Advisory Study on the Municipal Solid Waste Management In Yerevan

Transcription

1 Task Report December 2008 Advisory Study on the Municipal Solid Waste Management In Yerevan Task 1 Report on the Evaluation of the Current Municipal SWM in Yerevan

2 The report was prepared under a grant from PPIAF. PPIAF (Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility) is a multidonor technical assistance facility. Through technical assistance and knowledge dissemination PPIAF supports the efforts of policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, research institutions, and others in designing and implementing strategies to tap the full potential of private involvement in infrastructure. The views are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of PPIAF, the World Bank, or any other affiliated organization. Sarweystraße Stuttgart Germany Phone: Fax: Please contact: Dietmar Mettler Extension: MettlerD@fichtner.de Jeffrey Johnson Extension: JohnsonJ@fichtner.de

3 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary and Assessment Summary The Assignment Yerevan MSW Policy and Legal Framework Current Execution of MSW Collection and Street Cleaning Nubareshen Landfill MSW Generators Waste Quantities Morphology Current Practice of Waste Collection Equipment Utilized in Waste Collection Current Sanitary Cleaning Current Recycling Activities Financing MSW Collection Current Investment Forecast Constraints Shortcomings Major reasons for Shortcomings Collection and Cleaning Services Disposal Environmental Constraints Overall Appraisal Consequences for the assignment Background and Subject of the Report Project Rationale Overall and Specific Objectives Project Tasks Subject of this Report P06 I

4 3. General data of City of Yerevan General Information Administrative Information Demographic Development Households and population Yerevan level Breakdown to district community level Socio-Economic Development Policy and Legislative Framework Policy National Legal Framework Law on Waste Waste defined Objectives Powers and Responsibilities Regional regulations Local regulations Institutional Set-up of MSW-Management Institutional Framework on the National Level Ministry of Economy Ministry of Nature Protection Ministry of Urban Development Ministry of Health and State Hygiene Institutional Organization of MSWM in Yerevan Regional level Yerevan city government Local level Yerevan district communities Institutional Capacities Preliminary Appraisal of the Institutional Set-up Private Sector Participation Regulations with regard to Private Participation General Government Policy towards PPP PPP in Solid Waste Management Private sector activities in SWM P06 II

5 6.2.1 Operation of the current service contracts Comparison of Community and Private Operators Private operation of the landfill Trends and future perspectives Current Municipal Solid Waste Generation Waste Generation Sources Present MSW Quantities Quantity based on official statistical data MSW quantities based on questionnaire results Comparison with other towns Commercial and institutional waste Breakdown of present MSW quantities Morphology Current Waste Collection System and Public Cleaning Waste Collection and Transportation Introduction MSW Collection Schemes Waste collection vehicles Waste collection schedule Sanitary Cleaning Recycling in Yerevan Overall Analysis Market for the secondary raw materials Preliminary Appraisal Current Waste Disposal Existing Scheme for Solid Waste Disposal Overview of Waste Dump Sites Nubarashen landfill Jrvezh dump site Sasunik dump site Spandarjan dump site Unsanctioned waste dumping areas Environmental and Social Consequences P06 III

6 9.3.1 Potential environmental consequences and mitigation measures Socio-Economic Impact Final conclusions on Disposal Financial Situation Revenues for Collection Services Sources of revenues Waste collection fees for households Fees for non-commercial organizations Fees for commercial entities Street cleaning Expenditures for MSW services Street Cleaning Disposal Adequacy of Tariffs and / or Funding Forecasts Yerevan Master Plan Population of Yerevan GDP and increase of wages MSW Quantity Projection Conclusions References Annexes Excerpts from the Law on Local Self-Government P06 IV

7 List of Tables Table 1 Population and area of the district communities in Yerevan in Table 2 De jure population of the City Yerevan by district communities Table 3 Population by age, Yerevan as of January 1, Table 4: Households and population in buildings in Yerevan Table 5: Estimated breakdown of housing structures (estimate for 2007) Table 6: Estimated breakdown of population per housing type (Estimate for 2007) Table 7 Macroeconomic indicators for RA, Table 8 Institutional Responsibilities and Authorities Matrix Table 9 Explanations to the Matrix Table 10 SolidWaste Management Companies Table 11 Multi-apartment buildings across the city managed by district community or condominium Table 12 Buildings managed by district communities Table 13 Buildings managed by condominiums Table 14 Education Establishments in Yerevan Table 15 Cultural Establishments in Yerevan Table 16 Medical Establishments in Yerevan Table 17 Retail Trade Units in Yerevan Table 18: Estimate of present quantities based on questionnaire results (2007) Table 19: Comparison of different generation rates (without C&D waste) Table 20: Estimated breakdown of MSW quantities to landfill per housing type (2007)7-26 Table 15 Consolidated data on MSW morphology in Yerevan Table 16 Morphology analysis of different towns Table 17 Personnel in the waste collection and sanitary cleaning sector Table 18 Location of the garbage chutes throughout the city Table 19 Available machinery for waste collection and sanitary cleaning Table 20 Recycling enterprises in Yerevan Table 21 Waste disposal sites used by the district communities Table 22 Selected dump sites receiving waste from Yerevan city Table 23 Nubarashen landfill: registered waste quantities in Table 24 Characteristics of selected dump sites in Yerevan Table 25 Residential fees set for each district community and actual collection rates Table 26 Revenues from Commercial waste generators Table 27 Waste collection fees, collection rates, costs and budget (2008) Table 28 Expenses for Street Cleaning Table 29 Budget and actual costs of street cleaning Table 7: Population of the City of Yerevan 2001, 2004, 2008, 2020 and Table 8: Growth of GDP and average wages since Table 9: Comparison of GDPs Table 10: GDP development forecast for Yerevan Table 11: Present UGR and compostion and future UGR and composition P06 V

8 List of Figures Figure 1 Administrative map of the Republic of Armenia Figure 2 Years average weather condition readings for Yerevan, Armenia Figure 3 City of Yerevan: district communities Figure 4 De jure population in Armenia and Yerevan, Figure 5 Present and future administrational set-up in Yerevan Figure 6 Registered Companies and Organizations in Yerevan Figure 8 MSW morphology in Yerevan in Figure 9 MSW morphology in Yerevan in Figure 10 MSW morphology in Yerevan in Figure 11 Opening of the garbage chutes inside the building (on every floor) Figure 12 Garbage chute type Figure 13 Garbage chute type Figure 14 Garbage chute type Figure 15 Typical pre-collection points Figure 16 Burning waste at the pre-collection points Figure 17 Specialized collection truck for pre-collection points Figure 18 Specialized collection truck for pre-collection points in action Figure 19 Rear-end compaction truck used for MSW collection in Yerevan Figure 20 Waste container for the indoor farmers market in Yerevan Figure 21 Examples of the vehicles used for waste collection in Yerevan Figure 22 Street vendors are one of the main sources for the litter on the streets Figure 23 Street sweeping Figure 24 Sweepers on the streets of Yerevan Figure 25 Waste picking at the pre-collection points Figure 26 Separate collection of the glass bottles Figure 27 Selected waste dumps throughout the city (1-15, N, J, A) Figure 28 Site map of the Nubarashen landfill Figure 29 Nubarashen landfill: filling area (near the entrance area), covered with soil Figure 30 Nubarashen landfill: burning tipping area Figure 31 Nubarashen landfill: entrance area Figure 32 Jrvezh dump in the eastern part of Yerevan Figure 33 Jrvezh dump in Nor-Nork district community of Yerevan Figure 34 Sasunik dump site Figure 35 Sasunik dump site Figure 36 Spandarjan dump site Figure 37 Spandarjan dump site Figure 38 Unsanctioned dump site in urban areas: Shengavit Figure 39 Unsanctioned dump site in urban areas: Kentron Figure 40 Unsanctioned dump site in urban areas: Kentron Figure 41 Unsanctioned dump site in suburban areas: Nor-Nork Figure 42 Unsanctioned dump site in suburban areas: Eribuni Figure 43 Unsanctioned dump site in suburban areas: Shengavit Figure 1: Population forecast until Figure 2: MSW quantity forecast for Yerevan P06 VI

9 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ADM ArmSSR ASS CDM C&D CJSC GDP GoA JSC SWM MSW MSWM PPIAF PPP RA t/a UGR UNDP USAID Armenian Drams Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic Armenian Statistical Service Clean Development Mechanism Construction and demolition (waste) Closed Joint Stock Company Gross Domestic Product Government of Armenia Joint Stock Company Solid Waste Management Municipal Solid Waste Municipal Solid Waste Management Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility Public Private Partnership Republic of Armenia tons per annum (100 kg per year) Unit Generation Rate United Nations Development Program United States Agency for International Development Exchange Rates (as of 9 September 2008) 1 US$ = 320 ADM 1 Euro = 430 ADM 6543P06 VII

10 1. Executive Summary and Assessment 1.1 Summary The Assignment The current Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) System in Yerevan provides poor MSW collection as well as disposal services. Yerevan has now reached a point where urgent action for improvement and modernization is required to ensure proper performance and environmental conditions in the future. The Government of the Republic of Armenia (RA) represented by the Ministry of Economy has requested the World Bank s advice and assistance in supporting the process. The World Bank responded by tendering a study funded by a grant from the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) and Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG was selected as the Consultant for the Advisory Study on the Development of the Solid Waste Management System in the City of Yerevan through Private Sector Participation. This report is the result of Task 1 and provides an updated profile of the existing MSW management system, a critical assessment of its shortcomings with respect to existing service performance and identification of the key constraints to service improvement Yerevan The City of Yerevan is composed of twelve district communities. These twelve districts have the status of self-government bodies. One responsibility of the self-government bodies is to organize MSW collection and public cleaning. A new Law on Yerevan has been prepared and is expected to be enacted by the end of This law will change the status of Yerevan into the status of a self-government body with responsibility for MSW management. The population of Yerevan as of January 1, 2008 was 1.1 million accounting for about 35 % of the total population of the RA. The population of the city is divided unevenly among the district communities. Their area and population differ significantly. Yerevan is the largest economic center of the RA. Yerevan benefits from the strong GDP growth of the Armenian economy. In 2007 a GDP growth of 13.7 % continued a double-digit rate for the sixth consecutive year. Economic growth is primarily driven by the construction and services sectors. As of December 2006, average monthly wage amounted to US$ 230. The rate of inflation was 4.3 % during 2007 and reached 6.6 % in January Moody s rates the government of RA Ba2 for local and foreign currency debt obligations. This rating balances the low government and economywide debt against the country s weak institutional capacity and modest level of economic development. 6543P06 1-1

11 1.1.3 MSW Policy and Legal Framework The Government of Armenia has proclaimed municipal and industrial waste management to be a priority in the country. However, so far most of the activities have been driven by the commitments and funding within the international environmental agreements and therefore are mainly related to hazardous waste management. The state of the MSWM sector does not substantiate the priorities of the GoA. The national legal framework for MSW management is basically the framework of allocation of various powers and responsibilities to different levels of government, environmental protection, fees and licensing. The current important relevant legislation includes: Law on Waste (adopted ) Law on Local Self-government which allocates the implementation of waste collection, street cleaning to the local government bodies. Local government determines waste collection fee. (adopted ) Law on Environmental Fees ( On fees for environment and nature management adopted on ) determines the waste fee for deliveries to the landfill. This fee has been waived, however. Health and hygiene laws legislating the responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of health standards, which also affect operations of MSW On Sanitary Epidemiologic Security of the Population ( ) Environmental laws on prevention of water, air and other pollutants refer to emission to air, land and water and is valid also for landfills. Environmental Impact Assessments are required by law. Chapter 2 of the Law on Waste in conjunction with the Law on Local-Self Government specifies the powers and responsibilities of the state government and local self-government bodies in the area of waste management Current Execution of MSW Collection and Street Cleaning Local government bodies contract services for street cleaning and snow removal etc. to companies and pay for these services from the local government budget. Currently there are 14 companies involved in provision of street cleaning, collection and transportation services in Yerevan. As part of the street cleaning contract, the same company is given the rights and the obligation to collect and transport MSW and to conclude contracts with local commercial and non-commercial waste generators in the community and to collect the appropriate fees for these services. The local government administrations under the Head of the Community renew the street cleaning contract annually with the same company without a tender. The companies are obliged to submit a cost estimate to the community council, which must approve of the contract, however. 6543P06 1-2

12 Around half of the companies operating in the MSWM field in Yerevan are privately owned. The other 50% are JSC or limited liability companies with 100% local government ownership. Due to the current general low quality of services currently provided, it is not possible to conclude whether private or communal companies are doing a better job. There are differences in service provision between districts, but these do not appear to be correlated with one ownership form or another, rather with different management qualities. The service contracts for street cleaning etc. are not seriously monitored by local government and in fact are used as a source for subsidizing the collection and transport services, which are usually in deficit, due to the low fees and low collection rates. In addition, the lack of supervision and monitoring allows the companies to vary their performance in relation to the fees they can collect. While this is a vehicle to provide funding for waste collection, it also generally precludes any supervision or control over the company s service quality and performance in either service Nubareshen Landfill The property of the landfill is owned by the Yerevan Municipality. After several failed attempts, in 2006 the Yerevan Municipality decided to award the operation of the Nubarashen landfill to a new company, Erebuni Waste Ltd., which was founded for this purpose by the Erebuni Community, located next to Nubareshen. The distance to Nubarashen landfill varies between 10 and 40 km, depending on the location of the community. Companies in district communities far away from the Nubarashen landfill tend to use local dumps in order to limit transportation costs. Based on existing documentation it appears that the remaining capacity of the Nubareshen landfill is sufficient for a significant number of years (Shimizu estimates around at least 16 years). A more exact assessment will be possible in the Disposal Options Report of Task MSW Generators The following types of MSW generators in Yerevan are differentiated: Family houses (mainly one- or two-storey detached houses); Multi-apartment buildings (high- and low-rise); Public institutions (schools, kindergartens, universities, hospitals and other); Commercial organizations (restaurants, shops, hotels, offices and other); Industrial sources. 6543P06 1-3

13 According to the Yerevan City Government, there are more than 53,000 family houses on the territory of Yerevan. Most of these one- or two-storey homes are situated in the following district communities: Achapnyak 1, Avan, Erebuni, Nork-Marash, Nubarashen. There are some 4,600 high- and low-rise multi-apartment buildings in Yerevan with some 200,000 apartments. The multi-apartment buildings have different numbers of floors and apartments and are spread unevenly throughout the city. Public Institutions include educational, cultural, medical, governmental, communal and other establishments. They together build a significant source for MSW generation and are served by the collection companies contracted by the district communities. Since Yerevan is the main commercial center in Armenia, commercial sector is a strong contributor to waste generation. There are about 20,000 commercial businesses and trade enterprises make up 52.5% of the total number Waste Quantities In Yerevan, few activities have been undertaken to monitor waste generation quantity. None of the 4 larger landfills has a weighbridge. Thus the existing quantity data are not accurate even about the waste quantity delivered to the landfill, which is only an estimated based on the number and payload of vehicles entering the main landfill. The Report on Waste by Armenian Statistical Service from 2005 provides data on waste generation in Yerevan from 1985 to According to local experts, the waste quantity has stabilized since 2004 at about 800,000 m³. For various reasons having to do with the quality of the available data, the Consultant proposes an adjustment of the previously estimated waste quantities. The Consultant s method results in a quantity of MSW landfilled amounting to 265, ,000 t/a. A comparatively low MSW generation rate is assumed, i.e. approximately 300,00-330,000 t/a, which are generated Morphology Since 1990 several morphology analyses have been carried out in Yerevan. These data are seen as indicative only. The available results of former investigations in different years are quite different, which can only be partially explained by the changes in waste composition in the past 20 years. 1 Also sometimes written Ajapnyak. 6543P06 1-4

14 The most recent analysis of 2006 performed by Shimizu fits well with analyses known from other comparable cities. The largest shares are for food waste (35% - 50%) and paper/ cardboard as well as plastics (both around 10% 12%) Current Practice of Waste Collection Household Waste Although generally a common approach is followed, MSW collection differs from one district community to the other due to different types of urban development and waste generation patterns. The MSW collection and transportation system comprises two interrelated components: Waste pre-collection scheme (including waste accumulation facilities garbage chutes, waste bins, pre-collection points and other); Waste transportation vehicles. The MSW collection schemes and pre-collection facilities determine the type of collection vehicles used for waste collection and transportation as well as directly affect the collection schedule. Manpower plays the central role in waste collection and transportation services. According to the Yerevan City Administration, some 1,400 employees currently work in waste collection, transportation and sanitary cleaning in Yerevan. The overall quality of services differs between districts for several reasons: (1) Financing: some community districts have more resources to support the system then the others and to invest (e.g. city center - Kentron). (2) Fees: some districts manage to raise the waste fees and their collection rate. (3) Location: districts are situated at different distances to the Nubarashen landfill. This affects severely their operational costs. (4) Technical equipment: from the beginning of the operation in the 1990s, some district communities were better technically equipped than others. (5) Management: some community districts find better management than others. At present, the following alternative collection schemes are in use: Horning system; Waste collection from garbage chutes; Waste collection from pre-collection points; With the horning system, waste is collected by the households on their own premises, usually in areas with single family units, in plastic bags and 6543P06 1-5

