Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Review Strategic Directions and Investment Planning up to 2025

Public Disclosure Authorized Bosnia and Herzegovina Building Long-term Sustainability for Integrated Solid Waste Management Technical Assistance

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized PART B

REPUBLIKA SRPSKA

January 2018 RS Sector Reform Report

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.D. Joint Stock Company BASWA Bosnian Solid Waste Association CAPEX Capital expenditure CII Commercial, institutional, industrial D.O.O. Limited company EC European Commission EPR Extended Producer Responsibility ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment EU European Union FBiH Federation of Bosnia i Herzegovina GDP Gross Domestic product GHG Greenhouse Gas HH Household IFI International Financing Institution LFG Landfill Gas LTP Leachate Treatment Plant MSPCEE Ministry for Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology of RS ML Municipal Landfill MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management M+R Maintenance and Repair OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OPEX Operational expenses PA Public Awareness PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PCT Polychlorinated terphenyls PET Polyethyleneterephthalate PPP Public Private Partnership RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RL Regional Landfill RS Republika Srpska SIDA Swedish International Cooperation Agency SWM Solid Waste Management SSWMP Second Solid Waste Management Project TS Transfer Station VAT Value Added Tax WAD Waste Allocation District WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WFD Waste Framework Directive WIS Waste Information System WM Waste Management WMP Waste Management Plan

RS Sector Reform Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Solid Waste Management (SWM) Sector Reform study was funded by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) as part of the World Bank-SIDA Partnership to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina’s efforts towards advancing in the solid waste management sector especially in view of its commitment to harmonize sector practices and approaches with EU legislation. The study consists of three separate reports covering the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District.

The study was performed by a World Bank team led by Ms. Kremena Ionkova and included international and local experts in waste management, namely Mr. Gerard Simonis, Dr. Ali Reza Abedini, Dr. Irem Silajdzic and Dr. Drazenko Bjelic as well as Mr. Igor Palandzic, Ms. Lejla Arnautovic and Mr. Senad Sacic.

The World Bank team would like to thank all counterparts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), including Ministries, Agencies, municipalities, representative organizations, waste collection companies and landfill operators in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brcko District for their inputs, comments, cooperation and provision of information during the numerous visits in the first half of 2017.

Suggestions and recommendations provided in this report are subject to the limitations inherent to availability of site-specific information, and based on authors assessment, experience and knowledge about the situations in BiH.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent.

RS Sector Reform Report

PREFACE

For the preparation of this study information was obtained during the many field visits and discussions with operators and municipalities. Furthermore, use has been made of existing information such as the Grontmij and Sweco reports prepared in the framework of SIDA financed projects, the State, Entities and Brcko District Waste Management Strategies, completed questionnaires from waste collection companies and operators, EU reports and regional studies. As far as possible, conclusions, recommendations and especially the many cost calculations were discussed and confirmed with operators in the field in order to obtain reliable and practical results. The study benefitted from the team’s extensive experience in the field of solid waste management both locally and worldwide, and especially in the EU member states and many EU accession states, which have gone through the process BiH is starting now. For the first time in BiH, this report presents a financial assessment of current waste management costs, and calculations on the financial impacts of harmonisation with EU legislation and shifting up in the waste hierarchy.

During the preparation of this study the team encountered a strong conviction among many of the counterparts in BiH that investments in infrastructure would suffice to solve the problems in the sector. The team would like to emphasize that in the absence of strong institutional and financial framework at all levels for planning, implementation and operations it will be difficult to achieve sustainable waste management operations. In this respect, the team believes that substantial capacity building is needed at all levels. The setting up of public-private partnerships would greatly accelerate the development of efficient and effective waste management practises. A carefully prepared phased and prioritised implementation scheme addressing the prevailing problems in the field of solid waste management should be the basis for future development. The team is hopeful that this study will contribute to a better understanding of the prevailing conditions in FBiH and required actions in order to avoid disappointments as experienced in other countries under similar circumstances and in order to advance the sector in line with the EU Acquis in an environmentally and financially sustainable manner.

iii

RS Sector Reform Report

ABSTRACT

This report includes an assessment of the current municipal solid waste situation in BiH including investments and actions needed for improvement. For the first time special attention was paid to the cost aspects also taking into account the impact of EU accession requirements on the costs. Many of the most recent EU member states have undergone the same process as now experienced by BiH such as the need to improve the environmental conditions for waste disposal, improvement of the waste collection coverage, introduction of waste separation and recycling and consequently the resulting cost increases. These improvements will require extra investments leading to higher costs/ton for the waste generator following the EU principle of “Polluter pays” as incorporated in the BiH legislation. In spite of the fact that this principle is a legal requirement, Ministries and Municipalities remain reluctant to accept the fact that current tariffs have to be increased. Instead, it is assumed that the environmental conditions can be improved by maintaining the current tariff level, which is only 0.5% of the household spendable income while internal practises indicate 1-1.5%.

In order to minimize the required tariff increase an assessment was made of the cost aspects of current operations. The study reveals that actual costs are rather high which might indicate in-efficiency but at the same time it appears that municipalities don’t have a clear cost allocation system for solid waste services (waste collection and disposal) as they carry out also other services such as street cleaning, snow cleaning, etc. In addition, the current tariff for households includes a 17% VAT surcharge while in international practises especially within EU member states the waste services for households are excluding VAT as tariff is considered to be a tax. An additional cost element for waste collection companies in BiH is the responsibility for concluding contracts with households and the collection of tariffs. This creates an extra financial risk for the companies in view of non-payments. International practises indicate that household tariffs are collected by municipalities (tax payment) on basis of a Municipal Regulation. Waste collection company collects only fees from commercial/institutional entities on basis of individual contracts. Substantial cost reductions could be achieved in case municipalities would take over the tariff collection from households and in case the government would introduce exemption of VAT payment for households. This would also lead to reduction of subsidies now paid by some municipalities for municipal waste management.

The report also shows that costs will be reduced in case larger quantities of waste could be handled through cooperation of municipalities. Cost calculations are presented in the report comparing single municipal services with regionalized services for both waste collection and disposal. It appears that substantial cost reductions can be achieved especially for waste disposal assuming that municipal landfills mandated to comply with the EU design criteria (Directives) such as installation of bottom liner, leachate collection and treatment. However, establishment of regional landfills would result in extra transport costs for some municipalities. To reduce these costs implementation of transfer stations could be recommended. In the report calculations are presented showing that use of transfer stations would result in cost reductions only in case collection trucks have a small capacity, distance to regional landfill is more than 50km, distance between collection area and transfer station is minimal and the investment cost in transfer stations are very low. In addition, road conditions should allow high capacity truck transport between transfer stations and the regional landfill and annual volumes of waste should not be small. The report concludes that implementation of transfer stations requires a careful site-specific analysis.

Another aspect that was analysed is the requirement of waste separation and sorting. Following numerous field visits and discussions with municipalities it appeared that there is lack of awareness about costs and benefits of separation and sorting of dry recyclables. Municipalities presented plans for setting up of “waste management centres” including landfill, sorting lines and other treatment facilities without prior calculation of the resulting costs/ton. This approach is clearly reflected in implementation of a few sorting lines by various single municipalities throughout BiH. All of these facilities are generating costs mainly due to low annual quantities handled, as well as use of sub- standard and low quality sorting operations. Dry recyclable sorting lines can be revenue generating

RS Sector Reform Report only if sufficient quantities (at least 3,000 tons/year) of pre-segregated dry recyclables are handled when small percentage of rejects are resulted. This is also pointing into the need for cooperation between municipalities. It should be noted that BiH is a scarcely populated country with more than 140 municipalities and thus small waste quantities for each single municipality. As shown by international practises, cooperation between small municipalities in waste collection and transportation is required to achieve larger waste volume operations and to lower the overall cost/ton, resulting in recycling initiatives to become more recycling financially attractive. In addition, regional cooperation will make waste management in BiH more interesting for potential private partners with associated investments. Future role of the Municipalities is foreseen to shift away from direct waste collection and disposal services and become shareholders of regional companies for collection and disposal, raising public awareness and dealing with potential complaint.

RS Sector Reform Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B1 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES ...... 1

B1.1 Population ...... 2

B1.2 Waste generation ...... 3

B1.3 Waste composition ...... 5

B1.4 Forecast of waste generation ...... 7

B1.5 Forecast of waste composition ...... 10

B1.6 Future waste management options ...... 12

B1.7 Shortcomings ...... 15

B2 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...... 17

B2.1 Legal framework and policies ...... 17

B2.1.1 General ...... 17

B2.1.2 Law on Waste Management ...... 18

B2.1.3 Transposition of EU legislation ...... 20

B2.1.4 The RS Waste Management Strategy ...... 21

B2.1.5 Legislation at municipal level ...... 23

B2.2 Institutional framework ...... 23

B2.2.1 RS Level ...... 23

B2.2.2 Local level ...... 25

B2.3 Shortcomings ...... 26

B3 EXISTING OPERATIONS ...... 28

B3.1 General ...... 28

B3.2 Waste collection ...... 28

B3.3 Waste disposal ...... 29

B3.4 Waste separation and recycling ...... 33

B3.5 Waste transfer ...... 33

B3.6 Shortcomings ...... 34

B4 FINANCIAL ASPECTS ...... 36

RS Sector Reform Report

B4.1 Tariffs ...... 36

B4.2 Costs ...... 37

B4.2.1 Collection and transport ...... 37

B4.2.2 Disposal ...... 38

B4.2.3 Calculated costs ...... 38

B4.2.4 Separation and sorting ...... 39

B4.2.5 Integrated services ...... 39

B4.2.6 Transfer stations ...... 40

B4.3 Main problems ...... 41

B5 REFORM PLAN ...... 42

B5.1 Context ...... 42

B5.1.1 Background ...... 42

B5.1.2 Overarching problems ...... 42

B5.1.3 Implementation ...... 42

B5.2 Legal aspects ...... 44

B5.3 Institutional recommendations ...... 46

B5.4 Financial aspects ...... 48

B5.4 Operational aspects ...... 51

B5.4.1 Collection and transport ...... 51

B5.4.2 Transfer stations ...... 54

B5.4.3 Separation and treatment ...... 56

B5.4.4 Disposal ...... 58

B6 CAPACITY BUILDING AND INVESTMENTS ...... 68

Annex B1.1 Population per regions, cities and municipalities in RS (2013) ...... 73

Annex B1.2 Amounts of waste generated in cities, municipalities and regions in RS (2013) ...... 76

Annex B1.3 Forecasted waste generation in cities, municipality and regions ...... 78

Annex B1.4 Forecasted waste composition per region ...... 81

Annex B2.1 Description of proposed regional waste management system ...... 84

vii

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B3.1 List of collection and disposal companies ...... 86

Annex B3.2 Summary of questionnaires ...... 91

Annex B3.3 Landfills overview ...... 93

Annex B4.1 Collection and transport costs in RS ...... 96

Annex B4.2 Landfill operations 2015 ...... 100

Annex B4.3 Sorting line cost calculations ...... 104

Annex B4.4. Cost estimates for mixed container collection system ...... 108

Annex B4.5. Transfer stations ...... 112

Annex B4.6 Transport costs to regional landfill (50 km) ...... 114

Annex B4.7 Summary of various options ...... 116

Annex B5.1 Eurostat/OECD Definition of municipal waste ...... 117

Annex B5.2 Waste quantities and distances to RL's per municipality ...... 118

Annex B5.3 Transfer Stations proposed by WM Strategy 2017-2027 ...... 121

Annex B5.4: Investment requirements existing RL’s ...... 122

Annex B5.5 Landfill cost estimate in 2025 ...... 126

LIST OF TABLES

Table B1-1: Population per region (2013) ...... 2

Table B1-2: Waste generation rate in RS ...... 3

Table B1-3: Waste generation rates in Regions in RS ...... 4

Table B1-4: Proposed MSW generation rates in RS as per 2013 ...... 4

Table B1-5: Amounts of waste generated in Regions in RS (2013) ...... 5

Table B1-6: Waste composition in RS ...... 6

Table B1-7: Average monthly household consumption for 2004, 2007, 2011 in BAM ...... 8

Table B1-8: Urbanisation rate in RS 1991 vs. 2013 ...... 8

Table B1-9: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025 ...... 9

Table B1-10: Forecasted waste generation per region ...... 10

Table B1-11: Municipal Solid Waste and waste from industries forecast 2013-2025 ...... 10

viii

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-12: Recyclable waste generation per capita 2013-2025 ...... 11

Table B1-13: Waste generation per capita and day in different streams 2013 and 2025 ...... 11

Table B1-14: Urban and Rural municipal waste composition 2015-2025 ...... 12

Table B1-15: Quantitative goals for SWM ...... 12

Table B1-16: Three scenarios for the future of the waste management sector ...... 13

Table B1-17: Optimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ...... 13

Table B1-18: Realistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ...... 14

Table B1-19: Pessimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ...... 14

Table B1-20: Comparison of waste flows for the three scenarios for 2013 and 2025 ...... 15

Table B2-1: Status of the transposition of the EU Waste Directives in RS ...... 20

Table B2-2: Targets for waste amounts in % ...... 22

Table B2-3: Targets for landfilling ...... 22

Table B2-4: Targets for energy and material recovery and recycling...... 23

Table B3-1: Container capacities ...... 29

Table B3-2: Current status of originally planned RL development in RS ...... 30

Table B3-3: Location of transfer stations (WM Strategy for period 2017-2026) ...... 34

Table B4-1: Household tariff for collection and disposal (BAM including VAT) ...... 36

Table B4-2: Annual costs (BAM) for SWM services ...... 37

Table B4-3: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ...... 38

Table B4-4: Landfill costs (BAM/ton) ...... 38

Table B4-5: Sorting line annual results (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ...... 39

Table B4-6: Revenues from sorting of dry recyclables in 2016 (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ...... 39

Table B4-7: Calculated costs for proper total WM system (BAM/ton) ...... 40

Table B4-8: Transport and transfer costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ...... 41

Table B5-1: Costs/ton for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (2025)...... 51

Table B5-2: Regional collection system (BAM/ton) ...... 52

Table B5-3: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton) ...... 52

Table B5-4: Required number of collection trucks ...... 53

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B5-5: Required number of skip trucks ...... 54

Table B5-6: Required number of containers ...... 54

Table B5-7: Transport and transfer costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ...... 55

Table B5-8: WM Strategy sorting lines ...... 57

Table B5-9: RDF cost/revenue assessment (BAM excl. VAT) ...... 57

Table B5-10: Landfill cost calculations (BAM/ton) ...... 58

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure B1-1: Regional SWM division aligned with self-administration units...... 1

Figure B1-2: Population share per region in % ...... 2

Figure B1-3: Urban and rural population distribution in % per region ...... 3

Figure B1-4: Urban and rural waste per region (%) ...... 5

Figure B1-5: Comparison of waste composition at Banja Luka Landfill, City of Bijeljina and City of Prijedor ...... 7

Figure B1-6: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025 ...... 9

Figure B1-7: Forecasted changes in waste composition 2015-2025 ...... 11

Figure B2-1: Administrative Organization of RS According to the Dayton Peace Agreement ...... 17

Figure B3-1: Originally Planned Regional Landfills in BiH ...... 30

Figure B3-2: Current status of waste disposal in municipalities in RS ...... 32

Figure B5-1: EU Waste hierarchy ...... 43

Figure B5-2: Proposed Institutional Sett-up at Municipal Level ...... 48

Figure B5-3: General payment flow inside EU member states ...... 50

Figure B5-4: Existing Regional Landfills and their Service Areas in BiH ...... 59

Figure B5-5: Possible Future Landfill Development in RS ...... 60

Figure B5-6: Banja Luka Regional Landfill Service Area ...... 61

Figure B5-7: Bijeljina Regional Landfill Service Area ...... 62

Figure B5-8: Zvornik Regional Landfill Service Area ...... 63

Figure B5-9: Prijedor Regional Landfill Service Area ...... 64

Figure B5-10: Overall disposal system at RS – existing and possible future facilities ...... 67

RS Sector Reform Report

B1 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES

The solid waste management in Republika Srpska (RS) is based on regional concept where several municipalities are served by one regional landfill. According to the available official spatial planning documents, RS is divided in 8 regions, namely Prijedor, Banja Luka, Mrkonjic Grad, Doboj, Bijeljina, Zvornik, Foca and Gacko (Figure B1-1)1. This Sector Reform report will be based on this regional division.

In this report Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is defined as Municipal Waste (MW) generated by households and similar type of waste in nature and composition generated by commercial, institutional and industrial sector excluding municipal construction and demolition waste and waste from municipal sewage network and treatment.

Figure B1-1: Regional SWM division aligned with self-administration units

1 The Waste Management Strategy for period 2017-2026

RS Sector Reform Report

B1.1 Population

According to the RS Institute of Statistics2, the total number of inhabitants in Republika Srpska is 1,170,342 and they live in 57 municipalities and 6 cities. Of that number, 491,581 inhabitants (42%) live in urban areas while 678,761 inhabitants (58%) live in suburban (semi-urban) and rural areas. The summary data on population distribution are given in Table B1-1. Detailed information per municipality is given in Annex B1.1. Population distribution per region is presented in Figure B1-2 while Figure B1-3 shows the regional distribution of urban and rural population.

Table B1-1: Population per region (2013)

Region Population Urban % Rural %

Prijedor 136,747 37.26 62.74 Banja Luka 357,595 50.45 49.55 Mrkonjic Grad 33,498 32.14 67.86 Doboj 206,897 30.73 69.27 Bijeljina 133,681 35.46 64.54 Zvornik 121,172 26.63 73.37 Foca 115,050 54.80 45.20 Gacko 65,702 65.67 34.33 Total 1,170,342 42.00 58.00

Figure B1-2: Population share per region in %

2 Results of the Census 2013, Cities, municipalities, settlements), RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/front/article/2369/

RS Sector Reform Report

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% rural 20% 10% urban 0%

Figure B1-3: Urban and rural population distribution in % per region

According to the OECD typology criteria, 59 out of 63 municipalities in the RS are considered to be rural (average population density less than 150 capita per km2). Rural areas cover 93.18% (22,961.36 km2) of the RS territory.

B1.2 Waste generation

Waste generation in RS is estimated on the basis of data gathering, review of official publications, available studies, interviews with key stakeholders, questionnaires and benchmarking. Table B1-2 gives the average waste generation rate as included in the Waste Management Strategy for period 2017-2026 (hereinafter called “WM Strategy”) which was officially adopted in July 2017.

Table B1-2: Waste generation rate in RS

MSW generation per capita (kg/day) Average The Waste Management 0.86 Strategy for period 2017-2026

In the draft WM Strategy the waste generation rate was 0.76 kg/cap/day, but changed due to acceptance of final census 2013.

A breakdown per Region is given in Table B1-3. No further specifications on waste generation are given in the WM Strategy for urban and rural areas.

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-3: Waste generation rates in Regions in RS3

Regions MSW generation per capita (kg/day) Average for the Region Prijedor 0.93 Banja Luka 0.95 Mrkonjic Grad 0.54 Doboj 0.66 Bijeljina 1.03 Zvornik 0.68 Foca 0.56 Gacko 0.58

The waste generation data from the Republic of Serbia have been used for comparison having in mind similar socio-economic environment and waste management structure of the two countries as well as the fact that the annual quantities of municipal waste generated in Serbia are based on real measurement of waste in referent local self-government units4. On average, in the Republic of Serbia, 0.87 kg of municipal waste is generated per capita per day (318 kg/cap/year). According to National Waste Management Strategy for Serbia5 urban population on average generates 1 kg of waste per capita per day, whereas rural population generates on average 0.7 kg of waste per capita per day. In RS, municipal waste generation on average was 272 kg/cap/year6 in 2013. Based on questionnaires received during preparation of the MSWM Sector Review the average municipal waste generation in urban areas is approximately 1.05 kg/cap/day.

Combining the data and information given above, Consultants assessment for present MSW generation rates is provided in Table B1-4 taking into account 42% urban and 58% rural population.

Table B1-4: Proposed MSW generation rates in RS as per 2013

Urban MSW generation Rural MSW generation Weighted average kg/capita/day kg/capita/day kg/capita/day 1.05 0.55 0.76

Based on data from Table B1-1 and Table B1-4, the amounts of waste generated in each municipality are calculated and presented in Annex 1.2. Table B1-5 presents the summary information of waste generation per region including urban, rural and total waste generation in 2013. It is calculated that in RS 1,170,342 inhabitants produce around 324,660 tons of waste per year with approximately 58% being generated in urban and 42% in rural areas.

3 The Waste Management Strategy for period 2017-2026 4 Univeristy of Novi Sad (2009) Determination of waste composition and estimated of waste amount in order to define strategy of recycling waste management in the framework of sustainable development in Serbia http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/otpad.pdf 5 Republic of Serbia National Solid Waste Management Strategy 2010-2019 6 http://www.rzs.rs.ba/static/uploads/bilteni/godisnjak/2015/16zis_2015.pdf

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-5: Amounts of waste generated in Regions in RS (2013)

Region Population Urban waste Rural waste Total waste (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) Prijedor 136,747 19,527 17,224 36,751 Banja Luka 357,595 69,141 35,570 104,711 Mrkonjic Grad 33,498 4,126 4,564 8,690 Doboj 206,897 24,370 28,768 53,138 Bijeljina 133,681 18,166 17,322 35,488 Zvornik 121,172 12,369 17,845 30,214 Foca 115,050 24,163 10,439 34,602 Gacko 65,702 16,536 4,528 21,064 Total 1,170,342 188,398 136,260 324,658

The distribution between urban and rural waste in each region is graphically displayed in Figure B1-4. These distributions are used for the forecast of waste generation.

Gacko Foca Zvornik Bijeljina Doboj Mrkonjic Grad Banja Luka Prijedor

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Urban waste (tons/year) Rural waste (tons/year)

Figure B1-4: Urban and rural waste per region (%)

B1.3 Waste composition

To assess current MSW composition, existing information from measurement of waste composition at Regional landfill Banja Luka and waste composition in cities Prijedor and Bijeljina are summarized and presented in Table B1-6. The comparison of waste composition between the cities is given in Figure B1-5.

RS Sector Reform Report

According to the composition of the waste, the single dominant fraction in municipal solid waste in Banja Luka Region is organic waste from kitchens and gardens (approximately 38%) while the dry recyclables (plastic, glass, paper/cardboard, cans, PET, foil, metals) accounts for approximately 45% of municipal solid waste. In Prijedor and Bijeljina dominant fraction is biodegradable waste, 56% and 42% respectively while the dry recyclables (plastic, glass, paper/cardboard, metals, aluminium cans, PET) account for 23% in Prijedor and 30% in Bijeljina.

Table B1-6: Waste composition in RS

Landfill Banja Luka, Waste fractions City of Prijedor7 City of Bijeljina8 Banja Luka Region9

Organic 56.26 42.31 34.20 Plastic 8.87 9.66 7.83 Paper/Cardboard 7.36 13.31 10.81 Metals 0.57 0.47 4.49 Glass 2.89 3.38 4.92 Textiles & Shoes 5.02 6.77 1.28 Wood 1.39 1.64 4.06 Construction and Demolition 2.80 0.63 5.72 (C&D) and inert waste Hazardous waste 0.64 0.15 - Composites 1.22 0.75 - Fines 6.25 13.09 - Others 3.20 3.78 5.31 Aluminium cans 0.66 0.58 2.05 Rubber - - 0.87 Foil - - 9.44 Animal waste - - 3.80 WEEE 0.09 0.08 0.16 PET 2.48 3.25 5.06 Medical waste 0.29 0.12 - Total 99.99 99.97 100

7 NALAS, Report on Quantities and Morphological Composition of Waste for 16 Representative Municipalities, December 2015 8 NALAS, Report on Quantities and Morphological Composition of Waste for 16 Representative Municipalities, December 2015 9 D raft of the Waste Management Strategy for the Republika Srpska 2017-2026

RS Sector Reform Report

Medical waste

WEEE

Foil

Aluminium cans

Fines

Hazardous waste

Wood

Glass

Paper/Cardboard

Organic 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Landfill Banja Luka, Banja Luka Region City of Bijeljina City of Prijedor

Figure B1-5: Comparison of waste composition at Banja Luka Landfill, City of Bijeljina and City of Prijedor

For calculation purposes the following will be assumed for the year 2013:

• Average percentage of dry recyclables in household waste in containers will be 30%. • Recyclables collected through EPR system (not disposed in containers but collected directly from CII) 35% x 22,000 tons (quantity put on market by members EPR scheme in RS in 2013) = 7,700 tons or approx. 8 % of total packaging waste quantity. • Total percentage of dry recyclables in generated waste will thus be 32%, or 32% x 324,658 = 104,000 tons. • Total percentage of organic waste in generated waste is 45% (It is assumed as average value of organic waste in these three measurements).

B1.4 Forecast of waste generation

Four factors are considered for the calculation of the waste generation forecast: (i) population growth, (ii) household income growth, (iii) urbanization process, and (iv) increase in waste coverage from average 64% up to 100% in 202510. The following assumptions create the conceptual basis for the forecast of waste generation.

Population growth. Although a negative population growth has been recorded in the Republika Srpska since 200211, for the purpose of this report it is assumed that the population number will not

10 The Waste Management Strategy for period 2017-2026 11 Population, Statistical year book 2015, RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/static/uploads/bilteni/godisnjak/2015/05stn_2015.pdf

RS Sector Reform Report change up to 2025 year. Therefore, the forecast is done using the results of the 2013 Census for RS as a referent population number amounting to 1,170,342 inhabitants12.

Household income growth. Household consumption was selected as a representative measure of household income growth. Table B1-7 presents the average monthly consumption expenditure per households in BAM for 2004, 2007 and 201113.

Table B1-7: Average monthly household consumption for 2004, 2007, 2011 in BAM

Household 2004 2007 2011 Increase rate consumption

RS 1227.33 1364.31 1381.45 12.56 Urban 1357.35 1625.87 1510.48 11.28 Rural/semi-urban 1153.53 1226.53 1299.38 12.64

In the seven years’ period, from 2004 to 2011, the household consumption increased by 12.56%. In order to create the waste generation forecast, it is assumed that household consumption will continue to grow about 2% per year.

Urbanization. The urbanization rate in RS according to census data from 2013 and compared to the census data from 1991 is given in Table B1-814.

Table B1-8: Urbanisation rate in RS 1991 vs. 2013

Urbanisation rate15 1991 2013 Increase rate (%) (%) (%) RS 34 42 8 Regions Prijedor 33.47 37.26 3.79 Banja Luka 44.38 50.45 6.07 Mrkonjic Grad 31.62 32.14 0.52 Doboj 26.44 30.73 4.29 Bijeljina 26.51 35.46 8.95 Zvornik 19.74 26.63 6.89 Foca 40.96 54.80 13.84 Gacko 54.76 65.67 10.91

The total urbanization increase rate in RS over the time span of 22 years is 8%. It is expected that no significant growth will occur in the period until 2025 and current urbanization rate (42% urban and 58% rural) will be taken as a reference value.

International experience indicates that 1% household income growth results in 0.5% urban waste generation per capita growth and 0.25% growth for rural waste generation per capita. Table B1-9

12 Results of the Census 2013, Cities, municipalities, settlements), RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/front/article/2369/ 13Average monthly expenditure per household by expenditure category and settlement type, Statistical year book 2016, RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/static/uploads/bilteni/godisnjak/2016/08pot_2016.pdf 14 2013 Preliminary census results, Urbanisation rate, http://www.statistika.ba/?show=3#link3 15 Urbanisation = population living in urban area/total population

RS Sector Reform Report presents both the assumptions made and the results achieved for waste generation forecast between 2013 and 2025.

Table B1-9: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025

2013 2025 Change/year 16 Population 1,170,342 1,170,342 0% Household consumption17 (BAM/year) 17,244 21,870 2% Urbanization (%)18 42 42 0% Urban Population 491,581 491,581 0% 17 Rural (%) 58 58 0% Rural Population 678,761 678,761 0% Urban SW (kg/cap/day) 1.05 1.18 1% Rural SW kg/cap/day 0.55 0.58 0.5% Urban Waste (t) 188,398 211,724 0.98% Rural Waste (t) 136,260 143,694 0.44% Total Waste (t) 324,658 355, 418 0.76%

During the period 2013 and 2025, the average annual growth rate is 0.76%. The average waste generation is expected to increase from 0.76 kg/cap/day to 0.83 kg/cap/day.

Figure B1-6 presents the overall waste generation in RS for reference and forecasted year while

Table B1-10 presents the forecasted waste generation for each region. Detailed list of forecasted waste generation per municipality is given in Annex B1.3.

