and if yes to what extent, it is possible to raise the waste fees without carrying out comprehensive analysis regarding affordability and willingness of the population to pay for the service. 5.5 Current recycling efforts As a common feature in Macedonia, there is no evidence of a comprehensive recycling program organized by any of the municipalities in the Polog Region. Nevertheless, recovery and recycling of some waste materials above all ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metals as an economic activity exists. As elsewhere in the country, such activities are carried out entirely by private sector firms, i.e. small-size (micro) private enterprises. The common scheme for these recycling practices is such that entrepreneurs who posses small-scale scrap yards either purchase collected waste materials from local individual collectors or perform collection by themselves, and consequently, after certain though very basic reprocessing of the collected scrap is performed, it is sold to end-users (usually medium to large production facilities that use the scrap as a raw material) or brokers (larger/superior scrap yard owners). Based on information from studies/assessments of the recycling sector in Macedonia11, there is a relatively stable market for recovered ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metals in the country during the past 4- to 5-year period. Additionally, based on data from the same source, recycling of plastics above all PET post-consumer packaging products is also emerging in the past 2 years, though yet to be fully developed as an economic activity. Major identified scrap yards in the Polog Region are: TE Otpad, Tetovo; R-Ko-Ko, Gostivar; Mali Komerc, Grupcin; Kaljos Trans, Gostivar. Considering the information from the mentioned assessments of the recycling sector, the quantities of recycled waste materials by a local scrap yards in the Region in 2004 equaled roughly 4,200 tons of ferrous scrap metals, 150 tons of non-ferrous metals and 310 tons of car batteries. However, the listed figures are
Assessment of the Recycling Industry in Macedonia, study financed by the IFC-SEED project (2004); Assessment of the Waste Recycling Sector in SEE/Macedonia, study financed by the IFCPEP-SE project (2006). 27
11

not exhaustive; it is considered that they represent approximately 50% of the actual recycled materials, since there are a number of recyclers that were not registered at the time of the survey. Furthermore, the annual volume of listed recycled materials has probably doubled since the time of the referenced survey in 2004. Another important recycler located in the Region is Agropal, Tetovo. The company deals with recycling of plastic materials, above all PET, HDPE, LDPE and PP. Recovered plastic waste is supplied to the company by a number of scrap yards, but as well by individual collectors. The company processed approximately 400 tons of plastic waste annually. In addition and as mentioned before, the two private companies carrying out waste collection and transport service in the Region (Eko Flor Plus and GM) have also recently initiated activities for separation of recyclables from the MSW they collect. Nevertheless, their recycling operation are at a very early stage; no information was obtained during the survey regarding current or planned volume of separated materials. 5.6 Summary of identified problems Provided below is a brief summary of SWM related problems identified with the Survey: Waste generation: There is no organized and reliable waste generation measurement and monitoring; Agricultural waste is not treated with the current SWM system;

SWM service organization: Significant portion of the population (rural settlements) is not covered with the existing service; The waste containers used are old and insufficient; The waste transportation equipment/vehicles used is obsolete and too expensive to operate and maintain; Current waste disposal practices at both official municipal landfills and illegal dumps are at an extremely low level, causing significant threat to human health and environmental pollution; There are too many authorized municipal landfills; There are no dedicated separation and storage, as well as appropriate disposal, of medical, hazardous and construction waste; In many municipalities the current waste fee collection efficiency is at a level that does not enable cost recovery for the SWM service; Current waste tariffs are insufficient to cover costs for SWM; Tariffs for waste service vary widely throughout the Region, by amount and by criteria; There are no waste recycling activities organized by the public sector

Public awareness: The awareness of the population regarding the environmental threat and pressure created by inappropriate waste management practices is very low.

The Survey clearly points out the indisputable basic needs for modernization of the SWM service in the Polog Region, which could be summarized as: (1) need for extending the coverage of the service to all currently not serviced settlements;
28

(2) need for modernizing the waste collection and transport equipment; (3) need for upgrading of waste disposal practices in financially sound manner and according to modern environmental standards; (4) need for remediation or clean up of existing official landfills and illegal dumps. Given the significant number of limitations, it is considered that all these needs could be best addressed if MSWM in the area is to become a regionally organized service.

29

6. Technical Concept of the Project

6.1 MSW Generation Forecast As noted before, the information regarding current waste generation provided by the municipalities during the Survey are unreliable. The forecast of expected solid waste generation throughout the analyzed project period is based on the following assumptions: Unit waste generation rate for urban areas equals 300 kg x capita/year; for rural areas: 200 kg x capita/year. These rates are adopted based on information from other/previous waste management studies carried out in the country that included analysis of current waste generation, following widely accepted and proven methodology12; The unit waste generation rates are assumed to be constant over the analyzed period. It is, of course, possible that the rates will in reality grow, for which there are several potential growth scenarios. The NSWMP 20062012 suggests 3 such scenarios, all of them linked to the GDP growth, and assumed as: Low growth with 3% per year rate increase; Medium growth with rate growth of 5% per year following the year of countrys EU integration; and High growth linked 100% to the GDP growth. The impact of the potential unit waste generation rate growth is analyzed further in the Study; Population growth for the Region of 1.02% annually, adopted based on official statistical information; The rural areas currently not covered with waste collection service will be gradually introduced into the system, starting from 2008 and over a period of 5 years; Extension of existing recycling activities carried out by the private and informal sectors, combined with initiation (to a minor degree) of formal recycling by the public sector, that will result in reduction of waste quantities to be transported and landfilled will start in 2008 with a 1% waste reduction in the first year, and will gradually increase to a maximum of 10% over a 5-year period;

Summarized information regarding forecasted municipal solid waste generation in the region is given in Table 6.1. The detailed calculation spreadsheet is attached in Annex 3.

Municipality Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce TOTAL

Unit t/year t/year t/year t/year t/year t/year t/year t/year t/year t/year

2010 1,869 17,079 5,509 6,290 20,910 3,439 4,871 5,291 2,341 67,598

2015 1,967 21,603 5,796 6,617 24,347 3,618 5,124 5,566 2,462 77,100

2020 2,069 22,727 6,098 6,962 25,614 3,807 5,391 5,856 2,591 81,113

2025 2,177 23,910 6,415 7,324 26,947 4,005 5,671 6,160 2,725 85,335

2030 2,290 25,155 6,749 7,705 28,350 4,213 5,967 6,481 2,867 89,777

2035 2,409 26,464 7,101 8,106 29,825 4,432 6,277 6,818 3,016 94,450

Table 6.1: Waste generation forecast for the NW Region (2010 2035)

As regards composition of the MSW, for purposes of this Study and since analyses of the
E.g.: Regional Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Study for Central-East Macedonia; Study financed by the EAR (2005). 30
12

composition was not in the scope of activities for this pre-feasibility project assessment, the values are adopted from the previously mentioned EAR-funded Feasibility Study for the Central-East Region in Macedonia (Table 6.2 and Fig 6.1, below). The percentages of waste components shown in the table are based on thorough assessment following proven methodology, and are considered to be representative for the NW region as well as for other regions in the country.
Single dwellings 29.5 4.1 5.9 7.1 2.0 3.2 2.2 0.1 2.1 0.0 4.8 3.9 35.2 100.0 Multi-story buildings 22.2 2.4 13.0 11.8 3.9 4.1 2.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.9 4.8 31.1 100.0 Household waste 27.6 3.2 7.8 8.6 2.6 3.5 2.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.4 4.2 33.6 100.0 Commercial Waste 22.4 1.4 21.8 12.5 6.0 1.3 3.5 0.5 2.2 1.1 1.6 2.1 23.7 100.0 % of Total Waste 26.2 2.7 11.6 9.6 3.5 2.9 2.6 0.2 2.2 0.3 3.6 3.6 30.9 100.0

Waste component Organic Wood Paper and cardb. Plastics Glass Textile Metals Hazardous waste Composites Complex products Inert Other categories Fines Total

Table 6.2: Waste composition13

6.2 Proposed Concept for MSWM Improvement 6.2.1 Waste recycling/treatment Designing an efficient recycling program requires careful analysis of a variety of technical options and financial implications, since the decisions about collecting, processing and marketing recyclables are interrelated. Furthermore, as frequently repeated in a number of publications, the ultimate success of recycling depends on stable and reliable markets for recyclables. Unless a community has markets for the materials it collects for recycling, it may end up storing or even landfilling the same materials, which may result in a political criticism and failed support of the community for the recycling activities. As indicated before, at present there are practically no recycling activities organized by municipalities/PEs in the NW region. However, recovery and recycling of some waste materials as an economic activity exists, and it is carried out by private companies and the informal sector. These activities are performed without governmental interferences, apart from development of legislation that governs the work and environmental performance of private scrap yards, and with no cost to citizens. The materials/commodities that are recycled include: metals (ferrous and non-ferrous), PET bottles, tires, car batteries, and paper and cardboard to some extent, i.e. all those materials for which at present there is a market need. Setting up of a system and introduction of recycling activities on a regional level by the public sector (PEs) is an issue that was brought up in a number of meetings held during the Survey conducted for this project. But, at the same time, the municipal authorities and PEs management, as described before, are facing far more stringent problems related to the current waste management practices.
13

Source: Regional Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Study for Central-East Macedonia; Study financed by the EAR (2005). 31

Fig. 6.1: Waste Composition

Organic Wood

26.2

Paper and cardboard Plastics Glass

30.9

2.7

Textile Metals Hazardous waste

11.6

Composites Complex products

3.6

Inert
3.6 0.3 2.2 9.6 0.2 2.6 2.9 3.5

Other categories Fines

It is considered that during the initial phase of establishing an integrated SWM system on a regional level the municipalities should firstly focus on setting up of appropriate mixed waste collection and disposal system, by extending the service coverage to all currently un-served settlements, increasing of the landfilling standards and practices, closing and/or remediating the existing dump sites, and bringing the waste fee collection ratio to a maximum level. This will automatically result in increased costs, thus increase of the level of waste fees. As regards initiation of formal recycling activities by the public sector, the policy should be such that in the initial phase these should not increase the waste management costs for the population, and as well should in no way interfere with the existing well running recycling activities of the private and informal sectors. On the other hand, however, there is an indisputable need for increasing the current recycling rate and for gaining valuable experience on local level with the set-up and carrying out of recycling activities, as well as their market implications. Therefore, it is proposed to start with implementing pilot projects in larger municipalities for separate collection and recycling of few waste materials/commodities, such as: paper and cardboard, PET bottles and car batteries. Financing for these potential activities is not considered as part of the investment for establishing the Regional ISWM System discussed herein. Interested PEs should seek financing for such pilot recycling projects through grant financing schemes of major development organizations and IFIs present in the country, coupled with co-financing from municipal budgetary sources. The pilot projects should, to a maximum extent possible, be planned and implemented in co-operation with the existing recycling schemes carried out by the private and informal sectors. These preliminary recycling activities should progressively turn into full separate waste collection and recycling system. In addition, given the specifics of the Region as predominantly rural area, it is also recommended to carefully investigate the possibilities for composting of the biodegradable agricultural waste by establishment of a central, high-technology composting facility. Nevertheless, it should be underlined that the recommendation proposed herein refers only to separated biodegradable waste from agriculture activities; due to presence of metals and other potential contaminants in the organic fraction of the municipal (household) solid waste, under no circumstances should mixed municipal wastes be used for compost production. 6.2.2 Waste storage and collection Several potential scenarios regarding improvement of the waste storage and collection, in terms of types and capacities of waste containers to be used, were analyzed by the project

32

team. Major factors that determine the solution and were taken into consideration are the following: significant percentage of the population in the Region is at present not covered with waste management service at all, hence proper waste storage and collection practices should be introduced for the first time in a number of predominantly rural settlements; in a number of rural areas the local road conditions are such that access for larger, modern waste compaction vehicles is very limited; cost implications for providing modern 120L wheeled waste containers to all individual households accessible by compaction vehicles.

Based on comparison of the potential solutions, and as well recommendations from waste management improvement studies for other regions in the country, the following is proposed: the current practice of using wheeled 1.1m3 containers in central parts and residential districts of urban settlements, as well as in central parts of larger rural areas/villages, is a proven good practice and should be sustained. The capacity of these containers is appropriate for a number of dwellings, public institutions and commercial organizations; it also allows optimization of the collection routes. The containers will be emptied directly into compaction vehicles fitted with hoist system. The use of plastic 1.1m3 containers should be ceased, since they are damaged by deposits of hot ashes; individual households located in urban suburbs should either continue using the waste bins presently at hand, regardless of their size and type, or use plastic waste bags. Emptying of both the bins and the bags should be into compaction vehicles. Introduction of standardized 120L waste bins should happen gradually over time, as individual households can afford to purchase them; individual households located in rural areas with limited access for larger vehicles should either use plastic waste bags or waste bins with smaller capacity that can be emptied by hand into open-top waste collection vehicles; individual households in rural settlements where the service will be introduced for the first time should start using plastic waste bags, and gradually move to using own standardized waste bins. It is considered that the introduction of waste service into these settlements will be phased in over a 5-year period; the use of open or closed skip containers with capacity 5/7 m3 is inappropriate and should be discontinued; such containers should in the future be reduced only for use by larger public institutions or industries where there are conditions for access by large skip vehicles; the frequency of waste collection should remain as it is at in general at present, that is: in central parts of urban areas collection should be made (at least) 4-5 times per week while in suburbs 2 times per week; in rural areas the collection should be once per week; the operator responsible for waste collection, either public or private14, will have to determine the most cost-effective daily waste collection routes.