15 is brought out to the collection vehicle when the driver signals with the horn. The collection frequency is about twice per week. There are in total 3,901 apartment buildings equipped with garbage chute systems for MSW pre-collection. The number of the buildings with garbage chutes varies from one district to another. The MSW from garbage chutes is collected every 3-5 days. Transfer of waste to the collection vehicle is generally labor-intensive and time consuming work. The garbage chutes and the storage rooms at the end of the garbage chutes are a major source of odors, nuisances, hygienic problems and vector propagation. On the other hand, the garbage chutes are entirely inside the building. This means that only building residents have access to the garbage chute. So contrary to the pre-collection points at curb side, neighboring offices and shops cannot use the chutes for disposal of their waste. Solution of the serious hygiene problems connected with the garbage chutes as well as the inefficiencies caused to the operation of the collection companies will require the cooperation of the condominiums and other common-property organizations, which are chronically short of funds. The financing of improvement to or elimination of the garbage chutes (if found to be advisable) would require funding, which may hinder the implementation of an optimized collection system. Buildings of up to 6 floors do not have garbage chutes. In these areas a precollection point system is used. Pre-collection points are places where one or more open 700 liter containers are located. These containers are locally produced robust metal vessels having a slightly conic form and no lid. The containers are without wheels and are usually placed directly on the ground. Pre-collection points are located alongside the roads near the family and low-rise buildings, in the streets, near the hotels, restaurants, hospitals, shops. They are equipped with one to 5 containers, depending on the number of people living in the neighborhood. In some areas the containers are placed within visual barriers to hide the containers from sight. The number of containers required is estimated by the collection companies. However, sufficient containers are not placed at the collection points, and the collection schedule is irregular. Therefore the pre-collection points are usually overloaded. This also encourages waste burning; which is common Commercial Waste Collection of waste from large commercial waste generators is carried out by communities waste companies in accordance with an agreed schedule which, in its turn, is developed considering the amount of waste collected in served waste containers or bins. Waste containers are installed either on the premises of large commercial units (e.g. wholesale markets) or on public territory (e.g. for offices). Most of the waste containers are open metal containers with a capacity of m P06 1-6

16 Equipment Utilized in Waste Collection There are two groups of collection trucks used for MSW collection in Yerevan: compaction trucks and dump trucks. Nearly the entire fleet is Russian-made. 87% of the vehicles are between 15 to 20 years old. The age of the fleet highly reduces the availability of the vehicles, which have to be repaired frequently. For the collection of MSW from the collection points preferably specialized collection trucks are used. These collection trucks are equipped with a sidemounted hydraulic grabbing device for the containers. The containers are lifted on top of the truck-body, where they are tipped and the contents falls into the opening of the body. Once inside the body the MSW is compacted hydraulically. However, the companies do not have sufficient compactions trucks at their disposal and waste is also collected from pre-collection points with dump trucks. In this case, waste is loaded with shovels onto the truck. Each collection vehicle with driver and workers is assigned to its own collection route. In general, MSW collection in Yerevan is to be undertaken between five and eleven a.m. When fully loaded, the vehicle transports the waste directly to the disposal site and then returns to finish their route. Given the frequent breakdowns of vehicles, the collection frequency and the collection schedules are not always kept. In any case, a maximum of two round-trips per day from the source to the landfill is possible Current Sanitary Cleaning Contrary to the waste collection and transportation, sanitary cleaning is directly financed by the district communities. Besides collection and transportation of the MSW, the same companies contracted by the district community authorities for MSW collection have to perform the following activities of sanitary cleaning: Street sweeping and pick up of the litter from the streets; Watering and street washing; Snow and ice removal, spread of the mixture of sand and salt; Collection of construction and demolition waste. The total area of public streets, squares, parks, gardens, and bridges etc in Yerevan which are to be cleaned is about 10.2 million m 2. Municipal areas consist of 6.7 million m 2 and community areas amount to 3.5 million m 2. Sanitary cleaning of residential areas consists of summer cleaning and winter cleaning. Winter cleaning includes cleaning of streets, squares and footpaths, snow collection as well as removal of ice. Street cleaning in winter period is done manually and with specialized machinery. Machinery is mostly used for spreading technical salt and sand. 6543P06 1-7

17 Summer cleaning is performed manually by sweepers as well as mechanically by street cleaning machinery. The main function of mechanical cleaning is to ensure removal of litter from the streets and their cleaning (water flushing). Frequency is determined by the different levels of priority given to different streets depending upon traffic flows. Cleaning of sidewalks, foot-paths, squares, and similar is mainly performed manually by street sweepers and litter collectors who clean and collect street sweeping waste in heaps. Later, the heaps are loaded onto a collection trucks, usually an open dump truck Current Recycling Activities The formal system for solid municipal waste collection and disposal does not include separate collection, sorting, or any type of waste treatment. However, waste separation is done in a number of different informal ways. Major waste separation is being done by scavengers at the landfills. The scavengers are mainly collect metals, paper, plastics, food waste and in the winter combustibles. The sorted out useful fractions are loaded into private cars and brought to the buy-in centers. According to the local experts, there are some 30 to 40 buy-in centers in Yerevan specializing in various fractions of the MSW. Some of the collection points are situated directly near the dumps. Most of the centers, however, are organized rather informally. They are often situated in the private garages, backyards, etc. Another example for the semi-formal separate collection is related to paper and cardboard recycling. A company has established several buy-back centers specializing in paper and cardboard collection. Collected material is then processed into egg boxes and other products. There are also small-scale enterprises for plastic recycling in Yerevan. They organize collection points themselves and process the collected plastic waste into plastic basins, pipes for sewage system, shoe soles, etc. The current recycling efforts, which rely solely on small-scale private initiative, are not adequate to recover a reasonable portion of the most valuable raw materials and have serious deficiencies with regard to health and safety aspects. Although these efforts could be further developed, some practices should eventually be ceased (scavengers and waste picking from collection points). Waste reduction, recycling and reuse should be part of an overall waste management strategy and concept Financing MSW Collection.The two sources of revenues for the collection companies are the contract payments for street cleaning from the local communities and the collection of waste fees from waste generators, i.e. residents for MSW collection; noncommercial organizations (such as government offices, schools, etc.) and commercial organizations. The contract payments for street cleaning are 6543P06 1-8

18 only partially available to subsidize collection, since some street cleaning does take place. In addition to the relatively low fees, the fee collection rates are low in many of the district communities. The collection rates for the fees vary significantly between 35% and 82% with an average collection rate of 56%. Currently, there are no mechanisms to force the residents who are not paying for the delivered services to pay. Considering the population of Yerevan and the average fees, the total potential revenues from household waste generators, which could be collected by the companies, amounts to 2.1 billion AMD (about US$6.7 million). Taking the collection rate into consideration, the companies have reported receipts of around 1.25 billion AMD (around US$3.9 million). Revenues received from the district community for the services on sanitary cleaning are an important source of income for the contracted companies. As for 2008, there are 2,292.6 million AMD (around US$7.2 million) allocated by the budget for the sanitary cleaning services. This is a significant increase over 2005 (1,388.5 million AMD). This is secure income of the contracted companies enabling them to perform some level of collection services and street cleaning regardless of the level and poor collection of the waste fees. This income is used to cross-subsidize the collection services. This means, however, that the service quality is continuously in danger of being reduced. The 14 waste companies in Yerevan, therefore, operate with an overall financial volume of around 3.55 billion AMD (around US$11.1 million) or US$9 US$11 per inhabitant/year for both street cleaning, winter services and waste collection. In addition, a further unknown amount is collected from commercial and public organizations. The environmental fees for waste disposal (600 AMD/ton) at the Nubarashen landfill were abolished several years ago (after 2005) to enable the collection companies to manage with the collected fees and lower the pressure to increase the fees. The tipping fee for Nubareshen is 60 AMD/ton. Some of the other unofficial dumpsites also charge tipping fees or annual payments for use Current Investment Regarding investments, there are various forms of ownership of the equipment used by the collection companies, which can be summarized roughly as follows: Some equipment is owned by the companies Some equipment is purchased by the community and rented to the collection company Some more common types of equipment are rented by the collection company from other sources. 6543P06 1-9

19 According to the information received from the communities, there is very little investment being carried out by the companies. Part of the fleet of vehicles still being used by collection companies was taken over from the state enterprises, which were privatized in The collection companies have one-year contracts that are renewed annually; therefore, this is hardly surprising. 1.2 Forecast Comparing the collected data regarding generated MSW quantities in Yerevan, it is clear that the MSW quantity forecast in the Yerevan Municipal Master Plan is too low, and thus a new forecast has been developed based on demographic and economic trends as well as international waste management experience. Two Scenarios of MSW development during the next 20 years, basically assuming the 2 different starting quantities as estimated from the baseline data, were postulated. The two scenarios are: Scenario 1: Start at low quantities (265,000 t/a of disposed MSW 300,000 including recycled quantities) Scenario 2: Start at high quantities (300,000 t/a of disposed MSW 330,000 t/a including recycled quantities) This forecast does not take into account any influence of future activities of Yerevan city or the district communities with regard to support and increased activities of prevention, recycling etc. The primary goal presently must be to achieve proper collection services. However, it is expected that once collection is working properly, Yerevan City will implement actions to increase recycling activities in both domestic and commercial waste. The assumptions of what might be recycled is subject of the Task 2 report. Assuming that the actually MSW quantity recycled would not increase in the future, then the quantity to be landfilled in 2028 would be 330 kg/cap/year (approx. 415,000 t/a) in Scenario 1 and 350 kg/cap/year (440,000 t/a) in Scenario 2. In the Consultant s opinion Scenario 2 seems the more probable scenario. This scenario will be taken into account for the further study. 1.3 Constraints The following constraints have been identified, which so far in spite of some efforts have prevented a solution to the problems or an improvement of the situation: Lack of resources allocated to the sector; 6543P

20 Large legislative and regulative package to be improved at once, covering diverse aspects such as standards of services for various SWM system components, enforcement issues, distribution of powers and responsibilities, implementation of PPP at local level, development of skills for contract management, etc; Lack of data; Lack of know-how in modern SWM practices. 1.4 Shortcomings Major reasons for Shortcomings Preliminary investigations of the present situation of MSW management in Yerevan have confirmed the very low standard of MSW management. MSW collection is carried out irregularly, often causing overloaded precollection points and garbage chute chambers and the landfills are mere uncontrolled dumpsites. City cleaning focuses on the main roads only, leaving other areas uncleaned for longer intervals. The Consultant has identified the following reasons for this situation: 1. The major reason for the poor performance in waste management has been identified as the poor financing. The system follows the rule: Where there is little money, there is little service. The poor financing is reflected in: Residential tariffs, fixed by the local councils, i. which have not been changed for 10 years, despite the increase of costs due to inflation and ii. which are generally not even close to break-even for the operation costs (depending on the district); Low to medium tariff collection rates from residential households, which vary between 35 and 82%; Low payment rate from commercial customers, where many even do not pay at all, but use the public system (free-rider behavior); The need to waive the environmental fee for Nubareshen; The need to subsidize MSW collection management through payments for city cleaning. The low tariffs coupled with the low collection rates cause permanently inadequate financing of the waste collection, which presently only can be counter-balanced to a certain extent with payments for city cleaning and a reduction of services and service quality. 2. Further major reasons are: 6543P

21 Fragmented organization into 14 operating companies, each maintaining their own maintenance staff and workshops, spare parts store and operations; Very short contract duration of only one year. With such short contract period no entrepreneur will invest in replacement of equipment, no matter whether new or second hand; No competition when the cleaning and collection contracts are extended; There are no regulations, which help the collection contractors to enforce tariff collection. The collection companies have the obligation to collect the waste, however, the waste generators are not obliged to sign a MSW disposal contract (free-rider principle). Collection and cleaning contracts, which do not clearly specify the service and performance standards of collection and cleaning. Given the situation, this might be intentional. There is apparently no enforcement of service quality standards Collection and Cleaning Services This results in the described technical, environmental and socio-economic consequences: The fleet for MSW collection and cleaning is 15 to 20 years old. Replacements can rarely be carried out, since the meager revenues are needed entirely for the operating costs. The high age of the fleet causes frequent breakdowns of the vehicles and high repair and maintenance time and costs. The vehicle availability is assumed by the consultant to be less than 60%. High repair and maintenance costs. Insufficient number of containers is placed for the frequency of collection, causing over-flowing containers and additional time consuming work for the waste collection staff. Widespread utilization of inappropriate vehicles due to appropriate vehicles being out of order. This causes time-consuming manual shoveling of waste on the collection vehicles and high additional costs. Irregular collection and cleaning services, given to vehicles being out of order. Thus often waste collections cannot be made as scheduled and have to be postponed or to be made by inappropriate vehicles. Inappropriately small doors at the garbage chute storage chambers. This prevents the use of containers and requires time consuming manual loading. Failure of performance monitoring, which is difficult without clear specification of the performance requirements Disposal The main landfill, Nubareshen, is potentially capable of being used for perhaps another 16 years according to existing documentation. Other 6543P

22 landfills have less capacity, but could also be further utilized. Resulting from efforts to reduce costs and contrary to international trends, the number of landfills has increased in Yerevan instead of decreased. Normally, for environmental and economic reasons, operating one landfill would be preferable. Due to traffic issues, this might require construction of transfer stations or other suitable measures, although distances are generally short. With regard to the landfills, the following shortcomings have been identified: The main landfill at Nubarashen is not equipped with leachate collection and treatment and gas collection and treatment including environmental threats for ground water pollution and green house gas emissions; Operation of several uncontrolled and sub-standard landfills, in order to save transportation costs; No landfill is equipped with a weighbridge and fencing and the landfill vehicles are old; Scavenging on the landfills helps to reduce the waste quantities, but involves health and safety hazards and reduced efficiency of operation; Irregular daily cover; The landfills burn frequently, causing a nuisance for their neighborhood; and Illegal tipping of wastes outside the landfills in order to save tipping fees or transportation costs Environmental The following environmental shortcomings resulting from the current practice have been identified: Wind blown waste all over the town, caused by overfilled precollection points; Vermin, cats and dogs around pre-collection points; and Threats for ground water pollution, dioxins and green house gas emissions at the landfills. 1.5 Constraints Besides the possibility of real financial constraints, the following constraints lead to the above mentioned shortcomings: Insufficient elaboration of the legal framework (by-laws, secondary legislation) for organization, operation and performance of MSW management; Lack of effective institutions (which may also be resource constrained); Limited development of waste prevention, recycling and recovery; and Absence of a long-term MSW management strategy at government and local level. 6543P

23 1.6 Overall Appraisal Summarizing the overall situation, it can be said that basically, the services are being provided to match the amount of funding available instead of the funding being determined to provide a defined level of service quality. The MSWM and cleaning system and its results show all of the typical disadvantages and inefficiencies of such practice. In order to improve the system it has to be ensured that appropriate funding is made available, i.e. tariffs will need to be increased and legal tools for improved tariff collection need to be inaugurated and / or the Government must assume more financial responsibility. Furthermore, contracts with a contract period as long as the depreciation period of the vehicles (i.e. 8 to 10 years) need to be allowed and implemented. Only then will there be a chance to get the present system modernized and its efficiency improved. 1.7 Consequences for the assignment The identified shortcomings, constraints and the described condition of the MSWM system will have a bearing on the assignment in the following ways: Conclusions cannot be drawn from existing cost structures. Looking at the available cost data and the service quality towhich the figures correspond, it is obvious that the existing data is no basis for projections of future costs of improved services. Therefore, cost estimates for the further analysis will be built up from the Consultant s experience using local cost levels. Since the legal and regulative framework is lacking, more stipulations will have to be written into the PPP contract(s) to overcome regulative deficits. It is recommended that the Nubareshen Landfill is immediately equipped with a weighbridge and that a weighing campaign with a portable vehicle scales is carried out on all waste deliveries to all utilized landfills to help validate or improve the waste quantity estimates. This would tend to reduce uncertainties for later tendering processes regardless of the services tendered. Whatever level of improvement of the MSWM system is deemed to be acceptable to GoA and users, it will entail significant additional financial commitment. The Government and the City should assume that the current system deficits cannot be alleviated without substantially greater investment and budgetary support. The possibilities for such financial efforts must be discussed early on in the project (Decision Committee Meeting) and a financial framework defined, so that further specification of the realistic options (including PPP options) is possible. The new Law on Yerevan changes essential elements of the institutional framework for MSWM. Depending upon when this law is passed, the legal and institutional aspects of the project will be affected 6543P

