OECD OCDE
European Commission in co-operation with of the OECD-EAP Task Force Secretariat Support for the Implementation of Environmental Policies and NEAPs in the NIS
Financing Strategy for the Solid Waste Management Sector in Yaroslavl Oblast (RF) Final Report
May 2003
Published May 2003
Copyright 2003 by EuropeAid services DG1A, European Commission.
Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to the EuropeAid Information Office, European Commission, 170 Rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels.
This report has been prepared by a Consortium of BCEOM, Halcrow and Cowi. The findings, conclusions and interpretations expressed in this document are these of the above consortium alone and should in no way be taken to reflect the policies or opinions of the European Commission.
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4
2 BACKGROUND REVIEW ...... 8
2.1 Data Collection Method 8
2.2 Analysis of the Municipal Waste Management sector 8 2.2.1 Waste Generation 8 2.2.2 Processing and Disposal of Industrial Waste 9 2.2.3 Waste Disposal Facilities 9
2.3 Existing System Of Municipal Waste Management 10 2.3.1 Waste Generation 10 2.3.2 Collection and Processing of Used Materials 11 2.3.3 Disposal of Waste 11
2.4 Improvement alternatives of MSW management 12 2.4.1 Collection and Removal of Waste 12 2.4.2 Waste recycling 12 2.4.3 Treatment and disposal of waste 13
2.5 Strategic Planning 13
3 FINANCING STRATEGY ASSUMPTIONS ...... 16
3.1 Description Of Modelling Groups 16
3.2 Determination of a Baseline Scenario 16
3.3 Macro-economic and financial assumptions 17 3.3.1 Population of Yaroslavl Oblast 17 3.3.2 GRP Growth and Structure 17 3.3.3 Structure of GRP Distribution 18 3.3.4 Final Consumption 18
3.4 Assumptions for MSW sector financing sources 18 3.4.1 Budget Financing of Current and Capital Expenses in the Sector 18 3.4.2 Customer Charges 19
3.5 Current situation MSW sector and waste flows 21
4 DESCRIPTION OF MODELING RESULTS ...... 23
4.1 FEASIBLE as a decision making support tool 23
4.2 Description of the modeling results – Baseline scenario 24 4.2.1 Group 1 24 4.2.2 Group 2 26
5 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS ...... 29
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM i 5.1 Identifying Scenarios Of Technical Development 29
5.2 Results development scenario 2 30
6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 36
6.1 Technical Issues 36
6.2 Financial Issues 36
6.3 Issues related to implementation of the recommendations 36
ANNEXES...... 38
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM ii List of Figures and Tables
Table 2.1 Volume of Industrial Waste in Yaroslavl Oblast (1997-2001)...... 8
Table 3.1 Population Projections in Yaroslavl Oblast (2001- 2015)...... 17 Table 3.2 GRP and Structure by city groups in 2000...... 17 Table 3.3 Distribution of Yaroslavl Oblast GRP in 2001 ...... 18 Table 3.4 Final Consumption of Households in Yaroslavl Oblast ...... 18 Table 3.5 Share in Final Consumption of Rural and Urban Population in 2001.....18 Table 3.6 Budget Financing of SWM Sector in 2001 ...... 19 Table 3.7 SWM Revenues of Utilities in 2001 (‘000 Rubles) ...... 19 Table 3.8 SWM revenues of utilities in Group 1 cities in 2001 (‘000 Rubles)...... 20 Table 3.9 SWM revenues of Utilities in Group 2 cities in 2001 (‘000 Rubles)...... 20 Table 3.10 Characteristics of the MSW system in 2001 ...... 21 Table 3.11 Waste generation from different sources in 2001 ...... 21 Table 3.12 Estimate of Waste flows from all Sources in 2015...... 22
Table 4.1 MSW Expenses in Group 2 Communities in 2001-2015,(‘000 Rubles)..27
Table 5.1 Implementation plans for new “B” type disposal facilities...... 31 Table 5.2 Distribution of annual waste generation by city in 2001 ...... 31 Table 5.3 Total existing and planned capacities of MSW facilities in 2001-2015..32
Figure 4.1 Financing Requirements and sources of the MSW Sector in Group 1 cities (2001-2015) ...... 25 Figure 4.2 Financial result of MSW services in Group 1 cities (2001-2015) ...... 26 Figure 4.3 Results of the baseline scenario for Group 2...... 27
Figure 5.1 Cumulative scenario expenses and income for Group 1 (2001-2015) 32 Figure 5.2 Deficit/Surplus in 2001-2015 for Development Scenario 2 for Group 1 ...... 33 Figure 5.3. Changes in Operational Costs for Group 1 (2001- 2015) ...... 33 Figure 5.4 Cumulative scenario expenses and income for Group 2 (2001-2015) 34 Figure 5.5 Financing gap/surplus 2001-2015 under Scenario 2 for Group 2 ...... 35 Figure 5.6 Changes in operational and maintenance cost for Group 2 till 2015 ..35
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM iii 1 Introduction
A Consortium comprising of ВСЕОМ French Engineering Consultants, Halcrow Group Ltd. and COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AC (hereinafter referred to as the Consortium) in co-operation with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, and Oblast Administrations have been implementing the Tacis Project on “Support for the Implementation of Environmental Policies and NEAPs in the NIS”. The project was financed through TACIS Programme of the European Union. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation) EAP Task Force Secretariat co- financed the implementation of the Yaroslavl financing strategy. The component in the Russian Federation focuses on the sectors of domestic solid waste management (in Yaroslavl Oblast) and on urban water supply and wastewater services (Rostov Oblast). The project team agreed with the Yaroslavl Oblast administration to develop a financing strategy (FS) for solid waste management (SWM) in Yaroslavl Oblast and to assist the oblast administration in developing a FS for urban water supply and wastewater services (WSWS). The development of the financing strategy will be based on a methodology, which will establish a long-term (5-15 years) program to finance the current and capital expenses of the sector including a realistic program of priority investments that would balance the required and available financial resources. The FS tools also include a computer-based model1, which will quantify current expenditures for adequate maintenance and operation of the existing and new infrastructure of WSWS and SWM sectors, including the cost of current and capital repairs, investments into new assets and scheduled replacement (reconstruction) of worn-out assets. The model will then compare the demand in financing with the projected size and sources of financing to determine the shortfall. Along with the overall size of the shortfall, the model breaks it down by the type of expenditure such as capital expenses (reconstruction and expansion), and operational and maintenance expenses. To know shortfalls in a financing structure is important in order to identify main potential problems and priority steps to address them. The financing strategy will be determined through an iterative use of the computer-based model while applying various assumptions with respect to applicable measures to mobilize additional financial resources or to reallocate available ones. This report presents the main outputs of modeling and development of the financing strategy for the solid waste management sector generated under this project. The draft report was discussed at the workshop where different stakeholders of the Yaroslavl oblast and members of the Working Group participated. The financial strategy is viewed as a useful tool for strategic and current planning, development and implementation of environmental policies, planning of capital investments in the municipal waste management sector, and the sector management improvement. The strategy will facilitate the selection of proposed projects and activities, which meet the environmental priorities and goals of the sector and will help achieving those goals. The strategy will also cost the selected projects and balance the financing requirements and available financial resources. This will allow optimization of capital and current expenses in the municipal waste management sector, enhancement in the quality of planned budgets, environmental management plans, as well as plans for the development, reconstruction and upgrading of the urban infrastructure. Finally it will assist in financing current and capital expenditures of the sector.
1 This methodology was developed by the consulting firm COWI under the guidance of the OECD and with the support of the Danish Government
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 4 Methodology There is a need to identify specific development goals of the sector in order to meet the environmental priorities of the Oblast. These goals should be measurable, feasible and acceptable in terms of financing opportunities and attainable by 2015. The methodology assesses the cost of attaining the goals, and the level of social and economic acceptability of the expenses. It also proposed specific measures for the economic, budget, social and environmental policies (including adaptation of the goals) in order to balance financing requirements and available resources.
Review of the current situation A special questionnaire was developed to collect the data and information to be used in modeling and development of the strategy. The questionnaire comprised many technical, economic and financial questions, including:
− generation of municipal waste from various sources; − morphological composition of solid waste (SW); − service coverage of municipal and non-municipal users regarding collection, removal and disposal of waste; − infrastructure and its technical condition; − environmental performance and main environmental challenges; − actual financing of current and capital expenses from various sources. Model Development The project team developed, programmed and tested a computer-based model to assess both the current expenses to ensure sustainable operation of the municipal waste management sector and the capital investments in order to meet various development goals of the sector. Following the tests and adaptations throughout the development of this financial strategy, the relevant algorithms were implemented in the new version of the FEASIBLE Waste Management Model. For its inputs, the FEASIBLE Model uses numerous technical, economic and financial data including information about the waste generation sources, methods of waste collection and sorting, collection and management of used materials, technical condition of the infrastructure, including containers, garbage trucks, sorting and waste transfer stations (if any), facilities to process used materials sorted out of municipal waste, waste disposal facilities, as well as other data and information.
The Model uses Cost functions built through regression analysis on the basis of empirical data on the actual expenditures addressing specific quantifiable environmental goals in selected communities, for example: establishment of a system for the collection of predetermined waste categories along with the relevant garbage truck fleet in a community of a predetermined size; construction of a sorting and/or waste transfer station, used materials processing facility or waste incinerator of a predetermined capacity; construction of waste disposal facilities of a predetermined capacity in accordance with the current construction, sanitary and environmental requirements (norms, standards) etc. Though the empirical functions of the costs were built on the basis of data from different countries and Danish based prices, the Model applies a technique for the adjustment of cost functions through price adjustment ratios to arrive at accurate evaluations regarding any country and region.
Grouping cities and districts for the development and modelling of various development scenarios
The Model estimates the cost of the various scenarios for the entire Oblast as well as for groups of cities and districts of the Oblast. Such a grouping is advisable provided there is a significant difference in the current state of municipal waste management systems and goals of their
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 5 development as set out by a municipality or a district (different service coverage, different methods of waste collection, variable condition of the infrastructure development (sorting and waste transfer stations, dumps, waste disposal sites, facilities to process sorted waste) as well in the financial capacity of a city and population (tariff setting, level of actual cost recovery through municipal tariffs, tariff collection rate). This situation occurred in Yaroslavl Oblast and made the grouping advisable.
Assessment of costs to reach goals in the selected sectors
For each selected group of cities and districts the computer-based Model assessed the financing requirements ensuring sustainable functioning of the existing sector infrastructure (so called “baseline scenario”) followed by the assessment of financing requirements to implement proposed scenarios and meet environmental goals.
Assessment and Forecast of the Available Funding The Model analyses the behaviour and generates some performance indicators including the main macroeconomic indicators such as: the consolidated budget income of the Oblast and municipalities, which are part of a given group; actual financing of the sector from various sources; population; living standards; income structure and expenses of the population. This is the basis for the forecasting of capital and current expenditures from all available sources within a given group. Assessment of the Financing Gap By comparing the financing requirements for the current and capital expenditures and the actual funding it is possible to − assess the shortage in the financing of the current expenditures of the group, which needs to be covered to ensure the sustainable operation of the infrastructure in the municipal waste management sector, and to − assess the shortage in the financing of the capital expenditures, which are needed to obtain the development goals of the sector in this group. The model assesses the affordability of the costs to meet environmental goals for the population and the economy of the entire region. It is assumed that the share of utility costs in the expenditures of the consolidated budget and in the household budgets will not be higher than a predetermined level. The model analyses the opportunities to cover or reduce the financing deficit for various scenarios of the economic, budget, social and environmental policies. Increasing the financing sources, including expanded service coverage will primarily be done through tariff changes and tariff policy. Also a study is carried out to identify ways to cover the shortfall through increased efficiency and cost reduction or through making the policy targets less ambitious. The latter is needed if the costs to meet the development goals of the sector are socially or economically unacceptable and/or there is no opportunity to cover the financing gap by any other way. A combination of scenarios is also a possibility (increased financing and target reduction). Based on the analysis the model will identify and recommend feasible objectives and the best development scenarios to meet them.
Acknowledgements
The project team would like to express their gratitude to the members of the Advisory Committee for their assistance in the implementation of the project and their comments and contributions.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 6 The work was carried out in close cooperation with the Department of the Communal and Housing services of the Oblast Administration, Regional Department of the Natural Resources and Nature Protection for the Yaroslavl Oblast, Department of the finances of the Oblast Administration and also enterprises directly involved in the waste management sector. Many other experts have made valuable contributions to the report preparation. It is particularly important to mention the contribution of the Director of the Department of the Communal and Housing services of the Oblast Administration Balakin Vitaly Nickolaevich and the Yaroslavl coordinator of the project Davydov Albert Isaakovich. Machtina Tamara Vasilyevna, representing the Department of the Communal and Housing services of the Oblast Administration, provided valuable assistance in analyzing the data. Saburob Evgeny Genrikhovich and other Yaroslavl specialists also provided valuable comments for which the project team is grateful.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 7 2 Background Review
2.1 Data Collection Method The development of the environmental financing strategy in the municipal waste management sector2 required the collection of technical, financial and socio-economic data for Yaroslavl Oblast, its cities and districts.
The collected data and information were used:
• to group cities and districts for modeling purposes; • to set up goals and develop scenarios; • to identify preconditions for estimates of cost functions; and • to enter them as baseline data into the computer-based FEASIBLE model.
A questionnaire (Annex 4) was prepared to facilitate the data collection. The questionnaire comprises a number of sections and questions related to socio-economic, technical and financial indicators.
The questionnaire was presented at the workshop held in June 2002 in Yaroslavl. The workshop involved utilities of the Oblast, the city of Yaroslavl and all the districts. The Consultant received the filled out questionnaire in August 2002 and started processing the collected data in September.
2.2 Analysis of the Municipal Waste Management sector
2.2.1 Waste Generation Table 2.1 gives the volume of industrial waste generated in Yaroslavl Oblast during the last years. Table 2.1 Volume of Industrial Waste in Yaroslavl Oblast (1997-2001) Hazardous Waste, thousand ton Classification 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Class 1 0.07 0.06 0.05 Class 2 19.0 23.1 30.1 Class 3 44.5 81.8 78.3 Class 4 380.7 348.6 448.4 Non-hazardous 152.0 205.7 206.3 Total 596.3 659.2 763.1 850.0 1200.0
Source: Yaroslavl Oblast CNR
2 In addition to municipal solid waste, the Federal Waste Classifier (Order of State Environmental Committee of Russia dated 27.11.97, No. 527) classifies as municipal waste the waste, generated by retailers, institutional users, pre-school and school facilities, cultural and sports facilities, railway and bus stations, airports and river terminals, industrial facilities, which fall into the category of utilities. This also includes street and market garbage, vegetation waste generated by parks and gardens, water treatment and wastewater treatment waste, municipal liquid waste and non-hazardous medicine waste.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 8 Waste types vary with the sectoral structure of the industry and covers waste from the energy sector, metallurgy, oil processing, engineering, wood processing, construction materials, wood processing, dairy sector and light industry. Major waste flows are − oil waste and oil sludge of various origins, − acid tars and sludge from the manufacture of oils and lubricants, − phospho-gypsum, − ash and clinker of thermal stations, − waste from electroplating facilities, − waste from paint and varnish manufacturing facilities, − ash and sludge of water treatment facilities, − used whitening soil, − used mercury containing bulbs, lead batteries, and worn tires.
2.2.2 Processing and Disposal of Industrial Waste 1-3 class toxic industrial waste is to be removed to and disposed of at specially equipped disposal sites. Some types of Class 4 industrial waste (for example, timber waste) and some Class 3 industrial waste may be disposed at solid waste disposal sites. This requires special permits issued by environmental and sanitary authorities.
Wastes are disposed of in special waste facilities sited by a decision of local authorities as agreed with competent environmental and sanitary bodies of the Russian Federation.
In case of the waste stored at industrial facilities it is necessary to ensure the safe storage excluding damage to human health or environment.
Non-recyclable waste is disposed of at corporate dumps and industrial waste ponds. Most of the waste facilities are 20-25 years old and do not meet current construction, sanitary and environmental standards. Some lack even the basic environmental safeguards such as embankments. No design is available for some facilities, while others lack land plot siting permits. There are cases when industrial wastes are disposed of at solid waste dumps. Some are disposed of at special facilities (land plots, ponds and tanks), others on top of municipal solid waste.
2.2.3 Waste Disposal Facilities As for scope and environmental impact, the Skokovo Facility is the largest waste handling and disposal facility comprising the industrial waste dump from the YshZ Enterprise, the industrial waste dump from the Avtodiezel open joint stock company along with four sludge ponds, the solid municipal waste dump with four sludge ponds from the Yazda joint stock company. This facility does not comply with environmental requirements resulting in systematic pollution of the Nora River, the Volga River tributary.
The second largest polluter is the industrial waste dump from the Saturn Research and Production Association (the Rybinsky Engine Company, the Glushitsy village). Industrial waste is accumulated here in cesspits, which are not suited for the accumulation of waste, in particular, liquid waste. Moreover, they are located in marshland.
Other waste disposal facilities with a potential major environmental impact are the industrial waste dump (the Konstantinovsky Township) where acid tar containing ponds from the Mendeleev YaNPZ are situated and industrial waste ponds at the city of Tutayev.
The inventory indicated the need of constructing new and reconstructing existing waste handling and disposal facilities in parallel with enforcement of environmental legislation.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 9 At the Skokovo Disposal Facility, long-standing unresolved problems are the processing of the paste-like industrial waste in the ponds, and the construction of wastewater treatment facilities at the discharge point. The capacity of the Skokovo Facility, the Saturn Dump and the Slavneft industrial waste dump has been exhausted. There is a need for the construction of new adequately developed disposal facilities in parallel with the program of utilization of municipal solid waste and industrial waste for the cities of Yaroslavl and Rybinsk.
At almost half of the existing dumps municipal liquid waste is disposed together with municipal solid waste giving rise to the potential contamination of ground water, in particular at the facilities with inadequate waterproof foundations (sand ground, gravel, etc.).
The 2001 inventory came up with over 69 authorized dumps for industrial and municipal waste, located in the Oblast.
Of considerable damage to the environment are abandoned dumps and waste ponds. In particular, the Yaroslavl Oblast environmental services reported leakage of oil products and other toxic substances from the YaZDA abandoned industrial waste storage ponds (and buried solid waste) into the near-by channel and Nora River.
It is not uncommon that construction of new disposal facilities fails to comply with the environmental and sanitary requirements. For example, the Yaroslavl Oblast environmental authorities report that construction of the two new storage ponds to receive industrial waste from the YAZDA company is in contradiction with the Temporary Rules for Protection of Environment from Industrial and Municipal waste as these are only 3 km upstream of the Northern City Water Intake.
Massive environmental problems resulted from the disposal of industrial waste at the municipal solid waste dumps. For example, for a long time, the Tutuevo Solid Waste Dump received industrial waste including metallurgical sludge. This resulted in the pollution of land and ground water, with dead trees around the dump.
Every year, the average level of industrial waste utilization is decreasing giving rise to increased load on the environment through the disposal of unutilized waste at inadequate facilities. As a result, there is an annual increase in the environmental impacts, with a persistent growth of cumulative factors.
2.3 Existing System Of Municipal Waste Management Waste classified as municipal waste includes municipal solid waste (msw), non-hazardous municipal solid waste from enterprises, non-hazardous solid waste of health facilities and street waste. The population is the main source of solid waste generation – households are thought to generate some 95% of the total SW. In addition, private houses connected to the centralized wastewater system generate liquid waste (sewage waste).
2.3.1 Waste Generation Solid waste generation in the sampled cities and districts of the Oblast is estimated at 304566 ton a year. Data on the morphological composition of msw are not available. But the “Sanitation and Cleaning of Community Streets” Manual states that the municipal solid waste of the middle climactic zone including Yaroslavl Oblast comprises 30-38% of food waste, 24-30% of paper and cardboard, 5-8% of glass, 4-7% of textiles waste, 2-5% of plastic waste, 2-3.5% black metal, 0.2-0.3% non-ferrous metal, 0.5-2% of bones.
Municipal solid waste, at least in medium-sized and large cities, is removed and transported by specialized companies. Small cities and rural areas enjoy the services of diversified utilities, which are responsible for other municipal services including water and wastewater services, heat supply service, etc. The traditional practice of collection and removal of municipal solid
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 10 waste does not provide for separate collection of municipal hazardous waste and recyclable waste.
MSW is disposed of at municipal solid waste landfills while and in some cases at industrial waste facilities. Most landfills do not comply with environmental standards and lack design documentation and often lack the necessary permits.
Generally, existing municipal solid waste dumps are underdeveloped. Many of them lack service facilities, such as washing and disinfecting containers. Mapping of sections and waste composting does not meet existing regulations.
For a long time, many msw landfills received industrial waste causing pollution of the environment near such sites. The accumulated toxic components have an ongoing impact on the ground water and surface water bodies, which eventually end up in the Volga River.
