Implementation of Waste Framework Directive in Albania

Implementation of Waste Framework Directive in Albania Narin Panariti *, Paolo Bacca 1 ; Norman Sheridan 1 ; Jonathan Pearse 1 1 INPAEL, EU CARDS Project, Boulevard Gjergji Fishta, Tower no.3, 5th Floor, Ap.25, Tirana, Albania * E-mail: narin_panariti@yahoo.co.uk Abstract To some extent transposition in the waste management area in Albania had started during the last decade. Albanian legislation had transposed by 15% the former Directive 2006/12/EC on waste and by 62% the Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, both of them recently repealed by the new Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. However, implementation level has been low. Under such circumstances, it became obvious that a sound waste management and compliance with the new Directive 2008/98/EC on waste could not be achieved even in the case of full implementation of the current waste legislation. A new waste law was needed, which could fully transpose this new Directive into national legislation as the first important step among a long list of measures for the implementation of the legal requirements of this Directive in Albania. Such implementation will impose a new attitude to the public administration, industry and the general public towards waste. The public administration will have to face the challenge of increasing its capacities, drafting new regulations and waste management plans, monitoring and reporting their implementation results, increasing transparency, strengthening enforcement, closing gradually the existing dumpsites, and establishing (in cooperation with industry) safe waste facilities networks. Separate waste collection at source will be needed. Both industry and the household sector will engage more in waste management, taking over the related costs, etc. Estimate was made of what would be the approximate cost of implementation of this Directive in Albania. The unit costs (in constant 2008 prices) were based on the domestic available data, as well as cost data from the region. The result was: the total one-off costs of implementing this Directive in Albania would be about 150 million, while the recurrent costs at the first year when full compliance is achieved, about 52 million per year (that would be by year 2026, if implementation efforts start in 2012). Public administration, mainly the regions and local administration, is expected to carry 88% of the oneoff costs and 92% of the total annual cost. Industry will carry 12% of the one-off costs and 8% of the total annual cost. The total additional human resources required to implement the Directive on Waste was estimated at 350 full time specialists, of whom the majority would be employed by the public administration (80%), of which 75% would be at the regions and local administration, the rest at the central administration. Healthcare establishments would be expected to employ 18% of the total additional number. The main possible sources of funding for the implementation of this Directive include: costs paid by waste producers themselves; private capital, charges/fees/taxes; state, municipal or communal budgets; environmental funds; grants/loans from international donors and commercial banks, etc. Benefits from compliance with this Directive encompass: improved administrative and human capacities, strengthened institutions, improved planning, monitoring and reporting, and finally a drastic improvement of waste management in the most cost-efficient way, leading to significant improvements BALWOIS 2012 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 28 May, 2 June 2012 1

in protection of the environment and human health. As a consequence, a step forward to the EU accession. Key words: Directive; waste; transposition; implementation; infrastructure; management. Introduction This paper gives an extract of the work done in the frame of the EU CARDS INPAEL Project (2008-2011) for the implementation planning of the Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (in short Waste Directive - WD) in Albania. This implementation planning proposes a roadmap towards the full approximation of the Directive. Following the results of the legal, administrative and institutional assessment of the current state of approximation of WD, this paper presents the overall plan of measures needed to obtain full approximation as part of the preparations of the country s EU accession. The paper also provides the best estimates of costs and benefits that can be made at the present time. Material and methods Work started with the examination of the country waste management policy, legislation and other relevant documentation and practise. Then a legal gap analysis of the current legislation vs. the WD was carried out, as well as an evaluation of the current structures and human capacities at different important stakeholders. Discussions were held within the Technical Assistance Team and between it and a wide range of key officials at different authorities. In October 2008 a questionnaire was sent to all the municipalities and communes of the country. That questionnaire was the source of the data on the existing status of waste collection and management facilities and practise used for this study. The measures/interventions needed for full compliance of the Directive were identified based on the current situation and the requirements of the directive. An estimate was then made for the costs of the