Summarized information regarding the total number of additional (incremental) 1.1m3 and household waste bins for each municipality in the Region is shown in Table 6.3; the detailed calculation is presented in Annex 4. The estimate of the waste container needs shown in Table 6.3 is based on the following assumptions:
14

density of un-compacted MSW is 150 kg/m3; 30% of the 1.1m3 containers currently in use are damaged and should be replaced;

More information regarding recommended institutional setup is given further in the Study. 33

Municipality

Total additional 1.1m3 containers needed 39 849 363 414

Total additional waste bins needed 1,419 0 3,555 4,564

Total cost for 1.1m3 containers 12,104 263,280 112,419 128,344 131,046 107,953 47,758 474,275 474,275 1,751,453

Total cost for waste bins 21,280 0 53,323 68,459 176,122 23,319 41,894 57,965 25,972 444,374

Mavrovo-Rostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce TOTAL

423 348 154 1,530 1,530

5,958

8,153 1,555 2,793 3,864 1,731

36,104

Table 6.3: Total needed number of incremental waste containers and bins

70% of the population in urban areas will use 1.1m3 wheeled waste containers and 30% will use individual waste bins; in rural areas 40% of the population will deposit waste in 1.1m3 containers located in central parts of the settlements, while 60% will use individual bins or plastic bags; on the average the frequency of emptying the 1.1m3 containers in urban areas will be 4 times per week, and 2 times per week for the individual waste bins; in rural areas the containers will be emptied once per week; on the average, the containers will be 80% full at the time when they are emptied.

6.2.3 Waste transport As indicated before, the waste transportation fleets used by the PEs in the region are obsolete and expensive for maintenance. The need for modernization and standardization of the fleets is doubtless, however the determination of the most cost-effective solution is closely related to a number of aspects such as: waste generation volume; affordability; modern waste collection and compaction technologies; logistical features regarding final disposal (landfilling) of waste and limitations regarding accessibility for a number of rural settlements by large vehicles; management practices and current experience of service operators; institutional setup for organization of an integrated SWM on a regional level; etc. Recommended approach for modernization of the waste collection fleets, as described further, is based on research and comparison of potential solutions and (again) recommendations from previously developed waste management improvement studies for other regions in the country. The principal underlying aspect for modernization of the waste collection and transportation service is the use of a variety of waste compaction vehicles with different capacities (11 to 20m3), combined with smaller open-top/skip vehicles (2-3m3), that will enable daily house-to-house waste collection (emptying of containers) and transport to either a regional landfill or transfer station15. Summarized information regarding the number of additional (incremental) waste transportation vehicles for each municipality in the Region is shown in Table 6.4; the detailed calculation is presented in Annex 5. The estimate of the vehicle needs shown in Table 6.4 is based on the following assumptions:

Description of analyzed alternatives for waste disposal is provided further in the Study; the long-haul vehicles (if applicable) are not discussed in this section. 34

15

 the existing vehicle fleets used by the PEs are obsolete and should be replaced; the frequency of waste collection (emptying of containers), as described in section 6.2.2; the volume of generated solid waste (average year considered 2020).

Municipality
20 m3 MavrovoRostuse Gostivar Vrapciste Bogovinje Tetovo Brvenica Tearce Zelino Jegunovce TOTAL 5 2 1 1 2 1 12

Waste transportation vehicle capacities

18 m3 15 m3 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 11 m3 Piaggio 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 8 3 18 Sum m3 15 126 35 44 142 20 33 36 18 469 Cost () 130,000 955,000 295,000 385,000 1,045,000 165,000 275,000 290,000 145,000 3,685,000

Table 6.4: Summary of necessary waste transportation vehicles

Four types of waste compactor vehicles with capacities of 11, 15, 18 and 20m3 are proposed to be used. These vehicles will be used for emptying of the 1.1m3 containers and individual household waste bins in areas with suitable access. In addition, smaller open-top vehicles (Piaggio-type) should be used for areas (both urban and rural) that cannot be accessed by compactor vehicles. If necessary, the small vehicles can be emptied directly into the larger compactor vehicles that will transport and deliver the waste to the final disposal location. Required costs for purchasing of the vehicles are considered part of the project investment costs, since modernization of the vehicle fleets (along with upgrading of the waste disposal practice) is paramount for modernization of waste management service on a regional level. It is recommended that the vehicles will be transferred to each individual municipality, and further maintenance and servicing will be responsibility of the service operator employed by the municipality. Thus, the maintenance costs should be covered with the waste fee levied by each municipality. 6.2.4 Waste disposal The current inappropriate landfilling practices of all municipalities/PEs was identified as one of the most important shortfalls related to SWM in the NW Region. Thus, given the high environmental and health risks caused by the existing waste disposal practices, it has been concluded that there is an urgent need for the municipalities to ensure that generated waste, besides being collected and transported efficiently, is also disposed of in an environmentally safe manner, i.e. according to the standards and requirements of the EU Waste Landfill Directive (199/31/EC). However, taking into consideration the current economic situation in the country, i.e. the affordability of the local population to cover capital and operating expenses of a modern landfill, the consulting team made an effort to design a system that would be reliable, efficient and affordable. Results of the field work and analysis carried out in this respect, as well as recommendations drawn out of the analysis regarding establishment of a regional sanitary waste disposal facility, are presented further in this section of the Study.

35

Landfill site identification The identification and selection of a site suitable for construction of a sanitary landfill to satisfy requirements of a wider area (region) is a complex task. The site should comply with a number of technical considerations (e.g. environmental, planning, financial and economic criteria, etc.), but as well with important political criteria/issues (e.g. transparency of the selection process and final acceptance of the site by the local population and decision makers). Based on prior experience that the political aspects are often more difficult to be met, the consulting team designed the potential site identification process in two steps. Namely, in the first step the existing municipal landfill sites and other potential sites that are recommended by the local communities in the Region were evaluated against their ability to receive the expected volume of waste generated (based on the waste generation forecast) during the analyzed project period. It is alleged that sites that are currently used for disposal of waste and sites that are identified by the local population as suitable would more easily meet the political criteria, if the technical aspects are satisfied. In the case the first step does not lead to appropriate results, separate site selection will follow as a second step. During the first step, the local municipalities in the NW Region recommended eight locations, shown in Table 6.5 and in Annex 1, as potential sites for locating either regional (central) or sub-regional (to serve a group of municipalities) landfill.

Location
Matov Rid, Jegunovce Markov Zid, Zelino Krasta 1 and 2, Brvenica Dolna Lesica and Erebino, Zelino Rusino, Gostivar Susicki Most, Gostivar Vrapciste landfill Bogovinje landfill

Type
Publicly owned land Publicly owned land Publicly owned land Publicly owned land Existing municipal landfill Existing municipal landfill Existing municipal landfill Existing municipal landfill

Table 6.5: Sites recommended for regional landfill by local authorities

Site assessment and selection Based on site visits and information from hydro-geological and topographical maps the five potential sites listed in Table 6.5 were firstly evaluated against basic criteria such as ability to accept the expected waste volume, as well as general suitability of the locations for effective use as regional landfill sites. Following the basic assessment, three of the proposed sites Markov Zid, Zelino; Krasta, Brvenica; and Dolna Lesica, Zelino were excluded from further analysis; details regarding the reasons for rejection are shown in the matrix below. The remaining three sites were subject to further analysis. The following Alternatives were identified as potential solutions to the general problem of inappropriate waste disposal: Alternative 1: Four existing municipal landfills (Annex 6) are upgraded to modern sanitary landfill standards, to satisfy needs of the local population according to the following scheme: (1) Susicki Most municipal landfill (near Gostivar), for Gostivar and MavrovoRostusha Municipalities;

36

(2) Vrapciste municipal landfill, for the entire Vrapciste Municipality; (3) Bogovinje municipal landfill, for the entire Bogovinje Municipality; and (4) Rusino landfill (near Gostivar), for: Tetovo, Brvenica, Tearce, Zelino, and Jegunovce Municipalities. Accepted for further analysis or rejected
Rejected

Location

Explanation
Site located at the border of the region (not a central location), indicating high transportation costs; Limited area available for landfilling; Site rejected with previous study. Very limited size available for landfilling; Geological characteristics at the site not favorable for constructing a landfill; Site rejected with previous study. Site located close to Rasce (Skopje water supply system) feeding area; Site located at the border of the region (not a central location), indicating high transportation costs; Limited area available for landfilling.

Markov Zid, Zelino

Krasta , Brvenica

Rejected

Dolna Lesica, Zelino

Rejected

Alternative 2A: Two sub-regional sanitary landfills (Annex 7): (1) Susicki Most municipal landfill (near Gostivar), only for the entire Gostivar Municipality; and (2) Rusino landfill (near Gostivar), for the other eight municipalities.

Alternative 2B: Two sub-regional sanitary landfills (Annex 8): (1) Susicki Most municipal landfill (near Gostivar), for Gostivar, Vrapciste, Bogovinje and Mavrovo-Rostuse Municipalities, and (2) Matov Rid municipal landfill (Jegunovce), for Tetovo, Brvenica, Tearce, Zelino and Jegunovce Municipalities.

Alternative 2C: Two sub-regional sanitary landfills (Annex 9): (1) Susicki Most municipal landfill (near Gostivar), for Gostivar, Vrapciste, Bogovinje and Mavrovo-Rostuse Municipalities; (2) Tetovo, Brvenica, Tearce, Zelino, and Jegunovce Municipalities transport and deposit waste at the Drisla landfill near Skopje.

Alternative 3A: One central (regional) sanitary landfill in Rusino, Gostivar with transfer station in near the town of Tetovo; Annex 10. Alternative 3B: One central (regional) sanitary landfill in Rusino, Gostivar without transfer station; Annex 10.

The rationale behind delineating the Alternatives as listed is the following: Four sub-regional landfills: The Polog Valley and the Mavrovo National Park cover major part of the territory within the Region plus important part of the Regions territory is within the protected area of the Skopje water supply system (Rasce springs), and as these areas are extremely sensitive to environmental pollution there are very limited possibilities for locating a separate sanitary landfill in each

37

municipality or locating a site for establishing a local central landfill that will serve the entire Region. Thus, it makes sense to assess the feasibility of constructing few smaller sub-regional sanitary landfills that will on the one side each cover a cluster of municipalities (use the economies of scale potential), and on the other side minimize the waste transportation distance particularly from larger waste generators (the towns of Tetovo and Gostivar) to the final disposal site. Two sub-regional landfills: There are two larger municipalities, Tetovo and Gostivar, who collectively generate over 80% of the waste, thus it makes sense to minimize the waste transportation distance from these generators to the final disposal site. One central landfill with transfer station: Similar reasoning as above, but taking into consideration that the Tetovo Municipality uses the Rusino landfill for final waste disposal at present, hence assessing the implementability of substituting its pertinent sub-regional sanitary landfill with transfer station appears as potentially feasible. One central landfill without transfer station: Given the fact that costs for landfill construction and operation according to modern standards are the major expense items in SWM, due to economies of scale considerations, establishing one central waste disposal site for the entire Region would be a cost-effective solution.