Among the sites with very poor condition are the municipal solid waste dumps in Yaroslavl, Rostov, Rybinsk, Tutayev, Pereyslavl-Zalessky. As many dumps are overfilled, local authorities and environmental bodies take measures to recultivate the abandoned dumps, improve the existing ones and construct new disposal facilities for municipal solid waste. It should be noted, however, that the scope of the measures including the construction of new disposal facilities for municipal solid waste is rather limited. One may view the municipal solid waste management in the Oblast as inadequate from the environmental perspective, in particular concerning disposal facilities with a considerable quantity of hazardous waste.
2.3.2 Collection and Processing of Used Materials During the 1980s there still existed an established system of recycling of some used materials. This included waste paper, rags, metal scrap and used glass. However, lack of government subsidies disrupted the centralized system of recycling. A new market based system failed to appear except for a small number of local points for the collection of some used materials. Generally, there is a low demand and prices for used materials except for some types such as: glassware, waste paper, aluminum cans, etc.
2.3.3 Disposal of Waste MSW is mostly disposed of at landfills. As most landfills were established without a preliminary hydrological investigation it is not uncommon that they are located at the sites with a high ground water table and/or permeable ground that causes pollution of ground water.
Moreover, most of disposal facilities and dumps were not properly designed and constructed and are poorly operated. The main characteristics are as follows:
• All waste disposal facilities lack synthetic watertight layers, clay-layers usually serve as foundation for most sites; it is not uncommon that dumps lack embankments. • None of the sites collect and treat leachate; • None of the facilities monitor the quality of ground water; • It is not uncommon that the facilities fail to compact waste and bury it under a layer of soil thus exposing it to animals and insects that can spread infection diseases. • Waste often catches fire, which is an indication of methane formation. • As there is no system of separate collection of hazardous waste, they are disposed of at the disposal facilities without a preliminary treatment and present a permanent source of danger to environment. • Sometimes medicinal and veterinary waste is disposed of at the MSW disposal facilities. • Nearly all waste disposal facilities lack a system of control; waste for disposal facilities is not weighed and accounted for making it difficult to assess the volume of waste disposed.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 11 In rural areas, where MSW is not collected and not removed, unauthorized dumps near communities are common. From time to time, municipalities try to liquidate such dumps. Generally, inflammable waste is burned giving rise to emission of toxic elements. Despite the fact that organic waste composting is a common practice with people living in the private housing sector it is not practiced in the Oblast now. The remaining waste is disposed of at unorganized dumps near the communities. From time to time, utilities, which are responsible for the sanitation, collect this waste to take it to the authorized waste disposal facilities.
In summer time, datchas contribute to waste generation. Generally, these are not part of the municipal system of waste collection and this results in waste, littered around the dachas.
The poor condition of the SW disposal facilities,and unauthorized disposal of waste near communities contribute to the pollution of soil, surface and ground water, air, odor generation and landscape deterioration. Moreover, the current practice of waste disposal results in the deterioration of the overall environmental situation including a detrimental impact on human health. However, the impact often works indirectly through the pollution of surface and underground waters and air transfer of pollutants. Also, uncontrolled decomposition of municipal waste at the disposal facilities is a habitat for birds, rodents, insects and bacteria, which could become disease carriers. This is an additional risk to human health, in particular, for people working at disposal facilities.
2.4 Improvement alternatives of MSW management The current practice of municipal waste management is inefficient in terms of environmental protection and human health. The scope of the problem requires urgent measures to address the key issues. However, due to the limited financial resources it is not feasible to accept strategies for integrated waste recycling and utilization of wastes at their source. Therefore it is necessary to take steps in all the sectors of municipal waste management to ensure a better environmental performance with lower cost.
2.4.1 Collection and Removal of Waste The following steps may improve the current situation.
• To expand the system of centralized collection and removal of municipal solid waste to include communities, which are not covered. This is relatively easy as all the major and mid-sized cities have a well-developed system of solid waste collection covering (big) apartment buildings. The most cost efficient way to expand coverage is the establishment of solid waste collection sites (with containers) in the housing sector, which is not yet covered with waste collection services. This will help provide service to private houses at a distance of 100-120 meters. • To arrange for the separate collection of hazardous municipal solid waste from the population and small businesses to make sure they are not disposed at the municipal solid waste disposal facilities; • To increase the frequency of waste removal where required; • To develop cooperation between municipalities to build and jointly operate waste disposal facilities, which meet the current environmental and health standards.
2.4.2 Waste recycling In the short term, the potential for the expansion of collection and recycling of used materials in Yaroslavl Oblast is very limited. But some cities such as Yaroslavl, Tutaev, Rybinsk, Uglich are running pilot activities for the sorting and recycling of waste or intend to do so in the near future. Nonetheless, the said activity may expand to the extent and scale that will allow for the sustainable operation depending on the demand for used materials and recycled products. Currently such a demand is low and it is unreasonable to expect a considerable expansion of the recycled products market and increased demand for used materials.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 12 Increased utilization of used materials is not possible until the implementation of economic tools, which are required to finance a broadly based program of utilization of used materials. Organic waste composting could be widely used in the private sector both in the urban and rural context provided the municipalities would be capable to develop training programs and teach people how to compost waste at least cost and without injury to human health.
2.4.3 Treatment and disposal of waste There are currently few waste facilities, where waste is properly treated and disposed. Financial limitations make the disposal of waste at waste facilities the main approach of MSW management in the near and short term. Therefore a realistic MSW Management Strategy should focus on safe disposal of waste through the reconstruction of the existing or construction of new waste disposal facilities. These should be sited, designed and operated in such a way so as to exclude or mitigate negative effects on the environment and human health. Health and environmental performance of the existing waste facilities should be improved through such activities as waste compacting and adding topsoil layers to reduce odour, and waste dispersion.
2.5 Strategic Planning
1. The Upper Volga Regional Environmental Action Plan (Vologda, Ivanovo, Kostroma, Yaroslavl Oblasts)
The Upper Volga Regional Environmental Action Plan (REAP) was developed under the Environmental Management Project, which is being implemented in accordance with the #808 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 30, 1995 “On Measures to Implement the Loan Agreement between the Russian Federation and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to Finance the Environmental Management Project”. The REAP was developed by the Centre for Preparation and Implementation of International Projects for Technical Assistance (CPPI), the PROEKO Polish consulting firm, the FRECOM Russian consulting firm and with participation of 120 experts of environmental organizations from Moscow, Vologda, Ivanovo, Kostroma, and Yaroslavl Oblasts. The job was supervised by the State Committee for Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation and Upper Volga Interoblast Environmental Council. The Environmental Policy Council of the Oblast Government (1997) and the Resolution of the Governor (№ 324 dated 01.06.99 “On Regional Environmental Action Plan for 1999”) recommended the REAP to be implemented in Yaroslavl Oblast and used as the basis for the preparation of oblast plan and programs. The second version of the REAP was developed in 2001 reflecting the environmental situation and environmental management and nature use changes, which took place in the region over the last 5 year. The REAP was used as the basis for the development of a new strategy for environmental protection and nature use, recommendations to improve environmental management methods. A new EAP was developed including the procedures for the implementation and adjustment of REAP. The main goal of the REAP is to improve the environmental situation of the Upper Volga Regions, primarily, by reducing pollution caused by enterprises of this region. The REAP focuses on the assessment of the environment of the region, identification of hot issues and specific measures to reduce harmful environmental impact, development of tools to enhance effectiveness of environmental management, identify and build sources of investment resources to implement priority objectives in a consistent way. The fundamental difference of the REAP from traditional oblast environmental management plans is that this document:
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 13 • intends to implement in the environmental management of the Upper Volga Region the best practice of the developed countries including in regulating business activities with environmental impact; • intends to drastically improve the environmental situation in the Upper Volga Region through the implementation of the REAP activities to facilitate the effective implementation of federal earmarked programs and environmentally sound oblast programs; • focuses on the health improvement as the priority goal of the REAP; • will primarily rely on preventive measures in the industrial and other sectors of the economy, implementation of low waste technologies, resource and energy management, replacement of fuel and raw materials with environmentally friendly ones, end of the pipe technology is used only as a last resort; • is not a directive, it is an transparent document to be updated in the course of its implementation. • will facilitate involvement of international institutions and foreign investors in the environmental management sector of the Upper Volga Region. • To improve industrial and consumption waste management in the short and long term, the REAP provides for a set of measures of investment and non-investment nature including: • Development of a set of institutional, legal, regulatory, methodological and economic regulators in the sector of waste management and environment protection; • Search for and implementation of technologies in processing, disinfecting and use of waste and environment protection; • Improvement of economic mechanisms of waste management; • Establishment of the required database to ensure sound waste management.
2 The targeted Oblast Program on Waste over the Period 1997-2000 The targeted Oblast Program on Waste (TOPW) was developed by an interagency working group and approved by the #530 Resolution of the Yaroslavl Oblast Governor dated August 25, 1997. The TOPW intended to address the issues of hazardous wastes, which were the most harmful for Yaroslavl Oblast. These include acid tars, phosphogypsum, waste sludge from electroplating operations, waste from paint and varnish manufacturing facilities, mercury containing waste, agrochemicals, rubber waste, pharmaceutical waste and municipal solid waste. The total program budget is 178 million Rubles, including 50 million Rubles of the IBRD and Oblast Environmental Fund. The main sources of financing are: enterprises – 65%; oblast and local budgets – 24%; environmental funds – 11%. Despite certain positive outputs of the actions to address the problems of industrial and consumption waste it is still too early to assume that the health situation in the Oblast has been improved through the reduction of impact of industrial and consumption waste. The TOPW has faced the following challenges: • inadequate financing of the program at all the levels – from enterprises to Oblast budget; • inadequate legal and regulatory framework in waste management; • lack of effective economic levers (user fees are considerable lower than the processing cost, which is a disincentive for the waste management system;
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 14 • inadequate physical and human resources of the environmental services to enforce the compliance of environmental standards and rules in the sector of industrial and consumption waste management.
3 Action Plan for Sound Industrial and Consumption Waste Management over the period 2001-2003 and until 2005
To improve the system of waste management and health situation in the communities and to follow up on the first TOPW the Yaroslavl Oblast Governor issued Resolution #209 dated April 09, 2001 to approve the “Plan of Action for Sound Industrial and Consumption Waste Management over the period 2001-2003 and until 2005”. The Plan provides for the development of new regulatory and methodological documents for waste management in Yaroslavl Oblast, set of activities for processing, disinfection and burial of wastes in Yaroslavl Oblast. To reduce harmful impact of the industrial and consumption waste on environment the following was done in 2001 within the framework of the Plan of Action for Sound Industrial and Consumption Waste Management over the period 2001-2003 and until 2005. • Work went on to dispose of and de-mercurize mercury containing waste. The Delta company – a specialized transport company in Yaroslavl – received and processed 300000 luminiscent lamps, 93 kg of metal mercury. Part of the lamps is taken beyond the Oblast – to the cities of Ulyanovsk, to the area near Moscow. • 8 ton of mercury containing chemicals were removed for recycling (granozan – Class 1 hazard) from Nekrasovsky, Tutaevsky, Rostovsky and Poshehonsky municipal districts. • Work went on to process sludge from the electroplating production process in the Feros company (Yaroslavl municipal district). • Construction of new municipal waste facilities is under way for the cities of Tutaev, Uglich, Danilov. • Used materials were collected from the population: 6000 ton of waste paper, 83 ton of textile, 50,5 t of plastic, 5,6 t of syringes, 350 ton of tires, 8 660 bottles. • Research was carried out: to analyze the content of sludge ponds in the Skokovo waste facilities and to study methods of cleaning; to develop the technology of wastewater treatment for the Tulma Flax Integrated Works in the Tutaevsky Municipal District; to use of acid tars of the Mendeleev Slavneft Corporation.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 15 3 Financing Strategy Assumptions To analyse the situation in the Yaroslavl Oblast sector of municipal solid waste and evaluate its development potential, the Consultant selected certain parameters and specified the goals and timeframe to meet them. 3.1 Description Of Modelling Groups
The Oblast was divided into two groups on the basis of a substantive difference criteria to develop financial capacity of cities, municipal formations (MF) and districts. The composition of the corresponding groups is given in the table below.
Group 1 Group 2 Major Cities Cities and Districts
Yaroslavl Gavriolv-Yamsky Breitovsky, Rybinsk Danilov, Poshekhonie, Pereslavl-Zalessky Nekrasovskoye, Petrovsk, Tutaev Myshkin, Riazanovskaya, Uglich Pereslvasky, Liubim, N. Nekouz, Borok, Borisoglebsk, Prechistoye, Bolsheselsky
The base year is 2001 and the projection period is 15 year. 3.2 Determination of a Baseline Scenario The baseline scenario is a scenario that describes the development of the existing infrastructure without new modernisation investments. The general assumptions of the baseline scenario are provided below. • Tariffs for all service users (in real prices of the base year) will grow in accordance with the growth of the DRP at the rate of 4% a year making the share of household income to cover the cost of municipal services for the collection and removal of MSW constant for the base year. As the coverage of the population remains at the level of the base year, the real income of the waste management utilities will grow along with the growth of the waste and tariffs. • The existing (against the base year) system of the municipal waste management remains unchanged for the entire planning period. Nonetheless, if required the capacity of the current waste facilities will be increased to the extent sufficient to receive the volume of generated waste over the planning period. • The entire planning period will use the conventional system of waste collection (into street containers or taking household garbage to garbage trucks at predetermined time). • The growth of waste generation will follow the growth of DRP and household income to result in the relevant growth of the current expenses for the removal and disposal of waste. • Capital expenses for capital repairs of fixed assets are taken into account. Here capital repair means repair and replacement of completely worn-out fixed assets to support the current infrastructure and service level.
Hereafter, all the reviewed scenarios will use 2001 as the base year and the period 2002-2015 as a planning period. The development of the financial strategy and modeling exercises are based on the assumptions presented below.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 16 3.3 Macro-economic and financial assumptions
3.3.1 Population of Yaroslavl Oblast As in many other regions in the Russian Federation, Yaroslavl Oblast in the last decade has seen a negative population growth. This trend is expected to continue over the next few years to stabilize at the level of around 1,184,000 people by 2006. But migration from rural to urban areas, associated with the difficult socio-economic conditions in rural areas and small towns will reduce the rural population at a faster rate. Hence, the Project Team assumed that the situation in the second group, which is mostly represented by rural areas and where the rural population dominates over the urban population, would change. More specifically, it is assumed that the rural and urban population will be equal and stable.
Population projections for the planning period are presented below.
Table 3.1 Population Projections in Yaroslavl Oblast (2001- 2015)
Group 1 Group 2 Total 2001 2015 2001 2015 2001 2015 Population (000) 1009 969 226 215 1235 1184 Urban population in block 86.6% 89.6% 34% 35% 71% 72% houses Urban population in private 10% 10% 15% 15% 11% 11% sector Rural population 0.4% 0.4% 52% 50% 18% 17% Source: Neap2-Project assessment
3.3.2 GRP Growth and Structure
The average annual growth rate of the real Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Yaroslavl Oblast is assumed to be 5% between 2002-2015, with the real income of the population to display a similar rate.
The contribution of each group of the cities into the gross regional product was modeled as a share of the industrial output in the relevant group. The contribution of Yaroslavl was assessed at a higher share as this city generates a considerable share of non-market governance services.
As statistics regarding the GRP structure per group are unavailable, the Project team assumed that Group 1 represents a higher than average contribution of industry and services (in particular, non-market ones), while Group 2 displays a much higher than in Group 1 contribution of the forestry and the agricultural sectors.
The GRP structure by economic sectors is assumed to be stable up to 2015. These assumptions are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 GRP and Structure by city groups in 2000 Agricultural GRP-2001, Trade and and forest mln. Rubles Industry Services Construction sectors Group 1 64,000 45,0% 38,0% 8,0% 9,0% Group 2 6,500 39,0% 28,0% 6,0% 27,0% Total 70,500 Source: NEAP2 Project assessment
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 17 3.3.3 Structure of GRP Distribution
The structure of the GRP Distribution of Yaroslavl Oblast in the base year is given in Table 3.3
Table 3.3 Distribution of Yaroslavl Oblast GRP in 2001
Distribution of GRP %% Net export 23% Expenses of government agencies and noncommercial institutions 12,5% Gross fixed capital formation (including asset gains) 15,5% End consumption of households 40,9% Source: Statistical Yearbook Of Yaroslavl Oblast, 2002
3.3.4 Final Consumption
The distribution is assumed to change in such a way that the share of the Final consumption will reach 45% against the baseline value of 41%, while the services share in the Final consumption will reach 16% as compared with the baseline value of 13% (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4 Final Consumption of Households in Yaroslavl Oblast
2001 2005 2008 2012 2015 Final Consumption as a share of GRP 41% 42% 43% 44% 45% Goods % 87% 87% 86% 85% 84% Services % 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% Source: Statistical Yearbook Of Yaroslavl Oblast, 2002, NEAP2 Projections
The projected value of the urban population’s share in the final consumption is given in Table 3.5
Table 3.5 Share in Final Consumption of Rural and Urban Population in 2001
Group 1 Group 2
Urban Population 91% 68%
Rural Population 9% 32% Source: NEAP2 Project’s assessment
3.4 Assumptions for MSW sector financing sources
3.4.1 Budget Financing of Current and Capital Expenses in the Sector Based on statistics of utility expenses and the assumption that the budget tends to finance the Public Service and Housing (PSH) sector in a similar way, the Project Team valued budget expenses in the SWM sector in the base year (2001) as shown in Table 3.6 below.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 18 Table 3.6 Budget Financing of SWM Sector in 2001
% of budget % of Mln Rubles expenses GRP Budget Income (except for Federal transfers) 7 805 Budget expenses 9 427 Current 7 935 84% Capital 1 492 16% Public Services and Housing Expenses (PSH) 1 707 18% Capital 175 1.8% Current 1 532 16% SWM Expenses (1.5% of PSH) 24.9 0.26% 0.035% Capital 0.9 0.01% 0.0013% Current 24 0.25% 0.03% Source: statistical updates of Oblstat of Yaroslavl Oblast, 2001 The baseline scenario assumes that budget financing of the sector will increase in parallel with the GRP growth, i.e. at an annual average of 5% in comparable prices
3.4.2 Customer Charges Income statistics on the SWM revenues of the utilities providing solid waste services (specialized garbage trucks companies or diversified utilities) were obtained from utilities that are involved in solid waste services in each municipality. These data include information on invoicing, payment collection rates and paid invoices by each source of waste generation. These also include information on the share of payment in real money (cash payments) and on the real value (in percentage of the nominal value) of non-cash payments (payments other than in real money). Presented below are data for the base year (2001) for the entire Yaroslavl Oblast and by each group included into the model. Table 3.7 SWM Revenues of Utilities in 2001 (‘000 Rubles) Total collected Collected in in monetary Source Invoiced Collected cash terms Urban population 33 642 31 278 29 062 29 062 Rural population 668 534 427 513 Budget and commercial organizations 16 076 16 076 12 861 15 443 Industry 11 569 11 569 11 569 11 569 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 120 120 96 105 Total 62 075 59 693 40 769 56 692 Source: Questionnaires of enterprises Group 1 Group 1 includes the cities of Yaroslavl, Rybinsk, Pereyaslavl, Tutayev and Uglich along with the adjacent districts. Solid waste disposal revenues of utilities in the cities under Group 1 are given in Table 3.8.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 19 Table 3.8 SWM revenues of utilities in Group 1 cities in 2001 (‘000 Rubles) Real value of Total non-cash collected Share of payments (% in Collec- Collection cash of nominal monetary Source Invoiced ted rate payments value) terms Urban population 33 642 26 914 80% 100% 80% 26 914 Rural population 75 60 80% 80% 80% 57.6 Budget and 9 556 9 556 100% 80% 80% 9 174 commercial organizations Industry 11 417 11 417 100% 100% 80% 11 417 Wastewater treatment facilities - - - - - Total 54 690 47 947 47 563 Source: Questionnaires of enterprises Notes: а) If the self-reported collection rate was over 100% due to the repayment of past debts, the collection rate was taken at 100%. b) If a respondent was not in a position to provide the data on the real value of non-cash payments, it was taken to be 80% of the nominal value. Group 2 Group 2 includes 11 districts. (Nekrasovsky, Riazonovsky, Breitovskyi and Pereslavsky districts did not provide data on fees payments). Solid waste disposal revenues of utilities in the cities under Group 2 are given in Table 3.9. Table 3.9 SWM revenues of Utilities in Group 2 cities in 2001 (‘000 Rubles) Real value of Total non-cash collected Share of payments in Collection cash (percentage of monetary Source Invoiced Collected rate payments nominal value) terms Urban population 2 148 2 148 100% 100% 0 2 148 Rural population 593 474 80% 80% 80% 455 Budget and commercial 6 520 6 520 100% 80% 80% 6 259 organizations
Industry 152 152 100% 100% 0 152 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 120 120 100% 62% 80% 111 Total 9 533 9 414 9 125 Source: Questionnaires of enterprises The baseline scenario assumes that budget financing of the sector will increase in parallel with the GRP growth, e.i. at the average annual rate of 5% in comparable prices, with the payment collection rate maintained at the level of the base year. Assumptions of the other scenarios are formulated below in the respective sections of this paper.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 20 3.5 Current situation MSW sector and waste flows Current situation According to the collected data the current situation in the sector of MSW collection and disposal is as follows:
Table 3.10 Characteristics of the MSW system in 2001 Group 1 Group 2 Population, person 1 009 874 226 190 Share of coverage with MSW City - 74-100% City 5-100% management services District – 5-15% District 0-79% Weighted average of MSW collection City – 90% City - 54% coverage District – 25% District - 17% Municipal waste facilities Dumps Dumps Current system of waste management Conventional waste Conventional collection; used waste collection; materials collection used materials points (glass bottles, collection points paper, plastic); other (glass bottles, centres for collection of paper, plastic); used materials other centers for collection of used materials Source: Yaroslavl Oblast CNR, enterprises
Based on the data of waste generation streams from different sources, the Consultant determined the annual stream of wastes for the selected groups by sectors and population. The table below offers data on the volume of waste at waste facilities and dumps in 2001.
