Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Review Strategic ...

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Building Long-term Sustainability for Integrated Solid Waste

Management Technical Assistance

Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Review

Strategic Directions and Investment Planning up to 2025

PART A FEDERATION BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

January 2018

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

FBiH Sector Reform Report

i

ABBREVIATIONS

BD Brcko District

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

BHAS Agency for Statistic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

CAIA Cantonal Administration for Inspection Affairs

CII sector Commercial, Industrial and Institutional sector

EEW Electric and Electronic Waste

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

EU European Union

FAI Federal Administration for Inspection Issues

FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

FEP of FBiH Fund of Environmental Protection of FBiH

FMET Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism

FMEM Federal Ministry of Energy and Mining

FWMS Federal Waste Management Strategy

FWMP Federal Waste Management Plan

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNI Gross National Income

ICIS Project Improving Investment Climate and Institutional Strengthening

MoFTER Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of BiH

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation ad Development

OT Operation Target

PET Poly-Ethylene Terephthalate

RIC Register for Inspection Control

RD Regional Landfill

RS Republika Srpska

SIDA Sweden International Development Agency

SWM Solid Waste Management

TS Transport Station

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

VAT Value-Added TAW

WAD Waste Allocations Districts

WIS Waste Information System

WB World Bank

WEEE Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment


ii

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.


iii

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 world wide, 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.


iv

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

inefficiency 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 are 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


v

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

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 financially attractive. In addition, regional

cooperation in BiH would make waste management more attractive 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.


vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A1 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES ....................................................................................... 1

A1.1 Population and urbanisation .................................................................................................... 1

A1.2 Waste generation ..................................................................................................................... 2

A1.3 Waste composition .................................................................................................................. 5

A1.4 Forecast of waste generation ................................................................................................... 7

A1.5 Forecast of waste composition .............................................................................................. 11

A1.6 Future waste management options ........................................................................................ 13

A1.7 Shortcomings ........................................................................................................................ 16

A2 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 18

A2.1 Legal framework and policies ............................................................................................... 18

A2.1.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 18

A2.1.2 Law on Waste Management .......................................................................................... 19

A2.1.3 Transposition of EU legislation .................................................................................... 21

A2.1.4 Federal Waste Management Strategy ............................................................................ 24

A2.1.5 Federal Waste Management Plan 2012 -2017 .............................................................. 26

A2.1.6 Legislation at Cantonal level ......................................................................................... 26

A2.2 Institutional framework ......................................................................................................... 28

A2.2.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 28

A2.2.2 State level ...................................................................................................................... 29

A2.2.3 Federal level .................................................................................................................. 30

A2.2.4 Cantonal level ............................................................................................................... 36

A2.2.5 Local level ..................................................................................................................... 37

A2.3 Shortcomings ........................................................................................................................ 38

A3 EXISTING OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 42

A3.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 42

A3.2 Waste collection .................................................................................................................... 42


vii

A3.3 Waste separation and sorting ................................................................................................ 43

A3.4 Waste disposal ...................................................................................................................... 45

A3.5 Main shortcomings ................................................................................................................ 50

A4 FINANCIAL ASPECTS ........................................................................................................... 52

A4.1 Financing of waste services .................................................................................................. 52

A4.2 Tariffs .................................................................................................................................... 52

A4.3 Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 54

A4.3.1 Collection and transport ................................................................................................ 54

A4.3.2 Disposal ......................................................................................................................... 55

A4.3.3 Separation and sorting ................................................................................................... 56

4.3.4 Integrated services.............................................................................................................. 57

A4.4 Shortcomings ........................................................................................................................ 58

A5 REFORM PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 59

A5.1 Context .................................................................................................................................. 59

A5.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 59

A5.1.2 Overarching problems ................................................................................................... 59

A5.1.3 Implementation ............................................................................................................. 59

A5.2 Legal aspects ......................................................................................................................... 61

A5.3 Institutional aspects ............................................................................................................... 63

A5.4 Financial aspects ................................................................................................................... 66

A5.5 Operational aspects ............................................................................................................... 68

A5.5.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 68

A5.5.2 Collection and transport ................................................................................................ 69

A5.5.3 Transfer stations ............................................................................................................ 71

A5.5.4 Separation and sorting ................................................................................................... 73

A5.5.5 Disposal ......................................................................................................................... 75

A6 INVESTMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 90

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 96


viii

Annex A1.1 Population per Municipality and Canton (2013) .............................................................. 97

Annex A1.2 Forecasted waste generation per municipality and canton ............................................. 100

Annex A1.3 Forecasted waste quantity to be disposed per disposal region ....................................... 103

Annex A1.4 Forecasted waste composition per canton ...................................................................... 106

Annex A2.1 Detailed description of provision of the Law on Waste Management ........................... 109

Annex A3.1 List of collection and disposal companies ...................................................................... 111

Annex A3.2 Summary of questionnaires from waste collectors ......................................................... 117

Annex A3.3 Current landfills overview .............................................................................................. 120

Annex A3.4 Waste transport distances per region .............................................................................. 124

Annex A4.1 Cost breakdown obtained from waste collection companies (actual)............................. 127

Annex A4.2 Collection cost calculation ............................................................................................. 129

Annex A4.3 Landfill cost calculations 2015 ....................................................................................... 133

Annex A4.4 Sorting line cost calculations .......................................................................................... 136

Annex A4.5 Cost estimates for collection of mix of containers ......................................................... 139

Annex A5.1 Eurostat/OECD Definition of municipal waste .............................................................. 143

Annex A5.2Transfer station cost estimates ......................................................................................... 144

Annex A5.3 Transport costs calculation - transfer stations to regional landfill (50 km) .................... 146

Annex A5.4 Summary of options for waste separation ...................................................................... 148

Annex A5.5 Landfill cost calculations 2025 ....................................................................................... 149

LIST OF TABLES

Table A1-1: Population per Canton (2013) ............................................................................................. 1

Table A1-2: Waste generation rate in FBiH ........................................................................................... 2

Table A1-3: Waste generation rates in Cantons in FBiH ........................................................................ 2

Table A1-4: Waste generation rates in predominantly rural municipalities ........................................... 3

Table A1-5: Waste generation rates in countries in the region in relation to the GNI (2015) ................ 3

Table A1-6: Proposed MSW generation rates in FBiH as per 2013 ....................................................... 4

Table A1-7: Amounts of waste generated in Cantons in FBiH (2013) ................................................... 4

Table A1-8: Waste composition in BiH from multiple sources .............................................................. 5


ix

Table A1-9: Rate of natural increase (%) ............................................................................................... 8

Table A1-10: Average monthly household consumption for 2004, 2007, 2011 in BAM ....................... 8

Table A1-11: Urbanisation rate in FBiH 1991 vs. 2013 ......................................................................... 8

Table A1-12: Waste generation forecast for FBiH 2013-2025 ............................................................... 9

Table A1-13: Forecasted waste generation per Canton ........................................................................ 10

Table A1-14: Total waste quantities to be disposed at landfills, forecast 2013-2025 .......................... 11

Table A1-15: Recyclable waste generation per capita 2013-2025 ........................................................ 11

Table A1-16: Changes in waste composition, forecast 2013 - 2025 ..................................................... 12

Table A1-17: Urban and Rural municipal waste composition 2013-2025............................................ 12

Table A1-18: Quantitative objectives for the realization of strategic goals .......................................... 13

Table A1-19: Three scenarios for the future of the waste management sector ..................................... 13

Table A1-20: Optimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ................................................................... 14

Table A1-21: Realistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) ...................................................................... 15

Table A1-22: Pessimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year) .................................................................. 15

Table A1-23: Comparison of waste flows for the three scenarios for 2013 and 2025 .......................... 16

Table A2-1: Status of the transposition of the EU Waste Directives in FBiH ...................................... 21

Table A2-2: Goals for organized waste collection and ensuring sanitary landfilling conditions ......... 25

Table A2-3: Goals for separate waste collection and recycling ............................................................ 25

Table A2-4: Goals for increase in recycling and reuse for special waste categories ............................ 26

Table A2-5: Cantonal legislation related to MSW management .......................................................... 27

Table A2-6: Roles and responsibilities related to waste management in FBiH .................................... 29

Table A3-1:Container capacities ........................................................................................................... 43

Table A3-2: Sorting plants in FBiH ...................................................................................................... 44

Table A3-3: Current status of the originally planned RL development in FBiH .................................. 47

Table A4-1: Tariff overview for collection and disposal BAM (including VAT) ................................ 53

Table A4-2: Annual costs (BAM excl. VAT) for SWM services (2015) ............................................. 54

Table A4-3: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ...................................................... 55

Table A4-4: Landfill costs (BAM/ton) ................................................................................................. 55


x

Table A4-5: Revenues from sorting of dry recyclables in 2016 (BAM/ton) ........................................ 56

Table A4-6: Sorting line annual results (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ............................................................ 57

Table A4-7: Total costs (BAM/ton) ...................................................................................................... 57

Table A5-1: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton) ........................................................................ 69

Table A5-2: Required number of collection trucks ............................................................................... 70

Table A5-3: Required number of skip trucks ........................................................................................ 70

Table A5-4: Required number of containers ......................................................................................... 71

Table A5-5: Transfer and transport costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT) ......................................................... 72

Table A5-6: Options for separation at source ....................................................................................... 74

Table A5-7: RDF cost/revenue assessment (BAM excl. VAT) ............................................................ 74

Table A5-8: Landfill cost calculations (BAM/ton) ............................................................................... 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A1-1: Urban and rural waste per Canton (%) .............................................................................. 5

Figure A1-2: Waste composition in the Republic of Serbia ................................................................... 7

Figure A1-3: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025 ............................................................................. 10

Figure A1-4: Forecasted changes in composition 2015-2025 ............................................................... 12

Figure A2-1: Administrative Organization of BiH According to the Dayton Peace Agreement .......... 18

Figure A2-2: Institutional set up BiH ................................................................................................... 28

Figure A2-3: Example of Organizational Scheme of Municipalities .................................................... 38

Figure A3-1: Maximum separation of dry recyclables in 2013 (realistic option) ................................. 45

Figure A3-2: Originally Planned Regional Landfills in BiH ................................................................ 46

Figure A3-3: Current status of waste disposal in each region in BiH ................................................... 49

Figure A5-1: EU Waste hierarchy ........................................................................................................ 60

Figure A5-2: Proposed Institutional Set-up at Municipal Level ........................................................... 66

Figure A5-3: Payment flow scheme for Municipal Waste Management .............................................. 68

Figure A5-4: Existing Regional Landfills and theirService Areas in BiH ............................................ 76

Figure A5-5: Possible additional ML and RL development in FBiH ................................................... 78


xi

Figure A5-6: Sarajevo Regional Landfill Service Area ........................................................................ 79

Figure A5-7: Zenica Regional Landfill Service Area ........................................................................... 80

Figure A5-8: Mostar Regional Landfill Service Area ........................................................................... 81

Figure A5-9: Livno Regional Landfill Service Area ............................................................................ 82

Figure A5-10: Overall disposal system at FBiH – existing and possible future facilities .................... 89


1

A1 WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES

In this report Municipal Solid Waste is defined as Municipal Waste generated by households and

similar type of waste in nature and composition generated by commercial, institutional and industrial

entities excluding municipal construction and demolition waste and waste from municipal sewage

network and treatment.

Multiple data sources including completed questionnaires, information from previous sector reports,

and official statistics were used for the purpose of this chapter. The information was analysed

applying professional judgment. Where possible, the data was benchmarked with countries with

similar socio-economic conditions. Since waste collection in FBiH is carried out by municipalities,

the presentation of waste quantities and its forecasts is given by each municipality (79 in FBiH) and,

where relevant for discussion, by waste disposal region. Waste disposal regions are determined based

on activities on regionalisation carried out in the previous period since 2000. The year 2013 when

national census was held is taken as a baseline year in this Report.

A1.1 Population and urbanisation

The report “Census of population, households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013: Final

Results”1, following the national census in October 2013 provided recent official data on population

and their distribution to urban and rural population. Table A1-1presents the summary data on

population distribution per cantons in FBiH. The table with summary data on population distribution

for 79 municipalities in FBiH is given in Annex A1.1.

Table A1-1: Population per Canton (2013)

Canton Population Urban % Rural %

Una-Sana Canton 273,261 38.5 61.5

Posavina Canton 43,453 38.3 61.7

Tuzla Canton 445,028 37.4 62.6

Zenica-Doboj Canton 364,433 36.6 63.4

Bosnian-Podrinje Canton Goražde 23,734 52.7 47.3

Central Bosnia Canton 254,686 32.6 67.4

Herzegovina-Neretva Canton 222,007 45.7 54.3

West Herzegovina Canton 94,898 22.8 77.2

Sarajevo Canton 413,593 91.1 8.9

Canton 10 84,127 29.4 70.6

Total 2,219,220 46.9* 53.1*

* Federal urban and rural % distribution as reported in the Census report

According to the OECD typology criteria2, 61 out of 79 municipalities, are considered to be rural with

average population density less than 150 capita per km2. Rural areas cover 72% (18,793.93 km2) of

1Census of population, households and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013: Final Results, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, June 2016, available at http://www.statistika.ba/?show=9#link3 2 OECD Regional Typology, 2011 https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/OECD_regional_typology_Nov2012.pdf

http://www.statistika.ba/?show=9#link3


2

FBiH territory with 63% (1.4 millions) of population living there and contributing 37% (5.1 billion

BAM) into GNI of FBiH3.

Eight cantons in FBIH (Una-Sana, Posavina, Tuzla, Zenica-Doboj, Central Bosnia, Herzegovina-

Neretva, West Herzegovina and Canton 10) are considered to be predominantly rural with over 50%

of population living in rural area. They cover 93% territory of FBiH (24,320 km2) with 80% FBiH

population living there (1,781,893).

Sarajevo Canton is predominately urban with less of 10% population living in rural area. It covers

approximately 5% (1,276.9 km2) of the territory with 19% (413,593) of FBiH population living there.

Bosnian-Podrinje Canton is considered to be mainly rural-transition area with between 15% and 50%

of population living in rural area. This Canton covers 2% (504,6 km2) of territory with 1% (23,734)

of FBiH population living there.

A1.2 Waste generation

Waste generation in FBiH was estimated on the basis of the consultant’s own data gathering, review

of official publications, available studies, interviews with key stakeholders, questionnaires and

benchmarking.Table A1-2-Table A1-5 summarize the various sources used and the waste generation

results.

Table A1-2: Waste generation rate in FBiH

Source MSW generation per capita

(kg/day)

Federal average

Federal Waste Management

Plan (2012-2017) 0.87

Table A1-3: Waste generation rates in Cantons in FBiH

Source MSW generation per capita

(kg/day)

Average for the Canton

Zenica – Doboj Canton4 0.63

Sarajevo Canton5 1.26*

Bosnia Podrinje Canton6 0.55

Tuzla Canton7 0.89

Central Bosnia Canton8 0.71

Una Sana Canton9 0.81

Weighted average 0.88 *Predominantly urban canton

3 Middle term strategy for providing advisory services in FBiH, 2017-2021. http://fmpvs.gov.ba/upload_files/1468395672-

HRRadnaverzijazakabinet0807.pdf 4 Analysis of experience in the production and use of RDF in Southeast Europe, REZ, 2016 5 Waste Management Plan for Sarajevo Canton 2015 - 2020 6Waste Management Plan for Bosnia Podrinje Canton 2013 - 2018 7 Waste Management Plan for Tuzla Canton 2015 - 2020 8Waste Management Plan for Central Bosnia Canton 2015 - 2025 9 Waste Management Plan for Una Sana Canton 2014 - 2019

http://fmpvs.gov.ba/upload_files/1468395672-HRRadnaverzijazakabinet0807.pdf

http://fmpvs.gov.ba/upload_files/1468395672-HRRadnaverzijazakabinet0807.pdf


3

Table A1-4: Waste generation rates in predominantly rural municipalities

Municipality Population per

municipality

Rural population

%

Urban

population %

Waste generation

rate (kg/cap/day)

Čelić10 10,502 65.8 34.2 0.51

Tešanj11 43,063 87.2 12.8 1.15

Cazin12 66,149 78.3 21.7 0.42

Travnik13 53,482 69.1 30.9 0.39

Živinice14 57,765 69.7 30.3 0.42

Fojnica15 12,356 68.6 31.4 0.48

Weighted average 0.55

Waste generation rates in relation to GNI for countries in the region are given in Table A1-5.

Table A1-5: Waste generation rates in countries in the region in relation to the GNI (2015)

Country GNI/cap (USD)16 Generation (kg/cap/year)

Croatia 12,700 39317

Serbia 5,540 31818

Macedonia 5,140 37019

BiH 4,670 32520

Kosovo 3,970 17821

The situation with waste generation in the Republic of Serbia is used for comparison in view of the

similar socio-economic environment and waste management structure of two countries. The annual

quantities of municipal waste generated in Serbia are determined on real measurement of waste in

selected municipalities22. Based on the results of these measurements, the current National Waste

Management Strategy for Serbia23reads that the 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.

Based on the census, urban population accounts for 57% whereas rural population accounts for 43%.