24 2. Background and Subject of the Report 2.1 Project Rationale The current Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) System in Yerevan provides poor MSW collection as well as disposal services. Urgent action for improvements and modernization is required, ensuring proper performance and environmental conditions in the future. Although the responsibility for execution of MSWM services is with the local self-government bodies, the Yerevan City Government is attempting to improve the present situation inter alia by involving the private sector. The activities have progressed to a point where a number of local and international private sector firms have expressed their interest. As the City Government approached a decision making point for tendering long term arrangements for MSWM in Yerevan, the Government of RA represented by the Ministry of Economy has requested the World Bank s advice and assistance in supporting the process. Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG was selected as the result of competitive bidding to carry out an Advisory Study on the Development of the Solid Waste Management System in the City of Yerevan through Private Sector Participation. The Study is funded by a World Bank executed grant from the Public- Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF). 2.2 Overall and Specific Objectives The overall objective of the project is to improve the MSW management of Yerevan City and to evaluate private sector involvement to achieve this goal. This encompasses providing support both to the Government and the City with the various legal, legislative and technical tasks in order to ensure an optimum result for the country and the city be achieved in terms of financial risk, affordability to the population, environmental and hygienic quality, and provision of an improved level of service. The specific project objectives are to: Evaluate the current situation respecting SWM in Yerevan based on existing study work, and updated information as required; Develop a performance based specification defining an acceptable level of solid waste collection service meeting reasonable standards of 6543P06 2-1

25 environmental and hygienic protection, affordability, capacity and local requirements, and identify incremental service enhancements over this basic level of collection service that may be considered; Determine the most beneficial development approach for future solid waste disposal facilities, including the feasibility of upgrading the existing landfill to acceptable environmental and operating standards; Assess tariff levels and mechanisms for periodic change and collection, inclusive of recommendations related to appropriate reforms necessary to support the basic SWM system performance levels, provision of environmentally sound disposal capacity; and incremental potential refinements to the SWM system; Document and justify an overall configuration plan for Yerevan s SWM system as it is developed; Advise on draft enabling legislation that would facilitate tariff reforms, appropriate assignment of responsibilities within the municipal structure, and provision for public-private partnerships in SWM system financing and operation; Develop a commercial strategy for tendering SWM services in the city of Yerevan that will optimize financing of required improvements, maximize cost benefit to the city and its population, and ensure a fair and transparent process, all agreed with municipal stakeholders; Provide advice and assistance as may be required in preparing for public private partnership implementation. 2.3 Project Tasks Corresponding roughly to the specific project objectives, the Study is divided into a number of tasks, most of them resulting in a Report. The tasks are as follows: Task 1: Evaluation of the current solid waste management system Task 2: Development of the basic MSWM Collection System Performance Requirements Task 3: Assessment of near and longer term waste disposal options Task 4: Assessment of and improvement in the financial means to support the MSWM System Task 5: Documentation of the recommended MSWM system configuration plan in the city of Yerevan Task 6: Advice and assistance respecting legislation and regulations Task 7: Identification of the options for private sector participation in the financing and operation of the SWM System and develop a business strategy for the delivery and financing of basic SWM services Task 8: Assistance for implementation of PPP arrangements Task 9: Public and stakeholder consultation 6543P06 2-2

26 2.4 Subject of this Report This report presents the results of Task 1. The task involves a rapid assessment of the current SWM system in Yerevan based on existing studies and documentation, information obtained from national and municipal authorities, and physical inspection of the current system. The principle product of this task is an updated profile of the existing MSW management system and a critical assessment of its shortcomings with respect to existing service performance and identification of the key constraints to service improvement. Specific activities under this task are: Overall analysis of the current MSW collection and disposal system from source to disposal in terms of service delivery, environmental performance and cost effectiveness; Evaluation of data related to MSW quantities and characteristics; Analysis of the collection system and its capacity, inclusive of handling of MSW at source, its transfer and transport for disposal in terms of how it is organized geographically, available equipment and infrastructure, transport distances and road/traffic conditions; Assessment of the environmental and social consequences of the current MSW management system. 6543P06 2-3

27 3. General data of City of Yerevan 3.1 General Information Yerevan is in the South-Western part of Armenia, surrounded by the Aragatsotn, Kotayk, Ararat and Armavir marzes. It is located in the northeastern part of the Ararat Valley. The city's elevation ranges between 900 to 1,300 m above sea level. The city is surrounded by mountains on three sides while to the south it descends to the banks of the river Hrazdan, a tributary of the river Arax. Figure 1 Administrative map of the Republic of Armenia Source: Statistical Service of RA, Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures (2008) The territory of Yerevan amounts to 227 sq km, sq km of which represents agricultural land including sq km of arable land. 6543P06 3-1

28 The climate in Yerevan is continental which means hot and dry summer (30-35 C) and relatively cold winter (up to 10 C below 0). Humidity and rainfall are very low all year-round. On average rainfall amounts to some 300 mm per year. Figure 2 Years average weather condition readings for Yerevan, Armenia Source: BBC Weather Centre, Administrative Information According to the currently valid legislation, Yerevan City is a state body of territorial administration within the Republic of Armenia with a status of Marz (Region). The City (Marz) of Yerevan is governed by the Mayor, Mr. Yervand Zakharyan, who is appointed by the President of RA upon the recommendation of the Prime-Minister of RA. The City (Marz) of Yerevan is composed of twelve district communities which are subdivided into neighborhoods. These twelve districts have the status of self-government bodies. It is the task of the self-government bodies to organize MSW management and public cleaning. The following figure shows the location of the 12 districts within Yerevan. A new Law on Yerevan has been prepared and is expected to be enacted by the end of This law will change the status of Yerevan Marz into the status of a self-government body. 6543P06 3-2

29 Figure 3 City of Yerevan: district communities Source: Administration of the City of Yerevan, P06 3-3

30 3.3 Demographic Development According to the Statistical Service of RA, population of Yerevan as of January 1, 2008 comprised of Million people. This accounts for about 35 % of the total population of the RA. The de jure population number comprises of permanent residents including those present and temporarily absent while still registered. The de facto population number comprises of permanent residents including those present and temporarily residing during the registration. Both categories of population were taken into account during the census in Armenia. However, only de jure data is made publicly available. Based on the de facto data, the population of Yerevan stayed more or less stable throughout the last 10 years. Also the share of Yerevan population to the total population in Yerevan stayed nearly the same ( Figure 4). 4000,0 3500,0 3000,0 2500,0 2000,0 1500,0 Armenia 1000,0 500,0 YEREVAN 0, Figure 4 De jure population in Armenia and Yerevan, Source: The Demographic Handbook of Armenia (2007) The city is divided unevenly into district communities. Their areas and populations differ significantly (Table 1). 6543P06 3-4

31 Table 1 Population and area of the district communities in Yerevan in 2007 Population, thousand people % Area, km2 % Density, person per km2 Communities 1 Achapnyak Arabkir Avan Davtashen Erebuni Qanaqer-Zeytun Kentron Malatsia-Sebastia Nork-Marash Nor-Nork Nubarashen Shengavit TOTAL: Source: ASS (2007) 4861 The dynamics of the de jure population of the city throughout the community districts remained stable (Table 2) since Table 2 De jure population of the City Yerevan by district communities Community / Year YEREVAN, Total AJAPNYAK AVAN ARABKIR DAVTASHEN EREBUNI KANAKER-ZEYTUN KENTRON MALATIA-SEBASTIA NOR-NORK NORK-MARASH NUBARASHEN SHENGAVIT Source: The Demographic Handbook of Armenia (2007) The spread of the population according to age is shown in the Table P06 3-5

32 Table 3 Population by age, Yerevan as of January 1, 2007 Total population % of which at the age of, years: % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 80 and over % Source: Demographic Handbook of Armenia (2007) 3.4 Households and population Yerevan level In accordance with the official statistics of Armenia (Number and Structure of Households; 2001) there were 277,194 households in Yerevan in Given the slight increase in population since 2001, it can be assumed that also the number of households may have increased slightly to 277,500 households, which is also supported by the construction activity in Yerevan during the past years. In accordance with the same statistics the number of households and inhabitants can be broken down as shown in the next table. Table 4: Households and population in buildings in Yerevan Nos. Households Nos. Population 2001 Estimate for Estimate for 2007 Total 277, ,500 1,103,400 1,104,900 Multi apartment with 114, ,100* 444, ,800* garbage chute Multi apartment 108, , , ,900 without garbage chute Family houses 54,800 54, , ,200 Sources: Number and structure of households (2001). Armstat; Questionnaires to district communities; Yerevan Master Plan. *) no further garbage chutes are build 6543P06 3-6

33 There is no reliable information on how the households and population are broken down by district community Breakdown to district community level There are no publicly available statistics which give sufficient information to break down the number of households and number of inhabitants to district community level for the 3 housing types: Multi apartment buildings with garbage chute Multi apartment buildings without garbage chute Residential detached houses However, there are many pieces of information, which the Consultant worked to fit together. The Consultant tried to prepare an estimate for population living in above housing types, based on: the data of Table 4; data shown in Section 7.1 with regard to number of garbage chutes, number of multi-apartment buildings and small houses, and data received from the questionnaires send to the district communities. Table 5: Estimated breakdown of housing structures (estimate for 2007) Multi-apartment Multi-apartment Family houses buildings without chute buildings with garbage chutes Nos buildings Nos chutes Nos houses Achapnyak ,800 Avan ,600 Arabkir ,020 Davdashen Erebuni ,386 Kanaker-Zeytun ,500 Kentron ,170 Malatia-Sebastia ,410 Nor Nork Nork Marash 3 0 1,510 Nubarashen Shengavit ,144 Total 2,501 3,901 42,375 Source: Armstat; Questionnaires to district communities; Yerevan Master Plan Table 5 shows the estimated breakdown on housing structures in the different district communities. The data is not accurate, because sources of different years and reliability have been put together. 6543P06 3-7

34 Table 6: Estimated breakdown of population per housing type (Estimate for 2007) Multi-apartment Multi-apartment Family houses buildings without chute buildings with Garbage Chutes Inhabitants Inhabitants Inhabitants Achapnyak 47,925 37,935 20,471 Avan 3,515 35,381 11,697 Arabkir 57,935 52,140 22,079 Davdashen ,280 6,945 Erebuni 22,182 20,970 75,931 Kanaker-Zeytun 27,638 24,300 25,588 Kentron 44,878 40,548 45,108 Malatia-Sebastia 10,427 93,704 39,552 Nor Nork 65,720 75, Nork Marash ,039 Nubarashen 3, ,483 Shengavit 63,656 31,026 44,918 Total 348, , ,800 32% 40% 28% Taking into account a certain number of floors, households per floor and number of entrances in case of multi-apartment buildings without garbage chutes, the Consultant estimated the distribution of the population on the different housing types on the different districts (see Table 6). 3.5 Socio-Economic Development Yerevan is the largest economic center of the RA. In 2007 its share in the total national volume of correspondent sectors comprised: 48.5 % for industry, 87.2 % for construction, 84.8 % for retail trade and 90.4 % for services. The main sectors of industry are manufacture of food products, including alcoholic beverages and chemical and metallurgy industry. Yerevan benefits from the strong GDP growth of the Armenian economy. In 2007 a GDP growth of 13.7 % continued a double-digit rate for the sixth consecutive year (Table 7). Economic growth is primarily driven by the construction and services sectors. The national economy also benefited from large-scale remittances from Armenians working abroad, that stimulated private consumption and financed Armenia s trade deficit. 6543P06 3-8

35 Table 7 Macroeconomic indicators for RA, Macroeconomic Indicators Unemployment, % Gross domestic product at market prices, mln. USD Deflator compared to previous year, % Gross domestic product per capita, USD Source: ASS (2007) - Inflation reached 6.6 % in January 2008 and an average of 4.3 % during Currently Moody s rates the government of RA Ba2 for local and foreign currency debt obligations. This rating balances the low government and economy-wide debt against the country s weak institutional capacity and modest level of economic development. As of December 2006, average monthly wage amounted for US$ 230 (Statistical Yearbook of Armenia, 2007). According to Armenian Statistical Service, during the third quarter of 2007, official unemployment further decreased and amounted to 7 % of the workforce. 6543P06 3-9

36 4. Policy and Legislative Framework 4.1 Policy The Government of Armenia has proclaimed municipal and industrial waste management to be a priority in the country. However, so far most of the activities were driven by the commitments and funding within the international environmental agreements and therefore are mainly related to hazardous waste management. The state of the MSWM sector at least does not substantiate the stated priority of the GoA. In 1998 the National Environmental Action Plan addressed waste management issues identifying the need for improvement of legal and institutional framework, as well as sanitary conditions and overall effectiveness of the system. The following major implementation measures were decided: to set up a database on waste; to introduce monitoring for waste disposal sites; to introduce interregional sharing of facilities; to increase recycling share by providing economic support to the relevant enterprises; to raise awareness and public involvement. In 2002 the National Environmental and Health Action Plan was approved establishing five targets for municipal waste sector: (1) to create a rational system of waste disposal in line with the rules of market economy, requirements of the population, environmental and health safety; (2) to ensure safe disposal of waste, through its collection, sorting and processing; (3) to contribute to the introduction of waste-free or low-waste technologies, processing waste and using it as a source of energy, as well as other purposes; (4) to reduce the adverse effect of landfills on environment and health; (5) to organize environmentally sound disposal of hazardous waste, including expired pesticides, expired medicines, etc. It appears today that little progress has been made on most of these issues. Some donor agencies are working with the GoA on MSW related projects, however, for example, with USAID. According to the Regional Policy Report on the European Neighborhood Policy and Waste Management: Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia (2007), By the decision of the Armenian government PA N 2200-N of in 2006 the Concept of Solid Waste Management in Settlements in Armenia was developed, revised and deliberated. 6543P06 4-1

37 By decision of Prime Minister PA N 860 of an intergovernmental working group was formed for development of a package of legislative proposals on industrial and domestic waste management. The following draft laws were elaborated: On waste removal, about amendments and addendum to laws on Waste ; On local self-government bodies ; On fees for environmental and nature management ; On tariffs for nature management and On administrative violations. The proposed Law On Waste Removal includes stipulations on reforms in the field of solid waste management (regulations on operators, types of agreements, on licensing, considering waste removal as public service, for adjusting tariffs etc). Originally it was planned to present this package to the National Assembly of Armenia in autumn of Other policy initiatives are not known to the Consultant and have not been mentioned in any of the meetings with decision-makers. The new Law on Yerevan (see below) may provide an improved administrative and institutional basis for MSWM. A substantial weakness of policy remains in any case the low level of resources allocated to the sector. Both the willingness of the national and local levels of government to convince waste generators of their responsibility for collection, transportation and disposal of waste and the connection to the waste fees appears to be lacking as well as the willingness to allocate government funds for important infrastructure such as a properly designed and operated landfill. Enforcement of existing fee collection is poor. Commercial enterprises are known to free-ride on the system without danger of punishment. As far as the Consultant is aware, there have been no initiatives to improve the collection basis for fees. Waste fees have hardly been raised over the past decade in spite of inflation and substantial increases in other services. All of these facts point to a low government priority for solving the problems of the MSWM system, which are obvious. Without a change in the priorities and a willingness to address these problems and above all to provide the resources required for an acceptable level of services, significant improvements cannot be expected, whether from private of public operation. 4.2 National Legal Framework The national legal framework for MSW management is basically the framework of allocation of various rights and obligations to different levels of government, on environmental protection, fees and licensing. The 6543P06 4-2

38 framework of allocation of rights and obligations to the different levels of government is described in Chapter 5 on the institutional setting. The current important relevant legislation includes: Law on Waste (adopted ) Law on Local Self-government which allocates the implementation of waste collection, street cleaning to the local government bodies. Local government determines waste collection fee. (adopted ) Law on Environmental Fees ( On fees for Environment and Nature Management adopted on ) determines the waste fee for deliveries to the landfill. This fee has been waived, however. Health and hygiene laws legislating the responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of health standards, which also affect operations of MSW On Sanitary Epidemiologic Security of the Population ( ) Environmental Laws on prevention of water, air and other pollutants refer to emission to air, land and water and is valid also for landfills. Environmental Impact Assessments are required by law. These are some of the most important laws and regulations for MSW management. There are also a number of further laws and international agreements related to hazardous waste. Since the most important single piece of legislation is the Law on Waste, this law will be described in more detail below. 4.3 Law on Waste Waste defined Definition of waste used in the Law on Waste is a combination of household (MSW) and industrial waste. Article 2 states This law shall regulate management of waste derived from production activities and consumption. According to the definition in Article 4: Industrial waste and household refuse (hereafter referred to as waste ) remains of materials, raw materials, output, products and production derived from industrial activities and consumption, as well as goods (products) that lost their initial consumer attributes. This definition makes it difficult to attribute all of the stipulations of the Law on Waste to MSW and to differentiate which stipulations apply to MSW 2 and which do not apply. For example, it is not clear whether MSW is intended to be included in the waste database or the waste cataster. 2 However, it must be considered that this is a translation and that the original language may be clearer and more precise. 6543P06 4-3