Table 3.11 Waste generation from different sources in 2001 Group 1 Group 2 Urban population, ton/year 224345 29149 Urban population, kg/pers/year 231.4 263.2 Rural population, ton/year 4040 15330 Rural population, kg/pers/year 100.1 133 Industry, ton/year 10949 20 Trade and services, ton/year 20726 18 Construction and demolition of buildings, 0 6 ton/year Sludge from wastewater treatment 0 0 facilities*, ton/year Total, ton/year 264604 44522 * Sludge from wastewater treatment facilities were not incorporated into estimates Source: Yaroslavl Oblast CNR, enterprises
Forecast of waste flows It is assumed that the growth of disposable income of households would raise the volume of per capita food waste followed by its stabilization. This is due to the increased marketing of packed products resulting in the increased use of semi-finished products. In 2000, the EU countries produced every year 135 kg/pers. of food waste in the cities and 65 kg/pers. in rural areas.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 21 Experts believe that Yaroslavl Oblast will reach this level of waste generation in about 25 years. The estimate volume of waste generation 2015 prepared with the help of the model is shown in 3.12.
Table 3.12 Estimate of Waste flows from all Sources in 2015 Group 1 Group 2 Urban population, ton/year 424483 51557 Rural population, ton/year 840 30758 Industry, ton/year 22160 40.6 Trade and services, ton/year 46165 41.6 Construction and demolition of buildings, 0 12.3 ton/year Sludge from wastewater treatment 0 0 facilities*, ton/year Total, ton/year 493649 82410 * Sludge from wastewater treatment facilities were not incorporated into estimates Source: Yaroslavl Oblast CNR, enterprises
Annex VI gives modeled estimates of waste generation by sources and fractions for the entire planning period till 2015 for both groups. To assess the required costs, the baseline scenario used several key assumptions, which are the same for both groups. • In real terms, the operational expenses remain at the level of the base year. • Sustainability of the current infrastructure requires more funds for capital repairs. Capital repairs mean restoration and renovation of fixed assets to maintain the current level of infrastructure and services. • Over the period 2001 – 2015 the conventional system of waste collection will prevail.
In addition, the assumptions regarding waste facilities and service coverage within the planned period are given below.
Group 1. • weighted average coverage with the system of waste collection will be at the level of the base year, namely 90 percent for the urban population and 25 percent for the rural population. • waste will be disposed into the current and new facilities, which are similar to the existing ones.
Group 2 • weighted average coverage with the system of waste collection will be at the level of the base year, namely 54 percent for the urban population and 17 percent for the rural population. • waste will be disposed of at the current and new facilities, which are similar to the existing ones
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 22 4 Description of modeling results
4.1 FEASIBLE as a decision making support tool The FEASIBLE model, which is also called the model for the assessment of available financing and assessment of expenses for the operation, maintenance and development of municipal environmental infrastructure (hereinafter the FEASIBLE Model or just model) is a computer- based, decision making support tool facilitating the development of financial strategies. A financial Strategy is a scenario with no shortage of financing, i.e. where there is a balance between the required expenses and available financing. The goal of developing the financial strategy is to determine a coordinated, realistic and acceptable level of services while demonstrating the way to finance the related environmental expenses. For the sector of municipal waste management, the natural starting point in the development of the environmental financial strategy should be the goals and objectives formulated in the national or oblast plans and similar documents. A financial strategy should not be a substitute of the waste management plan but it may prove that the goals of the plan are achievable or, just the opposite, too ambitious or low given the financial situation. Correspondingly, a financial strategy may have an important effect on the process of setting objectives and can be viewed as an auxiliary element in the development of general waste management plans. The FEASIBLE Model is used as a tool to analyze various options of political decisions and financing scenarios, but prioritization, selection and implementation of the activities are the responsibility of the decision makers. The FEASIBLE Model assists in preparing financial strategies through providing an opportunity to get an overall insight in the required expenses to meet the set goals. As all the calculations are based on the consolidated cost functions, the estimate may be true only on the aggregate level. To get a more detailed insight of a specific facility it is necessary to carry out a feasibility study to identify specific expenses for a specific project. The Model could be used to get estimates of the required expenses and waste flows generated at various assumptions depending on the inputs relating to: • goals and objectives. • development of technical activities; • planning of waste generation; • coefficients for price and technical parameters adjustment
The Model does not include goals and objectives as such, but they are expressed in the terms of specific technical measures for the development of infrastructure. The Model user translates goals and objectives into measures of technical development before modelling. The Model does not intend to optimise selection of technical measures in terms of cost effectiveness and environmental requirements. Technical development measures could vary in terms of: • changing the level of coverage of consumers with the system of municipal waste collection system, for example, by indicating the year of 100% coverage. • selecting new methods of waste collection, for example, by determining various combinations of the systems for the collection of mixed waste, organic waste and used materials and implementation deadlines; • selecting the system for the processing and disposal of waste, for example, by identifying various alternatives of new methods for the processing and disposal of wastes, implementation deadlines, and the timeframe for taking the existing facilities out of operation;
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 23 • identifying the technical aspects of the scenario by determining specific parameters and deadlines for attaining various levels of coverage with the system of municipal waste collection, implementation of the system for the collection and processing/disposal of wastes, compliance with a number of technical parameters, directives, instructions or their combinations.
The FEASIBLE Model illustrates the results of the selection of various political decisions regarding funding through user charges, budget financing, etc. This is compared with the budgets to determine a surplus or shortage of the funds. This is useful when considering the following issues. • Are under the current financial circumstances the selected development goals and technical parameters realistic? • Is there an opportunity to identify alternative financing to meet the requirements?
The Model could be used as a tool to check the acceptability of the various alternatives. But the Model, as such, cannot guarantee, that the goals and political decisions made are realistic and acceptable in this context.
FEASIBLE Model is not be a substitute for a: • Feasibility Study • Cost optimization process • Prioritization process • Policy setting and implementation • Analysis of the willingness to pay and acceptability of tariffs for the various groups of the population.
4.2 Description of the modeling results – Baseline scenario
4.2.1 Group 1
Opportunities to Finance Solid Waste Management Sector The baseline scenario assumes that budget financing of the sector will increase in parallel with the GRP growth, i.e. at an annual average of 5% in comparable prices, with the payment collection rate maintained at the level of the base year (80% both for the urban and rural population). The assumption projects the solid waste services revenues at 1 698 mln. Rubles in 2001-2015 (see Diagram 1). The share of population payments is only 258,5 mln. Rubles (15%). Financing Requirements for the Solid Waste Management Sector For the same period the model projects the cost of solid waste services (including collection and removal, maintenance of waste handling and disposal facilities, and maintenance and capital repairs of fixed assets) at 1,516 mln. Rubles including: • 1,472.8 mln. Rubles - collection and removal of domestic waste, and the cost of waste handling and disposal facilities; and • 43.4 mln. Rubles – maintenance and capital repairs of fixed assets.
Analysis of Financial Results Group 1 has more revenues than expenses throughout the entire time interval. This result is rather unexpected, as it was generated at relatively low tariffs for domestic solid waste service. Household expenses for this service are currently only 0.3% of the average per capita income (the maximum marginal expenses are 1%).
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 24 Figure 4.1 Financing Requirements and sources of the MSW Sector in Group 1 cities (2001-2015)
1 800 000
1 600 000 1 400 000
1 200 000
R U 1 000 000 Costs 1 698 086 800 000 1 516 923 Profit 1000 R 600 000
400 000 200 000 0 Baseline scenario
This result appears to be associated with the fact that the current tariffs cover over 90 percent of the actual cost regarding the collection and removal of domestic waste, while the current expenses for maintenance and operation of formal dumps are low as compared with the cost of financing the construction and adequate operation of waste handling and disposal facilities that would comply with the effective building, sanitary and environmental standards and rules.
In this context, the domestic waste services generate a profit, valued by the model at 180 mln. Rubles for Group 1 cities in 2001-2015.
Financial Results of Solid Waste Services in Group 1 Cities of Yaroslavl Oblast are given in Figure 4.2.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 25
Figure 4.2 Financial result of MSW services in Group 1 cities (2001-2015)
Base Scenario
180,0 30,0 160,0 25,0 140,0 120,0 20,0 Summary cost 100,0 15,0 Summary income 80,0 ruble ruble. Operational proceeds 60,0 10,0 40,0 5,0 20,0
0,0 0,0 Operational Proceeds, mln Expenses and Proceeds, mln.
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Source: Model generated projections The positive financial result for the entire Group 1 cities does not mean that each enterprise will have profit every year. For example, if one utility is engaged in the removal of waste from the city, while another manages a waste facility, then one of them could be profitable, while the other bear losses (especially if the expenses for waste removal are under financed by the city and is supported by user charges). The overall result could be positive anyway.
This positive financial result will establish the financial preconditions for addressing the sector development objectives, primarily, in the area of reconstruction and construction of waste handling and disposal facilities that would meet building, sanitary and environmental standards, development of the system of waste collection and separate collection of re-usable waste, as well as renovation of the garbage trucks fleet (procurement of large garbage collection trucks).
It also shows that waste management can attract private sector participation opportunities for the introduction of sound competition into the sector as a way to improve effectiveness of operations, rationalize the current expenses and optimize investments.
4.2.2 Group 2 Opportunities to Finance Solid Waste Management Sector The baseline scenario assumptions for Group 2 cities project the solid waste services revenues at 260.5 mln. Rubles in 2001-2015. The share of domestic payments will be 59 mln. Rubles (about 23%).
Financing Requirements for the Solid Waste Management Sector For the same period the model projects the cost of solid waste services at 126.5 mln. Rubles, which is low as it is assumed that the existing dumps will be operated at the current (very low) level.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 26 Table 4.1 MSW Expenses in Group 2 Communities in 2001-2015,(‘000 Rubles)
Expenses Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 ..... Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Total
Maintenance of fixed assets 482 498 517 ..... 672 687 703 8 923 Solid waste management 5 438 5 740 6 136 ..... 9 574 9 956 10 353 117 660 Total 5 921 6 238 6 553 ..... 10 246 10 644 11 056 126 583 Source: model-generated projections Analysis of financial results Thus, the baseline scenario shows that there is no shortage of financing (see Diagram 3). Moreover, the current system of waste collection will generate proceeds allowing the implementation of concrete development strategies. The 2001-2015 profits are projected at 134 mln. Rubles accounting for 106% of the overall sector expenses. In this context, the Project Team would recommend focusing on improvement of the waste collection system supported by gradual and slow tariff growth in parallel with the economic growth and the income increase of the population in the region.
Figure 4.3 Results of the baseline scenario for Group 2
300 000
250 000
200 000 Costs 150 000 260 544 Revenues
100 000 126 583 50 000
0 Base Scenario ‘000 rubles So urce: model-generated projections Collection and disposal of solid waste is currently the responsibility of diversified utilities, which maintain single management and financial accounting. This single accounting practice makes it difficult to evaluate real financial effectiveness of solid waste management operations even within an individual utility. Modeling of income and expenses for both groups of towns and cities in Yaroslavl Oblast showed that solid waste management taken apart from sanitary cleaning ( such as streets) of the city and other services is profitable in most cases. That means that at the existing low level of operation of the sites for solid waste burial the existing tariffs cover the costs of the collection and disposal of waste ignoring, however, the need for sufficient investments into the construction of new facilities (waste handling and disposal facilities, sorting and transfer stations, etc.). Turning solid waste management into an independent operation in these communities would make it commercially attractive while facilitating the entry of the private sector and private investments into this sector. The adequate operation of the existing facilities and establishing new ones will undoubtedly require more expenses and result in the reduction of operational profits of the utilities. But this is the only way to ensure sustainable long-term operation of the system.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 27 Possibilities for improvement in the sector of solid waste management are described in the respective development scenario below.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 28 5 Development Scenarios The objectives of municipal solid waste management relate to specific quantitative and qualitative goals in the area of improvement and development of the existing msw management system. Examples of overall quantitative goals (development targets) for system development are: • Improving services, in particular, the coverage rate of waste collection and removal services; • Mitigating detrimental environmental impacts by upgrading the existing waste handling and disposal facilities and dumps; • Expanding the volume of waste recycling, e.i. establishing and operating a new system for the collection of reusable items and materials. Goals include specific quantitative targets, which are generally related to production parameters such as: • Increasing the service coverage of population by Х% by the year 20хх; • Liquidating all informal dumps by the year 20хх; • Upgrading all the dumps to bring them up to the sanitary and environmental standards by the year 20хх; • Reaching recycling volumes of XX% of reusable materials by the year 20XX. Objectives and targets, which serve as the basis for planning and managing msw are commonly associated with federal or oblast regulatory and legal acts.
5.1 Identifying Scenarios Of Technical Development A technical scenario may be identified as: Development of the MSW management system that meets the established targets and objectives as specified Technical scenarios could be developed as: • An alternative technical option to meet one set of specific targets and objectives; or • An alternative technical option to meet more than one set of specific targets and objectives.
Technical scenarios could vary by the following indicators: • Increase in service coverage; • Selection and timeframe of new waste collection methods such as through the identification of various system combinations to collect mixed waste, organic wastes and reusable items including the timeframe for their implementation. • Goals and objectives for the system of treatment and disposal of waste such as by identifying various new options for the treatment and disposal of waste and timeframe for their implementation including the timeframe for decommissioning of the existing facilities. • Identification of technical scenarios for Yaroslavl Oblast includes the identification of specific options and timeframe for meeting the targets such as coverage, implementation of the system for the collection, treatment and disposal of waste, compliance with some technical standards and parameters or a combination thereof.
The Baseline Scenario is called hereafter Scenario 1 and the development scenarios are called Scenario 2 and 3. The next section describes the scenarios.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 29 Proposed Scenarios To identify the realistic development potential of the SWM sector and analyse the financing deficit the first stage of modeling involves a number of scenarios. • Baseline Scenario 1 (the so called “no change scenario” – see chapter 4) • Scenario 2. Replacement of the existing dumps by waste handling and disposal facilities with the same areas of MSW coverage. • Scenario 3. Increase of the MSW coverage. Replacement of the existing dumps by waste handling and disposal facilities with establishment of inter-municipal co-operation;
Scenario 1 (Baseline Scenario) was analyzed in Chapter 4:
The Yaroslavl Oblast Municipal formations that participated in the workshop for the intermediary results of the project viewed Scenario 3 as unrealistic as it was not possible to expand the coverage of the system of waste collection and disposal within the planning period. Therefore, only Scenario 2 will be considered below. 5.2 Results development scenario 2 For the assessment of the financing needs in Scenario 2 the following assumptions were used.
Group 1. • The conventional system of waste collection will be maintained throughout the entire modeling period. • Weighted average of the waste collection system will remain on the level of the base year – 90% for the urban population and 25% for the rural population; • New waste handling and disposal facilities will be constructed in 4 settlements out of 5. These facilities will accept only locally generated waste. No inter-municipal co-operation.
Group 2. • The conventional system of waste collection will be maintained throughout the entire modeling period. • Weighted average of the waste collection system will remain on the level of the base year – 54% for the urban population and 17% for the rural population; • Existing dumps will be replaced by new waste handling and disposal facilities. These facilities will accept only locally generated waste. No inter-municipal co-operation.
Waste Collection System For both groups the conventional system of waste collection will be maintained throughout the entire modeling period. There will be no sorting of waste either at the source or at the designated sorting points. The waste will be collected into individual containers or into containers at designated sites.
The proposed goal to replace the existing dumps by new “B” type waste handling and disposal facilities throughout the 15-year modeling period are given below.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 30 Table 5.1 Implementation plans for new “B” type disposal facilities Group Waste Handling & Disposal Facilities Existing dumps before 2004, from 2005 waste handling Yaroslavl and disposal facility, with a capacity of 2400 thousand ton. Existing dumps before 2005, from 2006 waste handling Rybinsk and disposal facility, with a capacity of 1450 thousand ton. Existing dumps and new dumps for the entire projected Pereslavl-Zalessky 1 period Existing dumps before 2004, from 2005 stage II of waste Tutaiev handling and disposal facility, with a capacity of 230 thousand ton. Existing dumps before 2003, from 2004 waste handling Ouglich and disposal facility, with a capacity of 340 thousand ton. existing dumps till 2003, from 2004 a waste facility with a Myshkin capacity of 81 thousand ton Existing dumps till 2004, from 2005 a waste facility with a Borisoglebsky capacity of 320 thousand ton Existing dumps till 2005 , from 2006 a waste facility with a Bolshoy Selo 2 capacity of 71 thousand ton Existing dumps till 2003, from 2004 reconstruction of Liubim existing dumps and expansion to a total capacity of 127 thousand ton Existing dumps till 2006 , from 2007 a waste facility with a Gavrilov Yam capacity of 111 thousand ton Source: modeling results
Modeling assumed the construction of a waste handling and disposal facility with a capacity to allow the disposal of waste for 20 years as of the date of putting the facility into operation.
The distribution of annual volumes of waste generation by cities of Group1 is as follows:
Table 5.2 Distribution of annual waste generation by city in 2001 Group 1 % Yaroslavl 66,1 Rybinsk 19,5 Pereslavl-Zalessky 6,2 Tutaiev 3,7 Ouglich 4,6 Group 2 Myshkin 6,5 Borisoglebsky 7,1 Bolshoye selo 5,6 Lyubim 10,4 Gavrilov Yam 8,6 Other settlements 61,7
Source: Enterprise data
It was assumed that the percentage of waste generation in the communities of both groups would not change for the entire planning period.
Additional Transportation and Transfer Station Expenses
The analysis of the collected data assumes that in the current waste collection system the average transport distance from the end point to a dump or waste handling and disposal facility
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 31 is about 15 km. The transportation cost is included into the overall cost for the collection and disposal of waste. Required and Planned Capacity of Disposal Sites as Modeled
Overall existing required and planned capacities for the 15-year period. Table 5.3 Total existing and planned capacities of MSW facilities in 2001-2015 Disposal Site Required Capacity, ton Baseline Scenario 2 Scenario Group 1: Overall Capacity of Dumps 5 058 189 1 318 044 Overall Capacity of Waste 0 3 740 145 Handling & Disposal Facilities Required Capacity 5 058 189 5 058 189 Group 2: Overall Capacity of Dumps 334 870 233 863 Overall Capacity of Waste 0 101 007 Handling & Disposal Facilities Required Capacity 334 870 334 870
Financial results of scenario 2 – Group 1 The modeling outputs indicate that the profits generated throughout 2001-2015 by the domestic waste management services in the cities under Group 1 will practically cover all the costs required for the construction of new waste handling and disposal facilities (putting into operation new stages of the existing waste handling and disposal facilities).
The small shortfall (some 24 mln. Rubles) could be easily financed by increasing the payment collection rate for MSW services in the cities from the current 80% to 90%.
Figure 5.1 Cumulative scenario expenses and income for Group 1 (2001-2015)
2 000 000 1 800 000 1 600 000 1 400 000
1 200 000 Expense 1 000 000 Income ubles 1 698 086 1 722 953 1 698 086 800 000 1 516 263
.R h
T 600 000 400 000 200 000 0 Base Scenario Development Scenario
Source: Model-generated projections
According to the model results the construction of four waste handling and disposal facilities will require the investments of some 91 mln. Rubles that is this is the investment costs for the construction. This will also increase operational expenses. The construction of new waste handling and disposal facilities will result in the increase of current expenses by 49 mln. Rubles.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 32
Figure 5.2 Deficit/Surplus in 2001-2015 for Development Scenario 2 for Group 1
30 000 Deficit/surplus 20 000
10 000
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 uble -10 000 R h T -20 000
-30 000
-40 000 Years
-50 000
Figure 5.2 shows that the financial burden of the waste handling and disposal facilities construction will have a discrete time distribution. Considerable capital investments will be required in 2003-2005, 2008 and 2012.
As stated above, the increase in the payment collection rate of the urban population to a value of 90 percent will result in the coverage of the financing shortage associated with the construction of waste handling and disposal facilities. This will generate some 112 mln. Rubles over the entire modeling period.