On average, in the Republic of Serbia 0.87 kg of municipal waste is generated per capita/day (318

10 Investment technical documentation for closure of municipal landfill and starting with regional disposal for municipality Čelić, 2015 11Report on Quantities and Morphological Composition of Waste for 16 Representative Municipalities, GIZ, 2015. 12Report on Quantities and Morphological Composition of Waste for 16 Representative Municipalities, GIZ, 2015 13 Waste Management Plan for Central Bosnia Canton 2015-2020 14 Waste Management Plan for Tuzla Canton 2015-2020 15Investment technical documentation for closure of municipal landfill and starting with regional disposal for municipality Fojnica, 2016 16 World Bank 17Eurostat 18 Republic of Serbia National Solid Waste Management Strategy 2010-2019

http://ecodev.rs/sr/documents/3%20Nezvanicni%20prevodi%20dokumenata%20na%20engleski%20jezik/5%20Otpad/Waste-management-

strategy-for-the-period-2010-19.pdf 19 Eurostat 20 Agency for statistics BiH (2016) First release – Environment: Public Transportation and Disposal of Municipal Waste

http://www.bhas.ba/saopstenja/2016/KOM_2015_001_01_BA.pdf 21 Eurostat 22Univeristy 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 23Republic of Serbia National Solid Waste Management Strategy 2010-2019

http://ecodev.rs/sr/documents/3%20Nezvanicni%20prevodi%20dokumenata%20na%20engleski%20jezik/5%20Otpad/Waste-management-strategy-for-the-period-2010-19.pdf

http://ecodev.rs/sr/documents/3%20Nezvanicni%20prevodi%20dokumenata%20na%20engleski%20jezik/5%20Otpad/Waste-management-strategy-for-the-period-2010-19.pdf

http://www.bhas.ba/saopstenja/2016/KOM_2015_001_01_BA.pdf

http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/otpad.pdf


4

kg/cap/year). In Belgrade, the urban capital of Serbia with 1,659,440 inhabitants, 1.2 kg of waste is

generated per capita on a daily basis.

The figures from the Agency for Statistics BiH should be taken with some caution since (i)

approximately 35% of the population is not covered by regular waste collection services and

estimated amounts are provided and (ii) only 4 regional landfills have weigh bridges serving 24 out of

79 Municipalities and the waste quantities collected and disposed at the remaining landfills are

estimated on basis of truck size and number of daily disposals.

Combining the data and information given above, the MSW generation rates used in this reportare

provided in Table A1-6taking into account 47% urban and 53% rural population.

Table A1-6: Proposed MSW generation rates in FBiH as per 2013

Urban MSW generation

kg/capita/day

Rural MSW generation

kg/capita/day

Federal weighted average

kg/capita/day

1.05 0.55 0.8

Table A1-7presents the summary information of waste generation per Canton in FBiH. It is calculated

that in FBiH 2,219,220 inhabitants produce around 640,000 tonnes of waste per year in 2013 with 60

percent being generated in urban and 40 percent in rural areas. Since waste volumes are calculated on

basis of general federal figures, they might be slightly different per Canton/municipality24.

Table A1-7: Amounts of waste generated in Cantons in FBiH (2013)

Canton Population Urban waste

(tons/year)

Rural waste

(tons/year)

Total waste

(tons/year)

Una-Sana Canton 273,261 40,320 33,737 74,057

Posavina Canton 43,453 6,378 5,382 11,760

Tuzla Canton 445,028 63,788 55,926 119,715

Zenica-Doboj Canton 364,433 51,119 46,383 97,502

Bosnian-Podrinje Canton Goražde 27,734 4,794 2,254 7,047

Central Bosnia Canton 254,686 31,820 34,460 66,281

Herzegovina-Neretva Canton 222,007 38,883 24,200 63,084

West Herzegovina Canton 94,898 8,292 14,707 22,999

Sarajevo Canton 413,593 144,402 7,390 151,792

Canton 10 84,127 9,479 11,923 21,402

Total 2,219,220 399,276 236,364 635,640

The distribution between urban and rural waste in each waste collection region is graphically

displayed in Figure A1-1. These distributions are used for the forecast of waste generation.

24This is especially true for SarajevoCanton, predominantly urban canton where waste generation rate is reported to be much higher (1.26

kg/cap/day) that the federal average used in this calculation (Table 6)


5

Figure A1-1: Urban and rural waste per Canton (%)

A1.3 Waste composition

To assess current MSW composition, existing information from various studies was compared and

summarized in Table A1-8. Here it is noted that data given for Una Sana Canton, Tešanj and Cazin

Municipalities are a result of real waste composition measurements.

Table A1-8: Waste composition in BiH from multiple sources

Sarajevo

Canton25

Una Sana

Canton26

Zenica

Doboj

Canton

Central

Bosnia

Canton27

Tešanj

municipality28

Cazin

municipality29

Organic 15% 31.6% 29.50% 25.20% 42.67% 56.09%

Plastic 14%

(incl.

PET)

5% 14.95% 13.70% 8.89% 7.55%

Paper/Cardboa

rd

17% 10.2% 9.68% 7.68% 5.16% 7.54%

Metals - 1.3% 1.06% 1.21% 0.74% 0.60%

Glass 2.5% 8% 5.65% 9.34% 4.68% 4.14%

25 Waste Management Plan for Canton Sarajevo 2015-2020.

http://mpz.ks.gov.ba/sites/mpz.ks.gov.ba/files/plan_upravljanja_otpadom_kantona_sarajevo_za_period_2015.-2020.godina.pdf 26 Waste Management Plan for Una Sana Canton 2014 - 2019 27Waste Management Plan for Central Bosnia Canton 2015-2020 28 NALAS, Report on Quantities and Morphological Composition of Waste for 16 Representative Municipalities, December 2015 29 ibid.


6

Sarajevo

Canton25

Una Sana

Canton26

Zenica

Doboj

Canton

Central

Bosnia

Canton27

Tešanj

municipality28

Cazin

municipality29

Textiles &

Shoes

- 4.6% 9.27% 9.52% 7.55% 3.68%

Wood - 5.4% 6.49% 7.32% 0.07% 3.48%

Construction

and

Demolition

(C&D) and

inert waste

- 5.7% 7.09% 7.21% 1.89% 2.48%

Hazardous

waste

- 1.3% 0.02% 0.15% 1.14% 0.09%

Composites - 1.9% 3.38% 3.67% 1.33% 0.93%

Fines - - 6.31% 7.34 11.24% 6.31%

Others 51.5% 1.4%

bulky

waste

1.1% ash

3.4%

diapers

10.7%

others

- - 9.09% diapers

0.86% leather

2.65% diapers

0.22% leather

Aluminum

cans

- - 0.81% 2.05% 0.5% 0.88%

Rubber - 1.4% - - - -

Foil - 5.7% - - - -

Animal waste - - - - - -

WEEE - - 0.54% 0.77% 0.27% 0.14%

PET - 2.5% 5.17% 4.28% 3.79% 3.22%

Medical waste - - 0.08% 0.56% 0.13% 0.00%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

It can be concluded that organic waste is the dominant fraction and varies from 25% (cantonal

average) up to 50% (municipal average). Here is to be noted that Tešanj and Cazin are mainly rural

municipalities and that organic waste may decrease with increase in urbanisation. Una Sana, Zenica-

Doboj and Central Bosnia Cantons are around 35% urbanised. If Canton Sarajevo is represented as

highly urbanised area then we can conclude that organic waste in urban areas can go as low as 15%.

The dry recyclables (plastic, glass, paper, metals, aluminium cans, PET) accounts for 24-38% of the

total waste. The percentage is lower in rural municipalities and higher in the urban cantons, especially

Sarajevo Canton.


7

The situation in the Republic of Serbia is used for comparison as the waste composition for Serbia is

based on real measurement of waste in referent local self-government units30,31. The waste in the

Republic of Serbia is predominantly composed of organic waste (gardening waste and other

biodegradable waste) which takes up to almost 50% in the mass of municipal waste. The amount of

dry recyclables amounts up to 30% (Figure A1-2).

Figure A1-2: Waste composition in the Republic of Serbia

For calculation purposes, the following will be assumed for the baseline year 201332:

• Average percentage of dry recyclables in containers will be 30%.

• Recyclables collected through EPR system (not disposed in containers but collected directly

from commercial/institutional entities) are approximately 35% of 60,000 tons reported to be

the quantity put on market by members of Ekopak and Ekoživot. This calculates to 21,000

tons or approximately 10% of total packaging waste quantity.

• Total percentage of generated dry recyclables will thus be 33%% or 33% x635,640= 209,760t.

A1.4 Forecast of waste generation

Assuming that project preparation and financing activities will be implemented in the period up to

2020, with start of operations in 2020, the investments will be needed for the next 5 years of

operations, i.e. up to the 2025. Therefore, the forecast of waste generation is made for the year 2025.

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 collection

coverage from average 68% in 2013 up to 85% in 2025 i.e. 100% in urban areas and 60% in rural

areas, which is considered to be a realistic scenario.

Population growth. The rate of natural increase in Federation BiH for the period 2010 – 2015 is

given in Table A1-933. The average growth rate for a five years period is 0.1%.

30 University 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 31Republic of Serbia National Solid Waste Management Strategy 2010-2019 32The census year 2013 is taken as a baseline year in this Report 33Federation of BiH in Figures, Federal Agency for Statistics; http://fzs.ba/index.php/2016/09/07/federacija-bih-u-brojkama/


8

Table A1-9: Rate of natural increase (%)

Rate of natural increase 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg.

Federation BiH 0.8 0.4 0.3 -0.1 0.2 -1.0 0.1

For the purpose of this report it is assumed that the population number will not change up to 2025,

therefore the forecast is made using the results of the 2013 Census for Federation BiH as a referent

population number amounting to 2,219,220 inhabitants.

Household income growth. Household consumption was selected as a representative measure of

household income growth. Table A1-10presents the average monthly consumption expenditure per

households in BAM for 2004, 2007 and 201134.

Table A1-10: Average monthly household consumption for 2004, 2007, 2011 in BAM

Household consumption 2004 2007 2011 Increase rate

Federation BiH 1346.44 BAM 1647.72 BAM 1672.39 BAM 24.2%

In the seven years’ period, from 2004 to 2011, the household consumption increased by 24.2%. In

order to create the waste generation forecast, it is assumed that household consumption will continue

to grow about 20% every 5 years, or 4% per year.

Urbanization. The urbanization rate in FBiH according to the preliminary census data from 2013 and

compared to the census data from 1991 is given in Table A1-1135.

Table A1-11: Urbanisation rate in FBiH 1991 vs. 2013

Urbanisation rate36 1991 2013 Increase rate

Federation BiH 42.9% 46.9% 4%

Tuzla Canton 33.0% 34.8% 2.33%

Zenica-Doboj Canton 35.0% 34.6% -1.14%

Sarajevo Canton 86.8% 86.0% -0.92%

Central Bosnia Canton 29.7% 30.4% 2.35%

Una-Sana Canton 32.4% 35.1% 8.33%

Canton 10 27.8% 27.2% -2.15%

West Herzegovina Canton 18.8% 22.1% 17.5%

Bosnia-Podrinje Canton 40.5% 49.4% 21.00%

Herzegovina-Neretva Canton 42.9% 42.9% 0.00%

Posavina Canton 29.3% 34.6% 18.09%

34 Household Expenditure Surveys in FBiH for 2004, 2007, 2011 Federal Agency of Statistics, available at http://fzs.ba/index.php/anketa-o-

potrosnji-domacinstavakucanstava-apd/ and http://www.bhas.ba/ankete/HBS2004BiH/survey0/data/APD%20Konacni%20Rezultati.pdf 352013 Preliminary census results, Urbanisation rate, http://www.statistika.ba/?show=3#link3 36 Urbanisation = population living in urban area/total population

http://fzs.ba/index.php/anketa-o-potrosnji-domacinstavakucanstava-apd/

http://fzs.ba/index.php/anketa-o-potrosnji-domacinstavakucanstava-apd/

http://www.bhas.ba/ankete/HBS2004BiH/survey0/data/APD%20Konacni%20Rezultati.pdf

http://www.statistika.ba/?show=3#link3


9

Although some Cantons experience significant change in urbanisation in past years, the total

urbanisation increase rate in FBiH over the time span of 22 years is only 4%. It is expected that no

significant growth will occur in the period until 2025 and current urbanisation rate will be taken as a

reference value.

According to the consultant’s experience from similar countries, 1% household income growth results

in 0.5% urban waste generation per capita growth and in 0.25% growth for rural waste generation per

capita. Table A1-12presents both the assumptions made and the results achieved for waste generation

forecast between 2013 and 2025.

Table A1-12: Waste generation forecast for FBiH 2013-2025

2013 2025 Change/year

Population37 2,219,220 2,219220 0%

Household consumption38(BAM/year) 24,082 38,556 4%

Urbanization (%)39 47 47 0%

Urban Population 1,041,817 1,041,817 0%

Rural (%)38 53 53 0%

Rural Population 1,177,403 1,177,403 0%

Urban SW(kg/cap/day) 1.05 1.33 2%

Rural SW kg/cap/day 0.55 0.62 1%

Urban Waste (t) 399,276 506,379 2%

Rural Waste (t) 236,364 266,341 1%

Total Waste (t) 635,640 772,719 1.8%

During the period 2013 to 2025, waste volumes will increase by 21% with average annual growth rate

of 1.8%. The average waste generation rate is expected to increase from 0.8 kg/cap/day in 2013 to

1.02 kg/cap/day in 2025.

Figure A1-3presents the overall waste generation in FBiH for reference and forecasted year Table

A1-13presents the forecasted waste generation for each Canton. Detailed list of forecasted waste

generation per municipality is given in Annex A1.2.

37 2013 Census 38Household consumption survey 39Assumptions based on urbanization trends


10

Figure A1-3: Waste generation forecast 2013-2025

Table A1-13: Forecasted waste generation per Canton

Canton 2013 2025

Urban

waste

(tons/

year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

Urban

waste

(tons/

year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

Una-Sana Canton 40,320 33,737 74,057 51,136 38,016 89,151

Posavina Canton 6,378 5,382 11,760 8,089 6,065 14,154

Tuzla Canton 63,788 55,926 119,715 80,899 63,019 143,918

Zenica-Doboj Canton 51,119 46,383 97,502 64,831 52,266 117,097

Bosnian-Podrinje

Canton Goražde

4,794 2,254 7,047 6,079 2,539 8,619

Central Bosnia Canton 31,820 34,460 66,281 40,356 38,831 79,187

Herzegovina-Neretva

Canton

38,883 24,200 63,084 49,314 27,270 76,583

West Herzegovina

Canton

8,292 14,707 22,999 10,517 16,572 27,089

Sarajevo Canton 144,402 7,390 151,792 183,137 8,327 191,464

Canton 10 9,479 11,923 21,402 12,022 13,435 25,457

Total 399,276 236,364 635,640 506,379 266,341 772,719

Based on the information obtained from landfills, approximately 7% of the total waste quantities

disposed of at landfills is coming from industrial enterprises as non-hazardous industrial waste. For

total waste to be landfilled 7% will be added to the municipal waste quantities in 2013 and 9% in

2025 assuming 2% growth/year. The MSW collection coverage in 2013 is 68% and it can be

realistically expected that it will increase to 85% in 2025. Thus, the total waste to be landfilled in

2025 is calculated to be 772,719x0.85x1.09=715,925 tons (excluding any separation at source). The


11

comparison with 2013 is given in Table A1-14. The amounts of waste to be landfilled per disposal

region are presented in Annex A1.3.

Table A1-14: Total waste quantities to be disposed at landfills, forecast 2013-2025

2013 2025

MSW (tons/year) 432,235 656,812

Non-hazardous industrial waste(tons/year) 30,256 59,113

Total (tons/year) * 462,492 715,925 *excluding any separation at source

A1.5 Forecast of waste composition

Besides waste generation, waste composition will also change as a result of the economic growth of

the country. European statistics40 demonstrate that as income grows, recyclables (mostly packaging)

grow 50 percent faster (1.5%x1.8=2.7%/year) than the overall waste growth (1.8%/year) on a per

capita basis, while the organic fraction decreases. Similarly, United Nations Environmental Program

(UNEP) in its publication on green economy41 suggests that packaging waste increases with Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) and income growth, while the organic fraction decreases in parallel.

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:

• Recyclables fraction will grow 50% faster than the overall waste generation per capita.

• Per capita waste generation will grow from 292 to 362 kg/cap/year, which is around 24%

increase in 12 years.

• The increase in the recyclable fraction generated per capita, for the same period, will be

almost 38%.,

• Percentage of generated dry recyclables (plastic, glass, paper, metals, Al. cans, PET) in the

total waste is 33% in 2013 (see Chapter A1.3).

Assuming uniform changes, Table A1-15 shows the evolution of total waste generation per capita and

the forecasted increase of the recyclable fraction, both in waste composition and in per capita

generation.

Table A1-15: Recyclable waste generation per capita 2013-2025

2013 2025

MSW (kg/cap/year) 292 362

Recyclables (kg/cap/year) 96.4 133

% of recyclables 33% 38%

Table A1-16presents the forecasted changes in waste composition.

40Generation and recycling of packaging waste (CSI 017/WST 002 - Assessment published November 2012 41Green Economy Report, UNEP, 2011


12

Table A1-16: Changes in waste composition, forecast 2013 - 2025

2013 2025

Average MSW generation (kg/cap/day) 0.8 0.99

Organics (%) 40% 35%

Organics (kg/cap/day) 0.32 0.35

Recyclables (%) 33% 38%

Recyclables (kg/cap/day) 0.26 0.37

Other waste (%) 27% 27%

Other waste (kg/cap/day) 0.22 0.27

Figure A1-4summarizes the changes in composition forecast between 2013 and 2025.