Further assessment of the Alternatives included carrying out a basic least-cost analysis, based on which identified Alternatives are compared and ultimately the most feasible one selected. The least-cost analysis is based on assumed full cost recovery, and comparison of indicative costs per ton of waste collected, transported and deposited, as well as total annual operating and maintenance costs for a reference year 2022. The costs per ton of waste disposal (landfilling) include: infrastructure (civil works), airspace, operation, municipal charge, restoration, and aftercare. The Alternatives are compared on equal terms, that is it is assumed that in all the cases there will be a fully new landfill constructed. The unit input waste disposal costs (Euro/ton) and transportation costs (Euro/ton/km) are calculated based on data from the NSWMP 2006 2012. For Alternative 3A, the unit costs for long-haul transport of waste (Euro/ton/km) are assumed to be 50% of the standard16 unit transportation costs; the unit costs for temporary disposal and operation of the transfer station are assumed to be 25% of the unit landfilling costs. Summary data of the least-cost analysis and comparison of analyzed Alternatives is presented in Table 6.6. More detailed information is shown in Annex 11.
Average disposal costs (/ton) Alternative 1 Alternative 2A Alternative 2B Alternative 2C Alternative 3A Alternative 3B 18.48 14.39 13.66 13.47 13.51 11.73 Average transportation costs (/ton) 9.88 10.35 9.67 12.46 9.99 10.56 Total disposal + transport cost (/ton) 28.36 24.74 23.33 25.93 23.50 22.29

Total annual costs () 2,347,625 2,048,221 1,931,578 2,147,118 1,945,821 1,844,908

Table 6.6: Summary of least-cost analysis

With the comparison of the indicative base costs per ton for waste transport and disposal, it is concluded that Alternative 3B constructing one central (regional) sanitary landfill in Rusino near Gostivar without transfer station is the most feasible solution for waste disposal in the NW Region.
16

I.e. when transport to the disposal site is made with waste collection/compaction vehicles. 38

Description of proposed technical solution for construction of regional sanitary landfill Provided below is a brief description of the required technical design criteria, as well as adopted design elements and requirements for construction of a central, modern sanitary landfill for the NW Region. All of the landfill elements are based on, and abide to, the most stringent up-to-date national and EU standards and legislation17. As described before, it is proposed that the existing municipal landfill Rusino, at present used for waste disposal mainly by the Tetovo municipality and occasionally by other smaller municipalities from the Region, to be upgraded to meet modern standards and be used as a final sanitary disposal site for the entire NW Region. Location and topography: The site is located at a distance of roughly 8 km south-west from the town of Gostivar, along the local Gostivar-Dolna Banjica-Gjonovica road, and at an altitude of 800 masl on the slopes of Mountain Bukovik (Annex 13). The area is located in a mild depression at the beginning of the Suva Reka valley. The wider location has relatively minor watershed (catchment area). The site is slightly opened to the North, i.e. towards the town of Gostivar, where the existing access road is constructed. The area currently used for waste disposal is mainly flat, and it is not fenced. The wider site area is a natural, forest terrain. The site is visually hidden from all directions, and at a distance greater than 2.5 km from the nearest village of Cerovo. Construction of a landfill at the referenced site is not in any way limited by the location or topographic conditions, which are considered favorable for the purpose. Ownership: Based on information from the local authorities in Gostivar, the land at the site is a public property, part of which is at present used as a waste disposal facility by the Tetovo Municipality. However, the wider location, which is in deed a clay pit, has been given under a concession agreement to a local brick manufacturer based in Gostivar. At present the concessionaire excavates clay from the site and uses it for own brick production. The exact ownership rights of the land were not determined on the basis of Cadastre data during preparation of this Pre-feasibility Study. However, given the facts that the availability of residual clay deposits are estimated to serve the purpose of excavation for brick production for not more that 5 to 6 additional years, as well as that the site is already used for final waste disposal and moreover there is already sufficient excavated (open) area for further waste disposal roughly within the succeeding 10 years, the land ownership is considered not limiting factor for landfill construction. Geology: This pre-feasibility assessment did not include detailed in-situ investigations to identify geological conditions at the analyzed site. However, based on data from previous studies18 the soil structure at the site base consists of clay layers with minimum depth of 2.5m., and permeability between 10-7 to 10-8 m/sec. Furthermore, based on information from geological and hydro-geological maps for the wider region (Annex 12), the sub-base layer is defined as phylitic and marl layers with thickness above 20m. Presence of groundwater is not expected, as such soil types due to their low permeability are not adequate for groundwater circulation. Precipitation water rather turns into surface run off than to percolate into the ground. The present state of knowledge regarding geology and hydro-geology of the site indicate that the required conditions for a landfill location listed at the EU-landfill directive are fulfilled. Nevertheless, detailed in-situ investigations and laboratory analysis will be necessary to verify the sites suitability. Given the necessity of the investigations, in addition to the limited costs

EU Waste Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). Main Design for Construction of Temporary Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rusino, PEMAEngineering dooel, Skopje; December 2003.
18

17

39

for carrying out such analysis, it is proposed that this is the primary consequent project preparation step to be undertaken. Available waste disposal volume and landfill area requirements: As noted before, the Rusino site has been used for waste disposal by the Tetovo Municipality for the past 2.5 years; the volume of existing waste deposits is estimated to be approximately 120,000 m3. The forecasted total waste volume during the analyzed project period equals 2.2 million m3. Based on rough topographical survey conducted at the site during April-May 2008 using basic GPS technology, the total available area at which waste deposal activities can start after undertaking minor additional preparatory civil works equals approximately 8 ha (80,000 m2); it is estimated that a total of 1.58 million m3 of waste deposits can be contained within the already available landfill space (Annex 14). Furthermore, it is estimated that the total required surface area to enable sufficient airspace volume for the entire volume of waste generated during the analyzed project period (2010 through 2035), including space/volume requirements for daily soil covering and temporary sealing, as well as observing a proper geometry (inclination) of waste deposits slopes, equals 13.5 ha (135,000 m2). It is concluded that the site conditions can meet the requirements for the necessary extension of 5.5 ha, including availability of clay sub-base soil suitable for waste disposal according to EU regulations19. Nevertheless, there is also a need for additional area that will be used for locating landfill infrastructure elements, such as: a leachate treatment plant, gas flaring plant, administration building, etc. Hence, as appropriate for the purpose though not publicly owned land is available within the site surroundings, it is accepted that additional land of approximately 2.0 ha (20,000 m2) will be purchased and used as part of the regional landfill. Access to the site: There is a 4 to 5-meter-wide road, with mainly compacted gravel (unpaved) surface and length of approximately 7 km, used for access to the site at present (Annex 13). The road is not suitable for proper use by heavy waste transportation vehicles. Moreover, as the roads starting point is on the far South-west end (suburb) of the town of Gostivar, in order to get access from/to the main Tetovo-Gostivar highway vehicles arriving from other municipalities need to pass right through the Gostivar town center. Therefore, and since construction of a central, regional landfill at the analyzed Rusino site will certainly result in major traffic increase, it is proposed that a new access road is constructed to serve the purpose of trouble-free-use of the landfill during the analyzed 25-year period; the existing road should only be used by waste transportation vehicles coming from the town of Gostivar and several neighboring settlements, as well as a stand-by option in the case access from the new road becomes hindered for a short period of time. The new access road, with an approximate length of 3.2 km, will be connected to the main regional road Gostivar-Kicevo close to the village of Cerovo (Annex 13). The road should be of substantial construction, with width of 6-meters and asphalt surface. Provisions of additional financing for construction of the access road are considered in the Study, and details are provided further. Landfill Base improvement: Properly designed and constructed sub-base liner system is required in order to prevent possible escape of contaminants from landfill waste into underlying soils and ground water, as well as for enabling controlled collection and removal of landfill leachate. As reported before, during preparation of the Pre-feasibility Study detailed investigations in order to identify geological conditions at the site were not carried out; however, it is considered that the soil conditions at the location clay deposits with permeability between 10-7 to 10-8 m/sec and depth of over 10 meters enable construction of the landfill following the most stringent standards without the need of installing a HDPE geomembrane liner.

19

More details regarding the EU Landfill Directive requirements that are observed are provided further. 40

Proposed base liner structure includes the following layers (Fig 6.2): Geotextile layer (400gr/m2); Sand and gravel layer, with thickness 0.5 m (over the leacheate drainage system); Geotextile layer (1,200gr/m2).

Prior to commencement of landfilling operations, all existing holes (cavities) at the site should be filled with compacted clay, and the existing terrain graded flat and compacted.

BOTTOM

LINING

Municipal waste Geotextile (400 g/m2) 50 Drainage gravel 16/32, k>10(-3)m/s Drain pipe with Geotextile (200 g/m2) Geotextile (1200 g/m2)

Mineral insulation (natural clay) (k<10(-9)m/s)

Fig 6.2: Landfill base lining

Proposed waste filling (disposal) method: The entire landfilling area is proposed to be divided into 5 equal cells (units), each containing on the average 440,000 m3 of waste, to be filled in with deposited waste in succeeding order (as shown on Fig. 6.3). This will on the one hand enable a minimal volume of leacheate to be treated, while on the other hand easier access by waste transportation vehicles and compaction equipment, thus more efficient operation. The filling of each cell should continue until the desired height of 35 m is reached (roughly during a 5-year period), when the subsequent cell can opened. The maximum slope of waste deposited should be 1:3.5 on each side, except for the side laid over natural terrain slope. The first cell should be located at the far-end side of the area, opposite of where the existing waste deposits are placed. The existing waste deposits at the site should be removed and placed properly within the first landfill cell, gradually over time once the improved landfilling operations start. Daily or temporary/weekly depending on the quantity of waste landfilled covering with soil material to prevent spreading of dust and other nuisance should be placed over deposited and compacted waste. Once a cell is filled with waste and is not expected to receive additional wastes, partial closure (surface sealing) should be applied within 30 days of the final receipt of waste. The partial closure/cover includes the following layers: Mineral insulation (clay) layer, with thickness 0,25m; permeability: 10-9 m/sec; Geotextile layer (1,200gr/m2); Sand and gravel layer, with thickness 0.5 m;

Surface water collection and treatment: Non-polluted surface water consists of rainwater collected from surrounding areas, unused landfill cells, paved areas of the service area, service roads, and from sealed landfill surfaces. The rainwater is derived from the service area by concrete ditches running alongside the landfilling area and paved surfaces. A trench belt should be constructed around the waste landfilling area to prevent surface waters reaching the site. The ditches are connected into the ground ditch of the access road.

41

SITE AMENITIES & SERVICES 1. Entrance, Reception 2. Weight-bridge 3. Tyre-washer 4. Administrative building 5. Parking 6. Machine shed and workshop 7. Truck and container washer 8. Internal and service roads 9. Fence 10. Water supply reservoir (50m ?) 11. Fire protection reservoir (100m ?)

CELLS 12. Waste filling 13. Transverse bank 14. Primeter access road

LEACHATE MANAGEMENT 15. Leachate shaft 16. Leachate collecting main 17. Leachate collecting drains 18. Leachate and rain water buffer shaft 19. Leachate pond 20. Leachate treatment system

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 21. Major Stormwater Diversion (Open canal) 22. Stormwater pond

GAS MANAGEMENT 23. Vertical Exctraction Wells 24. Ring header 25. Flare Station

09

10 11

20 22

07

II Phase

V Phase

05 04

19 15 16

17

03 01

02 20 08

18

13 23

12

25 21

I Phase

06

III Phase

IV Phase

14

24

Fig 6.3: Landfill schematic layout

Drainage and leacheate treatment: Leacheate is a liquid that has passed through, or emerged from, waste deposited at a landfill. The leacheate contains soluble or suspended materials removed from the waste. The leacheate composition and toxicity, in general, depend on the waste decomposition stage. Leacheate generation volume depends on the amount of liquid contained in the waste, as well as the quantity of precipitation that either falls directly over or enters the landfill through the cover material. Due to high concentration of pollutant materials contained in the leacheate, it is imperative that it is collected and treated in proper way before being discharged. It is projected that the leachate will be collected in lateral leachate drain pipes and will be discharged into the main leachate pipe inside the landfill (Fig. 6.3). Each landfill cell should have two lateral drainage pipes on both sides of the main pipe, connected to the main. The leachate will flow by gravity and will be collected in the leachate pond. The leaheate drain pipes (perforated) are of HDPE material, resistant to aggressive liquid and such that can withstand the weight of waste; the pipes should be covered with geotextile material. The diameter of the pipes should be ND 200, but to be exactly determined in the detailed design. Collected leacheate is discharged into a leacheate pond (pre-treatment buffer reservoir), with volume of 6,200m3 (surface area of 2,000m2 and height of 3.5m). Based on rough estimates of the leacheate generation rates, assuming that leacheate will be generated from one functioning landfill cell (detail are given in Annex 15), the capacity of the pond can hold up-to 2 months of leacheate volume generated during normal precipitation periods. The bottom layer of the pond is made of compacted clay material and HDPE geomembrane for sealing. Besides the leacheate pre-treatment pond, another leacheate buffer reservoir stormwater pond is proposed, to enable collection of less-polluted liquid/leacheate generated during heavy precipitation periods. The storm water pond has a capacity of 10,000m3. It should be located close to the leacheate pre-treatment pond, and its bottom layer is with same construction as the pre-treatment pond. The liquid collected in the stormwater pond should be discharged into the ground ditch of the access road. The heavy-polluted leacheate collected into the pre-treatment pond, however, due to high concentrations of pollutants, is subject to further treatment in a leacheate treatment system. There are several alternative wastewater treatment technologies that are used for leacheate

42

treatment, such as: biological (aerobic or anaerobic) treatment; membrane filtration technologies; activated carbon adsorption treatment, etc. Due to lack of land availability, as well as climate and topographic conditions of the wider region around the landfill, it is proposed that leacheate treatment in the case of Rusino landfill is made by standard wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) based on classical biological (aerobic) treatment technology. Capacity of the plant is 180 m3/day. The exact processes and dimensions of the plant should be subject of the detailed design for the landfill; provisions regarding required investment costs are taken into consideration in this Study. Landfill gas treatment: Besides leacheate, another by-product of waste landfilling which is a direct consequence of anaerobic decomposition of organic substances, is generation of landfill gas. The composition of municipal landfill gas depends primarily on microbial processes and reactions in deposited waste. The landfill gas contains methane and carbon dioxide, usually in 50:50 ratio; of special concern is the methane. Because of toxic and explosive characteristics of the landfill gas, its migration should be monitored and limited. There are a variety of methods that can be used to estimate the methane generation at landfills. For purpose of this pre-feasibility assessment of the potential methane generation from the Rusino landfill, the USEPAs Landfill Gas Emission Model has been used. Input data for the model was developed from review of available information. The total gas generation potential during the lifetime of the landfill is estimated to equal 350 million m3 (Fig 6.4).

