2.2 croatia experience - danko...
TRANSCRIPT
Danko Fundurulja
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF FINANCING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTSFEASIBILITY STUDY OF FINANCING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
Wastemanagement consist of:
• MAKING• COLLECTING(TRANSPORT)• LOOKING AFTER
Waste Management sheme
IVO• Waste prevention• Waste evaluationMaterial recycling and reuseBiological recycling and reuse (MBO)Power recycling• Residual waste landfilling
RECYCLING (separation on place of making)
• Treatment type of material separated fromwaste and its reuse
• Including: collecting, separating,treatment, marketing and new productmaking or material from used materials
Container for separate collection of packaging glass
Recycling point
Recycling yard
SOLUTION TO THE WASTE PROBLEM
• Forming a cadastre which consisted in the existing state and larger landfills in the RH
• Adopting appropriate laws• Providing the financial funds for solving
the problems
CATEGORIES OF LANDFILLS
• Legal landfills• Landfills in the legalization process• Official landfills• Landfills under negotiated conditions• - “Wild” landfills
EXISTING STATE – TILL 2004 YEAR
• 154 functional “official landfills”• total 580 ha (1,5 m2/resident included in
the organized waste collection)• 36 (23%) “official” landfills comply with the
legal regulations (only 5 working permitions, construction permits)
EXISTING STATE REVIEW• the first waste landfill project for Poreč area – made in
1976. y.• the first rehabilitation project of the existing dump for
the Banjole landfill in Pula– made in 1978. y. • Umag, Dubrovnik (1982y), Sisak (1984y), Garešnica
(1986y) landfill – obtained first construction permits• in 1990s the elaboration of rehabilitation designs for a
series of landfills begins • - the rehabilitation of the largest dump area in this part
of Europe started – landfill “Jakuševec” in Zagreb
COMPARISON DATA 1995. and 2004.
average 0,71(0,49 – 1,01)
0,62
- the specific quantity of organized collected and removed communal waste per resident(kg/resident/day)
86%57 %- population participated in organized coolection of waste
1.310.643 978.542- total communal waste (t)
2004.1995.
LEGAL REGULATIONS
36/96Regulation on emissions into the environment cadastre
13.123/97, 112/01Regulation on conditions for waste treatment12.
53/96, 97/05, 115/05Regulation on package waste treatment11.27/96Regulation on types of waste10.
107/95, 150/05Water Act959/00, 136/04
Regulation on environmental impact assessment
858/93, 33/05Fire Protection Act7
59/96, 94/96, 114/03, 100/04Occupational Safety Act6
30/94, 82/94, 68/98, 35/99, 61/00,32/02,100/04
Physical Development Act5
52/99, 57/99, 75/99, 175/03, 100/04
Building Act482/94, 128/99Environmental Protection Act3.34/95,178/04Waste Act2.
36/95, 70/97, 128/99, 57/00, 26/03,82/04,178/04
Communal Economy Act1.Official Gazzette, numberRegulationNo.
COMPENSATION FOR COLLECTION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL
0,1 EURO/m2HOUSEHOLDS
HRK/m2
HRK/person
HRK/household
HRK/bin removal
ECONOMY
cost is generally agreed on
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF WASTE TREATMENT IN COMPARISON WITH THE
STATE IN 2004 y.
5Share of sanitary landfills (%)
154187Official landfills
00County and regional centers for waste management
negligible95 %Quantity of deposited biodegradable waste as opposed to waste produced in 1995
9795 %Quantity of deposited communal waste
12Quantity of treated communal waste
2 %6 %Quantity of separately collected and recycled waste
86 %80 %Population included in organized waste collection
20042005OBJECTIVES
• proper city finances = budgetary finances which returns fromcompensation
• credit – depends on creditor conditions(grace period possible, rate of 8 - 14%, paying of in various variants)
Investing plan towards planned phasesInvestingInvesting plan plan towardstowards plannedplanned phasesphases
11.391.000,0017.087.000,00
Enlargingconstruction(10 years)
11.261.000,006.711.000,005.881.000,0017.437.000,00
Enlargingconstruction(20 years)
8.215.000,00
Remediationand closure of existing landfill
IV phaseIII phaseII phaseI phase
Varijante Sanacija Novo odlagalište
Varijanta 1 Grad – vlastita sredstva –
Varijante Sanacija Novo odlagalište
Varijanta 1 Grad – vlastita sredstva –
Varijanta 2 Grad uzima kredit(5 godina, 12 % kamata)
–
Varijante Sanacija Novo odlagalište
Varijanta 1 Grad – vlastita sredstva –
Varijanta 2 Grad uzima kredit(5 godina, 12 % kamata)
–
Varijanta 3 Grad uzima kredit(5 godina, 12 % kamata)
Grad uzima kredit(4 × 5 godina, 12 % kamata) ili(2 × 5 godina, 12 % kamata)
Varijants Remediation New landfill
Varijant 1 City – own finances –
Varijant 2 City takes credit (5 years, 12 % interest)
–
Varijant 3 City takes credit (5 years, 12 % interest)
City takes credit (4 × 5 years, 12 % interest) or (2 × 5 years, 12 % interest)
Varijant 4 City – own finances Concessionaire – own finances(9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)