various actions needed to approximate the Directive, including the three levels of approximation: transposition, implementation and enforcement. The starting point was the list of implementation measures/interventions and this list was further disaggregated into actions and sub-actions. The resource requirements of each action were estimated. These resources comprised human resources, devices and materials to be procured, as well as production of necessary documents, and technical assistance projects/ experts. The costs of transposition and of implementation were dealt with separately. Planning of the actions required to implement and enforce the WD is made in relative years (starting with year 0). No assumption is made about when exactly implementation would begin. The implicit assumption is therefore that once started, a Directive would be implemented as soon as reasonably practicable, having regard to the interdependencies between actions under this Directive and between different Directives in general. In practice the pace at which these Directives can be implemented will depend on the availability of scarce resources such as manpower, expertise, capital, and operating budgets. The Waste Framework Directive A new Waste Directive was adopted on 19 November 2008. This new Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives) repeals Directive 2006/12/EC (the previous Waste Framework Directive), 91/689/EEC (the previous Hazardous Waste Directive) and 75/439/EEC (Waste Oils Directive), as from 12 December 2010. The new Waste Directive lays down measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste; by reducing the overall impacts of resource use and by improving the efficiency of such use. BALWOIS 2012 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 28 May, 2 June 2012 2

It establishes a waste hierarchy to be followed, according to a priority order in waste prevention and management, which starts with prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery, e.g. energy recovery, and finishes with disposal. The Directive requires, where technically, environmentally and economically feasibile, the separate collections of waste for at least; paper, metal, plastic and glass but also waste oils and bio-waste. Re-use, Recycling, Recovery and Disposal have been defined more clearly than in the previous directives. The re-use should be encouraged. High quality re-cycling is promoted. Recycling targets have been set until the year 2020. Disposal, the final stage of the waste hierarchy, must be carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment. A substance or object may be regarded as not being waste but as being a by-product only when the following conditions are met: further use of the substance or object is certain; the substance or object can be used directly without any further processing other than normal industrial practice; the substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production process; and further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all relevant product, environmental and health protection requirements for the specific use and will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. Certain wastes can stop being waste when they have undergone recovery operation (which includes recycling) and which complies with specified criteria. Such end-of-waste criteria should be considered for aggregates, paper, glass, metal, tyres and textiles. Where such criteria are not set at Community level, they may be set by Member States. Any criteria must meet the following conditions: the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes; a market or demand exists for such a substance or object; the substance or object fulfils any technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets legislation and standards applicable to products; and the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. The Directive aims to extend producer responsibility, i.e. acceptance (by producers) of the returned products and their waste after use, waste management and financial responsibility, public information on re-use and re-cyclability, etc. The Directive requires the producers and/or holders of waste to pay the costs for waste management in accordance with the polluter pays principle. An integrated network of waste recovery and disposal installations for municipal waste must be established, taking into account Best Available Techiniques; if appropriate, in co-operation with other Member States. All installations must obtain a permit from the Competent Authority. Measures must be taken to control hazardous waste. Waste management plans covering the whole territory of the country including waste prevention programmes are requested to be compiled and made publicly available on a relevant website. Relevant stakeholders must have the right to participate in their preparation. The problem Since more than a decade ago, Albania s waste policy is based on European policy. Waste management has been accepted as a high environmental priority issue in a number of policy documents such as the Environment Strategy Study (WB, 1993), NEAP (1994), NEAP (2002), EPR Albania 2002 (UNECE), etc. The need for improvement in the waste management area has been also recalled in different reports of the European Commission for Albania. The EC Progress Reports of 2006, 2007 and 2008: BALWOIS 2012 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 28 May, 2 June 2012 3