PROJECTED METHANE EMISSIONS, Landfill Rusino

12,000,000 400,000,000

350,000,000 10,000,000 300,000,000 8,000,000 250,000,000

(m3/year)

6,000,000

200,000,000

150,000,000 4,000,000 100,000,000 2,000,000 50,000,000

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085

0 2090 2095 2100

(year)

Fig 6.4: Methane emission potential of the Rusino landfill

Landfill gas control systems may be passive or active, depending on the way the gas is removed from the waste. An active degasifying system with vertical gas collection shafts/wells is proposed to be constructed. Each well has a collection radius of approximately 30m. The gas wells are installed gradually during waste filling. The wells are connected to a ring piping surrounding the waste landfilling area. A vacuum pump will provide the required pressure in the landfill body which guarantees active degasifying at a high gas collection rate. The gas will be directed to a landfill gas flare system where the gas will be incinerated at temperatures of about 800 1,000C. Due to time required for decomposition of deposited waste and start of landfill gas emission in substantial amount (Fig. 6.4), it is proposed that the vacuum pump and gas flare system are installed in 2015.

(m3)

43

Other landfill infrastructure: Other construction elements that are part of the landfill and necessary for proper daily operation of landfilling activities include (Fig. 6.3): Entrance (reception); Site accommodation/landfill administration building, with a total area of 150 m2; Weighbridge, with capacity of 40 tons; Roof-only area for vehicle and landfill machinery storage, with total area of 500 m2; Water reservoirs for (1) sanitary water 50 m3; and (2) fire protection 100 m3; Electricity Vehicle washing area; Fence; Ring road (unpaved), alongside the entire landfilling and service area.

Landfill closure and aftercare: Modern EU and other standards regarding municipal landfill construction and use require that any landfill is properly closed (sealed) the end of their utilization period20. The surface sealing (cover) should: (1) minimize filtration of surface water into the waste; (2) promote sound surface drainage; (3) resist erosion; (4) prevent slope failure; (4) restrict landfill gas migration; (5) improve aesthetics; (6) protect vector incidence, etc. It is proposed that the regional municipal landfill Rusino, at the end of its useful life (in 2035), be closed by applying the following surface lining (Fig. 6.5): Top-soil cover, with thickness 1m Humus cover, with thickness 0.4m Geotextile layer (400gr/m2) Mineral drainage (sand and gravel) layer, with thickness 0.5m Mineral clay layer, in two layers 2 x 0.25m Geotextile layer (400gr/m2) Gas gravel layer, with thickness 0.5 m
SURFACE LINING
Grassing biological reclamation

Topsoil covering the upper 40 cm contains humus

100

Geotextile (400 g/m2) Mineral drainage (k>10(-4)m/s) or eqivalent geosynthetic drain 50 50 25 25

Mineral insulation (clay) k<10(-9)m/s Geotextile (400 g/m2)

Gas removal layer sandy gravel, construction waste

H waste

50

Municipal waste

Fig 6.5: Landfill closure (surface sealing) layers

Investment costs for landfill construction:

20

Waste Landfill Directive (199/31/EC). 44

Estimated total investment cost for construction and closure of the Rusino landfill equals 12,040,524. More detailed breakdown of the investment is provided in Section 9 and Annex 17. The construction schedule distinguishes 6 phases, i.e. opening of landfill cells. The investment is also scheduled to take place in 6 phases, recapitulated as follows:

Year Investment cost

2010 5,811,179

2015 1,448,304

2020 1,228,304

2025 1,228,304

2030 1,228,304

2035 2,672,374

7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Fig 6.6: Schedule of investment for landfill construction

6.3 Management of hazardous, industrial and construction waste 6.3.1 Industrial hazardous and non-hazardous waste As elsewhere in the country, the industrial sector of the NW Region is restructuring. Old industrial companies have either gone out of the market or significantly reduced their production volume; some of them try to survive by renting out redundant production facilities to entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, there is a significant number of new small- to mid-size ventures/production capacities that have emerged and prospered during the past 7-8 years in the Region. Analysis of industrial waste generation was not the primary focus of activities carried out with the Survey for this pre-feasibility assessment. However, based on the partial information collected with the Survey, as well as data from other SWM studies (above all the NSWMP 2006 2012), the total volume of industrial waste in the Region excluding waste from mining activities is estimated to be approximately 5,000 8,000 t/year. The fraction of nonhazardous vs. hazardous industrial waste, however, is not known. Based on data from the NSWMP 2006 2012, mining processes generate the biggest quantities of hazardous waste. The largest industrial hot-spot (contaminated site) in the NW Region is in Jegunovce Municipality used by a ferrosilicon producer Silmak; the waste deposits of the plant equal 850,000 m3. Non-hazardous industrial waste is considered to be the bulky21 waste generated by industrial plants that does not create threat to the environment. In most cases this waste has the same characteristics as the construction and demolition waste. Regarding further disposal of this waste, it is recommended that first, following the enforcement of the IPPC Directive/ regulation, separation (separate collection) of the non-hazardous from the hazardous waste takes place at the industrial plants. Consequently, the separated non-hazardous industrial waste can be either deposited on-site, or transported and disposed of on the regional landfill
As described before, the municipal-like waste generated by the industries is collected and transported by the PEs. It is considered that this practice will be sustained in the future. 45
21

(to be possibly used for daily covering of MW), or disposed of at designated landfills for construction and demolition waste. Based on the National Waste Management Strategy and the NSWMP 2006 2012 the management of hazardous industrial waste is not a local but national problem. Provided below are recommendations for hazardous waste management in the NW Region, extracted from the NSWMP 2006 2012 and refer to the country as a whole: 1) Big generators of hazardous waste, like Silmak, should be obliged to solve their own waste problem by remediation of their existing on-site landfill, and/or by construction of appropriately located hazardous waste disposal facility; For small hazardous waste generators the national government should create proper collection and disposal options, such as licensed transporters, regional collection depots, and a central hazardous waste processing and disposal facility. Industries should pay for the removal of hazardous waste; The hazardous waste disposal facilities should include a secured landfill for the short term, completed on longer term with hazardous waste incineration; The government should encourage and eventually enforce, through IPPC permitting and inspection, adequate in-plant hazardous waste management and to raise awareness by publishing adequate information and awareness materials.

2)

3) 4)

6.3.2 Construction and demolition waste As reported before, at present the construction and demolition waste also poses a particular problem since it is present in significant amounts, and with few exceptions (e.g. the town of Tetovo) it is being indiscriminately dumped by the generators at illegal dumps, ravines, along public roads, riverbeds, etc. There is no enforcement of legislation to advise, direct or penalize companies who are responsible for this type of indiscriminate dumping. The construction and demolition waste material is suitable for sealing and capping of existing illegal waste dump sites, as well as for daily covering of the MW deposited at the regional landfill. The municipalities, along with the environmental inspectorates, must take full responsibility for ensuring that construction and demolition companies are forced to deposit their excess material on abandoned or disused old waste landfills, or at a suitable location on the regional landfill. The clearance of existing demolition waste dumped in the countryside, should be the responsibility of each individual municipality. 6.3.3 Medical waste Medical waste is generally defined as any solid waste that is generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals. The medical waste represents a special type of hazardous waste. However, in spite of the existence of a basic legislation as well as instruction manuals for safe management of medical waste that have been developed locally and distributed to all health institutions in the country22, in general the management of this waste in the country is inappropriate. Firstly, due to lack of official reporting procedures in place the exact volume of medical waste generated is not known; for the entire country it is estimated to be approximately 900-1,000 t/year23. Secondly, a fact that was also confirmed by majority of PEs during the Survey conducted for this project, the medical waste is being separated by most of the health institutions, but afterwards mixed with communal waste and deposited on existing landfills24.

22 State Institute for Health Protection: Manual for Safety Management (Kendrovski et al., 2000), and Instruction for Safety Management of Solid Medical Waste (Kocubovski at al., 2000); Source: Regional Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Study for Central-East Macedonia. 23 Source: same as above. 24 With the exception of Skopje and Kumanovo that use an incinerator for medical waste located at the Drisla landfill site.

46

Alike the other hazardous waste, the management of medical waste is not a local but national problem, which requires close co-operation between several national institutions such as the MOEPP, MOH, hospitals, inspectorates, etc. Furthermore, the development of a system for management of medical waste is a sensitive issue, since it is likely that it will reduce scarce funds for health care. For the NW Region as a whole it is recommended to closely follow the developments regarding expected establishment of a medical waste management system on a national level and undertake all necessary activities for becoming a part of that system. Main role in this respect should be devolved to the Regional SWM Public Enterprise proposed to be established25 6.4 Reclamation and closure of existing municipal landfills and illegal dumps With the analysis of data gathered with the Survey, it was concluded that current waste disposal practices at both official municipal landfills and illegal dumps are at an extremely low level, resulting in deposits of waste disposed of improperly and causing significant threat to human health and environmental pollution. Hence, the need for reclamation, closure (cleanup) of existing municipal landfills operated by PEs and illegal village dumps was identified as one of the imminent problems that need to be addressed. On the other hand, however, it is obvious that the remediation is likely to cost a significant amount of money that may put pressure on (impede) the establishment of the new Regional SWM System, which triggers careful examination of the issue. This section describes an adopted methodology for classification of the existing landfills with respect to the environmental and health threat posed, and provides recommendation for their reclamation or clean-up. 6.4.1 Identification and classification of municipal landfills The identification of existing landfills was carried out through the Survey conducted for the project. A total of 326 (official/authorized) major municipal landfills operated by responsible PEs were identified in the Region and were analyzed. The hazard potential of the municipal landfills is defined by the following parameters: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Area of the landfill and volume of waste deposits; Characteristics (toxicity and mobility/leachability) of waste deposited; Containment (leachability/permeability) of the site; Distance to aquifer; Precipitation values; Presence of nearby surface water and the beneficial use of the resource;

The key hazards associated with the landfills are: (1) contamination of ground waters; (2) contamination of surface waters; (3) potential for landfill-gas generation; and (4) direct exposure to contaminated soil, sharp objects or hazardous gasses. The risk due to each hazard is a function of the probability of occurrence and consequence of occurrence, which are a function of:
25 26

Contaminant source: quantity/size of the landfill and characteristics of the waste deposits; Containment: absence or presence of soil cap, and the characteristics of the cap

More details regarding institutional setup for the Regional SWM System are provided further. The Rusino landfill near Gostivar is not taken into consideration here, since it is proposed to be upgraded to regional landfill. 47

(permeability) if present; Transport pathway: distance to ground/surface water, rainfall values, etc.; Receptor model: type of beneficial use of surface/ground water (low, for irrigation, stock water, etc.).

In order to classify the environmental risk of the municipal landfills, above-listed hazard potential parameters (1 to 6) have been quantified and their potential hazard expressed with values 0.4 to 1 depending on assessed influence potential for each of the four hazard areas. The assessment is based on data gathered with the Survey, site visits, and information from hydro-geological, geological and topography maps. Average value of all analyzed parameters for each hazard area is consequently calculated, as well as an average value for the landfill as a whole, based on which prioritization of the need for remediation of the existing landfills is determined. The ranking/prioritization is assumed to be: Average risk value 0.2 0.4 0.1- <0.2 0.001 - <0.1 Risk categorization High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Priority for reclamation I II III

Table 6.7: Risk categories for closure of existing landfills and dumps

Summary of the ranking of the existing municipal landfills in the Region is shown in Table 6.8, below; detailed calculation is presented in Annex 16. 6.4.2 Proposed concept for reclamation of municipal landfills The purpose of the reclamation is to reduce any further negative influence of the existing municipal landfills to the environment: surface water, ground water, air and soil. All existing landfills will require considerable earthworks to compress/condense the scattered waste deposits over large surface area into smaller area, and to configure slopes for covering with top mineral insulation. Depending on the assessed ranking (risk potential classes), the reclamation of the analyzed landfills is proposed to be with the following layers: Priority I (all) landfills (Fig. 6.5): Top-soil cover, with thickness 1m Humus cover, with thickness 0.4m Mineral drainage (sand and gravel) layer, with thickness 0.5m Geotextile layer (20gr/m2) Mineral layer (clay), in two layers 2 x 0.25m Gas gravel layer, with thickness 0.5 m
Hazard Area Gas Risk Average score Surface Contact Surface Water Ground Water Municipal Landfill Priority I I I
48

Susicki Most, Gostivar (the landfill currently in use) Bogovinje, (construction waste) Railway Station, Tetovo (construction waste)

0.32 0.24 0.056

0.32 0.24 0.013

0.224 0.24 0.040

0.224 0.24 0.040

0.272 0.240 0.037

Table 6.8: Summary of priority ranking for closure of existing municipal landfills in NW Region

The average assessed unit costs for reclamation per square meter, depending on the landfill class, equal:

Reclamation priority I II III

Cost /m2 32.75 21.75 18.25

Table 6.9: Unit costs for reclamation of municipal landfills according to risk class

Based on the assessed unit costs for reclamation, the total investment is calculated and presented in Table 6.10. Average score
0.272 0.240 0.037

Municipal Landfill
Susicki Most, Gostivar (the landfill currently in use) Bogovinje, (construction waste) Railway Station, Tetovo (construction waste) Total

Priority
I I I

Area (m2)
21,000 15,000 30,000

Invest. Costs ()
687,750 326,250 547,500 1,561,500

Table 6.10: Summary of investment costs for closure of existing municipal landfills in NW Region

6.4.3 Closure of illegal village dumps As depicted before, a number of rural settlements in the Region that at present do not receive any waste collection service at all deposit their waste at village dumps; some villages even have two or more such dumps. The number of these dumpsites is so big that it was practically impossible to determine their exact number within the scope of activities for this pre-feasibility assessment. The Survey identified only the larger (permanent) such dumpsites in every municipality. The village dumps do create a very unpleasant appearance and landscape disturbance, but it is considered that they do not pose significant threat to the environment. It is considered most practical that along with establishment of the regional SWM system and expansion of the SWM service to currently un-serviced settlements in the Region, these dumpsites should be cleaned of all deposited waste and either fully closed (abandoned) for further use or fenced and used for depositing of construction and demolition waste only. Further illegal dumping of municipal waste on such illegal dumps should be strictly prohibited. It is recommended that the municipalities being in charge for SWM within their boundaries should assume full responsibility for cleaning and closure of these sites, and for monitoring whether the disposal ban is observed. It should be pointed out that any violation of the rule for prohibiting illegal (no-cost) disposal of municipal waste threatens proper operation if not the existence of the Regional SWM System.