Figure A1-4: Forecasted changes in composition 2015-2025

Table A1-17 presents the expected urban waste and rural municipal waste analysed in the three

different streams (organics, recyclables, other) in FBiH for the total generated quantities. A detailed

list of waste composition per Canton in FBiH is given in Annex A1.4. Waste composition per

municipality can be estimated by using figures from Table A1-16and Annex A1.2.

Table A1-17: Urban and Rural municipal waste composition 2013-2025

URBAN WASTE (tons/year) 2013 2025

Organics 159,710 178,894

Recyclables 131,761 190,763

Other 107,805 136,722

Total 399,276 506,379

RURAL WASTE (tons/year) 2013 2025

Organics 94,545 94,093


Other 63,818 71,912

Total 236,364 266,341


13

A1.6 Future waste management options

The Solid Waste Management Strategy for Federation BiH 2008-2018has set quantitative objectives

with specific timetables for realization of strategic goals. Those targets are presented in Table A1-18.

Table A1-18: Quantitative objectives for the realization of strategic goals

Objectives 2011 2014 2018

Municipal waste collection 70% 85% 95%

Separated municipal waste 5% 7% 10%

Amount of treated waste 0% 9% 18%

The amount of waste disposed in landfills 95% 84% 72%

The amount of biodegradable waste disposed

with municipal waste

70% 50% 30%

The Rulebook on management of packaging and packaging waste (Official Gazette of FBiH 88/11)

sets collection and recycling targets packaging waste to 35% of the packaging placed on the market.

According to the Federal Solid Waste Management Strategy total amount of packaging placed on the

market is approximately 170,000 t/y. The current estimate of Fund for Environmental Protection of

FBiH is that only 15% of packaging waste is recovered from the packaging that is placed on the

market in FBIH. The target has been frozen until 2020.

The targets and the timeframe mentioned in Table A1-18and in the Rulebook are quite optimistic

based on experience from EU member states and other countries in the region. The Strategy

implementation period will expire in 2018 and the targets set are not achieved.

Considering the current baseline (68% collection coverage, almost no separation and recycling, poor

basic service level) such transformation of the waste management system in Federation of BiH will

require a coordinated effort at all administrative levels, significant development of human resources,

increased public participation and significant financial resources. Thus, the implementation of the

targets set by the FBiH Solid Waste Management Strategy are considered as a very Optimistic

Scenario for the waste management sector in the period up to 2025, also considering 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

taking into account the FBiH Solid Waste Management Strategy and own calculations as laid out in

previous sections. The scenarios proposed are given in Table A1-19.

Table A1-19: Three scenarios for the future of the waste management sector

Objectives

Scenarios for 2025

Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic

Collection

Coverage

100% in urban areas in

2025

80% in rural areas in

2025

Federal average: 90% in

terms of population

92% in terms of waste

generated


2025


2025


terms of population


generated


2025


2025


terms of population


generated


14

Objectives

Scenarios for 2025

Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic

Source

Separation

40% of the recyclables

and 40% of the organics

in 2025

35% of the recyclables

and 20% of the organics

in 2025

20% of the recyclables in

2025

No recycling for organics

Organics

Diversion*

40%x35%=14% 20%x35%=7% 0%

Recyclables

Diversion

40%x38%=15% 35%x38%=13% 20%x38%=8%

Final

Disposal

The residuals after

organic and recyclables

diversion.

Besides the municipal

waste, an additional 9%

landfill capacity is

required for the non-

hazardous industrial

waste

The residuals after


diversion.






waste

The residuals after


diversion.






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.

Table A1-20: Optimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year)

Optimistic Scenario 2013 2025

Total Waste 635,640 772,719

Collection coverage 68% 92%

Total waste collected 432,235 710,902

Organics 254,256 x 0,68=

172,894

272,987 x 0.92=

251,148

Organic Source Separation 0 40% x 272,987=

100,459

Recyclables 209,761 x 0.68=

142,638

92% x 291,098 =

267,810

Direct collection (10%) 20,976 29,110

Source Separation Negligible

40%x (267,810 -29,110) =

95,480

Other 432,235 - (142,637 +

172,895)=116,704

710,902- (251,148 + 267,810)

=191,814

MSW to landfills 432,235- 20,976=

411,259

710,902- (100,459+ 29,110+

50%*x95,480) = 533,598

Industrial waste 30,256 710,902x9%=63,981

Total landfill 441,516 597,574

Diversion rate Negligible 29% *It is assumed that 50% of materials will be rejected because of bad separation.


15

Table A1-21: Realistic scenario waste flows (tons/year)

Realistic Scenario 2013 2025

Total Waste 635,640 772,719



Organics 172,894 229,883

Organic Source Separation 0 45,976



Source Separation Negligible 76,248

Other 116,704 179,967

MSW to landfills 411,259 543,601

Industrial waste 30,256 59,113


Diversion rate Negligible 17%

Table A1-22: Pessimistic scenario waste flows (tons/year)

Pessimistic Scenario 2013 2025

Total Waste 635,640 772,719



Organics 172,894 221,120

Organic Source Separation 0 0



Source Separation Negligible 41,336

Other 116,704 168,994

MSW to landfills 411,259 617,461

Industrial waste 30,256 56,331


Diversion rate Negligible 8%

Table A1-23presents the results of the three scenarios for years 2013 and 2025.


16

Table A1-23: Comparison of waste flows for the three scenarios for 2013 and 2025

2013 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic

Landfill capacity (tons/year) 441,516 441,516 441,516

Organic fraction recovered (tons/year) 0 0 0

Recyclables recovered (tons/year) negligible negligible negligible

2025 Optimistic Realistic Pessimistic

Landfill capacity (tons/year) 597,574 602,714 673,792

Organic fraction recovered (tons/year) 100,459 45,976 0

Recyclables recovered (tons/year) 124,590 105,358 70,446

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 75 and 90% (instead of the current 68%). The investments

required for those improvements are significant and they need to be prioritized and

implemented at latest by 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 priority has to be given

to major organic fraction producers (parks/green areas, schools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels

etc.). This will be much more efficient than capturing organics/kitchen waste from

households. However, the consequences of separation of organic waste at source has to be

investigated by a detailed market assessment concerning compost demand and quality criteria.

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 600,000 tons while the pessimistic one requires an

annual capacity of 675,000 tons. 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 together with collection equipment.

A1.7 Shortcomings

Inside the Federation two parallel waste information systems are operating i.e. the Environmental

Fund using its own forms and the Federal Institute for Statistics using their own forms based on EU

reporting requirements. The Institute is sending its information to the State Agency for Statistics for

statistical purposes and reporting to the EU. There is no institutionalised cooperation between the

Environmental Fund and the Institute for Statistics. Data from the various organizations can differ.

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. Only Sarajevo, Mostar, Livno and

Zenica regional landfills have weighbridges in operation providing data for only 24 municipalities out

of 79.

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


17

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.

The implementation of a national WIS will standardize reporting requirements, definitions, units and

terminology at all administrative levels. The information system should be regularly updated by

standard reporting procedures and should capture the national, regional and local evolution of waste

management systems. 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 carried out. The responsible organization could be the

Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH in close cooperation with the Federal Ministry of

Environment and Tourism and the Agency for Statistic of BiH. A federal WIS should have its own

website where all official waste reports and statistics will be available to the public. Such open access

will stimulate public participation in waste management and recycling initiatives and will guarantee

transparency in the whole lifecycle of waste management.


18

A2 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

A2.1 Legal framework and policies

A2.1.1 General

In accordance with the General Peace Agreement for BiH, signed in Dayton on 21 November 1995,

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) consists of two entities: Federation of BiH (FBiH), Republika Srpska

(RS). Based on an arbitral award passed on 5th March 1999, the Brcko District of BiH (BD) was

formed as a third separate administrative unit under exclusive sovereignty of the State.

Figure A2-1: Administrative Organization of BiH According to the Dayton Peace Agreement

BiH has a complex administrative structure. The central government at the level of BiH received

limited powers in accordance with the Dayton Peace Accords of 1995, as all governmental functions

and authorities that are not expressly assigned to the institutions of BiH in the Constitution, are those

of the entities. The influence and authority of the state government are limited and restricted to, for

example, coordination of international cooperation and therefore the most significant policy-making

activities in BiH belong to the entities.

BiH has complex governance at the local level as well. FBiH consists of 10 (ten) cantons and each has

its own government and adopts its own laws (which are in accordance with the legislation of FBiH).

Municipalities in FBiH exercise their authorities through various municipal departments. FBiH is

divided into 79 municipalities. The entity government for FBiH is responsible for developing and

adopting its own environmental legislation, including legislation governing waste management. As

such, there is no overarching waste legislation at the national level.

FBiH has adopted a series of laws governing environmental protection and its related secondary

legislation (regulations, decrees and decisions):

• Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 71/09)

• Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 38/09)


19

• Law on Air Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 4/10)

• Law on Water (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 70/06)

• Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 66/13)

• Law on Fund for Environmental Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03)

As is the case with legislation, strategic documents pertaining to environmental protection and waste

management are developed at entity level. However, at state level, the Solid Waste Management

Strategy, was developed in 2000 with support from the EU (EU/EC PHARE Project) and adopted

only by RS in 2002. It highlighted the need for reduction and recovery/recycling of waste as a cost-

effective way forward, as well as waste treatment with minimum environmental impact. The Strategy

served as basis for the development of the Federal Waste Management Strategy.

The main strategic and planning documents related to waste management in FBiH are

• Environmental Protection Strategy of FBiH for the period 2008-2018 which addresses waste

management in its integral part, the Waste Management Strategy of FBiH (WMS FBiH)

• Federal Waste Management Plan 2012-2017 (FWMP).

In FBiH cantons develop their own strategic documents on waste management as part of their legal

obligations arising from the Law on Waste Management42. So far, the following Waste Management

Plans (WMPs) were adopted at cantonal level:

• Zenica – Doboj Canton WMP 2009 – 2018

• Bosnia – Podrinje Canton WMP 2013 – 2018

• Una Sana Canton WMP 2014 – 2019

• Sarajevo Canton WMP 2014 -2019

• Central Bosnia Canton WMP 2015 – 2020

• Tuzla Canton WMP 2015 - 2020

• Herzegovina – Neretva Canton has developed draft WMP, while the remaining three cantons

have not developed WMPs.

The FBiH laws on waste management are the legal basis for waste management in the country, while

strategies and plans both at FBiH and cantonal level provide guidelines for the future development

and investments in the field of waste management.

A2.1.2 Law on Waste Management

In FBiH, the Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 71/09) establishes

a general framework for all aspects of solid waste management in FBiH, primarily:

• Waste management planning (competencies, roles and responsibilities of authorities, types of

planning documents, permitting, financial guaranties, etc.);

• Responsibilities in waste management (generator responsibility, seller responsibility,

responsibility of generator and holder of waste);

• Main functional elements of waste management system (temporary storage, collection,

transport, reuse, recycling and/or treatment, and disposal);

• Main requirements for the management of hazardous waste;

• Trans boundary movement of waste; and

• Waste management control.

42(Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 71/09)


20

The Law encourages prevention, recycling, reuse and usage of waste for energy recovery and governs

all categories of waste (excluding radioactive waste, gases emitted into the atmosphere and

wastewater), as well as all types of waste management activities, operations and systems. The

provisions of this law also apply to waste resulting from prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage

of mineral resources and the working of quarries; liquid waste; animal waste and other non-hazardous

materials of natural origin that can be used for agricultural purposes, and defused explosives, unless

regulated by a special regulation.

Annex A2.1 provides a detailed description of the main provisions of the Law on Waste Management.

The main secondary legislation on waste management in FBiH consists of the following:

• Regulation on issuing permit for small-scale activities on waste management (Official

Gazette of FBiH, No. 9/05)

• Regulation on waste categories with lists (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 9/05)

• Regulation establishing handling method for waste listed as non-hazardous but whose content

is unknown (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03)

• Regulation on management of packaging and packaging waste (Official Gazette of FBiH, No.

88/11, 28/13)

• Regulation on necessary conditions for transfer of obligations from producers and sellers on

operators of systems for collection of waste (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 9/05)

• Regulation on the contents of conditioning plans for existing landfills (Official Gazette of

FBiH, No. 09/05)

• Regulation on animal waste and other non-hazardous natural materials which can be used in

agriculture (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 8/08)

• Regulation on medical waste management (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 77/08)

• Regulation on management of waste from electric and electronic equipment (Official Gazette

of FBiH, No. 87/12 and 107/14)

• Regulation on form, contents and methodology for provision of information on important

characteristics of products and packaging (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 6/08)

• Regulation on conditions for operation of waste incineration plants (Official Gazette of FBiH,

No. 12/05)

• Regulation on transboundary movement of waste (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 7/11)

• Decree on financial and other guarantees for covering risks of possible damages, clean up and

procedure following the closure of disposal sited (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 39/06)

• Decree on separate collection, packaging and labelling of waste (Official Gazette of FBiH,

No. 38/06)

• Decree on reporting obligations for operators and manufacturers of waste on conveying

supervision, and monitoring and evidence in reference to conditions from waste management

permit (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 31/06)

According to FBiH law (Article 4), MSW is household waste as well as other waste, which because of

its nature or composition is similar to household waste. The 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.

Regulation on waste categories with lists (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 9/05) specifies the fractions

that make up municipal waste under group 20 00 00and these correspond entirely to those specified in

the Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste

pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.


21

A2.1.3 Transposition of EU legislation

The main BiH and EU legislation regulating municipal solid waste management are briefly presented

in Table A2-1.

Table A2-1: Status of the transposition of the EU Waste Directives in FBiH

EU Directives Transposition status in FBiH

Directive No. 2008/98/EC of the

European Parliament and of the

Council of 19.11.2008 “on waste” (in

force as of 12.12.2010) (the so called

“Waste Framework Directive

(WFD)”).

Partially transposed through the Law on Environmental

Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03 and 38/09)

which introduced obligation for a waste holder to take

adequate measures for management of waste and to provide

basic measures for the prevention of waste, recycling and

treating waste for reuse, extraction of raw materials and

energy recovery and a safe disposal of waste based on the

polluter pays principle. However, the main principles of

waste management are transposed through the Law on Waste

Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03, 72/09),

including polluter pays principle and principle of producer

responsibility for waste management. The Law establishes a

general framework for all aspects of solid waste management

and encourages prevention, recycling, reuse and usage of

waste for energy recovery. Some of the definitions set in the

Waste Framework Directive are transposed through the Law

on Waste Management (waste, waste producer, waste holder,

re-use). List of wastes is transposed through the Regulation

on waste categories with lists Official Gazette of FBiH, No.

9/05).

Establishing measures 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.

Council Directive No. 1999/31/EC of

26.04.1999 “on the landfill of waste”,

as amended by Regulations No.

EC/1882/2003 and EC/1137/2008;

Partially transposed through the Law on Waste Management

(Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03, 72/09) and Regulation

on the contents of conditioning plans for existing landfills

(Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 09/05) which transpose some

definitions (Article 2), Article 4 on classification of landfills,

Article 7 on the content of the landfill permit (except Art.

7(h)), as well as parts of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 13. Decree on

financial and other guarantees for covering risks of possible

damages, clean up and procedure following the closure of

disposal sited (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 39/06) is

contributing to the transposition of the Directive. The

measure of preparing and implementing a Federal strategy

reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going

to landfill (Art. 5) has not been transposed yet

Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on Transposed through the Law on Statistics of FBiH (Official


22


EU waste statistics Gazette of FBiH, no. 63/03 and 09/09) whose Article 16

states that the Federal Agency for Statistics is obliged to

collect and provide data to the Agency for Statistics of Bosnia

and Herzegovina (BHAS) in line with international

methodologies and standards and the BHAS guidelines. The

BHAS guideline on waste statistics is the Manual on Waste

Statistics (Publications Office of the EU, 2013), translated by

the BHAS in 2014.

Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 of

the European Parliament and of the

Council of 14 June 2006 on

shipments of waste as amended by

Regulations (EC) 1379/2007, (EC)

669/2008, (EC) 219/2009 and (EC)

308/2009 and Directive 2009/31/EC.

Partially transposed. In FBiH, legislation on shipment of

waste is harmonised with the provisions of the Basel

Convention. The Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on

shipments of waste, as amended by Regulations

EC/1379/2007, EC/669/2008, EC/219/2009, and

EC/308/2009, (hereinafter referred to as: Shipment of Waste

Regulation) is partially transposed in FBiH legislation.

Provisions of the Shipment of Waste Regulation are included

in the FBiH legislation mostly through the Law on Waste

Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03, 72/09),

i.e. title VI of the Law, Regulation on fiscal guarantees

ensuring trans boundary movement of waste (Official Gazette

of FBiH, No. 41/05) and the Regulation on Trans boundary

Movement of Waste (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 7/11).

According to the Law on Waste Management (Official

Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 71/09), import of waste for

disposal purposes in the Federation of BiH is prohibited.

Waste may be imported into the Federation of BiH only for

the activities of material or energy recovery.

Designated Authority and National Focal Point for the

implementation of Basel Convention in FBiH is the Federal

Ministry of Environment and Tourism (FMET).