Figure 5.3. Changes in Operational Costs for Group 1 (2001- 2015)
Operational Expenses Base Scenario 16
12
. 8
4 housand ruble t 0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Operational expenses in the baseline scenarios will practically remain at the same level, with a slight increase caused by the growth of waste in parallel with the growth of the DGP of the Oblast. The proposed scenario provides for a considerable increase in the operational and maintenance expenses due to the construction of new waste facilities (2004-2006 for Group 1), which will be furnished with a complete set of the corresponding equipment and specialized machinery.
Financial Results of the Scenario – Group 2 Modeling results of Scenario 2 illustrated that the profit of a municipal waste management utility in the cities of Group 2 for the period of 2001 –2015 would practically cover the entire set of
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 33 expenses required to construct new waste facilities (commissioning of new stages of the existing facilities).
The resulting slight shortage of about 2 million Rubles altogether is easily financed by an increase in the collection ratio for the removal of municipal waste from the current 80 percent to 90 percent (in average).
Figure 5.4 Cumulative scenario expenses and income for Group 2 (2001-2015)
300
250
200 Cost 150 . Ruble 260 544 260 544 Income h T 100 162 307 126 583 50
0 Base Scenario Development Scenario
Source: Model
According to the Model, the construction of four waste facilities will cost some 158 mln. Rubles, that is direct investment costs. This will also be complemented by operational cost generating the growth in the operational cost by 49 mln. Rubles.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 34 Figure 5.5 Financing gap/surplus 2001-2015 under Scenario 2 for Group 2
16 000 14 000 12 000 10 000 b 8 000 6 000 Shortage/surplus 4 000 th. ru 2 000 0 -2 000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -4 000 years
Source: Model
Figure 5.5 shows, similar to the case in Group 1, the financial burden for the construction of new waste facilities is not time even. Considerable one-off investments are required in 2004.
As was indicated earlier, the increase in the collection ratio among the urban population up to 90 percent will cover the shortage generated by the construction of new facilities. This will allow for an additional amount of 112 mln. Rubles.
Figure 5.6 shows the changes in the operational and maintenance expenses for the entire planning period till 2015.
Figure 5.6 Changes in operational and maintenance cost for Group 2 till 2015
Operations and Maintenance Expenses Base Scenario Development Scenario 2 2
1 1 Th. rubles 500 0
2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2002 2003 2004 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Operational expenses in the baseline scenarios will practically remain at the same level, with a slight increase caused by the growth of waste in parallel with the growth of the DGP of the Oblast. The proposed scenario provides for a considerable increase in the operational and maintenance expenses due to the construction of new waste facilities (2004-2007 for Group 2), which will be furnished with a complete set of the corresponding equipment and specialized machinery.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 35 6 Findings and Recommendations
6.1 Technical Issues • There is a need proposed in Scenario 2 to replace the existing landfills by solid waste handling and disposal facilities that meet the effective national sanitary and environmental standards and regulations. Financially this replacement is feasible. • Increased coverage of the domestic waste collection system. The Group 2 cities have the potential reflected in the development scenarios. • The inter-municipal co-operation potential is rather weak due to the geography of the oblast (water bodies) and road pattern. This also makes it economically unfeasible to construct an incineration plant in the oblast as transport distances will be long collecting waste from other communities. • Another constraint with respect to the construction of an incineration plant is the low density of the population and availability of sites to dispose solid waste. • It would be practical to start the implementation of separate waste collection system and construction of pilot sorting stations in larger cities (pilot cities) where there is sufficient quantity of recyclable materials to ensure commercial interest.
6.2 Financial Issues • Proceeds of the MSW utilities generally cover the cost of these operations. Partially it is due to the fact that these utilities bear minimum costs of operating the existing landfills that are not sufficiently compliant with the relevant sanitary and environmental standards. In addition, the MSW tariff in the oblast covers 90 percent of the expenses for the collection and transportation of the waste. • In case of diversified utilities this activity, if independent, could be in general profitable. It means that within the existing diversified utilities there is a cross-subsidy from the MSW service to other public services. • This operational profit will generate the preconditions for implementing the proposed development strategies, which constitutes in fact a priority investment program for new waste handling and disposal facilities. • Provided that the assumptions regarding the increase in waste generation, (coverage of the MSW service, tariff size and payment collection rate up to 90 percent or more) are realized, the generated revenues will be sufficient to finance the development scenarios. • The pilot implementation of separate waste collection and the construction of sorting stations will require a faster rate of tariff increase at the initial stage of the pilot. At a later stage, this will be covered by the recycling revenues. • Despite the fact that, on the whole, the planning period is based on a rather balanced funding, certain years will be facing a dramatic financing shortage of capital expenses due to the construction of the facilities under the scenario. Hence, there is an issue of time distribution of the financial resources, which could be addressed through borrowing including repayable budget loans to the municipalities involved in the construction of the relevant infrastructure in the municipal solid waste sector.
6.3 Issues related to implementation of the recommendations • When making the strategy implementation decisions, it is necessary to take into consideration that the model estimates contain elements of uncertainty. Secondly, the
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 36 estimates are based on certain assumptions, which will not necessarily follow real events. Thirdly, it is assumed that the estimates are based on optimal logistical arrangements as well as on the optimal mix of facilities, garbage truck fleet, and other components of the system, including their proper operation and maintenance followed by the timely replacement of the worn-out assets. In case of substantive deviations from the optimal solutions (for example, if the truck companies have excessive and worn out trucks with low loading ratios, inadequate container arrangements and logistics), the actual costs could be much higher than the ones used in the model. • As the model presents an aggregate result for the entire group, the balanced budget as such for the entire group and for the entire planning period does not necessarily mean that every utility in every year will be enjoying an operational profit in the municipal solid waste sector. There is an uneven time distribution of expenses, in particular, capital expenses in all the scenarios. For example, if one utility is engaged in the removal of waste from the city, while another manages a waste facility, then one of them could be profitable, while the other bears losses (especially if the expenses for waste removal are under financed by the city and expenses for the other are supported by user charges).
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 37 ANNEXES
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 38 Annex I Macroeconomic review Yaroslavl Oblast
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 39 Background With an area of 36.4 thousand sq. km, Yaroslavl Oblast is located in the center of the European Russia in the Volga basin. Yaroslavl is the administrative center of the Oblast, which comprises 6 cities reporting to the oblast center, 5 cities reporting to district authorities, 17 districts and district centers. The population of the Oblast is 1,400.7 thousand people, including 1,126.2 of city inhabitants which offers an 80 percent urban concentration. An average population density is 38 people per sq. km. The last decade saw the decrease in the population. Yaroslavl Oblast is one of the most developed industrial oblasts of the Central Okrug of Russia. Among the leading industries are: engineering and metal working, chemical, petrochemical, fuel and power engineering, as well as wood working, light food processing industries. In this country, Yaroslavl is the leading supplier of diesel engines for large trucks and tractors, fuel equipment, automobile, agricultural and aviation tires, high quality oil products, paints and varnishes, general mechanical rubber goods, electrical motors, electric vibrators, road making machines, duck fabric, aviation instruments industry, cables, printing equipment, medical equipment, wood working and tire assembling machines, rubber and latex, trawlers, rescue- boat, cutters for border guard service, watches. The share of industry, which provides 50% of the consolidated oblast budget, in the gross regional product (GRP) is over 40%. During the last years, the Oblast pursued the strategy of development, which laid the groundwork for reforms and adaptation of the oblast economy to market. By now, major industries in the Oblast appear to have embraced market and improved their performance. The Gross Regional Product The performance of the real Gross Regional Product over the last years indicates that real growth in the Yaroslavl Oblast GRP alternated with its real decrease. The growth of real GRP in 1998 was 7.2%, while in 1999 it was 9.8%, reaching 11.7% in 2000 and an estimate of 8% in 2001 (Table 2.1). Thus, from 1998 to 2001, the real GRP of Yaroslavl Oblast increased by 17.1%, while for Russia the cumulative GDP growth was only 14%.
Table2.1 GRP Performance in Yaroslavl Oblast, 1995 - 2001 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001( estim ate) GRP, bln. ruble 14.8 18.1 19.6 22.5 36.3 46.9 70.5
Growth in GRP in - - - 7.2% - 11.7 8.0% comparable prices, % 9.8% % Growth in GDP of -4.1% -3.6% 0.8% -4.9% 5.4% 8.3% 5.0% Russia in comparable prices, % Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook, 2002 Growth prospects The Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade forecasted the real annual growth in GDP at some 3.5 to 5 percent for the mid term period. The growth in the Yaroslavl Oblast GRP is expected to be slightly higher to the extent of 5% a year. GRP Structure The main GRP contributors are the industrial sector, agriculture, construction, trade and non- market services. Despite the fact that Yaroslavl Oblast demonstrates a fairly high level of
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 40 industrial development, the share of industries in GRP decreased in 1992-1998, while from 1998 it displayed an upward trend. Table2.1 Changes in Yaroslavl Oblast GRP Structure in 1995, 1998 and 2000,, % Ye Goods Services Othe ar r Total Indust Agricu Con Oth Tot Market oriented Non- ry lture struc er al services mark tion et servi ces Utilitie Trade Oth s and and er housi commerc ng ial services 199 56.2 39.4 9.1 7.0 0.7 31. 5 14 4.1 8.2 12.5 5 3 199 47.0 35.4 6.6 4. 5 0.5 40. 9 15.4 9.1 7.4 12.1 8 9 200 56.4 42.3 8. 2 5..3 0.6 33. 6 11 7.7 8.6 10.3 0 3 Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook, 2002
The service sector is mainly represented by trade, transport, telecommunications, utilities and housing, and social services. The share of services in the economy of the Oblast increased from 31.3% in 1995 to 41.0% in 1998, which is mainly the reflection of non-market services of the government sector. Recover of the economy in 1999-2001 brought the service sector share back to the level of 2000 (33%). Certain changes are forecasted in the short and mid-term performance of the Yaroslavl Oblast GRP: the share of public utilities and housing may well reach the level of 4 to 5 percent, with the level of non-market services going down. The share of construction sector is expected to remain at the level of 7-9 percent, with the share of industrial sector at the level of 42-44 percent. It is expected that the ongoing growth in the chemical, food processing and wood processing sectors will contribute to the overall industrial growth. As the said sectors are well represented in the Oblast, there is reason to believe that sound environmental performance of the major enterprises will lead to attainment of the goals set out in the Oblast environmental policies. Investments The enabling investment environment in the Oblast contributed to the growth of private investments. In 1998-2001, the economy of the Oblast received $68.8 US mln. in investments. Most of the investments went to machine engineering (62%), oil refinery (18%), light industries (11%), chemical and petrochemical (4%) sectors. Employment According to official statistics, the number of economically active population in 2001 was 688,000 or 49% to the total population of the Oblast. Mid-term, labor resources are expected to be on the same level. The 1999-2001 economic growth made a dramatic reduction in the unemployment level. Compared to the 1995 peak unemployment rate of 11%, the 2000 unemployment was 9.6%, while in 2001 it was 6.3%.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 41 Table 2.2 below reflects the performance of straight-time and real wages (before taxes) and income of the population. Table2.2 Changes in nominal and real wages in 1995-2000 (ruble per month) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Average per capita 624 725 793 1 267 1 678 2 197 income Nominal average 647 787 888 1 290 1 906 2 831 monthly wage Real wage growth 106.2 106.9 83.2 81.6 108.9 106.3 Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook, 2002 Real wages started growing in 2000-2001 following their dramatic decline in 1992-1995 and 1998-1999. The Table also illustrates that in 2001 the average monthly wages were only $98 US. While the productivity in the Oblast is considerable lower than in West Europe, the cost of labor is also much lower. Oblast Budget Table 2.3 offers the analysis of overall revenues and expenses of budgets of all levels in the Yaroslavl Oblast, i.e. consolidated revenues and expenses of the Oblast Administration, local municipalities, districts and earmarked budget funds. Table2.3. Revenues and expenses of the Yaroslavl Oblast consolidated budget in 1997-2001 (thousand ruble) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Overall revenues 4 005 600 3 843 100 5 743 800 6 960 000 9 352 900
Overall expenses 4 372 800 3 929 200 5 812 800 6 749 100 9 427 300 Surplus/shortage - 367 200 - 86 100 -69 000 210 900 -74 400 (-) Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook
Oblast Revenues In 2001, the Oblast budget received about 9.35 bln. ruble revenues, which amounts to some $323 US mln. Internal revenues amounted to 83% of the overall revenues, while federal transfers (so called dotations, subventions, subsidies and transfers) are also a sizable contribution (1,547 million ruble), though in real terms these are lower than in 1997-1998. In real terms, the CBR went down by 60% in 1997-1999, followed by a slight increase. Table2.4 Yaroslavl budget revenues in, 1997-2001 (thousand ruble) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total revenues 4 005 3 843 5 743 6 960 9 352 600 100 800 000 900 Total revenues/GRP 20.4% 17.1% 15.8% 14.9% 18% Internal revenues 2 781 2 802 4 310 5 705 7 805 700 600 800 700 200 Internal revenues /GRP 14.2% 12.4% 11.9% 12.2% 15% Federal transfers 1 223 1 040 1 433 1 254 1 547 900 500 000 300 700
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 42 900 500 000 300 700 Share of federal transfers in 30.6% 27.1% 24,9% 18% 16.5% the total budget *. Internal revenues are revenues (including the earmarked oblast funds) minus federal transfers (transfers, subsidies, grants, subventions, compensations) and grants from other state authorities. Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook, 2002 As of September 2000, non-monetary settlements with the budget are not allowed. As a result, all payments to the consolidated budget of the Oblast in 2001 were in monetary form as compared to 77% in 1999 and 90% in 2000. About two thirds of the internal revenues (except for the earmarked funds) of the consolidated budget in 2000-2001 were revenues collected and controlled by district and local municipalities. Main sources of income Table 2.5 represents the main sources of revenues in 1997-2001. Table2.5 Structure of internal revenue sources in 1997-1999 for Yaroslavl Oblast Source 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Personal income 17% 16% 17% 18% 27% tax Profit tax 19% 18% 21% 29.5% 28% VAT 24% 21% 16% 10% 0 Excises 5% 8% 8% 10.5% 16% Property tax 15% 15.5% 12% 9% 10% * as of January 2001 100% of VAT is to be paid to the federal budget Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook, 2002
It is important to note that from 1999, two taxes, a profit tax and personal income tax, as well as excises were the main contributors to the consolidated Oblast budget. The share of the property tax went down from 15% in 1997-1998 to 10% in 2001. The recent changes in the taxation of small and medium-sized business make it difficult to calculate the share of these taxes in the Oblast budget in 2003. Other sources No major changes are expected in the volume of the federal transfers in the short and mid-term. Out of all earmarked oblast fund only the ecological fund could be viewed as a source for environmental financing. In 2001, the fund revenues are part of the oblast budget revenues amounting to over 83.5 mln. ruble of pollution charges. Budget Expenses Table 2.6 demonstrates the performance of the consolidated budget expenses. Table2.6 Yaroslavl budget expenses in 1999-2001 (thousand ruble) 1999 2000 2001 Total expenses 5 812 6 749 100 9 427 300 800 Including: state debt servicing - 85 000 67 354 Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook, 2002
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 43 The share of current expenses in the total expenses of the oblast budget in 2000-2001 was 94%, with the remaining 6% for capital investments. The oblast mainly invested in the construction and furnishing of educational and health facilities, as well as in construction and reconstruction of utilities and housing and housing. Despite a considerable increase in the 2001 budget investments as compared to the 1999 figure, the 2001 target was not attained. Utilities and housing expenses comprise a considerable share of the total expenses amounting to 23% in 2000 and 18% in 2001 (see Table 2.7). Table2.7 Utilities and housing expenses of the Yaroslavl Oblast budget, 2000 -2001 (thousand ruble) 2000 2001
Utilities and housing expenses 1 571 600 1 707 000 (as % to the total budget expenses) 23% 18% Including: Capital investments in utilities and housing 175 100 Capital investments as % to the total budget utilities and housing expenses 10,3% Including: Current utilities and housing expenses 1 532 200 Current utilities and housing expenses as % to the total budget utilities and housing expenses 89.7% Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook за 2001 Current utilities and housing expenses include: compensation for the lost income of the utilities due to: (i) the difference in tariffs for the population and economically justified ones, (ii) tariff incentives of the population: (iii) earmarked subsidies to the poor (families below the poverty line). It is important to note that the share of capital expense in 2000 was 10% to the total utilities expenses. Priority financing of the current expenses does not allow for a considerable cut in expenses by way of capital repairs and replacement of worn out infrastructure. Environmental Financing in Yaroslavl Oblast The Yaroslavl Oblast Environmental programs and activities are financed from the budgets of federal, oblast, municipality levels, as well as from own funds of enterprises and institutions. Environmental Investments According to the review of the Yaroslavl Oblast State Committee for Statistics called “Capital Investments for Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management in 2001”, the environmental investments in Yaroslavl Oblast were 489.9 mln. ruble (582.6 mln. ruble in 2000) including: atmospheric air protection 62.3%; water resources management 25.4%; toxic industrial, municipal and other waste management 6.6%; land management 5.7%. Generally, environmental financing was carried out by enterprises themselves. These account for 368 mln. ruble (75.1%). The federal budget invested in environmental protection 28.2 mln.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 44 ruble (5.8%), with the oblast and local budgets investing 93.8 mln. ruble (19.1%). Environmental funds account for 3.5 mln. ruble of capital investments into environmental protection. The share of capital investments in environmental protection and natural resources management in 2001 was 3.4% of the total capital investments in Yaroslavl Oblast (8.1% in 2000). The structure of capital investments in environmental protection and natural resources management with a breakdown by ownership status was as follows (million Rubles) : - state owned 12.0 2.5 % including: - federal 12.0 2.5 % - municipal 114.9 23.4 % - private 356.8 72.8 % - mixed (without foreign 6.3 1.3 % participation)
Industrial enterprises account for most of capital investments (362.2 mln. ruble – 73.9%), with oil refineries accounting for 311.5 mln. ruble of capital investments. The total receipts of the environmental fund in 2001 were 83.5 mln. ruble or 133% as compared with 2000 figures including pollution charges, environmental penalties, and environmental damages. Out of these the federal budget received 16.1 mln. ruble, the oblast budget – 21.8 mln. ruble and the local budgets – 45.6 mln. ruble. In 2001, the Yaroslavl Oblast Law “On the 2001 Oblast Budget” established the revenues of the oblast budget from charges for the allowed and abnormal emissions and discharges, disposal of wastes and environmental financing in an amount of 12.0 mln. ruble. The oblast budget environmental expenditures are approved by a Resolution of the Yaroslavl Oblast Administration. The main ones include: (thousand ruble): construction of environmental facilities including cost sharing - 6 000.0 implementation of cleaner technologies − 75.0 R&D in environmental protection and natural resources management − 1 111.6 emergency and natural disaster prevention and management − 1 331.0
A Committee, established by a Resolution of the Yaroslavl Oblast Administration, selected environmental projects, programs and activities along with a decision making to finance them from the federal budget. The most important environmental activities under these expenditures are: construction and reconstruction of treatment facilities, construction of communal wastewater system, reconstruction of a dam, etc. In the context of land management funds were allocated for the reconstruction of dumps, industrial waste disposal facilities. In 2001, effective environmental expenses of the oblast budget were 11.5 mln. ruble or 65% as compared with the last year. The last year oblast budget was underdisbursed. For example, for construction, upgrading and reconstruction of environmental facilities (including co-financing) the budget allocated 7.2 mln. ruble, with only 2.8 mln. ruble disbursed, thus 4.4 mln. ruble were in arrears. The 2002 oblast budget allocated 16 mln. ruble as environmental spending including 6.7 mln. ruble to finance the construction of environmental facilities.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 45 Generally, pollution charges received by local budgets remain the main sources of spending for the construction, upgrading and reconstruction of environmental facilities. The total value of local environmental spending in 2001 was 23.8 mln. ruble. Construction and reconstruction of environmental facilities received 15.3 mln. ruble or 64% of budget allocations. Most of it (13.2 mln. ruble) was used for the protection and management of water resources: water supply, laying pumped wastewater collectors, reconstruction and construction of city wastewater network, construction of a wastewater collector, etc. Land management activities accounted for 1.3 mln. ruble including the construction of solid waste handing and disposal facilities in Uglich Municipal District, expansion and construction of dumps in the New Nekouz Township, etc. It is to be noted that in 2001 the charges for the allowed and abnormal emissions and discharges, waste disposal accounted for 67.4 mln. ruble paid to the local and oblast budgets. At the same time, only 35.4 mln. ruble of environmental spending was disbursed. It is evident that the balance of 32 mln. ruble is spent for something, which is not related to environmental protection. This is mainly due to the fact that ecological safety is not a priority objective of the oblast budget policy. Removing ecological funds from the environmental legislation framework created a loophole for environmental charges to finance activities, which are not related to environmental protection. Planning of Investments Procedure New investments and capital repair of the current city infrastructure are part of the budgeting for the following year. Budgeting of oblast investments starts with the evaluation of availability of current investment resources, on the one hand, and identification of required spending for the projects and construction to be carried out in the following year, on the other hand. The list of projects and investment targets proposed by local administrations, departments of oblast administrations and other entities is subject for consideration by the Department for Construction and Investment Policies, Finance Department and other parties involved. Selection Criteria All other conditions equal, the following projects are viewed by oblast authorities as priorities: uncompleted projects, if the completion cost is not forbidding; projects under federal and oblast earmarked programs; projects with project documentation that meet the current rule and standards (construction, environmental, sanitary, etc) and help attain social and economic goals set out in the oblast policies; projects co-financed by local administrations and other organizations. Political set offs and negotiations of local administrations with the oblast administration and Duma are also important contributors to the budgeting process. Weight and drive of local politicians are still important drivers in the budgeting of capital investments. Earmarked Environmental Programs Yaroslavl Oblast is a participant in two approved earmarked federal environmental programs. The EFP “Environmental Health of the Volga River and its Tributories; Restoration and Pollution Abatement of the Natural Complexes of the Volga River Basin till 2010” (“The Volga Revival”) The Volga Revival Program was developed in the 90s for all the Volga Basin regions. For some years, the program was financed only to support the PIU in Nizhny Novgorod. The Program goals, methods of program implementation and financing tools are rather vague and general. In April 1998, the Government of the RF issued a resolution approving the program as a federal earmarked program. The Resolution nominated the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation as a state coordinator of the Program. The resolution also proposed an implementation mechanism. To this end, the Resolution assigned the Ministry of Natural Resources of the RF and other customers of the Program with the task of submitting as of 1998 to the Committee of Investment Bidding of the Ministry of
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 46 Economy of the RF projects for the implementation of the activities under this Program. The Resolution instructed the Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Finance to plan the allocation of capital investment thresholds and expenditures in the integrated development forecasts for the corresponding year to implement the activities under the Program taking into consideration the Committee recommendations. The Resolution encouraged the executive authorities of the relevant constituent entities of the Federation to allocate in their budgets the financing required for the implementation of the Program including off-budget sources As early as in August of 1996, the Oblast Administration approved a plan of action for the restoration and protection of water bodies under the Volga Revival Program for 1996-2010 with a budget of 9.3 bln. ruble at 1996 prices. The priority projects (water management) under this Program (1996-2003) in the Oblast were agreed with the Oblast Administration and provided for the construction of the Level III Aeration Station in Yaroslavl, Level II – in Rybinsk, expansion and reconstruction of treatment facilities in Uglich, reconstruction of city treatment facilities in Myshkino, in a township Dunilovo, construction of industrial and storm water treatment facilities, reconstruction of storm water sewerage in a number of major enterprises, cleaning of the river section at their estuaries, river bank works, removal of cattle farms, workshops, fuel tanks from the littoral area of the Rybinsk Reservoir, reequipping rural boilers for gas, establishment of additional monitoring network at small rivers and other projects of water management importance. Table2.8 Effective implementation of priority activities under the Program (according to the Committee for Natural Resources) Total Including sources: Year (mln. Federal budget Oblast Budget Enterprises ruble.)