100% 90% 80% 136.260 143,694 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 188,398 211,724 20% 10% 0% 2013 2025

Urban Waste (t) Rural Waste (t)

Figure B1-6: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025

16 Results of the Census 2013, Cities, municipalities, settlements), RS Institute of Statistic, available at http://www.rzs.rs.ba/front/article/2369/ 17Household consumption survey 18 Assumptions based on urbanization trends

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-10: Forecasted waste generation per region

2013 2025 Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Region waste waste waste waste waste waste (tons/ (tons/ (tons/ (tons/ (tons/ (tons/ year) year) year) year) year) year)

Prijedor 19,527 17,224 36,751 21,945 18,163 40,108 Banja Luka 69,141 35,570 104,711 77,701 37,511 115,212 Mrkonjic Grad 4,126 4,564 8,690 4,637 4,812 9,449 Doboj 24,370 28,768 53,138 27,387 30,339 57,726 Bijeljina 18,166 17,322 35,488 20,415 18,266 38,681 Zvornik 12,369 17,845 30,214 13,900 18,820 32,720 Foca 24,163 10,439 34,602 27,155 11,009 38,164 Gacko 16,536 4,528 21,064 18,584 4,775 23,359 Total 188,398 136,260 324,658 211,724 143,694 355,418

Based on the information obtained from landfills, approximately 8% of the total waste quantities disposed of at landfills is coming from private industrial enterprises as non-hazardous waste. For total waste generation 8% will be added to the municipal waste quantities in 2013 and 10% for 2025 assuming 2% growth/year.

It is expected that in the future, the MSW collection coverage will increase from 64% to 84% in 2025 (see Table B1-18).

Thus, the overall forecast of waste to be disposed without any separation at source is presented in Table B1-11.

Table B1-11: Municipal Solid Waste and waste from industries forecast 2013-2025

2013 2025 MSW (tons/year) 207,782 355,418 Enterprises’ waste (tons/year) 16,623 35,542 Total (tons/year) 224,405 390,959

B1.5 Forecast of waste composition

Besides waste generation, waste composition will also change as a result of the economic growth of the country. European statistics19 demonstrate that as income grows dry recyclables (mostly

19 Generation and recycling of packaging waste (CSI 017/WST 002 - Assessment published Nov 2012

RS Sector Reform Report packaging) grow 50% faster than the overall waste growth on a per capita basis, while organic fraction is decreasing.

Future waste composition will have an important role in determining the type of waste management required at the local and national level. The following assumptions are made in order to forecast the most probable waste composition. It is assumed that dry recyclables fraction will grow 50% faster than the overall waste generation per capita. Per capita waste generation will grow from 277 to 303 kg/cap/year, which is around 9.4% increase in 12 years. The increase in the recyclable fraction generated per capita, for the same period, will be approximately. 14%.

Table B1-12: Recyclable waste generation per capita 2013-2025

2013 2025 MSW (kg/cap/year) 272 298 Recyclables (kg/cap/year) 87 100 % of recyclables 32% 34%

Table B1-13 presents the forecasted changes in waste composition.

Table B1-13: Changes in waste composition, forecast 2013 - 2025

2013 2025 Average MSW generation (kg/cap/day) 0.76 0.83 Organics (%) 45% 43% Organics (kg/cap/day) 0.342 0.36 Recyclables (%) 32% 34% Recyclables (kg/cap/day) 0.2432 0.28 Other waste (%) 23% 23% Other waste (kg/cap/day) 0.17 0.19

Figure B1-7 summarizes the changes in composition forecast between 2013 and 2025.

Changes in waste composition 2013-2025

23% 23%

32% 34% Organics

Recyclables 45% 43% Other

2013 2025

Figure B1-7: Forecasted changes in waste composition 2015-2025

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-14 presents the expected urban waste and rural municipal waste analysed in the three different streams (organics, recyclables, other) in RS. A detailed list of waste composition per Region in RS is given in Annex B1.4.

Table B1-14: Urban and Rural municipal waste composition 2015-2025

URBAN WASTE (tons/year) 2013 2025 Organics 84,779 91,041 Recyclables 60,287 71,986 Other 43,332 48,697 Total 188,398 211,724 RURAL WASTE (tons/year) 2013 2025 Organics 61,317 61,788 Recyclables 43,603 48,856 Other 31,340 33,050 Total 136,260 143,694

B1.6 Future waste management options

The WM Strategy20 has set quantitative objectives with specific timetables for realization of strategic goals. Those goals are presented in Table B1-15.

Table B1-15: Quantitative goals for SWM

Goals % 2017 2021 2026 Population covered by organised collection of municipal waste 73 85 100 The amount of separately collected and recycled municipal waste 3 8 23 Percentage of treated municipal waste 0,4 2 8 Percentage of landfilled municipal waste 98 94 77 The amount of landfilled biodegradable municipal waste from the quantity 100 99,5 98 produced in the reference year

The targets and the timeframe mentioned in Table B1-15 are quite optimistic based on experience from EU member states and other countries in the region.

Considering the current baseline (64% collection coverage, almost no separation and recycling, poor basic service level, lack of regional landfills) such transformation of the waste management system in RS will require a coordinated effort at all administrative levels, significant development of human resources, increased public participation and quite important financial resources. Thus, the implementation of the targets set by the waste strategy are considered as a very Optimistic Scenario for the waste management sector in the period up to 2025, also taking into account the results up to now.

Based on experiences from similar countries and conditions, it is useful to develop two more scenarios - a Realistic and a Pessimistic one. A forecast will be worked out for the three scenarios

20 Waste Management Strategy for period 2017-2026

RS Sector Reform Report taking into account the WM Strategy21 and own calculations as laid out in sections 1.4 and 1.5. The scenarios proposed are as follows:

Table B1-16: Three scenarios for the future of the waste management sector

Scenario 2025 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Collection 100% in urban areas in 100% in urban areas in 100% in urban areas in Coverage 2025 2025 2025 80% in rural areas in 60% in rural areas in 50% in rural areas in 2025 2025 2025 RS average: 88% in RS average: 77% in RS average: 71% in terms of population terms of population terms of population 92% in terms of waste 84% in terms of waste 80% in terms of waste generated generated generated Source Separation 50% of the recyclables 30% of the recyclables 20% of the recyclables in and 40% of the organics and 20% of the organics 2025 in 2025 in 2025 No recycling for organics Organics 17% 9% 0% Diversion* Recyclables Diversion (percent of 17% 10% 7% overall waste by weight) Final Disposal The residuals after The residuals after The residuals after organic and recyclables organic and recyclables organic and recyclables diversion. diversion. diversion. Besides the municipal Besides the municipal Besides the municipal waste, an additional 10% waste, an additional 10% waste, an additional 10% landfill capacity is landfill capacity is landfill capacity is required for the non- required for the non- required for the non- hazardous industrial hazardous industrial hazardous industrial waste waste waste * For the organic fraction, it is assumed that there will be a market for good quality compost, and emphasis will be given to major organic fraction producers (schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, parks and green areas, etc.).

The following tables present the evolution of each scenario, in urban and rural waste, between 2013 and 2025 (wherein the 2013 collection coverage is based on the WM Strategy).

Table B1-17: Optimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year)

Optimistic Scenario 2013 2025

Total Waste 324.658 355.418 Collection coverage 64% 92% Total waste collected 207.781 326.984 Organics 93.502 140.603

21 Waste Management Strategy for period 2017-2026

RS Sector Reform Report

Optimistic Scenario 2013 2025

Organic Source Separation 0 56.241 Recyclables 66.490 111.175 Direct collection (10%) 10.389 12.084 Source Separation Negligible 49.545 Other 47.790 75.206 MSW to landfills 197.392 233.886 Industrial waste 16.623 32.698 Total landfill 214.015 266.585 Diversion rate Negligible 34%

Table B1-18: Realistic scenario waste flows (tons/year)

Realistic Scenario 2013 2025 Total Waste 324,658 355,418 Collection coverage 64% 84% Total waste collected 207.781 298.551 Organics 93.502 128.377 Organic Source Separation 0 25.675 Recyclables 66.490 101.507 Direct collection (10%) 10.389 12.084 Source Separation Negligible 26.827 Other 47.790 68.667 MSW to landfills 197.392 247.378 Industrial waste 16.623 29.855 Total landfill 214.015 277.233 Diversion rate Negligible 19%

Table B1-19: Pessimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year)

Pessimistic Scenario 2013 2025 Total Waste 324,658 355,418 Collection coverage 64% 80% Total waste collected 207.781 284,334 Organics 93.502 122.264 Organic Source Separation 0 0 Recyclables 66.490 96,674 Direct collection (10%) 10.389 12.084 Source Separation Negligible 16.918 Other 47.790 65.397 MSW to landfills 197.392 280.709 Industrial waste 16.623 28.433 Total landfill 214.015 309.142 Diversion rate Negligible 7%

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-20 presents the results of the three scenarios for years 2013 and 2025.

Table B1-20: Comparison of waste flows for the three scenarios for 2013 and 2025

2013 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Landfill capacity (tons/year) 214.015 214.015 214.015 Organic fraction recovered (tons/year) 0 0 0 Recyclables recovered (tons/year) Negligible Negligible Negligible 2025 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic Landfill capacity (tons/year) 266.585 277.233 309.142 Organic fraction recovered (tons/year) 56.241 25.675 0 Recyclables recovered (tons/year) 61.629 38.911 29.002

Comparing the three scenarios, the following comments can be made:

• All three scenarios are based on the assumption of important improvements in collection coverage that must grow between 80% and 90% (instead of the current 64%). The investments required for those improvements are significant and they need to be prioritized and implemented latest 2020 to reach the targets in 2025. • All three scenarios assume the implementation of the EPR principle for packaging waste to support separation at source. For the organic fraction, in the realistic and optimistic scenarios, it is assumed that there will be a market for good quality compost, and emphasis will be given to major organic fraction producers (parks/green areas, schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels etc.). This would be much more effective and efficient than capturing organics/kitchen waste from households. However, the feasibility of separation of organics has to be confirmed by a detailed market assessment. The pessimistic scenario does not include any organic source separation, since it is a rather difficult and time-consuming undertaking and there is no strong potential for private involvement as in the case of EPR. In any case, a stand-alone study is needed to assess the market demand for compost or compost-like material and to develop quality requirements. • All three scenarios involve substantial landfill capacities. Even the Optimistic Scenario requires a landfill annual capacity of 266,585tons while the pessimistic one requires an annual capacity of 309,142tons. It is clear that investments in new sanitary landfills development, expansion or upgrade of the current ones are the core components of the waste management infrastructure required.

Recommendations for future development will be based on realistic scenario.

B1.7 Shortcomings

Currently, national planning and guidance for the implementation of effective and efficient waste management systems are hampered by the lack of reliable data on waste generators, quantities, composition, recovery, recycling, disposal, stakeholders and so on. All landfills, except three regional landfills are operated as dumpsites. Important investments and capacity building are required to improve operational conditions. Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Zvornik, and Prijedor regional landfills as well as intermunicipal landfill Doboj have weighbridges in operation providing data for only 23 municipalities out of 63.

Valuable materials are lost and recycling industry could be further developed providing income and jobs to more people. There is no waste separation system in any municipality. Waste source

RS Sector Reform Report separation is a requirement stipulated by the law on waste that is incorporated in the WM Strategy to facilitate recycling. It is a Municipal task to organize a system for waste sorting and establish an appropriate infrastructure to enable this process.

A comprehensive national Waste Information System (WIS) is needed in order to provide required data for national and international reporting, improve access to waste data, support regulatory reform and associated reporting, support a consistent and comprehensive data capture process, provide accurate and reliable data to inform decisions, strategies and business, support consistent methods, classification and terminology for waste data, and to support state and regional regulations.

Regional landfills, municipalities, big waste generators from the business sector, EPR systems and treatment facilities should participate in the regular reporting system. A national inventory of respondents should be established. The responsible organization could be the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fond of RS in close cooperation with the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology of RS. A WIS should have its own website where all official waste reports and statistics will be available to the public. Additionally, waste sorting and analysis tests are very limited. More specifically, the RS waste statistics relies on previous work made by donors and on the results of the sorting tests financed by the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fond of RS and Banja Luka regional landfill.

RS Sector Reform Report

B2 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

B2.1 Legal framework and policies

B2.1.1 General

Republika Srpska (RS) is one of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko District. It was declared on 9 January 1992, and as an entity was verified by the Dayton Peace Agreement. It consists of 57 municipalities and 6 cities22.

Figure B2-1: Administrative Organization of RS According to the Dayton Peace Agreement

Environmental protection, including waste management in the RS is the responsibility of the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology (MSPCEE).

RS adopted a number of laws and bylaws relevant to environmental protection and waste management:

22 The Republic of Srpska Institute Statistical Yearbook of Republika Srpska 2016

RS Sector Reform Report

• The Law on Waste Management (“Official Gazette of Republic Srpska”, no. 111/13 and no. 106/15); • The Law on Environmental Protection (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 71/12 and no. 79/15); • The Law on Nature Protection (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 20/14); • The Law on Water (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 50/06, no. 92/09, no. 121/12 and no. 74/17); • The Law on Air Protection (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 124/11 and no. 46/17); • The Law on Communal Activities (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 124/11 and no. 100/17); • The Law on Communal Police (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 28/13); • The Law on the Fund and Financing the Environmental Protection (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 117/11, no. 63/14 and no. 90/16);

MSPCEE has drafted WM Strategy for the period from 2017 to 2026 in cooperation with other relevant ministries and departments in charge of environmental protection in local self-government units (cities and municipalities). The RS National Assembly adopted the WM Strategy on 19th Regular Session held on July 6, 2017.

B2.1.2 Law on Waste Management

The Law on Waste Management (“Official Gazette of Republic Srpska”, no. 111/13) and the amendments on the Law on Waste Management (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska” no. 106/15) regulate:

• type and classification of the waste, • planning of the waste management, • the waste management subjects, • responsibilities and obligations related to the waste management, • organizing the waste management, • managing specific waste flows, • licenses for waste management, • cross-border waste transportation, • reporting on waste and the data base, • financing the waste management, • supervision, as well as other issues important for waste management.

The aim of this Law is to provide the following:

• waste management in a such way that does not jeopardise human health and the environment, • prevention of waste generation, in particular by development of cleaner technologies and rational use of natural resources, as well as eliminating the risk of its harmful effects on human health and the environment, • reuse and recycling of waste, separation of secondary raw materials from waste and use of waste as an energy source, • development of procedures and methods for waste disposal, • rehabilitation of unregulated waste disposal dumps, • monitoring of status of existing and newly established dumping sites, and • increasing of waste management awareness

Sub-legal rules and regulations in relation to waste management in RS constitute following documents:

RS Sector Reform Report

• The Directive on the packaging and packaging waste (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 36/15); • The Directive on the fee for loading the environment with packaging waste (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 101/12, 38/13, 36/15 and 76/15); • The Decision on the coefficient for calculating the fee for loading the environment with the packaging waste and the aims for managing packaging and packaging waste for 2017 and 2018 (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no 23/17); • The Decision on the coefficient for calculating the fee for loading the environment with the packaging waste and the aims for managing packaging and packaging waste for 2015 and 2016 (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 6/16 and 67/16); • The Directive on landfill waste disposal ("Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 36/15); • The Rulebook on the content of programme of measures with the adjustment dynamic for the existing landfill operation (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 41/15); • The Rulebook on the form of the request for issuing licenses for storing, treating and depositing waste (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 18/15); • The Rulebook on the form of documents for waste transport and guidelines for its appropriate filling (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 21/15); • The Rulebook on conditions and mode of collecting, transporting, storing and treating the waste used as a secondary material or for generating the energy (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 61/15); • The Rulebook on content and form of the license for waste management (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 43/15); • The Rulebook on content, mode of conducting and type of register of licenses issued for waste management (”Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 43/15); • The Rulebook on the content of the adjustment plan for existing facilities and plants dealing with the waste management and activities undertaken by the authorized institution (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska”, no. 39/05); • The Rulebook on waste lists and documents for cross-border waste transportation ("Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska", no. 86/15); • The Rulebook on methodology for collecting the data on waste and recording the data ("Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska", no. 71/15); • The Rulebook on financial guarantees that can ensure the cross-border waste transportation ("Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska", no. 86/05); • The Rulebook on conditions for transferring the obligations of waste management producer and seller to the persons authorized within the system for waste collection ("Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska", no. 118/05); • The Rulebook on category, testing and classification of the waste ("Official gazette of the Republic Srpska", no. 19/15).

According to the Law on Waste Management (Article 6), municipal solid waste (MSW) is household waste as well as other types of waste, which, because of its nature or composition is similar to household waste. The EU Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste gives the following definition of MSW (Article 2): "municipal waste" means waste from households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from household.

The Rulebook on category, testing and classification of the waste ("Official gazette of the Republic Srpska", no. 19/15) specifies the fractions that make up municipal waste under group 20 00 00 and these correspond entirely to those specified in the Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of wastes pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

RS Sector Reform Report

B2.1.3 Transposition of EU legislation

The transposition status of EU legislation regulating municipal solid waste management is briefly presented in Table B1-21.

Table B1-21: Status of the transposition of the EU Waste Directives in RS

EU Directives Transposition status in RS

In the RS, currently enforced Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska, number 111/13 and 106/15) regulates waste management planning on the Directive 2008/98/EC of the fundamental principles laid down by the EU legislation. In European Parliament and of the order to establish a functional waste management system, a Council of 19 November 2008 on series of by-laws that need to be harmonized with EU waste and repealing certain legislation should be adopted, as well as developing and Directives. Official Journal 312, strengthening institutional capacities. Establishing measures 22/11/2008 P. 3–30 to encourage the re-use and recycling of waste (Art. 11) have not been determined yet. Introduction of separate waste collection for at least paper, metal, plastic, glass (Art. 11) has been fully transposed. During 2015, the Regulation on Waste Disposal (Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska, number 36/15) which has been partially harmonised with the Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the disposal of waste, stipulates the conditions and criteria for determining the location, technical and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 technological conditions for the design, construction and April 1999 on the landfill of waste, operation of landfills, the types of waste that cannot be as amended by Regulations No. disposed of in a landfill, criteria and procedures for the EC/1882/2003 and EC/1137/2008 acceptance or rejection or landfilling, manner and procedure for the operation and closure of landfills, content and mode of operation of the landfill and subsequently maintenance after closure of landfills. The targets for decreasing of the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill (Art. 5) has not been transposed yet. Packaging waste management in the RS is regulated by the Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste (“Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska“, no. 36/15), which is Directive 2004/12/EC of the partially harmonized with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Parliament and Council of 11 February 2004 that Council of 11 February 2004 amends Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging amending Directive 94/62/EC on waste (OJ L 047 18/02/2004). packaging and packaging waste - Harmonisation is necessary in terms of the requirements Statement by the Council, the listed in the Directive. Also enacted is the Regulation on Commission and the European charges for loading packaging waste to environment Parliament Official Journal L L 47, (“Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska“, no. 101/12) and 18.2.2004, p. 26–32 the Regulation on amendments to the Regulation on charges for loading packaging waste to environment (“Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska“, no. 76/15).

RS Sector Reform Report

Directive 2006/66/EC of the Not transposed. On the basis of the Law on Waste European Parliament and of the Management and in accordance with the requirements of Council of 6 September 2006 on Directive 2006/66/EC a by-law governing the management of batteries and accumulators and waste waste batteries should be adopted. batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, as amended by Directive No. 2008/12/EC and Directive No. 2008/103/EC; Commission Decisions 2008/763/EC, 2009/603/EC, 2009/851/EC Directive 2002/96/EC of the Not transposed. On the basis of the Law on Waste European Parliament and of the Management and in accordance with the requirements of Council of 27 January 2003 on waste Directive 2002/96/EC a by-law governing the management electrical and electronic equipment of this type of waste should be adopted. (WEEE) - Official Journal L 37, 13.2.2003,p. 24–39

B2.1.4 The RS Waste Management Strategy

The WM Strategy is a fundamental document that assesses the state of waste management, determines long-term goals for waste management and provides conditions for rational and sustainable waste management in the RS.

The WM Strategy:

• Establishes a framework for sustainable waste management in the coming period which implies reducing the amount of waste produced, and sustainable management of produced waste • Directs activities towards the process of passing laws and regulations to EU • Determines responsibility for waste • Sets short-term and long-term waste management goals and measures and guidelines for achieving the set goals • Determines financing measures for establishing a waste management system.

The establishment of a waste management system, which includes the appropriate collection, transport and treatment/disposal of different types of waste is to be directed and planned for the conservation of natural resources and in line with the fundamental principles contained in EU legislation:

• The principle of selecting the most suitable option for the environment, • The principle of proximity and a common approach to waste management, • The principle of waste management hierarchy, • The principle of accountability, • The principle of regionalization, and • The principle of “polluter pays”.

The objective of the WM Strategy is:

• Adoption of by-laws that would regulate in detail the management of all categories of waste in RS, • Compliance of legislation of the RS with EU legislation, taking into account the strategic commitment of RS, • The establishment of an information system for collecting data on waste quantities,

RS Sector Reform Report

• Development of a sustainable waste management system based on the principles of environmental protection with the implementation of education at all levels of society and the economy, • Increasing the household coverage through waste collection services, • Increasing separate collection of waste and recycling, • Remediation of the existing official and illegal dumps, • Remediation of “black spots”, • Construction of adequate facilities for the treatment/disposal of waste.

This Strategy as a planning document defines the goals and proposes measures to achieve the goals with regard to the waste management system by 2026. This document assumes constant supervision and monitoring of achieving the set objectives and, if necessary, may be revised and modified.

Complete coverage the population by organised municipal waste collection service is expected by the year 2026, the growth of separately collected municipal waste for recycling, as well as treated municipal waste should increase significantly by 2026. Since the construction of mechanical- biological treatment facilities is not expected until the end of the validity period of the Strategy, a significant reduction in landfilling of untreated municipal and biodegradable waste, as well as an increase in the amount of treated municipal waste, is expected during the subsequent planned period (Table B1-22).

Table B1-22: Targets for waste amounts in %

Goals 2017 2021 2026

Population covered by organised collection of 73 85 100 municipal waste The amount of separately collected and recycled 3 8 23 municipal waste The amount of treated waste 0.4 2 8 The amount of landfilled municipal waste 98 94 77 The amount of landfilled biodegradable municipal waste from the quantity produced in 100 99,5 98 the reference year

By the end of 2026, strategy plans include a reduction in the number of municipal and illegal landfills and remediation and closure of municipal landfills (Table B1-23).

Table B1-23: Targets for landfilling

Targets 2017 2021 2026

Joint landfills (regional or for multiple regions) 2 4 7 Active municipal landfills 51 26 17 Share of remediated municipal and illegal 3 55 78 landfills in relation to the number in 2013, %

The strategy defined targets for energy and material exploitation of waste and specifically recycling for some waste streams (Table B1-24).

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B1-24: Targets for energy and material recovery and recycling

Waste Year Target (% of weight) Separation Recycling 2017 35 8 Packaging waste 2021 40 – 45 15 – 20 2026 50 – 60 25 – 45

B2.1.5 Legislation at municipal level

At municipal level, management of MSW is regulated through Decisions on communal order which define the rights and obligations of inhabitants, municipal utilities and other actors involved in maintenance of communal hygiene, public order, maintaining of public green areas and public traffic lanes, public lighting, other municipal facilities and collection and disposal of MSW. Households and legal entities pay to the utilities for waste management services.

B2.2 Institutional framework

B2.2.1 RS Level

Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology (MSPCEE)

The Government of RS through the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology (MSPCEE) is responsible for waste management.

The MSPCEE has in the following organizational units:

• Office of the Minister • Department for Urban and Physical Planning • Department for Construction • Department for Environmental Protection • Department for Projects Coordination, Development and European Integration • Secretariat

Two employees are dealing with waste management in MSPCEE, two with environmental permits, and two with legislation and policy development.

MSPCEE is responsible for, inter alia:

• Policy development • Waste management; • Ecological protection of air, water, and soil; • Development of environmental protection strategies and policies; • Air, water, and soil quality standards; • Ecological monitoring and control of air, water, and soil.

MSPCEE has the authority to:

• Prepare the Strategy in cooperation with the competent authorities, • Propose to the Government individual waste management plans, • Monitor the situation, coordinate and perform waste management activities of importance for the RS,

RS Sector Reform Report

• Give permission to local governments for preparation of joint waste management plans, • Issue permits, approvals and other documents stipulated by this law and • Establishes an authorised organization in accordance with this law.

MSPCEE has prepared the WM Strategy in cooperation with other relevant ministries and departments in charge of environmental protection in local self-administration units. The Strategy has been adopted by the National Assembly upon the proposal of the Government of the Republika Srpska, for a period of ten years.

The Fund for Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency of the RS

The Fund for Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency of the RS performs tasks related to:

• The collection of fees for management of special waste streams, • The provision of services for the collection and treatment of waste and coordination of stakeholders of waste management systems, unless otherwise regulated by a special regulation, • Collection of information, • Managing and updating the database on waste management, • Keeping track and updating date on quantities of waste, including secondary raw materials, sharing and making available such data by electronic means, • Reporting on waste management to MSPCEE and the Assembly of RS, • Financing for the preparation, implementation and development of programs, projects and similar activities in the field of conservation, sustainable use, protection and improvement of the environment, and energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources in accordance with special regulations, • Managing and controlling of EPR scheme, and • Other tasks determined by special regulations.

Administrative supervision, supervision over the legality of work and by-laws of the Fund is performed by the MSPCEE.

The Republic of Srpska Institute of Statistics

The Republic of Srpska Institute of Statistics is the administrative organisation given the main task to produce official statistics for all categories of users, the government and other authorities, systems, scientific institutions, the media, the general public and individuals. The Institute is in charge for preparation, collection, storing, processing, compilation, analysis and distribution of statistical data relevant to waste. The Institute collect information regarding the waste through the questionnaires. The Institute forwards all necessary information to the Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Republic Administration for Inspection Affairs - the Republic of Srpska Inspectorate

The Republic of Srpska Inspectorate consists of 13 inspectorates, of which the Urban Planning, Construction and Environment Inspection Service monitors the implementation of regulations in the areas of urbanism, civil engineering and environmental protection.

The Republic of Srpska Inspectorate is an independent republic authority which deals with administrative works of general importance for the Republic of Srpska. The role of the Inspectorate is to, by conducting inspection, administrative, expert and other activities, encourage social discipline in following laws and other regulations. The surveillance of the work of the Inspectorate is conducted by Republic of Srpska Government, and the Inspectorate submits reports to the Government annually.

RS Sector Reform Report

The Republic of Srpska Inspectorate is organized following the functional principle with inspection sectors as its basic units, and for the sake of efficient and direct performance of inspection surveillance on the Republic of Srpska territory, alongside the administration in Banja Luka, six more Regional Departments were formed located in Banja Luka, Prijedor, Doboj, Bijeljina, East Sarajevo and Trebinje.

The Republic Urban Planning, Construction and Environmental Inspection Service conducts inspection surveillance concerning compliance with the regulations referring to spatial planning and maintenance, building and construction, construction materials, environmental protection, ecology, waste management and other administrative areas is so regulated.

In connection with waste management, the Republic Urban Planning, Construction and Environment Inspection Service controls:

• subjects which are polluters and which have to possess the environmental licence, • compliance with conditions for the work of companies dealing with environmental protection • managing of legal landfills and • other requirements prescribed by the law

Organizations for waste testing

Specialised organizations for the classification of waste for trans-boundary movement, treatment and disposal, etc.

B2.2.2 Local level

Local self-administration units

Local self-administration units (in charge of the provision of waste management services) are obliged to:

• adopt the local waste management plan and joint waste management plan, ensure the conditions and take care of their implementation, • regulate, provide, organise and conduct municipal waste management on their territory, in accordance with special regulations, • regulate the process of collection services in the field of municipal waste management in accordance with special regulations, • approve tariffs proposed by the utility companies, • provide funding for duties within their competence, and • develop and manage tenders and contracts for the utility services.

The local self-government unit by its act determines bodies and services responsible for conducting these operations. Assembly of two or more local self-government units with at least 200,000 inhabitants, upon obtained agreement from the Ministry, adopt a waste management plan in accordance with the Strategy. The process of adoption of waste management plan shall be regulated by agreement signed by local self-government units. The agreement regulates: mutual rights and obligations in providing conditions for the activities and operation of waste management facilities in the areas of the local self-government units; rights and obligations of the public utility, or any other natural or legal person for the performance of these activities; decision-making in the event of disagreement between local self-government units on specific issues relating to waste management activities, as well as other issues of importance for the organisation and implementation of waste management. The agreement is concluded by the principal or mayor of the local self-government unit with the prior consent of the assembly of the local self-government unit. In the event that two or more

RS Sector Reform Report local self-government units conclude an agreement on joint waste disposal or collection, they are obliged to transport collected waste in their area to a common landfill.