The Industrial Emissions Directive

2010/75/EU (repealing Directive

2000/76/EC on incineration of waste)

Partially transposed through the Law on Environmental

Protection (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 38/09)

and set of by-laws such as Regulation on Best Available

Techniques for Attaining the Environmental Quality

Standards Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 92/07), Regulation

on plants and installations for which Environmental Impact

Assessment is obligatory and plants and installations which

may only be constructed and operated if issued an

Environmental Permit (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 19/04),

Regulation on Emission Limit Values into the air from Large

Combustion Plants (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 12/05),

Regulation on working conditions of Waste Incineration

Plants (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 12/05), Regulation on

Volatile Organic Compounds (Official Gazette of FBiH, no.

12/05) and others. Chapter IV has been transposed apart from


23


establishment of an effective information gathering system

and establishment a mechanism for access to information and

public participation (Art. 55).

Chapter VI, including the prohibition of the disposal of waste

from installations producing titanium dioxide (Art. 67) has

not been transposed yet

European Parliament and Council

Directive No. 94/62/EC of

20.12.1994 “on packaging and

packaging waste”, as amended by

Regulations No. EC/1882/2003 and

EC/219/2009, and Directives No.

2004/12/EC and 2005/20/EC;


(Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03, 72/09) and the

Regulation on packaging and packaging waste management

(Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 88/11, 28/13) which

transposes Article 3, Article 4.1, Article 6.1.a, Article 6.1.b,

Article 6.1.c, Article 6.1.d, Article 6.1.e, Article 7.1, Article

11, Article 12.1 and 12.2, Article 13, Article 14 and Article

15 of the Directive;

and Regulation on form, contents and methodology for

provision of information on important characteristics of

products and packaging (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 6/08)

which transposes Article 3 (definition 1) and Article 8.3 on

appropriate marking on packaging itself or on labels.



Council of 18.09.2000 “on end-of

life vehicles”, as amended by

Decisions No. 2002/525/EC,

2005/63/EC, 2005/437/EC,

2005/438/EC, 2005/673/EC,

2008/689/EC, 2010/115/EC and

Directives No. 2008/33/EC and

2008/112/EC;


(Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03, 72/09) whose Article

58 provides for the adoption of a special bylaw relating to the

management of end of life vehicles within one year from the

date of entry into force of the Law (i.e. December 2010).

However, this bylaw has not been adopted yet.



Council of 27.01.2003 “on waste

electrical and electronic equipment

(WEEE)”, as amended by Directive

No. 2003/108/EC, 2008/34/EC and

2008/112/EC;



on WEEE management (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 87/12

and 107/14).

Regulation on WEEE management partially transposes

Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the

WEEE Directive.

Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19

December 2002 establishing criteria

and procedures for the acceptance of

waste at landfills pursuant to Article

16 and Annex II to the Directive

Partially Transposed through the Law on Waste Management


on the contents of conditioning plans for existing landfills

(Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 09/05) which transpose some

definitions (Article 2), Article 4 on classification of landfills,


24


1999/31/EC; Article 7 on the content of the landfill permit (except Art.

7(h)), as well as parts of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 13. Decree on

financial and other guarantees for covering risks of possible

damages, clean up and procedure following the closer of

disposal sited (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 39/06) is

contributing to the transposition of the Decision.



Council of 06.09.2006 “on batteries

and accumulators and waste batteries

and accumulators” and repealing

Directive No. 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;

Partially Transposed through Article 58 of the Law on Waste

Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03, 72/09)

provides for the adoption of a special bylaw relating to the

management of batteries and accumulators within one year

from the date of entry into force of the Law (i.e. December

2010). However, this bylaw has not been adopted yet.

A2.1.4 Federal Waste Management Strategy

The Federal Waste Management Strategy (FWMS) is an integral part of the Federal Environmental

Protection Strategy, developed in line with provisions of the Federal Law on Environmental

Protection. The Federal Environmental Protection Strategy is one of the key documents promoting

sustainable development in FBiH. This strategic document, developed by the Federal Ministry of

Environment and Tourism and valid for a period of ten years (2008 – 2018) by the Government of

FBiH contains a number of essential principles and guidelines for achieving sustainable development.

Some of the principles and guidelines underlying the Strategy are:

• The principle of replacement - any activity that could have harmful effects on the

environment must be replaced by any other activity which poses a significantly smaller risk;

• The principle of integrated approach - environmental protection and improvement of the

quality of the environment should be an integral part of all policies aimed at the development

of the environment;

• The principle of precaution and prevention - carefully manage and economically use

components of the environment

• How to reduce use, prevent environmental pollution and overload, prevent its disruption, as

well as the improvement and restoration of damaged environment;

• How to initiate the public and launch public participation in activities that aim to protect the

environment;

• How to integrate social and economic development in accordance with requirements of

environmental protection.

Adoption of the Federal Waste Management Strategy is prescribed by Article 48 of the Law on

Environmental Protection. It defines the objectives and measures related to waste management in

FBiH. The overarching goal of the FWMS is achieving environmental protection, promotion and

encouragement of sustainable use of natural resources through the establishment of an integrated

waste management system.


25

Realization of the overarching goal is possible by implementing measures envisaged under the

following strategic goals (SG) for waste management:

• Reduction of risks to the environment and human health and establishment of priority

infrastructure for integrated waste management (SG 7.1.) with operational goals indicating

closure of municipal landfills and gradual transfer to regional disposal concept;

• Reduction of the amount of waste for final disposal with more efficient resource use (SG

7.2.);

• Ensuring the implementation of the system through legal, institutional and economic

framework (SG 7.3.);

• Ensuring systematic monitoring of parameters for assessment of the state of the environment

(SG 7.4.).

The strategic goals have their own specific operational goals (OG) as explicit and measurable changes

that will be realized during the implementation of measures from the Strategy and contribute to

achieving the objective of the overarching goal and strategic goals.

SG 7.1 defines quantitative targets that refer to organized municipal waste collection, creating of

conditions for sanitary landfilling and closure of existing non-compliant municipal landfills (Table

A2-2).

Table A2-2: Goals for organized waste collection and ensuring sanitary landfilling conditions

Operational goal (% of total number) 2011 2014 2018

Increase the population covered by organized

waste collection

70 85 95

Create conditions for sanitary disposal capacities

for at least five years in all regions

100 - -

Remove illegal dumps and rehabilitate the sites 50 80 95

Remediate and close existing municipal landfills 5 100 -

SG 7.2 defines quantitative targets that refer to the amount of separated municipal waste, reduction of

biodegradable waste disposed and recycling and reusing of special waste (Table A2-3).

Table A2-3: Goals for separate waste collection and recycling

Operational goal 2011 2014 2018

Establish separate waste collection system in all

municipalities in FBiH (% of the total number of

municipalities)

30 60 95

Collect and recycle waste packaging (% of total

waste)

8 20 30

Paper and cardboard 35 45 55

Glass 4 10 40

Metal 55 60 65

Plastic 3 6 15

Separately collect organic waste from gardens and

parks

30 50 70

Establish fully operational waste management

regional centres in all regions (% of the total

planned number)

- - 100


26

SG 7.2 sets quantitative targets that refer to increase in recycling and reuse for special waste

categories (Table A2-4).

Table A2-4: Goals for increase in recycling and reuse for special waste categories

Operational goal 2011 2014 2018

Increase the overall percentage of waste

recycled or recovered operations (%)

ELV 40 80 90

Batteries 85 90 95

Tires 30 60 85

Waste oils Maximum recoverable portion

70 80 90

From total amount of oil

35 40 45

WEEE 20 30 70

The FWMS also recognizes the need for improvements in the legal, institutional and economic

framework by adoption of necessary secondary legislation (e.g. waste tires, ELVs, waste oils and

waste batteries and accumulators), establishment of waste management information system and

setting of special charges for certain types of waste.

Generally, it can be concluded that none of the above targets has been realized. Lessons learned

should be reflected in future SWMS and SWMP’s by introducing more realistic targets based on

impact on costs and thus tariffs.

A2.1.5 Federal Waste Management Plan 2012 -2017

The development of the Federal Waste Management Plan (FWMP) is prescribed by Article 6 of the

Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03 and 72/09). The FWMP is the

implementing document of the FWMS and provides guidance for the management of different types

of waste in FBiH, whose main goal is the establishment of an integrated waste management system.

In accordance with the FWMS the integrated waste management system is in line with the regional

concept developed for several municipalities that partner in a region (for waste collection, separation

and recycling). The Law on Waste management leaves the possibility of constructing inter-municipal

(regional) landfills, on which the final decision lies with the cantonal selection of desired concept,

materialized through cantonal waste management plans.

Development of cantonal Waste Management Plan is a legal obligation of the cantons, an instrument

on which all relevant authorities in municipalities should agree on and based on which activities and

investments in the waste management sector will be planned. As previously mentioned, five cantons

have adopted their WMPs. Zenica-Doboj Canton was the first to develop its waste management plan

in line with the measures defined in the FWMS and is one of the cantons that has a regional sanitary

landfill.

A2.1.6 Legislation at Cantonal level

Article 11 of the Federal Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03 and 72/09)

states that cantonal ministries are in charge of the management of all types of waste, and determining

appropriate sites for the development of waste management infrastructure apart from those on the

territory of two or more cantons. Cantonal ministries are also responsible for the development of


27

cantonal waste management strategies and plans, drafting laws and regulations for the cantonal

jurisdiction, issuing permits for waste management activities and environmental permits for waste

management plants and facilities below the threshold stipulated in the Regulation on Plants and

Facilities. Furthermore, Article 25 defines that cantonal ministries are responsible for drafting

legislation on collection and treatment of MSW and forming and operation of municipal utility

companies and the obligation of municipalities in the provision of utility services.

Table A2-5provides a list of legislations brought at cantonal level, pertaining to MSW.

Table A2-5: Cantonal legislation related to MSW management

Canton Legislation

Zenica – Doboj Canton Law on Communal Activities of Zenica Doboj Canton (Official Gazette

of Zenica Doboj Canton, no. 17/08)

Bosnia – Podrinje Canton Law on Communal Activities of Bosnia – Podrinje Canton (Official

Gazette of Bosnia – Podrinje Canton, no. 09/13)

Una Sana Canton Law on Communal Activities of Una Sana Canton (Official Gazette of

Una Sana Canton, no. 04/11)

Law on Amendments to the Law on Communal Activities of Una Sana

Canton (Official Gazette of Una Sana Canton, no. 11/11)

Law on Amendments to the Law on Communal Activities of Una Sana


Law on Waste Management of Una Sana Canton (Official Gazette of

Una Sana Canton, no. 04/12)

Law on Amendments to the Law on Waste Management of Una Sana


Sarajevo Canton Law on Communal Activities of Sarajevo Canton (Official Gazette of

Sarajevo Canton, no. 14/16, 43/16)

Law on Communal Order of Sarajevo Canton (Official Gazette of

Sarajevo Canton, no. 14/16, 43/16)

Central Bosnia Canton Law on Communal Activities of Central Bosnia Canton (Official

Gazette of Central Bosnia Canton, no. 13/13)

Law on Waste Management of Central Bosnia Canton (Official Gazette

of Central Bosnia Canton, no. 04/05)

Tuzla Canton -

Canton 10 Law on Communal Activities of Canton 10 (Official Gazette of Canton

10, no. 02/06)

West Herzegovina Canton Law on Communal Activities of West Herzegovina Canton (Official

Gazette of West Herzegovina Canton, no. 14/00, 7/03, 8/12, 9/13)

Herzegovina Neretva

Canton

Law on Communal Activities of Herzegovina Neretva Canton (Official

Gazette of Herzegovina Neretva Canton, no. 04/04)

Law on Waste Management of Herzegovina Neretva Canton (Official

Gazette of Herzegovina Neretva Canton, no. 06/06)

Posavina Canton Law on Communal Activities of Posavina Canton (Official Gazette of

Posavina Canton, no. 1/98, 6/01 and 4/13)

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.


28

Here is to be noted that Federation does not have a framework law that regulates communal affairs

and unify approach, principles and methods of providing communal services at cantonal and

municipal level. In July 2013, the Economic-Social Council of the FBiH adopted the conclusion that

recognizes the need to adopt a Federal Law on Communal Economy. However, nothing happened

since then in this regard. The Association of Communal Utilities of FBIH has drafted text of the

Federal Law on Communal Economy, which was adopted by its Assembly on 03.10.2012. The draft

Law was submitted to the Federal Government and the Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism

however no activities from the Government side since then.

A2.2 Institutional framework

A2.2.1 General

The overall institutional set up in BiH is shown in Figure A2-2showing the various stakeholders at the

various levels.

Figure A2-2: Institutional set up BiH

Table A2-6 provides an overview of the key roles and responsibilities related to waste management in

FBiH.


29

Table A2-6: Roles and responsibilities related to waste management in FBiH

Responsibility State Federal Cantonal1 Municipal

Establishing policies ✓ ✓

Coordination of activities and

harmonization of plans of entities' bodies

✓

Development of waste management laws

and regulations

✓ ✓

Development of waste management

strategies and plans

✓ ✓ ✓

Issuing environmental permits for

relevant plants and facilities (threshold

dependent)

✓ ✓

Inspection of permitted installations

(threshold dependent)

✓ ✓

Organising and conducting of statistical

research

✓3 ✓⁵ ✓

4

Tracking transboundary movements of

waste between RS and international

✓

Determining sites and locations for waste

management facilities (planning)

✓ ✓ ✓

Operating/ procurement of waste

management services

✓2 ✓

Setting of collection fees for Operators ✓2 ✓

Issuing waste management licenses for

landfills of waste

✓

Notes: 1 FBiH is divided up into cantons. 2Operation of services at Cantonal level only occurs in Sarajevo Canton. 3 The Agency for Statistics is a national agency that covers the whole of BiH. 4 In FBiH the Institute for Statistics is organised as follows: statistical surveys are conducted by the cantonal departments and offices

located in the headquarters of all ten cantons, which collect, control and submit data to the research departments in Sarajevo.

⁵ Through environmental fund having its own waste data collection system

A2.2.2 State level

The Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of BiH (MoFTER) is the national focal point

(executive body) for all conventions on environmental protection signed and ratified by the state.

Article 9 of the Law on Ministries and Other Bodies of BiH (Official Gazette BiH, no. 5/03, 42/03,

26/04, 42/04, 45/06, 88/07, 35/09, 59/09 and 103/09) provides the competencies of MoFTER as:

definition of policies, basic principles, coordination of activities and harmonization of plans of

entities’ bodies, government and institutions in accordance with international obligations in the areas

of agriculture, energetics, environmental protection, development and use of natural resources and

tourism.

It defines the foreign trade policy of BiH, prepares contracts, agreements and other documents in the

field of economic relations and trade with other countries, and defines relations with international

organizations and institutions in the field of foreign trade and economic relations.

According to the Law on Statistics of BiH (Official Gazette of BiH, no. 26/04), development of

statistical data of BiH includes all activities necessary for the preparation, collection, storing,

processing, compilation, analysis and distribution of statistical data of BiH. The competent authority

for organization, preparation and distribution of statistical information at state level is the Agency for

Statistics of BiH, established in accordance with the provisions of the Law. The competent authorities

of entities are entity Institutes for Statistics of FBiH and RS that are in charge for carrying these


30

activities out in the entities. Pursuant to the Article 8, Agency for Statistics of BiH may request the

data from any other statistical unit under entity Institute for Statistics, or may request the data from

any other institution of BiH, legal entities at state level, international organizations in BiH and local

companies and foreign companies in BiH.

Based on the information given by the Agency for Statistics of BiH, there is no coordination with

Environmental Fund of FBiH regarding waste data collection and both institutions are conducting

their activities regarding data collection independently. The Agency for Statistics of BiH has never

initiated cooperation through requesting data and information on waste pursuant to Article 8 of the

Law. The Agency for Statistics of BiH collects the relevant data on municipal waste from entity

Institutes for Statistics of FBiH and RS.

The inter-entity steering committee for the environment is responsible for all environmental affairs

where coordinated approach of both entities is needed. These include: international agreements and

programs, participation in work of international organisations, coordination of adoption and

implementation of legislation, coordination of environmental monitoring and implementation of

environmental standards, coordination of monitoring and information system, etc. The Committee

meets at least 6 times per year. Representatives of ministry for environment from both entities and BD

participate in the work of the Committee.

A2.2.3 Federal level

The key institutional actors include the Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism (FMET), Fund

for Environmental Protection (FEP) of FBiH and Federal Administration for Inspection Issues (FAII),

Federal Institute for Statistics and cantonal environmental ministries and municipalities. In FBiH,

each canton is responsible for adopting its own Law on Utility Services. These laws determine the

principles, performance and financing of utility services, and set out other issues of importance for the

successful performance of utility services within each canton. Based on these laws, cantons, towns,

and municipalities are obliged to provide the required utility services (including collection, treatment

and disposal of municipal waste). Municipalities regulate the performance of individual utility

services by adopting their own regulations. Municipal Decisions on Utility Services are intended to

regulate and ensure the continued maintenance of utility services. These services cover the collection

and treatment / disposal of municipal waste.