39 4.3.2 Objectives The main objectives of this law are: a) Provision of main principles of the state unified policy in the area of waste management; b) Provision of main conditions, requirements and rules of environmentally safe management of waste, as well as economic incentive measures for resource-saving activities; c) Assurance of conditions for generation of minimal quantity of waste, promotion of waste utilization in the economical activity, mitigation of adverse effects of waste on human health and environment; and, d) Legal regulation of relations in the area of waste management Powers and Responsibilities Chapter 2 of the Law on Waste specifies the powers and responsibilities of the state government and local self-government bodies in the area of waste management. Article 7 states the areas of responsibility of the RoA Government in the area of waste management. In the area of MSW management the responsibilities of the RoA Government are: a) Develop the state policy for the sector and ensure its implementation; b) Coordinate activities of the state authorized bodies in the area of waste management; c) Ensure system of economical incentives for implementation of lesswasteful technologies, waste collection and recycling; d) Provide a waste inventory, generation, removal (elimination, disinfection, disposal) and recycling procedure 3 ; The other powers and responsibilities in Article 7 appear to refer to hazardous waste. The article does not specify which bodies of RoA Government are so authorized. Article 8 does specify the powers and responsibilities of the environmental sector state authorized body (which is Ministry of Nature Protection) in the area of MSW management to be 4 : a) Participate in development of the state policy in this area; b) Prepare target programs for the waste management sector; c) implement the inventory of waste; e) Develop lists of dangerous and restricted waste; f) Provide a list of waste classified by risk level; h) Approve sites for location of waste management objects; 3 The waste inventory is thought to also include MSW. In reality implementation is poor and MSW is widely ignored. Information on MSW is incomplete and falsely given by waste generators in order to avoid fees. For this reason MSW is recorded that should be recorded as various types of hazardous waste. 4 Other powers and responsibilities which are thought to relate only to hazardous waste were eliminated from the list of authorities in the Law. 6543P06 4-4

40 j) Establish a database on quantity of waste generation volumes; k) In the procedure set by law carry out state environmental impact assessment for construction and remodeling of landfills, complexes, buildings and other specially provided areas and structures, as well as environmental impact assessment of operation s design documents and complex programs for waste production, processing, recycling, disposal and removal; l) implement the state waste cadastre; m) Share information about non- or less-wasteful technologies with other governmental agencies; n) Develop and update registry of objects designed for waste production, reprocessing and recycling, waste removal areas, as well as carry out monitoring over those places; o) Draft legal acts for regulation of the waste management sector and approve normative acts within the limits of its jurisdiction; q) Exchange information on waste management with international organizations and foreign countries; r) Carry out other responsibilities provided by law. In the area of waste management the public health sector state authorized body shall (Article 9): a) Develop public health safety requirements to be incorporated into the normative- technical documents on waste management; elaborate sanitary and epidemic rules, norms and hygienic standards aimed at prevention of dangerous and adverse effects of waste on human health in the process of waste production, collection, transportation, storage, processing, recycling, removal, disinfection and landfill; oversee implementation of these requirements; b) Develop main directions for measures aimed at protection of human health from adverse effects of waste and submit those to the RoA Government; c) Approve location sites for the waste management objects; d) Provide sanitary-hygienic requirements of output produced from waste and issue hygienic expert opinion; e) Participate in development of a risk level classification list of waste; f) Carry out other authorities provided by law. Article 10 indicates the powers and responsibilities of the territorial administration bodies in the area of MSW management: a) Participate in development of the state policy in the area of waste management; b) Participate in preparation of state programs in the area of waste management; c) Develop local waste management programs and oversee their implementation within the boundaries of an administrative- territorial division; d) In collaboration with authorized body in the area of waste management issue permits for allocation of waste within the boundaries of an administrative-territorial division; e) Prepare sanitary cleaning schedules and oversee waste collection within the boundaries of an administrative- territorial division; 6543P06 4-5

41 f) Prepare and update entries to register of waste production, processing and recycling structures and waste removal areas; g) Carry out an inventory of waste production, processing, disinfection, recycling and removal and organize waste passports issuance; h) Liquidate not-controlled and not licensed landfills within the boundaries of an administrative- territorial division; i) Within the boundaries of an administrative- territorial division organize public participation in collection of not dangerous waste, which has a resource value; j) Carry out other authorities provided by law. Local self- government bodies according to Article 11 shall in the area of MSW management: a) Oversee waste collection; b) Prepare sanitary cleaning schemes of territories; c) Eliminate not-controlled and not licensed landfills; d) Organize public participation in collection of not dangerous waste, which was a resource value. Local self-government bodies in the area of waste management shall also carry out other responsibilities set forth by the Law on local self- government bodies. For example, fees for solid waste collection are determined in each local government community council. There is a Public Services Regulatory Agency since 2001, but this agency is not concerned with MSW management. Street cleaning is contracted to private companies and paid for by the communities. The Law on Local Self-government allows the local governments to execute their responsibilities in a number of ways including contracting such services to private companies. The Law does not, however, prescribe one way or the other. In addition, the local communities may participate or establish companies. In practice, these two possibilities are combined so that companies 100% owned or partially owned by the respective community are contracted to provide the SWM management services. In addition, laws affecting PPP are discussed in section 5. Article 22 stipulated that environmental fees for disposal of waste shall be set in accordance with the provisions of the RoA Law on nature protection and utilization payments. Article 24 stipulates vaguely that supervision over waste management shall be exercised by the state government authorized body in the procedure established by law. It is not clear exactly which existing Government body is meant. For a variety of reasons many of the powers and responsibilities granted according to the Law on Waste are effectively not being effectively exercised. There are still no standards for SWM service provision. Quite often reference is made to the technical standards of the former Soviet Union or to current Russian standards, such as for landfills. Health and sanitary stan- 6543P06 4-6

42 dards are monitored by Ministry of Health in principle, but in practice little is undertaken. The Law On Waste was supposed to change the situation to the better. However, the necessary by-laws have not been introduced so far, which makes the implementation of this law nearly impossible. From the powers and responsibilities granted in the Law on Wastes and other legislation, the following responsibilities of different state bodies for MSW management functions in the context of PPP can be summarized. 4.4 Regional regulations Given that the City of Yerevan is the owner of the Nubarashen Landfill, the city has issued regulations regarding the utilization and gate fees for the Nubarashen landfill. These regulations have not been provided to the Consultant. There were several Municipality decisions regarding the landfill, which however, have also not been received. 4.5 Local regulations The Law on Waste basically restated the authorities of the local governments as given in the Law on Local Self-government. The Law on local self-government (adopted May 7, 2002) transferred many responsibilities to the local governments including the responsibility for waste collection. The Annexes 13.1 quotes from the relevant sections of the Law on Local Self-government, which includes powers and responsibilities of the local government bodies with regard to MSW Management. Normally, based on the local government code, there would be regulations related to tariffs, contracts to be made by the collection companies with customers, calculation methods of tariffs, tendering procedures, norms on how to show costs, etc. However, such regulations could not be identified as yet. A new Law on Yerevan has been prepared and is expected to be enacted by the end of This law will change the status of Yerevan Marz into the status of a self-government body. The twelve present self-governed districts will lose their status and become suburbs of the new Municipality of Yerevan. The law will greatly extend the responsibilities and powers of the administration of the City of Yerevan. Among others, the responsibility for MSW management and public cleaning will be shifted from the twelve districts to the central administration of the City of Yerevan. 6543P06 4-7

43 Present Administrative Set-up Marz (City) of Yerevan Ajapnyak Avan Arabir Davidashen Erebuni Kentron Malatia-Sebastia Nor-Nork Nork-Marash Nurabashen Shengavit Qanaqer-Zeytun Self-governed district communes Administrative Set-up with Law on Yerevan City of Yerevan Self government body Ajapnyak Avan Arabir Davidashen Erebuni Kentron Malatia-Sebastia Nor-Nork Nork-Marash Nurabashen Shengavit Qanaqer-Zeytun Sub-ordinated districts Figure 5 Present and future administrational set-up in Yerevan 6543P06 4-8

44 5. Institutional Set-up of MSW-Management 5.1 Institutional Framework on the National Level The governmental structure in Republic of Armenia includes: Legislative branch National Assembly; Executive branch President, Cabinet, Ministries and Regional Governments; Local self-government; Judicial branch Courts and Prosecutor s Office. Ministries in RA are republican executive agencies, which elaborate and implement the national policy in the corresponding field and are headed by the Ministers. In Armenia, the following Ministries are involved in the waste management sector: Ministry of Economy (overall economic policy and PPP); Ministry of Nature Protection; Ministry of Urban Development; Ministry of Health and State Hygiene; Minstry of Territorial Administration Other Ministries and executive bodies within them Ministry of Economy Ministry of Economy is responsible for the state regulation over the import and export of chemical substances and waste. Further, PPP and private participation, investments and foreign direct investment are in the responsibilities portfolio of the Ministry of Economy Ministry of Nature Protection The Ministry of Nature Protection has overall responsibility for the elaboration and implementation of the state policy in the field of environment protection and sustainable use of natural resources. Here two main subordinated units and organizations are of interest: (1) Hazardous Chemicals and Waste Management Department and (2) State Environmental Inspection. Apparently the MoNP s major responsibility is with regard to hazardous waste, however, the descriptions often only mention waste or waste management. This perhaps corresponds with the definition of waste in the Law on Waste, which is also including MSW and industrial waste. 6543P06 5-1

45 Also it should be noted that whilst the environmental protection objectives are written into the powers and responsibilities of the MoNP, looking at the long-term record of the Nubareshen Landfill, for example, it does not appear that much force has been put behind these authorities. Other Ministry of Nature Protection units involved include: Division of Environmental and Nature Use Economics responsible for the elaboration of economic instruments for the regulation of waste and hazardous chemicals; Centre for Monitoring of Impact on the Environment performs partial regular monitoring of the quality of surface water and air pollution; State non-commercial organization on environmental expertise which implements the expertise and environment impact assessment of the proposed activities, including projects, programs, construction and manufacturing objects, etc Ministry of Urban Development Main responsibilities of the Ministry of Urban Development include territorial development and planning and planning and development of state policy in municipal and apartments sector. It is also responsible for elaboration of provision of mechanisms for the introduction of municipal policy principles. During the centralized waste management system was decentralized and the communities and private companies have undertaken waste management activities. The landfills of all towns, except Yerevan and Dastakert are within the authority of the State Enterprise of the Ministry of Urban Development. The Ministry of Urban Development was deeply involved in the work of Intergovernmental Committee which has developed a SWM Concept for RA. The Concept was several times revised but not approved. The Consultant has no access to this document at the moment Ministry of Health and State Hygiene Ministry of Health and State Hygiene is responsible for elaboration of the state policy for sanitary-epidemiological safety provision. It does the planning of the activities and control over the enforcement of sanitary norms and standards, as well as hygienic-epidemiological activities. It is also responsible for organization of research for the identification and prevention of negative impacts of environmental components on the human health. State Hygienic and Anti-Epidemic Inspectorate within the Ministry of Health controls the enforcement of the sanitary regulation and norms by the legal entities and individuals. It is responsible for the analysis and assessment of the situation regarding to the sanitary-epidemiological safety of the 6543P06 5-2

46 population. The Inspectorate undertakes hygienic expertise during the land allocation process for construction, waste disposal, etc. 5.2 Institutional Organization of MSWM in Yerevan Regional level Yerevan city government The Constitution and respective laws adopted in 1995 and 1996 established the new territorial administration. The 39 regional governments were transformed into 10 regions called Marz. These Regions are subdivided into local self-government bodies district-communities called Hamaink. The City of Yerevan is considered to be a region. Regional executive authority is represented by the Governors (Marzpet). They implement regional policy and administer the regions jointly with the local self-governing bodies. The Governors (including the Mayor of the City of Yerevan) are appointed and dismissed directly by the Cabinet. The state budget finances the Marz administration (Marzpetaran). The President s Decree On State Government in the Marzes of the RA (PD-726, from August 6, 1997) stipulated following responsibilities for the Regions (Marzes): Supervise the constitutionality and legality of decisions taken by local self-governing bodies; Assure the implementation of the decrees of the President and Government; Implement the regional economic and social development programs; Coordinate the state agencies functioning in its territory. The Regions among others have responsibilities for secure protection of state property, natural resources, cultural heritage and other protected objects. In regard to the environmental issues, the Governors are to: Participate in elaboration of national environmental programs and makes provisions for their implementation in the Marz area; Be responsible for enforcement of environmental legislation in the region; Cooperate with environmental NGOs. The same President s Decree states, that Mayor of Yerevan controls trash collection, organizes trash and waste treatment (Section 1.13). 6543P06 5-3

47 However, here again an implementation gap occurs due to the lack of the necessary bylaws explaining this function of the Mayor. Until January 1, 2005 Yerevan City Government was responsible for choosing a company for the sanitary cleaning of the major streets of the city, so called streets of city significance. Now this is the responsibility of the local self-government. The administrations of the district communities organize tenders for the overall sanitary cleaning based on the law On procurement (is in power since January 1, 2005). As of today, Yerevan City Government has at its disposal no mechanisms to influence the SWM sector and practically does not interfere with the solid waste collection procedure. The Department of Communal Services is the oversight body for solid waste management (Mr. Khachatryan). Yerevan city is the owner of the Nubarashen landfill and all of the waste disposed of there. The city administration has contracted a private company Erebuni-Maqrutjun LLC for the landfill operation. This company is in the same time contracted by the district community Erebuni for solid waste collection. The actual legal basis does not specify enough the regulation of the waste disposal procedure and operation of the waste disposal site. The Law On Nature Protection and Nature Use Fees from December 30, 1998 does foresee the fees for the disposal of the waste based on the volume and degree of danger (Article 10, Section 3). It is not clear if in the case with MSW this law can be considered as a proclamation of the polluter pays principle. In the latter case these fees should be charged from the households, which is rather unrealistic. As a result of this uncertainty and consequent bankruptcy of the two predecessors of the current landfill operator, Yerevan city government in agreement with the Ministry of Nature Protection has abolished these nature protection fees for waste disposal Local level Yerevan district communities The institutional framework of the local government level is described in the section on local self-government and below in the next section on PPP in solid waste management Institutional Capacities Under the present system of decentralized service responsibility, the question arises as to the institutional capabilities of the local self-government bodies, i.e. the community administrations. Judging from the previous practice and results, it can be safely said that the local administrations generally lack the capacity to properly plan, supervise and contract the 6543P06 5-4

48 services for waste collection and city cleaning. There are differences between the districts, but in general the administrations do not have the know-how necessary to perform the tasks. Having said this, it must be added that, of course, availability of resources (funding) is also important for an administration. In appraising this situation, close attention should also be paid to the systematic means of coping with ever increasing costs and constant or nearly constant resources. 5 The practice of subsidizing waste collection through the street cleaning contracts to account for low levels of fees approved by the local councils practically eliminates any basis for performance monitoring, since it is accepted that the contract does not mean what is written in it. Reports have shown that the capacity for preparing and carrying out competitive bidding in local communities is in general lacking. This is confirmed in MSWM, since the Consultant has seen no evidence of competitive tendering in this area. As a preliminary assessment, it appears that there is little or no capacity for planning or strategy development at the community level. Basically, there is no need for this kind of know-how under the present regime. This is perhaps different at the City level. Planning and strategic know-how is to some extent available in the Ministry of Urban Development and in some planning offices, as witnessed by the development of the Yerevan Master Plan, for example. However, it is not known how familiar these institutions are with modern SWM practices. 5.3 Preliminary Appraisal of the Institutional Set-up After reviewing the legal and institutional situation in Armenia as it applies to Yerevan, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn with regard to institutional overlaps, gaps, inconsistencies and provisions which could hinder PPP. The Table 8 shows in a matrix form how the different state and local government bodies, the public and private enterprises are involved with different aspects of operation, policymaking and regulation of the MSWM Sector. Table 9 gives details for each entry in Table 8. The preliminary assessment after Task 1 (and note that Task 6 covers legal and institutional analysis) tends to suggest that the institutional framework for MSWM is underdeveloped. The current waste definition appears to be too broad to provide a basis for the MSWM sector, including household and industrial waste types. Illuminating by-laws and secondary legislations, technical standards have not yet been elaborated. However, the current state of under-funding of the entire sector makes it difficult to pinpoint why improvements have not been or are not being made to the institutional framework. An initiative to reform waste management laws failed to be implemented, however, no opinion is expressed about the effectiveness of 5 It should be noted that districts nearly doubled the funds for the street cleaning contracts between 2005 and P06 5-5

49 the proposed reforms since the documentation has not been received from the Ministry of Urban Development. Some specific deficiencies of the institutional framework have been identified: Oversight functions are assigned to several bodies. Law on Waste assigns development of schemes and plans to local and Marz levels. Several bodies say they are dealing with norms and technical standards for landfills. Definition of waste does not distinguish between MSW and hazardous. This is presumably left up to waste class categorization. No binding norms for landfill operation (specific emissions limits, technical standards). Several bodies have tried drafting such regulations based on Russian codes. No laws requiring commercial entities to deal with waste. No contracts with households New Law on Yerevan is going to change the structure of responsibilities in Yerevan. Table 8 Institutional Responsibilities and Authorities Matrix Note: cells with different patterns mean partial responsibility explained in the Table below 6543P06 5-6