Municipal enterprises

Municipal enterprises, public or private, provide waste management services (collection of municipal waste from households and other sources that produce waste, treatment of municipal waste and management of sites for separate waste collection).

Other stakeholders in municipal waste management are manufacturers or importers of products that become waste after use, the owners of the waste, i.e. waste producers, waste transporters and operators of facilities for waste collection, waste treatment and landfill operators.

Private Sector

Private sector involvement in waste management is rather limited and is related to recycling and recovery of waste and waste collection from private companies. Only two collection companies with majority private ownership collect municipal waste in cities Banja Luka and Doboj. In other municipalities, majority owners of collection companies are municipalities. According to the Law on Waste Management private companies can obtain licenses to become operators and perform waste management services including collection services, gathering, storage, treatment or disposal of wastes. Municipalities sign contract with collection companies after conducted public procurement procedure. The duration of the contract is three to four years.

B2.3 Shortcomings

Despite the significant progress in harmonizing of legislation with EU legislature, the transposition of the acquis communautaire has not been completed in full: regulations concerning some specific waste streams (such as EE waste, old vehicles, waste tyres, waste oil, animal waste, etc.) have not been transposed and significant number of secondary legislation is missing which also affects full implementation of the EPR system.

The centralized collection of information and database management is still not fully implemented. According to the Rulebook on methodology for collecting and recording data on waste, public utility companies, regional landfills and industries, municipalities are obliged to send data on waste to the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund of RS using predefined forms. This information is not published but available on request.

Parallel, the RS Institute for Statistics is also collecting waste related data from public utility companies, regional landfills and industries for statistical purposes and reporting to the Agency for Statistics of BiH-.

In reality, the reporting system is weak as regular coordination between the various organizations is missing and data collection is poorly done. Data on quantities are not reliable as weighing scales are missing at most landfills and quantities are estimated. Entities obliged to report are missing the knowledge to fill in the form. Training is needed. No regular waste sampling and analysis is carried out.

The RS Waste Management Strategy was adopted and put into force in July 2017. The following step is to develop a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for RS comprising the investment plans.

There is a need for strengthening the municipalities for the implementation of the municipal WM plans that they are obliged to develop according to the Law on Waste.

RS Sector Reform Report

The municipalities’ in-house expertise in solid waste management is very limited. In most municipalities no dedicated SWM staff exists and this seriously hampers the implementation of MSWM tasks.

The tariff collection is the responsibility of the municipal waste collection companies except in Gradiska where the households are paying to the municipality connected to other services. Guidelines and instructions for full cost accounting and transparency in waste management activities are required, including standards for the calculation of tariffs. This will require training in reporting, cost estimations, scenario development and forecast, waste economics, monitoring, tendering, etc. Programs on Public Awareness raising and participation are hardly carried out. Budget allocation and staffing are needed in each municipality.

RS Sector Reform Report

B3 EXISTING OPERATIONS

B3.1 General

To understand the current problems in SWM it is important to realize that RS is a thinly populated area (approximately 1.17 million inhabitants over 25,000km²) divided into 63 municipalities or an average size per municipality of approximately 19,000 inhabitants ranging from 66 inhabitants (Istocni Drvar) up to 180,000 inhabitants (Banja Luka). Consequently, the generated waste quantity per average municipality is approximately 5,500 t/y of which approximately 64% (WM Strategy) is currently collected or 3,500 t/y. These small quantities make the SWM system costly as practically each municipality has its own organization for collection and disposal. This drawback has already been identified in the EU Phare SWM Strategy Study dated August 2000 mentioning (i) MSW arising within a single municipality is insufficient to set up an integrated SWM system at affordable costs and (ii) financial resources within a single municipality are insufficient to finance the required investments.

B3.2 Waste collection

The waste collection services are provided by approximately 61 companies including a limited number of private companies in association with the municipality (Banja Luka, Doboj). Some small private companies are collecting mainly dry recyclables directly from the commercial/institutional sector. A list of the waste collection companies is given in Annex B3.1. The legal status of most of the waste collection companies is a closed joint stock company (A.D.) in which the municipality is normally the largest shareholder or in some cases a private company (Banja Luka, Doboj).

The waste collection system for households can be a mix of (i) bags delivery; (ii) the use of containers of 120/240 litres mainly for door-to door collection and (iii) the use of communal containers of 1,100 litres i.e. bring system being the overarching system. In addition, 5-7 m³ skips are used mainly for the commercial/institutional/industrial sector. Collection equipment consists of compactor trucks (5- 24m³), skip loaders, dump trucks, tractor- trailer combination, and flatbed trucks. The main part of the collection trucks i.e. approximately 60% is older than 10 years. This is resulting in high maintenance and repair costs and high percentage of non-availability.

To assess the current situation and the associated problems, questionnaires have been mailed to waste collection companies and responses were received from 10 companies covering approximately 34% of the total population. A summary is given in Annex B3.2. On basis of the answers the following can be concluded:

• The number of inhabitants served would be approximately 68.5% (outside Banja Luka) and 84% in Banja Luka (2013 population census). • Doubts exist about the reliability of waste quantities collected, as municipal landfills have no weighing scales. Weighing scales are only available at regional landfills. Loads are estimated on basis of truck volumes and assumed densities. The companies report a total collected waste quantity in 2015 of 102,366 tons. This would result in an average waste generation rate of approximately 0.94 kg/cap/day. • Waste separation is hardly carried out by the municipalities. The total quantity as mentioned in the questionnaires would be 1,179 tons/year in 2015 or approximately 1.6% of the total collected waste quantity i.e. 2% in Banja Luka and 1.2% outside Banja Luka. Dry recyclables (paper, plastics) are also collected by small private companies directly from the CII sector and by the informal sector taking it out of the containers. Waste quantities taken to the sorting lines are rather small. In Doboj municipality, a sorting line (5 t/h) has resulted in financial losses and operations have been halted. A small sorting line (1.5 t/h) will be installed in Banja Luka in 2018.

RS Sector Reform Report

• Staffing per 1,000 tons waste collected vary between 2 and 6 persons. Efficient operations would require 2 persons/1,000 tons. Especially the small companies are inefficient but it is not always clear if staff is used only for waste collection or also for street cleaning and other service as the waste collection companies are also carrying out other services such as street and snow cleaning and park and green areas maintenance under a separate arrangement with the municipality. • The waste collection companies are responsible for concluding contracts with the waste generators (households and CII entities) and for the collection of the tariffs. Thereto they employ tariff collectors especially for non-payers and extra administrative staff resulting in extra costs and risks. • The equipment used by the waste collection companies varies from one truck up to approximately 17 vehicles (Banja Luka). Approximately 60% are older than 10 years. In general compactor trucks with back-loading system are being used. Many of them are second hand and have been purchased abroad. • There is a mix of various containers for MSW collection as indicated in Table B3-1. In theory, the capacity of the containers (if all are functional) would be sufficient for daily collection. • Companies are not carrying out any communication/public awareness raising activity (no budget, no specialised staff). Staff training is not being carried out.

Table B3-1: Container capacities

Type 120 ltr 240 ltr 1,100 ltr Number 2,740 1,710 1,386 Capacity 329m³*0.9=296m³ 410m³*0.9=369m³ 1525m³*0.9=1,372m³ Total 2,037m³ *0.2t/m³=407 tons Emptying: Daily: 102,366/260=394 tons/day

Main problems as reported by the waste collection companies can be summarized as follows:

• Tariffs are considered to be low; contracting and tariff payment system is problematic. Enforcement is weak. • Most of the equipment (trucks and containers) is depreciated. New equipment is required also in view of improving the waste collection coverage. The WM Strategy aims at 100% collection coverage in 2026. • Public awareness is low. No budget allocation. • Financing is lacking • Regular training and staff capacity building is needed.

The WM Strategy favours the collection of mixed waste by individual municipalities without separation at source and disposing the waste at regional landfills using separation lines to extract recyclables.

B3.3 Waste disposal

Historically, the concept of waste disposal in BiH involved disposal at landfills where each municipality used to have its own non-sanitary municipal landfill (ML). In 2000 the EU PHARE financed a strategy study for the implementation of a regional concept for sanitary waste disposal. The recommendations for the entities of FBiH and RS was to construct 10 and 6 Waste Allocation Districts (WAD’s), respectively. The 6 WAD’s in RS included Prijedor, Banja Luka, Doboj, Bijeljina, Zvornik, Foca and Gacko. These originally sixteen recommended WAD’s, shown in Figure B3-1, did not include any waste transportation between the two entities.

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B3-1: Originally Planned Regional Landfills in BiH

On basis of this regional division, RS prepared the WM Strategy. A summary of the current status on waste disposal is given in Figures B3-1 and B3-2 (while more detailed information per municipality is presented in Annex B3.3.)

As shown in Table B3-25, there are 4 regional landfills operational in RS i.e. Bijeljina, Banja Luka, Prijedor and Zvornik servicing in total 23 municipalities including 9 municipalities from FBiH. These regional landfills serve a total of 716,715 inhabitants in RS (64% of total population). There is non- sanitary RL in Doboj serving 6 municipalities including 4 municipalities from FBiH. This would leave in total 43-21=22 non-sanitary single municipal landfills in operation.

Table B3-25: Current status of originally planned RL development in RS Location Municipalities Status (Planned) Banja Luka 8 Operational as Sanitary regional landfill. Used by city of Banja Luka and 7 municipalities (360,000 inhabitants). Gate fee: BAM 28/t excl. VAT. Prijedor 6 Operational non-sanitary regional landfill. Used by Prijedor, Kozarska Dubica, Ostra Luka (105,000 Inhabitants). Needed: new sanitary storage cell, leachate treatment, gas treatment. Preparation phase (EIA, Detailed design etc.) are completed for upgrading this regional landfill to a sanitary regional landfill

RS Sector Reform Report

Location Municipalities Status (Planned) (pending availability of fund) Current Gate fee: BAM 20/t excl. VAT. Mrkonjic Grad 7 No RL is constructed. These 7 municipalities in this region are currently using their non-sanitary municipal landfills. In the WM Strategy, it is proposed to combine this region with Banja Luka Regional Landfill, however, there is a long-haul distance between some of the 7 municipalities and Banja Luka RL. For example, Sipovo is about 90 km away from Banja Luka RL location. No Transfer Stations (TS) are foreseen in the WM Strategy for Mrkonjic Grad. Doboj 11 Non –sanitary regional landfill is operational. Design for RL is ready including land acquisition. Inter- municipal agreement signed in 2005 with 13 municipalities (9 from RS and 4 from FBiH) now 15 municipalities (9 RS and 6 FBiH). Even though the designs for construction of a sanitary RL at the selected location are prepared, a full technical review of the proposed designs and ESIA study are required for the selected site. Current Gate fee BAM 25/t excl. VAT Bijeljina 3 Operational as Sanitary RL. Inter-municipal agreement signed with 5 municipalities. (Bijeljia, Lopare and Ugljevik in RS and Celic and Teopac in FBiH) but Celic is not using the RL. This landfill will soon require new cell expansion. Gate fee: BAM 40/t incl. VAT. Zvornik 8 Operational as RL. Used by 8 RS municipalities (120,000 inhabitants) plus three from FBiH (Sapna, Kalesija and partly Zivinice). This landfill became operational in 2017. Leachate treatment plant is still to be procured and installed at this site. Gate fee: BAM 39/t excl. VAT. Foca 13 No RL was constructed in this region. The municipalities are currently using their own non-sanitary landfills (dumps). In 2012 a site selection study was completed indicating the site “Rudine” in Rogatica as the best option for a RL. However, in the Spatial plan for RS no RL is foreseen. Gacko 7 No RL was constructed in this region. The municipalities are currently using their own non-sanitary landfills (dumps). In 2012 a site selection study was completed indicating the site “Metiljave doline” in Gacko as the best option for a RL. Total 63 RL=Regional landfill.

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B3-2: Current status of waste disposal in municipalities in RS

In addition to the sanitary regional landfills and the non-sanitary municipal landfills there are approximately 210 dumpsites used for illegal disposal of waste. Most of the municipal landfills don’t have scales and weigh bridges and quantities are estimated on basis of truck volume and assumed density. Moreover, most of the municipal landfills are lacking proper equipment for placement and compaction of waste, and none of these facilities are equipped with leachate treatment and landfill gas management systems. The regional landfills receive both municipal solid waste and non-hazardous industrial waste (5% in Banja Luka). Region al landfills of Banja Luka and Bijeljina are both equipped with leachate treatment plant (LTP) and LFG (landfill gas) collection and flare systems.

Although municipalities have signed a cooperation agreement for using the regional landfills it appears that in reality not all municipalities are disposing their waste at the regional landfill as transport costs are too high and thus these municipalities continue using their municipal landfills. Municipal authorities believe that the implementation of waste transfer facilities might reduce the long haul transport costs.

The municipality on whose territory the municipal landfill is constructed owns the landfill and a municipal company operates the landfill.

The current problems in the field of waste disposal can be summarized as follows:

RS Sector Reform Report

• Lack of equipment (compactors, bulldozers, dump trucks, gas extraction facilities, leachate treatment, weighbridges) on municipal landfills • Not all municipalities adhere to signed agreement for disposing at regional landfills and apparently, there is no enforcement. • Low gate fees at regional landfills to support investments and their long-term sustainability • Low landfill operation skills (waste acceptance procedures, compaction, storage space utilisation, health and safety, environmental control, etc.)

B3.4 Waste separation and recycling

Separation at source is in its infancy. The WM Strategy estimates that only 0.8% is separated from the municipal waste stream. This volume is estimated in the WM Strategy at 1,648 tons. In addition, there is packaging waste not entering the municipal waste stream as small companies directly collect it from the CII sector. WM Strategy estimates this quantity at 21,659 tons of which about 7,000 tons was collected through the EPR system. In the RS only one sorting line for pre-separated dry recyclables is located in Doboj, while a simple, low capacity line (1.5t/h) is planned to be installed soon at the landfill in Banja Luka. The sorting line in Doboj has (temporarily) stopped its operations due to the high financial costs.

Generally, it is believed that separation of dry recyclables (paper/cardboard, plastics, cans/metals, glass) can generate positive income due to selling of recyclables, savings on landfilling and possible savings on transport costs to any regional landfill. Currently the results of the installed sorting lines in BiH are far below expectations and financially unsustainable. The reasons are (i) the low waste quantities/year; (ii) low awareness with the waste generators for proper separation at source; (iii) role of informal sector taking valuable dry recyclables out of containers or buying directly from the commercial/institutional /industrial sector (CII). Separation at source by households is less than 1% mainly due to lack of infrastructure and public awareness campaigns. It is noted that in the Strategy Study 2017-2026 a scenario is recommended without separation at source except for Banja Luka. However, the Strategy mentions also that separate collection and recycling of packaging waste should reach 50%, which would be equivalent to 23% of the total mixed waste flow in 2026. It is not known how to reach this without separation at source as separation of mixed waste can achieve maximum 10% based on international experience with Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF’s.).

There is no separation of organic waste, as there seems to be no demand for compost. However, market studies on any demand and quality requirements have not been carried out.

Current problems in the field of waste separation and recycling can be summarized as follows:

• Individual municipalities are too small to generate sufficient volumes to operate separation/sorting facilities. • No clear policy. The WM Strategy recommends no separation at source except in Banja Luka region but the Strategy is also indicating targets for waste separation • Lack of public awareness mainly due to lack of public outreach programs to promote waste separation. Municipalities are not allocating budgets and are not employing communication specialists.

B3.5 Waste transfer

The introduction of regional landfills will require long haul transport of MSW. To reduce the transport costs the WM Strategy is proposing the construction of 15 transfer stations. The number is primarily based on transport distance larger than 30km to the proposed Regional Landfill. The transport distances from each municipality to a transfer station and regional landfill is indicated in Annex 3.4 while the location of each transfer station is indicated in Table B3-3. No transfer stations are proposed in Mrkonjic Grad and Bijeljina. Preliminary analysis of the proposed TS’s taking into

RS Sector Reform Report account the indicated investments cost in the WM Strategy (EUR 542,000) indicates that none are offering cost reduction as compared to direct transport using 7.5 tone or 10 tons trucks.

Table B3-3: Location of transfer stations (WM Strategy for period 2017-2026)

Region Location Served municipalities Quantity (t/y)¹ Banja Luka Gradiska Gradiska, Srbac 11,380 Prnjavor Prnjavor 5,800 Doboj Derventa Derventa, Brod 8,243 Modrica Modrica, Vukosalvje, 9,225 Donji Zabar, Pelagicevo, Samac Prijedor Kozarska Dubica Kozarska, Kostajnika 5,435 Novi Grad Novi Grad, Krupa na Uni 4,969 Zvornik Bratunac Bratunac 3,583 Vlasenica Vlasenica, Milici, Han Han Pijesak 4,747 Foca Pale Ilidze, Istocno Stari Grad, Istocno 10,627 Novo Sarajevo, Pale, Trnovo Visegrad Visegrad, Rudo 3.366 Cajnice Cajnice 926 Foca Foca, Kalinovik 4,260 Gacko Bileca Bileca 2,446 Nevesinje Berkovici, Istocni Mostar, Nevesinje 2,722 Trebinje Trebinje, Ljubinje 7,687 ¹ Collected: 0.7x quantity generated in 2013

B3.6 Shortcomings

Current problems in the field of waste collection can be summarized as follows:

• Tariffs are considered to be low; contracting and tariff payment system is problematic. Enforcement is weak. • Most of the equipment (trucks and containers) is depreciated. New equipment is required also in view of improving the waste collection coverage. The WM Strategy aims at 100% collection coverage in 2026. • No-municipal waste streams such as animal waste are found in the municipal waste which make processing and disposal difficult. • Public awareness is low. No budget allocation. • Financing is lacking. • Regular training and staff capacity building is needed.

Current problems in the field of waste disposal can be summarized as follows:

• Many non-compliant municipal landfills and the numerous illegal dumpsites create environmental contamination and health risk for the population (water, air, soil) • Lack of reliable data on waste quantities disposed • Lack of equipment (compactors, bulldozers, dump trucks, gas extraction facilities, leachate treatment, weighbridges) on municipal landfills • Not all municipalities adhere to signed agreement for disposing at regional landfills and apparently, there is no enforcement. • Low gate fees at regional landfills to support investments and their long-term sustainability

RS Sector Reform Report

• Low landfill operation skills (waste acceptance procedures, compaction, storage space utilisation, health and safety, environmental control, etc.)

Current problems in the field of waste separation and recycling can be summarized as follows:

RS Sector Reform Report

B4 FINANCIAL ASPECTS

In the financial evaluation three aspects are considered i.e. (i) tariffs paid by the waste generator, (ii) actual costs of operations as indicated in questionnaires completed by municipal companies and (iii) calculated costs of operations based on international standards. The calculated costs of operations will be compared with the actual costs in order to assess possible in-efficiencies and with the current tariff to identify any need for increase of the tariffs.

B4.1 Tariffs

The principle revenues for collection, transport and disposal of waste from households are the tariffs. Various calculation methodologies are used to establish the tariffs and consequently the tariff varies between the municipalities. Tariffs might be based on m² usable surface, fixed amount per person per household, fixed amount per household, number of waste removals, etc. An overview of tariffs in various municipalities is given in Table B4-1. The weighted average tariff/year for the served inhabitants is BAM 128/hh/year (based on 75m² usable area) or BAM 142/ton (incl. VAT) based on 3.09 persons /household and 0.8kg/cap/day waste generation. The average spendable income of the households in 2013 was approximately BAM 1,672/month (See chapter 1). It can be concluded that the average tariff for waste management was 0.64% of the spendable income, while international norms indicate 1-1.5%. The average tariff collection rate is 82% and it is doubtful if this percentage could be improved as approximately 18% of the population lives below national poverty line ($ 460/month or BAM 850/month).23

Table B4-1: Household tariff for collection and disposal (BAM including VAT)

Municipality Tariff rate Amount/hh/y¹ Payment %

Bijeljina 0.118/m²/m 106 65 Banja Luka 0.138/m²/m 124 92 Prijedor 0.145/m²/m 130 97 Mrkonjic Grad 0.129/m²/m 116 Celinac 0.2/m²/m 180 79 Vlasenica 0.14/m²/m 126 70 Pale 0.22/m²/m 198 70 Gradiska 0.16/m²/m 144 87 Gacko 0.17/m²/m 153 98 ¹ based on average 75m² usable living area. hh=household; m=month. Source: questionnaires completed by municipal companies

Proposals for new tariffs each year are prepared by the waste collector on basis of the costs of last year and any cost developments. The calculations are checked by the Municipal Department for Communal Affairs and subsequently submitted to the City Council for approval. However, in many cases the tariffs have not been increased since many years and the political will to increase the tariffs is rather low.

Tariffs for household type waste from the commercial and institutional sector are substantially higher than for households. In general, these tariffs are also based on m² and the amount depends on the type of activity. The tariff including VAT for the CII sector in Prijedor is 2.75 times higher than that for households. Other municipalities have tariffs within this range and higher (BAM 0.35-1.17/m²). The commercial/institutional sector can also be charged per waste delivery. In addition, separate tariffs are

23 www.data.worldbank.org

RS Sector Reform Report applicable for large containers mainly for the industrial sector. The tariff for a 5m³ container varies between BAM 75-180 incl. VAT. In addition, custom-made contracts are concluded with the industries depending on the type of waste, quantity, transport distance, etc.

In the tariff calculation, all operational and amortization costs should be included covering collection, transport and disposal. However, there is no legislation or guideline on the methodology to calculate the tariff. Currently all services are subject to 17% VAT both for the households and for the CII sector. The collection company has to transfer the VAT to the State Tax Department on basis of invoices issued. This affects the financial status of the company, as approximately 18% of their Clients is not paying.

The waste collection company is responsible for concluding service contracts with each waste generator both households and CII sector. This imposes a heavy administrative burden as companies have to employ additional staff for preparation of the contracts, monitoring the payment and preparing any court cases for non-payers. In addition, the company runs financial risks due to non-payments aggravating the debt position.

B4.2 Costs

B4.2.1 Collection and transport

In addition to waste collection and transport services the waste collection company can also be engaged by the municipality against payment for street cleaning, snow cleaning, green areas/parks maintenance, maintenance of infrastructure, water supply, etc. These services are organizationally and financially not always clearly divided from waste collection and disposal services. This hampers in many cases clear cost control for waste management services. In practise, the income from other services could compensate the losses in the field of SWM. The annual costs for SWM services based on completed questionnaires in several municipalities are indicated in Table B4-26. These costs should cover collection and landfilling. It shows the wide variety of cost/ton and thus these figures have to be taken with some caution as both waste quantities (due to lack of weighing scales) and annual costs (no clear cost allocation) are not reliable. The figure shows that the cost/ton in small municipalities is substantially higher than in large municipalities. The weighted average cost would be BAM 130/ton (excl. VAT).

Table B4-26: Annual costs (BAM) for SWM services

Municipality Population served Annual costs Average cost/ton TOTAL CAPEX¹ OPEX Banja Luka 156,000 5,580,493 98 12 86 Celinac 12,430 353,993 168 8 160 Prijedor 51,330 1,678,121 78 1 77 Vlasenica 10,600 390,263 120 6.5 113.5 Pale 14,455 558,500 123 13 110 Gacko 8,710 907,256✶ 159✶✶ 9 150 Unknown 1,058 160,072 430 62 368 *Total costs including other services. ** Estimate. Source: Questionnaires completed by municipalities. ¹ CAPEX=amortization

It can be concluded that amortization cost (CAPEX) is very low as landfill amortization costs in case of disposing at non-sanitary municipal landfills are not taken into account i.e. only operational costs are included in the overall costs. This means that the indicated costs would be mainly (estimated at 85-90%) collection and transport costs. In case of regional or inter-municipal landfills the collection companies have to pay a gate fee (Banja Luka: BAM 28/ton; Bijeljina BAM 34/ton; Zvornik: BAM 39/ton; Prijedor: BAM 20/ton excl. VAT), which normally includes both operational and amortization costs.

RS Sector Reform Report

The municipality might subsidize directly the waste collection company by taking over payments wholly or partly for operations. The Environmental Fund can make available grants for investments and the EPR system can provide payments for containers and/or public awareness raising activities to increase separation of packaging waste in case the municipality has a contract with the EPR scheme.

As the actual collection and transport costs are difficult to assess a cost estimate has been made for a municipality of 30,000 inhabitants. The calculations are shown in Annex B4.1. The results are summarized in Table B4-3.

Table B4-3: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Distance to LF 10m³ truck 20m³ truck Average Excl. VAT Incl. VAT 15km 51 49 50 58.5 30km 65 57 62 72.5 60km 88 71 79 92.4

B4.2.2 Disposal

In case of municipal landfills, the municipal company carries out both waste collection and landfilling but there is no strict division between the costs for collection and landfilling. Landfill gate fees are not levied as it is considered to be included in the tariff except for non-hazardous industrial waste delivered by third parties. Gate fees for landfilling are introduced with the implementation of the regional landfill concept based on inter-municipal cooperation.

As financial information for municipal landfills is not available an estimate is made for both a sanitary municipal landfill (covering 30,000 inhabitants or 6,132 tons/y) and a sanitary regional landfill (covering 120,000 inhabitants or 24,528 tons/y). The calculation is given in Annex 4.2 and the results are summarized in Table B4-4. It shows that the cost/ton for a small sanitary municipal landfill would be substantially higher than for a sanitary regional landfill.

Table B4-4: Landfill costs (BAM/ton)

OPEX CAPEX¹ Total Excl. VAT Incl. VAT Single municipality 47.8 58.5 106.3 124.4 Regional 24.8 33.3 58.1 67.9 ¹Amortization

B4.2.3 Calculated costs

The total calculated cost for collection and disposal at a municipal landfill excluding landfill amortization costs would then become BAM 50/t for collection plus BAM 48/t for landfilling or a total of BAM 98/ton excl. VAT. This figure could be compared with the average weighted costs of BAM 130/ton and with the average weighted tariff of BAM 121.4/ton excl. VAT. The difference could indicate inefficiencies in the current operations such as route planning, availability of trucks, maintenance and repair costs due to depreciated trucks, number of staffing, lack of cost allocation accounting, overhead, etc. Again, it is emphasized that the cost allocation system inside the waste collection companies are not very accurate as also other services are provided.

RS Sector Reform Report

B4.2.4 Separation and sorting

There is only one sorting line in RS installed in Doboj which is not in operation. No information on the financial results is available but waste operators complain about the large losses (up to BAM 20,000/month). In Annex B4.3 a calculation is presented for sorting of pre-separated recyclables for a municipality of 30,000 inhabitants and for a regional collection system serving 120,000 inhabitants generating approximately 322 t/y and 1,288 t/y respectively of saleable dry recyclables assuming 32% dry recyclables in the waste of which 30% is separated at source (target in Waste Strategy) where 50% of the sorted material will be rejected due to its inferior quality (current practise). Also, a calculation is presented for a mixed waste separation line. The results of the calculation are given in Table B4-5. Separation at source of dry- recyclables will involve extra collection costs. A calculation is given in Annex B4.4 indicating an extra cost of BAM 22/ton. It can be concluded that a sorting line cannot generate positive results in case the input quantities are relatively small. Extensive awareness campaigns will be needed to reach 35% separation at source of the dry recyclables and to improve the quality of the separated dry recyclables. For comparison, also a calculation is presented for expected situation in 2025 with improved public awareness resulting in only 25% rejects after sorting. The results are also given in Table B4-5.

Table B4-5: Sorting line annual results (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Inhabitants Input t/y OPEX CAPEX Total costs Revenues Net result

30,000 Sorting line* 644 211.4 326.9 538.3 130.3 -408 120,000 Sorting line* 2,575 65.5 81.7 147.2 130.2 -17 120,000 Mixed waste 24,528 26.8 17.2 44.0 24.3 -19.7 2025 situation: 4,300 120,000 Sorting line* 70 49 119 195.4 76.4 * for pre-separated dry recyclables at source

The actual results of the sorting lines in BiH are dramatically low due to low input and high percentage of rejects as a result of bad separation at source. Public awareness raising and training of waste separators are highly needed. Separation lines for mixed waste produce 2-3% saleable output while international practise indicate that 10% could be achieved. The market prices received as reported by the management are indicated in Table B4-6.

Table B4-6: Revenues from sorting of dry recyclables in 2016 (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Doboj Clean Polluted Paper/cardboard 140 75 Plastics -PET 500 350 -Mixed 300 300 Glass 0 0

B4.2.5 Integrated services

In Annex B4.7 cost calculations are given for the following options for the sake of cost comparison:

RS Sector Reform Report

(i) Single municipality (30,000 inhabitants with 6,132 tons collected waste) will separate at source and will transport it to a municipal landfill at 15km with a sorting line (ii) Same as (i) but waste will be transported to a Regional landfill at 30 km with a sorting line (iii) Regional collection system (120,000 inhabitants with 24,500 tons collected waste) transporting to a regional landfill at 30km distance with a mixed was separation line (iv) Same as (iii) but with separation at source transporting to a regional landfill at 30km with a sorting line.