FBiH has not established an institution to monitor the situation in the area of waste management. The

intention of the FMET is to regulate this issue with new amendments to the Law on Waste

Management that are going to be passed in 2017. The changes to the Law include an information

system on all types of waste, infrastructure and companies managing waste. That system will be under

the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Fund. The Fund will be responsible institution for

waste data collection and management of waste information system. In addition, special categories of

waste will be defined covering packaging waste, waste oil, batteries, old vehicles, tires, electronic and

electrical waste, asbestos and PCB, waste generated in the production of titan dioxide, medical,

animal and construction industry waste. The amendments include the definition “product

manufacturer and importer” of products which become waste and “system operator” companies for

the recycling and use of special categories of waste. System operators can be set up only by

companies, which sell products, which later fall into the special waste categories. The amendments

regulate the fees for those waste categories, which are paid to the Environmental Protection Fund of

the FBiH, except for those categories for which system operators have been set up.

The new Law on Environmental Protection of FBiH, which will determine the provisions relating to

information system for waste, is in the parliamentary procedure, and its adoption is expected in 2017.

These changes are mainly related to the Waste Management Information System.

The brief description of the roles and responsibilities of FMET, municipalities and other key

institutions are given below.


31

Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism(FMET)

The Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism (FMET) is responsible for, inter alia:

• 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.

• This Ministry has five sectors:

• Sector for Environmental Protection;

• Sector for Environmental Permits;

• Sector for Tourism;

• Sector for Project Implementation; and

• Sector for Legal, Financial and General Affairs.

Activities pertaining to waste management are primarily carried out within the Sector for

Environmental Protection, Sector for Environmental Permits, and Sector for Project Implementation.

In terms of waste management, the key unit is the Sector for Environmental Protection. Only one

employee is dealing with waste management in FMET.

FMET regularly collaborates with other federal ministries, such as the Federal Ministry of

Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry (FMAWMF), the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH)

for medical and radioactive waste management and the Federal Ministry for Energy, Mining and

Industry (FMERI) for industrial waste management. Whilst the primary responsibility for waste

management lies with FMET, these other Ministries play a central role in establishing waste

management systems for specific waste streams.

Under Article 11 of the Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03, 72/09),

FMET is in charge of activities relating to the trans boundary movement of waste, all waste

management activities (including treatment facilities) which are located, or undertaken, in two or

more of the Federation’s cantons.

FMET is responsible for the development of waste management strategies, plans, laws and

regulations, which cover FBiH. In addition, they also issue environmental permits for waste

management plants and other facilities which operate at levels above the thresholds stipulated in the

Regulation on Plants and Facilities (Official Gazette of FBiH, no.19/04). These regulations require

that an environmental impact assessment be undertaken before a facility is constructed and an

environmental permit can be issued.

Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH

The Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH was founded 2003by the Law on Fund for

Environmental Protection of FBiH (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 33/03) for the purpose of collection

and distribution of funds for environmental protection. It is a non-profit public institution. The Fund

collects and distributes payments for environmental protection on the territory of FBiH. It instigates

and finances (after tendering procedures) the preparation, implementation, and development of

programmes, projects and similar activities. It does so in the fields of conservation, sustainable

environmental use, protection and improvement of the state of the environment, and use of renewable

energy sources.

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

performed by the Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism.


32

Control over the implementation of the Law on Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH and other

regulations based on this law is performed by the Federal Administration for Inspection Issues within

the organizational unit Inspectorate of Urban – Environmental Inspection.

Control over the calculation and payment of fees, in accordance with the Law on Fund for

Environmental Protection of FBiH, is performed by Federal Ministry of Finance, Tax Administration

of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The resources of the Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH originate from:

• Levies on polluters;

• Levies on natural resources users;

• A levy on each motor vehicle registration;

• Proceeds arising from international bilateral and multilateral cooperation and in-country

cooperation on mutual programs, projects and similar activities in the field of environmental

protection;

• Bank loans;

• Funds from loans by other legal entities and monetary institutions;

• Donor funds and other forms of support;

• Fund operations (service fees, repayment of principal interest etc.);

• Budget of FBiH

• Penalties, and

• Other sources of funding defined by a special law, other regulations or contracts.

In relation to the waste sector, the Fund currently collects the following fees:

• The fee for managing packaging and packaging waste, which is based on the amount of

packaging (of any type) of a product that is being marketed for the first time in FBiH. The

criteria for the calculation of the fees as prescribed in the Regulation on Management of

Packaging and Packaging Waste (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 88/11 and 28/13) for those

obliged companies that have not joined the organized system through an authorized operator

(specified in Annex III of the Regulation). This fee is called “fee for unfulfilled goals” and is

prescribed in Article 23 of the aforementioned Regulation. As of 2014 the Fund has begun

collecting of the so-called "general fee" paid to the Fund by all obliged payers, regardless of

being part of the organized system or not (as prescribed by the amendment of the Regulation,

brought in 2013). This general fee serves the Fund to cover its administrative costs of

monitoring the entire system of packaging and packaging waste, processing reports of all

obliged payers and all operators, and establishing and managing databases, i.e. the Register of

obliged payers and amounts of material and waste. The general fee amounts to 0.002 BAM

per 1 kg of packaging and is calculated based on annual Report on Quantities and Types of

Packaging which is submitted to the Fund by authorized operators and obliged payers that

have not joined the organized system. The Report contains data on the total quantity of

packaging the obliged payer holds, which includes: quantity of imported packaging, quantity

of exported packaging, quantity of packaging in which goods are packaged and placed on

BiH market (RS, FBiH, BD), and the amount of stored goods packed in packaging. For

obliged payers that have joined the organized system through an authorized operator, the

general fee is paid to the Fund by the authorized operator once per year based on its Annual

report to the Fund for all its users.

• The fee paid by environmental polluters according to the Regulation on Fees for Plastic Bags

(Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 9/14) is paid by all traders (retail shops, stores, supermarkets,

bakeries, newsstands, pharmacies, grocery stores, etc.) registered in FBiH which consume

plastic bags for their own needs or put them into trade.

• The general fee for managing waste from electronic and electrical equipment is paid by all

manufacturers and importers of EEE when placing products on the market in FBiH for the


33

first time regardless whether they have joined the organized system through an authorized

operator or not. The purpose of this fee is to cover the administration costs for

implementation of this Regulation. Additionally, the Fund collects fees for management of

WEEE from those producers and importers who have not transferred their obligations to

authorized system operators. The categories of equipment are grouped into classes and sub-

classes and the unit rate fee is based on the type of equipment. The method of calculation and

payment are prescribed in the Regulation on Management of Waste from Electric and

Electronic Equipment (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 87/12 and 107/14).

The Fund also collects the following fees:

• Fees in accordance with Article 177 of the Law on Waters (Official Gazette of FBiH, no.

70/06) which prescribes that 15% of the revenues generated from general and special water

charges collected pursuant to the lease of public water resources of surface water bodies

category 1 belongs to the Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH.

• Fees paid by air polluters (fees for emissions of SO2, NO2 and particulate matter (dust) into

the environment). The unit rate fees, the correction coefficients and the method of calculation

and payment are prescribed in the Regulation on the Method of Calculation and Payment, and

Deadlines for Calculation and Payment of Fees for Air Polluters (Official Gazette of FBiH,

no. 79/11) and the Decree on Types of Fees and Criteria for Calculation of Fees for Air

Polluters (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 66/11, 107/14).

• Special environmental fees are paid during motor vehicle registration, by legal and physical

persons owning or are authorised to drive a power-driven vehicle. The unit rate fees, the

correction coefficients and the method of calculation and payment are prescribed in the

Decree on Special Environmental Fees Paid During Motor Vehicle Registration (Official

Gazette of FBiH, no. 14/11 and 26/11).

The revenue is divided between the 10 cantons and the Fund in a ratio of 70 % to the cantons and

30% to the Fund. Since 2006, additional revenue arising from a percentage of collected water fees has

been allocated to the Fund.43

Inspection supervision over the application of these regulations is conducted by environmental

inspectors of and market inspectors of the FAII. FAII controls both the obliged payers and system

operators.

For the purpose of overseeing the implementation of these regulations, the Government of FBiH has

issues the following:

• Decision and Resolution on the nomination of Coordinating Body for overseeing the

implementation of the Regulation on Management of Packaging and Packaging Waste

(Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 45/13)

• Decision and Resolution on the nomination of Coordinating Body for overseeing the

implementation of the Regulation on Management of Waste from Electric and Electronic

Equipment (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 79/15)

The members of the Coordinating Bodies are made up of one representative of the following

institutions:

• Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism (FMET)

• Fund for Environmental Protection of FBiH (FEP of FBiH)

43 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2011) Second Environmental Performance Review – Bosnia and Herzegovina


34

• Federal Administration for Inspection Issues (FAII)

• system operators holding valid permit from the FMET.

The system operators are not full members of the Coordinating Bodies but associated members.

The specific tasks of the Coordination Bodies include:

• Review of periodic and annual reports of authorized system operators;

• Review of periodic and annual reports of the FAII in relation to inspection supervision over

the application of the regulations WEEE and packaging and packaging waste;

• Review of the annual plan of planned expenditure of funds of FEP of FBiH which needs to be

coordinated with FMET;

• Establishment of a unified registration system on packaging and packaging waste and WEEE

as part of the Registry of plants and pollution of FMET;

• Submission of annual reports and the results of the implementation of the regulations on

WEEE and packaging and packaging waste to the Government of FBiH.

Federal Administration for Inspection Issues (FAII)

The FAII was set up in accordance with the Law on Inspections in FBiH (Official Gazette of FBiH,

no. 69/05) as an independent federal administrative body. It started operating on 01 January 2007,

headquartered in Sarajevo. The FAII has detached offices for internal control in Mostar, Tuzla and

Zenica. It has a total of 10 inspectorates, internal control sector and sector of border inspection. It

reports annually on its operations to the Government of FBiH, in line with Regulation on the planning

of work and reporting on the work of the Federal Government, Federal ministries and institutions

(Official Gazette of FBiH, no 89/14). FAII carries out inspection tasks falling in the scope of Federal

Inspectorates organized under it; enacts implementing regulations, general and individual documents

falling in its scope; takes administrative and other measures during inspections; decides upon appeals

against first-instance decisions issued by the cantonal inspectors pursuant to the cantonal regulations;

coordinates work of Federal and Cantonal Inspectorates, follows the work and conducts expert

supervision and control of work by cantonal inspectors and administrations for inspection affairs

within the scope provided by the Federal regulations; provides expert assistance to the cantonal

administrations for inspection affairs; enacts the programs and plans for inspection supervision for

Federal Inspectorate, approves annual programs and work programs related to inspection supervision

by cantonal administrations; maintains the records in regard of all those subject to supervision in the

Federation; maintains the records of inspections conducted by the Federal inspectors; maintains the

records on Federal inspectors; maintains the records on official ID cards of Federal inspectors; enacts

the programs for professional trainings for inspectors for the Federation; organizes professional

inspector examination in the Federation; takes part in professional drafting of inspection regulations;

ensures enforcement of regulations enacted by the organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina setting out

jurisdiction for enforcement of such regulations in the Entities and is liable for enforcement thereof

and notifies the organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina on measures taken; carries out other administrative

and professional tasks set out by the Federal laws and other regulations .

The following Inspectorates within FAII perform inspection tasks pertaining to environmental

protection, including waste management:

• Inspectorate for Urban and Environmental Inspection – this Inspectorate is responsible for the

inspection and implementation of laws and by-laws pertaining to environmental protection of

the improvement of the environment; and

• Health Inspectorate – this Inspectorate is responsible for the inspection of the implementation

of laws and by-laws pertaining to disposal and destruction of pharmaceutical wastes.


35

The Law on Inspections in FBiH (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 69/05) defines the competencies and

scope of work between the FAII and Cantonal Inspectorates. According to this Law, FAII undertakes

inspection over the application of regulations within the jurisdiction established by federal legislation

in the entire territory of FBiH. According to this Law, the Cantonal Inspections are also authorized for

inspection over application of federal regulations. Exceptionally, the FAII may undertake inspection

within the competence of the cantonal inspector over the application of federal regulations if the

Cantonal Inspectorate does not have staffed inspectors. In case of conflict of jurisdiction between the

federal and cantonal inspection, it is solved by the Director of the FAII and Head of the cantonal

inspection authority by mutual agreement within three days upon conflict of jurisdiction. If a

jurisdictional dispute cannot be resolved by mutual agreement within this period, conflict of

jurisdiction is settled with the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

At the moment, operations of existing non-sanitary landfills at level of Municipality are controlled by

the Inspectorate for Municipal Order organized within each Municipality. For several non-sanitary

municipal landfills in FBiH (Kakanj, Visoko, Zenica, Zepce, Maglaj, Zavidovici, Busovaca, Breza44)

FMET issued the Decision on Landfill Closure. Federal Inspectorate (FAII) is in charge of controlling

the implementation of the afore mentioned Decision. Penalty provisions are not foreseen. Operations

of sanitary regional landfills are controlled by the FAII.

Environmental monitoring in FBiH is conducted based on the provisions of the Environmental

Permits, respectively in accordance with the Law on Environmental Protection (Official Gazette

FBiH, no. 33/03, 38/09) and relevant by-laws. However, existing non-sanitary landfills do not have

Environmental Permits and the permits are issued during the projects for rehabilitation of these non-

sanitary landfills. Environmental monitoring will be obligatory after remediation and closure of non-

sanitary landfills. In accordance with the Law on Environmental Protection, environmental

monitoring is conducted by engaging authorized third parties, such as accredited laboratories.

Federal Institute for Statistics (FIS)

The Federal Institute for Statistics gathers and organizes statistical data and undertakes relevant

statistical research for the Federation.45 The Department of Industry, Construction, Agriculture,

Forestry and Environmental Protection Statistics is responsible for environmental statistics including

waste. The Federal Institute for Statistics has the obligation to forward data to BiH Agency for

Statistics in line with the national Law on Statistics (Official Gazette of BiH, no. 26/04 and 42/04).

According to the Law on Statistics in FBiH (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 63 / 03 and 09/09),

cantonal authorities and other cantonal institutions, as well as city and municipal administrative

services and other urban and municipal institutions and all other waste generators are obligated to

submit data upon the request and as specified in the detailed Annual Work Plans of the FIS.

The Federal Institute for Statistics (FIS) is in charge for preparation, collection, storing, processing,

compilation, analysis and distribution of statistical data at FBiH(entity) level (including collection of

relevant municipal waste) and submits the statistical reports to the Agency for Statistics of BiH.

The Environmental Fund of FBiH conducts collection of waste data independently from the FIS from

operators of EPR schemes. The list of obliged payers is prescribed by Regulation on Management of

Packaging and Packaging Waste (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 88/11 and 28/13) and Regulation on

Management of Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 87/12

and 107/14). Operators of the system for packaging and packaging waste and electrical and electronic

44Ministry for Spatial Planning, Communication and Environmental Protection of Zenica- Doboj Canton, Information on the state of

collection and disposal waste in the Zenica-Doboj Canton and Transport to Regional Landfill Mošćanica 2015 45 The Federal Institute for Statistics was established in April 1997, under the Law on Federal Ministries and Other Bodies (Official Gazette

of FBiH, no. 8/95 and 9/96).


36

waste are obliged to officially inform FMET and Environmental Fund of FBiH, inter alia, about

amount of collected waste, and amount of recovered, recycled and disposed waste. Obliged payers

that have not joined the organized systems through authorized system operators, are required to

submit their data to the Fund directly, using provided forms and tables available publicly at the Fund's

web site46.

There is no information system on waste in FBiH. Ongoing are the changes to the Law on Waste

Management, as well as preparation of Draft of Regulation on the Establishment of an Information

System for Waste Management in the FBiH.

A2.2.4 Cantonal level

Cantonal Environmental Ministries

FBiH is composed of ten cantons whose jurisdiction is defined by the Federation’s Constitution.

Article 11 of the Law on Waste Management (Official Gazette of FBiH, no. 33/03, 72/09) states that

cantonal ministries are in charge of MSW management and determining appropriate sites for the

development of waste management infrastructure in line with the regional concept defined in the

FWMS and FWMP. Cantonal ministries are also responsible for the development of cantonal waste

management strategies and plans, drafting laws and regulations for the cantonal jurisdiction, issuing

permits for waste management activities and environmental permits for waste management plants and

facilities below the threshold stipulated in the Regulation on Plants and Facilities. The threshold is the

amount of waste to be managed at the facility and/or area of waste management facility.

In certain respects, competency is shared between FMET and competent cantonal authorities. For

example, cantonal authorities are responsible for issuing the majority of waste management permits,

other than for those that are issued for facilities and activities which have inter-cantonal

characteristics. In addition to the provisions of the Law on Waste Management, MSW management is

also regulated by the cantonal Laws on Utility Services and municipal Decisions on Utility Services.

The competent authorities for utility services are defined within the laws, as well as legal persons that

can perform utility services (including for municipal waste management services). Cantonal Laws on

Utility Services also define which utility services are regulated in detail by the municipal regulations.

Based on the cantonal Laws on Utility Services, the municipalities can adopt implementing

regulations governing the utility services at municipal level (this includes management and disposal

of municipal waste).

According to the Decree on Determination of Spatial Intervention and Constructions for which the

Federal Ministry of Physical Planning Issues Urban Permits and/or Location Information47,

construction of (i) cantonal and regional centres for waste management and (ii) facilities for

treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste require the issuance of an Urban Permit at entity

level by the FMPP as such infrastructure objects are of interest to FBiH. The request for obtaining an

Urban Permit is submitted to FMPP and includes all the documents stipulated by Article 39 of the

Law on Physical Planning and Land Use at the Level of FBiH, including the Environmental Permit

and the Preliminary Design. The Urban Permits, Construction Permits and Use Permits for projects of

rehabilitation of landfills at municipality level are issued by the Municipalities on whose territory the

landfills are located.