49

7. MSW Service Organization and Management

7.1 Purpose At present the organization of SWM in the NW Region is such that each municipality has either its own PE or private service provider (PSP) carrying out waste collection and transport to the nearest municipal landfill or village dump. The establishment of the service on a regional level will certainly entail changes of this pattern, the least being imposed longer transportation distances and payment of landfilling (tipping) fee. Furthermore, once the service is regionalized, there will be a need for an organization that will be responsible for management of the systems regional aspects. Description of proposed institutional and organizational aspects for organizing the analyzed Regional SWM system is provided further in this Section. 7.2 Potential SWM Organization Alternatives Alternatives for organization of SWM on a regional basis are: 1. Municipalities retain their own PEs/PSPs: as the regional landfill is commissioned and the municipal landfills are decommissioned, the existing PEs or PSPs carrying out the service at present will continue with waste collection activities within the territories of their municipalities and begin transporting the waste (except for the host municipality) to the central landfill. The major changes in this respect are the imposed cost for landfilling as well as increased transportation costs. Major obstacle appears to be the divergent transportation costs, as the distance from each municipality to the central disposal site is dissimilar. 2. One company public or private becomes responsible for the service on the entire region. Due to economies of scale considerations, this solution is in all probability expected to be the most efficient one. The solution can emerge from merger of several PEs, or by engaging outside privately owned service operator or strategic investor, though it is believed to be practically unworkable as a starting point for the NW Region. 3. Some combination of the above: meaning that as the central landfill is commissioned and PEs start transporting waste over longer distances it will become apparent that low capacity waste collection trucks used by small PEs are not cost-effective. Hence, there is a possibility that some PEs will merge into one larger enterprise covering two or more municipalities, or several municipalities might opt to engage a PSP company that will again cover a wider area. 7.3 Recommended MSW Service Organization Above-listed alternatives were analyzed in view of their: (1) efficiency; (2) practicality with respect to proposed technical concept for regionalization of the SWM service and assumed political willingness for changes; and (3) associated implementation risks. As described before commissioning of one central sanitary landfill for the entire Region is proposed, which will bring about the following needs/issues: Ownership of the regional landfill Obligation for payment of landfill fees Management of other regional aspects.

Based on the assessment, it is proposed that basically above-listed organizational Alternative 1: Municipalities retain their own PEs/PSPs, is used as model at the initiation of the SWM regionalization. Further on, as the experience of municipalities progresses, it is possible that

50

some municipalities might move on to implementing some of the forms described above under Alternative 3.

Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning Regional SWM Enterprise

Landfill Operator

Municipalities (1, 2.X)

Municipal Public Enterprise or Private Service Provider (1)

Municipal Public Enterprise or Private Service Provider (2)

Municipal Public Enterprise or Private Service Provider (3)

Municipal Public Enterprise or Private Service Provider (X)

End service users: households, public institutions, commercial companies, industry

Funds flow Information flow

Funds flow

Fig. 7.1: Institutional Structure for Regional Solid Waste Management

Furthermore, it is proposed that the municipalities establish a separate regional organization Regional SWM Public Enterprise (RSWMPE) that will own the landfill, become responsible entity for implementation of the project, as well as manage and co-ordinate all related regional aspects of the SWM system. Proposed organizational scheme, along with the formal links, funds and information flows between the organizations, is presented in Figure 7.1. Daily operation of the regional landfill is proposed to be entrusted by the RSWMPE under a service contract to a specialized Landfill Operator (LO), either public or private company with experience in managing waste disposal operations. Details regarding the roles and responsibilities of all organizations/stakeholders either directly involved or in other way connected to the proposed SWM system organization is provided further. 7.3.1Roles and Responsibilities of Organizations Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MOEPP) Permitting: issuing operating licenses to LO and PEs/PSPs; Inspection: Monitoring and control of the state of environment and SWM operation on regional and local/municipal level; Coordination with RSWMPE on all regulatory, permitting and reporting requirements.

51

Regional SWM Public Enterprise (RSWMPE) The RSWMPE should be established by municipalities that agree to organize be part of the Regional SWM system, according to the Law on Public Works, Law on Waste Management and Law on Local Self-Government. The founding of the organization should be initiated by adoption of Establishment Act, to be signed by all interested pertaining municipalities, which will regulate the relationship, obligations, scope of activities, organizational structure, etc. of the enterprise. Organizations Supervisory and Management Boards should be represented by members from each municipality, elected by the Municipal Councils or Mayors; the number of Board members from each municipality should be set based on the population. Organizations staff should be kept to minimum, though according to the needs, and include professionals that will be hired/contracted to do the job (not municipal employees or current PE staff). It is also possible, as an option, that the organization starts operating as a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) with municipal staff engaged on a temporary basis, and develop into permanent public enterprise once financing for project implementation is secured. Specific responsibilities of the RSWMPE are: Assume prime responsibility for regional SWM system establishment; Secure financing for construction of the regional sanitary landfill and initial equipment purchase; Issue competitive tenders, evaluate offers, select, and sign contracts with landfill construction contractor and LO; Manage re-payment of loans, rental expenses, etc. for the regional SWM system establishment and operation; Monitor the quality of operation of the regional landfill and report to MOEPP and individual municipalities; Make payments (monthly/quarterly/semi-yearly) to the LO for services provided; Plan and manage the system for cross-subsidy of waste transport expenses27: Collect and evaluate monthly reports on SW disposal (submitted by the LO and municipal PEs/PSP) Set-up of differentiated waste disposal fee for each municipality, based on assessed (audited) recurring transportation costs of PEs/PSPs and volume of deposited solid waste Plan and manage the implementation of regional public awareness raising campaign; Advise municipalities on improvement of SWM within their territories.

Municipalities Prime responsibility for SWM on their territories (according to the Law on Waste Management and Law on Local Self-Government): Plan the organization of the SWM service Appoint members to RSWMPE Supervisory and Management Board Decide on what type of organization (PE or PSP) will provide waste collection and transport service on the territory of the Municipality Decide on waste tariff policy and structure (applicable only to service users within the municipal territory) Plan and manage closure/reclamation of existing municipal landfills and dumps Plan and manage the implementation of awareness raising campaign on their territory

27

More information regarding the proposed cross-subsidy model is provide further in the Study. 52

Landfill Operator (LO) The LO should be a private company or public enterprise, specialized in landfill operation activities. It is considered to be more efficient though under no circumstances obligatory that the LO is a private service organization. Reasons for this are: (1) assumed superior expertise and efficiency; (2) assumed higher guarantee for the required service level provision; (3) possibility that municipalities will have a real control over operators performance, etc. Specific responsibilities of the LO are: Carry out daily operation of the regional sanitary landfill, based on a long-term contract signed with the RSWMPE; Report to RSWMP on waste deposits and other landfill operating aspects; Continuously improve the landfill operation efficiency.

Given the limitations of the venture and the lack of experience with private sector involvement in provision of public services, if it is decided that the LO is a privately owned entity, two potential forms/models of public-private-partnerships appear suitable for the case: (1) management contract, and (2) service contract. Municipal Public Enterprises (PE) or Private Service Providers (PSP) Responsible for organization and daily provision of waste collection and transport service within the territory of the Municipality: Carry out waste collection and transport operations, based on set level of services (number of waste collections per week) Gradually increase the service coverage, to include all municipal settlements in the SWMS within a 5-year period Carry out invoicing and monthly collection of waste fees from end serviceusers Make payments for waste disposal costs to RSWMPE Gradually get involved in waste recycling activities (optional) Support municipality in planning and implementation of awareness raising campaign Report to Municipal Boards and RSWMPE

7.3.2 Financial implications related to the Regional MSW service organization The following two aspects are identified as financing implications related to the institutional set-up for regional SWM: Need for cross-subsidies between municipalities to enable equalizing (adjustment) of the diverse transportation costs; Need for initial capitalization of the RSWMPE.

Cross-subsidy model to equalize waste transportation costs There is no prior experience in Macedonia with regionalization of SWM and its consequences, either positive or negative. However, an aspect that appears as a potential quandary regarding the willingness of the municipalities for accepting the model for SWM regionalization as proposed here (i.e. with one central landfill and collection and transportation operations provided by local PEs) is the fact that municipalities which are

53

remote from the landfill will have to bear higher transportation costs. One potential solution to this problem is in a form of establishing a cross-subsidy (transport rebate) system for softening of the higher transportation costs encountered by those municipalities located at a distance from the regional landfill larger than the average. Similar approach is used in other regions/countries facing the same problem, thus it is considered that it would be appropriate for the NW Region in Macedonia too. The model can be most easily applied by adjustments to be made on the landfilling fees levied to the municipalities (i.e. decrease or increase of the base disposal fee), based on calculated difference in transportation costs from each municipal center to the regional landfill. However, it should be underlined that the cross-subsidies should in no way discourage improvement of the local waste collection service and fee collection ratio, as well as impede increasing of the cost-efficiency of local transportation (daily routes) made by the individual PEs/PSPs. Hence, in order an equitable system of cross-subsidies to be created, an adjustment (transitional) period should be allowed that will entail data gathering and careful comparison of the actual costs borne by individual PEs. If the proposed approach is accepted, this would be one of the initial activities of the RSWMPE. Financing of RSWMPE There are a number of activities that need to be implemented for establishment of the RSWMPE. Moreover, it is likely that most of these activities e.g. further project development should take place before financing for actual establishment of the regional SWM system (landfill construction and equipment purchase) is raised; thus some upfront financing from the municipalities will be required, estimated to be 100,000. Accordingly, as mentioned before, it is proposed that the RSWMPE starts operating as a PIU by signing of a Memorandum of Understanding and Co-operation among the municipalities. The PIU should initially proceed with further project preparation including full feasibility assessment, preparation of design documentation, environmental impact assessment, initiation of permitting process, etc. and develop into permanent, professional regional PE once financing of the implementation is secured or becomes obvious. Funding for the initial PIU activities should be made from municipal budgetary allocations.

54

8. Public Participation and Project Promotion

8.1 Project Stakeholders and Roles Analyzed project, i.e. the establishment and sustainable operation of an ISWM System for the NW Region, is a complex task which involves a number of stakeholders organizations (public and private), groups and individuals who either have an interest in success of the project, can contribute/affect at least part of the project, or can directly or indirectly influence the design and implementation of the venture. During preparation of such complex projects, it is important to firstly identify all stakeholders with the purpose of assessing their success criteria and turning these into quality goals. Generally, the stakeholders can have a significant influence on success of the project, such as: The project developer can use the opinions of the stakeholders to shape the projects at an early stage. This not only makes it more likely that the stakeholders will support the project, but their input can also improve the quality of the project; Gaining support from stakeholders can help the developer to gain more resources; By communicating with stakeholders early in the preparation and often, the developer can ensure that they know what is planned to be accomplished and fully understand the benefits of the project; It is possible to anticipate what people's reaction to the project may be, and build into the project plan the actions that will win stakeholder's support.

Provided below, as a first step in the stakeholder management task, is a list of stakeholders related to this project and their roles.