1998 35. 46 5.8 (16.4%) 24.8 4.8 1999 90.64 3.74 (4.1%) 82.86 4.64 2000 42.71 7.2 (16.9%) -- 35.51 2001 159.65 23.0 (14.4%)
The feasibility of the proposed expenditures to finance the projects could be evaluated by the 2001 performance. Early in the year, the actual disbursement for water management projects under the Volga Revival and Potable Water Supply Programs was only 4.2% of the budgeted amount, with the federal share of only 14.4%. The Potable Water Supply Program. The Program budgeted 171.26 mln. ruble for the use and rehabilitation of water resources. As of January 1, 2001, an overall water management budget of the Potable Water Supply Program unand the Volga Revival Program was 3.8 bln. ruble. In 2001, the program disbursed 159.7 mln. ruble from all sources of financing including federal financing of 23 mln. ruble. The federal money was used to finance bank works at the Rybinsk and Uglich Water Reservoirs and monitoring of water bodies. The oblast budget money was used to clean the Sogozha River and monitoring of water bodies. The cities of Rybinsk and Yaroslavl financed the construction of Level II Aeration Station in Yaroslavl and pumped collectors in Rybinsk. As of 2002, the Volga Revival and Potable Water Supply Programs became part of the Ecology and Natural Resources of Russia Earmarked Federal Program. For 2001-2010, this Program budgeted 199.1 mln. ruble for water management expenses from the following sources - federal budget – 132.3 mln. ruble.; - oblast budget – 66.7 mln. ruble.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 47 The federal budget (96.1 mln. ruble) mainly finances bank works at the Rybinsk and Gorky Water Reservoirs. Demographic Situation
As of January 2001, the population of the Oblast was some 1400.7 thousand people. Migration There was a 5% reduction of the population from 1992 to 2001. The natural population decline averaged about 1% per year. A positive migration balance mitigated the decline. The main immigration flows appear to have originated from other Russian regions (43%) and neighboring CIS countries. Urban population comprises the bulk of the Oblast population (80%) with the rest residing in rural areas. The following trend is expected in short and mid-term context. The decline trend will continue and will stop by 2005. The natural growth will still be negative to be set off to some extent by positive migration. The rural to urban migration will also persist. Table2.9 Urban and rural population in 1996 -2001 and forecasts till 2020 . Yaroslavl Oblast Thousand 1996 2001 *2005 *2010 *2015 *2020 people Total 1450.1 1400.7 1353 1353 1353 1353 Rural 284.1 274.5 265.2 265.2 265.2 265.2 Population Urban 1166.0 1126.2 1087.7 1087.7 1087.7 1087.7 Population Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook. 2002 * consultant’s estimate for 2005-2020
Socio-Economic Situation Income level In 2001, per capita GRP was 50 332 ruble (equivalent to $1736 US), which is 19% lower than the national average. Table 2.10 Per capita GDP/GRP in Russia and Yaroslavl Oblast. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 National per capita 3 584 9 562 13 15 16 32 48 62 GDP (ruble) 349 362 513 673 780 500 National per capita 1 868 2 348 2 910 3 056 1 867 1 330 1 730 2 155 GDP ($ US) Yaroslavl Oblast per 4 023 10 12 13 15 25 33 50 capita GDP (ruble) 148 503 609 720 450 170 332 Yaroslavl Oblastper 2 097 2 492 2 725 2 707 1 778 1 036 1 177 1 736 capita GDP ($ US) Per capita GRP as 112% 106% 94% 89% 95% 78% 68% 81% share (%) of per capita GDP Source: Statistical Yearbook of RF. 200 . Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook ($ value are estimates made by Consultant)
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 48
The US dollar ratio of GDP/GRP depends (quite naturally) on the current rate of exchange. The GDP, computed on the basis of the purchasing power par, for Russia is $5,100 US per person. Table 2.11 offers the dynamics in real income and population living below the official poverty line.
Table 2.11 Real disposal income of the population. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Yaroslavl Oblast Per capita subsistence level 212 296 346 428 793 1211 1500 Average monthly income vr. official 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.9 subsistence level Poverty rate (%) - - - 22.6 24.2 28 36.6 Russian Federation Average monthly income vr. official 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 - subsistence level Poverty rate (%) 24.7 22.0 20.7 23.3 28.4 29.1 - Source: Yaroslavl Oblast Statistical Yearbook. 2002
Distribution of income
Distribution of income in Yaroslavl Oblast is more even than in the national average, with only a small share of the population living below poverty line.
Table2.12 Breakdown of population by per capita disposable income in Yaroslavl Oblast. 2001 Per capita disposable Thousand people % to total income per month (ruble): до 500 19.6 1.4 500.1 – 750.0 71.7 5.1 750.1 – 1000.0 121.9 8.7 1000.1 – 1500.0 299.3 21.4 1500.1 – 2000.0 267.3 19.1 2000.1 – 3000.0 334.9 23.9 3000.1 – 4000.0 153.3 10.9 Свыше 4000.0 132.7 9.5 Total population 1400.7 100
Figure 2.1 Breakdown of population by per capita disposable income in Yaroslavl Oblast. 2001
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 49
Population by income
30,00% % to total 25,00% population
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00% до 500 500.1 – 750.1 – 1000.1 – 1500.1 – 2000.1 – 3000.1 – Over 750.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 4000.0
This figure illustrates an even distribution of population by income. There is still a considerable gap between the average pay and pensions to economically inactive groups: pensioners, disabled persons, etc. Over 60% of the population has an income from 1000 to 3000 ruble per month. This includes the population with an income below the poverty line, as well as pensioners, unemployed and low paid groups of the economically active population. It is assumed that the forecasted growth of the income may result in poverty reduction. The utilities charges as a share (%) of a household average income are not large if compared to the international level. In late 90s the utilities charges (heating, electricity, house rent) remained low at the level of 4% to the household income. But these charges tend to grow. In 2000-2201, they reached some 10-15% (this could be viewed as acceptable) of the average per capita income, which reached 2197 ruble in late 2001. Table2.17 features the values of monthly charges per person and/or per 1m3 by the main utilities. The assumption under this table is that each person has at his/her disposal 20m2 of living space with all the amenities.
Table2.13 Example of monthly utility charges – December 2001 Ruble/month. % to average per capita income3 Water and waste water services (per 18.9 0.9% person) Heating (per 30м2 of living space) 185 8.4% Hot water service (per person) 34.2 1.5% Power (per 50 kWh) 25 1.1% Rental (per 30м²) 28 1.3% Natural gas service (per person) 7.1 0.3% Garbage service (per person) 3.45 0.15% Total per person 302 13.7%
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 50 Source: «Performance of Yaroslavl Oblast utilities in the context of the reforms in 2001» Solid waste. Solid waste service charges comprise 0.15% of an average per capita income of a household. But as a rule, the low tariff only covers the cost of collection and removal of solid waste. The remainder of the operational cost is covered by industry (cross) and (limited) subsidies from local budgets. As the utilities tend to ensure full cost recovery for the utility services, the utility charges are likely to grow faster than wages and overall prices (measured in terms of consumer prices index). This raises the issue of acceptability of utility tariffs to the population.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 51 Annex II Environmental management in Yaroslavl Oblast
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 52
System of Environment and Nature Management in Yaroslavl Oblast
The Duma is the legislative body, while the Administration is the executive body of the Oblast. The Governor controls the activity of the Administration. The Administration has units responsible for the comprehensive nature and environment management. There are four levels of the natural resources and environmental management of the Yaroslavl Oblast: federal, oblast, municipal and enterprise levels.
Federal Level Environmental and Natural Resources Management
This is the statutory responsibility of several government agencies. In recent years, the system of management has become more complicated due to the restructuring organized by the Government of the Russian Federation (the 726 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 25, 2000) as a follow up of the Decree of the Russian President No.867 dated May 17, 2000 “On the Structure of the Federal Executive Bodies”. According to the Resolution, the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation is a competent state body responsible for the use, care, protection of the forest resources and rehabilitation of forests; environmental protection; state environmental expert review; protection, control and regulation in the use of wild life and habitat; protection of atmospheric air and hydrosphere as well as for waste management (except radioactive) within its jurisdiction; for the state control of the use and protection of land resources. The Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for the formation of environmental management policy, development and implementation of earmarked federal programs, development of legal and regulatory acts and economic mechanisms in the environmental management and other important objectives. The MNR has a number of other roles, which are implemented at the level of constituent entities of the Federation and municipal formation. It establishes, reorganizes, liquidates its territorial authorities and agencies under its jurisdiction.
Oblast Level Environmental and Natural Resources Management
This is carried out by competent territorial federal authorities as well as by specially established structural units of the Oblast Administration.
The main the Yaroslavl Oblast Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Management of the MNR of RF is the competent state body responsible for the following: Environmental management; Use of protection of water resources; Protection of atmospheric air, waste management within its jurisdiction, state control for the use and protection of lands; Use, care, protection of forest resources and rehabilitation of forests; Protection, control and regulation of wildlife and habitat; State Environmental Review.
-Oblast Agencies;
- The 581 Resolution of the Oblast Governor dated August 15, 2000 approved the TOR for Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management comprised of two committees: Committee for Environmental Protection and Nature Use; Committee for Inventory and Use of Natural Resources.
- Coordination of the territorial units of the federal bodies in the Yaroslavl Oblast and structural environmental agencies of the Oblast Administration is carried out through: Yaroslavl Oblast Administration Commission for Nature Use and Environmental Protection (Resolution of the Governor No. 810 dated November 11, 2000)
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 53 Interagency Coordination Council for Waste Management and Ecological Fund
In the late 2000, the Oblast level environmental management system went through a dramatic change resulting in the liquidation of the territorial bodies of the State Environmental Committee of Russia and transfer of their functions to the territorial bodies of the MNR. This lead to downsizing of the staff (including 60% of the central headquarters staff and 85% of district level units). At the same time, the transfer of powers for environmental control to the oblast and municipal levels presents a legal problem associated with the division of powers in the area of environmental management including of state environmental control. The transfer of these rights to the constituent entities of the Federation and municipalities depends on a lengthy procedure associated with the modification of many laws and other regulatory environmental acts. In the meantime, the current new system of state environmental and nature resource management has brought about severe distortions in the system of sound environmental and nature management.
Municipal Level Environmental and Natural Resources Management.
The reorganization initiated by the MNR after October 08, 2000, dismantled practically all the municipal inspectorate units responsible for state environmental control over all the enterprises and organizations all year round. Currently, the territorial body of the MNR, the Yaroslavl Oblast Main Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Management, has its representatives only in two municipal formations of the Oblast, Rybinsk and Pereslavsk, staffed with 3 and 1 officers correspondingly. The administration of cities and municipal formations of the Oblast have taken steps to establish municipal environmental services of their own, for example: A Committee for Nature Use at the Yaroslavl Mayor’s Office (as a department) staffed with 10 officers and financed from the city budget; Environmental Department of the Agricultural Board of the Administration of the Rybinsk Municipal Formation staffed by 4 officers and financed by the Administration budget; A number of Municipal Formations of the Oblast established environmental specialists within agricultural boards of the administrations (usually 1-2 officers).
According to the competence of the local authorities as set out in the Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” these administrative units (specialists) are responsible for the development of environmental programs, implementation of activities for the recreation of natural resources, preparation of draft budgets, disbursement of proceeds of the municipal earmarked ecological budget fund, etc. At the same time, delegating the functions of the environmental control over major enterprises – donors of the municipal budget – to municipal inspectors, whose activity is financed from the municipal budget does not provide for effective environmental performance.
Environmental Management at Enterprises.
Depending on the environmental impact of the economic activity, environmental management at the level of an enterprise is the responsibility of a deputy chief engineer (technical director) who manages a specialized unit and laboratory service. At smaller enterprises environmental management is usually the responsibility of the chief power engineer and of a dedicated specialist whose responsibility is to provide environmental reports to statistical authorities. Many enterprises have ineffective systems of environmental management, which are incapable of making use of modern experience of other regions of Russia or EOCD, for example those based on ISO-14000 or EMAS.
Efficiency of environmental management at the Oblast level is power due to the following reasons:
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 54 − lack of efficient legal, regulatory, methodological, institutional and economic mechanisms for environmental and nature use management responsive to the changes in the economy of the region. − lack of financial resources along with low efficiency of funds utilizations in the area of nature use and environmental management; − lack of effective incentives for enterprises and entrepreneurs to apply resource and power saving technologies, environmentally safe production facilities, equipment, and transport; − financial situation of great many enterprises of major industries resulting the lack of the required mitigation measures; − desire of many enterprise and entrepreneurs to maximize on-off profits while ignoring the need in the renovation of business assets; − utilization of suboptimal operation of equipment with extensive use of power, materials, raw materials. − deficit of qualified environmental expertise.
CONCLUSIONS
The main weaknesses of the current institutional arrangement of environmental management and nature use are: − inadequate of coordination of too many executive federal and local authorities responsible for sound use of natural resources and environmental management; − lack of a clear division of powers and functions in the federal legislation between the various levels of executive bodies and federal government units in the area of environmental and nature use management having impact on the effectiveness of management at the oblast and municipal levels.
Excessive centralization of environmental and nature use management functions at the federal level does not provide for empowerment of the constituent entities of the Federation at the level of a territory. There is no clear description of the government authorities in the current legislation and other regulatory and statutory acts. The reformation of the federal environmental bodies makes it necessary to enhance the role and responsibility of the constituent entities of the Federation in this sphere. At the municipal level, the main problem of environmental management is the coordination of the various territorial units in the area of environmental management and nature use, the need to enhance the leading role of municipalities in this sphere. Environmental management at enterprises faces the problem related to the establishment and running of the environmental management system using the best practice of enterprises of the Russian Federation and EOCD (recommendation of ISO-14000, EMAS and others) to ensure environmentally sound enterprise performance.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 55 Annex III MSW policy in Yaroslavl Oblast
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 56
Solid Waste Management Policy Context in Yaroslavl Oblast
3.1 Legal framework for waste management This section provides a brief overview of the existing waste management regulation, including a description of the waste classification system, in Russia and the Yaroslavl oblast. The legal framework for waste management is still marked by the legacy of the former USSR. Many legal acts and ordinances adopted before 1991 are still in force. In order to establish an improved legal basis, a new Federal Law “On waste of production and consumption” was passed in mid-1998 (hereafter referred to as "Federal waste law"). A number of federal and regional regulations are being drafted and amended to ensure conformity with the federal waste law and to further specify the provisions.
Important provisions dating back from the former Soviet Union and establishing requirements to collection and landfills for MSW include: sanitary norms and rules (SanPiN), construction norms and rules (SNiP), and State Standards (GOST). In addition, other Federal laws allocate responsibilities and regulate activities related to waste management. This concerns in particular the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection” (No 7- FZ DD as of 10 January 2002), the Law on General Principles for Local Self-Governance (1995), the Tax Code (part 1 effective since July 31, 1998 No. 146-FZ and part 2 effective since August 5, 2000 No.117-FZ (last amendments dated May 29, 2002), and the Law on Natural Monopolies (DD August 17, 1995, No.147-FZ (amendments DD August 8 and December 30, 2001). The federal laws define the allocation of competencies between the federal, regional, and local levels, definitions of waste, waste classification, and overall substantial norms regarding handling of waste (prohibitions, permitting systems, etc.). The most important provisions in the federal laws are described below. The legal framework at the federal level is complemented by rules at regional and city/town levels.
The individual cities and towns in the oblast have generally specified their own rules concerning waste management.
These rules concern relationships between ‘nature users’ and environmental authorities (oblast, town and local environmental committees) and specially authorised public authorities. The rules cover all activities related to generation, collection, transportation, recycling, utilisation, disposal and concealment of waste of consumption and production (hereinafter referred as waste management). 3.1.1 Definition of wastes and their classification The federal law “On industrial and consumption wastes” defines “wastes” as follows: “Waste of consumption and production (further – waste) are residues of raw materials, materials, semi-finished products, other articles or products which are generated during process of production or consumption, as well as final goods (products) that lost their value for consumers.” Consequently hazardous wastes are defined as waste containing “hazardous substances that possess harmful properties (toxicity, explosive, inflammable, high reactivity) or containing pathogenic organisms, which are either directly or potentially hazardous independently or, after contact with other substances for environment or human beings. As the new Federal law on environmental protection (2002) has not introduced any other definition of waste, so the above definition is still applied.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 57 Waste classification
The Federal classification catalogue of waste (the FCCW) used in Yaroslavl Oblast contains a list of waste of production and consumption that are systematised by features: origin (source of generation), aggregated condition, chemical composition, hazardous potential. The catalogue has 5 levels of classification following to hierarchic principle: block, group, sub-group, item, sub- item. The highest level of the hierarchy is Blocks. There are 4 blocks by waste origin:
• 1– organic waste (from animals and plants) and products of its treatment; • 2 – mineral waste; • 3- chemical waste; • 4 – municipal waste, including household ones.
Each block of waste of any origin contains groups that are divided in sub-groups. Each sub- group contains items and corresponding sub-items. The following features are used as a basis for group, sub-group, item and sub-item: origin of initial raw-materials, its attribution to specific industry, technology, chemical content, aggregative state and other property.
In each group these features hierarchically are described in more details (from general to specific). The item defines most comprehensive characteristic of the waste type. Sub-item contains information about a hazardous potential of specific waste. The name of waste is attributed taking into consideration its origin and chemical content.
The code of waste in the waste catalogue is written with Arabian figures. The codes of blocks, groups, sub-groups, items and sub-items are inter-connected. The structure of codes is built up based on decimal system and includes codes of block, group, sub-group, item and sub-item. Each block includes 9 groups. Each group has 9 sub-groups. Each sub-group may contain 99 items. The block-group-subgroup chain reflects a comprehensive characteristic of a waste origin. The item and sub-item indicate content and properties of waste. Last number indicates class of hazardous potential and varies from 1 to 5 in accordance with the order of definition of hazardous potential class.