encourage the construction of infrastructure for urban waste handling; selective collection of waste, recycling and disposal; emphasize the fact that uncontrolled dumping and burning of waste continue to pose environmental and health risks; emphasize that no clear strategy for the safe disposal of hazardous waste is developed. The Stabilization and Association Agreement that Albania signed with the European Communitites in 2006, states that The Parties shall develop and strengthen their co-operation in the vital task of combating environmental degradation, with the view of promoting environmental sustainability. Cooperation will mainly focus on priority areas related to the Community Acquis in the field of environment. The statement covers all issues under the Environmental Acquis, therefore waste management, too. In fact, the so far progress with waste management in Albania has been made primarily in the legislation area. A number of waste related acts had been approved, of which the most important ones were: Law On the environmental administration of solid waste and Law On hazardous waste administration. The purpose of these laws was to ensure protection of environment and human health from pollution and damage resulting from solid waste through their treatment at every stage: generation, collection, separation, protection, transportation, recycling, processing and elimination leading to reduction of waste and its harmful impact. These laws had transposed to some extent Directive 2006/12/EC on waste (only 15%) and Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (62%). Besides, the implementation level of these laws has been quite low, due to lack of planning, low funding, lack of infrastructure/waste facilities, lack of administrative and human capacities, which have never corresponded to the gravity of waste problems in the country, lack of public awareness on waste management and acceptance of waste as a resource. Both of the over-mentioned directives have been lately repealed by the new Waste Directive (from 12 December 2010). Under such circumstances, it became very clear that a sound waste management and compliance with Directive 2008/98/EC could not be achieved making use of the current waste legislation. A new waste legislation was needed, which fully transposes the latest approved Directive on waste. As a matter of fact, different EC progress reports had recommend to continue efforts with the transposition of new directives. The transposition of the legal requirements of this Directive into national legislation was the first important step of a long list of measures needed in Albania. Its implementation will pose many challenges to the country, since it will impose a change in the overall attitude towards waste for the administration, industry and the general public. The Albanian administration will have to face the challenge of increasing its capacities, getting them strengthened, compiling (and periodically revising) waste management plans, monitoring and reporting their implementation results, increasing their efforts for transparency towards the general public, drafting new regulations, strengthening its enforcement functions, gradual closure of existing dumpsite, and establishment (in cooperation with industry) of networks of waste facilities for safe recovery and disposal of waste. Separate collections will be needed for at least six waste streams. Both the household sector and industry will need to be more deeply involved with waste management, taking over the related costs, etc. The general public will be given more chances for access to and involvement in planning of waste management. The plan for approximation The overall plan to achieve full approximation consists of a legal transposition plan and an implementation plan (including enforcement). The legal transposition plan is composed of one action: drafting of the law on waste management, as well as the preparation of secondary legislation. The implementation plan is composed of a number of actions which have been compiled into 10 major groups of implementation actions. All the necessary actions have been given at the table below together with the suggested time for their implementation. BALWOIS 2012 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 28 May, 2 June 2012 4

Table 1. Overall Approximation Plan for Waste Framework Directive Overall Approximation Plan Start End 1. Full transposition of the directive into the new integral Waste Management Law 00 01 2. Establish administrative structures, build capacity, assign resources 01 13 3. Waste management planning 00 03 Promote prevention, re-use, recycling and recovery, 02 09 4. Safe disposal 02 13 5. Permits, exemption, registration 05 06 6. Hazardous waste management (other than streams mentioned below) 02 05 7. Healthcare waste 03 04 8. Establish systems of separate collection of waste oils 05 06 9. Financial analysis 03 03 10. Reporting 07 07 The estimates for implementation costs (actions 2-11 of the approximation plan) are given below. The resource requirements comprise: human resources together with the facilities to do the job; training; travel; technical and engineering measures, equipment procurement; production of documents; and technical assistance projects; expenses for public and stakeholders consultation/awareness campaigns; laboratory facilities and instrumentation; enforcement. The unit costs used to estimate the costs of resources were based on the local data