Stakeholders

Interest/role in the project

Primary Stakeholders Project Sponsor; Co-financing entities Project sponsors/proposers Implementing organizations Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Secondary Stakeholders Beneficiaries; Public awareness raising agents Public awareness raising agent Co-financing entities

Potential impact

Central Govt. Organizations Municipalities Public Communal Enterprises Households Business sector Public sector institutions

NGOs Media IFIs and Development Organizations

8.2 Promotional and Awareness Raising Campaign For introduction of any changes in the area of SWM, it is of primary importance for accomplishing planned objectives to thoroughly and duly inform the general population of any planned activities. Therefore, the planning and implementation of promotional campaign to be conducted on a regional level and by each municipality is very important. In order to be successful, a promotional campaign should be initiated at least one month prior to start of any specific activities. It is also necessary to ensure that promotional activities for
55

information dissemination are planned and implemented within each separate affected municipality, as well as the Region as a whole. Dissemination of information can be conducted through preparation of information leaflets, articles in local newspapers, TV broadcasts, etc. containing information regarding specific activities, including time schedule of implementation. At the same time, it is recommended that educational promotional activities in households and schools are carried out, where possible. Detailed planning of the project promotional campaign should be undertaken at a later stage within the project preparation activities. At this early stage of project preparation (i.e. prefeasibility assessment), it is important to note that the cost of these activities is considered part of the total project costs, thus are taken into consideration in the financial analysis. In general, given the importance, the campaign is assumed to be continuous and take place over an extended period of time 2010 through 2016. The total estimated costs of the campaign equal 175,000.

56

9. Financial Analysis of the Project

The purpose of the project financial analysis is two-fold: (1) to assess the financial viability (financial cost-benefit) of the analyzed project from the project beneficiaries point of view; (2) to assess the affordability of the local communities in the Polog Region to bear the required waste tariffs, hence to assess the financial sustainability of the project. These aspects are of particular importance taking into consideration that the proposed ISWM system itself represents an entirely new concept and in deed, practically, an entirely new SWM System for the local communities in the Region. 9.1 Assumptions and approach The approach followed in the financial analysis is that of a standard Benefit-Cost Analysis, with emphasis on financial criteria regarding continued and sustainable operation of a new SWM system with: (1) increased (all-inclusive) waste collection service coverage throughout the entire Polog Region; (2) improved waste collection and transport practices; and (3) new regional sanitary landfill Rusino near Gostivar. The analysis period covers 26 years (2010 through 2035), including one 0-year (2010) as implementation initiation period, while 2011 has been chosen as the first year of operation. All benefits and costs have been valued in 2010 prices. All calculations in this Section are done in Euro. Project revenues, costs and net benefits are estimated in constant prices. The estimate also does not include VAT. The project implementation schedule, particularly with regard to the landfill construction, distinguishes 6 distinct phases, as explained in detail in Section 6.2.4 and recapitulated as follows: Phase 1: Procurement of new 1.1m3 waste collection containers and transportation vehicles + construction of landfill section/cell 1 + landfill infrastructure installation (2010 and 2011); Phase 2: Construction of landfill section 2 + partial surface sealing of section 1 (2015); Phase 3: Construction of landfill section 3 + partial surface sealing of section 2 (2020); Phase 4: Construction of landfill section 4 + partial surface sealing of section 3 (2025); Phase 5: Construction of landfill section 5 + partial surface sealing of section 4 (2030); Phase 6: Full landfill closure (surface sealing 2035) + aftercare (assume period of 25 years following the closure).

Cost of facilities and equipment which will still exist prior to the start-up of the new SWM system, where and if applicable, have been regarded as sunk costs and consequently have not been taken into consideration. Residual values of assets with an economic life beyond the analysis period, however, have been considered although their value because of discounting practices becomes negligible. Assumed discount rate (opportunity cost of capital) is 9%, considered to be the appropriate rate with regard to financial evaluation of infrastructure projects such as waste disposal services in Macedonia on a regional (not national) level; in addition the 9% rate is assumed to include the effect of inflation over the project period. However, an alternative rate of 5% has also been applied as a proxy for widened judgement.

57

The financial viability of the recommended SWM concept is judged on the basis of two decision criteria, as follows: Net Present Value (NPV); and Internal rate of Return (IRR).

9.2 Financial Cost-benefit Analysis 9.2.1 Project costs The following categories of costs are taken into consideration in the analysis: (1) investment costs; (2) operating and maintenance (O&M) costs; (3) replacement costs; and (4) other costs not included in the listed categories. Each of these categories is discussed further. Investment costs Project investment (capital) costs consist of three major components, which collectively include all essential expenditures for establishment and sustainable daily operation of the regional SWM system. The investment components include: (1) purchase of 1.1m3 waste collection containers; (2) purchase of waste transportation vehicles; and (3) landfill construction, including purchase of landfill equipment. The investment costs are determined based on operational and structural requirements. The operational requirements, design criteria, basic technical designs and cost estimates have been explained in Sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.4 of this Report. The overall estimated investment needs equal: 17,476,977. Summary breakdown by each component and the total investment needs are presented in Table 9.1; detailed information regarding the investment is given in Annex 17.
% of Total Investment 10.0% 21.1% 68.9% 100.0%

Investment Component Waste collection containers Waste transport vehicles Landfill construction Total Investment Cost

Cost () 1,751,453 3,685,000 12,040,524 17,476,977

Table 9.1: Summary of project investment costs

As explained before, construction of the regional sanitary landfill is scheduled to take place in 6 phases, hence estimated total investment for the construction is also distributed into the listed phases. More detailed breakdown of the landfill construction investment distinguishing major cost items is given in Table 9.2. All unit costs used in the assessment are assumed to comprise freight and installation (where necessary). Value added tax has not been taken into account. In order to account for uncertainties in planning, a physical contingency of 10% to 15% depending on the type of costs analyzed is added. The estimate also includes purchase of a total of 2 ha (20,000 m2) of land not owned by the state, but necessary to facilitate operation of the landfill, i.e. for construction of leacheate treatment system. The unit price of the land is considered to be 1.0/m2.

58

Landfill Construction Planning and development Base costs Site access Site facilities and services Civil works Leacheate treatment system Storm water management Gas management system Landfill equipment Closure Contingencies Total Landfill Construction

Cost () 91,000 1,523,857 1,522,800 360,250 2,728,781 171,140 143,250 359,025 645,000 3,593,860 901,561 12,040,524

% of Total for Landfill Cons. 0.8% 12.7% 12.6% 3.0% 22.7% 1.4% 1.2% 3.0% 5.4% 29.8% 7.5% 100.0%

Table 9.2: Summary breakdown of investment costs for landfill construction

Operation and maintenance costs (O&M) Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs refer to annual expenses required for continuous operation the SWM system, including waste collection, waste transportation, final waste disposal (landfilling), and administration costs of the RSWMPE28. The estimate of the O&M costs includes maintenance and operation expenditures, personnel costs (including overheads) and materials. They do not include regular cash outlays such as debt service charges and depreciation. In general, a number of components of the O&M costs for SWM depend on the waste generation volume; the remaining part of the O&M costs are fixed (flat), depending on the service organization and efficiency, but regardless of the waste volume. This aspect, to the extent possible, has been followed in the analysis. Details are given in Annex 18. Breakdown of average O&M costs throughout the analyzed period is shown in Table 9.3 bellow. The figures shown in the Table are indicative, i.e. they refer to year 2021 (as an assumed average year regarding the project life-cycle), while in the detailed spread-sheet analysis the annual O&M costs vary throughout the analyzed project cycle. The total average annual O&M costs for operating the SWM system equal 1,445,699.
Annual Cost () 404,856 1,000,843 40,000 1,445,699 % of Total Annual Cost 28.0% 69.2% 2.8% 100.0%

Cost Component Landfill operation Waste collection and transport RSWMPE management and admin. Total Annual O&M Cost

Table 9.3: Summary of average annual O&M costs

More detailed breakdown separately for landfill operation and waste collection and transport
28

Management and administration costs of the PEs/PSPs are accounted for in the estimates of O&M costs for waste collection and transport to the central landfill site. 59

annual O&M costs are shown in Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6.
Cost Item Waste discharge/placement Daily soil cover Nuisance control General maintenance Salaries (including overheads) Intermediate soil cover Temporary road construction Leachate treatment Gas control Stormwater maintenance Monitoring Electricity Total Annual Landfill O&M Cost Annual Cost () 245,297 16,353 5,000 2,500 66,300 12,265 20,441 19,500 2,700 2,500 5,000 5,000 404,856

Table 9.4: Indicative summary breakdown of annual landfill O&M costs

Number and qualification of personnel required to operate, control and supervise all landfilling operations that are responsibility of the LO, are presented in Table 9.5 below.
Personnel Landfill manager Accountant Drivers/plant operators General laborers Weighbridge operator Office administration Security Mechanics Total Number 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 1 14

Table 9.5: Overview of landfill operating personnel

As regards waste collection and transport O&M costs, in cases where distinct unit rates (e.g. price of fuel, transport costs per ton, numbers of staff, etc.) are not applicable, percentage rates of the initial investments have been used to determine particular maintenance costs. Applied rates are determined based on available information and experience from similar projects.
Cost Item Labor Fuel Tire replacement Protective clothing Maintenance (spare parts) Licenses and insurance Total Annual Cost () 581,400 138,340 48,733 3,970 200,200 28,200 1,000,843 Structure
58.1% 13.8% 4.9% 0.4% 20.0% 2.8% 100.0%

Table 9.6: Waste collection and transport annual O&M cost

60

Replacement costs Replacement costs refer to the necessary re-investments that need to be made during the analyzed project lifetime for replacing various depreciated assets. Given the standard depreciation periods, it is assumed that the necessary 1.1m3 waste containers will be replaced twice during the project life cycle, i.e. roughly every 7 years, while each replacement turn will take 3 years. Furthermore, it is assumed that the entire waste transport fleet (compaction and other vehicles) and landfill operating equipment (waste compactor, bulldozer, dump truck, etc.) will be replaced once during the life cycle and during a 5-year period, i.e. 2021 through 2025. Summary information regarding replacement costs is presented in Table 9.7.

Component Waste collection containers Waste transport vehicles Landfill equipment Total Replacement Cost

Cost () 3,502,907 3,685,000 645,000 7,832,907

Table 9.7: Summary of project replacement costs

Other costs Other costs that are not included in the above-listed categories but are considered indispensable part of the overall project activities to accomplish required project objectives and are accounted for in the analysis include: (1) costs for closure (remediation) of existing municipal landfills in the NW Region; (2) costs for landfill aftercare; (3) costs for setting up of the RSWMPE (i.e. provisions of working capital in order to ensure establishment and continuous operation of the regional public enterprise during the initial years of the project); and (4) costs for conducting an awareness raising campaign on a Regional level. These costs are determined based on available information and experience from similar projects. Summary breakdown of the other costs is shown in Table 9.8.

Component Closure of existing municipal landfills Landfill aftercare RSWMPE Set-up Awareness raising campaign Total Other Costs

Cost () 1,561,500 1,576,247 100,000 275,000 3,512,747

Table 9.8: Summary of other project costs

9.2.2 Assessment of project revenues The provision of reliable, modern SWM services results in obtaining substantial benefits to communities. Households themselves value convenient and reliable solid waste service because of time savings and indirect health benefits, in addition to cost savings in particular for enterprises. Such benefits are expected to be accomplished by introduction of the Regional ISWM system discussed herein.

61

In general, revenues should be balanced to enable full cost recovery of both capital (investment) expenditures and O&M (recurring) costs of the service provided. However, experience indicates that in developing (middle-income) countries the provision of public (communal) services, such as water supply, wastewater discharge, SWM, etc., are quite often not self supporting. In the analysis, the project revenues are estimated based on forecasted solid waste generation, assumed tariffs for the SWM service and tariff collection/efficiency ratio during the analyzed project life-time. The initial waste tariff adopted for the analysis equals 26.0 (VAT excluded) per ton of solid waste collected, transported and disposed of at the central landfill, for both urban and rural areas. As such, the tariff represents an average fee for the entire NW Region billed to households and industry at present, and is calculated based on information gathered with the Survey of existing SWM practices (Section 5 of this Report). The collection efficiency ratio is accepted to be 60% in the initial project period (year 2010), again as an average value at present, but it is projected that the ratio will steadily increase to a maximum of 95% during a 7-year period (2011 through 2017)29. Based on discussions with community representatives during preparation of the study, such a scenario for increase of the tariff collection ratio is considered realistic. Additional revenues as a result of the project may arise from: recycling activities; purchase and use of demolition waste as a material for daily covering at the landfill; sale of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), as a result of landfill gas recovery, through the Clean Development Mechanism

Corresponding revenues, however, are considered optional and have not been taken into account in the present analysis. The residual value of part of the assets at the end of the analyzed project life-cycle, estimated to represent 50% of the capital expenditures for purchase of waste containers, waste transportation vehicles and landfill equipment, are included in the cost-benefit analysis as revenues (negative cost). The total residual value equals 3,215,872. 9.2.3 Project net financial benefit and performance The financial assessment of the project includes Net Present Value (NPV) analyses, using discount rates of 9% and 5%, and profitability analysis of the proposed SWM system based on the financial internal rate of return (FIRR). Four potential scenarios are analyzed: Scenario 1 (base scenario): the entire investment, O&M and replacement costs are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of the initial waste tariff, which remains fixed during the entire project life-cycle; Scenario 2: the total investment, O&M and replacement costs are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of waste tariff, which is increased by 10% every 5 years; Scenario 3: 75% of the initial investment (in 2010, 2011, and 2012) is covered by a IPA Donation/grant30, while all other expenses (residual investment, O&M and replacement costs) are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of the initial waste tariff, which remains fixed during the entire project life-cycle; Scenario 4: 75% of the initial investment (in 2010, 2011, and 2012) is covered by a IPA Donation/grant, while all other expenses (residual investment, O&M and
An active and aggressive awareness raising campaign is also planned to be carried out during the same period. 30 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), EU's financial instrument for the pre-accession process for the period 2007-2013. Assistance is provided on the basis of the European Partnerships of the potential candidate countries: Western Balkan countries and Turkey. 62
29

replacement costs) are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of waste tariff, which is increased by 10% every 5 years. Summary results of the analysis are presented in Table 9.9.; the detailed spread-sheets are presented in Annex 19.