Municipal waste
The federal Waste Classifier (Order of the Committee for Environmental Protection No. 527 dated November 27, 1997) classifies as municipal waste not only household solid waste, but also waste generated by traders, administration buildings, agencies, preschools and educational establishments, sports and cultural facilities, railway and bus stations, airports, rivers ports and municipal businesses.
In addition to this, municipal waste covers street and marketplace garbage, vegetation waste of public parks and gardens, waste generated by water and wastewater treatment facilities, liquid household waste and non-hazardous medicine waste.
3.1.2 Key provisions regarding handling of waste According to the Federal Waste Law (Art.12), all legal entities (enterprises, organisations, etc.) are required to get a permit for handling with their waste. This means that they are responsible for the handling with their own waste. However, they can also, under a specified contract, transfer their waste to another legal person, who has the required permit. With regard to domestic waste from households, the municipalities (bodies of local self- government) have the responsibility for waste collection and disposal/recovery (Art. 13). According to the Federal Waste Law (Art. 12, paragraph 1) waste disposal is only allowed on special designated sites, for which permission for waste disposal has been granted. Waste disposal is prohibited within the territories of towns and other settlements, forests and parks, resorts, medical and sanitary recreation areas, water-protection zones, catchment areas of underground water bodies, which are used for drinking water supply. Waste disposal is also
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 58 prohibited in areas of mineral extraction and mining in cases where there is a threat that these areas are contaminated or that safety requirements to mining activities are violated. Basic rules for solid and liquid municipal waste collection and transport were approved by Government of the Russian Federation in 1997 (Resolution DD Feb. 10, 1997 N 155). Article 51 of new Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”, Federal law No. 89-FZ “On waste of production and consumption”, Federal target program “Waste” also contain key provisions for dealing with waste. In this respect the Concept of solid household waste management in the Russian Federation approved by the Ordinance of Gosstroy Collegium No. 17, DD Dec 22, 1999 should also be mentioned. 3.2 Institutional framework of the waste management in Yaroslavl Oblast All four levels of governance in Russia – Federal, Federal District, regional and local/municipal are involved in waste management in one way or another. However, at the operational level, the main responsibilities lie with the municipalities. The responsibilities of the various institutions involved in the waste management tasks as waste planning and target setting, waste handling, tariffs and subsidies and monitoring and reporting are outlined below. 3.2.1 Waste planning and target setting In the present legal framework, there is no obligation for any of the levels of governance to develop waste plans (national waste plan, regional waste plan, local waste plan). However, Federal institutions have the responsibility for setting out the overall policies and objectives for waste management through federal legislation, the national environmental action plan, and targeted federal investment programs. Correspondingly, the regional level is responsible for the detailed waste management planning in terms of investment programmes and design and construction of facilities for waste management. The key federal executive bodies in respect to MSW management and control include the Federal Ministry of Natural Resources (MoNR) and the State Committee for Construction and Housing and Municipal Economy (Gosstroy) as well as State Service for Sanitary- Epidemiological Supervision (Sanepidnadzor). 3.2.2 The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation The Ministry (MoNR) is the main institution responsible for the management of natural resources and environmental protection. It determines the overall environmental policy of the Russian Federation4 and co-ordinates activities of other Federal bodies of the executive power related to environmental protection. In 2000-2001 the structure of the ministry was modified. As of October 2001, regulatory functions are delegated to five State Services, four of them being the sector-oriented regulatory type (State Water Service, State Geological Service, State Forestry Service, State Environmental Protection Service). The fifth Service has control functions - the State Service for Control regarding Nature Resource Management and Environmental Safety. The Services have several specialised departments and divisions. Each federal district has Inter-Regional Department for Natural Resources located in the central city of the Districts (for the North-West Federal District in St. Petersburg). Committees for Natural Resources operate at oblast level, and at local level the ministry is represented by a corresponding unit or just a staff member in charge. Regional Administration has also Deputy Governor, Advisor to the Governor and a unit (otdel) responsible for the issues of natural resources management and environmental protection as according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation some natural resources are property of Subjects of the Russian Federation, as well as some natural resources management and environmental protection issues are responsibility of the Subject of the Russian Federation.
4 After the reorganisation started in May 2000, when it was joined by the State Committee for Environmental Protection (SCEP) of the Russian Federation, which had these responsibilities before.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 59 3.2.3 State Committee for Construction and Housing and Municipal Economy The Committee (GOSSTROY) regulates and co-ordinates activities related to construction, architecture, municipal infrastructure development and housing and communal services, including e.g. water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, district heating, and solid waste management. At lower administrative levels there are departments/committees of Housing and Municipal Services within relevant administrations. According to the Federal Waste Law (Art. 6), the regional level (subjects of the Russian Federation) has the competence of designing and constructing the facilities for waste recovery and disposal. Also, they can design and implement regional investment programs in the waste management field. Hence, the regions are responsible for waste planning, but they are not required to produce an actual regional waste plan.
3.2.4 Waste monitoring and reporting Ministry of Natural Resources and the Natural Resource Committees at regional level are responsible for data collection from waste generators, waste utilities, permit system, inspection of utilities, etc. Enterprises are also obliged to present statistic reports on waste generation, use, disposal, neutralisation, etc. to the MoNR and Goscomstat.
3.2.5 Regulation of Industrial and Consumption Waste Management in Yaroslavl Oblast The current regulation of industrial and consumption waste management is based on the system of environmental, health and resource saving requirements with respect to waste management and responsibilities of the nature users, on the environmental control, administrative and economic mechanisms of regulation. Main Requirements to Generation, Collection, Accumulation and Initial Treatment of Waste at the Industrial Site of Nature User 1. Nature users must facilitate the reduction of waste generation, implementation of waste free and low waste technologies, turning of waste into used raw materials or manufacturing products out of this waste, minimizing the generation of waste, which is not subject to recycling.
2. The nature users are to have regulatory and technical documentation to regulate the collection, accumulation, disposal and initial treatment of waste such as:
- design documentation for the construction (reconstruction, technical upgrading) of facilities, whose operation will generate waste; technological regulations (instructions, technological maps, regimes, etc.) reflecting the process of waste generation and the relevant physical balances; - procedures for waste management accounting; - draft standards of waste generation; - draft limits for waste disposal; - passports of hazardous wastes; - procedures for the industrial control; - other statutory and regulatory documentation in the field of waste management approved at the federal and regional levels;
3. The nature users must identify and coordinate the hazard class of waste, generated during the operation of the facility; 4. Hazardous waste should have a passport The nature user must provide for a separate collection and accumulation of waste by type, class of hazard, and other characteristics to ensure their use as used materials, processing and
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 60 disposal. Mixed collection is permitted only with respect to low toxic and non-toxic wastes, which are permitted to be disposed into the SW disposal facilities.
The CEO must issue an order to identify the place for the storage of waste in the territory of the nature user for accumulation or storage, including the boundaries (area, volumes), development of such places, and nomination of officers of the organizations to be responsible for the operation of such a facility.
The allowed quantities, time, places, methods and conditions of storage and accumulation of waste at the industrial facility, when the waste has a minimum negative environmental and health impact, are to be approved as part of the relevant design documentation (for the construction, reconstruction, expansion of the capacity) for green fields or as part of the draft standards for the generation and disposal of waste – for the ongoing enterprises.
Main Requirements for Waste Disposal
1. The nature user may dispose waste only under the relevant permit and only into the disposal facilities, established and operated in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Russian legislation. Availability of the permit does not free the nature users from the search for those users, for whom this waste is raw material or
2. Disposal facilities are to receive industrial and consumption waste generated by economic activity under contracts made by - a nature user and state unitary industrial waste management facilities; - a state unitary industrial waste management facility and a specialized operator of waste disposal facilities.
Every reception of waste is documented as per the established document formats.
3. No disposal and burial at the waste disposal facilities is allowed for the waste:
- not on the waste disposal permit issued to the owner (user) of a waste disposal facility; - not on the waste disposal permit issued to the nature user (owner of the waste); and - classified as used materials; - whose radioactivity level is beyond the established limits
4. The generators of waste, which is not to be placed at disposal facilities, transferred for use or processing, must take steps to provide for their temporary storage at own, leased or other waste disposal facilities, developed and operated as per the current legislation until a decision is made with respect to their burial, use or processing.
5. Waste storage facilities must be registered and accounted for.
6. Waste storage facilities may be established for the following purposes: - storage of wastes, which are not to be placed at disposal facilities, transferred for use or processing, until a decision is made with respect to their burial, use or processing. The need for such storage should be properly documented with an indication of the specific reason for the storage. - storage, in the territory of procurement and processing facilities, of the wastes, which are raw materials for the enterprises involved in their use or processing with the purpose of building commodity (technological or transport) lots.
Main Requirements to Processing of Waste
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 61 Wastes are processed only if the nature user has the relevant permits and only at the facilities established and operated in accordance with the procedures approved in the design, regulatory and technical documentation.
The processing facilities should receive waste on the basis of the contracts between the nature user (owner of the wastes) and a specialized operator of a waste processing facility.
The reception of waste should be properly documented in accordance with the approved formats.
Main Requirements to Use of Waste
The priority in waste management is the use of waste (directly or as used materials) both by the nature user (owner) and by transferring it to another nature user, which has technical, economic and environmental capacities for their use.
Classifying waste as used raw materials is based on the Schedule of Used Materials. The wastes, whose utilization as used materials for the current period is limited due to objective reasons (undercapacity of the processing facilities or storage facilities, shrinking in the demand for the goods made from used materials, etc,) could be forwarded for processing or disposal indicating on the waste disposal permit the specific documented cause and duration of such waste management.
Use of hazardous waste is only permitted if the nature user has the relevant permit.
The use or realization of the used materials should be documented (agreement, invoice, etc.)
Main Requirements to Movement (Transport) of Waste
1. Movement of wastes should be carried out in such a way so to exclude a possibility of their loss during transportation, generation of emergencies, inflicting injury to the environment, human health, businesses and other facilities.
Wastes should be transported only at specially equipped and furnished with special signs vehicles (when transporting hazardous wastes), which should bear the following documents:
- license for the movement (transportation) of waste of the relevant type and class of hazard; - passport of hazardous waste; - permit for the disposal, processing or use of this type of waste, issued to the nature user – owner of the wastes; - power of attorney of the nature user for the transfer of the relevant wastes to a given specialized enterprise.
General Requirements to Design, Construction (Reconstruction) and Liquidation of Facilities for Processing, Use and Disposal of Waste
1. In the process of design, construction (reconstruction) and liquidation of facilities for processing, use and disposal of waste, the nature user must comply with environmental, sanitary and other environmental and health requirements established by the legislation of the Russian Federation and a constituent entity of the Russian Federation
2. The design documentation for the construction/reconstruction and liquidation of the said facilities is subject to a mandatory state environmental review.
Main Requirements to Accounting of Waste Management
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 62
1. Nature users must maintain accounting of waste management to provide for: - adequate and timely documentation of information on waste generation, activities for the collection, accumulation, transfer of waste to other users, as well as receipt from other users, for the use and disposal of waste; - industrial control over waste management; - compilation of timely and accurate reports on waste management in accordance with the requirement of the competent bodies;
Administrative mechanisms of environmental regulation in the area of waste management (environmental review, standard setting, limits, permits, licenses, liability for non- compliance with the compensation for damages)
1. Documentation to substantiate economic and other activities related to waste management with a potential environmental impact, as well as the materials submitted for licenses for such activity, are subject to the mandatory state environmental review. 2. Construction, reconstruction, conservation and liquidation of enterprises, buildings, structures, facilities and other objects, whose operation is associated with waste management, should be carried out only upon getting a positive conclusion of the state environmental review. 3. The nature users whose activity is associated with waste management must develop draft standards for waste generation and disposal limits. 4. The nature users, which carry out waste management activities, must obtain the following permits (depending on the waste type): - for processing of hazardous wastes; - for the use of hazardous waste; - for the disposal of waste 5. Based on the waste disposal permits, the state unitary enterprises and house management organizations shall enter into waste disposal agreements with nature users. 6. Licenses for the organizational and intermediation activity in the area of waste management in the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation may be issued only to state unitary waste management enterprises. 7. Noncompliance or inadequate implementation of the waste management legislation of the Russian Federation by nature users, officials and individuals is subject to disciplinary, administrative, criminal or civil liability in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. 8. The nature user will be liable for the compliance with the waste management requirements from generation to their disposal, use, processing (including waste property rights) to another nature user as per the established procedures including environmental payments for waste disposal as proper. 9. Damages should be compensated in accordance with the procedures provided for in the legislation of the Russian Federation or on the basis of the damage calculation methodology or in accordance with the actual costs associated with the rehabilitation of the damaged environment given the injuries incurred.
Economic Mechanism of Waste Management Regulation The main mechanisms are the principle of charges for waste management and a system of environmental charges for waste disposal. 1. Waste management services to nature users will be provided by state unitary and other specialized facilities on a charge basis.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 63 2. Tariffs for the burial, storage, use and processing of industrial and consumption waste generated by economic activity will be established by the operators of the relevant facilities. Tariffs for the burial of industrial and consumption waste generated by economic activity will be established by the operators of the relevant industrial waste facilities upon coordination with an executive body in the area of housing management.
3. In accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, nature users are charged (environmental charges) for the disposal of waste (storage at the facilities in the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and burial at the facilities in the territory of other constituent entities of the Russian Federation).
4. No charges are applied when the use of waste in own production is properly documented or when they are transferred to other enterprises (which enjoy the relevant permits) for the use, processing, sorting, etc.
5. No charges are applied for the temporary accumulation of waste in the territory of the nature users within the established limits for one off accumulation.
6. In the Oblast, the nature users are charged with the following types of the environmental charges:
- for the disposal of waste in the waste facilities within the established limits; - for waste disposal above the established limits; - for unauthorized waste disposal; for the burial of waste, which is a used material resource.
3.3 Institutional Structure of Municipal Sector and Waste Management in Yaroslavl Oblast
3.3.1 Municipal Management and Power of Oblast and Local (City, District) Authorities
General regulation and management in the area of municipal management is the responsibility of the Department for Municipal Management of the Yaroslavl Oblast Administration, which reports directly to the Yaroslavl Oblast Governor. It is responsible for the distribution of subsidies (coverage of incentives and compensation for reduced tariffs), financing of capital investments, development and acceptance of legal and regulatory acts in the area of municipal management. The Department has no direct responsibility for the management of local organizations but can effectively use indirect pressure (redistribution of budget finances).
Utilities are responsible for the operation, maintenance and development of municipal infrastructure and housing, provision of services to the residents and organizations irrespective of ownership structure. The entire infrastructure belongs to municipalities and is on the books of the utilities to manage and operate. The utilities carry out independent settlements with consumers on the basis of contracts including current financial operations.
The utilities carry out their operations on the basis of a charter in accordance with the principles of cost recovery. Tariffs are set on the basis of operational cost. The estimate standard cost is complemented with the VAT and an approved level of profitability (varies from 10 to 20 percent). Based on the estimate cost for the current year and physical performance indicators, an average tariff for next year is set, which is approved by the municipality.
The municipality also sets tariffs for the consumers of the first and second groups, which are commonly lower than the average tariff and even lower than the operational cost. Tariffs for the consumers of Group 3 (commercial and industrial consumers) are set by the utility itself. The tariff estimates for Group 3 include the undercollected incomes of Group 1 and 2. As a result the difference in tariffs is 10 –15 fold.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 64
Payments from the residents of municipal housing are collected in accordance with the approved tariffs and consumption norms as per the registered residents on a monthly basis. Bills are issued as one bill reflecting all the utilities. Payments are commonly collected by the DEZ, which then redistributes payments among the service providers (electricity, gas, wastewater treatment, heating from the corporate boiler houses) and housing management.
Bills to the consumers of group 3 and 2, to the residents of private houses, are issued on the basis of contracts and meter readings. If consumption is not metered the bills are issued on the basis of the consumption norms (residents) or on the basis of the input diameter. Bills for the budget enterprises are issues either on the basis of meter readings or in accordance with the established norms taking into consideration the number of staff and plumbing as well as the area of the facility.
A utility is management by a director of the utility, who is nominated by the administration of the municipal formation. Online management of water and wastewater services is the responsibility of the manager of the water service area or wastewater service area (these are often separate entities with independent managers reporting to the director, chief engineer, one of the first deputies, in other words level 3 management). Financial management is the responsibility of one accounting department under direct instructions of the Utility Director or his first deputies.
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 65 Fig. Diagram of the Organisation of the Communal Services and Housing Sector
êîíòðàêò ñ ðóêîâîäèòåëåì? Àäìèíèñòðàöèÿ ÌÎ -âëàäåë óòâåðæäåíèå òàðèôîâ åö îñíîâíûõ ñðåäñòâ âîäîïð ôèíàíñèðîâàíèå êàïâëîæåíèé îâîäà
äîãîâîð î ïåðåäà÷å èìóùåñòâåííî Êîìèòåò ïî èìóùåñòâó ÌÏÆÊÕ ãî êîìïëåêñà
ðàñ÷åòû çà óñëóã îò íàñåëåíèÿ ïî óòâåðæäåíûì ò íà÷èñëåíèå àðèôàì è íîðìàì Äèðåêöèÿ åäèíîãî çàêàç÷èêà ñóáñèäèé Договор
äîãîâîðà íà îêàçàíèå óñóë äîãîâîðà íà îêàçàíèå óñóë усу
лги ã ã плата за
Íàñåëåíèå ìóíèöèïàëüíòüãî Íàñåëåíèå ÷àñòíîãî æèëîãî ïîòðåáèòåëè 2 ãðóïïû ïîòðåáèòåëè 3 ãðóïïû æèëîãî ôîíäà ôîíäà
BCEOM HALCROW GROUP LTD. COWI CONSORTIUM 66 3.3.2 Domestic Waste handling With respect to waste collection and waste disposal/recovery for domestic waste, the municipalities have the operational responsibility, as mentioned above. In cities the municipal utilities providing municipal services, including the waste utilities, are most often set up as separate managing entities or municipal enterprises operating under the municipality rule. In many smaller towns, there are so called Zhilkomkhozy – municipal enterprises responsible for waste collection, transportation and treatment/disposal as well as for other municipal services, such as water supply and wastewater treatment. No matter which model is chosen, the municipality establishes a contract/agreement with the entity or company. This agreement may cover one year or a number of years. Example of an agreement is presented below in section 3.3. The landfills and other immobile fixed assets (e.g. transfer stations) are usually owned by municipalities while municipal or private waste management companies (contractors) use and operate them. Other fixed assets (tracks, compactors, containers) can be owned by the waste management companies and industries. But in near future private operators most likely will own more and more immobile assets like landfills, transfer stations, waste recycling facilities, etc. The waste utility, in turn, establishes a contract with each of its clients. The clients constitute: • Municipal housing associations, which are municipal enterprises managing a certain number of blocks of multi-storey apartment buildings. This is the most common means of accommodation in Russia. • Housing co-operatives and single-family private housing. A small, but increasing, share of the population lives in private single-family houses. In principle, the municipality is responsible for waste collection and disposal/recovery for these households. In some areas, the regular municipal waste collection services have been expanded to cover these households. However, a practise of semi-annual cleaning of streets and surroundings of the premises containing private single-family housing is still common. • Commercial and industrial enterprises, public institutions, etc. generating waste similar to household waste may establish a contract with the waste utility to collect their waste. Alternatively, they may bring the waste to the disposal/recovery facility themselves against payment of a fee for disposal. 3.3.3 Tariffs and subsidies The municipalities and utilities can claim tariffs for the municipal services they provide. However, as it is a monopolistic situation, the decision-making power regarding the tariff level is with the local Administration and/or Duma and with a veto-right to the regional level. The tariffs are usually established by Ordinances issued by local Administrations. The tariff level is calculated by waste utility based on a cost-plus formula. Federal rules by the State Committee for Construction and Municipal Economy (“Methodology on planning, accounting and calculation of prime-cost for municipal services” approved by Ordinance No.9 of Gosstroy RF DD Feb 23, 1999 with amendments DD Oct 12, 2000) recommended the methodology for cost calculation. Key cost items include: materials (spare parts for trucks, containers), fuel, depreciation, salary, social taxes, costs of waste disposal on landfills.
The unit cost is calculated then per m3 of waste collected. The average tariff is equal to the unit coat plus approved profitability mark up. There is a limit to the profit margin, which can be added. The limit is established at 25% according to the Federal legislation.
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 67 The tariffs for different consumer groups are still differentiated and it is often the case that households pay only for waste collection and transport to landfill while other consumers (budgetary and commercial organisations and industries) pay higher tariff covering cost related to waste disposal on landfill.