A summary of the calculations is given in Table B4-7 showing clearly the cost reduction in case of regionalization.

Table B4-7: Calculated costs for proper total WM system (BAM/ton)

Municipal collection Regional collection ML (15km) RL (30km) Mixed waste Separation at source Collection /transport 50 62 45 45 Disposal 106 58 58 58 Sub total 156 120 103 103 Separation/sorting 59 21 14 10 Total cost/ton excl. VAT 215 141 117 113 Total tariff/hh Excl. VAT 193.5 127 105 102 Incl. VAT 226 149 123 119 Current tariff/hh incl. VAT 128

B4.2.6 Transfer stations

The introduction of regional landfills results in extra costs due to long haul transport. Gradiska has implemented a transfer station with a capacity of 11,000 t/y to transport 50km to Banja Luka. The station is proposed by the WM Strategy to be used also by Srbac (about 3,550 t/y). The transfer station consists of a ramp for the collection trucks dumping directly into a trailer with a compression plate. It is reported that the trailer can load up to 20 tons. The investment costs would be only BAM 70,000 for the civil works and BAM 400,000 for truck/trailer combination. The current design, which is obviously cost-conscious, has the following drawbacks (i) collection trucks can only unload when the long-haul truck/trailer is available and (ii) no protection against rain/snow. In Annex B4.5 two systems are compared i.e. (i) use of a shed with front loader and (ii) use of a ramp like in Gradiska resulting in BAM 14.9/ton and BAM 3/ton respectively with a 11,000 tons throughput. In Annex B4.6 the long-haul transport costs are calculated for a truck-trailer combination (12 tons used in Visoko) and a trailer with compaction (20 tons used in Gradiska) resulting in BAM 21.77/ton and BAM 17.44/ton respectively. Two options for transport of waste from Srbac to Banja Luka RL (direct and via Gradiska) are presented in Table B4-8. It can be concluded that the use of the transfer station by Srbac is more costly than direct transport to the regional landfill mainly due to the long distance to the transfer station. It is emphasized that the prevailing road and weather conditions in BiH will make the system of transfer stations using high capacity trucks highly uncertain. Each case has to be analysed individually in order to assess the feasibility of transfer stations as many aspects are involved (see also chapter 5.4.3).

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B4-8: Transport and transfer costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Route km Truck capacity Cost/ton✶ Option 1-Direct Srbac- Banja Luka 49 Compactor truck 7.5 tons 2.13x98/7.5=27.8 Option 2-via Gradiska -Srbac- Gradiska TS 34 Compactor truck 7.5 tons 68x2.13/7.5=19.3 -Gradiska TS-Banja Luka 50 Truck/trailer with 20 tons 17.4 Transfer station costs in 3 Gradiska Total: Option 1 7.5 27.8ton Option 2 7.5/20 39.7ton ✶ Annex 4.5 and 4.6

B4.3 Main problems

Financing is the backbone for implementation of proper waste management services. The present problems in the field of financing can be summarized as follows:

• Tariffs are low (as indicated in the following table) to cover operational and amortization costs for collection and sanitary landfilling consequently funds are not available for new investments. In addition, there is a political unwillingness to adapt the tariffs.

Weighted average cost (Chapter 4.2.1) BAM 130/ton excl. VAT Weighted average tariff (Chapter 4.1) BAM 121/ton excl. VAT Calculated cost for proper system BAM 156/ton excl. VAT

• Tariff calculation guidelines are missing in order to introduce a more uniform system for comparison between the municipalities. It will also facilitate cost control of collection, disposal and separation/sorting. • Contracting of households and tariff collection by waste collectors is inefficient and costly and putting high risks on the companies resulting in substantial bad debt positions. • VAT payment by households is making waste management costly and is not according to practises generally adopted in EU member states and other countries as waste management services for households is a public service and thus a tax. • Cost control inside utility companies for waste collection services is difficult as there is not always a clear separate accounting system for waste management services and other services (street cleaning, park maintenance, etc.). • Waste separation activities are in its infancy. There is a lack of (i) knowledge with municipalities about cost/benefit assessment resulting in disinvestments, (ii) public awareness raising programs and communication with waste generators and (iii) political willingness to cooperate with other municipalities resulting in highly needed regional cooperation in both waste collection and disposal. • Single municipal waste management services result in high costs/ton due to limited quantities collected • Regional landfills are having financial problems, as annual waste quantities are lower than foreseen due to the fact that participating municipalities are not or partly using the regional landfill. No enforcement instruments exist. The regional landfill is responsible for repayment of any loan for upgrading/construction and in case the loan is in hard currency the landfill is faced with the exchange rate risk

RS Sector Reform Report

B5 REFORM PLAN

The recommendations made in this chapter are based on the critical review of the current situation as laid down in the previous chapters and therefore the recommendations should be read together with the previous chapters and not in its isolation. Furthermore, the recommendations are taking into account the targets as mentioned in the realistic scenario (see chapter 1).

B5.1 Context

B5.1.1 Background

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) have been recognised by the EU as a “potential candidate country” for accession. The obligations to be met include harmonisation with the EU (environmental) Directives. Thereto the entities of BiH (Republika Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Brcko District have prepared Waste Management Strategies. The main objectives of the Strategies are (i) reducing risks to environment and human health; (ii) reducing the amount of waste to be landfilled through waste separation at source and recycling; (iii) creation of a financially sustainable SWM system; (iv) regionalization and service coverage increase; (v) rehabilitation of dumps/landfills; (v) harmonization with EU legislation.

A start was made in 2000 with the execution of an EU PHARE financed study proposing closure of existing municipal landfills/dumpsites and introduction of a regional concept for landfilling. Thereto RS was divided into 8 Waste Allocation Districts. (WAD). Up to now only a part of this plan is implemented with World Bank and EU-IPA financial support and mainly related to infrastructural works (landfills).

B5.1.2 Overarching problems

The slow progress in implementing the required changes is due to a number of main problems comprising:

• Municipalities are responsible for implementation of Municipal Waste Management policies but municipalities are relatively small (average 18,500 inhabitants) resulting in lack of funds for investments, public outreach and capacity building to improve waste management practises. Due to the small waste quantities, investments will result in a substantial increase of the cost/ton. • Current household tariffs are hardly sufficient for waste collection, treatment and disposal meeting EU Directives. In addition the current contracting and collection system for tariffs is the responsibility of the waste collection companies, instead of municipalities as is the overwhelming practice in the EU, resulting in extra costs and financial problems due to non- payments and the risks for the private sector to enter this sector. The local authorities are reluctant to increase current tariffs. • The institutional capacity at national level (Ministry) and local level (Municipality) is weak and needs strengthening to implement the required reforms. This includes legal, financial and operational aspects. • Lack of political willingness for cooperation at entity and local level hampering the implementation of efficient and effective waste management systems. • Lack of reliable data for investment planning.

B5.1.3 Implementation

The basis for the Reform Plan are the objectives laid down in the WM Strategy study 2017-2026 especially the improvement of the waste collection coverage, regionalization of landfills and the targets for waste separation and recycling combined with strengthening of the legal and institutional

RS Sector Reform Report framework. It is emphasized that introduction of new technologies for waste treatment (landfilling, separation/recycling) is associated with increase in cost/ton. Large waste quantities are needed to reduce cost increases meeting the affordability principle.

As BiH is a potential candidate for EU accession the country is in the process of harmonization of its legislation with the EU Directives. Investments in waste management facilities have to comply with a vast array of complex EU Directives, of which the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) lays down requirements for all types of waste unless they are specifically regulated by other directives. The WFD in particular requires drawing up of waste management plans (national, regional, local) in accordance with relevant EU directives. Waste management plans have to consider the shifting up in the “waste hierarchy” away from final disposal to incineration (WtE), separation and recycling, re-use and finally prevention (Figure B5- 1). Every step higher in the waste hierarchy involves extra costs and these costs have to be borne by the waste generator following the principle of “polluter pays”. Taking into account the economic conditions in RS the leading principle in introducing reforms should preferably be based on the least cost option meeting the environmental criteria. Cost reduction can be obtained by regionalization. However, strict geographical regionalization cannot be imposed on municipalities as local conditions such as waste quantities, road infrastructure, distances, and collection truck capacities should be taken into account.

Figure B5- 1: EU Waste Hierarchy

Taking into account the results achieved so far compared with the targets laid down in the WM Strategy 2007-2017, it is recommended to apply a more realistic scenario for the next period. Therefore, all recommendations and calculations in the Reform Plan will be based on the realistic scenario as mentioned in chapter 1 including the following main principles:

➢ 84% of waste will be collected covering 100% urban population and 60% rural population. ➢ 30% of packaging waste in the household containers (34%) will be separated at source. ➢ No separation of organic waste is proposed up to 2025 in view of cost/operational aspects and priority will be given to separation of packaging waste. However, pilot projects for composting might be developed based on organic waste collected from public green areas

Sources for financing of substantial investments are lacking with the municipalities. Loans and grants have to be obtained from third parties. It is recommended to make regionalization both for landfill operations and for waste collection a condition to obtain financing (grants, loans) from IFIs whereby

RS Sector Reform Report the government acts as the final guarantee. In order to overcome the current problems of loan repayment it could be considered that an Association of Municipalities will become the borrower and guaranteeing the loan repayment jointly. The operations will be carried out by a company (A.D.) wherein the municipalities are the shareholders. In this way it is believed that any dispute between the municipalities about cost payments (e.g. transport) are resolved as the company is paying for the operational costs.

B5.2 Legal aspects

LEGAL ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS ENTITY Laws Bylaws Amendments to Law on Waste further transposition of the EU Landfill Strategies Directive. Plans RS waste legislation is partially harmonized with that of the EU. Guidelines Regulation on Waste Disposal (Official Gazette of the Republic Srpska, number 36/15) is partially harmonised with the Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the disposal of waste. According to the Landfill Directive the following provisions should be included and further regulated in the Law on Waste Management: • The targets for decreasing of the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill (Landfill Directive, Article 5.);

By-laws on the following waste streams need to be adopted as option to landfill: • End of life vehicles - implementing Directive 2000/53/EC. Especially relevant for the landfill directive as it relates to tyres, explosive seat belt pre-tensioners and liquids. • PCB and PCT – implementing Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of PCBs and CTs. Adoption of plans for the decontamination and correct disposal of inventoried equipment and contaminated liquids by competent authorities. • Waste tyres • Waste batteries and accumulators

Preparation of guidelines: - Development of the waste separation and recovery system - Tariff calculation principles (what should be included) - EPR operations - Setting up of regional cooperation concepts

By-laws to be developed for payment of environmental taxes to promote regionalization and use of compliant facilities.

Tax code to be adapted to exempt households from paying VAT on public SWM services.

Law on Communal Affairs. RS has Law on Communal Affairs. The local self-government unit provides public utility service. Communal affairs are regulated by municipalities’ regulations that have different approach to same activities (e.g. tariff calculation). Two or more local self-government units can provide common utility services under conditions determined by the competent authorities of local self-government units. There is an urgent need to adopt Law on Communal Affairs to unify approach,

RS Sector Reform Report

principles and methods of providing communal services at regional and municipal level. A possibility to organize waste collection and disposal at regional level should be introduced through this Law.

MW definition. Municipal Waste definition in the Law on Waste Management has to be clarified in more detail using the Eurostat/OECD definition accepted in the EU. Details are given in Annex 5.1 This definition should also be included in regulations on Communal Affairs.

Data reporting/Waste Information System. Finalization and adoption of amendments to the Law on Waste Management containing provisions that require waste generators, collectors, processors, transporters, landfill operators (both public and private sector) to report regularly to Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund of RS and RS Institute for Statistics based on an agreed entity format.

Data reporting system, methodology for determining the waste quantity and composition were developed and adopted in form of secondary legislation. Alternatively, reference to the corresponding EU methodology can be made in amendments to the Law on Waste Management.

Review of WM Strategy/Development of WMP. Assembly of RS has adopted the WM Strategy. The Strategy covers period 2017-2026. The strategy contains inconsistencies such as recommending collection of mixed waste without separation at source (Scenario 1) while in the WM Strategy is mentioned as one of the objectives “increase of separation at source and recycling”.

On basis of the WM Strategy a WMP needs to be developed for implementation. However, there are several inconsistencies in the WM Strategy that needs to be clarified in the WM Plan such as (i) which Scenario will be implemented in relation to targets to be achieved; (ii) number and location of transfer stations in relation to costs and geographical conditions; (iii) number and location of separation/sorting lines. In general, a WMP needs to meet national as well as the EU requirements.

MUNICIPAL Laws Planning Waste Management. Improvement of communal affairs Bylaws regulations will allow municipalities to better plan waste management. Plans The regulations will set the tasks and obligations of municipalities, waste Instructions generators, including the legal basis for payment and introduction of Guidelines penalties. Moreover, the regulations can set the conditions for private sector involvement. Municipal regulations should also be harmonized with laws on waste management and communal affairs, especially concerning the aspects of defining the obligations for waste generators and municipalities’ publicly-mandated responsibilities for waste management.

RS Sector Reform Report

Development of Municipal Waste Management Plans. These Plans are needed to meet national as well as the EU requirements. Such guidelines have been drafted and training has been provided by Grontmij through the Municipal Programme for Solid Waste Management in Bosnia and Herzegovina launched by the Swedish Government through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The existing Plans need to be updated to meet requirements of the WM Strategy and new Waste Management Plan. Municipal Waste Management Plans should be the basis for developing a regional collection/separation system. The Plan should also contain proposals for investments with its timing and its effect on the tariffs.

B5.3 Institutional recommendations

INSTITUTION RECOMMENDATIONS REPUBLIC LEVEL Ministry of Spatial Implementation of solid waste management policy in RS requires capacity Planning, Civil with a strong competent staffing. Presently the MSPCEE does not have a Engineering and distinct Solid Waste Management section but is incorporated in the Ecology (MSPCEE) Department for Environmental Protection. It is recommended to create a distinct Solid Waste Management section responsible for preparation of guidelines, planning, coordination, supervision and monitoring of waste management on republic level.

In the short term it is recommended to contract outside expertise to provide technical assistance to the Waste Management staff (2 persons) in view of the implementation of all recommendations to improve the SWM sector. Environmental Capacity strengthening and training is recommended for carrying out the Protection and Energy daily tasks of implementing legislation and Strategy. Specific task would Efficiency Fund of RS be reporting and keeping a register on all landfills in RS and the control thereon. It is recommended to investigate the transformation of the Fund into an Environmental Agency.

The Republic of Srpska Improvements in inspection and enforcement will be needed to enhance Inspectorate sector performance. A review of their organization and operations, including staffing, tasks, bottlenecks (especially (un)availability of financial resources), shortcomings, etc. is recommended.

Association of Towns Formalize the role of the Association of Municipalities as official and Municipalities of discussion partner for all municipal (environmental) matters. Consider RS establishment of a national forum of waste management experts from municipalities under the chairmanship of the Association to enable the transfer of knowledge and experience among the participants. Association of Utilities The same role that is foreseen for Association of Towns and and Services and Municipalities of RS in building capacities of Municipalities can be Association of applied to the Association of Utilities and Services and the Association of Environmental Environmental Protection. They are already recognized as official Protection within discussion partner for all waste matters. They should be involved more in Chamber of Commerce providing advice to solid waste utilities on day-to-day operations. This

RS Sector Reform Report

and Industry of RS would require review of their organization and operations, available expertise and building the Associations capacities to undertake this role. MUNICIPAL LEVEL Municipalities Municipalities, through their Department of Communal Affairs handle all municipal communal activities including water and wastewater, solid waste management, street cleaning, market places, etc. Establishment of a dedicated waste management section in this Department that will undertake all waste management needs in a municipality is needed in order to create cost control and accountability. Besides waste collection, separation/sorting and disposal services this section will also deal with preparation of Municipal Waste Management Plans, execution of public awareness campaigns, complaint handling, tariff calculations, monitoring and inspection, any development of commercial activities in order to generate extra income, etc. Future functions of the municipality might change in view of regionalization. The Association of Towns and Municipalities of RS can perform capacity building of municipal SWM sections through different capacity building programs. The Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund of RS could fund the activities.

Communal Utilities For cost control and accountability purposes it is an option to create separate companies for waste collection and for waste disposal within the SWM section also in view of future regionalization of the services. Capacity building among operating companies is urgently needed to implement an efficient and effective waste management system with accountable sections. At operational level the collection and disposal companies need strengthening and training of staff to become more efficient by improving accounting procedures, tariff calculations, cost control, planning, maintenance, equipment procurement, data collection and reporting, etc. The Association of Communal Affairs can perform capacity building programs. The activities can be funded by the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund of RS.

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 2: Proposed Institutional Sett-up at Municipal Level

B5.4 Financial aspects

To overcome present problems a number of changes are recommended based on prevailing international practises. Especially changes in the tariff calculation and the tariff collection system and strengthening of the accounting principles within the municipalities and within the waste collection/disposal companies.

Tariff cost calculation guidelines are needed to achieve sustainable waste management systems with cost control mechanisms. The guidelines could take into consideration the following main aspects:

RS Sector Reform Report

• Sound economic principles based on full cost recovery (direct costs, overhead costs, financing costs, etc.) unless the Municipality decides to subsidise partly the waste management services. The tariff should include future landfill closure costs. Furthermore, it should be decided if and which part of street cleaning costs has to be included in the tariff. • Full amortization costs (depreciation and interest) should be taken into account with depreciation periods based on usable lifetime of the facilities. Normally this will be 20 years for civil works and 12 years for mechanical/electrical works and equipment. • No VAT tax for households as tariff for public services is considered to be a tax. However, the tariff for the CII sector should be subject to VAT as it is considered to be a commercial service charge. VAT exemption for households is based on Article 13 of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC stating amongst others “States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be regarded as taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities….”Although municipal waste collection companies in BiH are transformed into “limited companies” there is no doubt that these companies are operating under public law. Moreover, the market for household waste collection is a public activity in BiH. VAT payment is a policy decision making SWM more expensive for the households which might result in the need for increased subsidies by municipalities to finance the costs of SWM (as it is the case today by financing long haul transport, landfilling or sorting activities by some municipalities). In case national authorities are reluctant to introduce exemption of VAT on services it is recommended to discuss alternative taxation modes supporting the improvement of SWM such as introduction of landfill tax on the use of non-sanitary landfills to replace direct VAT payment on collection services. In addition, it is certainly recommendable to abolish VAT payment by the Utility Company to the government on invoices not being paid by the waste generator. The introduction of a reduced VAT tariff for municipal waste management services could also be considered as is the case in some EU member states. • No profit margin for public services to households while profit margin can be applied for services to CII sector. • Services to be covered by the tariff should be well defined (collection, separation/sorting, disposal, street cleaning, PA campaigns, etc.). Tariff calculations could be based on the “Tariff setting methodology for the water supply and sewerage services in BiH” as recently developed by UNDP.

Tariff collection from households is generally the responsibility of the Municipality. In this way the Municipality can also subsidize low-income households while financial risks are minimized for the waste collection companies. This is important especially when privatization (PPP) will be promoted. High risks for the waste collector mean also high costs and tariff charges. Payment obligations of the households should be laid down in a Municipal Regulation wherein also the tasks and obligations of the stakeholders (Municipality, waste collector, waste generator) are defined. Tariff collection from the CII sector could be by the service provider (waste collector) based on individual contracts. The overarching legal system inside EU member states is collection of tariffs by the municipality and not by the waste collector (See Figure B5-3) but the municipality might outsource the collection of the tariffs. There are several options for collecting the tariffs by the municipality viz. (i) inclusion in other municipal taxes such as property tax or together with other public utilities provision charges such as heating, electricity; (ii) direct user charge; (iii) pay as you throw but in this case recording of waste quantities will be needed making the system more expensive. Currently different systems of tariff calculation for households are used (m² of usable house area, number of persons, fixed rate, number of removals). No specific preference exists but in general less administrative costs are involved having a fixed rate/household with some differentiation in number of persons (e.g. three groups: 1 or 2 or 3 and more persons). The disadvantage of a fixed rate system is the lack of incentives for waste separation but it is worthwhile to investigate the feasibility of setting-up by the municipality or waste collector so-called “buying points” for dry recyclables (plastics, paper/cardboard, metals/cans). Experience shows that economic incentives in low-income countries are a valuable instrument to increase waste separation.

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 3: General payment flow inside EU member states

Accounting with a clear cost allocation system is required for tariff calculations and to assess the efficiency of the operations based on Key Performance Indicators. Normally the tariffs are based on the actual costs in the previous years but could be adapted during the on-going year in case of unforeseen price increase (“force majeure”) such a salary, fuel price, etc. and taking into account new investments.

The proposed changes in the tariff calculation (no VAT, no profit for households) and tariff collection system (by municipality and thus no extra costs for waste collection companies) will have a positive effect on reducing any tariff increases. Moreover, it will be an incentive for private companies to conclude PPP’s and to invest. Tariffs for the CII sector are normally higher than for households (profit margin, affordability principle).

The existing tariffs both for households and CII sector have to be reviewed taking into account the guidelines mentioned above and in order to meet the EU harmonisation requirements. Increase of tariffs for households up to a maximum of 1% of the spendable income should be introduced in a phased way. Economic instruments (e.g. environmental tax on use of non-sanitary landfills, environmental tax on use of collection trucks older than 10 years) should be introduced to enforce municipalities to invest and to set up regionalization of services.

In the WM Strategy it is recommended to introduce Scenario 1 i.e. collection and disposal without separation at source. Only in Banja Luka region Scenario 2 is proposed i.e. Scenario 1 plus separation at source. The effect on the tariff in case of a single municipality bringing its waste to a municipal landfill (15km) or to a regional landfill with sorting facility (30km) in 2025 is given in

Table B5-1 with the following assumptions (i) waste generation rate of 1kg/cap/day and 3.1 persons/household or 1.13t/household/year; (ii) collection coverage 85%; (iii) 33% dry recyclables of which 35% will be separated; (iv) municipality will receive BAM 45/ton for pre- separated dry recyclables at the gate of regional landfill (transport costs for dry recyclables over 30km in open top container of 30m³ or 3 tons are calculated at BAM 13/ton). The resulting costs/household can be compared with the current average tariff of BAM 128/household/year incl. VAT. It can also be concluded that the tariffs are less than 1% of the spendable annual income in 2017 (BAM 1,672x12= BAM 20,064).

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B5-1: Costs/ton for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (2025).

Municipal landfill (15km) Regional landfill (30km) Cost/ton Cost/ton Cost/ton Cost/ton excl. VAT incl. VAT Excl. VAT Incl. VAT Waste generation: 30,000x 1kg/capx0,365: 10,950 t/y Collection 85% : 9,307 t/y Dry recyclables 33%x35%: 1,075 t/y Mixed waste: 8,232 t/y Scenario 1 Collection and transport (Annex 4.1) 50 58.5 62 72.5 Disposal/ton (Annex 5.5) 86.5 101 49.5 58 Total/ton 136.5 159.5 111.5 130.5 Total/household/year 154 180 126 147.5 Scenario 2 Municipal landfill Collection/transport: 9,307x72= 670,100 Sorting: 1,075x408= 438,600 Disposal: 8,232 x 86.5= 712,068 Subtotal 1,820,772 196 229 Regional landfill Collection/transport: 9,307x84=781,788 (Annex 4.1&4.4) Sorting: 1,075 x (45-13)= - 34,400 (Annex 4.3) Disposal: 8,232x49.4= 406,660 (Annex 5.5) Subtotal /ton 1,154,048 124 145 Total/household/year 221 259 140 164

B5.4 Operational aspects

B5.4.1 Collection and transport

Currently each municipality has its own waste collection company disposing the waste at a non- sanitary municipal landfill or dumpsite or a regional landfill in case the municipality has signed an inter-municipal agreement with other municipalities. The operational costs are rather high due to the small size of the municipality with resulting small waste quantities. Increasing the handling quantities can decrease the costs/ton and thus creating financially sustainable waste management systems. This could be achieved by introducing a regional collection system whereby municipalities set up a joint company with the municipalities as shareholders and representatives of the City Council of each municipality as member of a Supervisory Board. The company will serve all municipalities in its territory and it will run its own fleet of trucks and containers. The services to be provided by the regional company could include (i) basic waste collection services from households and commercial/institutional sector including bulky waste; (ii) collection of non-hazardous industrial waste; (iii) collection of WEEE and packaging waste under contract with the EPR scheme. The estimated costs for a regional collection system are indicated in Table B5-2. The advantages of a regional system are:

• Reduction on equipment procurement costs. Studies reveal that 10% could be saved • More efficient route planning shortening the collection time

RS Sector Reform Report

• More efficient capacity planning on infrastructural needs (trucks, containers, sorting lines, transfer points) • Savings on maintenance and repair (M+R) costs as this will be carried out centrally (one garage as compared to several garages) • Easier to get financing due to size of operations (EU supports regionalization) • More interesting for private (foreign) parties to set up PPP associated with investment financing and capacity building (EU supports the setting up of PPP’s). • Cost and revenues will be shared between the shareholders • Less risk of municipalities leaving the association as they have invested as shareholder in the new company by bringing in their equipment, • Cost reduction for the participating municipalities.

Table B5-2: Regional collection system (BAM/ton) Regional collection (120,000 inhabitants) Average 30km to RL t/y Cost/ton Cost/year Tariff Collection 37,230 67 2,494,410 Sorting 4,300 -76.4 -328,520 Landfill 32,930 49.4 1,626,742 Total 3,792,632 101.8 Tariff/hh 1.13 115 Incl. VAT 135 Source: Annex 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 5.5.

In the WM Strategy no recommendations are made for regionalization of collection services although it results in a lower cost/ton. It is assumed that each municipality will remain responsible for its own collection. The calculated quantities per municipality and distances to regional landfills are indicated in Annex B5.2. In order to compare the costs of a single municipal with a regional approach, the collection and transport costs using 1,100 litres containers have been calculated (see Annex 4.1) for various options i.e. single municipality (30,000 inhabitants) transporting the waste to a municipal or regional landfill and a regional collection system (120,000 inhabitants) transporting the waste to a regional landfill. The results are summarized in Table B5-3. A study is needed to assess all details of legal, financial, operational and administrative aspects for the setting up of a regional collection company. The regional concept is internationally widely used in thinly populated areas. It can be concluded that the regional approach is not resulting in higher costs as compared to the single municipal approach despite the longer transport distances.

Table B5-3: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton) Single municipality Regional ML at 15km RL at 30km RL at 60km RL at 30km Truck size 10m³ 20m³ 10m³ 20m³ 10m³ 20m³ 10m³ 20m³ BAM/ton 51 49 66 58 88 71 50 40 Average 50 62 79.5 45 Source: Annex 4.1

Separation at source

In the WM Strategy it is recommended to implement collection of mixed waste without separation at source (Scenario 1) except for the region Banja Luka as separation at source of dry recyclables would result in tariffs exceeding the affordability percentage of 1.5% (Scenario 2). However, the Strategy study is also recommending the implementation of sorting lines in Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Foca and Zvornik for capacities of 34,593 t, 14,000 t, 7,276 t and 9,277 t. respectively. The required investment

RS Sector Reform Report for each line would be between Euro 837,000 up to Euro 1.66 million. As RS has to comply with its targets (23% separation in 2026 by separating 50-60% of packaging waste) and with the objectives of the WM Strategy (increase separate collection and recycling, reduction of landfilled quantities through separate collection, creation of sustainable SWM system) it is not clear how RS will achieve the targets and objectives without separation at source.

Implementation of high capacity mixed waste separation lines (MRF/MBT) will result in maximum 10% separation at high cost/ton. In Annex B4.3 a calculation is presented for a mixed waste separation line (15t/h) with an annual input of 24,500 tons resulting in negative revenues of BAM 20/ton assuming that 10% saleable fractions can be separated. Currently empirical result is 2-3% separation (e.g. Mostar separation line) or operations are stopped (Doboj line). Other options such as incineration are excluded because of its costs (BAM 120-160/ton).

Therefore, it is proposed to implement separation at source of dry recyclables (packaging waste) using 240 litres containers in addition to 1,100 litres containers for mixed waste. The increase in collection costs is calculated in Annex B4.4 resulting in BAM 22/ton.