NPV (@9%) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 - 10,329,191 - 7,847,287 - 2,055,407 426,497

NPV (@5%) - 10,858,712 - 6,059,773 - 1,981,504 2,817,435

FIRR N/A 0.72% -0.62% 10.37%

Table 9.9: Summary results of the financial analysis

Based on the assessments, it is obvious that reduced investment costs (Scenario 3 and 4) automatically result in more promising results. However, Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 have a negative NPV and do not appear to be financially viable. Nevertheless, Scenario 4 has a positive NPV of 426,497 (@9% discount rate), meaning that assumed tariffs can cover the remaining investment and entire projected O&M and replacement costs, thus enable sustainable, independent functioning of the SWM system. In addition, the same Scenario has FIRR of 10.37%, which is above the projected threshold of IRR = 9%. These aspects, in addition to the fact that the project will result in important direct environmental and indirect social effects for the community (more details are provided in Section 10), justifies the grant intervention. Unit costs for Scenario 4, representing break-even rates per ton of solid waste handled collected, transported and deposited and thus indicating the threshold of profitability, are shown in Table 9.10. Distinction has been made between unit costs of solid waste deposited on the landfill and costs related to the transportation of solid waste, including collection.
Unit Cost Type Landfill O&M costs only Waste transport O&M costs Total O&M costs Total project costs (with grant) Unit /ton /ton /ton /ton Unit Cost 4.69 11.35 16.04 25.33

Table 9.10: Unit costs for proposed SWM system

9.3 Tariff Structure and Affordability The proposed waste tariff structure and policy for Scenario 4, is:

Year 2010-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035

Waste Tariff /ton 26.00 28.60 31.46 34.60 38.07 MKD/ton

1,596 1,756 1,932 2,124 2,337

% increase from 2010 100% 110% 121% 133% 146%

Table 9.11: Waste tariff structure

63

As regards the affordability of the local population to pay their monthly fees based on the proposed tariffs, special detailed assessments, i.e. willingness-to-pay analysis, have not been carried out within the scope of this Study. Provided below (Table 9.12 and 9.13) is a brief analysis of the potential affordability of the population to bear incurred expenses. The analysis refers to estimated expenses per household for waste management services, based on assessed average monthly waste generation per household and for several categories of households classified by the monthly household income.

Unit Average waste generation per household Waste tariff Average monthly fee per family (VAT excluded) VAT (18%) Average monthly fee per family VAT included Average annual cost per family (VAT included) t/month MKD/t MKD/month MKD/month MKD/month MKD/year

2010 0.085 1,596 136.0 24.4 160.1 1,921

2035 0.085 2,337 199.0 35.8 234.5 2,813

Table 9.12: Average monthly household fee for waste service

In relation to the affordability, a generally accepted WB benchmark/guideline31 is followed, which suggest that charges for waste services to households in developing countries should not exceed 0.75% to 1.75% of average disposable household income.
Average monthly income per household (MKD/month) 37,000 17,000 11,000 Up to 5,500 Estimated average for waste as % of household income

Household categories High income Middle income Low income Very low income

0.4% 0.9% 1.5% 2.9%

Table 9.13: Average household fee for waste as % of total monthly income (2010)

Based on this rough assessment, it appears that the very-low-income population group definitely cannot afford the proposed tariffs, while the low-income group is on the upper verge of the benchmark value. Hence, even though the majority of mostly urban population may be in a position to afford proposed tariff, some of the lower-income groups of the population, particularly in rural areas, may find it difficult to cope with these charges. In order to respect less well-off groups in both private households and enterprises, a further refinement through introduction of social rates or cross-over subsidisation of the above waste tariff structure would be advisable. This, however, requires further careful assessment of financial and policy aspects (which is outside the scope of this Study), and political will for enforcement of changes in the tariff policy once the Regional SWM system starts operating. 9.4 Project financing plan It is assumed that financing of the project will follow the pattern of a mixed financing, generally adopted for similar projects, combining a grant component with soft loan and co-financing
31

World Bank: World Development Report 1998/1999. 64

from internal/local sources, either regional or from the central Government. Thus, taking into consideration the total expenses over the analyzed project period of roughly 28.82 million including investment, O&M, replacement and other costs, as explained before it is planned that 34% of the expenses will be covered by EU/IPA Grant, 21% by a soft loan, and the outstanding 45% will be co-financed by local equity capital. Table 9.14 below provides summary information regarding planned financing scheme; more detailed information, including a disbursement schedule, is presented in Annex 20.
Type of financing Grant Co-financing Co-financing Loan Loan Loan Total ( 000) 9,738.1 3,961.8 9,041.3 6,081.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 28,823

Financing source IPA Regional funds Government funds Soft loans IFI loans Commercial loans Other sources Total Financing

Structure 34% 14% 31% 21% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Table 9.14: Summary financing plan

As regards financing of the individual project implementation (construction) phases, the following preliminary scheme is applied:
Implementation Schedule

Items to be financed
1.1m3 waste containers; Waste transport vehicles; Landfill cell #1; Closure of existing municipal landfills; RSWMPE setup; Public campaign; Landfill cell #2; Waste containers (replace) Public campaign

Total Value ( 000)

Financing Source IPA Grant

Amount ( 000) 9,738 534 2,812 50 1,448 1,751 0 1,228 4,330 1,751 1,228 0 0 1,228 0 1,576 1,096 0

% of finance for the Phase 75% 4% 21% 1% 45% 54% 0% 22% 78% 59% 41% 0% 0% 100% 0% 59% 41% 0%

Phase 1 2010 2014

13,134

Reg. funds Govt. funds Reg. funds Govt. funds Soft loan Reg. funds Govt. funds Soft loan Reg. funds Govt. funds Soft loan Reg. funds Govt. funds Soft loan Reg. funds Govt. funds Soft loan

Phase 2 2015

3,250

Phase 3 2020

Landfill cell #3; Trans vehicles (replace) Landfill equipment (replace)

5,558

Phase 4 2025

Landfill cell #4; Waste containers (replace)

2,980

Phase 5 2030

Landfill cell #5;

1,228

Phase 6 2035 -

Landfill closure and aftercare

2,672

65

As can be seen from the matrix, by and large the grant component is planned to cover major part (75%) of the initial investment expenses for: (1) purchase of new 1.1m3 waste containers; (2) purchase of waste transportation vehicles; (3) construction of landfill section 1, including infrastructure installation and purchase of landfill equipment; and (4) closure of existing municipal landfills. Construction of all other landfill sections, as well as establishment of the RSWMPE and the awareness raising campaign, should be financed by local sources. Financing for all equipment replacements is planned to be based on soft loans, to be repaid by revenues generated from proposed waste tariffs.

66

10. Environmental Assessment Given the type and size of the analyzed investment project and following the national legislation regarding environmental protection32, full environmental impact assessment (EIA) study will have to be carried out before the regional solid waste management system is initiated and the landfill constructed. The task of undertaking full EIA is outside the scope of the consulting assignment for preparation of this pre-feasibility study. This section provides only basic overview and brief information concerning the environmental effects of the analyzed waste management project. In general, the environmental effects can be positive, negative (adverse) or they can have both aspects positive and negative simultaneously. Furthermore, the effects are commonly categorized as direct, indirect and cumulative. Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity, but would be considered significant in the foreseeable future. Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. By and large in the case of solid waste collection system development/improvement the effects are indirect and positive, creating favorable benefit for the community, while in the case of solid waste disposal facility (landfill) development and operation the consequent environmental effects are usually direct and often can be negative. Nevertheless, the development of a solid waste management system as a whole at the same time creates longterm and indirect positive environmental effects, above all ecosystem (air, water, soil, etc.) and public health protection. The impact both positive/beneficial and negative/adverse on the physical, biological, and social environmental components has been analyzed; summary information is provided further. 10.1 Summary of Potential Adverse Environmental Impact The potential environmental impact of the project is related to the following components: 1. Landfill construction, operation and aftercare; 2. Collection and transport of waste; 3. Closure of existing municipal landfills and village dumps. The main potential adverse impacts of the project on the environment include: Impact on agricultural land/soil contamination; Impact on surface and ground water; Impact on atmosphere/air pollution; Impact on natural habitats, flora and fauna; Impact on human health Discharges (e.g. noise, odor, dust, vibration) Other (e.g. visual impact etc.)

All of these potential impacts have already been taken into consideration in the overall basic design of the above-listed project components (1 to 3) in order to limit their effects on the environment. Details concerning identified potential adverse environmental impacts and
32

Law on Environmental Protection (53/2005), Decree on EIA (2006). 67

planned mitigation measures are provided in the matrix below. All of the planned project (RSWM system) elements will abide to the most stringent criteria of national and European legislation.

Potential Adverse Impact Agricultural land/soil pollution

Mitigation Measures

Responsibility

Use of agricultural land

The landfill is located on land which is property of R. Macedonia. The site is already at present used for waste disposal. Overloading of vehicles with excavated material during landfill construction shall not be allowed. Excavated soil material shell be temporarily displaced at the site, to be used for daily covering and/or landfill cell sealing. Scattering of light waste will be prevented by daily compaction of waste and covering of daily disposed of waste by a layer of compacted inert material.

Municipalities Project preparation team and experts

Improper transport and disposal of construction debris

Construction contractor and supervision

Surface and ground water pollution The area is located in a mild depression at the beginning of the Suva Reka valley. The wider location has relatively minor watershed (catchment) area. Flooding of the landfill site Surface water will be directly discharged to a surface water collection system (channels) around the landfill. Impermeable liner has been foreseen to be placed on the top of the each closed existing landfill. Soil conditions at the location (clay deposits with permeability between 10-7 to 10-8 m/sec and depth of over 10 meters) enable construction of the landfill following the most stringent standards and prevent leachate generated in the landfill body to spread into the soil and ground water without the need of installing a HDPE geomembrane liner. After collection into a joint collector, leachate will be

Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator

Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator PEs/PSPs

Leachate percolation

68

conveyed to WWTP. The WWTP will be designed to produce effluent in compliance with the required standards. Recycling of the leachate is foreseen, that will enable reduction of the quantity of the leachate by evaporating and reduction of dust on the landfill body. Impermeable liner has been foreseen to be placed on the top of the each filled cell for the purpose of preventing surface water from penetrating into the landfill body. Chemical/oil spill from machine maintenance Maintenance (repairs) of the landfill equipment/machinery will be carried out at a separate place within the landfill area. The Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator Design engineer Landfill operator

Treated leachate effluent discharge

Sewage water and effluent discharge

Wastewater from admin building will be discharged and treated in the leacheate WWTP. All connections between pipes, manholes and tanks shall be water-tight to ensure groundwater protection from wastewater seepage.

Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator

Air pollution Gases generated due to decomposition of disposed waste will be collected and treated to remove harmful components in a controlled manner at the landfill. Gas collection wells will be installed, enabling landfill gas extraction as soon as waste is decomposed. Stabilized sludge from leacheate WWTP, containing not less than 30% of dry matter, shall be disposed off at the landfill. All waste transportation vehicles will be new, abiding to up-to-date standards regarding emissions and safety measures for waste transport.