But Federal Government Resolutions No. 887 “On improvement of payment system for housing and communal services and measures for social protection of population”, DD August 2, 1999 (amendments DD July 1, 2002) and No. 609 “On measures to phase-out tariff cross-subsidisation in water supply, sanitation, district heating and solid municipal waste management services” (DD August 21, 2001) state that cross-subsidies should be gradually phased-out by year 2004, so that households will pay full tariff for the services while the poor will get target income subsidies. The calculated tariff is presented to the local Administration and/or Duma for approval. Some municipalities have established a Price and tariffs committee or council under the Administration and/or Duma to consider and approve tariffs. The level of tariff is highly dependent on various cost items, which are produced by other state-controlled utilities, e.g. energy and electricity. These are also subject to tariff regulations. The tariffs change quite often – when one utility changes the tariff, the others have to follow. The Federal level political decision to reach full cost recovery should put pressure on local Administrations and Dumas. However, this is not popular to increased tariffs especially just before coming elections. And as those elections are coming one after another tariffs often stay at very low level as the tariffs approval procedure is still highly depended on local and regional politics. According to Federal legislation (Law on veterans, Law on status of military servants, etc.), about 40 numerous groups of privileged consumers have been entitled to discounts. These inter alia include: a) 100 % discount is granted to the Heros of the Soviet Union and Russia, Heros of Socialistic Labour and Full Cavalier of the Glory Orden; b) 50% discount is granted to: - wars and local military actions veterans including members of their families; - invalids and families with children-invalids; - retired veterans of labour (most numerous category); - policemen (50% at expense of public budget specially allocated for this purpose), customs service officers (which have been on service for 20 years and more), employees of federal tax authorities (50% are compensated form public budget specially allocated for this purpose); - citizens that got radiation after nuclear tests near Semipalatinsk and after nuclear explosions in Chernobyl, Chelabyunsk oblast, etc.; - Judges of Supreme Court, Supreme Arbitrary Court and Constitutional Court (also compensated from the public budget); - people that have an order “Honoured blood-donor; - rehabilitated victims of political repressions, participants of anti-terrorists operations (in case of their death and under conditions that they had exemptions before death, the members of family continue to get 50% discount); c) 30% discount is provided to families with many children (more than 3 kids). General rule is that operating losses of the housing and municipal services providers due to the above privileges should be compensated by the public budget, but they are very seldom fully compensated in reality.
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 68 If a household has an income per capita less than the officially approved minimal living standard then the bill for housing and municipal services for this household cannot exceed a half of minimum salary established by federal law (450 RUR in 2002). Operating losses of the services providers should be (but very seldom are fully) compensated from the public budget. The federal acts, which regulate the above provisions, are: - Statute on subsidies provision to people to pay rent and communal services (approved by the RF Government Decision No. 887 “On improvement of payment system for housing and communal services and measure on social protection of population”, DD August 2, 1999); - Federal law No. 134-FZ “On minimal living standerd in the Russian Federation”, dated 24.10.97; - Ordinance of the RF Government No.192 DD 17.02.99 (amendments DD 16.03.2000) defines minimum consumer basket, including municipal services, waste removal is NOT included in minimum set of communal services; and some others. In addition, there are federal rules concerning target subsidies to low- income households. During transition period to full cost tariff the right to establish maximum allowed share of households’ income paid for housing and municipal services is attributed to the local self- governing authorities. (The Ordinance of the RF Government No. 609 “On measures to phase-out tariffs cross-subsidisation in water supply, sanitation, district heating and solid municipal waste management services”). This Ordinance recommends also avoiding discounting practice for some categories of communal services users (though there is no indication which categories). Until the full cost household tariff is not achieved the municipal budget (depending on the rule) should compensate to the services providers so called inter-tariff difference (the difference between average tariff and discounted household tariff times amount of service provided to households). But in case of private company households (except privileged consumers) pay full (not discounted) tariff. 3.3.3.1 User charges collection The collection of tariffs takes place in different ways depending on the municipality. In some municipalities, the utility itself is responsible for the entire billing and collection procedure. The invoices from the enterprises are sent to the Customer Service (CS), who presents the invoice to the FSC (Financial Settlement Centre). The FSC includes the payment due in the monthly invoice to citizens, which covers a number of municipal services (including rent for those living in municipal housing associations). The CS receives money directly from the municipal budget to cover subsidies to poor families. In theory, the amounts should be paid to the enterprise; however, this payment does not always take place. The Financial Settlement Centre is a municipal enterprise established under the city administration. While the Customer Service deals with municipal real estate, the FSC is supposed to service all categories of the population, including those in private buildings5. The FSC has three tasks: 1. national registration of citizens; 2. billing and collection of payment for municipal services; 3. decision and administration of subsidies for utility services.
5 However, presently, those living in private buildings - as well as companies and municipal or state owned administrations, hospitals, schools, etc have contracts directly with the SAKH.
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 69 The FSC gets a bonus (commission) of 2.5% of the billed amount. In case of late payment, the penalty (0.1% to 0.5% of the amount, depending on the time) goes to the FSC.
3.3.4 Implementation of approved maintenance repair and capital investment plan(s) New investment and maintenance of the existing infrastructure is planned without an overall waste planning framework to refer to – but rather as part of the annual budgeting procedures.
Extracts from the Plan of Action for Industrial and Consumption Waste Management for 2001 – 2003 until 2005 (approved by the Resolution of the Yaroslavl Oblast Governor dated 09.04.2001.№209)
2. Goals and Objectives of the Plan of Action
2.1. Goal of the Plan of Action Stabilization and improvement of the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the Oblast by reducing the level of impact of the industrial and municipal waste on the environment through prevention or minimization of waste generation, environmental safe liquidation, burial or storage of waste, or by involving them in economic activities as additional sources of raw materials in Yaroslavl Oblast.
2.2. Main Objectives of Plan of Action: - establishment of the system of institutional, managerial, legal, regulatory, methodological and economic waste management regulators; - search for and implementation of progressive technologies of the treatment, processing, use and disposal of wastes; - implementation of institutional and technical activities, R&D for the development and design of facilities for the recycling, processing, burial and liquidation of industrial and consumption wastes.
3. Components of Plan of Action The Plan of Action comprises the following main components
3.1. Improvement of Regional Legal and Regulatory Framework and Implementation Mechanisms Phase 1 of the Waste EOP initiated the development of the regional legal and regulatory framework. The Implementation of the Plan of Action should be supported by the continuation of the work to formulate the waste management legal and regulatory framework.
3.2. Reduction of Waste Generation Generation of waste could be reduced through the implementation of resource saving and low waste technologies based on the research and technical achievements. But due to insufficient resources, minimization of waste generation and reduction of waste toxicity will primarily be carried out within the current technologies through: - improved management and compliance with the technological procedures; - replacement of the applicable raw materials and supplies with modern ones; - prevention of wastes from getting into the environment as a result of emergencies or waste mismanagement; - improved treatment, processing and adequate disposal of waste generated; - implementation of the system of separate collection of household waste, construction of garbage sorting stations and garbage processing facilities;
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 70
3.3. Use of Waste as Used Materials In order to prevent wastes from getting into the environment and to utilize them as used materials it is necessary to improve the systems of collection while increasing the volumes of processing (recycling) of the following wastes: - mercury lamps; - storage batteries and batteries; - electrolytes of the storage batteries; - used oils; - tires and rubber waste; - plastic waste including plastic bottles; - paper and cardboard; - glass tare and glass waste.
This will be achieved through: - mandatory disposal of waste by enterprises, organizations and cooperatives of the said wastes; - facilitation for the development of the system of collection and expansion of used materials processing capacities; - development of the deposit return system.
3.4. Treatment and Processing of Waste Enterprises of Yaroslavl Oblast generate and store a lot of hazardous wastes. The plan of Action provides for the continuation of work to treat and develop mercury containing waste, acid tars, petroleum sludge, medicine waste, pesticides, etc.
3.5. Safe Storage and Burial of Waste To ensure safe storage and burial of industrial and consumption wastes the Plan of Action will carry on the construction of new waste facilities for the cities of Danilov, Uglich, Tutaeve, Gavrilov-Yam, the reconstruction of the existing waste dumps and facilities presenting the highest environmental risk.
There is currently a great need in the construction of waste facilities and grounds for the temporary storage of waste for smaller communities. At the same time, there are no funds to finance the design of these and the Plan of Action provides for the development of standardized approaches to the construction of dumps and grounds for temporary storage of solid waste for the communities with 100, 500, 2000 and 5000 residents.
3.6. Establishment of “Waste” Comprehensive Information Database Successful implementation of the Plan of Action requires the establishment of and support to the “Waste” information database comprising data on: - accumulated waste and waste to be generated; - technologies and equipment for waste treatment; - participants of waste market.
3.7. Identification of Priority Investments for Implementation of Plan of Action The list of priority activities for treatment, processing and burial of waste for 2001-2003 and till 2005 has been developed on the basis of comprehensive criteria and ranking of environmental activities.
3.8. Improvement of Environmental Education and Public Awareness in Waste Management
Success of the Plan of Action requires improved environmental education of specialists and decision makers in the area of waste management. To this end, the Plan of Action provides for training of executives and specialists, participation in workshops, publication of special
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 71 books, regular presentation of adequate and accurate information to the interested public and mass media, etc.
Funding of the environmental education and public awareness campaign in the area of waste management will be carried out within the framework of environmental education financed from the Oblast budget.
3.9. Improvement of Control Procedures, Reporting and Monitoring of Plan of Action
To organize control, reporting and monitoring of the Plan of Action it is necessary to use the following environmental, financial and economic indicators:
Environmental indicators: - volumes of generation, treatment, processing and recycling of newly generated and accumulated wastes; - volumes of the collection and treatment of the used materials; - volumes of HSW treated and disposed at waste disposal facilities; - number and capacities of the operating waste burial facilities;
Financial and Economic indicators: - Volumes of investments to finance waste management projects (by sources of funding) …………..
6. Measures to Implement Plan of Action
6.4. Economic Mechanisms of Waste Management The main instruments of economic regulation of waste management are: - statutory tax incentives to facilitate the development of treatment, secondary use, safe recycling and proper disposal of wastes; - support to (provision of soft loans) investment projects to involve wastes in economic activities and facilitate environmentally safe storage and burial of wastes; - charged collection, movement and disposal of waste.
6.5. Mechanism of Implementation and Control over Implementation of Plan of Action
The Plan of Action will be managed through legal, regulatory and economic levers. Control over the implementation of the Plan of Action is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection and Nature Use, Committee for Natural Resources of Yaroslavl Oblast and the Oblast Center of State Sanitary Supervision.
The activities of the Plan of Action associated with the implementation of projects for the treatment and processing of wastes will be carried out only upon the positive conclusion of the state environmental review.
Every year, the state developer of the Program prepares a budget request to ensure funding of the Plan of Action, adjusts targets and expenditures by activities, implementation schedule, composition of executing parties, etc. To this end it requests the implementing parties, which are to be financed from the oblast and municipal budgets, to present documents to support the required financing. The current control over the Plan of Action is carried out by the Interagency Coordinating Council at the Oblast Administration to meet not less than once every six months and as required. The Plan of Action may require adjustment of priority activities and redistribution of funds to concentrate them on the key issues.
7. Resource Provision of Plan of Action The Plan of Action will be financed through own funds of enterprises, federal budget
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 72 proceeds, charges for the permitted and excess discharges and emissions of hazardous substances, disposal of waste, that are to be remitted to the oblast budget and budgets of municipal formations.
According to estimates the total budget of the Plan of Action is 101.55 million ruble (in 2000 prices) including: - 7.5 million ruble – funds from the federal budget (proceeds of the earmarked federal programs “Volga Revival” and “Wastes”) - 14.74 million ruble – Oblast budget proceeds; - 12.92 million ruble – local budget proceeds; - 66.39 million ruble – proceeds of enterprises;
Following the approval of the Plan of Action the Yaroslavl Oblast Administration, based on the proceeds of the federal, oblast and local budgets, enters into agreements (contracts) with the relevant contractors. The volume of financing and cost structure of the Plan of Action (estimates) are given in Annex 6.
Update on the Progress of the Waste Earmarked Oblast Program for 1997-2000 The “Waste” Earmarked Oblast Program (EOP) was developed by an interagency working group and approved by the #530 Resolution of the Yaroslavl Oblast Governor dated August 25, 1997. The “Waste” Earmarked Oblast Program (1997-2000) intended to address the issue of wastes, which were most harmful for Yaroslavl Oblast. These include acid tars, phosphogypsum, waste sludge from electroplating operations, waste from paint and varnish manufacturing facilities, mercury containing waste, unfit agrochemicals, rubber wastes, medicine waste and municipal solid waste. The total program budget is 178 million ruble, including 50 million ruble of the IBRD and Oblast Environmental Fund. The main sources of financing are: enterprises – 65%; oblast and local budgets – 24%; environmental funds – 11%. First of all, the Program implemented a number of activities to establish the system of institutional, regulatory, methodological and economic regulators in the area of waste management.
1. Established and operatable: an interagency coordinating council at the Oblast Administration to supervise the progress of the Program; a commercial research and methodological center “Wastes”; permanent headquarters to address the issue of the waste facilities near the village of Skokovo of Yaroslavl Municipal Formation. 2. Developed a draft law of the Yaroslavl Oblast “On Industrial and consumption waste management”; prepared and published volumes of regulatory and methodological documents for industrial and consumption waste management, manuals for treatment and recycling of waste. 3. Conducted two (in 1998 and 2000) All Russia Scientific and Practical Conferences “Optimization of Industrial and Consumption Waste Management”. 4. Trained 72 specialists of 15 enterprises and organization in the Oblast University of Environmental Knowledge for the theme “Treatment and Recycling of Waste”. Implementation of priority activities of the Program has lead to the enhancement of work in treatment, processing and burial of wastes. The program: - organized the collection and recycling of mercury containing waste (recycled are over 600,000 thousand mercury containing lamps and collected over 0.5 ton of metal mercury; - commission a pilot facility for the treatment of sludge from the electroplating facility (the Feros limited liability company); - the “Lakokraska” and “Pobeda Rabochih” facilities developed investment projects for the recycling and treatment of paint and varnish waste;
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 73 - carried out inventory of the pesticides storage facilities of the agricultural enterprises to identify a considerable amount of unfit and banned pesticides. In 1999 – 2000, some 17 tons (out of 35 tons) of mercury containing pesticide (granozan) was taken beyond the territory of Yaroslavl Oblast. - the Yaroslavl Tire Works established and started the facility to recycle rubber waste and used tires into goods in high demand. In 1999, the facility processed some 3000 tons of tire waste. - expanded the range of collectable used resources. In addition to rags and waste paper, the following items are currently collected: glass waste, plastic film, used disposable syringes, car tires, aluminum cans and plastic bottles. - designed and constructed solid waste burial facilities for the cities of Tutaev, Uglich, Danilov; reconstructed existing waste facilities and storage facilities for the cities of Pereslavl, Rostov, villages of N. Nekouz and Nekrasovsky; - initiated reconstruction of waste facilities near Skokovo; - a lot of work was done on the acid tar ponds of the Mendeleev Works; 1999 saw an extraordinary meeting of representatives of federal agencies and the Yaroslavl Oblast Administration; the Oblast Governor issued the Resolution “On Measures to Liquidate Environmental Risks Associated with Acid Tar Storage Ponds of the Mendeleev Works in the territory of the Tutaev Municipal Area” This resulted in the reduction of the acid tar level in the storage ponds improving the environmental situation in the area, which is now under control. The program pumped out of the ponds over 10,000 ton of petroleum products, neutralized over 800 000 cubic meters of acid water and processed some 10000 ton of acid tar sediment out of the existing 500 000 ton. Both the Oblast Administration and enterprises would like a faster progress. Therefore it is necessary to continue looking for a new productive technology for the processing of acid tar due to a rather dramatic environmental situation in this area. Despite certain positive outputs of the actions to address the problems of industrial and consumption waste it is still too early to assume that the health situation in the Oblast has been improved through the reduction of impact of industrial and consumption waste.
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 74 Annex IV Map of Yaroslavl Oblast
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 75 Annex V Waste questionnaire Yaroslavl Oblast
This questionnaire is only included in the Russian version of the report.