If for example, a private company wants to conclude a contract with a municipality for waste

collection or constructing a sorting line at level of Municipality, the Municipality on whose territory

46http://www.fzofbih.org.ba 47 Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 32/14


37

the waste collection is to be conducted is transferring its authority of waste management to the

selected company for waste management and issues the necessary Urban Permit/Construction Permit.

In another example, if the private company intends to construct cantonal and regional centres for

waste management and (ii) facilities for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, Urban

Permit/Construction Permit require the issuance at entity level by the FMPP, as such infrastructure

objects are of interest to FBiH.

Cantonal Administrations for Inspection Affairs (CAIA)

At the cantonal level, inspections of waste management facilities are undertaken by cantonal

inspectorates if they obtained their waste management permit from the authorised cantonal ministry.

Exceptionally, Federal Inspectorates may undertake inspection falling under the jurisdiction of the

CAIA if the CAIA does not have an appointed inspector under its jurisdiction.

Currently, Cantonal Administrations for Inspection Affairs as independent administrative bodies of

the canton are not organized in two cantons of FBiH: Herzegovina - Neretva Canton and Central

Bosnia Canton, where inspectorates are still organized under the umbrella of the cantonal ministries

(under the Ministry of Economy of Herzegovina - Neretva Canton and in under the Ministry of

Economy of Central Bosnia Canton). The other eight cantons have Cantonal Administrations for

Inspection Affairs as independent administrative bodies.

Coordination between CAIAs and FAII has been ensured through the implementation of the project

"Improving Investment Climate and Institutional Strengthening" (ICIS Project) funded by the WB and

SIDA, and implemented by FAII started in 2011.

The ICIS project provided technical support to FAII and CAIAs in terms of providing equipment and

software to set up a system entitled "E-inspector" which enables electronic connection between these

institutions and sharing of data on inspections carried out and subjects of these inspections. All

cantonal inspections, with the exception of the Inspectorate organized under the Ministry of Economy

of Herzegovina - Neretva Canton are participating in this system. All data is unified in a unique

Register of Inspection Controls (RIC).

A2.2.5 Local level

Municipalities – Local Governments

Individual municipalities are responsible for the development of municipal waste management plans

and the organization of waste collection and disposal activities on their territory. As a result, waste

management services are typically provided by public utility companies (PUCs), which are fully or

partly state-owned, or, to a lesser extent, by private companies contracted by municipalities (LLCs).

Such utility companies are financially responsible for their operations – that is, they collect fees from

households and pay gate fees to the landfill operators if they are part of a regional landfill scheme.

The exception are the municipalities in Sarajevo Canton, as they are served by a regional (Cantonal)

collection company also operating their own landfill.

Consequently, municipalities are obliged to prepare and propose a development program, adopt and

implement local waste management plans, regulate and ensure the provision of communal services

and their development, organize management of municipal waste and non-hazardous waste in their

territory, approve tariffs proposed by the public utility companies, provide funding for duties within

their competence, and develop and manage tenders and contracts for the utility services. Guidelines

for municipalities on cost calculation methodology and setting tariffs covering operational costs,

amortization, bad debts, communication activities, street cleaning, staff training, etc. are not available.


38

Municipal departments for urban planning and utility affairs are responsible for waste management

planning. Through these departments, municipalities engage utility companies to perform certain

tasks in waste management at the municipal level (municipality may establish a PUC or these tasks

may be contracted out to private companies).

Figure A2-3: Example of Organizational Scheme of Municipalities

Municipalities have organized Municipal Inspectorates for Municipal Order whose task is to oversee

implementation of regulations at local governance level, regulations whose implementation has been

transferred from higher levels of governance (cantonal or federal). These Inspectorates are required to

report to the mayor and municipal assembly on findings of inspections.

Municipalities and Utility companies are working together through an Association of Municipalities

and an Association of Communal Enterprises. Thereto the members pay a fee.

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. According to the Federal Law on

Waste (Article 12) private companies can obtain licenses to become operators and perform waste

management services including collection services, gathering, storage, treatment or disposal of

wastes. Also, construction, operation and maintenance of plants and waste management facilities may

be awarded under PPPs.

A2.3 Shortcomings

The Law on Waste Management is considered a very important step towards harmonization with EU

standards. It promotes the waste hierarchy and introduces key policy principles. Despite the

significant progress in harmonizing Federal with EU legislature, the transposition of the acquis

communautaire has not been completed in full: regulations concerning some specific waste streams

(such as old vehicles, waste tyres, waste oil, animal waste) have not been transposed and significant

number of secondary legislation is missing which also affects full implementation of the EPR. The

Law determines that the municipalities in Federation are responsible for waste management on their

territory. Municipalities are encouraged to cooperate through inter-municipal or regional

arrangements. However, municipal regulations48are mainly outdated, not harmonized with the federal

48 Municipal regulations regulate the municipal order and maintenance of municipal order in order to regulate settlements, maintenance of

cleanliness in public areas, use of public land, waste collection and handling with collected waste, waste management, snow and ice

Mayor of the Municipality

Department for

General

Administration

Department

for Economic

Affairs

Department for

Urban Planning

and Utility

Affairs

Department

for Social

Affairs

Department for

Veteran and

Disability Affairs


39

and cantonal laws, and insufficient in the aspects of defining the obligations for waste generators and

municipalities’ publicly-mandated responsibilities for SWM.

The Federal Solid Waste Strategy will expire in 2018. The Strategy is comprehensive and sets the

targets that are, in very general terms, aligned with those of the EU Directives. However, the last 9

years of implementation have revealed that these targets are not achieved and that they should be

reconsidered in the following planning period, taking into account the difficulties in implementation

and state of the sector in terms of financial and technical capabilities.

The concept of regionalization is recognized in both the Federal Waste Management Strategy and the

Federal Waste Management Plan and they include provisions to empower regional cooperation.

However, currently only 4 regional landfills (Sarajevo, Zenica, Livno and Mostar) are in operation

serving24 municipalities. The regional concept has been hindered by prevailing geographical

conditions and the long transport distances resulting in high operational costs for many public utility

companies. Collection companies are not adequately equipped to transport waste over long distances.

Transfer stations are not available. Some cantons and municipalities did not prepare a feasibility study

for the region.

The Audit Office for the Institutions of the Federation BiH has determined that activities on

developing waste management plans at local level are behind schedule49. In 2015 the Audit Office

reported that only 21 municipalities or 27% of them have adopted municipal waste management

plans. Of those that have adopted municipal waste management plans, it was found out that target

objectives were not met.

The main sectors within FMET regarding environmental protection and waste management are the

Sector for Environmental Protection and the Sector for Environmental Permits, both of which are

under resourced. Out of 48 job positions in these two sectors only 16 (33%) are currently filled. Only

one person in FMET’s Sector for Environmental Protection is dealing with solid waste management.50

Capacity at all levels remains critically low. There is a need to adopt a federal framework law dealing

with communal affairs in order to unify approach, principles and methods of providing communal

services at cantonal and municipal level. There is also an urgent need to update municipal regulations

that guide municipalities and public utility companies in the implementation of their SWM functions

while human capacity to do so is low. Enforcement and inspection at all levels need to be

strengthened and a clear division of responsibilities between entity and cantonal inspections needs to

be introduced. Again, this requires significant human and institutional capacity to do.

According to available data on the types and quantities of waste at Federation level, the available

information is insufficient for adequate monitoring of the implementation of the FWMP

objectives.51The centralized collection of information and database management is still not in place.

Coordination between various organizations that collect statistical data (FIS and FEP of FBiH) could

be improved, especially as legal provisions enabling cooperation between these institutions exist.

The State of the Environment52 report identifies the “Nonexistence of a coordination mechanism with

clear authorizations and distinct delineation of responsibilities and obligations between state, entities,

removal, and removal of illegal facilities at the level of Municipality, as well as measures for enforcement of public order and penalty

provisions stipulated for breach of conduct set forth in Municipal regulation 49Audit Office for the Institutions of the Federation BiH, 2015 50Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers, Answers to the list of EU questions on Chapter 27 Environment, Sarajevo, October 2012 51ibid. 52 State of Environment Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, 2012


40

cantons and municipalities” as being a barrier “which might impede the implementation of

environmental reform”.

Specific issues related to the legal framework of the sector and recommendations are listed below:

• Amendments to the Law on Waste Management should include provisions that require waste

generators, collectors, processors, transporters, landfill operators (both public and private

sector) to report regularly to EF of FBiH and Agency for Statistics based on an agreed

entity/national format. To this end, a simplified EU format can be introduced. The

methodology for determining the waste quantity and composition needs to be introduced.

• Secondary legislation (By Laws) needs to be developed and put in force. This is especially

important for specific waste streams under the EPR system, landfill design and design criteria

for transfer stations and treatment plants.

• In addition to secondary legislation, it will be necessary to introduce implementation

instructions. Preparation of a manual with standard waste acceptance procedures is needed, as

the relevant EU legislation has only partially been transposed. A full transposition requires

adaptation of the criteria to local conditions and the use of waste acceptance criteria as a basic

tool for licensing and supervising landfills. Environmental monitoring, reporting, waste

management practices at the landfill will be part of the manual.

• Adopt a framework federal law on dealing with communal affairs in order to unify approach,

principles and methods of providing communal services at cantonal and municipal level.

• Missing Cantonal and Municipal Waste Management Plans need to be developed. Guidelines

could be developed indicating the contents of such plans, and can be based on EU formats.

• The current EPR system needs to be evaluated with further recommendations for

improvement. Legislation and guidelines need to be developed. Control over the system

should be strengthened.

• Municipalities need to be “enforced” to join a regional concept by introducing economic

instruments such as Environmental tax on the use of non-sanitary landfills.

• The current Federal Waste Management Plan will expire in 2017 requiring the development

of a new 5-year Plan. The development of the new Plan needs to follow a participatory

approach where all relevant cantonal authorities are involved in planning the regional and

inter-cantonal waste management solutions.

• The waste separation and recovery system is still at a basic level. Both Federal Waste

Management Strategy and Federal Waste Management Plan foresee several options:

separation of MSW at source (green islands, recycling yards), direct transport to reuse and

recycle facilities, or transfer stations, waste management centres or regional waste

management centres where they are further sent to material or energy recovery. The current

system needs to be analysed thoroughly and financially feasible options for each

canton/municipality proposed. The options also need to be included in the Federal Waste

Management Plan.

• There is an urgent need to improve the local regulations (Municipal Ordinance) that will

allow municipalities to better plan for waste management. The regulations will set the tasks

and obligations of municipalities, waste generators, including the legal basis for payment and

introduction of penalties. Moreover, the regulations can set the conditions for private sector

involvement.

• Guidelines for municipalities should be developed for cost calculation methodology and

setting tariffs covering operational costs, amortization, bad debts, communication activities,

street cleaning, staff training, etc. The procedures for final approval of tariffs should be

clearly regulated. Tariff collection system needs revision, including options for municipalities

to take responsibility for tariff collection. Institutional strengthening of Municipalities is

needed

Specific issues related to the institutional framework of the sector and recommendations are listed

below:


41

• FMET, cantonal ministries responsible for waste management and municipalities urgently

require strengthening to play their crucial roles in environmental monitoring and enforcement,

and information collection, reporting and database management including analysis of

information (e.g. in terms of meeting the targets). In line with this are view of their

organization and operations has to be carried out, including staffing, tasks, bottlenecks

(especially (un)availability of financial resources), shortcomings, etc. and recommendations

to improve their performance.

• It is recommended that a distinct Solid Waste Management section be created in FMET,

responsible for planning, preparation of legislation, coordination, supervision and monitoring

of waste management on national and regional level, in close cooperation with FEP of FBiH,

cantons and municipalities. A study is needed to assess current and required operations and

needs for expansion and training. Executive tasks of the Ministry could be delegated to an

“Environmental Protection Agency” possibly to be created by re-organizing the FEP.

• Private sector involvement should be promoted in the area of waste collection and disposal

and the management of specific waste streams under EPR. Various options for involving the

private sector, either as operator through sub-contracting or as partner in a PPP have to be

investigated in detail, especially concerning the legal and financial aspects. The conditions for

cooperation under the various options should be prepared as part of a tender document.

• 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. Municipalities must take over responsibility for solid waste management as

provided in Municipal Statutes and thus require implementation of institutional strengthening

programmes. It is recommended that municipalities establish a dedicated SWM section in-

house in order to meet the legal obligations. This section will undertake all waste

management needs in a municipality including preparation of municipal waste management

plans, execution of public awareness campaigns, complaint handling, tariff calculations, tariff

collection, monitoring and inspection, any development of commercial activities in order to

generate extra income, etc. It is strongly recommended to start a project on the institutional

strengthening of municipalities. The promotion of PPP’s could accelerate the capacity

building process.

• Association of Municipalities and Association of Communal Enterprises are important

coordinating bodies and partners in the consultation processes with the relevant ministries and

other stakeholders. Moreover, they should be the initiator of coordination between the

municipalities and the WM companies and they should facilitate information exchange.

Thereto trained staff is required. The Associations are financially and organizationally weak

and thus their activities are still limited. Strengthening is highly needed preferably through

twinning with an Association from an EU member state.

• The establishment of a national forum for municipal SWM experts to share knowledge and

experience should be investigated. This forum could work under the chairmanship of the

Association for Solid Waste Management of BiH (BASWA)53.

53The Association "Solid Waste Association - BASWA" is a voluntary, non-governmental, non-profit association founded in 2013 to

achieve general interest and waste management objectives. BASWA is a member of the International Solid Waste Association - ISWA,

headquartered in Vienna.


42

A3 EXISTING OPERATIONS

A3.1 General

To understand the current problems in Municipal waste management (MWM) it is important to realize

that FBiH is a scarcely populated area (approximately 2.2 million inhabitants over 26,000km²)

divided into 79 municipalities or an average size per municipality of approximately 28,000 inhabitants

ranging from 1,500 inhabitants (Trnovo) up to 118,550 inhabitants (Novi Grad Sarajevo).

Consequently, the generated waste quantity per average municipality is approximately 8,000 t/y of

which approximately 70% is currently collected or 5,600 t/y. These small quantities make the MWM

system costly as practically each municipality has its own organization for collection and disposal.

This drawback has already been identified in the EU Phare MWM Strategy Study dated August 2000

mentioning (i) Municipal waste arising within a single municipality is insufficient to set up an

Integrated Waste Management system at affordable costs and (ii) financial resources within a single

municipality are insufficient to finance the required investments.

A3.2 Waste collection

The municipal waste collection services are provided by approximately69 municipal companies, one

Cantonal company in Sarajevo Canton covering 9 municipalities and one private company.

Involvement of the private sector in household waste collection is practically non-existent except for

Zenica where a private (foreign) company (75%) is operating in association with the municipality

(25%). Additionally, two small private companies are serving outskirted parts of Zivinice

municipality together with the municipal company that is serving the central parts. A list of the waste

collection companies is given in Annex A3.1. The legal status of most of the waste collection

companies is a limited liability company (D.O.O.) in which the municipality is the sole shareholder.

Some small private companies are engaged in collecting mainly dry recyclables from the

commercial/institutional sector.

To assess the current situation and the associated problems, questionnaires have been mailed to the

waste collection companies. The responses were received from 18 companies (25%) covering

approximately 38% of the total population. A summary of responses is given in Annex A3.2. On basis

of the answers the following can be concluded about present waste collection services:

• The number of inhabitants served would be approximately 67.5%. In the Federal Waste

Management Strategy 2008-2018 the collection coverage target is 85% in 2014 and 95% in

2018. It can be concluded that this target has not been achieved.

• 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 which is the overarching system. In addition, 5-7

m³ skips are used mainly for the commercial/institutional/industrial sector. In Sarajevo, a

limited number of press containers is available. The containers used by the companies having

responded on the questionnaires are indicated in Table A3-1. These containers would be

sufficient for an average minimum collection of 2.5 times/week.

• Collection equipment consists of compactor trucks (5-22m³), skip loaders, dump trucks,

tractor- trailer combination, and flatbed trucks. The main part of the collection trucks fleet i.e.

approximately 85% is fully depreciated and older than 10 years. A typical example of this is

the vehicle fleet of RAD Sarajevo where all 79 vehicles are older than 10 years and some

even up to 27 years. This is resulting in high maintenance and repair costs and high

percentage of non-availability as well as higher greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).


43

• The weighted average tariff/year for the served households is BAM 102/hh/year or BAM

113/ton (incl. VAT) which is 0.5% of the spendable income, while international norms

indicate 1-1.5%, as is the case in most EU member states (see Chapter A4.2 for more details

on tariffs).

• Doubts exist about the reliability of waste quantities collected as most municipal landfills

have no weighing scales. Loads are estimated on basis of truck volumes and assumed

densities. The 18 companies report a total collected waste quantity in 2015 of approximately

338,000 tons. This would result in a waste generation rate of approximately 1.6 kg/cap/day.

This is rather high taking into account the economic conditions in FBiH. Experience with

waste sample analysis in various cities in FBiH indicates1.05kg/cap/day in urban areas (see

Chapter A1.2).