Required equipment

Implementation of regional landfills will involve extra transport costs due to the larger transport distances and many times the relatively small size and condition of the existing truck fleet doesn’t allow long haul transport. This is a problem for existing regional landfills, as some municipalities despite the fact that they have signed a cooperation agreement do not dispose at regional landfills. High transport costs could be reduced by introducing transfer stations with long haul transport to the regional landfill by high capacity trucks (15-20 tons). However, the limited waste quantities in each municipality and the road conditions might hamper the introduction of transfer stations (see chapter B5.5.2). Therefore, it is recommended that municipalities procure as far as possible large capacity collection trucks (20m³ and larger) enabling them to transport over long distances. An estimate of required trucks in 2025 can be made when we assume an equal mix of 10m³ and 20m³ trucks as follows:

Table B5-4: Required number of collection trucks Average distance to RL (km) 30 Annual waste quantity (tons) 302,100 Average load (tons) 7.5 Trips/day (Annex 4.1) 2.2 Days/year 260 Capacity/truck/year (tons) 4,029 Trucks needed 75 Availability (85%) 88 Existing capacity (40%) 40 Required collection trucks 53

In addition to the compactor trucks for mixed waste collection it will be required to procure also skip trucks for collection of industrial waste (5-8m³ containers). The required number is estimated as follows:

RS Sector Reform Report

Table B5-5: Required number of skip trucks Average distance to RL (km) 30 Annual waste quantity (tons) 30,000 Average load (tons) 5 Cycle time (minutes): 2x30km: 75 Loading: 20 Unloading: 15 Total 110 Available/day (one shift) 410 Trips/day 3.7 Days/year 260 Capacity/truck/year (tons) 4,810 Trucks needed 6.2 Availability (%) 85 Required 7

Bulky waste can be collected through so-called “bring stations” or by “door-to-door” service on request. As no reliable statistical information is available it is proposed not to recommend the construction of “bring stations” but to introduce door-to-door collection. Normally most of the bulky waste (furniture, mattresses, timber, etc.) is collected with opened trucks. A number of flatbed trucks might be needed for collection of white goods and electrical appliances as it is expected that the EPR scheme for WEEE might contract the waste collection company. Any needs will be established once the WEEE scheme will contract a collection company. A rough estimate can be made based on the EU requirement of minimum 4kg/cap/year to be collected or approximately 4,600 t/y or 15-20 t/day or 3-4 trucks. Private companies could be hired in occasionally.

The required number of containers can be determined on basis of (i) the annual volumes and collection frequency, or (ii) the service level to be provided i.e. number of households/container considering the walking distances, separate containers for CII entities. The minimum number of containers required on basis of waste volumes in 2025 can be calculated as follows:

Table B5-6: Required number of containers

1,100 litre 240 litre Collected (t/y) 355,418 X 0.85 = 302,105 Recyclables (33%x35%) 34,890 Mixed waste (t/y) 267,215 Tons/day (260 days) 1,028 134 Density (kg/m³) 185 80 Volumes (m³) 5,557 1,675 Cap/cont. (m³) 0.8x1.1=0.88 0.8x0.24=0.192 Number containers 6,315 8,724

B5.4.2 Transfer stations

The feasibility of transfer stations will depend on (i) annual throughput; (ii) distance to collection area whereby the TS should preferably be located as close as possible to the collection area; (iii) geographical, road and weather conditions for long haul high capacity trucks; (iv) distance to RL; (v) investment and operational costs. The extra cost/ton of the transfer station should be compensated by savings due to long haul transport as compared to direct transport to the disposal site.

RS Sector Reform Report

In the WM Strategy a network of 15 Transfer Stations (TS) is proposed (see Annex B5.3). Most of these TS’s are planned at rather remote locations. The investment cost for each TS is estimated at Euro 541,000 up to Euro 710,000 (BAM 1,055,000-BAM 1,385,000). The TS’s are proposed on basis of distance to RL (more than 30km) and annual quantities. In chapter B4.2.4 an analysis is presented for transport of waste from Srbac to Banja Luka i.e. direct or using the TS in Gradiska based on a collection truck capacity of average 7.5 tons, use of 20 tons trailer for long haul transport and a very low investment in the TS of BAM 70,000 (info received from Gradiska). It can be concluded that the costs for using the TS are slightly higher due to the fact that the transfer station is far away from the collection area.

The same calculations are carried out for some more TS’s and the results are given in

Table B5-7 showing the distances to landfill and transfer stations and the cost/ton for direct transport from collection area to regional landfill and for using the transfer station. The calculations are based on (i) the use of a ramp as transfer station with an annual cost of BAM 32,936 (see Annex B4.5); (ii) the transport costs for using trucks with a capacity of 7.5 tons, 10 tons for direct transport or transport to the transfer station and 20 tons truck for long haul transport to the regional landfill (see Annex 4.6). It can be concluded that TS’s are offering lower costs in case of Prnjavor and Derventa while in case of Kozarska Dubica the cost are higher for using the transfer station. TS’s are not always offering the lowest cost/ton and cost differences are not significant. This means that TS’s with a high investment cost as proposed in the WM Strategy would hardly be feasible. An analysis is carried out using the investment cost as indicated in the WM Strategy (Euro 542,000) and it appears that none of the proposed TS’s would offer a reduction on transport costs as compared to direct transport. Also an analysis is carried out using a very low investment cost of about Euro 80,000 and it appears that only 9 transfer stations could offer cost reduction in case the collection truck has a capacity of about 6 tons. In case the transport truck has a capacity of 10 tons it appears that only 3 TS’s are offering cost reduction. The uncertain element is the geographical situation and the suitability of the roads to accommodate high capacity trucks with trailer. Therefore, each proposal for a transfer station should be evaluated very carefully especially when the transfer station is located at large distance from the collection area. In case the local geography will not allow the use of high capacity truck/trailer combination, the “proximity principle” should prevail for waste disposal.

Table B5-7: Transport and transfer costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Prnjavor 7,600 t/y Distance Cost/ton (km) 7,5 ton truck² 10 ton truck² Direct transport to RL 51.1 29.0 23.5 Transport via transfer station To transfer station 1.0 ------To regional landfill 50.4 17.6 17.6 Transfer station 32,936/7,600=4.3¹ Total transfer station/RL 17.6+4.3=21.9 Derventa/Brod Derventa Brod Derventa Brod Derventa Brod 6,726+4,250=10,976 t/y Direct transport to RL 48 72.8 27.3 41.35 22.1 33.5 Transport via transfer station To transfer station 6.7 27.2 3.8 15.5 3.1 12.5 To regional landfill 46.9 46.9 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 Transfer station 32,936/10,976=3¹ Total transfer station/RL 23.2 34.9 22.5 31.9 Kozarska Dubica/ Kostajnica KD K KD K KD K 5,582+1,687=7,260 t/y

RS Sector Reform Report

Direct transport to RL 42.8 65.9 24.3 37.4 19.7 30.3 Transport via transfer station To transfer station 10.5 32.5 6.0 18.5 4.8 15.0 To regional landfill 52.1 52.1 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 Transfer station 32,936/7,260=4.5¹ Total transfer station/RL 28.7 41.2 27.5 37.7 Source: ¹Annex B4.5 ;² Annex B4.6.

B5.4.3 Separation and treatment

According to the “Landfill Directive” no waste will be landfilled without pre-treatment, which includes separation of waste. In addition, the “Landfill Directive” stipulates certain targets for reduction of biodegradable waste (paper, cardboard, organic waste, wood and some textiles) to be landfilled. Reduction of waste quantities to be landfilled can be achieved through (i) separation of mixed waste; (ii) separation at source followed by sorting; (iii) processing (RDF) or recycling (composting) or incineration. The WM Strategy recommends waste management scenarios without waste separation at source (Scenario 1) except for Banja Luka region (Scenario 2).

Waste separation at source is in its infancy in RS and separation of organic waste is non-existent. In order to meet the targets lay down in the WM Strategy (50% separation of packaging waste in 2025 or 50%x 34% is 17% of total waste stream) and to comply with EU legislation, RS has to introduce waste separation at source, as mixed waste separation will not result in the required separation percentage for packaging waste.

A calculation is given in Annex B4,3 showing that from an input of 24,500 tons mixed waste about 10% can be separated or 2,450 tons. However, the total dry recyclables fraction is 34% or about 8,300 tons x 50% is 4,150 tons. The operational cost for a mixed waste separation line would be BAM 20/ton.

In Annex B4.3 also calculations are presented for a sorting line for pre-separated dry recyclables. The results show that sorting of pre-separated dry recyclables is financially sustainable if sufficient quantities can be generated i.e. waste from an area covering minimum 120,000 inhabitants or an input of 4,300 tons. The calculations are based on the assumption that inhabitants will separate 30% of the dry recyclables into separate containers. Furthermore, it has been assumed for 2025 that 25% of the pre- separated dry recyclables will be rejected at the sorting line as compared to current experience of 50%. The total revenues would be BAM 76/ton less BAM 22/ton for collection.

It can be concluded that separation at source with sorting lines is financially more attractive than separation of mixed waste.

Separation of organic fractions should be postponed as it is expected not to be successful for the coming years due to lack of awareness, handling capacity with municipalities, uncertainties about market opportunities, costs involved, etc.

In the WM Strategy is proposed to install sorting lines in the 8 regions. The proposed facilities with its input and costs are indicated in Table B5-8 together with an estimate of the quantities to be expected. It can be concluded that the Strategy quantities are considerably higher than the estimated quantities making the recommendations doubtful.

As shown in Annex B4.3 the sorting line becomes feasible with an input quantity of about 4,300 t/y with 25% rejects. This would mean that sorting lines could be installed at regional landfills covering at least an area of 120,000 inhabitants. This would be the case for Prijedor, Banja Luka, Doboj, Bijeljina, Zvornik regions. Mrkonjic Grad, Foca and Gacko are generating insufficient waste quantities for having their own sorting line and have to transport the separated dry recyclables to

RS Sector Reform Report

Banja Luka (60km) and Rogatica (58km) respectively if road conditions allow. The uncertain element will be the commitment of all municipalities to use the regional landfill.

Table B5-8: WM Strategy sorting lines

Region Quantity (t/y) Investment (Euro) Estimated quantity (t/y)¹ Banja Luka 34,593 1,665,688 11,310 Bijeljina 14,144 1,045,579 3,800 Doboj 15,836 1,096,896 5,670 Foca 7,276 837,304 3,745 Gacko 4,2,34 745,083 2,300 Mrkonjic Grad 2,040 678,548 930 Prijedor 15,146 1,075,976 3,940 Zvornik 9,277 897,980 3,200 ¹ Based on Annex B5.2 x 0.85% collection, 33.3% recyclables and 35% separation at source.

In addition to separation of dry recyclables it might be worthwhile to investigate other treatment options to reduce the quantities to be landfilled such as production of RDF for co-incineration in cement plants. It seems that cement plants in Bosnia are interested to buy RDF as an alternative fuel. A preliminary assessment presented below has been made for a plant with a waste input of 50,000 t/y and a RDF production of 15,000 t/y (without any grant financing or subsidies)

Table B5-9: RDF cost/revenue assessment (BAM excl. VAT)

Investments Unforeseen (10%) Design/supervision (8%)

Civil works 3,000,000 3,300,000 3,564,000 M/E works 13,700,000 15,070,000 16,275,000 Total 19,839,000 Amortization Amount Cost/ton Civil works (20 yrs, 3%) 239,530 M/E works (12 yrs, 3%)¹ 1,627,470 Total 1,867,000 124.5 Operations Wages 462,000 Electricity 320,000 Fuel 67,000 M+R -civil works (1%) 33,000 -M/E works (3%) 452,00 Total 1,334,000 88.9 Total costs 213.4 Revenues Savings on landfill 15,000x45.7 685,500 Sales RDF2 15,000x78 1,170,000 Sales dry recyclables 8%x50,000 x 200 800,000 Total revenues 2,655,500 177 ¹Amortization of usable lifetime (12 years). ² Information from Zenica landfill.

The risks are (i) the sales prices for RDF to the cement factory as this very much depends on the energy/raw materials price on the world market, (ii) the sales price for dry recyclables as the market is strongly fluctuating, and (iii) is highly sensitive to transportation distances.

RS Sector Reform Report

B5.4.4 Disposal

Cost calculations are presented in Annex B5.5 and summarized in Table B5-10 for a compliant regional landfill (120,000 inhabitants) and for a single municipal landfill (30,000 inhabitants) in 2025.

Table B5-10: Landfill cost calculations (BAM/ton) Regional Municipal OPEX 20.19 39.83 CAPEX 41.01 63.05 Total excl. VAT 61.2 102.9 incl. VAT 71.6 120.4

It can be seen that the cost/ton for a single compliant municipal landfill is substantially higher than for a sanitary regional landfill. This emphasizes the need for implementation of regional landfills. However, the success of regional landfills fully depends on its accessibility i.e. the road system and thus the annual quantities affecting the cost/ton. This is a problem in RS and therefore the upgrading of non-compliant municipal landfills into controlled landfills is an alternative for municipalities that have problem with accessibility to RLs.

As explained in Chapter B3, BiH is divided into 16 waste allocation districts (waste sheds), each to include a regional landfill (10 RLs in the FBiH and 6 RLs in the RS), whereby a separation is maintained between RS and FBiH (See Figure B3-1 in Chapter B3). In practice, however, it might be difficult to impose a certain regional concept upon municipalities, as they will face higher costs for transport and landfilling, while lower costs solutions might be available depending on the local conditions. In fact, there are currently a few municipalities in FBiH that are transporting their waste to landfills in RS for economic reasons (Sapna, Kalesija, Zivinice to Zvornik; Teocak to Bijeljina; Doboj Istok, Doboj Jug, Usora, Lukavac, Srebrenik, and part of Zivinice to Doboj).

Out of the originally planned regional landfills covering the 16 waste shed areas in the BiH, 8 regional landfills were established between 2000 and 2017. The approximate location and planned service area of these 8 RLs are shown in Figure B5- 4 These regional landfills include:

(i) Sarajevo (FBiH) (ii) Zenica (FBiH) (iii) Mostar (FBiH) (iv) Livno (FBiH) (v) Banja Luka (RS) (vi) Bijeljina (RS) (vii) Prijedor (RS) (viii) Zvornik (RS)

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 4: Existing Regional Landfills and their Service Areas in BiH

According to the WM Strategy, the planned regional landfills are needed to improve environmental conditions. Construction of the above-mentioned 8 regional landfills, and subsequent closure of the dump sites and wild landfills, have significantly improved the environmental conditions in BiH. However, the past 17-year implementation experience has shown that some of the originally planned waste sheds (shown in Figure B3-1) are not practically feasible due to various reasons. Lack of appropriate land for the planned RL, public resistance against selected location for new RL, haul distance and/or road conditions from certain municipalities to the allocated RL are amongst the main reasons that has made realization of some of the originally planned 16 RL very challenging.

An alternative solution to this problem and to achieve the Strategy’s main goal would be realization of local and case-by-case solutions based on the “proximity” principle. In some cases (i.e. in some areas of the BiH), the regional landfill concept should continue to be pursued as long as the road travel distance to the RL does not exceed ~ 45 kilometres (or 30km circle radius) and the road conditions are suitable (or can be improved) for waste transportation trucks. However, there are areas in the country where upgrading of non-compliant municipal landfills into controlled landfills could be the only feasible and economically viable option in order to achieve improvement of the BiH disposal system.

Suggested Approach for RS: In this section, the existing, the upcoming and the future possible RLs for the FBiH are assessed and described case by case. Suggestions and possible options presented here are subject to the limitations inherent to availability of site-specific information, and based on expert assessment, experience and knowledge about the on the ground situations at each particular

RS Sector Reform Report site. Where deviation from an originally planned RL is suggested, it is highly recommended that the region-specific information to be further reviewed in detail. We recommend detailed feasibility studies for technical and economical comparison of options such as construction of a transfer station versus construction of (or upgrading to) a sanitary municipal landfill to be conducted.

A summary of our recommendations for possible landfill site planning based on the existing situation are illustrated in Figure B5-5 below. The overall disposal system including the existing regional landfills and the possible additions for the future are summarized and illustrated in Figure B5- 10 at the end of this chapter.

Figure B5-5: Possible Future Landfill Development in RS

Group A is consisted of municipalities that are already in catchment area of one of the 4 existing RLs of (1) Banja Luka, (2) Bijeljina, (3) Zvornik and (4) Prijedor. This group includes 25 municipalities from RS and 5 municipalities from FBiH, with total population of 823,700, and estimated to produce 248,453 tons/year of MSW.

A1 – Banja Luka Regional Landfill:

Banja Luka Regional Landfill is the second largest RL in BiH and serves 8 municipalities shown in Figure B5- 6 and listed below with estimated annual MSW of 115,000 tons/year. This RL was recently expanded and do not require immediate investment for cell expansion in the near future. However, application of progressive closure (capping system) at this site is recommended to minimize leachate generation rates.

RS Sector Reform Report

Banja Luka 67,695 Gradiska 13,413 Knezevo 2,769 Kotor Varos 5,492 Laktasi 8,399 Prnjavor 8,949 Srbac 4,178 Celinac 4,317 Total 115,212 tons/year

Figure B5- 6: Banja Luka Regional Landfill Service Area

Banja Luka regional landfill will not be needing expansion in the near future, however, application of progressive closure in areas that reaches final design elevations is recommended.

A2 – Bijeljina Regional Landfill:

Bijeljina Regional Landfill serves 3 municipalities from RS and 2 municipalities from FBiH shown in Figure B5- 7 and listed below with estimated annual MSW of 44,400 tons/year.

Bijeljina 30,996 Lopare 3,626 Ugljevik 4,059 Teocak 3,309 Celic 2,411 Total 44,401 tons/year

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 7: Bijeljina Regional Landfill Service Area

Bijeljina regional landfill is approaching full design capacity of its current disposal cell and requires investment for construction of a new sanitary cell and partial closure of the completed area before end of 2018.

A3 – Zvornik Regional Landfill:

Zvornik Regional Landfill serves 8 municipalities from RS, as well as municipalities of Kalesija, and Sapna from FBiH. In this reform plan, it is suggested that municipality of Kladanj can temporarily use this RL until Zivinice RL is constructed. The current service area of Zvornik RL is shown in Figure B5- 8 and listed below with estimated annual MSW of 48,000 tons/year.

Bratunac 5,597 Vlasenica 3,620 Zvornik 13,945 Milici 2,682 Osmaci 1,174 Srebrenica 2,967 Han Pijesak 1,118 Sekovici 1,616 Sapna 3,066 Kalesija 8,052 Kladanj 3,894 (temporary until Zivinice RL is ready) Total 47,732 tons/year

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 8: Zvornik Regional Landfill Service Area

Zvornik regional landfill is required to install leachate treatment plant immediately and have a long- term plan for installation of a LFG flare system.

A4 – Prijedor Regional Landfill:

Prijedor Regional Landfill serves 6 municipalities shown in Figure B5- 9 and listed below with estimated annual MSW of 40,000 tons/year.

Kozarska Dubica 6,569 Kostajnica 1,975 Krupa na Uni 330 Novi Grad 7,405 Ostra Luka 573 Prijedor 23,255 Total 40,108 tons/year

Prijedor RL requires investment for construction of a new sanitary cell and closure of the old areas of the landfills (old wild landfill). Furthermore, investment is required to complete detailed analysis and design for diversion of runoff channel which is currently passing through beneath the landfill and gets mixed with generated leachate. This facility is also required to install a leachate treatment plant as soon as possible.

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 9: Prijedor Regional Landfill Service Area

Group B is consisted of municipalities that will be served by one of the 4 possible (future) RLs of (1) Mrkonjic Grad, (2) Doboj, (3) Foca i (4) Gacko described below. Total population that will be served by these 4 RLs is approximately 600,000, estimated to generate about 179,000 tons/year of MSW. These 4 possible RLs and their service areas are shown in Figure B5-5 and Figure B5- 10.

B1 – Mrkonjic Grad Regional Landfill:

Mrkonjic Grad is an existing municipal landfill with very logistical location that can possibly be upgraded to a regional landfill. This possible RL can potentially serve 10 municipalities from RS and FBiH listed below. The estimated annual waste tonnage that will be disposed in this possible RL is approximated to be about 23,000 tons/year.

Istocni Drvar 14 Jezero 220 Kupres 62 Mrkonjic Grad 4,908 Petrovac 75 Ribnik 1,239 Sipovo 2,931 Kljuc 5,153 (potential addition) Dobretic 368 (potential addition) Jajce 8,270 (potential addition) Total 23,240 tons/year

In-depth and region-specific technical feasibility study and ESIA are required to evaluate the existing conditions and to define next steps based on the existing potentials.

RS Sector Reform Report

B2 – Doboj Regional Landfill:

Doboj Landfill is an existing non-sanitary landfill in RS which is currently acting as a regional landfill receiving waste from several municipalities in RS and FBiH. There is high demand and will to relocated operations of this facility to a new site so it becomes one of the main sanitary regional landfill in the RS. In light of such an improvement, it is suggested in this reform plan that additional municipalities from FBiH can contribute this possible RL. Doboj Regional Landfill can potentially serve 17 municipalities listed below with estimated annual MSW of 105,000 tons/year.

Brod 5,000 Vukosavlje 924 Derventa 7,913 Doboj 19,622 Donji Zabar 777 Modrica 7,155 Pelagicevo 923 Petrovo 1,337 Teslic 9,376 Samac 4,484 Stanari 215 Usora 1,494 Doboj Istok 2,318 Doboj Jug 936 Maglaj 6,098 (potential addition) Tesanj 11,174 (potential addition) Lukavac 13,322 (temporary until Zivinice RL is ready) Gracanica 11,651 (potentially can be included in Gradacac RL if established) Total 104,719 tons/year

Even though the designs for construction of a sanitary RL at the selected location are prepared, a full technical review of the proposed designs and ESIA study are required for the selected site.

B3 – Foca Regional Landfill:

Foca Regional Landfill is one of the originally planned RLs that is not constructed yet. This possible RL is expected to serve 16 municipalities, listed below, with estimated annual MSW of 38,000 tons/year. No site is still selected for a potential RL in Foca. Nevertheless, some of the municipalities are located very far from city of Foca up to 100 km. This would make transportation cost high. Therefore, additional investigation and technical assessment of other alternative options, such as upgrading a municipal landfill for one of group of municipalities, or possibility of transporting waste to an existing or possible future RL in FBiH is required. These municipalities are coloured in grey and green in Figure B5-5 and Figure B5- 10.

Visegrad 3,281 Istocna Ilidza 5,300

RS Sector Reform Report

Istocni Stari Grad 236 (Alternative solution required) Istocno Novo Sarajevo 3,866 (Alternative solution required) Kalinovik 638 Novo Gorazde 617 Pale 7,063 (Alternative solution required) Rogatica 3,563 Rudo 1,971 (Alternative solution required) Sokolac 3,665 Trnovo 420 Foca 6,094 Cajnice 1,450 Total 38,164 tons/year

A site selection study and full ESIA study are needed for any potential new site for this RL. Detailed technical assessment of alternative options for distant municipalities is required.

B4 – Gacko Regional Landfill:

Gacko Regional Landfill is another originally planned RL that is not constructed yet. This possible RL is expected to serve 7 municipalities, listed below, with estimated annual MSW of 23,000 tons/year. No site is still selected for a potential RL in Gacko. Nevertheless, some of the municipalities are located very far from city of Gacko up to 75 km. This would make transportation cost high. Therefore, additional investigation and technical assessment of other alternative options, such as upgrading a municipal landfill for one of group of municipalities, or possibility of transporting waste to an existing or possible future RL in FBiH is required. These municipalities are coloured in grey and green in Figure B5-5 and Figure B5- 10.

Berkovici 432 Bileca 3,883 (Alternative solution required) Gacko 2,987 Istocni Mostar 52 (Alternative solution required) Ljubinje 1,243 (Alternative solution required) Nevesinje 3,750 Trebinje 11,012 (Alternative solution required) Total 23,359 tons/year

A site selection study and full ESIA study are needed for any potential new site for this RL. Detailed technical assessment of alternative options for distant municipalities is required.

Figure B5- 10 below summarizes the overall disposal system for RS, including the existing regional landfills (coloured in orange) possible regional landfills (coloured in dark blue, with service area coloured in light blue), possible municipal landfills (coloured in grey), and municipalities in RS that could potentially transport their waste to one of the regional landfills in FBiH (coloured in green). It should be noted that these possibilities are subject to detailed technical feasibility studies and economic analyses and comparison of options such as construction of transfer stations versus construction of (or upgrading to) a sanitary municipal landfill.

RS Sector Reform Report

Figure B5- 10: Overall disposal system at RS – existing and possible future facilities

RS Sector Reform Report

B6 CAPACITY BUILDING AND INVESTMENTS

Where applicable the proposed investments are based on targets mentioned in the realistic scenario (waste quantities, collection coverage, separation of packaging waste) except for separation of organic waste as it is recommended to postpone this after 2025.

Institutional

Authority Proposals Costs (USD)

MPPCEE Strengthening of Waste Management Department. 0.8 million Problem: Present staff consists of only two persons while Ministry should be the initiator and accelerator for reforms implementation. Tasks: -Preparation of amendments to legislation (Law on Waste management, Tax Code in view of VAT payments by households), further harmonization with EU Directives -Introduction of economic instruments (environmental tax on use of non-sanitary landfills, on use of 10 years and more collection vehicles) -Preparation of bylaws -Preparation of guidelines (financial, technical, operational, etc.) -Setting up of WIS (reporting, database management) -Development of WMP based on WM Strategy -Setting up and leading Work Group with all stakeholders as members on implementation of Reforms -Preparing operational manuals (EPR systems, landfill operation) -Consultation with municipalities -Preparation of re-organization proposals inside/outside ministry to increase effectiveness and efficiency (Future role of Fund for Environmental protection, Municipalities in view of regionalization and setting up of PPP’s) Approach: - Employ staff members and - Contract outside company for two years for in- house working, capacity training and transfer of know how. Specialists to include: (i) legal; (ii) financial; (iii) SWM; (iv) public awareness (PA)/capacity training assisted by back up specialists. Contract party: MPPCEE Municipalities Reorganisation of Department for Communal Affairs by setting up a separate and autonomous 150,000 waste management section. Problem: No clear operational/financial division of waste management services from other services. No

RS Sector Reform Report

accountability. No cost allocation transparency. Contracting and tariff collection. Lack of financing for investments. Tasks: Preparation of a re-organization study to (i) formulate the tasks, responsibilities, financial and operational procedures of an autonomous Waste Management Section; (ii) Establish procedures for contracting and tariff collection by municipality from households and payment to waste collector(s); (iii) most preferable internal organization in view of PPP and regionalization of collection and disposal services. Approach: Select a large, middle and small municipality as pilot subjects for the study. Contract specialist company to prepare the restructuring study specifically looking at optional division of collection and disposal tasks, accounting procedures, tariff collection, legal aspects, future tasks and responsibilities in view of regionalization. Contract party: Association of Municipalities or directly with three (interested) municipalities. Back- up from MPPCEE. Utility companies Assessment of operations 300,000 Problem Operations are inefficient. No clear cost allocation for the various services (collection, disposal, street cleaning, green areas maintenance, etc.). Over staffing. Cost monitoring. Tasks Preparation of an operational assessment study on using Key Performance Indicators for collection and disposal. The assessment should specifically include staffing per activity, planning, contracting and tariff collection, accounting with cost allocation, M+R activities, PA, supporting activities. Approach Contract a specialised company with operational and consultancy experience in the field of waste collection and disposal. Select one small and one large utility company (public or private). Organize regular work sessions with staff to enable transfer of know-how and operational experience. Establish lessons learned for dissemination to other companies through Association of Municipalities, BASWA, Association of Operators. Contract party: Municipalities Equipment New waste collection trucks Collection trucks Problem: Approximately 60% of existing trucks is older than 10 years. Tasks: -Procure preferably on a regional scale new hydraulic

RS Sector Reform Report

backloaders (preferably 10 and 20m³) for mixed municipal waste including training for maintenance -Procure skip loaders and containers (5-7m³) Approach: Prepare tender documents and issue a tender. Total number of trucks for RS is: -Back loaders: 53 x 135,000 plus spare parts and 7.5 million training 0.9 million -Skiploaders: 7 x 120,000 plus spare parts and training Containers New 1,100 litre and 240 litre containers Problem: Existing containers are not sufficient for increase in waste collection coverage and introduction of separation at source. Lifetime of existing containers Tasks: Procurement of new containers by municipality or regional collection company Approach: Prepare tender documents. Total number of containers needed: 1,100 litres: 6,315 x 250 plus spare wheels 1.6 million 240 litres: 8,724 x 75 0.65 million Sorting lines Problem: Waste separation at source is promoted. Capacity and location for sorting is insufficient to meet future requirements Tasks: -Start with scaling up of Doboj sorting line by implementing separation at source (supply of containers) in selected regional municipalities supported by extensive public awareness campaigns. Make arrangement with each municipality about needs and costs. - Start similar project in Banja Luka with the (private) waste collection company. Make arrangements about needs and costs. - Based on experience in Doboj and Banja Luka, implement a sorting line in Bijeljina (also depending on Brcko district waste disposal). Approach: - Set up a Working group to approach the regions for discussions, assessment of needs and costs, institutional and legal arrangements, financing conditions, etc. - Allocate a budget for development (PA, containers, operational costs, etc). Provide one year assistance - Technical assistance could be estimated as follows: 1. International expert (6mm): USD 75,000 2. Local experts (2) for one year (24mm): USD 120,000 3. Materials for PA: USD 60,000 TA: 300,000 4. Unforeseen: USD 45,000 Equipment: - Containers: 1,750 x 40=USD 70,000 70,000

RS Sector Reform Report

- Operational cost compensation: 120,000 x 0.365 x Operations: 0.85=37,230 ton x BAM22=820,000 or USD 500,000 500,000 Landfills Upgrading existing RL’s (up to 2025) Banja Luka The following works and facilities are needed: - Closure of 5 ha (in two or three phases) 1.25 million - Expansion 4 ha 1.4 million Prijedor** The following works are needed: (High priority due to level - Closure 6.5 ha** 2.28 million of readiness and - Expansion 3 ha** 1.05 million magnitude of current - LTP * 0.5 million environmental impact) - LFG flare 0.3 million Bijeljina The following works are needed: - Closure of 4.5 ha (progressive closure) 1.13 million - Expansion of 8 ha* (in two phases, phase 1 is 2.8 million required before end of 2018) Zvornik The following facility is needed: - Closure 1.5ha 0.38 million - LFG flare 0.3 million - LTP * 0.5 million Upgrading municipal landfills and Possible RLS Doboj* Feasibility Study on existing site of landfill (This is a very Doboj (review whether this site could be rehabilitated strategically located and possibly upgraded in order to contain and reduce tbd region that numerous the ongoing contamination until a permanent solution municipalities in RS and is found for a new regional site). FBiH can benefit from Full ESIA study and technical peer review of the implementation of the available design documentations are required. project) Subject to approval of the selected location and technical designs, the expected works might include: 1.1 million - Closure 3 ha including LFG collection with flare 3.6 million - Construction new cell (3 ha) with infrastructure Mrkonjic Grad* Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA are required to evaluate the current conditions tbd and to define next steps based on the existing potentials Gacko and Foca RLs Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and 75,000 evaluation of alternatives for each subset municipality is required. Rogatica Technical (pre-)feasibility study is required to assess the possibility of using possible Gorazde and to 50,000 investigate alternatives for Pale, etc. Trebinje Study on the construction of a regional waste 30,000 management center in Trebinje (which would include expansion of the landfill, procurement of recycling plant and sorting plant, etc.) Municipal landfills 1. Project for rehabilitation and closure of municipal landfills in the regions in which the regional landfills tbd are established (Banja Luka, Zvornik, Prijedor and Bijeljina).