50 Table 9 Explanations to the Matrix Ref. No. Contents Description Law Problems, issues if any 1 Ministry of Economy is Constitution responsible for Economic Policy including privatization, foreign direct investment 2 Public Procurement Agency under the Ministry of Finance regulates and monitors public procurement 3 Ministry of Nature Protection is responsible for policy making and regulation; carry out EIA 4 MoNP responsible for Law on Waste Art. 8 a) Participate in development of state policy ; k) facilities and operation s design documents Law on Waste Art. 8; h) Environmental fees were waived for Nubareshen Landfill approving sites for location of waste management objects 5 Environmental Inspectorate Law on Waste No specific mention of monitoring environmental impacts of waste facilities by Environmental Inspectorate 6 Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) to prepare strategy for communal sector, specifically for waste management (since 2002) 7 MoUD has prepared drafts of standards for landfills 8 MoUD has prepared updated norms for collection 9 MoHealth ist the state government body responsible for health policy and regulations 10 Hygiene Inspectorate has said Law on Waste Art. 9 gives the responsibilities of MoH with regard to waste management 6543P06 5-7

51 that it is responsible for health issues at landfills and has prepared draft norms for landfill operation 11 Hygiene Inspectorate is responsible for norms and hygiene standards 12 Yerevan Municipality owns Nubareshen Landfill 13 Yerevan Municipality as territorial authority has the oversight over waste management 14 Municipal Master Plan includes Environmental Issues 15 Municipality is directly and indirectly involved in condominium and housing management 16 Local self-government bodies are responsible for organizing waste collection Local self-government bodies fund operation (nominally street cleaning but de facto collection as well) through their budgets 19 Community Councils approve fees 20 Public/private companies provide equipment for collection. There is little investment due to short contract terms 21 Companies carry out collection based on the street cleaning contracts 22 Companies carry out street cleaning under contracts with communities 23 Company runs landfill under contract with Municipality Law on Waste Art. 9 Law on Local Self-Government Law on Local Self- Government, Art. There is no mention of the monitoring function of the Inspectorate No contracts for collection. No contracts with household waste generators 6543P06 5-8

52 24 Households pay for waste collection (without contracts) to collection companies 25 Commercial enterprises pay fees to collection companies 26 Local self-government bodies have oversight function over waste collection 27 MoNP is to establish a data base of waste, accountability and planning purposes? MoNP approves site locations for waste management objects 28 Mo Health is to approve site locations of landfills 29 RoA Government, i.e. government departments develop the state policy 30 Yerevan Municipality as territorial administration body participates in policy making and prepares state programs, local programs etc. Civil law contract Law on Waste Art a) Law on Waste, Art. 8 h) Law on Waste, Art. 9 c) Law on Waste, Art. 7 a) Law on Waste, Art. 10 a) b) c) 6543P06 5-9

53 6. Private Sector Participation 6.1 Regulations with regard to Private Participation General Government Policy towards PPP Generally speaking, Armenia has a larger share of private investment than in many other post-soviet countries. For more than a decade Armenian Government policy has been in favor of increased private sector participation Some of the main milestones in the development of private sector participation are: 1996 Program for the Transfer of State Enterprises and Unfinished Construction Objects for the period Establishment of Public Service Regulatory Commission approved on December 25, 2003 National Procurement Law passed in 2000, revised in 2004 Ministry of Economy responsible for procurement policy Public Procurement Agency responsible for oversight Establishment of Armenia Investment Agency (for foreign investment). A recent report of the UNDP Armenia (2008) identifies deficits and makes suggestions for their remediation: Volume of PPP not adequate to meet infrastructure development needs Still to many sole source awards, too little competitive processes Lack of know-how, especially in local government bodies Lack of a centralized coordination unit for PPP PPP in Solid Waste Management Since independence, PPP in MSW management has undergone a number of phases which coincide with the various stages of reform of public sector responsibilities. After independence in 1993, solid waste management (collection, transport and disposal) was first still carried out by state enterprises (Communtnt) under the Ministry of Urban Development. A reform program was initiated in 1994 to support more private sector activities in sectors which were formerly the realm of state enterprises. 6543P

54 In 1996 among other responsibilities, those for MSW Management were transferred to the regional governments. In that same year more initiatives were developed to accelerate the process of private sector participation and the development of private sector investments. In this process the property of municipal state enterprises was transferred to privately organized companies (Program for the Transfer of State Enterprises and Unfinished Construction Objects for the period ). Landfills, however, were put under municipal ownership by a governmental decision. Article 49 of the Law on Local Self-government specifies that mandatory powers of the communities shall be fulfilled by the staff of the chief of community, budgetary institutions, commercial and non-commercial agencies and organizations. This is the basis for hiring private sector companies by the local communities to fulfill the SWM obligations. Furthermore, Article 52 stipulates that a community, with a view of exercising its ownership, may create budgetary institutions, commercial and non-commercial organizations. The new Law on Yerevan will redefine the local government level in Yerevan city area and will redistribute the powers and authorities for MSW management. 6.2 Private sector activities in SWM Operation of the current service contracts Local government bodies contract services for street cleaning and snow removal etc. to private companies and pay for these services from the local government budget. Currently there are 14 companies involved in provision of street cleaning, collection and transportation services in Yerevan. As part of the street cleaning contract, the same company is given the rights and the obligation to collect and transport MSW and to conclude contracts with local commercial, government waste generators in the community and to collect the appropriate fees for these services as approved by the local government council. These types of companies can have various state ownership shares as mentioned above. 6543P

55 Table 10 Solid Waste Management Companies Community Company Ownership Achapnyak Achapnyaki Sanmaqrum n.a. LLC Maqur Achapnyak CJSC 100% community owned JSC Arabkir Arabkir Maqrutyun CJSC private Avan Davasar LLC n.a. Davtashen Davtashen santekhspasarkum private LCC Erebuni Erebuni Maqrutyun LCC private NN private Qanaqer-Zeytun Sanmaqrum CJSC 100% community owned JSC Kentron Kentron Maqrutyun CJSC n.a. Malatsia-Sebastia Krunk CJSC 100% community owned JSC Nork-Marash Meri Maqrutyun LLC private Nor-Nork Arajap LLC private Nubarashen Nubarashen Sanmaqrum communal Co. CJSC Shengavit Kanach CJSC 100% community owned JSC Nik Man LLS private Source: interviews with community and companies and information provided by Yerevan City According to the information now available, around half of the companies operating in the field in Yerevan are privately owned. The other 50% are JSC or limited liability companies with 100% local government ownership 6. No information is available about the ownership of the private companies. The contracts are awarded on a yearly basis. The available documents mention a tendering process, however, in reality it is a sole source procurement. The local government administrations under the head of the community (as per Law on Local Self-Government) renew the street cleaning contract annually with the same company. There is no competition for these contracts. The companies are obliged to submit a cost estimate for the services to the community council, which must approve of the contract. The service contracts for street cleaning etc. are not monitored by local government and in fact are used as a source for subsidizing the collection and transport services, which are usually in deficit, due to the low fees and low collection rates. In addition, the lack of supervision and monitoring allows the companies to vary their performance in relation to the fees they can collect. While this is a vehicle to provide funding for waste collection, it 6 Local government administration from whom this information is received do not differentiate clearly between JSC and Ltd. Companies when asked. 6543P

56 also generally precludes any supervision or control over the company s performance in either service Comparison of Community and Private Operators Due to the current general low quality of services currently provided, it is not possible to conclude whether private or communal companies are doing a better job. There are differences in service provision between districts, but these do not appear to be correlated with one ownership form or another. In personal interviews the representatives of the district communities expressed different attitudes toward the type of ownership of the company. Some districts (e.g. Erebuni, Davtashen, Nork-Marash) are very enthusiastic about having contracted a private company. The main reasons named were: bad experience with a municipal company; and that private companies seem (in their opinion) to have better possibilities to modernize the fleet. Other districts (like Avan, Shengavit, Achapnyak, Nubarashen) changed back to municipal ownership. The reasons declared are perhaps not surprisingly - the same: bad experience with the private company, the municipality has, from their point of view, greater possibilities to modernize the fleet and invest while keeping risks low. Since apparently there are great differences in satisfaction with both private and municipal companies, which lead the districts to change providers, one can deduce that competitive bidding globally applied would presumably lead in the near or mid-term to the survival of only the well managed companies. While these opinions do not allow a final conclusion about the advantages and disadvantages of private or public companies, they do indicate what appears to be important to the local administrations, namely, the ability to modernize the equipment. This investment issue is, however, better addressed by adjusting the length of the contracts, which inhibits any investment activity of a commercially operating company. The different current situation and state of the waste management system among the district communities have rather to do with management qualities and the political will of the local government Private operation of the landfill Whilst in 1996 the property of municipal state enterprises was transferred to various forms of privately organized companies (Program for the Transfer of State Enterprises and unfinished Construction Objects for the period 6543P

57 ), the landfills were put under municipal ownership by a governmental decision. Accordingly, Yerevan Municipality established in 1996 the Municipal Landfill SCJSC State Closed Joint Stock Company with 100% municipal ownership. In 2002 the courts declared the company bankrupt. The landfill itself was then leased for use to two limited liability companies, Megakhod and Ekthekhard for a number of years. In 2006 the Yerevan Municipality decided to award the operation of the landfill to a new company. This company, Erebuni Waste Ltd., was actually founded by the Erebuni Community, which is adjacent to Nubarashen Community, but significantly larger. The property of the landfill is still owned by the Yerevan Municipality. The length of the lease of the landfill site to the company is not known Trends and future perspectives Overall, the GoA intends to increase and intensify the use of PPP to achieve its goals of improved provision of public services to the populace. In solid waste management, tendencies for the future can be recognized in the following events of the past period: 2 cases of attempts to introduce private sector projects in SWM: Shimizu CDM project for landfill gas utilization AutobahnInvest Comprehensive Waste Management Concept for Yerevan New Law on Yerevan. A Solid Waste Concept of the intergovernmental committee on SWM reportedly exists, which is now being supported by the Ministry of Urban Development. However, the report of the concept has not been released as yet to the Consultant by the Ministry of Urban Development. Potentially, this document could contain a different vision of the future of the sector. The new Law on Yerevan will relinquish the districts of Yerevan from the local government responsibility for waste management, although presumably some monitoring and supervision tasks will remain decentralized in the district administrations. Ministry of Economy has expressed the expectation that it wants private sector in SWM to: Improve quality of services; Introduce new methods and technology; Provide investments; and Provide better value for money. The prerequisites for fulfillment of these expectations: 6543P

58 An overall plan; Procurement procedures; Monitoring and supervision; Improved institutional and legislative framework. 6543P

59 7. Current Municipal Solid Waste Generation 7.1 Waste Generation Sources There are the following types of MSW generators in Yerevan: Family houses (mainly one- or two-storey detached houses); Multi-apartment buildings (high- and low-rise); Public institutions (schools, kindergartens, universities, hospitals and other); Commercial organizations (restaurants, shops, hotels, offices and other); Industrial sources. Family houses According to the Yerevan City Government, there are more than 53,000 family houses on the territory of Yerevan. At the same time Armenian Statistical Services (Armstat) provides a different number of the family houses in Yerevan - 39,553. The available explanation is that the State Cadastre provides only data on privatized houses. Current data is from However, within the last years substantial number of detached houses has been privatized. It is expected, that the next (2009) report of Armstat will provide a figure of round about 53,000 as an updated data. Most of these one- or two-storey detached houses are situated in the following district communities: Achapnyak, Avan, Erebuni, Nork-Marash, Nubarashen. Multi-apartment buildings There are some 4,600 high- and low-rise multi-apartment buildings in Yerevan with some 200,000 apartments. There are multi-apartment buildings which have different number of storey and are spread unevenly throughout the city (see Table 11). 6543P

60 Table 11 Multi-apartment buildings across the city managed by district community or condominium Community Number of Stores Total Number of Buildings from 6 to and more 148 TOTAL from 6 to and more 209 TOTAL from 6 to and more 179 TOTAL from 6 to and more 169 TOTAL from 6 to and more 76 TOTAL from 6 to and more 151 TOTAL 700 AJAPNYAK AVAN ARABKIR DAVIDASHEN EREBUNI KENTRON 6543P

61 Community Number of Stories Total Number of Buildings MALATSIA- SEBASTIA NOR-NORK NORK-MARASH NUBARASHEN SHENGAVIT QANAQER- ZEYTUN Source: Statistical Service of RA (2007) 5 72 from 6 to and more 485 TOTAL from 6 to and more 264 TOTAL N/A N/A 5 N/A from 6 to 8 N/A 9 and more N/A TOTAL from 6 to and more 0 TOTAL from 6 to and more 113 TOTAL from 6 to and more 114 TOTAL 343 The Law of RA On Apartment Building Management from May 7, 2002 stipulates the property rights for the shared infrastructure (including sanitary devices) and liabilities of the parties. This includes obligation of the struc- 6543P

62 ture owners to perform maintenance the common shared property of the building. Waste collection is not explicitly in the text of the law. It only means that they are responsible for the garbage chute, which is common shared property and that the apartment owners must pay if a modernization is foreseen. There is a Decision of the RA Government on multi-apartment building management from 2007, however, specifying waste management standards (such as the waste must be collected every three days etc.). The Law of RA On condominiums from May 7, 2002 stipulates the organizational form and procedures for the management of the property in shared ownership. Already in 2005, 90 % of multi-apartment buildings were operated by the condominiums. As for 2008, there are some 154 buildings managed by the district communities and 4500 organized in condominiums (see Table 12 and Table 13). Table 12 Buildings managed by district communities Communities AJAPNYAK AVAN ARABKIR DAVIDASHEN EREBUNI KENTRON MALATSIA-SEBASTIA NOR-NORK NORK-MARASH NUBARASHEN SHENGAVIT QANAQER-ZEYTUN TOTAL Source: Statistical Service of RA (2007) Total Number of Buildings Stone Walls Panel Walls Monolithe Table 13 Buildings managed by condominiums Communities AJAPNYAK AVAN ARABKIR DAVIDASHEN EREBUNI KENTRON MALATSIA-SEBASTIA NOR-NORK NORK-MARASH NUBARASHEN SHENGAVIT QANAQER-ZEYTUN TOTAL Source: Statistical Service of RA (2007) Total Number of Buildings Stone Walls Panel Walls Monolithe Public Institutions Public Institutions include educational, cultural, medical, governmental, communal and other establishments. They together make up a significant 6543P

63 source for MSW generation and are served by the collection companies contracted by the district communities. The following tables illustrate types as well as number of the public institutions in Yerevan and its dynamics during the last four years. Table 14 Education Establishments in Yerevan EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENTS Number Establishments, total including State pre-school establishment Non-state pre-school establishment State general education school Non-state general education school Music and art school youth creative (cultural) centre State secondary specialized education Non-state secondary specialized education establishment State higher education establishment Non-state higher education establishment Source: Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures (2008) Table 15 Cultural Establishments in Yerevan CULTURAL ESTABLISHMENT Libraries Number Employees Visitors (ths.) Theaters Number Performances Visitors (ths.) Museums Number Employees Visitors (ths.) Concert Number Halls Concerts Visitors (ths.) Sport Number OrganizatioEmployees Visitors (ths.) Source: Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures (2007) Table 16 Medical Establishments in Yerevan MEDICAL ESTABLISHM Polyclinics Physicians Visitors (ths.) Source: Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures (2007) P

64 Commercial organizations Commercial organizations and their share in Yerevan are shown in the following figure. Other 18.42% Hotels, Restaurants 3.40% Transport and Communications 4.90% Finances 0.70% Real Estate Agencies 8.51% Trade 52.45% Governmental 0.10% Education 1.40% Health 1.20% Construction 4.40% Communal Services 4.50% Figure 6 Registered Companies and Organizations in Yerevan Source: Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures (2005 Update!) Trade represents the largest part of the commercial organizations registered in Yerevan (Figure 6). The following table illustrates types as well as number of the retail trade units in Yerevan and its dynamics during the last four years. Table 17 Retail Trade Units in Yerevan RETAIL TRADE UNITS Number Retail trade units, total including shops kiosks markets of agricultural produce markets of consumer goods other trade units Source: Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures (2008) Taking into account that trade makes up 52.5% of the total number of commercial organizations, the number can be assumed to be approximately 19,000 units. 6543P