• Staffing per 1,000 tons waste collected vary between 1.6 to 12 persons with an average of 4

persons. Efficient operations would require 2 persons/1,000 tons. Especially the small

companies are rather inefficient but it is not always clear if staff is used only for waste

collection or also for other services provided by the company such as street and snow

cleaning and/or park and green areas maintenance. Staff training to build capacities and

improve skills is not done.

• The waste collection companies are responsible for contracting households and CII entities

and for the collection of the tariffs. Thereto they employ tariff collectors and extra

administrative staff resulting in extra costs and risks.

• The waste collection companies report that non-municipal waste fractions such as animal

waste are found in the municipal waste stream which makes waste processing and disposal

difficult.

• Although the companies are complaining about lack of public awareness, they are not

carrying out any communication/ public awareness raising activity (no budget, no specialised

staff).

Table A3-1:Container capacities

Type 120 ltr 240 ltr 1,100 ltr

Number 25,313 6,250 13,744

Capacity 3,038m³*0.9=2,734m³ 1,500m³*0.9=1,350m³ 15,118m³*0.9=13,606m³

Total 17,690m³ *0.2t/m³=3,540 tons

Emptying:

1xweek or 52 empties or 635,640*0.68/52=8,312 tons required.

2.5xweek or 130 empties or 3,325 tons required

A3.3 Waste separation and sorting

Historically, the concept of waste separation and sorting in FBiH was not employed until

development of Law on Waste Management in 2003. The Federal Waste Management Strategy 2008-

2018 sets separation and sorting targets as follows: (i) the establishment of separate collection system

in 80% of the municipalities in 2014 and 95% in 2018 and (ii) packaging waste should be separated

up to 20% in 2014 and 30% in 2018 or 7% and 10% of total waste, respectively.

Currently various systems are used for separation of dry recyclables i.e. (i) separation at source by

placing extra containers for households; normally one for paper/cardboard, one for plastic and one for

rest of dry recyclables combined with sorting of the waste after collection; (ii) separation of mixed

waste; (iii) direct purchase by private companies from the CII sector; (iv) informal sector taking dry

recyclables out of the containers or gather directly from CII sector, (v) informal sector separating

waste directly at municipal landfills (e.g. ML in Goražde), and (vi) separation at regional landfills by

employees of the landfill operator (e.g. RL in Zenica and Sarajevo).


44

So far separate collection systems have been incorporated in a limited number of municipalities

bringing the fractions to a sorting line. In the FBiH sorting lines for pre-separated dry recyclables are

located at Sarajevo cantonal regional landfill and at Konjic municipal landfill (see Table A3-2). The

relatively high output in Konjic (7.8%) is due to the fact that considerable quantities of pre-sorted

cardboard are coming to the plant for baling only. The sorting lines for pre-separated dry recyclables

have excess capacity (5 t/h or about 8,500t/y in one shift) when they are used by one municipality

only taking into account the annual waste quantities collected (approximately 6,100t/y) and the

maximum percentage of dry recyclables in the waste(30% per assumptions made in Chapter A1.3or

approximately 1,800t/y).

Two mixed waste separation lines are installed in Mostar regional landfill and Tuzla municipal

landfill. The installed capacity of mixed separation line at Mostar regional landfill is 15 t/h. In 2016

the line processed approximately 70% x 41,000 tons mixed waste resulting in 790 tons dry recyclables

or 2.7%. The mixed waste separation line at Tuzla municipal landfill has capacity of 10 t/h. In 2016, it

processed approximately 15,000 t/y generating 360 tons recyclables or 2.4%.

Summary of information on sorting plants in BiH is given in Table A3-2.

Table A3-2: Sorting plants in FBiH

Capacity Investment (BAM) Input (t/y) Output (t/y)

Sarajevo 5 t/h 2.5 million n/a n/a

Konjic 5 t/h 2.5 million 3,244 (2016) 255

Mostar¹ 15 t/h 4.9 million 70% x 41,000=

28,700 (2016)

790

Tuzla¹ 10 t/h 4.5 million 15,000 360 ¹ Separation of mixed waste

As reported by landfill managing companies, up to now the results of the installed sorting/separation

lines are far below expectations and financially unsustainable (for reference see financial calculations

in Chapter A4.3.3). The reasons are (i) the low waste quantities/year; (ii) low awareness with the

waste generators for proper separation at source; (iii) role of private sector that is buying directly from

the CII (also as a part of the EPR system) and informal sector that is buying directly from the CII and

taking valuable dry recyclables out of containers.

It is reported that separation at source from municipal waste is less than 0.5%54and collection directly

from CII sector would be about 3% of the generated waste flow, while 7% was the target for 2014 in

the WM Strategy. In case an extensive Public Awareness campaign would be carried out combined

with purchase of sufficient containers and increased collection capacity it is believed that 30% of

packaging waste (dry recyclables) could be separated from the municipal waste. Out of this 30%,

about 50% might be rejected at the sorting line due to inferior quality as shown internationally in

similar conditions. This will result in a separation of 4.5% of the total municipal waste stream (see

Figure A3-1). It can be concluded that improvement of quality of separation at source through public

awareness campaigns and adequate equipping of collection companies would result in achieving the

target i.e. 4.5% plus 3%=7.5%.

54 The total quantity mentioned in the questionnaires is 790 tons or approximately 0.23% of the total collected waste quantity


45

Figure A3-1: Maximum separation of dry recyclables in 2013 (realistic option)

Alternative treatment options to reduce the quantities to be landfilled are under review. The regional

landfill in Zenica (annual intake of approximately 50,000 tons) and Sarajevo Canton (annual intake of

approximately 200,000 tons) are studying the possibility of producing RDF/SRF as the nearby cement

factory has shown interest in buying RDF/SRF. A feasibility study for Zenica regional landfill is

under preparation. A preliminary cost/revenue calculation based on Zenica study is presented in

ChapterA5.

There is no separation of organic waste as there seems to be no demand for compost. Studies on any

market demand have not been carried out. In addition, there is no structural demand for separated

glass except for incidental cases.

A3.4 Waste disposal

Historically, the concept of waste disposal in FBiH 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. These originally recommended WAD’s, shown in Figure A3-2.


46

Figure A3-2: Originally Planned Regional Landfills in BiH

On basis of this study, the FBiH prepared a Waste Management Strategy 2008-2018 adopting the

regional concept and setting waste disposal targets as (i) 80% and 95% removal of illegal dumpsites

by2014 and 2018, respectively, and (ii) 100% remediation and closure of existing non-sanitary

municipal landfills.

Currently (2017), there are 4 regional landfills constructed and operational in FBiH. These RLs are

located in Sarajevo, Livno, Mostar and Zenica. These landfills receive waste from 24 municipalities

(3 in Livno Region; 4 in Mostar; 9 in Sarajevo; and 8 in Zenica that 2 fully and 6 partially).

Furthermore, there are 9 municipalities that are currently transporting their waste to regional landfills

in RS (Zivinice to Doboj and Zvornik; Sapna and Kalesija to Zvornik; Srebrenik, Lukavac, Doboj

Jug, Doboj Istok, Usora to Doboj; Teocak to Bijeljina). Therefore, more than 1/3 of the municipalities

in FBiH (generating more than 50% of total MSW) are currently serviced by one of the regional

landfills in FBiH and/or RS, and the rest are still disposing their waste in wild dumps and non-sanitary

municipal landfills. Details about estimated tonnages are provided in “Disposal” Section of Chapter 5

of this report.

A summary of the current status of implementation of the original regional landfill concept in FBiH is

provided in Table A3-3 and illustrated in Figure A3-3. More detailed information including list of

municipalities in each region are presented in Annex A3.3.


47

Table A3-3: Current status of the originally planned RL development in FBiH

Location Municipalities

(Planned)

Status

Karanovac in Bihac 9 The public company that was supposed to operate the

landfill was established; FMET has stopped the

procedure due to protest of population and Assembly of

Una- Sana Canton has brought the Decision to repeal the

Decision on acceptance of the location Karanovac as the

future location for a regional landfill. Presently 3

municipalities (Bosanska Krupa, Cazin, Buzim) are

using the landfill in Bosanska Krupa. One consideration

could be upgrading the existing landfills in Bihac and

Bosanska Krupa to standard levels to continue to serve

the relevant Municipalities in Environmentally friendly

manner. Detailed technical (pre-)feasibility and ESIA

studies are required to assess the site-specific conditions.

Dusine in Orasje 5 The original plan was to upgrade Dusine in Orašje to

serve Orašje and the neighbour municipalities.

Development of this site directly depends on the final

technical decision made for Brcko Landfill. Upgrading

the existing ML in Orasje may still be an option,

however, an integrated technical and economical (pre-

)feasibility study and ESIA are to be completed to

evaluate the options for this region in detail.

Separacija 1in Zivinice 3 Preparation phases (feasibility study, environmental

assessment, and detailed designs) for development of

this site are fully completed and pending availability of

funds, construction of this RL can start immediately.

Currently two private waste companies are operational in

addition to municipal company in Zivinice. Private

companies transport the collected waste to Doboj and

Zvornik RLs until the new Zivinice landfill is

constructed.

Srebrenik/Lukavac 5 Development of the originally planned RL in Lukavac

has been unsuccessful. Currently, municipalities of

Lukavac and Srebrenik transport the collected waste to

Doboj non-sanitary RL. Alternative site for these two

cities would be the future regional landfill in Zivinice.

Detailed (pre-)feasibility study is required to assess

different alternatives and possibility of using Zivinice

RL for this region.

Moscanica in Zenica 9 This RL is constructed and operational. Except for one

municipality (Kakanj), all other planned municipalities

are partly or fully using this RL. Municipalities which

are transporting the entire collected waste to Zenica RL

are Zenica and Visoko. Other municipalities have

difficulties with cost of transportation and/or landfill’s

gate fee.

”Gracanica” Gornji-

Vakuf

4 Design preparations terminated due to legal dispute

between municipalities and lack of Environmental

permit due to public opposition against the selected

location. Municipalities in this region are currently using

their non-sanitary municipal landfills.


48

Location Municipalities

(Planned)

Status

Uborak in Mostar 9 Operational RL servicing Mostar City, Siroki Brijeg,

Grude, Ljubuski; others use municipal landfill. Two of

municipalities (Jablanica and Konjice) appear to be too

far to make it feasible to use this RL. Neum received

construction permit to upgrade and continue disposal.

This has to be further studied and design updated.

Mostar RL needs expansion before it can serve more

municipalities.

Tresnjica in Goradze 3 Land acquired, preliminary design and urban permit

obtained. Process stopped due to the financial reasons.

Municipalities are currently using their own non-sanitary

MLs.

Smiljevici in Sarajevo 9 Sarajevo landfill was upgraded and operational as a

regional landfill servicing 9 municipalities. This RL is

the largest in BiH, receiving about 200,000 tons of waste

every year. This landfill has numerous issues that require

immediate attention and investment to maintain sanitary

status of the facility.

Koricina in Livno 5 Recently constructed Regional landfill to be used by

Livno, Kupres, Glamoc plus 2 other potential

municipalities. The new RL is fully constructed and

awaiting operational permit.

Tuzla 2 Landfill only for Tuzla City. No capacity for other

municipalities. Operate on temporary permit. Sapna

brings waste to Zvornik. Pending construction of the

planned RL in Zivinice, this new RL could potentially

serve Tuzla as well. Detailed technical (pre-)feasibility

study is required to assess the site-specific conditions

and alternative long-term solutions.

Eco-Dep in Bijeljina

(RS)

2 Operational Regional landfill (in RS) used by

Municipalities of Teočak since 2013.Municipality Čelić

is still disposing at its own ML.

Crni vrh in Zvornik

(RS)

2,5 Zvornik RL in RS is constructed and became operational

in 2017; This RL serves a few municipalities in FBiH

including Sapna, Kalesija and part of Zivinice.

Lipac in Doboj (RS) 5,5 A well-managed, but non-sanitary RL in Doboj (located

in RS) is currently serving 6 municipalities from FBiH.

(Doboj J, Doboj I, Usora, Lukavac, Srebrenik, and part

of Zivinice.) Some of these municipalities will be

transporting their waste to Zivinice RL, once

constructed, and some will continue to be served by

Doboj RL. This site has prepared all the technical design

and documentations to be upgraded to a sanitary RL.

However, a full ESIA study shall be completed to assess

suitability of the current location for long-term RL.

Unknown 10

Total 79 RL=Regional landfill; ML= municipal landfill


49

Figure A3-3: Current status of waste disposal in each region in BiH

Most of the municipal landfills don’t have any scales and weigh bridges. Therefore, quantities of

waste are reported 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 waste and non-hazardous industrial waste

(approximately 7-10% of MSW). For instance, Zenica RL received a total of 52,000 tons consisting of

47,000 tons MSW and 5,000 tons industrial waste in 2015. During same year, Sarajevo RL received

213,000 tons consisting of 198,000 tons MSW and 15,000 tons industrial waste.

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. In

Sarajevo Canton, all municipalities are using the regional landfill, as there is one Cantonal collection

company that is also operating the landfill. For Moscanica regional landfill in Zenica, 9 municipalities

signed an agreement but only two (Zenica and Visoko) are disposing 100% of their waste, one

municipality (Kakanj) is not using the landfill while the other municipalities are partly using the

regional landfill. For Uborak landfill in Mostar 9 municipalities were originally planned to be served

by this landfill, however, only 4 municipalities are currently using this facility. Construction of Livno

regional landfill was recently completed. It is planned that this site to be used by 3 municipalities

(Livno, Kupres, Glamoc) with possible addition of Tomislavgrad and Bosansko Grahovo.


50

The main challenge for the municipalities is reported to be high cost if waste transportation to the

envisioned regional landfills. The weighted average distance per region to the proposed RL varies

between 6 to 50km. The average distance from each municipality to the regional landfill is indicated

in Annex A3.4. Municipal authorities believe that the implementation of waste transfer facilities

might be needed to reduce the transport costs. However, this has to be studied in detail for each

specific location as many aspects are involved besides the distance (quantities, location and distance

to collection area, required investment, road conditions).

Regional landfills are owned by the municipality on whose territory the landfill is constructed and

also operated by the municipal or cantonal company in case of Sarajevo. Users have to pay a gate fee

set by the municipality owning the landfill. There seem to be a big variation in collected gate fee.

Moscanica landfill in Zenica receives BAM 45.7/ton (excl. VAT) while Uborak in Mostar can hardly

collect BAM 25/ton (excl. VAT) from member municipalities. Sarajevo regional landfill is operated

by a cantonal company operating both collection and disposal facilities and thus no landfill gate fee is

imposed except for non-hazardous industrial waste delivered by third parties. For more details on

disposal costs please see Chapter A4.3.2.

In addition to these RLs and non-sanitary MLs, there are approximately 1,800 dumpsites (Federal

SWM Strategy) used for illegal disposal of waste. It is obvious that the targets set in the Federal

Waste Management Strategy 2007-2018 have not been realised.

A3.5 Main shortcomings

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

• Collection coverage target laid down in Federal Waste Management Strategy is not achieved.

• Equipment (trucks and containers) is obsolete and depreciated. Containers are sufficient for a

minimum collection of 2.5 times/week. New equipment is urgently required also in view of

improving the waste collection coverage, introduction of waste separation at source,

efficiency of operations and GHG emission rates.

• Tariffs are considered to be low and hardly taking into account the amortization costs.

• Municipal landfills have no weighing scales and data about waste quantities collected are not

reliable.

• The collection companies seem to be overstaffed.

• Contracting of households and tariff collection by waste collector and payment coverage are

costly and problematic. Enforcement on non-payers is weak.

• No-municipal waste streams such as animal waste are found in the municipal waste which

make processing and disposal difficult.

• Public awareness is low and no budget is made available for awareness raising programmes

• Financing for new investments is lacking due to low revenues and high costs.

• Regular training and staff capacity building is lacking.

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

• Municipalities are too small to generate sufficient volumes to operate separation/sorting

facilities. No evidence on discussion between municipalities to establish joint operations to

increase volumes.

• High percentage of separated recyclables is rejected because of careless 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.

• Targets laid down in WM Strategy concerning separation at source of packaging waste have

not been achieved.


51

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

• Many municipal landfills bring environmental contamination and create a health risk for the

population (water, air, soil); in addition, there are numerous illegal dumpsites.

• Target of 100% closure of municipal landfills as laid down in WM Strategy and removal of

80% of illegal dumps in 2014 is not achieved.

• Lack of reliable data on waste quantities disposed due to lack of weighing at disposal sites

• Lack of equipment (compactors, bulldozers, dump trucks, gas extraction facilities, leachate

treatment, weighbridges) to carry out environmental sound services

• Not all municipalities adhere to signed agreement for disposing at regional landfills, mainly

due to the large distances and higher transportation costs, and apparently there is no

enforcement

• Low gate fees at regional landfills to enable investments

• No gate fee at municipal landfills and amortization is not taken into account

• Low environmental awareness and operational skills.


52

A4 FINANCIAL ASPECTS

In the financial evaluation of the current situation four aspects are considered i.e. (i) financing

framework for municipal waste services; (ii) tariffs paid by the waste generator for waste services

which might include collection, transport, disposal and any separation; (iii) actual costs of operations

as indicated by the municipal companies and (iv) 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.