RS Sector Reform Report

Wild dumps It is proposed to prepare a stock taking study on wild 50,000 dumps to assess the number, surface, estimated quantities, works required and costs for closing. ** Very urgently required to be implemented immediately (First priority due to magnitude of the adverse environmental impact, or level of gain (environmental pollution prevention) in comparison with the amount of effort and investment required) * Urgently required to be implemented latest in two years (Second priority)

RS Sector Reform Report

ANNEXES

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B1.1 Population per regions, cities and municipalities in RS (2013)

Urban Rural % of urban % of rural Region Municipality/City Population population population population population Kozarska Dubica 20,681 10,005 10,676 48.38 51.62 Kostajnica 5,645 3,561 2,084 63.08 36.92 KrupanaUni 1,560 0 1,560 0.00 100.00 Prijedor Novi Grad 25,240 9,415 15,825 37.30 62.70 Ostra Luka 2,705 0 2,705 0.00 100.00 Prijedor 80,916 27,970 52,946 34.57 65.43 Total 136,747 50,951 85,796 37.26 62.74 Banja Luka 180,053 135,059 44,994 75.01 24.99 Gradiska 49,196 13,691 35,505 27.83 72.17 Knezevo 9,368 3,590 5,778 38.32 61.68 Kotor Varos 18,361 7,330 11,031 39.92 60.08 Banja Laktasi 34,210 5,282 28,928 15.44 84.56 Luka Prnjavor 34,357 7,651 26,706 22.27 77.73 Srbac 16,933 2,707 14,226 15.99 84.01 Celinac 15,117 5,097 10,020 33.72 66.28 Total 357,595 180,407 177,188 50.45 49.55 Istocni Drvar 66 0 66 0.00 100.00 Jezero 1,039 0 1,039 0.00 100.00 Kupres 293 0 293 0.00 100.00 Mrkonjic Mrkonjic Grad 15,926 7,017 8,909 44.06 55.94 Grad Petrovac 354 0 354 0.00 100.00 Ribnik 5,851 0 5,851 0.00 100.00 Sipovo 9,969 3,749 6,220 37.61 62.39 Total 33,498 10,766 22,732 32.14 67.86 Brod 15,720 7,637 8,083 48.58 51.42 Vukosavlje 4,363 0 4,363 0.00 100.00 Derventa 25,922 11,076 14,846 42.73 57.27 Doboj 67,499 24,349 43,150 36.07 63.93 Donji Zabar 3,669 0 3,669 0.00 100.00 Modrica 24,490 8,996 15,494 36.73 63.27 Doboj Pelagicevo 4,358 0 4,358 0.00 100.00 Petrovo 6,317 0 6,317 0.00 100.00 Teslic 37,236 6,820 30,416 18.32 81.68 Samac 16,308 4,709 11,599 28.88 71.12 Stanari 1,015 0 1,015 0.00 100.00 Total 206,897 63,587 143,310 30.73 69.27 Bijeljina 103,874 41,121 62,753 39.59 60.41 Bijeljina Lopare 14,689 2,357 12,332 16.05 83.95 Ugljevik 15,118 3,922 11,196 25.94 74.06

RS Sector Reform Report

Urban Rural % of urban % of rural Region Municipality/City Population population population population population Total 133,681 47,400 86,281 35.46 64.54 Bratunac 18,651 7,530 11,121 40.37 59.63 Vlasenica 10,657 6,228 4,429 58.44 41.56 Zvornik 54,407 11,082 43,325 20.37 79.63 Milici 10,445 2,151 8,294 20.59 79.41 Zvornik Osmaci 5,546 0 5,546 0.00 100.00 Srebrenica 11,698 2,241 9,457 19.16 80.84 Han Pijesak 3,445 1,777 1,668 51.58 48.42 Sekovici 6,323 1,265 5,058 20.01 79.99 Total 121,172 32,274 88,898 26.63 73.37 Visegrad 10,118 5,203 4,915 51.42 48.58 Istocna Ilidza 14,437 10,243 4,194 70.95 29.05 Istocni Stari Grad 1,116 0 1,116 0.00 100.00 Istocno Novo 10,401 7,597 2,804 Sarajevo 73.04 26.96 Kalinovik 1,962 1,015 947 51.73 48.27 Novo Gorazde 2,915 0 2,915 0.00 100.00 Foca Pale 20,359 12,569 7,790 61.74 38.26 Rogatica 10,302 6,313 3,989 61.28 38.72 Rudo 7,578 1,675 5,903 22.10 77.90 Sokolac 11,620 5,502 6,118 47.35 52.65 Trnovo 1,983 0 1,983 0.00 100.00 Foca 17,580 10,831 6,749 61.61 38.39 Cajnice 4,679 2,100 2,579 44.88 55.12 Total 115,050 63,048 52,002 54.80 45.20 Berkovici 2,041 0 2,041 0.00 100.00 Bileca 10,607 7,476 3,131 70.48 29.52 Gacko 8,710 5,218 3,492 59.91 40.09 Istocni Mostar 244 0 244 0.00 100.00 Gacko Ljubinje 3,319 2,467 852 74.33 25.67 Nevesinje 12,542 5,000 7,542 39.87 60.13 Trebinje 28,239 22,987 5,252 81.40 18.60 Total 65,702 43,148 22,554 65.67 34.33 Grand Total 1,170,342 491,581 678,761 42.00 58.00

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B1.2 Amounts of waste generated in cities, municipalities and regions in RS (2013)

Urban waste Rural waste Total waste Region Municipality/City Population (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year

Kozarska Dubica 20,681 3,834 2,143 5,978 Kostajnica 5,645 1,365 418 1,783 Krupana Uni 1,560 0 313 313 Prijedor Novi Grad 25,240 3,608 3,177 6,785 Ostra Luka 2,705 0 543 543 Prijedor 80,916 10,720 10,629 21,348 Total 136,747 19,527 17,224 36,751 Banja Luka 180,053 51,761 9,033 60,794 Gradiska 49,196 5,247 7,128 12,375 Knezevo 9,368 1,376 1,160 2,536 Kotor Varos 18,361 2,809 2,214 5,024 Banja Luka Laktasi 34,210 2,024 5,807 7,832 Prnjavor 34,357 2,932 5,361 8,293 Srbac 16,933 1,037 2,856 3,893 Celinac 15,117 1,953 2,012 3,965 Total 357,595 69,141 35,570 104,711 Istocni Drvar 66 0 13 13 Jezero 1,039 0 209 209 Kupres 293 0 59 59 Mrkonjic Mrkonjic Grad 15,926 2,689 1,788 4,478 Grad Petrovac 354 0 71 71 Ribnik 5,851 0 1,175 1,175 Sipovo 9,969 1,437 1,249 2,685 Total 33,498 4,126 4,564 8,690 Brod 15,720 2,927 1,623 4,550 Vukosavlje 4,363 0 876 876 Derventa 25,922 4,245 2,980 7,225 Doboj 67,499 9,332 8,662 17,994 Donji Zabar 3,669 0 737 737 Modrica 24,490 3,448 3,110 6,558 Doboj Pelagicevo 4,358 0 875 875 Petrovo 6,317 0 1,268 1,268 Teslic 37,236 2,614 6,106 8,720 Samac 16,308 1,805 2,328 4,133 Stanari 1,015 0 204 204 Total 206,897 24,370 28,768 53,138 Bijeljina Bijeljina 103,874 15,760 12,598 28,357

RS Sector Reform Report

Urban waste Rural waste Total waste Region Municipality/City Population (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year

Lopare 14,689 903 2,476 3,379 Ugljevik 15,118 1,503 2,248 3,751 Total 133,681 18,166 17,322 35,488 Bratunac 18,651 2,886 2,233 5,118 Vlasenica 10,657 2,387 889 3,276 Zvornik 54,407 4,247 8,697 12,945 Milici 10,445 824 1,665 2,489 Zvornik Osmaci 5,546 0 1,113 1,113 Srebrenica 11,698 859 1,898 2,757 Han Pijesak 3,445 681 335 1,016 Sekovici 6,323 485 1,015 1,500 Total 121,172 12,369 17,845 30,214 Visegrad 10,118 1,994 987 2,981 Istocna Ilidza 14,437 3,926 842 4,768 Istocni Stari Grad 1,116 0 224 224 Istocno Novo 10,401 2,912 563 3,474 Sarajevo Kalinovik 1,962 389 190 579 Novo Gorazde 2,915 0 585 585 Foca Pale 20,359 4,817 1,564 6,381 Rogatica 10,302 2,419 801 3,220 Rudo 7,578 642 1,185 1,827 Sokolac 11,620 2,109 1,228 3,337 Trnovo 1,983 0 398 398 Foca 17,580 4,151 1,355 5,506 Cajnice 4,679 805 518 1,323 Total 115,050 24,163 10,439 34,602 Berkovici 2,041 0 410 410 Bileca 10,607 2,865 629 3,494 Gacko 8,710 2,000 701 2,701 Istocni Mostar 244 0 49 49 Gacko Ljubinje 3,319 945 171 1,117 Nevesinje 12,542 1,916 1,514 3,430 Trebinje 28,239 8,810 1,054 9,864 Total 65,702 16,536 4,528 21,064 Grand Total 1,170,342 188,398 136,260 324,658

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B1.3 Forecasted waste generation in cities, municipality and regions

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Region Municipality/City waste waste waste waste- waste waste (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year

2013 2025 KozarskaDubica 3,834 2,143 5,978 4,309 2,260 6,569 Kostajnica 1,365 418 1,783 1,534 441 1,975

KrupanaUni 0 313 313 0 330 330 Prijedor Novi Grad 3,608 3,177 6,785 4,055 3,350 7,405 Ostra Luka 0 543 543 0 573 573 Prijedor 10,720 10,629 21,348 12,047 11,209 23,255 Total 19,527 17,224 36,751 21,945 18,163 40,108

Banja Luka 51,761 9,033 60,794 58,170 9,525 67,695 Gradiska 5,247 7,128 12,375 5,897 7,516 13,413 Knezevo 1,376 1,160 2,536 1,546 1,223 2,769 Banja KotorVaros Luka 2,809 2,214 5,024 3,157 2,335 5,492 Laktasi 2,024 5,807 7,832 2,275 6,124 8,399 Prnjavor 2,932 5,361 8,293 3,295 5,654 8,949 Srbac 1,037 2,856 3,893 1,166 3,012 4,178 Celinac 1,953 2,012 3,965 2,195 2,121 4,317 Total 69,141 35,570 104,711 77,701 37,511 115,212 IstocniDrvar 0 13 13 0 14 14 Jezero 0 209 209 0 220 220 Kupres 0 59 59 0 62 62 Mrkonjic Mrkonjic Grad Grad 2,689 1,788 4,478 3,022 1,886 4,908 Petrovac 0 71 71 0 75 75 Ribnik 0 1,175 1,175 0 1,239 1,239 Sipovo 1,437 1,249 2,685 1,615 1,317 2,931 Total 4,126 4,564 8,690 4,637 4,812 9,449 Brod 2,927 1,623 4,550 3,289 1,711 5,000 Vukosavlje Doboj 0 876 876 0 924 924 Derventa 4,245 2,980 7,225 4,770 3,143 7,913 Doboj 9,332 8,662 17,994 10,487 9,135 19,622

RS Sector Reform Report

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Region Municipality/City waste waste waste waste- waste waste (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year

2013 2025 DonjiZabar 0 737 737 0 777 777 Modrica 3,448 3,110 6,558 3,875 3,280 7,155 Pelagicevo 0 875 875 0 923 923 Petrovo 0 1,268 1,268 0 1,337 1,337 Teslic 2,614 6,106 8,720 2,937 6,439 9,376 Samac 1,805 2,328 4,133 2,028 2,456 4,484 Stanari 0 204 204 0 215 215 Total 24,370 28,768 53,138 27,387 30,339 57,726 Bijeljina 15,760 12,598 28,357 17,711 13,285 30,996 Lopare 903 2,476 3,379 1,015 2,611 3,626 Bijeljina Ugljevik 1,503 2,248 3,751 1,689 2,370 4,059 Total 18,166 17,322 35,488 20,415 18,266 38,681 Bratunac 2,886 2,233 5,118 3,243 2,354 5,597 Vlasenica 2,387 889 3,276 2,682 938 3,620 Zvornik 4,247 8,697 12,945 4,773 9,172 13,945 Milici 824 1,665 2,489 926 1,756 2,682 Osmaci Zvornik 0 1,113 1,113 0 1,174 1,174 Srebrenica 859 1,898 2,757 965 2,002 2,967 Han Pijesak 681 335 1,016 765 353 1,118 Sekovici 485 1,015 1,500 545 1,071 1,616 Total 12,369 17,845 30,214 13,900 18,820 32,720 Visegrad 1,994 987 2,981 2,241 1,041 3,281 Istocna Ilidza 3,926 842 4,768 4,412 888 5,300 IstocniStari Grad 0 224 224 0 236 236 Istocno Novo Sarajevo 2,912 563 3,474 3,272 594 3,866 Kalinovik 389 190 579 437 200 638 Foca Novo Gorazde 0 585 585 0 617 617 Pale 4,817 1,564 6,381 5,413 1,649 7,063 Rogatica 2,419 801 3,220 2,719 844 3,563 Rudo 642 1,185 1,827 721 1,250 1,971 Sokolac 2,109 1,228 3,337 2,370 1,295 3,665 Trnovo 0 398 398 0 420 420 Foca 4,151 1,355 5,506 4,665 1,429 6,094

RS Sector Reform Report

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Region Municipality/City waste waste waste waste- waste waste (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year

2013 2025 Cajnice 805 518 1,323 904 546 1,450 Total 24,163 10,439 34,602 27,155 11,009 38,164 Berkovici 0 410 410 0 432 432 Bileca 2,865 629 3,494 3,220 663 3,883 Gacko 2,000 701 2,701 2,247 739 2,987 IstocniMostar Gacko 0 49 49 0 52 52 Ljubinje 945 171 1,117 1,063 180 1,243 Nevesinje 1,916 1,514 3,430 2,154 1,597 3,750 Trebinje 8,810 1,054 9,864 9,901 1,112 11,012 Total 16,536 4,528 21,064 18,584 4,775 23,359 Grand Total 188,398 136,260 324,658 211,724 143,694 355,418

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B1.4 Forecasted waste composition per region

WASTE REGION 2013 2025 COMPOSITION URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 8,787 9,436 Recyclables 6,249 7,461 Other 4,491 5,047 Total 19,527 21,945 Prijedor RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Organics 7,751 7,810 Recyclables 5,512 6,175 Other 3,961 4,177 Total 17,224 18,163 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 31,113 33,412 Recyclables 22,125 26,418 Other 15,902 17,871 Total 69,141 77,701 Banja Luka RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Organics 16,007 16,130 Recyclables 11,383 12,754 Other 8,181 8,627 Total 35,570 37,511 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 1,857 1,994 Recyclables 1,320 1,577

Other 949 1,066

Total 4,126 4,637 RURAL WASTE (tons/year)

Mrkonjic Grad Organics 2,054 2,069 Recyclables 1,460 1,636 Other 1,050 1,107 Total 4,563 4,812 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 10,966 11,776 Doboj Recyclables 7,798 9,312 Other 5,605 6,299

RS Sector Reform Report

WASTE REGION 2013 2025 COMPOSITION Total 24,370 27,387 RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Organics 12,946 13,046 Recyclables 9,206 10,315 Other 6,617 6,978 Total 28,769 30,339 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 8,175 8,779 Recyclables 5,813 6,941 Other 4,178 4,695

Total 18,166 20,415

RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Bijeljina Organics 7,794 7,854 Recyclables 5,543 6,210 Other 3,984 4,201 Total 17,321 18,266 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 5,566 5,977 Recyclables 3,958 4,726 Other 2,845 3,197 Total 12,369 13,900 Zvornik RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Organics 8,031 8,092 Recyclables 5,711 6,399 Other 4,105 4,329 Total 17,846 18,820 URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 10,873 11,677 Recyclables 7,249 9,233 Other 6,041 6,246

Total 24,163 27,155

Foca RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Organics 4,698 4,734 Recyclables 3,341 3,743 Other 2,401 2,532 Total 10,439 11,009

RS Sector Reform Report

WASTE REGION 2013 2025 COMPOSITION URBAN WASTE (tons/year) Organics 7,441 7,991 Recyclables 5,292 6,319 Other 3,803 4,274 Total 16,536 18,584 Gacko RURAL WASTE (tons/year) Organics 2,037 2,053 Recyclables 1,449 1,623 Other 1,041 1,098 Total 4,528 4,775

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B2.1 Description of proposed regional waste management system

The WM Strategy proposes regional concept of the solid waste management with construction of regional landfills. By the end of 2021 it is planned to construct four regional landfills (for the region of Banja Luka and Mrkonjc Grad, the region of Bijeljina, the region of Zvornik and the region of Prijedor), while by the end of 2026 the plan is to build a regional landfill for the region of Doboj, and, if the conditions allow (large area, a small amount of waste), in the region of Gacko and in the region of Foca.

In parallel, remediation and closure of municipal landfills will be implemented in these regions. Therefore, by 2021 it is planned to close all municipal landfills in the region of Banja Luka, Mrkonjic Grad, Bijeljina, Zvornik and Prijedor, while municipal landfills in the regions of Doboj, Foca and Gacko (26 of them) will continue to operate. Upon completion of regional landfill construction in Doboj (until the end of 2026) all municipal landfills in Doboj region will also be closed and only municipal landfills in Foca and Gacko regions (out of 17) will continue to operate until construction of regional landfills.

Full coverage in terms of population by organised municipal waste collection service is expected by the year 2026. The increase in amount of separately collected municipal waste for recycling, as well as treated municipal waste should increase significantly by 2026. Since the construction of mechanical-biological treatment facilities is not expected until the end of the Strategic period, a significant reduction in landfilling of untreated municipal and biodegradable waste, as well as an increase in the amount of treated municipal waste, is not expected before the next planning period.

Due to long distance of some municipalities, the WM Strategy proposes construction of 15 transfer stations (TSs) in 7 regions. An overview of the proposed transfer stations by region is shown below.

Br. Region City / Name of the regional Proposed transfer stations Municipality landfill and its status

1. Banja Banja Luka City "Ramići" Banja Luka TS Gradiska for 2. Luka Gradiska (in operation) municipalities Gradiska and 3. Kneževo Srbac and TS Prnjavor. 4. Kotor Varos A transfer station in 5. Laktaši municipality Gradiska is in 6. Prnjavor operation, and for 7. Srbac municipality Prnjavor the 8. Čelinac specific location is not yet known. 9. Bijeljina Bijeljina "Eko - Dep" in Bijeljina Construction of transfer 10. Lopare (In operation) stations is not planned. 11. Ugljevik 12. Doboj Brod "Lipac" in Doboj TS Derventa for 13. Vukosavlje (Currently used as inter municipalities of Brod and 14. Derventa municipal dumpsite, Derventa. 15. Doboj planned to be transformed 16. Stanari to the regional landfill) TS Modrica for municipalities Modrica, 17. Donji Zabar Vukosavlje, Donji Zabar, 18. Modriča Pelagićevo and Samac. 19. Pelagićevo 20. Petrovo 21. Teslić 22. Samac

RS Sector Reform Report

23. Gacko Berkovići The exact location of the TS Bileca for municipality 24. Bileća regional landfill is not yet of Bileca. 25. Gacko known. It is planned to TS Nevesinje for 26. Istočni Mostar select a site somewhere on municipalities Berkovići, 27. Ljubinje the territory of East Mostar and Nevesinje. 28. Nevesinje municipality Gacko. TS Trebinje for 29. Trebinje municipalities Ljubinje and Trebinje.

30. Mrkonjic Istočni Drvar It is planned to select a Construction of transfer 31. Grad Jezero site somewhere on the stations is not planned. 32. Kupres territory of municipality 33. Mrkonjić Grad Mrkonjic Grad. 34. Petrovac 35. Ribnik 36. Šipovo 37. Prijedor Kozarska Dubica "Kurevo" in Prijedor TS Kozarska Dubica for 38. Kostajnica (Constructed, but not yet municipalities Kozarska 39. Krupa na Uni sanitary) Dubica and Kostajnica. 40. Novi Grad TS Novi Grad for 41. Oštra Luka municipalities Novi Grad 42. Prijedor and Krupa na Uni.

43. Foča Višegrad Future RL for Foca Region TS Pale for municipalities: 44. Istočna Ilidža (Planned) East Ilidza, Istočni Stari 45. Istočni Stari Grad Grad, Istočno Novo 46. Istočno Novo Sarajevo, Pale and Trnovo Sarajevo TS Visegrad for 47. Kalinovik municipalities: Visegrad 48. Novo Goražde and Rudo. 49. Pale TS Čajniče for municipality 50. Rogatica Čajniče. 51. Rudo TS Foca for municipalities: 52. Sokolac Kalinovik and Foča. 53. Trnovo 54. Foča 55. Čajniče 56. Zvornik Bratunac "Crni vrh" in Zvornik TS Bratunac for 57. Vlasenica (In operation ) municipalities: Bratunac 58. Zvornik and Srebrenica. 59. Milici TS Vlasenica for 60. Osmaci municipalities: Vlasenica, 61. Srebrenica Milici and Han Pijesak. 62. Han Pijesak 63. Šekovići

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B3.1 List of collection and disposal companies

Name of the No. Municipality/City Address Contact operator

Braće Podgornika 2 Aleksandar „Čistoća“ AD Tel: +387 51 304 477 Bajić [email protected] 1. Banja Luka Bulevar Živojina Mišića 23 JP “DEP-OT” Tel: +387 51 258 320 Novo Grujić d.o.o. (landfill) Fax: +387 51 258 321 E-mail:[email protected] Viduša bb Tel. 059/860 167 2. Berkovići JP „Vodovod“ Zoran Lučić Fax. 059/860 167 [email protected] Ulica Mačvanska bb Tel 055/241-480 Milorad AD „Komunalac“ Fax 055/241-481 Zekić [email protected] 3. Bijeljina Miloša Crnjanskog 38 JP Regionalna Tel: +387 55 224 830 Dragiša Deponija “EKO- Fax: +387 55 202 085 Marjanović DEP” (landfill) E-mail: [email protected] S.V. Ostroškog 5 4. Bileća KP „Komus“ Tel 059 380 770 Fax 059 380 777 Svetog Save 84 KP „Gradska Aleksandar Tel. + 387 56 410 208 Čistoća“ AD Zekić [email protected] 5. Bratunac Svetog Save br.84 Tel. 056/410 224 Radenko JP "Rad" Fax 056/410 224 Vasić [email protected] KP „Komunalac“ Svetog Save br. 81 Milan 6. Brod AD Tel. +387 053 663 375 Gojković JKP „Vrelo- Kralja I Petra Oslobodioca bb Lazar 7. Čajniče Čajniče“ d.o.o. Tel. +387 58 315 778 Stavnjak Vojvode Mišića 25 A KP „Čistoća i Luka 8. Čelinac Tel + 387 51 551 034 Zelenilo“ AD Marjanović Fax + 387 51 555 035 Njegoševa br. 1 Tel. 053/331 680 Grozdan 9. Derventa KP „Komunalac“ Fax 053/331 680 Ružičić [email protected] Karađorđeva 10,74 000 Doboj, Tel. 053/241-844; Žakula 10. Doboj KP „Progres“ AD Faks: 053/241-844; Zlatko e-mail: [email protected]

RS Sector Reform Report

JP Regionalna deponija “Doboj- Cara dušana bb Damir Lukić Tešanj” (regional landfill) 11. Donji Žabar / Kralja Petra I KP „Komunalac“ Zoran 12. Foča Tel 058/210-845, 058/210-157 AD Krunić Fax 058/210-008 Solunskih dobrovoljaca 56 Tel. 059 472 5530 13. Gacko KP „Komus“ Fax 059 472 703 [email protected] Bistrička br.1 KP „Gradska Tel: 051 813 225 Goran 14. Gradiška Čistoća“ AD Fax: 051 814 790 Bijeljić [email protected] JKP „Kraljeva Ivana 15. Han Pijesak Srpske vojske 10 Gora“ d.o.o. Maksiović JKP „Komil“ 16. Istočna Ilidža Trg Ilidžanske Brigade bb Milan Tošić d.o.o. 17. Istočni Drvar / / / Zagrebačka bb JP „Komunalno“ 18. Istočni Mostar Tel. +387 36 576 931 Esad Pobrić d.o.o. Mostar [email protected] Hreša 1 Tel. +387 (0)57 265 127 Slaviša 19. Istočni Stari Grad KP „Glog“ [email protected] Jovčić [email protected] Nikole Tesle br. 53 A Istočno Novo KP "Vodovod i Tel. 057/340 914 20. Jovan Katić Sarajevo kanalizacija" AD Fax 057/340 480 [email protected] Ulica 21 novembra 21 KP „Sinjakovo“ 21. Jezero Tel 050 291 002 / AD Fax 050 291 002 Srpskih dobrovoljaca bb Ratomir 22. Kalinovik JKP "Gradina" Tel. 057/623 433 Crnjak Rajka Dukića bb Radojko 23. Kneževo KP "Cvrcka" a.d. Tel. 051/ 594 025 Knežević Fax 051/ 594 025 Branka Ćopića bb KP "Komunalno" Tel. 052/663 180 Vuruna 24. Kostajnica a.d. Kostajnica Fax 052/663 180 Slobodan [email protected] Cara Dušana bb KP "Bobas" a.d. Tel. 051/783 119 Milanko 25. Kotor Varoš Kotor Varoš Fax 051/784 060 Popović jkp.bobas@blic.net Miroslava Antića bb Telefon:+387 (0)52 424 820 Božidar 26. Kozarska Dubica „Komunalac“ AD Fax:+387 (0)52 424 821 Nikoletić E-mail: [email protected] 27. Krupa na Uni JKP „Vojskova“ Ulica dr Milana Jelica 4 Željko