65 Other waste generation sources Besides family houses, multi-apartment buildings, institutional and commercial organizations, there are also industrial waste generation sources using often the same waste collection and disposal infrastructure. However, further investigation of this waste generation source is out of scope of the project. 7.2 Present MSW Quantities The quantity of MSW generation in Yerevan is a function of the number of residents as well as the number of institutions and commercial organizations. The overall economic activity in the capital city is very high, which is due also to the large number of national governmental and administrative bodies situated there. In Yerevan, there have been only few activities undertaken in order to monitor waste generation quantity. At none of the 4 larger landfills there is a weighbridge. Thus the available data are not accurate data about the waste quantity delivered to the landfill. The MSW quantities delivered to the landfills are estimated from the number of vehicles, arriving at the landfill and their pay-volume, which is determined by a visual check of an employee at the entrance, in order to charge the landfill gate fee Quantity based on official statistical data The Report on Waste by Armenian Statistical Service from 2005 provides data on waste generation in Yerevan. Since 2002 the quantities seem to have stabilized at around 800,000 m³/year, reported as received by the 4 larger disposal sites. No newer data upon the total landfilled volume is available. No disposal site is equipped with a weighbridge. Therefore the volume is determined at the registration at the disposal site as described above. It seems, that there is no differentiation of the volumes delivered, will say, it does not matter, whether the MSW is delivered on a dump truck uncompacted or in a compaction truck. There is no record at the landfill as to the number and type of the vehicles, which would allow to determine an average density of the MSW delivered. The Consultant was told that Yerevan city is using the factor: 0.28 t/m³. In order to verify the Consultant analyzed the collection fleet serving Yerevan. The result was that depending on the frequency of delivery the factor may vary between 0.26 and 0.30 t/m³, i.e. a slightly higher factor, as the factor used by Yerevan. Taking into account these factors, the registered volume accounts to 208,000 to 240,000 t/a. This quantity is low for a town like Yerevan. There are different possibilities, which may explain a larger MSW quantity being delivered presently: 6543P

66 There is information from the operators of the disposal sites that the volume of waste has been increasing in the past years, which would support the experience of the Consultant; There is the possibility, that not all vehicles entering during opening hours are properly registered; There is the possibility, that waste is delivered outside official opening hours, which is possible, since the disposal sites are not fenced and locked outside operation hours. During the baseline study, the Consultant has identified a large number of dumpsites as well as waste being burned in the street or in gardens. The Consultant believes it therefore very likely, that the real MSW quantity, which is disposed of is about 20% higher, than the estimated MSW quantities, delivered to the disposal sizes. It is therefore assumed, if all MSW quantities would be collected and properly registered and disposed to the disposal sites, a quantity of 277,000 t/a (240 kg/cap/a) to 290,000 t/a (260 kg/cap/a) had to be expected. This quantity also includes commercial waste but MSW presently recycled is not included MSW quantities based on questionnaire results 8 out of the 12 district communities have stated MSW volumes, which they have delivered to the disposal sites in The following table shows the results. 6543P

67 District community Table 18: Estimate of present quantities based on questionnaire results (2007) Delivered Delivered Approximate UGR MSW UGR MSW volume to volume transportation (only quantity (incl. quantity disposal to density of districts (only assump- all from disposal MSW based giving districts, tion for districts questionnaire on truck data in giving other profile of ques- data in districts) district*) tion- question **) naire) naire) m³/a m³/cap/a t/m³ kg/cap/a t/a kg/cap/a t/a Achapnyak ,700 Avan ,625 Arabkir 128, , ,418 Davdashen 28, , ,080 Erebuni 108, , ,720 Kanaker- Zeytun 94, , ,759 Kentron 182, , ,995 Malatia- Sebastia 147, , ,535 Nor Nork 149, , ,582 Nork Marash 7, , ,971 Nubarashen 2, ,900 Shengavit No data available ,700 Total (only districts giving data in questionnaire ) 847, ,561 Total (all districts) 1,162, ,984 *) Large compaction trucks (>16 m³) make 1 trip per shift, all other trucks 2 trips/shift. **) Assumption: Districts, which did nit give their quantity have a UGR of 250 kg/cap/d The above table shows the large variation of UGRs depending on the different district communities. Kentron as the centre with the most business activities, such as offices, shops, restaurants, hotels, banks as well as the administration buildings, such as ministries and city administration, shows the by far highest UGR, obviously caused by the contribution of MSW from these business activities and institutions. Most of the other districts have a UGR between 200 and 300 kg/cap/a. The result of the estimate is a generated MSW quantity of approximately 300,000 t/a Comparison with other towns In order to get an idea, whether the quantities estimated are in an appropriate range, in this subsection a short comparison with towns of poor and rich countries is carried out. The comparison is shown in the next table. For the recycling the information of Section 8.3 is taken, which is given as approximately 18,000 t/a. There is little trade with the international recy- 6543P

68 cling markets for paper, cardboard and plastic yet. Nevertheless, it is assumed, that a certain quantity of recycling materials is not registered anywhere, and thus a quantity of 30,000 t/a of recycled material seems more likely. Table 19: Comparison of different generation rates (without C&D waste) Quantity generated (landfilled and Quantity landfilled recycled) kg/cap/a kg/cap/a Sofia Tashkent Montevideo Muscat Stuttgart 431 Rotterdam 500 Yerevan statistics Yerevan questionnaire 270 Yerevan Consultant estimate Yerevan Consultant estimate 265, ,000 t/a 300, ,000 t/a As can be seen from the table, the Consultant assumes a lower and a higher scenario of possible MSW Quantities generated in Yerevan Commercial and institutional waste MSW from most of the commercial enterprises as well as from the institutional buildings is collected by the same collection company as for the residential waste. Therefore no information is available how much commercial and institutional waste is actually generated in Yerevan. In order to estimate a likely amount, the Consultant took the following assumptions: A minimum of 15% is assumed to be commercial and institutional waste in each district community. Where the UGR (see Table 18) is larger than 250 kg/cap/a, additionally all quantities above this UGR are assumed commercial or institutional waste. The resulting MSW quantities are shown in the next Section Breakdown of present MSW quantities Taking into account the present UGRs (see Table 18) and the assumptions taken for the commercial and institutional MSW the Consultant estimated 6543P

69 the MSW quantity which needs to be collected and landfilled from each of the district communities. Table 20: Estimated breakdown of MSW quantities to landfill per housing type (2007) MSW quantities to disposal Buildings with chutes Family houses Multiapartment buildings without chute Commercial and institutional waste District community t/a t/a t/a t/a Achapnyak 10,947 8,357 3,391 4,005 Avan 822 7,985 1,924 1,894 Arabkir 11,561 10,034 6,328 7,496 Davdashen 160 5, ,212 Erebuni 5,974 5,447 10,441 3,858 Kanaker-Zeytun 5,754 4,879 3,613 2,514 Kentron 6,531 5,691 15,340 19,434 Malatia-Sebastia 2,394 20,749 6,734 16,657 Nor Nork 14,145 16, ,024 Nork Marash , Nubarashen Shengavit 12,625 5,935 11,785 5,355 Total 72,118 91,222 62,615 71, ,984 24% 31% 21% 24% 7.3 Morphology Since 1990 several morphology analyses have been carried out in Yerevan, as follows: Results of an official study conducted in 1990 (Figure 7); Results of an official study conducted in 1994 (Figure 8); Results of the study conducted by Shimizu Corporation in 2000; Results of the study conducted by Shimizu Corporation in 2006; Results of the study within the UNDP project on Strengthening of Integrated Waste Management in Armenia in The consolidated results of these morphological analyses are shown in the Table 11. The first two mentioned studies of waste morphology were conducted based on the methodology developed by Panfilov Academy of Communal Economy. The investigation took place before the waste collection. The containers were emptied and waste was sorted according to the fractions and weighted. The waste analysis was performed at different generation sources throughout the four seasons. The results were then weighted and consolidated. 6543P

70 Glass 5% Stones and ceramics 8% Soil 16% Paper and cardboard 12% Non-ferrous metals 1% Ferrous metal 2% Bones 2% Polymer materials 2% Rubber and leather 2% Food waste 40% Textile 3% Wood and leaves 7% Figure 7 MSW morphology in Yerevan in 1990 Stones and ceramics 8% Soil 28% Paper and cardboard 18% Glass 5% Non-ferrous metals 0% Ferrous metal 0% Bones 2% Polymer materials 2% Rubber and leather 1% Food waste 30% Wood and leaves 2% Textile 2% Figure 8 MSW morphology in Yerevan in P

71 Waste analysis by Shimizu Corporation took place during the investigation stage of the CDM Project planned for Nubarashen landfill. The waste analysis was performed at the landfill. Waste was taken directly from the delivering trucks for investigation. These data are seen as indicative only. The available results of former investigations in different years are quite different, which partially can be explained with the changes in waste composition in the past almost 20 years. Looking at the most recent analysis of 2006, the analysis of Shimizu fits well with the analyses known from other towns and countries, as can be seen from Table 22. The investigations took place in the summer period and the waste from 10 trucks was analyzed at the landfill. The UNDP analysis is incomplete, missing even major components such as plastics. Therefore for the further study the composition as determined by Shimizu shall be taken ( Figure 9). Stones and ceramics 8% Glass 5% Non-ferrous metals 2% Ferrous metal 3% Bones 2% Polymer materials 10% Soil 4% Paper and cardboard 12% Food waste 46% Rubber and leather 3% Textile 2% Wood and leaves 2% Figure 9 MSW morphology in Yerevan in P

72 Table 21 Consolidated data on MSW morphology in Yerevan Composition of waste, % N Date of analysis Paper and cardboard Food waste Wood and leaves Textile Rubber and leather Polymer materials Bones Ferrous metal Non-ferrous metals Glass Stones and ceramics After to 18 to 6 to N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 5 8 N/A Soil Notes The study was conducted in 1990 by a specialized organization based on methodologies developed by Panfilov Academy of Communal Economy. Source: Report on MSW for 2005, NSS of RA The study was conducted in 1994 by a specialized organization based on methodologies developed by Panfilov Academy of Communal Economy. Source: Report on MSW for 2005, NSS of RA Results of the study conducted by Shimizu Corporation in Results of the study conducted by Shimizu Corporation in Strengthening of Integrated Waste Management in Armenia, UNDP in P06 7-1

73 Table 22 Morphology analysis of different towns FRACTION MONTEVIDEO TASHKENT SOFIA YEREVAN URUGUAY UZBEKISTAN BULGAIA MONTE- NEGRO SHIMIZU / PLASTIC 10.3% 4.2% % 9.8% PLASTIC BOTTLES 1) 1.5% 1) 1) 1) GLASS 1.6% 2.4% 9.9 5% 8.7% TEXTILE 4.3% 4.1% 3.2 5% 2.0% FERROUS METAL 2.3% 2.0% 1.7 4% 2.8% NON FERROUS METAL 2) 0.3% 2) 2) 2.2% PAPER 18.8% 1.5% % 11.5% CARDBOARD 3) 3) 9.7 3) 3) PACKAGING MATERIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.7 VEGETA- BLES/ORGANIC MATTER WOOD, TREE BRANCHES LEATHER, HORN, BONE, RUBBER BABY DIAPERS COMPOSITE MATERI- ALS FINE WASTE (<20 MM) 15.6% CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE 49.3% 55.5% 35.6% 50% 46.1% 3.5% % 2.1% % 1.0% INERT 5.9% 0.2% % OTHER WASTE 7.0% 6.1% 10% 4.3% TOTAL 100% 100.0% 100.0% 100% 100.0% MOISTURE 41% 50% 35% CALORIFIC VALUE (KJ/KG) 1) included in plastic fraction 8,000 5,900 2) included in ferrous metal 3) included in paper 6543P06 7-1

74 8. Current Waste Collection System and Public Cleaning 8.1 Waste Collection and Transportation Introduction As mentioned before, MSW collection is organized by the 12 district communities, using 14 hauler companies. Although generally a common approach is followed, MSW collection differs from one district community to the other, due to different types of urban development and waste generation patterns throughout the city. The MSW collection and transportation system comprises of two interrelated components: Waste pre-collection scheme (including waste accumulation facilities garbage chutes, waste bins, pre-collection points and other); Waste transportation vehicles. The MSW collection schemes and pre-collection facilities stipulate the type of the collection vehicles that are used for waste collection and transportation as well as directly affect the collection schedule. The personnel play one of the central roles in the waste collection and transportation services. Currently, according to the Yerevan City Administration, there are some 1,400 employees working in waste collection and transportation as well as sanitary cleaning sector in Yerevan. This includes 243 drivers, 227 workers and 349 manual street cleaners (janitors). This gives a total of 819 workers (see Table 23). No explanation for the remaining 600 was provided to match the above total, however. The overall quality of waste collection and transportation differ from one community district to the other. There are different reasons for that: (1) Financing: some community districts have an opportunity to support more the system then the others and to invest (e.g. city center - Kentron). (2) Fees: some community districts manage to raise the waste fees and their collection rate. (3) Location: various community districts are situated in a different distance to the main disposal site of Yerevan Nubarashen landfill. This affects severely their operational costs. (4) Technical equipment: from the beginning of the operation in the 1990s, some district communities were better technically equipped than others. (5) Management: some community districts find better management solutions than others. 6543P06 8-1

75 Table 23 Personnel in the waste collection and sanitary cleaning sector N Communities / Cleaning & Waste Collecting Companies Drivers of Waste Trucks Workers Janitors 1. Arabkir Arabkir Maqrutyun CJSC N/A N/A N/A 2. Avan Davasar LLC Achapnyak Achapnyaki Sanmaqrum LLC Maqur Achapnyak CJSC Malatia-Sebastia Krunk CJSC Shengavit Kanach CJSC Nik Man LLS Nor Nork Arajap LLC Kentron Kentron Maqrutyun CJSC Qanaqer-Zeytun Sanmaqrum CJSC Davdashen Davtashen santekhspasarkum LCC Erebuni Erebuni Maqrutyun LCC 11. Norq Marash Meri Maqrutyun LLC Nubarashen Nubarashen Sanmaqrum CJSC TOTAL Source: Yerevan City Government (2008) MSW Collection Schemes At present, there are the following alternative collection schemes: Horning system; Waste collection from garbage chutes; Waste collection from pre-collection points; Horning System The horning system is a typical collection system in family housing areas. In this system the waste truck comes to the settlement and the driver horns in order to notify people that they can bring out their MSW and put it into the waste collection truck. Until the collection truck comes the MSW is collected and stored in the houses or in their gardens. For this system generally open dump trucks are used. One company also employs a rear end loading truck, which can be used for that purpose. 6543P06 8-2

76 The trucks are usually operated with one driver and one or two loaders, one on the truck and one on the street, helping the people to lift their MSW onto the truck. The collection frequency is about twice per week. MSW Collection from Garbage Chutes Most of the multi-family buildings higher than six floors (high-rise) are equipped with garbage chutes (except those younger than 2 years equipped with the large waste containers). There are in total 3,901 multi-apartment buildings equipped with this kind of facilities for the MSW pre-collection. The number of the buildings with garbage chutes varies from one district to another (Table 24). Table 24 Location of the garbage chutes throughout the city District community Ajapnyak Avan Arabkir Davidashen Erebuni Kentron Number of garbage chutes Source: Yerevan City Government (2008) Malatia-Sebastia Nor-Norq Norq-Marash Nubarashen Shengavit Qanaqer-Zeytun TOTAL The garbage chutes and the spaces for waste accumulation at the end of the waste chutes are a major source of odors, nuisances, hygienic problems and vector propagation (Figure 10). Figure 10 Opening of the garbage chutes inside the building (on every floor) 6543P06 8-3

77 There are three types of garbage chutes presently in Yerevan, which are different at their discharge point: Type 1: Original Garbage Chute (Figure 11) This type is the most common garbage chute (2786 units), and that one originally developed. The chute discharges in a storage room, which is on ground floor level (see following figure). The storage room is accessible from outside through a normal sized door. In order to load the MSW on the collection truck the MSW needs to be moved through the small door, which is done with shovel and fork. Given the small opening it is quite difficult to move the MSW outside. Work conditions in the storage room are substandard, given that the workers have to trample on the waste and given the smelly atmosphere. Once the MSW is outside the MSW storage room it needs to be lifted 2 to 3 m up on the collection truck, which usually is an open dump truck, equipped with one driver and 2 loaders. This is a labor intensive and time consuming work. Figure 11 Garbage chute type 1 Type 2: Elevated Garbage Storage Room (Figure 12) In principle this is a modification of Type 1. There are 850 units of this type in Yerevan. The storage room is not located on the ground floor but is elevated by 1 to 2 m. This allows easier loading, because the open dump truck can directly dock below the door. Thus the MSW, which again needs to be shoveled through a small door and out of a storage room, needs not to be lifted on the truck. 6543P06 8-4

78 Figure 12 Garbage chute type 2 Type 3: direct discharge to truck (Figure 13) This is the technologically most advanced garbage chute type. In this case the discharge point is about 3 to 4 m above ground. It discharge is locked with a cover, and the MSW is stored inside the chute until it is collected. The cover is opened only when a truck (open dump type) has moved under the discharge point. Then the waste easily can fall into the truck. This is the most fast and easy way of waste loading. There are 265 garbage chutes of this type. Figure 13 Garbage chute type P06 8-5