Landfill gas emission

Landfill operator Design engineer

Uncontrolled disposal of sludge from leachate treatment

Design engineer Landfill operator

Air pollution from waste transport

Municipalities/PEs

Public health

69

 Control of dust during construction activities and transportation of materials should be planned. Implementation of safety procedures and availability of safety equipment for workers will be supplied. Disease incidence Training and awareness of drivers and workers on proper handling of waste and personal protective equipment should be implemented. Routine medical exams for workers should be applied. Training of employees to identify hazardous waste and proper procedure on handling and reporting such items. Controlling the existence of the scavengers at the landfill to prevent firing and dispersion of the wastes should be undertaken. Traffic congestion and accidents New access road to the landfill is planned to be constructed, to divert passing of vehicles through urban areas and reduce accidents. Design engineer Landfill operator

Waste dispersion during transport or resulting from scavengers

Landfill operator PEs/PSPs

Use of natural habitats, flora and fauna Removal of soil cover (to be used for landfill operation) There are no sensitive, nor any unusual species of fauna or flora in the site area. In order to protect from uncontrolled entry of animals, the entire area around the landfill will be fenced. Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator

Impact on animals

Discharges (noise, odor, dust) Noise generation All machinery that generates high levels of noise shall be enclosed in closed structures for noise protection. The highest allowed noise level at the border of the plant site shall not exceed 55 dBA. Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator

Generation and migration of odors will be minimized by daily covering of disposed waste by soil/inert material. Odor generation A protective vegetation strip will be formed around the landfill complex, which will act as an additional barrier for spreading of odors. Prevention of flying solid particles and dust, and their

Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator

Dust generation

Landfill operator

70

spreading in the environment, will be done by proper execution of waste disposal (spreading, compaction and covering by inert material). During summer season, when there is an increased possibility of dust generation, the landfill body will be regularly sprinkled or sprayed from truck-tanks with recycled leachate. Landscaping The landfill itself will not be visible from any housing units, nor from most of the neighboring areas. Design engineer Construction contractor and supervision Landfill operator

Natural landscape disturbance

10.2 Summary of Positive Environmental Impact Implementation of the project, i.e. the establishment of the Regional SWM system with all its components as described in the Study, will also produce positive effects on the environment, mainly as a result of avoided/reduced discharge of contaminants into ground and surface waters and reduced air emissions. Identified environmental benefits include: Water Quality Improvement: Significant reduction of groundwater and surface water pollution from leakage of unprotected landfills and, lower risks of contaminating water resources. Air Quality Improvement: (1) Reduced impact on global warming, as a result of landfill methane emissions capture; (2) Reduced risk of explosion. The total methane generation potential during the lifetime of the landfill is estimated to equal 350 million m3; the landfill gas control system that will be installed at the landfill will capture at least 50% of this amount, or roughly 175 million m3. Eco-system Protection: Benefits to eco-systems and other environmental resources as a result of reduced pollution into air, soil and water and environmental risks from waste treatment sites and hazardous waste. Public Health Protection: (1) Reduced potential for breeding of pests and other disease vectors, due to increased coverage of waste collection services and better management of landfill sites; (2) Reductions in respiratory diseases, odor and noise nuisance to local communities, as well as risks to health from contaminated water supplies, air and soil. Land-use Improvement: Return of land to beneficial use, as a result of the closure and remediation of existing waste dump sites.

71

11. Implementation Plan

Based on the findings of this assessment and the discussions during various meetings, it is recommended that the implementation (development) of the regional SWM project in the NW Region during the initial 4-year period (2009 through 2012) proceeds in a phased manner, and include the following steps: Step 1: Sign Memorandum of Understanding and establish PIU (end 2008/early 2009); Step 2: Carry out detailed geological field investigations, to confirm assumptions regarding assumed geological conditions at the Rusino site (1st quarter 2009); Step 3: Prepare: full Feasibility Study, EIA Study, Construction Tender Documents, and IPA application documents; submit application for IPA financing (2009); Step 4: Secure financing from IPA (or other Donor) and identify additional sources of project implementation financing (2009 2010); Step 5: Obtain construction and environmental permits (2010); Step 6: Establish RSWMPE (2010); Step 7: Select landfill construction contractor (2011); Step 8: Construct landfill Phase I: Procurement of new 1.1m3 waste collection containers and transportation vehicles + construction of landfill section/cell 1 + landfill infrastructure installation (2010 and 2011) Step 9: Select LO and sign service/management contract (2011); Step 10: Close existing municipal landfills categorized as Priority I (2012); Step 11: Initiate expansion of the SWM service to currently not covered settlements in the NW Region (to be implemented by each separate municipality, starting from 2010 and within a 5-year period); Step 12: Initiate gradual clean-up and remediation of existing village dump sites in the Region (to be implemented by each separate municipality within its territory, starting from 2012 and over a 3-year period).

Such a phased approach is expected to minimize risks associated with further development of the project, including timely identification and obtaining of financing and construction. Under the proposed project implementation approach, the regional SWM system should be fully operational by the end of 2011.

72

12. Conclusions and Recommendations

The Polog Region, which is located in the North-west part of Macedonia and includes a total of 9 municipalities, faces a serious problem related to management of solid wastes. The major SWM problems identified with a Survey of current SWM practices in the Region that was carried out within activities for preparation of this Pre-feasibility Study, include: (1) significant portion of the population, especially in rural settlements, is not covered with the existing service; (2) the waste containers and the waste transportation equipment/vehicles used are obsolete and too expensive to operate and maintain; (3) current waste disposal practices are at an extremely low level, causing significant threat to human health and environmental pollution; (4) in general the current waste fee collection efficiency is at a level that does not enable cost recovery for the SWM service; (5) current waste tariffs are insufficient to cover costs for SWM. The basic immediate needs for modernization of SWM in the Region are categorized as: (1) need for extending the coverage of the service to a significant number of currently not serviced settlements; (2) need for modernizing the waste collection equipment and waste transport fleets; (3) need for upgrading of waste disposal practices in financially sound manner and according to modern environmental standards; (4) need for remediation or clean up of existing official landfills and illegal dumps. The conditions and the overall situation in the Region are considered to be generally conducive for development of an affective regional waste management system that would address above-listed needs. It is considered that in the initial phase of establishment of the regional SWM system, the municipalities in the Region should firstly focus on setting up of appropriate mixed waste collection and disposal system, by extending the service coverage to all currently un-served settlements, increasing of the landfilling standards and practices, closing and/or remediating the existing dump sites, and bringing the waste fee collection ratio to a maximum level. The technical traits/concept of the proposed regional SWM system are developed based on forecasted solid waste generation during the analyzed period of 25 years (2010 through 2035) and up-to-date national and EU standards and regulation regarding SWM, and refer to: (1) improved waste storage and collection; (2) modernization of waste transportation fleets; (3) construction of a central (regional) sanitary solid waste landfill; and, (4) closure of existing municipal landfills and cleanup of existing illegal village dumps. Regarding improved waste storage and collection, it is proposed that: (1) the current practice of using wheeled 1.1m3 containers in central parts and residential districts of urban settlements, as well as in central parts of larger rural areas/villages, is a proven good practice and should be sustained; (2) individual households located in urban suburbs should either continue using the waste bins presently at hand, regardless of their size and type, or use plastic waste bags; (3) individual households located in rural areas with limited access for larger vehicles should either use plastic waste bags or waste bins with smaller capacity; (4) individual households in rural settlements where the service will be introduced for the first time (within a 5-year period) should start using plastic waste bags, and gradually move to using own standardized waste bins; and, (5) the frequency of waste collection should remain as it is at present; the operator responsible for waste collection will have to determine the most costeffective daily waste collection routes. As regards waste transport improvements, it is proposed that four types of waste compactor vehicles with capacities of 11, 15, 18 and 20m3 are used. These vehicles will be used for emptying of the 1.1m3 containers and individual household waste bins in areas with suitable access. In addition, smaller open-top vehicles should be used for areas (both urban and rural) that cannot be accessed by compactor vehicles.
73

Regarding the requirement for improved waste disposal, based on adopted methodology for potential landfill site identification and least-cost comparative analysis of 6 potential alternatives regarding selection of location(s) for final waste disposal, it is concluded that upgrading of the existing municipal landfill Rusino at present used for waste disposal mainly by the Tetovo municipality and occasionally by other smaller municipalities from the Region to meet modern standards and be used as a final sanitary disposal site for the entire NW Region is the most feasible alternative solution. Based on further assessments, it is concluded that there are no limitations in reference to the available waste disposal volume, as well as regarding the wider location, topographic conditions and ownership rights for construction of modern sanitary landfill at the Rusino site. Additionally, as regards geological and hydrogeological conditions of the location, based on the present state of knowledge, it is concluded that the site meets the requirements for landfill locations according to the pertinent national standards and the EU Waste Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). This viewpoint, however, needs to be confirmed by further detailed field investigations, which is regarded as a priority consequent step. Therefore, and since the site is already used for waste disposal, main aspects related to the upgrading are focused on: (1) improvement of the landfill base; (2) introduction of leacheate collection and treatment system; (3) installation of landfill gas monitoring and control system; (4) construction of a new access road; (5) construction and installation of additional necessary standard landfill infrastructure, such as fence, administration building, weighbridge, etc.; and, (6) introduction of improved waste disposal operations. With reference to management of hazardous, industrial and medical wastes in the NW Region, it is concluded that the most feasible solution is to closely follow all future developments related to establishment of listed systems on a national level, and undertake the necessary prospects for becoming part those systems. The three major existing municipal landfills located within the NW Region at Susicki Most (Gostivar), Bogovinje and Railway station in Tetovo were assessed as causing high level of risk for environmental pollution, hence proposed for immediate closure; details regarding proposed method for closure and remediation are presented in the Study. As regards the existing village dumps, the number of which is immense, it is proposed that these sites are cleaned up and closed (banned) for further use. Responsibility for the clean-up and monitoring of future status is devolved to the municipal authorities. Concerning organizational and management aspects related to the future regional SWM system, the following is proposed: The existing public enterprises or private service providers should continue to provide waste collection activities within the territories of their municipalities and begin transporting the waste to the new central landfill at Rusino; A new regional organization Regional Solid Waste Management Public Enterprise should be established by the municipalities from the NW Region, that will be responsible for establishment of the SWM system, construction of the new landfill, and future management and co-ordination of all regional aspects; Daily operation of the new landfill should be delegated to a separate organization, either private or public, specialized in landfill operations.

The following scenarios related to assessment of the project financial viability have been analyzed:

74

Scenario 1: the entire project investment, O&M and replacement costs are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of an initial waste tariff (26/ton), which remains fixed during the entire project life-cycle; Scenario 2: the total project investment, O&M and replacement costs are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of waste tariff, which is increased by 10% every 5 years; Scenario 3: 75% of the initial project investment (in 2010, 2011, and 2012) is covered by a grant, while all other expenses (residual investment, O&M and replacement costs) are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of the initial waste tariff, which remains fixed during the entire project life-cycle; Scenario 4: 75% of the initial project investment (in 2010, 2011, and 2012) is covered by a grant, while all other expenses (residual investment, O&M and replacement costs) are repaid by revenues generated on the basis of waste tariff, which is increased by 10% every 5 years.

Based on the analysis, Scenario 4 has a positive NPV of 426,497 (@9% discount rate) and FIRR of 10.37% (which is above the projected threshold of IRR = 9%), meaning that assumed tariff increase can cover the remaining investment and entire projected O&M and replacement costs, thus enable sustainable, independent functioning of the SWM system. The proposed waste tariff structure is:
Year 2010-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Waste Tariff /ton 26.00 28.60 31.46 34.60 38.07 MKD/ton
1,596 1,756 1,932 2,124 2,337

% increase from 2010 100% 110% 121% 133% 146%

The project will result in important direct environmental and indirect social effects for the communities in the Region, which, along with the assessed financial sustainability, justifies the grant intervention for covering part of the initial capital costs for establishment of the SWM system. Based on the pre-feasibility assessment, analyzed and recommended regional SWM system for the NW Region in Macedonia represents a costeffective solution for improved and sustainable waste management in the Region. It is recommended that the implementation (development) of the regional SWM system during the initial 4-year period (2009 through 2012) proceeds in a phased manner, according to steps 1 through 12 as explained in Section 11. There is no practical experience with regionalization of SWM services in Macedonia. If implemented, proposed Regional SWM system for the NW Region will be a pilot initiative, and should be regarded as such. Furthermore, given the advantages, it is the opinion of the authors of this Study that the system has a high possibility to be replicated in other regions in the country.

75

13. References
1. Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management, Second Edition; United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995). 2. Integrated Solid Waste Management, Engineering Principles and Management Issues; G. Tchobanoglous, N. Theisen, S. Vigil; Irwin McGraw-Hill (1993). 3. Biodegradable Municipal Waste Management in Europe (Part 1 to 3), European Environment Agency (2002). 4. National Waste Management Plan 2006 2012, Government of Macedonia, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (September 2005). 5. National Waste Management Strategy (Draft), Government of Macedonia, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (December 2007). 6. Regional Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Study for Central-East Macedonia, Vol. 1, Government of Macedonia, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (September 2005); Funded by: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR). 7. Modernizing of the Existing Landfill and Solution of the Problem with Solid Waste Management in Resen, Final Report, Hydroprojekt CZ (2001); Feasibility Study financed by USAID. 8. Assessment of the Recycling Industry in Macedonia, study financed by the IFC-SEED project (2004); Assessment of the Waste Recycling Sector in SEE/Macedonia, study financed by the IFC-PEP-SE project (2006). 9. Second National Environmental Action Plan, Government of Macedonia, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (2006). 10. Waste Management Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries: Current Policies and Trends, Final Report; The Regional Environmental Center for CEE. 11. Upravuvanje so otpad, Zbornik na Trudovi, Megjunarodna Konferencija 2007 Skopje, USAID, ADKOM 12. Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Macedonia, Final Data, 2002 13. Environmental statistic 2007, Republic of Macedonia, State Statistical Office 14. Waste guide: Framework and strategies for waste management in European cities, Chapter 3. EPA Copenhagen with European Commission Environment Directorate. (1999) 15. Summary Procedures for Solid Waste Analysis Protocol; Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand (2002).

76

ANNEXES

77