RS Sector Reform Report

d.o.o. Tel. 052 750 025 Vojnović Fax. 052 750 002 Splitska 5 JKP „Kupres“ Tel:034/274-381, Tomislav 28. Kupres d.o.o. Fax:034/274-384 Pašalić [email protected] Karađorđeva br. 63 KP "Budućnost" 051/532 072 Milovan 29. Laktaši a.d. 051/ 530 645 Bajić [email protected] Trg Nemanjića bb JKP "Vodovod" 30. Ljubinje Tel. 059/621 360 Risto Šišić d.o.o. Fax 059/621 360 Cara Dušana bb JKP "Ekokom" Tel. 055/650 402 Spasoje 31. Lopare Lopare Fax 055/650 074 Simeunović [email protected] Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića 54 A.D. Tel. 056/741 128 32. Milići "Komunalno" Marko Bibić Fax 056/740 406 Milići [email protected] Trg Jovana Raškovića bb A.D. Tel. 053/812 016 33. Modriča "Komunalac” Živko Lazić Fax 053/812 016 Modriča [email protected] Stevana Sinđelića br. 51 Tel.050/211 506 Dušan 34. Mrkonjić Grad KP "Park" a.d. Fax 050/211 066 Janković [email protected] Cara Dušana br.51 JP "Vodovod" 89 280 Nevesinje Radomir 35. Nevesinje a.d. Nevesinje (JP Tel. 059/602 563 Todorović Komus) [email protected] Njegoševa br. 4 KP "Vodovod i Tel. 052/752 163 Mladen 36. Novi Grad kanalizacija" a.d. Fax 052/751 394 Šicar [email protected] Kopači, Centar II JKP „Novo Ljiljanja 37. Novo Goražde Tel. +387 58 430 331 Goražde“ Tešanović Fax. +387 58 430 331 JKP „Rad- 38. Osmaci Osmaci bb Spreča“ 39. Oštra Luka / / / Trifka Grabeža 9 40. Pale KP ”Pale" a.d. Tel: 057 22 32 59 Fax: 057 22 34 65 41. Pelagićevo / / / Centar bb Branimir 42. Petrovac ODJKP "Uzor" Tel. 050/465 018 Stojanović Fax 050/465 018 Lužanjak bb Zoran 43. Petrovo JP "Komunal" Tel. 053/260 611 Uranović Fax 053/260 611

RS Sector Reform Report

[email protected] Kozarska br.87 "Komunalne Tel. 052/236 600 Vlado Reljić usluge" a.d. Fax 052/238 029 [email protected] 44. Prijedor Kozarska br.87 Deponija Tel. 052/236 600 “Kurevo” Vlado Reljić Fax 052/238 029 (landfill) [email protected] Živojina Preradovića bb Tel.051/664 403 KP "Vodovod" Dragomir 45. Prnjavor Fax 051/664 402 a.d. Prnjavor Đurđević [email protected] www.vodovod-prnjavor.com Komunalno 46. Ribnik preduzeće Ribnik Gornji Ribnik bb / a.d. Preobraženska bb JKP Tel. 058/415 426 Aleksandar 47. Rogatica "Komunalije" Fax 058/415 426 Bojović Rogatica [email protected] Miloša Obilića 4A Tel.058/711 129 48. Rudo KP "Usluga" Jovan Savić 058/711 129 [email protected] Generala Draže Tel. 054/612 950 Stevo 49. Šamac KP "Čistoća" Fax 054/612 950 Tovirac [email protected]

Draže Mihajlovića 63 JKP "Zelenilo i Tel. 056/653 078 Đorđe 50. Šekovići čistoća" Fax 056/653 078 Radanović [email protected]

Nikole Tesle br.31 Tel. 050/371 170 Milorad 51. Šipovo KP "Lisina" a.d. Fax 050/371 170 Piljić [email protected] Danila Đokića br. 19 Petar 52. Sokolac JP "Sokolac" a.d. Tel. 057/448 140 Vučković Fax 057/447 282 11. novembra br. 2 KP "Vodovod" Tel. 051/740 068 Slaven 53. Srbac a.d. Fax 051/740 068 Marić [email protected] Srebreničkog odreda bb Tel. 056/441 004 Mehmedović 54. Srebrenica KP "Polet" Fax 056/440 747 Hajrudin [email protected] Kralja Petra I bb Tel. 053/431 499 Zoran 55. Teslić PKD "Rad" a.d. Fax 053/431 795 Zelenbabić [email protected]

RS Sector Reform Report

www.vodovod-teslic.com Luke Ćelovića-Trebinjca br. 2 JP za komunalnu Tel. 059/260 226 Borivoje 56. Trebinje hidrotehniku Fax 059/260 542 Ninković "Vodovod" a.d. [email protected] www.vodovod-trebinje.com Vojvode Kerovića br. 27 Tel. 055/771 732 Božidar 57. Ugljevik A.D. "Kompred" Fax 055/772 854 Vasić [email protected] Nikole Pašića br.7 Tel. 058/620 112 58. Višegrad A.D. "15.april" Mišo Savić Fax 058/620 112 [email protected] Komunalno Svetosavska 14 Preduzeće Tel: 056/733-499 59. Vlasenica / „Čistoća“ Fax: 056/734-830 Vlasenica [email protected] Muse Ćazima Ćatića 165 JP „Eko-Čistoća“ Alena 60. Vukosavlje Tel: 053/707 507 d.o.o. Bećirović [email protected] Svetog Save br.56 A.D."Vodovod i Tel. 056/211 154 61. Zvornik Jovan Tomić komunalije" Fax 056/211 154 [email protected]

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B3.2 Summary of questionnaires

Municipality Inhabitants Quantities/year (tons) Generation Staffing Census Questionnaire Served Households CII Industries Separated Kg/cap/year No/1,000T 2013 Celinac 15,548 15,548 12,430 2,113 ---- 170 10/2.1 = 4.8 (80%)

Prijedor 89,397 28,847x3= 17,110x3= 17,177 243 419 56/17.7=3.2 86,541 51,330 (59%) Ribnik 6,048 6,500 2,600(40%) 290 30 ------123 4/0.3=13 Vlasenica 11,467 1,950x3= 1,950x3= 2,260 990 ------555 19/3.25=6 5,850 5,850(100%) Pale 20,909 ----- 3,660x3= 4,000 500 50 ---- 414 18/4.5=4 10,980(52%) Mrkonjic Grad 16,671 18,183 15,240(84%) 39,611m³ (7,328 ton) 354m³ 485 26/10.89=2.3 (65 ton) Gradiska 51,727 --- 14,155x3= 8,583 1,758 --- 243 249 30/10.1=3 42,465(82%) Gacko 8,990 1,400x3=4,200 70(2,940) Unable to weigh the waste ------Kostajnica 1,124 1,058 349 23 ------352 6/.372=16 Banja Luka 185,042 156,072 156,072 37,910 17,748 1,128 364 111/56.8=1.94 (84%) Totals (Excluding 396,809 361,330 296,967 102,366(excl. industrial)/296,967=344kg or Gacko+Kostajnica) (82%) 0.94kg/cap/day (75%)

RS Sector Reform Report

Continued

Municipality Tariffs (incl. VAT) Costs 2015 (excl. VAT) KM/m² Other Collection (%) Annual(KM) KM/Ton (household/yr) Households CII Celinac 0.2 x75x12=✶ ---- 79 953,997 168 ✶Average size house: 75m² 180 Prijedor 0.1453x75x12= --- 97 95 1,678,121 98 130 Ribnik ----- 5.85x12=70 ------? ? No split up between waste collection and other services Vlasenica 0.14x75x12= ---- 70 72 390,263 120 126 Pale 0.22x75x12= ---- 70 80 558,581 123 198

Mrkonjic 0.129x75x12= ------Grad 116 Gradiska 0.16x75x12= --- 87 67 ------144 Gacko 0.17x75x12= --- 98 75 907,256 153 Kostajnica 0.1x75x12= --- 67 75 160,072 430 90 Banja Luka 0.138x75x12= Container 5m³ 92 92 5,580,493 98 124 125x1.17=146.25

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B3.3 Landfills overview

Region Municipality/ Population Waste Current landfill status City quantity (tons/year)

Prijedor Kozarska Dubica 20,681 6,569 To the RL in Prijedor (it should be sanitary) Kostajnica 5,645 1,975 Kostajnica dumpsite Krupa na Uni 1,560 330 Novi Grad dumpsite Novi Grad 25,240 7,405 Novi Grad dumpsite Ostra Luka 2,705 573 To the RL in Prijedor (it should be sanitary) Prijedor 80,916 23,255 To the RL in Prijedor (it should be sanitary) Total 136,747 40,108 Banja Luka Banja Luka 180,053 67,695 RL Banja Luka Gradiska 49,196 13,413 RL Banja Luka Knezevo 9,368 2,769 RL Banja Luka Kotor Varos 18,361 5,492 RL Banja Luka Laktasi 34,210 8,399 RL Banja Luka Prnjavor 34,357 8,949 RL Banja Luka Srbac 16,933 4,178 RL Banja Luka Celinac 15,117 4,317 RL Banja Luka Total 357,595 115,212 Mrkonjic Istocni Drvar 66 14 Small municipality ( like village) no Grad collection company, dumpsite or landfill Jezero 1,039 220 Kupres 293 62 Small municipality ( like village) no collection company, dumpsite or landfill Mrkonjic Grad 15,926 4,908 Local dumpsite Petrovac 354 75 Local dumpsite Ribnik 5,851 1,239 Local dumpsite Sipovo 9,969 2,931 Local dumpsite Total 33,498 9,449 Doboj Brod 15,720 5,000 Local dumpsite Vukosavlje 4,363 924 Local dumpsite Derventa 25,922 7,913 Local dumpsite Doboj 67,499 19,622 inter municipality landfill in Doboj Donji Zabar 3,669 777 Modrica 24,490 7,155 Local dumpsite Pelagicevo 4,358 923 Petrovo 6,317 1,337 Local dumpsite

RS Sector Reform Report

Region Municipality/ Population Waste Current landfill status City quantity (tons/year)

Teslic 37,236 9,376 Local dumpsite Samac 16,308 4,484 Stanari 1,015 215 Inter municipality landfill in Doboj Total 206,897 57,726 Bijeljina Bijeljina 103,874 30,996 RL Bijeljina Lopare 14,689 3,626 RL Bijeljina Ugljevik 15,118 4,059 RL Bijeljina Total 133,681 38,681 Zvornik Bratunac 18,651 5,597 All municipalities have local Vlasenica 10,657 3,620 dumpsites, but they this year started with transport to RL in Zvornik. Zvornik 54,407 13,945 Municipalities have a problem with Milici 10,445 2,682 transport due to distance and old trucks. Osmaci 5,546 1,174 Srebrenica 11,698 2,967 Han Pijesak 3,445 1,118 Sekovici 6,323 1,616 Total 121,172 32,720 Foca Visegrad 10,118 3,281 Istocna Ilidza 14,437 5,300 Dumpsite in Istočno Sarajevo Istocni Stari Grad 1,116 236 Local dumpsite Istocno Novo 10,401 3,866 Dumpsite in Istočno Sarajevo Sarajevo Kalinovik 1,962 638 Local dumpsite Novo Gorazde 2,915 617 Local dumpsite Pale 20,359 7,063 Local dumpsite Rogatica 10,302 3,563 Local dumpsite Rudo 7,578 1,971 Local dumpsite Sokolac 11,620 3,665 Local dumpsite Trnovo 1,983 420 Dumsite in Istočno Sarajevo Foca 17,580 6,094 Local dumpsite Cajnice 4,679 1,450 Localdumpsite Total 115,050 38,164 Gacko Berkovici 2,041 432 Local dumpsite Bileca 10,607 3,883 Local dumpsite Gacko 8,710 2,987 Local dumpsite Istocni Mostar 244 52 Local dumpsite Ljubinje 3,319 1,243 Local dumpsite Nevesinje 12,542 3,750 Local dumpsite Trebinje 28,239 11,012 Local landfill-there is a bottom lining system, but no LTP Total 65,702 23,359

RS Sector Reform Report

Region Municipality/ Population Waste Current landfill status City quantity (tons/year)

Grand Total 1,170,342 355,418

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.1 Collection and transport costs in RS

Distance to landfill 30km to RL 60km to RL 15km to LF Average 30km to RL Collection system Municipal collection Regional collection Container system 1100,00 1100,00 1100,00 1100,00 Inhabitants 30000,00 30000,00 30000,00 120000,00 Generation (kg/cap/day) 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,8 Waste quantity (tons/year) 8760,00 8760,00 8760,00 35040 Collected (70%) 6132,00 6132,00 6132,00 24528

Collection truck-airvolume 10,00 20,00 10,00 20,00 10,00 20,00 10,00 20,00 Compaction 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 Volume/truck x 90% (m³) 27,00 54,00 27,00 54,00 27,00 54,00 27,00 54,00 Load/truck (550kg/m³) 4,95 9,90 4,95 9,90 4,95 9,90 4,95 9,9 Price truck (KM) 220000,00 300000,00 220000,00 300000,00 220000,00 300000,00 200000,00 270000,00 Price container -1100 litre(KM) 600,00 600,00 600,00 600,00 600,00 600,00 500,00 500,00 Working days/year 260,00 260,00 260,00 260,00 260,00 260,00 260,00 260,00 Waste density (kg/m³) 185,00 185,00 185,00 185,00 185,00 185,00 185,00 185,00 Calculation trucks/containers Time/shift (minutes) 480,00 480,00 480,00 480,00 480,00 480,00 600,00 600,00 Fuelling etc. 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 Garage to collection area 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 20,00 30,00 30,00 Lunch break 30,00 30,00 30,00 30,00 30,00 30,00 30,00 30,00 Landfill to garage Available for collection and transport 410,00 410,00 410,00 410,00 410,00 410,00 520,00 520,00 Cycle time truck Collection/container (minutes) 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 4 4

RS Sector Reform Report

Containers/truck 24,55 49,09 24,55 49,09 24,55 49,09 24,55 49,09 Collection time (minutes) 122,73 245,45 122,73 245,45 122,73 245,45 98,18 196,36 Transport to landfill 40,00 40,00 72,00 72,00 20,00 20,00 40 40 Unloading at landfill 15,00 15,00 15,00 15,00 15,00 15,00 15,00 15,00 Transport to collection area 40,00 40,00 72,00 72,00 20,00 20,00 40,00 40,00 Total (minutes) 217,73 340,45 281,73 404,45 177,73 300,45 193,18 291,36 Trips/shift/truck 1,88 1,20 1,46 1,01 2,31 1,36 2,69 1,78 Weight/shift/truck (tons) 9,32 11,92 7,20 10,04 11,42 13,51 13,32 17,67 Shifts/day (8-10 hrs./day) 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 Capacity/year/truck 2423,51 3099,84 1872,98 2609,29 2968,99 3512,48 3464,30 4593,85 Number/trucks 2,53 1,98 3,27 2,35 2,07 1,75 7,08 5,34 Truck availability 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,85 0,85 Actual truck number 3,16 2,47 4,09 2,94 2,58 2,18 8,33 6,28 Containers/day (collection 5 x week) 163,76 204,66 163,73 163,73 163,73 163,73 654,91 654,91 Filling degree 80% 255,82 255,82 204,66 204,66 204,66 204,66 818,64 818,64 Investments (KM) Collection trucks 695810,07 741812,85 900329,18 881273,55 567971,46 654666,01 1665933,13 1696017,93 Containers 153494,91 153494,91 122795,93 122795,93 122795,93 122795,93 409319,77 409319,77

Operational costs

Wages 1 Driver + 2 loaders x 1,15=3.45/truck 8,73 6,82 11,30 8,11 7,13 6,02 30,53 23,03 Average costs (KM/year) 12000,00 12000,00 12000,00 12000,00 12000,00 12000,00 12000 12000 Costs/year(KM) 104751,04 81896,14 135540,47 97292,60 85505,52 72275,13 366401,17 276309,59 Total Including management (25%) 130938,80 102370,17 169425,58 121615,75 106881,90 90343,91 458001,46 345386,98 Fuel

RS Sector Reform Report

Km/cycle Garage to collection area 10,00 10,00 10,00 10,00 10,00 10,00 15,00 15,00 Collection route 10,00 20,00 10,00 20,00 10,00 20,00 13,00 25,00 To landfill 30,00 30,00 60,00 60,00 15,00 15,00 30 30 To collection area 30,00 30,00 60,00 60,00 15,00 15,00 30 30 Total km/day 358,82 210,36 652,13 357,02 211,24 136,57 1497,46 890,07 Total km/year 93293,72 54694,75 169554,63 92825,31 54921,43 35508,71 389338,90 231417,27 Litre (0,3 litre/km) 27988,12 16408,43 50866,39 27847,59 16476,43 10652,61 116801,67 69425,18 Costs/year ( KM1,9/litre) 53177,42 31176,01 96646,14 52910,43 31305,21 20239,97 221923,17 131907,84 Lubricants (1.5ltr/100km) 5597,62 3281,69 10173,28 5569,52 3295,29 2130,52 23360,33 13885,04 Tyres 4-6/truck;30,000km 12,44 10,94 22,61 18,57 7,32 7,10 51,91 46,28 Cost(500-600KM/tyre) 7463,50 6563,37 13564,37 11139,04 4393,71 4261,05 25955,93 23141,73 M+R Truck (3-5%) 34790,50 37090,64 45016,46 44063,68 28398,57 32733,30 49977,99 50880,54 Containers (2%) 3069,90 3069,90 2455,92 2455,92 2455,92 2455,92 8186,40 8186,40 Total 37860,40 40160,54 47472,38 46519,60 30854,49 35189,22 58164,39 59066,93 Insurance Trucks (1,0%) 6958,10 7418,13 9003,29 8812,74 5679,71 6546,66 16659,33 16960,18 Sub-total OPEX 241995,85 190969,91 346285,04 246567,07 182410,32 158711,32 804064,62 590348,70 Miscellaneous (10%) 24199,58 19096,99 34628,50 24656,71 18241,03 15871,13 80406,46 59034,87 Total OPEX 266195,43 210066,90 380913,54 271223,77 200651,35 174582,46 884471,08 649383,57 Amortization Trucks (7 years,3%) 111677,516 119060,9627 144502,83 141444,40 91159,42 105073,89 267382,27 272210,88 Containers (7 years,3%) 24635,93306 24635,93306 19708,75 19708,75 19708,75 19708,75 65695,82 65695,82 Sub total CAPEX 136313,4491 143696,8958 161153,15 161153,15 110868,17 124782,64 333078,09 337906,70 Grand total 402508,88 353763,79 542066,69 432376,93 311519,52 299365,10 1217549,17 987290,28

RS Sector Reform Report

Cost/ton(KM) 65,64 57,69 88,40 70,51 50,80 48,82 49,64 40,25 Combined KM/ton 61,67 79,46 49,81 44,95

Regional collection savings on: 1. Procurement equipment (10%) 2. Less M+R as it will be centralized 3. Collection efficiency improvement Depreciation equipment based on official indicators and not on useful life

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.2 Landfill cost calculation 2015

Assumptions Regional (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality (30,000 inhabitants) Quantity (tons/year) 24528 6132 Annual increase: 1% 1st cell (tons/5 years) 125706 31426,5 Average /year(tons) 25141,2 6285,3 Storage density (t/m³) 0,7 0,7 Storage height (m) 20 15 Storage volume 1st cell (m³) 206517,00 51629,25 Storage area: 160x150m² 24000 10000 Service area 150x50m² 7500 5000

Civil works Description unit total units cost/unit total (KM) unit total units cost/unit total (KM) Service area m² 7500 35 262500 m² 3000 35 105000 Garage/repair shop incl. tools m² 125 750 93750 m² 100 750 75000 Gas flare 250000 150000 Electricity network 150000 75000 Water supply system 200000 75000 Fence m 580 100 58000 m 400 100 40000 Gatehouse area m² 250 900 225000 m² 100 900 90000 Portacabin offices 100000 50000 Surface water ditch m 440 350 154000 m 300 350 105000 Leachate ponds l.s. 2 75000 150000 1 75000 75000 Sub total civil works (20 years depr.) 1493250 840000 Storage cell m² 24000 70 1680000 m² 10000 70 700000

100

RS Sector Reform Report

Assumptions Regional (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality (30,000 inhabitants) Closing after 5 years m² 24000 50 1200000 m² 10000 50 500000 Sub total civil works (5 years depr) 2880000 1200000 Grand total civil works 4373250 2040000 Equipment Compactor/compactor l.s. 1 400000 400000 350000 Excavator l.s. 1 235000 235000 Weighbridge l.s. 1 80000 80000 40000 Tractor trailer l.s. 1 55000 55000 Aerators leacahte ponds 2 30000 60000 30000 Wheels washing 1 70000 70000 Various tools 1 20000 20000 Total equipment 920000 420000

Amortization costs/year Civil works Cell (5 years, 3%) 628704 261960 Remaining works (20 years, 3%) 100346,4 56448 Equipment (10 years, 3%) 107824 49224 Total amortization 836874,4 367632

OPEX/year Wages month Landfill manager 1 3000 36000 1 3000 36000 Assistant manager 1 2000 24000 0 2000 0 Gatehouse weighbridge operator 2 1500 36000 1 1500 18000 Site controller 2 1500 36000 1 1500 18000

101

RS Sector Reform Report

Assumptions Regional (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality (30,000 inhabitants) Drivers 3 1500 54000 1 1500 18000 Guard 2 1200 28800 1 1200 14400 Technician workshop 1 1500 18000 1 1500 18000 Engineers 1 2000 24000 Administrator 3 1500 54000 1 1500 18000 Secretary 1 1500 18000 1 1500 18000 Sub-total 328800 158400 Overhead 378120 182160 Energy Bulldozer/Compactor 1 ltr=10.6kwh 374400 67109,43 208000 37283,02 (6hrs x 260 days x 300kw) Excavator 93600 16777,36 0 (3 hours x 260 days x150kw) Site:100kwx10hrsx312days 249600 29203,2 156000 18252 Leachate aerators 87600 10249,2 43800 5124,6 (8hrsx15kwx2=240kwh/day) Sub-total 113089,99 60659,62 M+R Civil works (0,5%) 7466,25 4200 Equipment (5%) 46000 21000 Sub total M+R 53466,25 25200 Waste covering 15% of tonnage x km 5/ton 22500 4599 Insurance equipment 920 420 Environmental monitoring 30000 15000 Office: consumables 15000 5000 Office: phone, utilities 5000 3000

102

RS Sector Reform Report

Assumptions Regional (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality (30,000 inhabitants) Office: audit 5000 5000 Total 25000 13000 Total OPEX 24,78 623096,24 47,83 300618,62 Total CAPEX 33,29 836874,4 58,49 367632 Grand total 1459970,642 668250,62 Cost/ton (excl. VAT) 58,07 106,32 Cost/ton (incl. VAT) 67,94 124,39

103

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.3 Sorting line cost calculations

Regional-2015 Municipal-2015 Regional-2015 Regional- 2025 Separation at source Separation at source Mixed waste separation Separation at source Quantities (2025) 5 tph 5 tph 15tph 5 tph Inhabitants 120000 30000 120000 120000 Generation (kg/cap/day) 0,8 0,8 0,8 1 Waste/year (tons) 70% 24528 6132,00 24528 85% 37230 collection Recyclables total (%) 30 7358,40 30 1839,60 30 7358,4 33 12285,9

Recyclables separated (%) 35 2575,44 35 643,86 10,00 2452,8 35 4300,07 Composition Paper/cardboard (%) 27 695,37 27 173,84 662,256 1161,02 Plastics (%) 53 1364,98 53 341,25 1299,984 2279,03 Glass (%) 17 437,82 17 109,46 416,976 731,01 Cans (%) 3 77,26 3 19,32 73,584 129,00 2575,44 643,86 2452,8 4300,07 Collection system One container for paper/ cardboard and one container for glass, plastics, cans Sorting line needed for sorting (i) paper and cardboard and (ii) glass, plastics, cans

Existing sorting lines (5tph installed capacity) Annual capacity(tons) 8320 8320 24960 8320 Input (tons/year) 2575,44 643,86 24528 4300,07

104

RS Sector Reform Report

Regional-2015 Municipal-2015 Regional-2015 Regional- 2025 Separation at source Separation at source Mixed waste separation Separation at source Rejects (impurities in pre 1287,72 50% 321,93 50% 22075,2 landfi 1075,00 25% sorted materials) landfill landfill ll landfill Output of saleable 1287,72 321,93 2452,8 3225,05 materials(tons/year)

Cost calculation Investments Item costs total total (KM) M/E works 1500000 3000000 1500000 Civil works 900000 1800000 900000 Total 2400000 4800000 2400000 Costs/year Amortization 210480 81,73 210480 326,90 420960 17,16 210480 48,95 M/E works (12 years, 3%) 150000 300000 150000 Civil works (20 years, 3%) 60480 120960 60480 Operations Transport landfill rejects 5 6438,60 1609,65 22075,2 110376 5375 M+R 54000 54000 186000 84000 M/E (%) 3 45000 45000 150000 75000 Civil (%) 1 9000 9000 36000 9000 Labour (one shift) 97290,00 77970,00 shift 8hrs Manager 1 2000 24000 24000 1 24000 1 24000 Engineer 1 1500 18000 18000 1 18000 0,5 9000 Baler 1 1000 12000 12000 1 12000 1 12000 Drivers 1 1300 15600 15600 1 15600 1 15600 Sorters 6 1000 72000 48000 8 96000 6 72000 Guards 1 800 9600 0 1 9600 0 0

105

RS Sector Reform Report

Regional-2015 Municipal-2015 Regional-2015 Regional- 2025 Separation at source Separation at source Mixed waste separation Separation at source Administration 1 1500 18000 18000 1 36000 1 18000 Secretary 0 1300 0 0 1 15600 0 169200 135600 226800 150600 Working time 50%-85% 84600,0 67800,00 260820,0 173190 0 0 Overhead (15%) 97290,0 77970,00 299943 199168,5 0 Energy 6026,5296 1506,6324 20kwh/ton 0,117 51508,8 6026,52 12877,2 490560 57395,52 86001,3 10062,15 Office 5000 1000 5000 2500 Total (excl VAT) 379235,13 147,25 346566,28 538,26 1079674, 26,86 511585,65 52 Cost/ton 147,25 538,26 44,02 118,97

Revenues (assumption: operator =collector) Savings on landfill 73400,0 18350, 2452,8 139809,6 3225,05 183827,78 4 01 Quantity (tons) 1287,72 321,93 Disposal:KM/ton(excl 57 57 VAT) Sales ex sorting line 262051, 65512, 45609 02 76 8,16 Paper/cardboard 140 347,68 48675,82 86,92 12168,95 662,256 49669,2 870,76 121906,84 Plastics(mixed) 300 682,49 204747,48 170,62 51186,87 1299,984 389995,2 1709,28 512782,75 Glass 20 218,91 4378,25 54,73 1094,56 416,976 8339,52 548,26 10965,16 Cans 110 38,63 4249,48 9,66 1062,37 73,584 8094,24 96,75 10642,660 88 Sub total 1287,72 262051,02 321,93 65512,76 2452,8 456098,1 3225,05 656297,42 6 Total 335451, 83862, 595907,7 840125,19 06 77 6 Price KM/ton 130,25 130,25 24,30 195,37

106

RS Sector Reform Report

Regional-2015 Municipal-2015 Regional-2015 Regional- 2025 Separation at source Separation at source Mixed waste separation Separation at source Net result (KM/ton) -17,00 -408,01 -19,72 76,40

107

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.4. Cost estimates for mixed container collection system

15 km to LF 60 km to RL Collection Large truck (20m³) Small truck(10m³) 20m³ 10m³ Assumptions Mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers Container system (litres) 1100 240 1100 240 1100 240 1100 240 Inhabitants collection area 30000 30000 30000 30000 (Kg/cap/day) 1 1 1 1 Waste volume/year(ton) 10950 10950 10950 10950 Collected 85% (tons) 9307,5 9307,5 9307,5 9307,5 Recyclables:30%x38.5% in 240 ltr 8232,48 1075,02 8232,48 1075,02 8232,48 1075,0162 8232,4837 1075,0162 5 5 5 Collection truck-airvolume 20 20 10 10 20 20 10 10 Compaction 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Volume/truckx90%(m³) 54 54 27 27 54 54 27 27 Load (550kg/m³/300kg/m³) 9,9 5,4 4,95 2,7 9,9 5,4 4,95 2,7 Price truck (KM) 300000 300000 220000 220000 300000 300000 220000 220000 Price container -1100 litre(KM) 600 150 600 150 600 150 600 150 Working days/year 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 Waste density (kg/m³) 185 80 185 80 185 80 185 80 Calculation number trucks and containers Time/shift (minutes) 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 Fuelling, etc. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Garage to collection area(10km-20km) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Lunch break 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Landfill to garage Available for collection and transport 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410