available and cost data from the region. All costs are estimated in constant 2008 prices. The total costs of implementing the Directive on Waste in Albania are estimated to be one-off costs of just over 150 million and recurrent costs which rise to just over 52 million per year by the year 13. The Lion s Share of the one-off costs is to born by the public administration ( 136 million or 88% of the total), of which the regions and local administration ( 121million or 78%) and the central administration ( 15 million or 10%, of which the bulk is to be born by the MoEFWA). The rest is to be shared between the construction and oil industry ( 18.5 million or 12%). The annual costs are to be shared more or less in the same way: public administration ( 49 million or 92% of the total annual cost) of which the regions and local government ( 45 million or 86%) and central government ( 3.8 million or 6%, of which the bulk is to be born by the MoH). The rest is shared between the construction, oil and other industries ( 4.34 million or 8%). By type of implementation measures, the bulk of one-off costs will go for equipment and civil engineering ( 133 million or 86% of the total), technical assistance ( 12.4 million or 8%), public awareness ( 8.3 million or 5.3%), etc. The annual costs will go basically for the operation and maintenance of new equipment ( 41.7 million or 79% of the total annual cost), new personnel ( 5 million or 9%), etc. The graph below shows how costs builds up during the period 01 to 15. The amounts shown are the estimated cash expenditures during this period, Figure 1: Phasing of costs 01-15 70 60 Total cost (million Euro) 50 40 30 20 10 Operating Capital 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Figure 1. Implementation costs for the Waste Framework Directive over years BALWOIS 2012 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 28 May, 2 June 2012 5

The numerical values are shown in the table below. Table 2: Phasing of costs 01 15 ( millions) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Capital 0.5 5.3 8 18 20 25 24 24 11 6 6 3 3 0 0 Operating 0.0 2.8 6 14 21 28 33 39 42 45 47 50 53 53 53 The capital expenditure reaches a peak of 25 million 06, and declines thereafter. The operating costs continue to mount year on year, reaching 53 million in 13. In the later years, the additional costs are dominated by the operating costs. The total additional human resources required to implement the Directive on Waste is estimated at 350 full time specialists, of whom the majority will be employed by the public administration (277 or 80%), of which at the regions and local administration will receive the highest numbers (268 or 75%) and the rest at the central administration. MoEFWA will receive (9 or 2.6%). The healthcare establishments will employ 62 or 18% of the total additional number. Conclusion We have shown through this paper the implementation plan for compliance with the waste directive by the country overall, not just the central or the local government. Such plan was drafted based on the knowledge of the current situation with waste management policy and practice in the country and the obligations rising from the recent commitment of the country to achieve EU membership. Though the costs of compliance may sound high, considering that the Waste Directrive is not the only one of the waste sub-sector of the Acquis to comply with, and moreover that sub-sector is only one of many under the Aenvironemntal Acquis, it is worth mentioning that such costs are not to be covered by the Albanian government alone. There are a number of possible sources of funding that include costs paid by waste producers themselves; private capital, charges/fees/taxes; state, municipal or communal budgets; environmental funds; grants/loans from international donors and commercial banks, i.e. the compliance costs are to be shared between a number of stakeholders. Benefits from compliance with this Directive encompass: improved administrative and human capacities, strengthened institutions, improved planning, monitoring and reporting, and last but not least, a drastic improvement of waste management in the most cost-efficient way leading to significant improvement in protection of the environment and human health. Obviously, full compliance with the Directive and the time when it is achieved depends on the willingness of the Albanian government institutions to undertake the above measures and secure the necessary funding at the pace foreseen above. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the European Commission, which has funded this project through the CARDS 2006 programme and to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration for its support and active participation in this project. References (1) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives; (2) Law no.9010, dt.13.02.2003 On the environmental administration of solid waste ; (3) Law nr.9537, dt.18.5.2006 On hazardous waste administration ; (4) National Strategy for Development and Integration was approved by the Council of Ministers (Decision 847, dt.29.11.2007); (5) INSTAT 2004. The population of Albania (12 volumes); (6) INSTAT 2008. Indicators by prefectures; (7) Stabilization and Association Agreement of the Republic of Albania with the European Communities; (8) UNECE, 2002. Environmental performance review Albania. BALWOIS 2012 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 28 May, 2 June 2012 6