79 A general problem of these chutes is the frequent clogging if the chute opening is operated as designed (see Figure 10). Then in order to remove the clogging, quite some time is lost. As can be seen from above figure, many of the discharge points have deteriorated and the cover does not close anymore. Thus the waste is accumulating under the chute in open space and is accessible for wind and animals. Therefore at each collection the MSW has to be shoveled and lifted manually on the collection truck, which is an open dump truck. The MSW from garbage chutes is collected every 3-5 days. The garbage chutes and the storage rooms at the end of the garbage chutes are a major source of odors, nuisances, hygienic problems and vector propagation. On the other hand, the garbage chutes are entirely inside the building. It means that only residents of this one building have the access to the garbage chute. So on the contrary to the pre-collection points standing outside along the streets, neighboring offices and shops can not use the chutes for disposal of their waste. Solution of the serious hygiene problems connected with the garbage chutes as well as the inefficiencies caused to the operation of the collection companies will require the cooperation of the condominiums and other commonproperty organizations, which are chronically short of funds. The financing of improvement to or elimination of the garbage chutes will require funding, which may hinder the implementation of an optimized collection system. All new residential buildings constructed within last two years are equipped with large waste bins (containers). System with Public Pre-Collection Points In areas, where there are block-of-flats buildings of up to 6 floors, no garbage chutes exist in the building. In these areas a pre-collection point system is used. Pre-collection points are places where open containers with a volume of 700 l are located ( Figure 14). These containers are locally produced robust metal vessel having a slightly conic form and no lid. The containers usually are placed directly on the ground. Pre-collection points are located alongside the roads near the family and low-rise buildings, in the streets, near the hotels, restaurants, hospitals, shops. They are equipped with one to 5 containers, depending on the number of people living in the neighborhood. In some areas the containers are placed in specifically constructed slabs, having concrete bottom and walls, or only having walls, in order to hide the containers from sight. 6543P06 8-6

80 Figure 14 Typical pre-collection points For the location of the pre-collection points still norms from the times of the ArmSSR (Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic) are in use. Though these norms have currently no legal power in RA, they are often de-facto still in use. According to these, the distance between the waste containers and the waste source (entrance to building) should not be less than 20 m nor exceed 100 m. In general, collection is carried out every day. 6543P06 8-7

81 The number of containers to be placed is estimated approximately by the collection companies. However, there are not sufficient containers placed at the collection points, and the collection schedule is irregular. Therefore the pre-collection points are mostly overloaded. This also encourages waste burning; which is not rare (Figure 15). Figure 15 Burning waste at the pre-collection points For the collection of the MSW from the collection points specialized collection trucks are used (see next figure). These collection trucks are equipped with a picking device for the containers, which is mounted at the side of the truck. The containers then are lifted on top of the truck-body, where they are tipped and the MSW is falling in the opening of the body. Once inside the body the MSW is compacted. Figure 16 Specialized collection truck for pre-collection points 6543P06 8-8

82 Figure 17 Specialized collection truck for pre-collection points in action However, the available fleet of such specialized collection trucks is not ufficient to cover all the pre-collection points. Therefore also open dump trucks, or in one case even a rear-end compaction truck are used (Figure 18). However, if such trucks are used, then the MSW needs to be shoveled out of the containers and then shoveled on the truck. This is a very ineffective and labor intensive work. Figure 18 Rear-end compaction truck used for MSW collection in Yerevan 6543P06 8-9

83 Collection from Large Commercial Companies Collection and removal of waste from large commercial organizations is carried out by communities waste companies in accordance with agreed and approved schedule which, in its turn, is developed considering amount of waste collected in served waste containers or bins. Waste containers are installed either on the territory of large commercial organizations (e.g. markets) or on the public territory (e.g. offices) and elsewhere. Most of the waste containers are open metal containers with a capacity of m3. Dimension of the containers is mainly depending on dimension of materials (steel plates) used by the containers manufacturing companies. The containers have either rectangular or conic forms. Some companies (like the indoor market on Figure 19) have larger waste containers that better suit their needs. Still, it is a collection of the mixed waste. Waste collection frequency depends on the number of days stated in the agreement. Usually, waste collection is required to be performed on a daily base; however, sometimes this requirement is not met and waste collection is done once in 2-3 days or two/three times per week. Waste collection process and route are regulated depending on quantity of waste trucks and waste containers as well as on distances. Collection and removal of waste from large commercial organization is regulated by the agreement (on contract basis) signed between waste producer and waste company. Figure 19 Waste container for the indoor farmers market in Yerevan In the agreement (contract) the volume of produced waste is stated, which may depend on the floor area of the organization or on another indicator or can be based on estimated amount of waste. 6543P

84 As mentioned, waste from commercial organizations is collected together with waste produced by residential sector. Waste from apartment buildings (where garbage chutes and waste chambers are installed) is being removed only once in 3-5 days. This leads to dissatisfaction and regular complaints of residents Waste collection vehicles As mentioned in the previous section, there are two groups of collection trucks used for MSW collection in Yerevan. Nearly the entire fleet is Russian-made: Open dump trucks These trucks transport the MSW in uncompacted form, i.e. with a density of 0.12 to 0.18 t/m³. The following types of trucks are in use: Dump truck with capacity 6 m³ (about 0.8 to 1 t) - manufacturer ZIL; Dump truck with capacity 10 m³ (about 1.2 to 1.8 t) - manufacturer ZIL and KAMAZ; Dump truck with capacity 18 m³ (about 2.2 to 3.2 t) - manufacturer KAMAZ; Other. Compaction Trucks These trucks are equipped with a loading device and a compaction device, in order to compact the MSW in their body to a density of 0.3 to 0.5 t/m³. The following types of trucks are in use: Body 7.5 m³ (about 2.3 to 3 t) - manufacturer of Body: Kommash, manufacturer of chassis: GAZ 53; Body 18.5 m³ (about 5.6 to 7.4 t) - manufacturer of Body: Kommash, manufacturer of chassis: KAMAZ; Body 21.5 m³ (about 6.5 to 8.5 t) - manufacturer of Body: Kommash, manufacturer of chassis: KAMAZ; Body 21.5 m³ (about 8.5 to 10.8 t) - manufacturer of Body: KUKA, manufacturer of chassis: MAN; Other. 6543P

85 Figure 20 Examples of the vehicles used for waste collection in Yerevan 6543P

86 The waste collection vehicles employed for the waste collection vary in type and age depending on the finances of the district community. 87% of the vehicles are between 15 to 20 years old. Such age highly reduces the availability of the vehicles, which have frequently to be repaired. A European-standard vehicle (MAN with KUKA body) noticed on the streets of Yerevan is rather an exception. Each of the 14 companies operate their own workshops. There is no cooperation for major maintenance. There are no manufacturer s licensed workshops, where the vehicles are brought for maintenance. There are several reasons for the current use of the Russian-made vehicles: (1) Historic: the same type of vehicles has been used since the times of ArmSSR. Many vehicles have remained from earlier. For this there are respective maintenance capacities. (2) Economic: Russian-made vehicles are cheaper than their international alternatives. (3) Geopolitical: close economic and political relations to Russia secure fast and uncomplicated delivery of the vehicles and spare parts. (4) Technical: the current waste management system in Yerevan has evolved from the standard Soviet solution. Therefore Russian equipment has an advantage being technically compatible (e.g. side loaders). (5) Economic: largest part of the current Russian-made fleet is gas fueled. This enables the companies to save up to 30 % on their fuel costs. There are also some problems reported by the waste collection companies regarding their current vehicle fleet: (1) With the exception of the central district community (Kentron), the average age of the fleet is very high. Most of the vehicles used for waste collection are from the beginning of the 90s. However, there are some vehicles made in the 80s and even 70s. (2) The trucks are outdated and do not comply with the actual international technical nor sanitary requirements. (3) Due to their age the trucks break down often causing delays and raise of the maintenance and operational costs. (4) Compaction units of the Russian-made trucks are not robust enough. (5) Modernization of the fleet is very costly and there are not sufficient funds for even small replacement investments. Some companies have solved this problem by leasing extra vehicles Waste collection schedule The waste collection schedule depends on the building structure, MSW generation per person, number of containers located, location of the precollection areas, number of collection vehicles employed and their capacity. 6543P

87 Each collection company has its own schedule for waste collection based on their experience. The main criterion of work performance is the clean and empty waste containers and bins. However, in many cases, the conditions set by contractual agreements are not executed properly. Each collection vehicle with a driver and a worker is assigned to its own area of service (collection route). In general MSW collection in Yerevan is to be undertaken in the time span between five and eleven a.m. in the morning. When fully loaded, the vehicles transport the waste directly to the disposal site and then return to the route in order to finish their task. Given the frequent breakdowns of vehicles the collection frequency and the collection schedules cannot always be kept, causing delays and additional tours. However, a maximum of two round-trips per day from the source to the landfill is the case. The distance to the main disposal site of the city Nubarashen landfill varies between 10 and 40 km, depending on the district community. Especially district communities which are far away from the Nubarashen landfill have organized additional, local dumps in order to limit the transportation costs. Occasionally the companies delay waste collection for one or two days in order to force the residents to pay for the services provided. This leads to the complaints by the residents themselves as well as condominiums and even district community bodies. The latter urge the companies to collect waste in any case. 8.2 Sanitary Cleaning Besides collection and transportation of the MSW, the same companies contracted by the district community authorities for MSW collection have to perform activities on sanitary cleaning: Streets sweeping and pick up of the litter from the streets (Figure 21); Watering and streets washing; Snow and ice removal, spread of the mixture of sand and salt; Collection of the construction and demolition waste. There are municipal and regional streets in 12 communities of Yerevan. The prioritization regulates sequence of street cleaning based on streets priority. Status of streets is decided depending of number of cars passing the street during a unit time. Sanitary cleaning of residential areas consists of summer cleaning and winter cleaning. Summer cleaning is performed manually by janitors as well as mechanically by street cleaning machinery mostly flushers and sweeper-collectors. 6543P

88 Figure 21 Street vendors are one of the main sources for the litter on the streets The total area of public streets, squares, parks, gardens, bridges and other civil constructions in Yerevan which are to be cleaned is about 10.2 mln square meters. Municipal areas consist of 6.7 mln square meters and community areas amount to 3.5 mln square meters. The main function of mechanical street-cleaning is to ensure removal of garbage from the streets and their cleaning (water flushing). Winter cleaning includes cleaning of streets, squares and footpaths, snow collection as well as removal of ice. Cleaning of streets, foot-paths, squares, and similar is mainly performed manually by street sweepers and litter collectors who clean and collect street sweeping waste in heaps. Later in the day, the heaps of street sweepings are placed onto a collection trucks, usually an open dump truck (Figure 22). Street cleaning in winter period is done both ways manually and by the specialized machinery. Machinery is mostly used for spreading technical salt and sand. 6543P

89 Figure 22 Street sweeping Figure 23 Sweepers on the streets of Yerevan For the altogether sanitary cleaning activities the cleaning companies have at their disposal: 55 snow-plough and flushers, 20 salt and sand spreaders, seven foot-path sweeping machines, 6543P

90 21 snow transporting trucks and 4 graders. According to the Yerevan City Government, this is some 40 % less as prescribed. Contrary to the waste collection and transportation, sanitary cleaning is directly financed by the district communities. Whichever company is contracted for the sanitary cleaning, it should also provide the waste collection services for the district community. Table 25 Available machinery for waste collection and sanitary cleaning N Communities / Cleaning & Waste Collecting Companies TOTAL Snow-ploughs, flusherс, etc. Type and number of machinery Waste trucks Salt and sand blasting machines Foot-path cleaning cars Dump-trucks Snow transporting trucks Arabkir Arabkir Maqrutyun CJSC Avan Davasar LLC Achapnyak Achapnyaki Sanmaqrum LLC Maqur Achapnyak CJSC Malatia-Sebastia Krunk CJSC Shengavit Kanach CJSC Nik Man LLS Nor Nork Arajap LLC Kentron Kentron Maqrutyun CJSC Qanaqer-Zeytun Sanmaqrum CJSC Davdashen Davtashen santekhspasarkum LCC Erebuni Erebuni Maqrutyun LCC Norq Marash Meri Maqrutyun LLC Nubarashen Nubarashen Sanmaqrum CJSC TOTAL Source: Yerevan City Government (2008) Graders 6543P

91 8.3 Recycling in Yerevan Overall Analysis The formal system for solid municipal waste collection and disposal does not include separate collection, sorting, or any type of waste treatment. However, waste separation is done in different informal ways. The waste pickers do sort out useful fractions from the waste bins throughout the city. Following materials are considered to be useful: metals, glass bottles, plastic bottles, paper. Also textiles and food residues are some times collected. During the winter time all of combustible materials become value and are being removed. Part of the sorted out materials is used by the waste pickers for their own purposes: clothes, combustibles, sometimes food. The plastic bottles are washed and re-used for kerosene and other liquids. However the main driver for this type of collection is the possibility to sell sorted out material. Major waste separation is done by the scavengers at the landfills of Yerevan. The scavengers arrive to the landfill with their private cars. Equipped with the large plastic bags they wander across the landfill or just wait for the waste trucks to arrive. The scavengers are mainly looking for metals, paper, plastics, food waste and in the winter combustibles. The sorted out useful fractions are being loaded into the cars and brought to the buy-in centers. Figure 24 Waste picking at the pre-collection points 6543P

92 According to the local experts, there are some 30 to 40 buy-in centers in Yerevan specializing on useful fractions from the MSW. Some of the collection points are situated directly near the Nubarashen landfill and other dumps. Most of the centers however are organized rather informally. They are often situated in the private garages, backyards, etc Market for the secondary raw materials A number of the companies, mainly breweries, support collection of the bottles via kiosks, supermarkets and restaurants (see Figure 25). A kind of deposit refund system was established. Consumers buy the beverages and pay the price which also covers the cost of the bottle. Depending on the type and quantity, one gets 10 to 25 % of the initial price paid for the beverage when returning the empty bottle. The manufacturers of the beverages are interested in reuse the bottles, because a second-hand bottle costs significantly less than a new one. Another case for the semi-formal separate collection is related to paper and cardboard recycling. A company xx has established several buy-back centers specializing in paper and cardboard collection. Collected material is then processed into egg boxes and other products. Figure 25 Separate collection of the glass bottles There are also small scale enterprises for the plastic recycling in Yerevan. They organize collection points themselves and process the collected plastic waste into plastic basins, pipes for sewage system, soles for the shoes, etc. 6543P

93 A study by UNDP Strengthening of Integrated Waste Management in Armenia (2006) provides some information on the recycling enterprises operating in Yerevan. The following major enterprises were mentioned: Waste paper: Armbumprom LLC, Carton-tare LLC and LLC; Metal: Europe LLC; Plastics: Yerevan Plus" LLC, Gary Group, Firm TNT and Grand Sun LLC. More recycling enterprises are presented in the Table 26. Table 26 Recycling enterprises in Yerevan No. Organization/company Type of recycling Capacity t/yr Yerevan 1. Yurmagrin LLC scrap paper Saturn-green LLC scrap paper Babnar LLC scrap paper LLC scrap paper K. Ozmanyan PE scrap paper Nikol Duman PE scrap metal scrap paper Lava LLC scrap paper KEEA Basen scrap paper Vazgen Abgaryan LLC scrap paper Usta ALA LLC scrap paper NTG and Sons LLC plastic Plastic OJSC plastic Polyplast JV OJSC plastic Gyutarar (Inventor) LLC rubber objects Technobit LLC rubber objects Europe LLC scrap metal 15, Dari-Group LLC rubber objects - Source: Strengthening of Integrated Waste Management in Armenia, UNDP (2006) 8.4 Preliminary Appraisal The services of collection and street cleaning are being provided in a substandard manner. This has a number of causes discussed in this report. Under the conditions of inadequate funding and lack of performance supervision, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the actual efficiency of the services provided. Basically the companies are doing as well as they individually can taking the resource constraints into consideration. Nevertheless, the services are provided with distinguishable variations of quality from district to district. There are large differences in size of the districts with regard to waste quantities, vehicles in operation and other characteristics of operation. The question is warranted whether the current distributed service provision, based on the 12 city districts is justifiable with regard to overall system efficiency. It can certainly be said that for a city the size of Yerevan 12 service areas are not justified from the point of view of efficiency. A 6543P

94 reduction of the number of service areas should definitely be considered. While SWM is not a service vastly influenced by economies of scale, benefits are to be expected from larger service areas and larger service organizations. Another r aspect is that if international tendering is to be anticipated, larger services areas will tend to increase interest of quality international players. One area only is, on the other hand, not recommended, at least not until other service areas are established in Armenia. Having only one service area would fully eliminate the possibility of performance comparisons. Two or even more service areas would still be large enough for efficient operation and would give the supervising agency immediate possibility for comparison between the operators. A very important aspect for enhanced efficiency of the collection and street cleaning services is the length of the service contracts. The current practice of one-year contracts is incompatible with efficient operation of a service for which the equipment has a 7-10 year normal operating lifetime. The current recycling efforts, which rely solely on small-scale private initiative, are not adequate to recover a reasonable portion of the most valuable raw materials and have serious deficiencies with regard to health and safety aspects. Although these efforts could be further developed, some practices should eventually be ceased (scavengers and waste picking from collection points). Waste reduction, recycling and reuse should be part of an overall waste management strategy and concept. When such a concept is put into action it will certainly involve the collection companies. However, from the present low level of services, it is not to be expected that recycling activities would improve the economic feasibility of the services. 6543P