108

RS Sector Reform Report

15 km to LF 60 km to RL Collection Large truck (20m³) Small truck(10m³) 20m³ 10m³ Assumptions Mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers

Cycle time truck Collection/container(minutes) 5 4 5 4,00 5 4 5 4 Containers/truck 49,09 225 24,55 112,50 49,09 225 24,55 112,5 Collection time(minutes) 245,45 900 122,75 450,00 245,45 900,00 122,73 450,00 Transport to landfill 20 20 20 20,00 72 72 72 72 Unloading at landfill/sorting line 15 15 15 15,00 15 15 15 15 Transport to collection area 20 20 20 20,00 72 72 72 72 Total(minutes) 300,45 955 177,75 505,00 404,45 1059,00 281,73 609,00 Trips/shift/truck 1,36 0,43 2,31 0,81 1,01 0,39 1,46 0,67 Weight/shift/truck (tons) 13,51 2,32 11,42 2,19 10,04 2,09 7,20 1,82 Shifts/day 1 1 1 1,00 1 1 1 1 Capacity/year/truck 3512,53 602,76 2968,61 569,94 2609,29 543,57 1872,98 472,61 Number/trucks 2,34 1,78 2,77 1,89 3,16 1,98 4,40 2,27 Truck availability 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,80 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 Actual truck number 2,93 2,23 3,47 2,36 3,94 2,47 5,49 2,84 Containers/day(collection 5xweek) 157,01 172,28 157,04 172,28 157,01 172,28 157,01 172,28 Filling degree 80% 221,89 215,35 196,30 215,35 196,26 215,35 196,26 215,35 Investments (KM) Collection trucks 878905,05 668803,76 762624,5 518702,2 1183149,0 741636,84 966985,70 625524,1 8 Containers 133134,00 32302,17 117778,2 32302,17 117756,44 32302,17 117756,44 32302,17 2

109

RS Sector Reform Report

15 km to LF 60 km to RL Collection Large truck (20m³) Small truck(10m³) 20m³ 10m³ Assumptions Mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers Operational costs

Wages 1 Driver+2 loadersx1,15=3.45/truck 8,09 6,15 9,57 6,51 10,88 6,82 15,16 7,85 Average costs (KM/year) 12000,00 12000 12000,00 12000,00 12000,00 12000 12000 12000,00 Costs/year(KM) 97031,12 73835,93 114809,7 78088,27 130619,66 81876,71 181969,13 94169,81 Total Including management (25%) 121288,90 92294,92 143512,1 97610,33 163274,57 102345,88 227461,41 117712,26 Fuel Km/cycle Garage to collection area 10 10 10 10,00 10 10 10 10 Collection route 24,545 90 12,28 45,00 24,55 90 12,27 45 To landfill 15 15 15 15,00 60 60 60 60 To collection area 15 15 15 15,00 60 60 60 60 Total km/day/all trucks 199,35 109,72 296,39 133,71 495,31 180,57 888,31 275,42 Total km/year 51829,76 28526,29 77061,65 34765,66 128779,95 46948,20 230960,91 71609,48 Litre (0,3 litre/km) 15548,93 8557,89 23118,49 10429,70 38633,98 14084,46 69288,27 21482,85 Costs/year( KM1,9/litre) 29542,96 16259,98 43925,14 19816,42 73404,57 26760,48 131647,72 40817,41 Lubricants (1.5ltr/100km) 3109,79 1711,58 4623,70 2085,94 7726,80 2816,89 13857,65 4296,57 Tyres 4-6/truck;30,000km 10,37 5,71 10,27 4,64 25,755989 9,39 30,79 9,55 8 Cost(600KM/tyre) 6219,57 3423,15 6164,93 2781,25 15453,59 5633,78 18476,87 5728,76 M+R Truck(5%) 43945,2524 33440,19 38131,23 25935,11 59157,454 37081,841 48349,28 31276,21

110

RS Sector Reform Report

15 km to LF 60 km to RL Collection Large truck (20m³) Small truck(10m³) 20m³ 10m³ Assumptions Mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers mixed containers 1 1 Containers(2%) 2662,68 646,04 2355,56 646,04 2355,1288 646,04341 2355,13 646,04341 5 Total 46607,93 34086,23 40486,79 26581,16 61512,58 37727,89 50704,41 31922,25 Insurance Trucks(1,0%) 8789,05 6688,04 7626,25 5187,02 11831,490 7416,3683 9669,86 6255,241 8 Sub-total OPEX 215558,20 154463,90 246338,8 154062,1 333203,61 182701,29 451817,93 206732,49 Miscelleneous(10%) 21555,82 15446,3904 24633,89 15406,21 33320,360 18270,13 45181,79 20673,25 3 9 Total OPEX 237114,02 169910,29 270972,7 159249,1 366523,97 200971,42 496999,72 227405,73 Amortization Trucks(5-7 years,3%) 141064,26 107343,00 122401,2 83251,71 189895,43 119032,71 155201,20 100396,62 4 Containers(7 years,3%) 21368,01 5184,50 18903,41 5184,50 18899,91 5184,50 18899,91 5184,50 Total CAPEX 162432,27 112527,50 141304,6 88436,21 208795,34 124217,21 174101,11 105581,12 Grand total 399546,29 282437,80 412277,4 247685,3 575319,31 325188,63 671100,83 332986,85 Cost/ton(KM) 48,53 262,73 50,08 230,40 69,88 302,50 81,52 309,75 Combined KM/ton 73,27 70,91 96,75 107,88 72,09 102,32 ANNEX 4.2 (only 1,100 litres containers) 48,82 50,8 70,51 88,4 average 49,81 79,46 1,100 containers with 20m³ 48,12 240 containers with 10m³ 230,4 Average cost 69,17

111

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.5. Transfer stations cost estimates

Storage shed Ramp Cost estimate Units Unit price Total Total Civil works Shed (20x30m²) 600 500 300000 ramp 70000 Pavements(m²) 500 150 75000 75000 Interior shed/elec. connection 10000 10000 Total 385000 ramp 145000 M/E works Frontloader (2 m³ bucket) 175000 Amortization costs Civil works (20 yrs/3%) 25872 9744 M/E (7 yrs/3%) 28087,5 Total 53959,5 Operational costs Wages Coordinator 1 1500 18000 1 12000 Driver 1 1100 13200 Cleaners 2 800 19200 Sub total 50400 Holidays, sickness (15%) 57960 13800 Overhead (25%) 72450 17250 Energy Site (25kw;260days; 10hrs/day 52000 0,117 6084 26000 3042 Frontloader (100kw) 4 hrs/day;260 days/year) 7849,06 1,9 14913,21 Total 20997,21 M+R Civil works (2%) 7700 2900 M/e (5%) 8750 Total 16450 23192 Opex 109897,21 2,11 23192 Capex 53959,50 0,89 9744 Grand total(BAM) 163856,71 32936 Cost/ton (BAM excl. VAT) 11000 14,90 2,99

Note: Ramp cost based on Gradiska information.

112

RS Sector Reform Report

113

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.6 Transport costs to regional landfill (50 km)

Gradiska-Banja Luka Srbac-Banja Luka Truck +trailer Trailer with Collection Collection compression truck 10 t truck 7,5 t Quantity(t/y) 11000 5500 11000 11000 11000 11000 days/year 260 260 260 260 260 260 Distance(km) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Truck ( tons) 12 12 20 15 10 7,5 Time available 480 480 480 480 480 480 Lunch break 30 30 30 30 30 30 Fuelling etc. 20 20 20 20 20 20 Available/day 430 430 430 430 430 430 Trips/day Loading(1.5min/2m³) 45 45 60 60 0 0 To RL (40km/hr) 75 75 75 75 75 75 Back RL 75 75 75 75 75 75 Unloading at RL 20 20 20 20 20 20 total/trip(min) 215 215 230,00 230 170 170 Trips/day 2,00 2,00 1,87 1,87 2,53 2,53 km/day/truck 200,00 200,00 186,96 186,96 252,94 252,94 cap/day (tons) 24,00 24,00 37,39 28,04 25,29 18,97 cap/year(tons) 6240,00 6240,00 9721,74 7291,30 6576,47 4932,35 Trucks 1,76 0,88 1,13 1,51 1,67 2,23 Trucks Availability 2,20 1,10 1,41 1,89 2,09 2,79 (80%) Cost/truck 275000 275000,00 400000,00 400000,00 300000,00 260000,00 Investment(BAM) 605969,55 302984,78 565742,40 754323,20 627236,14 724806,20 Amortization 97258,11 48629,06 90801,65 121068,87 100671,40 116331,40 (7 yrs, 3%) Operational costs Wages Driver (x 1,15 x 1,25) 33449,52 16724,76 21469,92 28626,57 31738,15 42317,53 M+R (5%) 30298,48 15149,24 28287,12 37716,16 31361,81 36240,31 Fuel km/year 91666,67 45833,33 55000 73333,33 110000,00 146666,67 liters/year 27500,00 13750,00 16500 22000 33000,00 44000,00 Cost (BAM1,9/liter) 52250,00 26125,00 31350 41800 62700,00 83600,00 Lubricants 5500,00 2750,00 3300 4400 6600,00 8800,00 Total 57750,00 28875,00 34650 46200 69300,00 92400,00 Tyres 24,44 12,22 18,33 24,44 22,00 29,33 Cost 14666,67 7333,33 11000,00 14666,67 13200,00 17600,00 Insurance(1%) 6059,70 3029,85 5657,42 7543,23 6272,36 7248,06

114

RS Sector Reform Report

OPEX 142224,36 71112,18 101064,47 134752,62 151872,32 195805,90 Cost/ton 12,93 12,93 9,19 12,25 13,81 17,80 CAPEX 97258,11 48629,06 90801,65 121068,87 100671,40 116331,40 Cost/ton 8,84 8,84 8,25 11,01 9,15 10,58 Total cost/ton 21,77 21,77 17,44 23,26 22,96 28,38

Truck trip (excl VAT) 261,25 348,85 348,85 229,59 212,82 Cost/km 2,61 3,49 3,49 2,30 2,13 Cost/ton/km 0,22 0,17 0,23 0,23 0,28 Gradiska Loading time depending on collection scheme. No intermediate storage. Assumption: collection trucks 7.5 tons. Assumption: 3 collection trucks will unload within one hour.

115

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B4.7 Summary of various options

Single municipality collection (30.000 inhabitants) Regional collection (120.000 inhabitants) Separation at source Mixed waste collection Separation at source ML at 15km RL at 30km RL at 30km RL at 30km tons/year unit cost tons/year unit cost tons/year unit cost ton/year unit cost rate rate rate rate Collection/transport 6132 50 306600 6132 62 380184 24500 45 1102500 24500 45 1102500 Disposal 5810 106 615860 5810 58 336980 22050 58 1278900 22570.63 58 1309096.25 Collection and disposal/t 156 120 103 103 Separation/sorting Collection 6132 22 134904 6132 22 134904 24500 22 539000 Sorting 644 408 262752 644 17 10948 24500 20 490000 2572.5 -76 -195510 1320116 863016 2871400 2755086.25 Cost/ton 215.28 140.74 117.2 112.45

Assumptions single municipality Dry recyclables separation 35% x30% with 50% rejects. Assumptions regional system (i) Mixed waste separation 10% (ii) Separation at source 35%x30% with 25% rejects

116

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B5.1 Eurostat/OECD Definition of municipal waste

Municipal waste includes household waste and similar waste.

It also includes:

▪ bulky waste (e.g. white goods, old furniture, mattresses), and ▪ yard waste, leaves, grass clippings, street sweepings, the content of litter containers, and market cleansing waste, if managed as waste.

It includes waste originating from:

▪ households, ▪ commerce and trade, small businesses, office buildings and institutions (schools, hospitals, government buildings).

It also includes: ▪ waste from selected municipal services i.e. waste from park and garden maintenance, waste from street cleaning services (street sweepings, the content of litter containers, market cleansing waste), if managed as waste.

It includes waste from these sources collected:

▪ door-to-door trough traditional collection (mixed household waste), and ▪ fractions collected separately for recovery operations (through door-to-door collection and/or through voluntary deposits).

For the purpose of this questionnaire municipal waste refers to waste defined as above, collected by or on behalf of municipalities.

The definition also includes waste from the same sources and similar in nature and composition which: ▪ are collected directly by the private sector (business or private non-profit institutions) not on behalf of municipalities (mainly separate collection for recovery purposes), ▪ originate from rural areas not served by a regular waste service, even if they are disposed by the generator.

The definition excludes: ▪ waste from municipal sewage network and treatment, ▪ municipal construction and demolition waste.

117

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B5.2 Waste quantities and distances to RL's per municipality

Distances Distances Distances from from Waste from Municipality/ municipality transfer Region Population quantity municipality City to landfill station to (tons/year) to transfer (directly) landfill station/ (km) (km) (km) Kozarska Dubica 20,681 6,569 42.8 10.5 52.1 Kostajnica 5,645 1,975 65.9 32.5 52.1 Krupa na Uni 1,560 330 65 28.3 38.1 Prijedor Novi Grad 25,240 7,405 41.5 4.8 38.1 Ostra Luka 2,705 573 22.6 0 0 Prijedor 80,916 23,255 7.6 0 0 Total 136,747 40,108 - - - Banja Luka 180,053 67,695 10 0 0 Gradiska 49,196 13,413 49.5 2.4 49.7 Knezevo 9,368 2,769 60.6 0 0 Kotor Varos 18,361 41.5 0 0 Banja 5,492 Luka Laktasi 34,210 8,399 17.9 0 0 Prnjavor 34,357 8,949 51.1 1 50.4 Srbac 16,933 4,178 49.2 33.6 49.7 Celinac 15,117 4,317 23.9 0 0 Total 357,595 115,212 Istocni Drvar 66 14 69.5 0 0 Jezero 1,039 220 25.5 0 0 Kupres 293 62 63.9 0 0 Mrkonjic Mrkonjic Grad 15,926 4,908 16 0 0 Grad Petrovac 354 75 76.6 0 0 Ribnik 5,851 1,239 32.4 0 0 Sipovo 9,969 2,931 35.9 0 0 Total 33,498 9,449 Brod 15,720 5,000 72.8 27.2 46.9 Vukosavlje 4,363 924 56.1 3.6 56.9 Derventa 25,922 7,913 48 6.7 46.9 Doboj 67,499 19,622 6.3 0 0 Doboj Donji Zabar 3,669 777 80.1 46.3 56.9 Modrica 24,490 7,155 53.4 6.5 56.9 Pelagicevo 4,358 923 73.5 38.3 56.9 Petrovo 6,317 1,337 40.1 0 0

118

RS Sector Reform Report

Distances Distances Distances from from Waste from Municipality/ municipality transfer Region Population quantity municipality City to landfill station to (tons/year) to transfer (directly) landfill station/ (km) (km) (km) Teslic 37,236 9,376 29 0 0 Samac 16,308 4,484 76 23.7 56.9 Stanari 1,015 215 26 0 0 Total 206,897 57,726 Bijeljina 103,874 30,996 4.9 0 0 Lopare 14,689 3,626 46.2 0 0 Bijeljina Ugljevik 15,118 4,059 19.5 0 0 Total 133,681 38,681 Bratunac 18,651 5,597 57.5 2.1 56.6 Vlasenica 10,657 3,620 63.2 8.3 68 Zvornik 54,407 13,945 14.9 0 0 Milici 10,445 2,682 48.6 19.4 68 Zvornik Osmaci 5,546 1,174 9.3 0 0 Srebrenica 11,698 2,967 68.7 13.2 56.6 Han Pijesak 3,445 1,118 81.9 27 68 Sekovici 6,323 1,616 26.3 0 0 Total 121,172 32,720 Visegrad 10,118 3,281 57.8 6 52.1 Istocna Ilidza 14,437 5,300 69.7 24.1 45.6 Istocni Stari 1,116 61.8 16.2 45.6 Grad 236 Istocno Novo 10,401 66.5 21 45.6 Sarajevo 3,866 Kalinovik 1,962 638 123 37.2 72.8 Novo Gorazde 2,915 617 36.2 0 0 Foca Pale 20,359 7,063 50.1 6.7 45.6 Rogatica 10,302 3,563 11.3 0 0 Rudo 7,578 1,971 71.3 33.2 52.1 Sokolac 11,620 3,665 22 0 0 Trnovo 1,983 420 90.4 45.3 45.6 Foca 17,580 6,094 73 3.8 72.8 Cajnice 4,679 1,450 59 12.1 57.3 Total 115,050 38,164 Berkovici 2,041 432 65.3 34.9 50.9 Bileca 10,607 3,883 47.6 1.5 48.8 Gacko Gacko 8,710 2,987 3.9 0 0 Istocni Mostar 244 52 78.5 27.8 50.9 Ljubinje 3,319 1,243 105 63.2 84.1

119

RS Sector Reform Report

Distances Distances Distances from from Waste from Municipality/ municipality transfer Region Population quantity municipality City to landfill station to (tons/year) to transfer (directly) landfill station/ (km) (km) (km) Nevesinje 12,542 3,750 53.9 3.2 50.9 Trebinje 28,239 11,012 78.6 5.9 84.1 Total 65,702 23,359

Grand Total 1,170,342 355,418

120

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B5.3 Transfer Stations proposed by WM Strategy 2017-2027

Region Location Municipalities served Quantities (t/y)✶ Banja Luka Gradiska Gradiska, Srbac 11,400; 3,550 Prnjavor Prnjavor 7,600 Doboj Derventa Derventa, Brod 6,725; 4,250 Modrica Modrica, Vukosavlje, Donji 6,080; 785; 660; Zabar, Pelagicevo, Samac 785; 3,810 Prijedor Kozarska Dubica Kozarska Dubica, Kostajnica 5,580; 1,680 Novi Grad Novi Grad, Krupa na Uni, 6,295; 280 Zvornik Bratunac Bratunac 4,760 Vlasenica Vlasenica, Milici, Han Pijesak 3,080; 2,280; 950 Foca Pale Pale, Ilidza, Stari Grad, Novo 6,000; 4,500; 200; Sarajevo, Trnovo 3,285; 360 Visegrad Visegrad, Rudo 2,790; 1,675 Cajnice C ajnice 1,240 Foca Foca,Kalinovik 5,180; 540 Gacko Bileca Bileca 3,300 Nevesinje Nevesinje, Istocni Mostar, 3,190; 50; 370 Berkovici Trebinje Trebinje, Ljubinje 9,360; 1,055 Bijeljina - Mrkonjic Grad - Total 15 34 113,645 *Based on Annex 5.2 x 0,85 collection coverage.

121

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B5.4: Investment requirements existing RL’s

Banja Luka (Ramići) Regional Landfill

Banja Luka "Ramići" Landfill is located in the city of Banja Luka in Ramići region. This landfill received waste from a region including Banja Luka, Gradiska, Kneževo, Kotor Varos, Laktaši, Prnjavor, Srbac and Celinac. Total population in this region is about 440,000 people. It is estimate that ~ 370,000 people are currently served by this regional landfill with 80,000 tonnes of MSW deposited annually.

Under Second Solid Waste Management Project (SSWMP) a new sanitary cell was constructed which is expected to run out of capacity by 2025. Therefore, a 4 ha cell is proposed to be constructed in 2024.

Progressive closure of the current cell is proposed. This site is equipped with LFG flare and Leachate treatment system.

Estimated Budget required at Banja Luka Landfill Between 2018 and 2025 (in Million Euros) LTP LFG LTP Closure Expansion LF Ops. Total Cap. Flare Ops. 2018 0.07 1.95 2.02 2019 0.07 1.97 2.04 2020 0.07 1.99 2.06 2021 0.07 2.01 2.08 2022 0.625 0.07 2.03 2.72 2023 0.07 2.05 2.12 2024 1.4 0.07 2.07 3.54 2025 0.625 0.07 2.09 2.78 Total (2018- 16.13 19.36 1.25 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.58 2025) Closure Construction: 25 €/m2 Progressive closure of active cell Operation Cost: 30 €/tonne Medium Size landfill (Including LTP) Landfill Expansion: 35 €/m2 New 4 Ha cell in 2024 LTP Size: 50 m3/day RO LTP is in place LTP Operation Cost: 4 €/m3 Including Electricity Waste Annual Tonnage: 80,000 Tonnes

Waste Generation per 1% Increase: year

122

RS Sector Reform Report

Prijedor Regional Landfill

This is currently running as a non-sanitary regional landfill with plans and designs (ready) for rehabilitation and construction of a new cell. Site is developed during SSWMP (road, scale, admin. Building, fence etc. No environmental control system is in place.

Estimated Budget required at Prijedor Landfill Between 2018 and 2025 (in Million Euros) LTP LFG LTP Closure Expansion LF Ops. Total Cap. Flare Ops. 2018 1.05 0.50 0.67 2.22 2019 1.575 0.07 0.67 2.32 2020 0.3 0.07 0.68 1.05 2021 0.07 0.69 0.76 2022 0.07 0.69 0.77 2023 0.7 0.07 0.70 1.47 2024 0.07 0.71 0.78 2025 0.07 0.71 0.79 Total (2018- 2.28 1.05 0.50 0.30 0.51 5.52 10.16 2025) 4.5 Ha closure including Creek Div. Closure Construction: 35 €/m2 Chanel Operation Cost: 30 €/tonne Medium Size landfill (Including LTP) Landfill Expansion: 35 €/m2 New 3 Ha cell in immediately LTP Size: 50 m3/day

LTP Operation Cost: 4 €/m3 Including Electricity Waste Annual Tonnage: 22,000 Tonnes

per Waste Generation Increase: 1% year

123

RS Sector Reform Report

Bijeljina Regional Landfill

This landfill serves Bijeljina, Ugljevik, Lopare, Čelić, Teočak with approximate population of 170,000 people receiving 32,000 tonnes of waste annually.

Active phase is running out of space and utility planning for a new cell expansion by end of 2018. There is Leachate treatment system and LFG flare system in place.

Estimated Budget required at Bijeljina Landfill Between 2018 and 2025 (in Million Euros) LTP LFG LTP Closure Expansion LF Ops. Total Cap. Flare Ops. 2018 1.4 0.05 0.76 2.21 2019 0.05 0.76 0.82 2020 0.25 0.05 0.77 1.07 2021 0.05 0.78 0.83 2022 0.05 0.79 0.84 2023 0.25 0.05 0.79 1.10 2024 1.4 0.05 0.80 2.25 2025 0.625 0.05 0.81 1.49 Total (2018- 1.13 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.41 6.27 10.60 2025)

Closure Construction: 25 €/m2 Progressive closure is proposed Operation Cost: 25 €/tonne Medium Size landfill (Including LTP) Landfill Expansion: 35 €/m2 New 4 Ha cell in 2018 LTP Size: 35 m3/day RO LTP is in place LTP Operation Cost: 4 €/m3 Including Electricity Waste Annual Tonnage: 32,000 Tonnes

Waste Generation per 1% Increase: year

124

RS Sector Reform Report

Zvornik Regional Landfill

This is a brand new landfill. Plan is to receive waste from nine municipalities of the region: Zvornik, Kalesija, Sapna, Osmaci, Šekovići, Milići, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Srebrenica with total population of approximately 192,000 people. It is expected that about 32,000 tonnes of waste will annually be disposed at this site.

Utility is in the process of procuring LTP in 2017. No expansion will be required within 2018-2025.

Progressive closure and installation of LFG flare system is proposed for this site.

Estimated Budget required at Zvornik Landfill Between 2018 and 2025 (in Million Euros) LFG LTP Closure Expansion LTP Cap. LF Ops. Total Flare Ops. 2018 0.05 0.76 0.81

2019 0.05 0.76 0.82

2020 0.05 0.77 0.82

2021 0.05 0.78 0.83

2022 0.375 0.3 0.05 0.79 1.51

2023 0.05 0.79 0.85

2024 0.05 0.80 0.85

2025 0.05 0.81 0.86

Total (2018- 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.41 6.27 7.35 2025) Closure Construction: 25 €/m2 no closure expected before 2025

Medium Size landfill (including Operation Cost: 25 €/tonne LTP) no expansion is expected before Landfill Expansion: 35 €/m2 2025 LTP Size: 35 m3/day

Including Electricity (no elec. at site for LTP Operation Cost: 4 €/m3 LTP at the moment) Waste Annual Tonnage: 32,000 Tonnes

Waste Generation Increase: 1% per year

125

RS Sector Reform Report

Annex B5.5 Landfill cost estimate in 2025

Assumptions Regional landfill (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality landfill (30,000 inhabitants) Start quantity (tons/year) 37230 9307,5 Annual increase: 1% 1st cell (5 years) 190803,75 47700,9375 Total tons 190803,75 Volume (m³) 272576,7857 Total storage volume incl. covering (m³) 313463,3036 Storage 1st cell (m³) 313463,3036 78365,82589 Storage density (t/m³) 0,7 0,7 Storage height (m) 20 15 Lifetime first storage cell (years) 5 5 Leachate generation: 30m³/day First cell storage area: 250x150m² 37500 100x130 13000 Service area 150 x50m² 7500 5500 Total area 45000 18500

Civil works Description unit total units cost/unit total(KM) total units cost/unit Total(KM) Service area m² 7500 35 262500 5500 35 192500 Garage/repairshop incl tools m² 250 750 187500 150 750 112500 Gas flare 250000 250000 Electricity network 150000 100000 Water supply system 100000 75000 Fence m 900 100 90000 560 100 56000 Gatehouse area m² 250 900 225000 150 900 135000

126

RS Sector Reform Report

Assumptions Regional landfill (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality landfill (30,000 inhabitants) Start quantity (tons/year) 37230 9307,5 Portacabin offices 100000 50000 Surface water ditch m 750 100 75000 460 100 46000 Leachate ponds l.s. 2 75000 150000 1 75000 75000 Sub total civil works(20 years depr) 1440000 1092000 Storage cell m² 37500 70 2625000 13000 70 910000 Closing after 5 years m² 37500 40 1500000 13000 40 520000 Sub total civil works (5 years depr) 4125000 1430000 Grand total civil works 5565000 2522000 Equipment Compactor/compactor l.s. 1 500000 500000 350000 Excavator l.s. 1 235000 235000 0 Weighbridge l.s. 1 60000 60000 1 50000 50000 Tractor trailer l.s. 1 55000 55000 0 55000 Aerators leachate ponds 2 30000 60000 1 30000 30000 Wheels washing 1 70000 70000 1 70000 70000 Various tools 1 20000 20000 1 10000 10000 Total equipment 1000000 510000

Amortization costs/year Civil works Cell (5 years,3%) 900712,60 312247,04 Remaining works (20 years,3%) 96768 73382,4 Equipment (10 years,3%) 117200 59787,3 Total amortization 1114680,601 445416,74

127

RS Sector Reform Report

Assumptions Regional landfill (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality landfill (30,000 inhabitants) Start quantity (tons/year) 37230 9307,5 OPEX/year Wages month Landfill manager 1 2000 24000 1,00 2000 24000 Assistant manager 1 1750 21000 0 Gatehouse weighbridge operator 2 1000 24000 1,00 1000 12000 Site controller 2 1000 24000 1,00 1000 12000 Drivers 3 1100 39600 1,00 1100 13200 Guard 2 900 21600 1,00 900 10800 Technician workshop 1 1100 13200 1,00 1100 13200 Engineers 1 1400 16800 0 Administrator 4 1200 57600 2,00 1200 28800 Secretary 1 1100 13200 1,00 1100 13200 Sub-total 255000 127200 Overhead (social charges, 65,8%) 422790 210897,6 Energy Bulldozer/Compactor(5hrsx260daysx250kw) 1 ltr=10.6kwh 260000 46603,77 208000 37283,02 Excavator(3 hours x 260 days x250kw) 156000 27962,26 0 0,00 Site:100kwx10hrsx260days 208000 24336 104000 12168 Leachate aearators (8hrsx15kwx2=240kwh/day) 87600 102492 35040 40996,8 Sub-total 201394,04 90447,82 M+R Civil works (0,5%) 7200 5460 Equipment (5%) 50000 25500 Sub total M+R 57200 30960 Waste covering

128

RS Sector Reform Report

Assumptions Regional landfill (120,000 inhabitants) Single municipality landfill (30,000 inhabitants) Start quantity (tons/year) 37230 9307,5 15% of tonnage x km 5/ton 28125 7155,14 Insurance equipment 1000 510 Environmental monitoring 30000 25000 Office: consumables 20000 Office: phone, utilities 5000 Office: audit 5000 Total 30000 15000 Total OPEX 770509,04 20,19 379970,56 39,83 Total CAPEX 1114680,60 29,21 445416,74 46,69 Grand total 1885189,64 825387,29 Cost/ton(excl.VAT) 49,40 86,52 Cost/ton incl. VAT 57,80 101,23

129