Varijant 5 City takescredit (5 years, 12 % interest)
Concessionaire – own finances(9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)
Varijant 6 Concessionaire – own finances (9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)
Concessionaire – own finances(9 % interest, 5 % stimulation)
• proper city finances = budgetary finances which returns from
compensation• credit – depends on creditor conditions
(grace period possible, rate of 8 - 14%, paying of in various variants)
Variants review toward types of financesVariantsVariants reviewreview towardtoward typestypes of of financesfinances
• Without finances for closure and monitoring which collect separatelythrough fee
• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation
Parallel variants review in view of relationinvested/returned
ParallelParallel variantsvariants reviewreview in in viewview of of relationrelationinvestedinvested//returnedreturned
1,211,311,001,09Index:
12.571.36913.562.62410.383.01911.292.210obligations and totally invested,kn:
Difference amount of refund per
42.490.44743.481.70240.302.09741.211.288Total amount of refund per obligations,kn:
3.188.3633.188.3633.188.3630Addition on risk/profit, kn:
9.383.00610.374.2617.194.65611.292.210Interest, kn:
29.919.07829.919.07829.919.07829.919.078Returned by amortization, kn:
29.919.07829.919.07829.919.07829.919.078Total invested finances*, kn:
Variant 6Variant 5Variant 4Variant 3Variants
• Review relates on 10-year landfill work
• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation
Difference of invested and returned financesdepending on financing variant
DifferenceDifference of of investedinvested and and returnedreturned financesfinancesdependingdepending on on financingfinancing variantvariant
12,571,36913,562,624
10,383,01911,292,210
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
Varijanta 3 Varijanta 4 Varijanta 5 Varijanta 6
kuna
11,292,21010,383,019
13,562,62412,571,369
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Godina
kn/m
2 /mj.
Varijanta 3 Varijanta 4 Varijanta 5 Varijanta 6
• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation
• Correction in view of fee effectiveness ( 80% )
Parallel review compensation rate movementfor households toward variants (10 years)
ParaParalllellel reviewreview compensationcompensation rate rate movementmovementforfor householdshouseholds towardtoward variantsvariants (10 (10 yearsyears))
• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in
calculation
Parallel review compensation rate movementfor new landfill work
ParalParalllel el reviewreview compensationcompensation rate rate movementmovementforfor new new landfilllandfill workwork
New landfill, kn/m2/mjYear Varijant 3 Varijant 4 Varijant 5 Varijant 62001 0,16 0,17 0,17 0,172002 0,45 0,33 0,33 0,332003 0,45 0,34 0,34 0,342004 0,44 0,38 0,38 0,382005 0,44 0,36 0,36 0,362006 0,45 0,38 0,38 0,382007 0,26 0,40 0,40 0,402008 0,26 0,39 0,39 0,392009 0,27 0,39 0,39 0,392010 0,27 0,43 0,43 0,43
• Review relates on 10-year landfill work• Assumed inflation includeed in calculation
Parallel review compensation rate movementfor waste looking after
ParalParalllel el reviewreview compensationcompensation rate rate movementmovementforfor wastewaste lookinglooking afterafter
Waste looking after, kn/m2/mjYear Varijant 3 Varijant 4 Varijant 5 Varijant 62001 0,44 0,45 0,45 0,452002 0,86 0,71 0,74 0,752003 0,86 0,72 0,75 0,752004 0,87 0,77 0,80 0,802005 0,88 0,76 0,80 0,782006 0,89 0,78 0,82 0,792007 0,60 0,73 0,73 0,732008 0,61 0,73 0,73 0,732009 0,62 0,75 0,75 0,752010 0,64 0,79 0,79 0,79
Parallel review fee structure for waste lookingafter in relation to fee effectiveness
ParallelParallel reviewreview feefee structurestructure forfor wastewaste lookinglookingafterafter in in relationrelation to to feefee effectivenesseffectiveness
2002. 2002. yearyear, , varijantvarijant 33
kn/m2/mj.
Type of cost Fee 100% Fee 80% Remediation 0,13 0,15 New landfill 0,45 0,54 Collecting and transport 0,28 0,34
Total fee 0,86 1,03
Note: assumed inflation includeed from 3% per year
• Economic activity increase in next period willinfluence on fee amount for waste looking after
• Fee expences per m2 will decrease because of wastequantity increasing and fixed expenses portion pertreated waste unit will also decrease
• Supplying conditions influence on fee amountspecially in variant 3 and variant 5
INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSION
For variant selection it is needed to take care of:
• Disposable own financial city finances (which will beused for remediation of existing landfill or construction of new landfill)
• Possibility of taking over credit obligations formentioned activities
• Possibility of finding out suitable concessionaire
• Dynamics of paying off invested finances – suitabledynamics of paying off will influence on suitable feefor waste looking after
INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONINSTEAD OF CONCLUSION
IPZ UniprojektTERRA
Babonićeva 32Zagreb
tel: +385 1 4635 496
http://www.ipz-uniprojekt.hr