95 9. Current Waste Disposal 9.1 Existing Scheme for Solid Waste Disposal With exception of some informal recycling activities, landfilling is the only available form of waste disposal in Yerevan. More than 90 % of generated MSW is being dumped at sanctioned as well as unsanctioned sites within the urban and suburban areas. There are no licensed landfills. Given the potential environmental damages of dump sites, presently more and more countries increase the catchment areas so that local dumpsites are being replaced by a regional sanitary landfill with environmental mitigation measures. In Yerevan, an opposite process has happened during the past years. Originally, only one landfill Nubarashen was available for waste disposal. This landfill has been in operation since the end of the 1950s. Over the years, it accumulated up to 8 mln tons of waste. However, in recent years, waste disposal sites have appeared in different parts of the city. Currently the MSW is mainly disposed of at four different locations (Table 27). Besides Nubarashen, there are also three semi-legal waste disposal sites: Jrvezh, Sasunik and Spandarjan. Table 27 Waste disposal sites used by the district communities Waste delivered to District communities Nubarashen (Nubarashen) Sasunik (Ashtarak City) Jrvezh (Nor-Nork) Spandarjan (Achapnyak) Achapnyak x Arabkir x Avan x Davtashen x Erebuni x Qanaqer-Zeytun Kentron x Malatsia-Sebastia x Nork-Marash x Nor-Nork x x Nubarashen x Shengavit x Source: Interviews with the district communities in September October 2008 The three later sites are a clear case of open dumping: Main criteria for the location choice was lack of other uses for the site; Neither geological nor topographical analysis was carried out; Neither preparatory works nor site engineering have taken place; Nearly no control is exercised over the site operations (with exception of the Jrvezh dump, whose operational standards are higher than those of Nubarashen landfill); 6543P06 9-1

96 Fires, pests, unconstrained horizontal spread of the landfill surface and slope failures are common; Scavengers and stray animals are constantly present on the site; The delivered waste is either controlled nor measured and documented properly. Besides these 4 major locations Nubarashen, Jrvezh, Sasunik and Spandarjan there is a number of small and larger scale unsanctioned dumps. MSW as well as C&D waste is dumped there by both residents and companies (Table 27 and Figure 26). Table 28 Selected dump sites receiving waste from Yerevan city Districtcommunity Approximate location of the dump site Index on the map Silikyan New Highway 1 Achapnyak Silikyan Old Highway (right and left sides of the road to cemetery) 2 End of Tichina street (Spandaryan dump-site) 3 Davidashen Right side to the to Davidashen (Eghvard highway crossroad) Under the Davidashen Bridge (Zangu Canyon) 5 4 Nor Nork Erebuni Baghian Street (slopes of the canyon next to the market plase) Luxemburg Street (slopes of the canyon on border of 3 rd and 5 th MD) David Bek Street (right and left sides of road to the TV tower) Interception of Rostovyan and Burnazyan streets (open canal) Next to the dormitory of Yerevan TPP 10 In the vicinity of Karmir Blur cemetery 11 Shengavit Shirak dead street (in the vicinity of aeration station) 12 Artashat Highway 13 Next to Charbakh subway station 14 Nork Marash Next to Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedy 15 Nubarashen Nubarashen landfill N Jrvezh Jrvezh Landfill J Ashtarak City Ashtarak City Municipal Landfill (Sasunik) A 6543P06 9-2

97 Figure 26 Selected waste dumps throughout the city (1-15, N, J, A) The dumps shown are a clear indicator of the lack of the implemented control measures over the waste flows. But it is also a sign of the poor economic condition of the solid waste collection companies. Under the circumstances of lack of financing they try to find alternative sites in order to cut their transportation costs. This way of cutting costs is actively tolerated by the district communities. 9.2 Overview of Waste Dump Sites Nubarashen landfill The Nubarashen Landfill is located in South-East of Yerevan City app. 10 km from the Centre. The landfill has been developing since the 1960 without any protection works of the surrounding environment. In accordance with the Yerevan City Mayor Decision N1246A of operation (i.e. receiving, disposing and handling of the MSW) of 31.1 ha of the landfill territory is performed by the privately organized company "Erebuni Maqruyun" LCC. 6543P06 9-3

98 Figure 27 shows a sketch of the landfill site. From the site no actual topographical survey is available so the sketch was made by the Consultant on basis of a topographical map and on the results of a site visit. The landfill can easily be reached by a well constructed road after app. 3.5 km from the junction of the main road Artsakhi Ave. East and South-East of the Landfill a large cemetery is located. Deduced from the sketch the total area of the landfill is app. 49 ha, whereof app. 12 ha are used as dumping area presently. App. 16 ha are marked as "Old Dumping Area" which was operated mostly before Presently theold area is not covered. Figure 27 Site map of the Nubarashen landfill According to verbal information of the landfill operator presently app. 640 tons of waste is disposed of per day. Figure 28 shows former filling areas close to the entrance of the landfill viewed from the landfill access road looking towards South-West. The terraces of the landfill caused by the wide and uncoordinated placing of the waste can be recognized. If properly done the waste should rather be filled in accordance with a clearly defined contour. The width of one single terrace is app. 10 m. 6543P06 9-4

99 Figure 28 Nubarashen landfill: filling area (near the entrance area), covered with soil The filling areas which are not in operation are covered with soil. The older dumping areas can easily be identified by the dark color hills in the background. Figure 29 shows the present tipping area viewing from North to South. The large surface of the dumping area is burning causing a cloud of smoke. On the center-right side of the picture the older dumping area covered with soil is shown. Figure 29 Nubarashen landfill: burning tipping area The surroundings of the landfill are used for agriculture. Nevertheless it is not intensive use. The distance to the next residential buildings located in the Erebuni District is approximately 3 km (see background of Figure 29). The construction and operation standard of the landfill is rather low. The waste is disposed directly on the soil without any preparatory earth work or any site engineering. This means that also no geological investigations have been carried out prior the site selection or any site expansion. Figure 30 presents the poor equipped entrance area of the landfill. The delivered waste is neither weighted nor any control of the type of waste is carried out. For the purpose of billing, the trucks delivering the waste are 6543P06 9-5

100 registered manually (see Table 29 for the registered waste quantities delivered to the Nubarashen landfill in January October 2008, according to the companies). Other operational or social buildings for the staff except those shown do not exist. Figure 30 Nubarashen landfill: entrance area Table 29 Nubarashen landfill: registered waste quantities in m January - October 2008 Kentron Maqrutyun CJSC Erebuni Maqrutyun LCC Arabkir Maqrutyun CJSC "Kanach Shinararutyun" LCC (Gardening Co.) Nik Man LLS (Shengavit) "Misht Maqur" LLC Meri Maqrutyun LLC (Norq Marash) Sanmaqrutyun CJSC (Q.-Zeytun) Nubarashen Sanmaqrum CJSC University Campus (Q.-Zeytun) "Maqur Erkat" CJSC "Kentron Kanachapatum" (Gardening Co.) As neither a perimeter fence nor any gates are installed the uncontrolled access to the landfill site is possible. Arriving on the tipping area the trucks dump the waste on the ground allowing the scavengers sorting out some of the recyclable materials. 6543P06 9-6

101 After the sorting process the waste is being spread by a bulldozer. On the site a second bulldozer is in operation, mostly for covering the open areas with soil to prevent fire. As the vehicles are rather old, they often break down and therefore the soil covering activities are performed only sporadically. The landfill operator does not organize any recycling or sorting of the delivered waste. On the site app. 60 scavengers are working silently accepted by the landfill operator. Preferably plastic is sorted out. Compared to other middle-income countries and considering the quantity of disposed waste the number of scavengers seems low Jrvezh dump site Waste collection companies contracted by Nor-Nork and Avan district communities dispose MSW at the Jrvezh landfill. Jrvezh landfill is situated in the east of the city (marked with J on the Figure 26). Decision on land allocation was made in The landfill has been operated since The total area of allocated land is 6 ha; however, at the moment only 3 ha is used. About 237,600 m 3 or 71,280 t of waste has been disposed at the landfill until Estimated volume of an unused territory of the landfill amounts to 2,722,500 m 3, thus, theoretically the landfill can be operated until the year Figure 31 Jrvezh dump in the eastern part of Yerevan Currently, the landfill is operated on a twenty-four hour basis, and the most active period of operation is from to o clock. It is planned to increase the area of the landfill in the future. Estimation of a volume of collected waste is being carried out at the landfill based on the number of waste trucks routes (number of trucks entering the landfill). The landfill is used for disposal of municipal solid waste. About 86,400 m 3 and 151,200 m 3 of waste were disposed at the landfill in 2006 and 2007 correspondingly. Besides household waste, both, commercial and C&D waste is disposed of at this site. The waste is not being sorted and the amount of the waste 6543P06 9-7

102 increases year by year. Construction waste is generated mainly in result of renovation of apartments. Besides MWS, also accumulators, neon lamps, needles (medical) and other similar waste which is considered to be hazardous is being disposed at Jrvezh dump site. The site operator claims that the design documents of the site were a subject of environmental expertise and the construction and operation and have the necessary permissions. Meanwhile, representative of the Ministry of Health of RA, stated that sites other than Nubarashen have no permission from the sanitary control unit and therefore are operating illegally. Rain water comes in direct contact with the waste. The design of the Jrvezh dump site did not foresee any protection measures either for the surface or ground water. A hydro isolating layer was not installed due to assumption that because of the depth of the aquiferous layer there is no risk of groundwater impact. Soil is used for intermediate isolation of the disposed waste. There is a small office for management and the staff operating the dump site. The staff includes manager, inspector and two equipment operators. Two bulldozers are used at the site: T170 of 16 tones and DT-75 of 7 tones (Figure 32). Figure 32 Jrvezh dump in Nor-Nork district community of Yerevan Revenues of the dump site operator based on the tipping fees are as follows: 10,461,000 AMD in ,136,000 AMD in ,119,000 AMD in 2008 (expected). There are no other sources of revenues. The revenues from the tipping fees are enough to cover all relevant costs. There are no environmental monitoring activities performed at the landfill. At present, there are 14 scavengers working at the site. The scavengers collect mainly following materials: Paper and card board; Non-ferrous and ferrous metals; Glass containers. 6543P06 9-8

103 9.2.3 Sasunik dump site Municipal solid waste from Davidashen and Maltsia-Sebastia communities of the Yerevan city is being disposed of at Ashtarak City Municipal Landfill (Sasunik dump site, marked with A on the Figure 26). Decision on land allocation for the site was made in According to the operator, hydro-geological and geological investigation of the site was conducted. Design documents were developed and became a subject of environmental expertise. Figure 33 Sasunik dump site Figure 34 Sasunik dump site Sasunik dump site is located on the territory of former stone mine. The site went into operation in 1982 and occupies a territory of 2 ha. About 660,000 m 3 or 217,800 t of waste has been disposed at the Sasunik dump site until Estimated volume of the vacant area of the site amounts to 400,000 m 3. So theoretically Sasunik dump site can be operated until the year The dump side is in operation 11 hours daily. The most active period of operation is from to o clock. It is envisaged to allocate a territory for a new landfill. Neither activities on controlling nor on monitoring are performed. No consistent registration of disposed waste is conducted. Estimated daily amount of waste disposed at the landfill is 150 m P06 9-9

104 Delivered waste is not being sorted and the amount of the waste increases year by year. The following waste types are being dumped at the site: Household waste ,800 m ,000 m ,300 m ,000 m 3 Commercial waste (from the offices, stores, etc.); Construction waste (from reconstruction and renovation of apartments and private houses, delivered amount has increased within last years); Hazardous waste (delivered by enterprises and industry neon lamps, batteries, medical waste like needles or old drugs, etc.). Following fractions were reported as significant by the site operator: food waste, paper/cardboard, metals, rubber, cellophane, stones and ground. Tendency: increasing percentage of the food waste, paper/cardboard and cellophane within the last years. The most acute operational problems include: Lack of the fencing of the territory; Supply of technical water for washing waste trucks; Lack of the office building for the staff. Supply of technical water is especially important given that population of neighboring Sasunik village permanently complains on odor and smog caused by the constant fires. During construction of the landfill a number of environmental and sanitary norms and measures envisaged by the design document were not implemented. In particular, no protection measures were taken for rain water collection. No monitoring of ground water is being conducted. There is no regular activities on covering the waste with soil. The only machinery present on site includes one T-170 bulldozer. It is used for pushing the waste down into the canyon. Operation costs for 2008 amount to 4,800,000 AMD (including salary of bulldozer operator, fuel and maintenance costs). Revenues of the operator of the landfill amounted to: 5,800,000 AMD in 2008; 5,600,000 AMD in 2007; 4,100,000 AMD in 2004; 4,400,000 AMD in 2005; 6543P

105 4,900,000 AMD in The dump site receives some 340,000 AMD annually under the contract for waste disposal from Davidashen and Malatsia-Sebastia district communities. Operation of the landfill causes some environmental and social problems. This includes spread out of the plastic bags on the adjacent area by the wind. Self ignition of waste takes place periodically, which leads to smoke and pollutants emissions into the atmosphere. About 7-8 scavengers are present at the site. Their activities are not organized. The collected materials include mainly: Plastic bottles; Metals; Ferrous metals; Glass. The collected plastic bottles are submitted for recycling to the buy-centers in Ashtarak city Spandarjan dump site Spandarjan dump site is situated in the western part of the city and is marked with 3 on the map (Figure 26). This dump site was organized informally in Achapnyak district community as an attempt solve the waste disposal problem locally. The waste deliveries were confirmed by the waste collection company contracted by the Achapnyak district community. Visual investigations by the Consultant confirmed constant fires at the site (Figure 35 and Figure 36). In the same time, no on-site activities have been observed. It is not clear if there is any kind of operator or party in charge for this dump site at all. Therefore no further information on the site has been available so far. Figure 35 Spandarjan dump site 6543P

106 Figure 36 Spandarjan dump site Unsanctioned waste dumping areas Most of the waste generated in Yerevan is being disposed of at three landfills, namely, Nubarashen, Sasunik and Jrvezh. At the same time dumps are appearing sporadically in urban as well as suburban areas. In the urban areas the numerous vacant properties with abandoned or demolished buildings are used by the residents and businesses for MSW and C&D waste dumping (Figure 37, Figure 38 and Figure 39). Figure 37 Unsanctioned dump site in urban areas: Shengavit 6543P

107 Figure 38 Unsanctioned dump site in urban areas: Kentron Figure 39 Unsanctioned dump site in urban areas: Kentron In the suburban areas a considerable amount of construction (C), household (H), industrial (I) waste is being disposed at the sporadically appearing dumps ( 6543P

108 Figure 40, Figure 41, Figure 42). Table 30 presents an overview of some dumps within the city borders as well as estimated area and volume. Table 30 Characteristics of selected dump sites in Yerevan N District community 1 Shengavit 2 Nor-Nork 3 Achapnyak Location of the dump Types of waste Approx. area, m2 Approx. volume, t a) In the vicinity of aeration C, H, S 250 m t station b) In the vicinity of Karmir C, H, S, St 5000 m t Blur cemetery c) Next to the dormitory of H 1000 m t Yerevan TPP d) Next to Charbakh C, H, S, St 3000 m t subway station e) Zangvi canyon H - - a) Slopes of the canyon next C, H, I, S 150 m t to market place b) The territory of former C 850 m t dormitory c) Slopes of the canyon on C, H 250 m t the border of 3 rd and 5 th micro districts d) Right and left sides of the C, H - - road to TV tower a) Еnd of Tichina street C, H - - b) Right and left sides of the road to cemetery C, H Davidashen a) Right side of the road to Davidaseh (Eghvard highway crossroad) 5 Nork-Marash a) From Rezhine Hotel to Institute of Cardiology b) Next to Institute of Traumatology and Оrthopedy C 250 m t C, H 200 m 2 80 t H 100 m 2 30 t c) Old Nork, next to Sancavia school H 80 m 2 20 t 6 Erebuni a) Busnazyan street, 3; open canal H b) Near the TV tower H, C 1500 m2 500 t 7 Nubarashen a) Right and left sides of the road to the Nubarashen landfill C m t 6543P

109 Figure 40 Unsanctioned dump site in suburban areas: Nor-Nork Figure 41 Unsanctioned dump site in suburban areas: Eribuni 6543P

110 Figure 42 Unsanctioned dump site in suburban areas: Shengavit 9.3 Environmental and Social Consequences In the following the environmental and socio-economic consequences of the landfills are presented. Questionnaires have been distributed to the landfill operators addressing, among other issues, information on the environmental and social consequences. As the impacts at each of the Yerevan s landfills are rather similar, the impacts are presented at the example Nubarashen landfill which is the largest landfill site Potential environmental consequences and mitigation measures The following aspects are considered: Consequences on hydrology, hydrogeology and water quality; Consequences for air quality; Noise consequences; Consequences for flora and fauna; Visual/Landscape impacts. Consequences for hydrology, hydrogeology and water quality The site is located at the slopes of a hill. Surface water may flow from the surrounding into the site. Due to the topography of the site the surface 6543P