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 76 Annex VI Modelling results Yaroslavl Oblast
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 77 Annex 6 Modelling results
6.1. Forecast waste flows by fraction for Group 1 cities till 2015, tonnes
WasteFraction WasteSource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Food waste Household (USF) 8342,8 8861,3 9317,0 9716,4 10063,7 10365,5 10637,1 10881,5 11101,5 11299,5 11477,7 11638,1 11782,5 11912,4 12029,3 Garden waste Household (USF) 490,8 486,9 483,0 479,1 474,7 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 470,8 WEEE Household (USF) 93,5 98,2 105,6 110,9 116,4 125,1 131,4 136,3 143,2 153,8 159,6 167,6 176,0 184,8 194,0 Paper Household (USF) 6800,5 7140,5 7680,4 8064,4 8467,6 9102,7 9557,8 9919,0 10415,0 11190,0 11611,3 12191,9 12801,5 13441,5 14113,6 Cardboard Household (USF) 2173,3 2282,0 2454,6 2577,3 2706,2 2909,1 3054,6 3170,0 3328,5 3576,2 3710,8 3896,4 4091,2 4295,8 4510,5 Plastic Household (USF) 1495,6 1570,4 1689,2 1773,6 1862,3 2002,0 2102,1 2181,5 2290,6 2461,0 2553,7 2681,4 2815,4 2956,2 3104,0 Glass Household (USF) 1004,9 1055,1 1134,9 1191,7 1251,2 1345,1 1412,3 1465,7 1539,0 1653,5 1715,8 1801,6 1891,6 1986,2 2085,5 Metal Household (USF) 1075,0 1128,7 1214,1 1274,8 1338,5 1438,9 1510,9 1568,0 1646,4 1768,9 1835,5 1927,2 2023,6 2124,8 2231,0 Other non-combustibles Household (USF) 1191,8 1251,4 1346,1 1413,4 1484,0 1595,3 1675,1 1738,4 1825,3 1961,1 2035,0 2136,7 2243,6 2355,7 2473,5 Other combustibles Household (USF) 584,2 613,4 659,8 692,8 727,5 782,0 821,1 852,2 894,8 961,3 997,5 1047,4 1099,8 1154,8 1212,5 Hazardous waste Household (USF) 93,5 98,2 105,6 110,9 116,4 125,1 131,4 136,3 143,2 153,8 159,6 167,6 176,0 184,8 194,0 Food waste Household (UMF) 74751,8 79396,8 83480,5 87059,1 90171,0 92874,9 95308,5 97498,6 99469,8 101243,8 102840,5 104277,5 105570,7 106734,7 107782,3 Garden waste Household (UMF) 4397,2 4362,3 4327,5 4292,7 4253,5 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 4218,7 WEEE Household (UMF) 837,6 879,4 945,9 993,2 1042,9 1121,1 1177,2 1221,6 1282,7 1378,2 1430,1 1501,6 1576,7 1655,5 1738,3 Paper Household (UMF) 60932,1 63978,6 68816,3 72257,0 75870,0 81560,0 85638,0 88874,3 93318,1 100262,7 104037,3 109239,1 114701,1 120436,1 126457,9 Cardboard Household (UMF) 19473,2 20446,8 21992,9 23092,5 24247,1 26065,6 27368,9 28403,1 29823,3 32042,7 33249,0 34911,5 36657,1 38489,9 40414,4 Plastic Household (UMF) 13400,9 14070,9 15134,9 15891,6 16686,2 17937,6 18834,5 19546,3 20523,6 22050,9 22881,1 24025,1 25226,4 26487,7 27812,1 Glass Household (UMF) 9003,7 9453,9 10168,7 10677,2 11211,0 12051,8 12654,4 13132,6 13789,3 14815,5 15373,2 16141,9 16949,0 17796,4 18686,2 Metal Household (UMF) 9631,9 10113,5 10878,2 11422,1 11993,2 12892,7 13537,3 14048,9 14751,3 15849,1 16445,8 17268,0 18131,4 19038,0 19989,9 Other non-combustibles Household (UMF) 10678,8 11212,7 12060,6 12663,6 13296,8 14294,0 15008,7 15575,9 16354,7 17571,8 18233,3 19145,0 20102,3 21107,4 22162,7 Other combustibles Household (UMF) 5234,7 5496,4 5912,1 6207,7 6518,0 7006,9 7357,2 7635,3 8017,0 8613,6 8937,9 9384,8 9854,0 10346,8 10864,1 Hazardous waste Household (UMF) 837,6 879,4 945,9 993,2 1042,9 1121,1 1177,2 1221,6 1282,7 1378,2 1430,1 1501,6 1576,7 1655,5 1738,3 Food waste Household (R) 60,6 80,6 98,4 114,2 128,2 140,5 151,7 161,7 170,7 178,9 186,2 192,7 198,7 204,0 208,8 Garden waste Household (R) 72,7 72,1 71,6 71,0 70,3 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 69,8 WEEE Household (R) 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,7 2,8 2,9 3,0 3,2 3,4 Paper Household (R) 121,2 127,3 136,9 143,7 150,9 162,2 170,3 176,8 185,6 199,4 206,9 217,3 228,2 239,6 251,5 Cardboard Household (R) 36,4 38,2 41,1 43,1 45,3 48,7 51,1 53,0 55,7 59,8 62,1 65,2 68,5 71,9 75,5 Plastic Household (R) 28,3 29,7 31,9 33,5 35,2 37,9 39,8 41,3 43,3 46,5 48,3 50,7 53,2 55,9 58,7 Glass Household (R) 16,2 17,0 18,3 19,2 20,1 21,6 22,7 23,6 24,8 26,6 27,6 29,0 30,4 31,9 33,5
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 78 WasteFraction WasteSource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Metal Household (R) 20,2 21,2 22,8 24,0 25,2 27,0 28,4 29,5 30,9 33,2 34,5 36,2 38,0 39,9 41,9 Other non-combustibles Household (R) 19,4 20,4 21,9 23,0 24,2 26,0 27,3 28,3 29,7 31,9 33,1 34,8 36,5 38,3 40,3 Other combustibles Household (R) 9,7 10,2 11,0 11,5 12,1 13,0 13,6 14,1 14,9 16,0 16,6 17,4 18,3 19,2 20,1 Hazardous waste Household (R) 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,7 2,8 2,9 3,0 3,2 3,4 Cardboard, bulky Household (R) 4,0 4,2 4,6 4,8 5,0 5,4 5,7 5,9 6,2 6,7 6,9 7,2 7,6 8,0 8,4 Metal, bulky Household (R) 4,9 5,1 5,5 5,8 6,0 6,5 6,8 7,1 7,4 8,0 8,3 8,7 9,1 9,6 10,1 Other combustibles, bulky Household (R) 3,2 3,4 3,7 3,8 4,0 4,3 4,5 4,7 5,0 5,3 5,5 5,8 6,1 6,4 6,7 Other non-combust, bulky Household (R) 4,0 4,2 4,6 4,8 5,0 5,4 5,7 5,9 6,2 6,7 6,9 7,2 7,6 8,0 8,4 Food waste Commerce 2424,9 2546,2 2673,5 2807,2 2947,5 3094,9 3655,9 3838,7 4030,6 4232,1 4443,7 4665,9 4899,2 5144,2 5401,4 Paper Commerce 10238,6 10750,6 11288,1 11852,5 12445,1 13067,4 15435,9 16207,7 17018,0 17868,9 18762,4 19700,5 20685,5 21719,8 22805,8 Cardboard Commerce 3254,0 3416,7 3587,5 3766,9 3955,2 4153,0 4905,7 5151,0 5408,6 5679,0 5962,9 6261,1 6574,2 6902,9 7248,0 Plastic Commerce 1595,9 1675,7 1759,5 1847,5 1939,8 2036,8 2406,0 2526,3 2652,6 2785,2 2924,5 3070,7 3224,3 3385,5 3554,8 Glass Commerce 331,6 348,2 365,6 383,9 403,1 423,2 500,0 524,9 551,2 578,8 607,7 638,1 670,0 703,5 738,7 Metal Commerce 870,5 914,0 959,7 1007,7 1058,1 1111,0 1312,4 1378,0 1446,9 1519,2 1595,2 1674,9 1758,7 1846,6 1939,0 Other non-combustibles Commerce 1305,7 1371,0 1439,6 1511,6 1587,1 1666,5 1968,5 2067,0 2170,3 2278,8 2392,8 2512,4 2638,0 2769,9 2908,4 Other combustibles Commerce 704,7 739,9 776,9 815,8 856,6 899,4 1062,4 1115,5 1171,3 1229,9 1291,3 1355,9 1423,7 1494,9 1569,6 Food waste Industry 109,5 115,0 120,7 126,8 133,1 139,7 146,7 154,1 161,8 169,9 178,4 191,4 201,0 211,1 221,6 Paper Industry 3613,2 3793,8 3983,5 4182,7 4391,8 4611,4 4842,0 5084,1 5338,3 5605,2 5885,5 6317,1 6632,9 6964,6 7312,8 Cardboard Industry 2627,8 2759,2 2897,1 3042,0 3194,1 3353,8 3521,5 3697,5 3882,4 4076,5 4280,3 4594,2 4824,0 5065,2 5318,4 Plastic Industry 766,4 804,8 845,0 887,2 931,6 978,2 1027,1 1078,4 1132,4 1189,0 1248,4 1340,0 1407,0 1477,3 1551,2 Glass Industry 547,5 574,8 603,6 633,7 665,4 698,7 733,6 770,3 808,8 849,3 891,7 957,1 1005,0 1055,2 1108,0 Metal Industry 438,0 459,9 482,9 507,0 532,3 559,0 586,9 616,3 647,1 679,4 713,4 765,7 804,0 844,2 886,4 Other non-combustibles Industry 1850,4 1942,9 2040,1 2142,1 2249,2 2361,6 2479,7 2603,7 2733,9 2870,6 3014,1 3235,1 3396,9 3566,7 3745,0 Other combustibles Industry 996,4 1046,2 1098,5 1153,4 1211,1 1271,6 1335,2 1402,0 1472,1 1545,7 1623,0 1742,0 1829,1 1920,5 2016,6
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 79 6.2. Forecast waste flows by fraction for Group 2 cities till 2015, tonnes
WasteFraction WasteSource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Food waste Household (USF) 2766,18 2943,16 3098,40 3232,03 3290,08 3396,44 3492,18 3578,33 3655,87 3725,66 3788,47 3845,00 3895,87 3941,66 3982,87 Garden waste Household (USF) 1177,86 1167,43 1157,01 1141,38 1130,95 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 1120,53 WEEE Household (USF) 71,39 74,95 80,62 84,65 89,15 95,83 100,62 104,43 109,65 117,81 122,24 128,35 134,77 141,51 148,59 Paper Household (USF) 1311,71 1377,29 1481,43 1555,50 1638,05 1760,90 1848,95 1918,82 2014,76 2164,69 2246,19 2358,50 2476,42 2600,24 2730,26 Cardboard Household (USF) 865,55 908,82 977,54 1026,42 1080,89 1161,95 1220,05 1266,16 1329,47 1428,40 1482,18 1556,29 1634,10 1715,81 1801,60 Plastic Household (USF) 553,24 580,90 624,82 656,06 690,88 742,69 779,83 809,30 849,76 913,00 947,37 994,74 1044,48 1096,70 1151,54 Glass Household (USF) 464,00 487,20 524,04 550,24 579,44 622,90 654,05 678,77 712,70 765,74 794,57 834,30 876,01 919,81 965,80 Metal Household (USF) 383,70 402,88 433,34 455,01 479,16 515,09 540,85 561,29 589,35 633,21 657,05 689,90 724,40 760,62 798,65 Other non-combustibles Household (USF) 838,78 880,72 947,31 994,67 1047,46 1126,02 1182,32 1227,00 1288,35 1384,23 1436,34 1508,16 1583,56 1662,74 1745,88 Other combustibles Household (USF) 419,39 440,36 473,65 497,34 523,73 563,01 591,16 613,50 644,17 692,11 718,17 754,08 791,78 831,37 872,94 Hazardous waste Household (USF) 71,39 74,95 80,62 84,65 89,15 95,83 100,62 104,43 109,65 117,81 122,24 128,35 134,77 141,51 148,59 Food waste Household (UMF) 6270,01 6671,17 7023,03 7325,94 7676,85 7925,04 8148,41 8349,44 8530,37 8693,21 8839,77 8971,66 9090,37 9197,21 9293,36 Garden waste Household (UMF) 2669,81 2646,18 2622,56 2587,12 2638,89 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 2614,57 WEEE Household (UMF) 161,81 169,90 182,74 191,88 208,01 223,61 234,79 243,66 255,84 274,88 285,23 299,49 314,47 330,19 346,70 Paper Household (UMF) 2973,20 3121,86 3357,90 3525,80 3822,11 4108,77 4314,21 4477,24 4701,10 5050,95 5241,11 5503,16 5778,32 6067,24 6370,60 Cardboard Household (UMF) 1961,91 2060,00 2215,76 2326,55 2522,07 2711,23 2846,79 2954,37 3102,09 3332,94 3458,42 3631,34 3812,90 4003,55 4203,73 Plastic Household (UMF) 1254,00 1316,70 1416,26 1487,07 1612,05 1732,95 1819,60 1888,36 1982,78 2130,33 2210,54 2321,06 2437,11 2558,97 2686,92 Glass Household (UMF) 1051,74 1104,33 1187,83 1247,22 1352,04 1453,44 1526,11 1583,79 1662,98 1786,73 1854,00 1946,70 2044,03 2146,23 2253,54 Metal Household (UMF) 869,71 913,20 982,24 1031,36 1118,03 1201,88 1261,98 1309,67 1375,15 1477,49 1533,11 1609,77 1690,26 1774,77 1863,51 Other non-combustibles Household (UMF) 1901,23 1996,29 2147,23 2254,59 2444,07 2627,37 2758,74 2863,00 3006,15 3229,86 3351,46 3519,03 3694,98 3879,73 4073,71 Other combustibles Household (UMF) 950,61 998,14 1073,61 1127,30 1222,03 1313,69 1379,37 1431,50 1503,07 1614,93 1675,73 1759,51 1847,49 1939,86 2036,86 Hazardous waste Household (UMF) 161,81 169,90 182,74 191,88 208,01 223,61 234,79 243,66 255,84 274,88 285,23 299,49 314,47 330,19 346,70 Food waste Household (R) 2100,15 2632,70 3105,36 3520,81 3873,98 4185,33 4465,55 4717,74 4944,72 5149,00 5332,85 5498,31 5647,23 5781,26 5901,88 Garden waste Household (R) 1931,53 1914,43 1897,34 1871,70 1818,24 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 1801,48 WEEE Household (R) 168,63 177,06 190,44 199,97 206,45 221,93 233,03 241,84 253,93 272,82 283,10 297,25 312,11 327,72 344,10 Paper Household (R) 1042,41 1094,53 1177,29 1236,15 1276,23 1371,95 1440,55 1494,98 1569,73 1686,55 1750,04 1837,55 1929,42 2025,90 2127,19 Cardboard Household (R) 1134,39 1191,11 1281,17 1345,23 1388,84 1493,00 1567,65 1626,89 1708,24 1835,36 1904,46 1999,68 2099,67 2204,65 2314,88 Plastic Household (R) 2989,27 3138,73 3376,05 3544,85 3659,78 3934,26 4130,97 4287,09 4501,44 4836,43 5018,51 5269,44 5532,91 5809,55 6100,03 Glass Household (R) 1149,72 1207,20 1298,48 1363,41 1407,61 1513,18 1588,84 1648,88 1731,32 1860,17 1930,20 2026,71 2128,04 2234,44 2346,17 Metal Household (R) 766,48 804,80 865,65 908,94 938,40 1008,78 1059,22 1099,25 1154,22 1240,11 1286,80 1351,14 1418,69 1489,63 1564,11 Other non-combustibles Household (R) 2100,15 2205,16 2371,89 2490,49 2571,23 2764,07 2902,27 3011,95 3162,55 3397,90 3525,82 3702,12 3887,22 4081,58 4285,66 Other combustibles Household (R) 1042,41 1094,53 1177,29 1236,15 1276,23 1371,95 1440,55 1494,98 1569,73 1686,55 1750,04 1837,55 1929,42 2025,90 2127,19 Hazardous waste Household (R) 183,95 193,15 207,76 218,14 225,22 242,11 254,21 263,82 277,01 297,63 308,83 324,27 340,49 357,51 375,39 Cardboard, bulky Household (R) 183,95 193,15 207,76 218,14 225,22 242,11 254,21 263,82 277,01 297,63 308,83 324,27 340,49 357,51 375,39 Metal, bulky Household (R) 214,61 225,34 242,38 254,50 262,75 282,46 296,58 307,79 323,18 347,23 360,30 378,32 397,23 417,10 437,95 Other combustibles, bulky Household (R) 137,97 144,86 155,82 163,61 168,91 181,58 190,66 197,87 207,76 223,22 231,62 243,20 255,36 268,13 281,54 Other non-combust, bulky Household (R) 183,95 193,15 207,76 218,14 225,22 242,11 254,21 263,82 277,01 297,63 308,83 324,27 340,49 357,51 375,39 Food waste Commerce 0,67 0,70 0,73 0,77 0,81 0,85 0,89 0,94 0,98 1,21 1,27 1,33 1,40 1,47 1,54 Paper Commerce 3,60 3,78 3,97 4,17 4,38 4,59 4,82 5,07 5,32 6,52 6,84 7,18 7,54 7,92 8,32 Cardboard Commerce 4,50 4,72 4,96 5,21 5,47 5,74 6,03 6,33 6,65 8,14 8,55 8,98 9,43 9,90 10,39 Plastic Commerce 3,60 3,78 3,97 4,17 4,38 4,59 4,82 5,07 5,32 6,52 6,84 7,18 7,54 7,92 8,32 BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 80 WasteFraction WasteSource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Glass Commerce 2,97 3,12 3,27 3,44 3,61 3,79 3,98 4,18 4,39 5,38 5,64 5,93 6,22 6,53 6,86 Metal Commerce 1,53 1,61 1,69 1,77 1,86 1,95 2,05 2,15 2,26 2,77 2,91 3,05 3,21 3,37 3,53 Other non-combustibles Commerce 0,72 0,76 0,79 0,83 0,88 0,92 0,96 1,01 1,06 1,30 1,37 1,44 1,51 1,58 1,66 Other combustibles Commerce 0,41 0,43 0,46 0,48 0,50 0,53 0,55 0,58 0,61 0,75 0,79 0,83 0,87 0,91 0,96 Food waste Industry 0,76 0,80 0,84 0,88 0,95 0,99 1,04 1,10 1,15 1,21 1,27 1,33 1,40 1,47 1,54 Paper Industry 4,00 4,20 4,41 4,63 4,99 5,24 5,50 5,77 6,06 6,36 6,68 7,02 7,37 7,74 8,12 Cardboard Industry 5,00 5,25 5,51 5,79 6,23 6,55 6,87 7,22 7,58 7,96 8,35 8,77 9,21 9,67 10,15 Plastic Industry 4,00 4,20 4,41 4,63 4,99 5,24 5,50 5,77 6,06 6,36 6,68 7,02 7,37 7,74 8,12 Glass Industry 3,30 3,47 3,64 3,82 4,11 4,32 4,54 4,76 5,00 5,25 5,51 5,79 6,08 6,38 6,70 Metal Industry 1,70 1,79 1,87 1,97 2,12 2,23 2,34 2,45 2,58 2,70 2,84 2,98 3,13 3,29 3,45 Other non-combustibles Industry 0,80 0,84 0,88 0,93 1,00 1,05 1,10 1,15 1,21 1,27 1,34 1,40 1,47 1,55 1,62 Other combustibles Industry 0,44 0,46 0,49 0,51 0,55 0,58 0,60 0,63 0,67 0,70 0,74 0,77 0,81 0,85 0,89 Plastic C&D 0,30 0,31 0,33 0,35 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,44 0,46 0,48 0,51 0,53 0,56 0,59 0,62 Metal C&D 0,60 0,63 0,66 0,69 0,76 0,79 0,83 0,87 0,92 0,96 1,01 1,06 1,12 1,17 1,23 Concrete/tile/rubber C&D 0,30 0,31 0,33 0,35 0,38 0,40 0,42 0,44 0,46 0,48 0,51 0,53 0,56 0,59 0,62 Other non-combustibles C&D 3,12 3,28 3,44 3,61 3,93 4,12 4,33 4,55 4,77 5,01 5,26 5,53 5,80 6,09 6,40 Other combustibles C&D 1,68 1,76 1,85 1,94 2,11 2,22 2,33 2,45 2,57 2,70 2,83 2,98 3,12 3,28 3,45
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 81 6.3 Forecast expenditures and financing sources for Group 1 cities till 2015, 000 RUR
Group 1 cities, Baseline Scenario
Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 101 106 110 114 118 122 127 Collection Cost 69 684,8 73 495,8 78 362,6 82 066,6 85 723,5 90 692,1 94 431,5 97 492,2 321,9 836,7 061,8 231,6 532,2 978,1 583,5 Residuals transport cost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 AdditionalTansportCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Facility investmentCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Operational costs 2 362,3 2 435,6 2 525,9 2 595,5 2 663,7 2 752,2 2 838,1 2 895,8 2 964,9 3 058,4 3 117,6 3 192,0 3 266,0 3 341,5 3 418,7 ... 100 104 109 113 117 121 126 131 Total cost 72 047,0 75 931,4 80 888,5 84 662,1 88 387,3 93 444,3 97 269,5 388,0 286,9 895,2 179,4 423,6 798,2 319,7 002,2 ... 100 105 111 116 122 128 134 141 148 156 Total financing 76 699,5 81 306,9 86 181,2 91 342,3 95 907,9 704,6 739,8 027,3 578,9 406,7 526,9 953,1 700,8 785,1 225,1 ... Financial_Surplus 4 652,5 5 375,5 5 292,7 6 680,3 7 520,7 7 260,2 8 470,3 10 639,3 12 292,0 12 511,5 15 347,6 17 529,5 19 902,6 22 465,5 25 222,9
Group 1 cities, Development Scenario
Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 101 106 110 114 118 Collection Cost 69 684,8 73 495,8 78 362,6 82 066,6 85 723,5 90 692,1 94 431,5 97 492,2 321,9 836,7 061,8 231,6 532,2 122 978,1 127 583,5 Residuals transport cost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 AdditionalTansportCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Facility investmentCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 8 074,1 44 303,1 19 041,3 0,0 2 117,8 11 620,4 4 994,4 0,0 5 386,8 42 261,6 0,0 0,0 Facility_OMCost 2 362,3 2 435,6 2 525,9 3 272,2 6 461,6 7 899,9 8 152,4 8 387,8 9 031,3 9 514,9 9 704,3 10 039,5 11 202,4 11 470,6 11 745,0 ... 136 117 102 107 121 121 119 129 171 Total cost 72 047,0 75 931,4 80 888,5 93 412,9 488,2 633,2 583,9 997,8 973,7 346,1 766,1 657,9 996,3 134 448,7 139 328,5 ... 100 105 111 116 122 128 134 141 Total financing 76 699,5 81 306,9 86 181,2 91 342,3 95 907,9 704,6 739,8 027,3 578,9 406,7 526,9 953,1 700,8 148 785,1 156 225,1 ... Financial_Surplus 4 652,5 5 375,5 5 292,7 -2 070,5 -40 580,3 -16 928,7 3 155,9 3 029,5 -5 394,8 1 060,6 8 760,8 5 295,2 -30 295,5 14 336,4 16 896,6
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 82 6.4. Forecast expenditures and financing sources for Group 2 cities till 2015, 000 RUR
Group 2 cities. Baseline Scenario
Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 10 Collection Cost 5 438,3 5 740,0 6 135,9 6 433,0 6 787,8 7 208,0 7 522,3 7 778,6 8 103,0 8 575,3 8 848,8 9 205,5 9 574,3 9 956,4 352,9 Residuals transport cost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 AdditionalTansportCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Facility investmentCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Facility_OMCost 482,3 497,6 517,2 531,5 549,4 569,0 583,3 594,8 609,1 629,7 641,4 656,4 671,6 687,2 703,1 ... 11 Total cost 5 920,6 6 237,6 6 653,0 6 964,5 7 337,2 7 776,9 8 105,6 8 373,3 8 712,1 9 205,0 9 490,2 9 861,9 10 245,9 10 643,6 056,0 ... 23 Total financing 11 747,7 12 462,8 13 216,9 14 026,9 14 718,3 15 452,7 16 226,7 17 036,5 17 890,5 18 784,2 19 722,9 20 709,2 21 744,5 22 831,4 973,2 ... 12 Financial_Surplus 5 827,2 6 225,2 6 563,8 7 062,5 7 381,1 7 675,8 8 121,1 8 663,1 9 178,4 9 579,1 10 232,7 10 847,4 11 498,6 12 187,8 917,2
Group 2 cities, Development Scenario
Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Collection Cost 5 438,3 5 740,0 6 135,9 6 433,0 6 787,8 7 208,0 7 522,3 7 778,6 8 103,0 8 575,3 8 848,8 9 205,5 9 574,3 9 956,4 10 352,9 Residuals transport cost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 AdditionalTansportCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Facility investmentCost 0,0 0,0 0,0 8 478,5 3 929,1 3 434,1 4 425,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2 223,9 1 931,3 Facility_OMCost 482,3 497,6 517,2 901,5 1 107,6 1 306,1 1 541,4 1 572,3 1 611,0 1 666,4 1 697,9 1 738,3 1 779,5 1 862,3 1 942,5 ... Total cost 5 920,6 6 237,6 6 653,0 15 812,9 11 824,5 11 948,1 13 489,6 9 350,9 9 714,0 10 241,8 10 546,7 10 943,8 11 353,8 14 042,6 14 226,7 ... Total financing 11 747,7 12 462,8 13 216,9 14 026,9 14 718,3 15 452,7 16 226,7 17 036,5 17 890,5 18 784,2 19 722,9 20 709,2 21 744,5 22 831,4 23 973,2 ... Financial_Surplus 5 827,2 6 225,2 6 563,8 -1 786,0 2 893,8 3 504,6 2 737,1 7 685,6 8 176,5 8 542,4 9 176,2 9 765,4 10 390,7 8 788,8 9 746,5
BCEOM-HALCROW GROUP LTD.-COWI CONSORTIUM 83