A4.1 Financing of waste services

In FBiH, the municipalities (and the Canton in case of Sarajevo Canton) are responsible for the

creation of financially sustainable waste management systems. The municipality (and/or the Canton)

might buy equipment or subsidize directly the waste collection company by taking over payments

wholly or partly for operations of landfills, sorting lines, gate fee at regional landfills, etc. This is the

case in Visoko where municipality is subsidizing waste transportation costs to Zenica regional

landfill. The municipality is financing the landfill gate fee (BAM 53.47 incl. VAT) and the transport

costs (BAM 312/truck over 62km with 12 tons or 0.21/ton/km). The annual costs in 2016 were

approximately BAM 660,000 corresponding to transport of approximately 8,300 tons of waste. The

municipality of Zenica is co-financing the landfill costs. The municipality of Konjic is financing the

operational costs of the sorting line.

No additional financing is received from State or Entity except for some grants from the Fund for

Environmental Protection and Cantonal Ministry for specific project investments. This allocation is

made on basis of a public call to submit projects and is limited by revenues from waste related taxes

which, at present, are not sufficient to finance larger (investment)projects. Otherwise the

municipalities have to pay for investments. The municipalities may receive grants from the EU and

other donors or conclude loans for investments. The operational and capital (amortization) costs have

to be financed from revenues such as tariffs, income from additional services such as street cleaning,

green areas maintenance, etc. and subsidies.

The EPR system can provide payments for containers, public awareness raising activities and sorting

activities to increase separation/quality of packaging waste in case the municipality has a contract

with the EPR scheme.

A4.2 Tariffs

Tariffs are the main revenues for collection, transport and disposal of waste. Various calculation

methodologies are used to establish the tariff and consequently the tariff varies between the

municipalities. Tariffs might be based on m² of 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 A4-1.

The weighted average tariff/year for the served households is BAM 102/hh/year or BAM 113/ton

(incl. VAT) assuming a family size of 3.09 persons (Census 2013) and a waste generation rate of 0.8

kg/cap/day or 0.9t/hh/year. The average spendable income of the households in 2013 was BAM

1,672/month (see Chapter 0). It can be concluded that the average tariff for waste management was


53

amounting to 0.5% of the spendable income, while international norms indicate 1-1.5%, as is the case

in most EU member states. The average tariff collection rate is 87% and in reality it might be difficult

to increase this percentage as approximately 18% of the population lives below national poverty line

($ 460/month or BAM 850/month).55

Table A4-1: Tariff overview for collection and disposal BAM (including VAT)

Municipality Tariff rate Amount/hh/y Remarks Payment %

Zivinice 6/m 72 82

Zepce 0.14/m²/m 126 Average 75m²

Zavidovici 0.12/m²/m 108 98

Visiko 3.51/person/m 130 3.09 persons/hh

Srebrenik 0.095/m²/m 86 76

Sarajevo 0.11/m²/m+ fixed

1.06/m

112 Fixed amount for

bulky waste

81

Sanski Most 10/hh/m 120 85

Lukovac 7.9/hh/m 95 92

Konjic 0.1/m²/m + fixed

1.5/m


bulky waste

Kupres 2.34/person/m 87 3.09 persons/hh

Kljuc 2.5/m + 2.3 person

/m

115 3.09 persons/hh 97

Kiseljak 1.88/person/m 68 84

Doboj-Istok 4/m(2 removals)

7/m(4 removals)

48

84

Busovaca 6/8/10/m 72/96/120 1,2 or 3 and more

persons/hh

Banovici 2.05/person/m 74

Gracanica 8/hh/m 96 100

Zenica 0.1/m²/m + fixed

3.5/m


landfilling

80

hh=household; m=month. Source: questionnaires. Amount /household/year is based on average 75m² usable area.

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 tariffs including VAT vary in Sarajevo between BAM 0.12/m²/month (hospitals) up to

BAM 17.5/m²/month (kiosks). Other municipalities have tariffs within the same range. The

commercial/institutional sector can also be charged per container and the tariff per 1,100-litre

container is in average BAM30/container incl. VAT. This would correspond with approximately

BAM 160/ton (assuming 185 kg/m³ and 90% filling) as compared to BAM 113/ton for households. In

addition, separate tariffs are applicable for large containers mainly for the industrial sector. The tariff

for a 5m³ container is about BAM 75 incl. VAT depending on the distance corresponding with BAM

80/ton assuming 185kg/m³. The tariff for a 7m³ container is around BAM 111-117 incl. VAT

corresponding with BAM 86-90/ton. In addition, custom-made contracts are concluded with the

industries depending on the type of waste, quantity, distance, etc. It can be concluded that the

tariff/ton for waste in 5-8m³ containers for the industrial sector is lower than the household tariff/ton.

Proposals for new tariffs are prepared by the waste collector considering the cost developments. Tariff

calculation guidelines are not available. The calculations are checked by the Municipal Department

55www.data.worldbank.org


54

for Communal Affairs and subsequently submitted to the City Council for approval. However, in

many cases the tariffs have not been increased for many years. Cantonal Public Utility Rad Sarajevo

complains that tariffs have not been increased since 1997. Municipalities are rather reluctant to

increase the tariffs for households for economic and political reasons. Here is to be noted that the

Association of Communal Utilities FBiH in cooperation with UNDP developed a methodology for

setting the tariff in water supply and sewerage sector in BiH. The methodology is applicable to all

utility companies, including solid waste management utilities.

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 in addition to

the financial risks of non-payments, which might result in time-consuming court cases.

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 companies have to transfer the VAT to the State Tax Department on basis of invoices

issued and independent if the waste generator is paying the invoice.

A4.3 Costs

A4.3.1 Collection and transport

The annual costs/ton for SWM services as reported by several municipalities through completed

questionnaires are indicated in Table A4-2. The weigther average cost is BAM 111/ton. 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)56 are not

reliable.

Table A4-2: Annual costs (BAM excl. VAT) for SWM services (2015)

Municipality Collected (tons) Annual costs Average cost/ton*

Sarajevo 197,000 24,803,614 126

Srebrenik 10,200 748,972 73

Sanski-Most 7,114 465,248 65

Lukovac 15,000 951,907 63

Kljuc 4,900 635,797 130

Kiseljak 1,600 212,704 133

Gracanica 11,676 626,096 54

Doboj Istok 1,927 193,690 100

Busovaca 1,390 307,511 221

Banovici 21,400 1,297,746 61

Travnik Nova Bila 362 115,779 320

Total 272,569 30,359,064 111 *Total costs including collection and disposal. Source: Questionnaires completed by municipalities

56In 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, which 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.


55

The cost breakdown for a number of municipalities is given in Annex A4.1. It can be concluded that

the amortization is very low. Landfill amortization costs in case of disposing at non-sanitary

municipal landfills are hardly taken into account while in case of regional landfills the municipalities

have to pay a gate fee (Mostar: BAM 25/ton; Zenica: BAM 45.7/ton excl. VAT). Information from

Sarajevo shows that landfill costs are approximately11% of the total SWM costs (BAM 3,125,000 of

BAM 27,928,614). Many municipalities are not indicating separate costs for landfilling except direct

cost for operations. Therefore, it can be assumed that the indicated costs are mainly for collection and

transport (85-90%).

As the actual collection and transport costs are difficult to assess, a cost estimate has been made for an

average municipality of 30,000 inhabitants. The calculations are shown in Annex A4.2.The results are

summarized in Table A4-3.

Table A4-3: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Distance to LF 10m³ truck 20m³ truck Average

15km 51 49 50

30km 65 57 61

60km 88 71 79.5

It is assumed that most non-sanitary municipal landfills are located within 15km distance of the

collection area and that landfill costs are hardly taken into account. Therefore, it can be concluded that

the actual costs/ton for collection and transport are rather high which could be an indication of the in-

efficiency of the present operations.

A4.3.2 Disposal

The municipal companies that do not dispose their wastes on a regional landfill carry out both waste

collection and landfilling. There is no strict division between the costs for collection and landfilling.

Municipal landfill gate fee is not imposed as landfills are managed by the municipal collection

company and the landfilling costs are considered to be included in the tariff.

The municipal companies that dispose their waste on regional landfills are paying a gate fee imposed

by the landfill operator. Moscanica regional landfill in Zenica imposes BAM 45.7/ton excl. VAT to its

customers, while Uborak regional landfill in Mostar imposes BAM 25/ton excl. VAT. The exception

is regional landfill Smiljevici in Sarajevo where cantonal company is operating both collection

facilities in 9 municipalities of the Canton and disposal facility. This company is not imposing any

landfill gate fee except for non-hazardous industrial waste delivered by third parties. The industrial

waste quantity delivered in 2015 was 15,189 tons and the revenues were BAM 77,804 or only BAM

5/ton.

As reliable financial information for municipal landfills is not available an estimate for 2015 was

made for both a municipal landfill (covering 30,000 inhabitants or 6,132 tons) and a regional landfill

(covering 120,000 inhabitants or 24,528 tons). The calculation is given in Annex A4.3 and the results

are summarized in Table A4-4.

It shows that the cost/ton for a small municipal landfill are substantially higher than for a regional

landfill mainly due to the high amortization costs.

Table A4-4: Landfill costs (BAM/ton)

OPEX CAPEX¹ Total excl. VAT Total incl. VAT

Single municipality 47.83 58.49 106.32 124.4

Regional 24.78 33.29 58.07 67.9


56

¹Amortization

A4.3.3 Separation and sorting

There are 4 sorting/separation lines installed in the Federation (Konjic, Sarajevo, Tuzla, Mostar) for

sorting of pre-separated dry recyclables (Konjic, Sarajevo) each having a capacity of 5 t/h and for

separation of mixed waste (Tuzla, Mostar) with a capacity of 10-15t/h (for details on sorting and

separation please see Chapter A3.3).

The average investment costs for a 5-10t/h sorting line is BAM 2.4 million and BAM 4.8 million for a

15t/h line. No information on the financial results is available but waste operators complain about

losses (up to BAM 20,000/month). Municipality Konjic is subsidizing part of the operational costs of

Konjic sorting plant.

The review of market prices for dry recyclables obtained from four sorting locations are indicated in

Table A4-5.

Table A4-5: Revenues from sorting of dry recyclables in 2016 (BAM/ton)

Zenica landfill Konjic Sarajevo Mostar

Quantity

(ton)

Price/

ton

Quantity

(ton)

Price/

ton

Quantity

(ton)

Price/

ton

Quantity

(tons)

Price/

ton

Paper/cardboard 76 135 160 140 300 160

Plastics

-PET

-Hard

104

11

500

420

25 400 330 300

Metals 6 220 26 0 94 600

Glass 0 44 30 40 40

Total 197 347 255 147 538 764 268

The prices reported by Konjic sorting plant and the actually received amounts in 2016 in Konjic

indicate lower prices i.e. Paper/cardboard BAM 97/ton, Plastics BAM 245/ton and glass BAM 16/t.

The reported amount for separated quantities in Sarajevo include quantities separated from the landfill

(approximately 150 t/y), source-separated quantities directly from the CII sector and quantities from

the sorting line for dry recyclables. It can be concluded that the separated annual quantities are

extremely low due to low throughput and high percentage of rejects as a result of bad input quality

and bad separation. Separation lines for mixed waste produce 2-3% of saleable output while

international practise indicate that 10% would be achievable. Substantial efforts have to be undertaken

to improve the existing situation.

The financial calculations for a sorting line for pre-separated dry recyclables and mixed waste

separation line are presented in Annex A4.4. The calculations are made for a municipality of 30,000

inhabitants and for a region serving 120,000 inhabitants, generating approximately 322 t/y and

1,288t/y respectively of saleable dry recyclables (assuming 30% of dry recyclables in the waste of

which 35% is separated at source and 50% will be rejected during sorting due to its inferior

quality).Summary of the calculation results is given in Table A4-6.


57

Table A4-6: Sorting line annual results (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

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

30,000

- Sorting line

-Transport

644

211.4

22

326.9

560.3

130.3

-430

120,000

-Sorting line

- Transport

2,575

65.5

22

81.7

169.2

130.2

-39

120,000

Mixed waste line

24,528 26.8 17.2 44.0 24.3 -19.7

Here is to be noted that separation of dry recyclables at source will also involve extra collection costs

of BAM 22/ton. A supporting calculation is given in Annex A4.5.

Based on above given analysis, it can be concluded that a sorting line cannot generate positive

financial results in case the input quantities remain relatively small. High inputs are needed to make

sorting profitable. Extensive awareness campaigns and training of waste separators will be needed to

reach percentage of 35% separation of the dry recyclables and to improve the quality for achieving

better operational results.

4.3.4 Integrated services

In order to assess the financial impacts on a single municipality, cost calculations for integrated

services involving collection, separation and transport are made for (a) a single municipality

transporting 15km to a municipal landfill with a sorting line (prevailing current situation) and (b) a

single municipality transporting 30km to a regional landfill with a sorting line. The results are

indicated in Table A4-7).

Table A4-7: Total costs (BAM/ton)

(a) Municipal LF (b) Regional landfill

OPEX CAPEX Total Total

Collection and transport 31 19 50 62

Disposal 48 78 106 58

Subtotal excl. VAT 79 97 156 120

Separation at source Cost/ton Quantity Total

Collection (Annex A4.2)

Sorting (Annex A4.4)

Total

Cost/ton (excl. VAT)

22

408

6,132

644

134,904

262,752

397,656

59

22 x 6,132=134,904

17 x 644 = 10,948

145,852

21

Calculated cost/ton excl. VAT 215 141

Current tariff/ton excl. VAT 97

Current costs excl. VAT 111 Source: Annex A4.1, A4.2, A4.3 and A4.4.

It can be concluded that the current average tariff (BAM 97/ton) is just sufficient to cover the

calculated collection and disposal costs excluding amortization on disposal (BAM 50+ BAM 48/ton

excl. VAT) in case of scenario (a). The current average tariff per household should be more than

doubled in order to cover the total costs. In case of scenario (b), the service costs per ton are about

35% lower comparing to scenario (a) although still requiring increase in tariffs. The calculations are

demonstrating the financial advantages of regionalisation.


58

A4.4 Shortcomings

Financing is the backbone for implementation of proper waste management services. The present

problems in the field of financing can be summarized as follows:

• Municipalities are responsible for the creation of a financially sustainable waste management

system. In that process, they are not financially supported by state or entity level except for

grants from the Fund for Environmental Protection and in some cases by the Cantonal

Ministries of Environmental Protection (e.g. Una- Sana Canton). The investments in waste

management system made by the Fund are limited by revenues from waste related taxes

which, at present, are not sufficient for larger investment.

• Tariffs are too low to cover operational and amortization costs for collection, separation and

landfilling meeting full sanitary conditions in a single municipality. Consequently, funds are

not available for new investments. In addition, there is a political unwillingness to adapt the

tariffs.

• Tariff calculation guidelines are missing in order to introduce a more uniform system for

comparison between the municipalities, which will also facilitate cost control of both

collection and disposal.

• Contracting of households and tariff collection by waste collectors are 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

practices generally adopted in the EU member states and other countries (Waste management

services for households is a tax).

• Cost allocation inside municipalities for waste collection services is difficult as there is no

clear division for waste management services and other services (street cleaning, etc.). Costs

are mixed with other services provided by the waste collector.

• 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) highly needed regional

cooperation that would help increase the volumes and make sorting facilities financially

sustainable.

• 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 the loan for construction and in case the loan is in hard currency the landfill is in addition

faced with the exchange rate risk.

• Collection companies are not able to cover extra costs such as transport costs, sorting line

costs and gate fee at landfills, thus municipalities have to subsidise these service activities.


59

A5 REFORM PLAN

A5.1 Context

A5.1.1 Background

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) has 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 Srpskaand Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Brcko

District have developed waste policies and 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 separation and recycling; (iii) creation of a financially

sustainable waste management system; (iv) capacity strengthening of stakeholders.

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

the FBiH was divided into 10 Waste Allocation Districts. (WAD). Up to now only a part of these

plans is implemented with World Bank and EU-IPA financial support, and mainly related to

infrastructural works (construction of regional landfills and sorting plants).

A5.1.2 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 28,000 inhabitants). They lack funds for

investments, public outreach and capacity building to improve waste management practises.

Due to the small waste quantities, investments result in a substantial increase of the cost/ton.

• Current household tariffs are hardly sufficient to cover waste collection, treatment and

disposal costs at the level required by the EU Directives. The local authorities are reluctant to

increase current tariffs.

• The waste collection companies are responsible for contracting the households and for

collecting the tariffs resulting in extra costs and financial problems due to non-payments. This

also hampers private sector interest in the sector due to high financial risk.

• 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 cooperation at entity and local level hampering the implementation of efficient and

effective waste management systems.

• Lack of reliable data for investment planning.

A5.1.3 Implementation

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 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 A5-1). 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 FBiH, 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


60

regionalization that will increase volumes of waste treated. However, strict geographical

regionalization cannot be imposed on municipalities. Local conditions such as waste quantities, road

infrastructure, distances, and collection truck capacities should be taken into account.

Figure A5-1: EU Waste hierarchy

The basis for the Reform Plan are the objectives laid down in the Federal Waste Management

Strategy 2008-2018, 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 framework. Taking into account the results achieved so far compared with the targets

laid down in the Strategy, it is recommended to apply a more realistic scenario for the year 2025.

Therefore, all recommendations and calculations in the Reform Plan will be based on the realistic

scenario as mentioned in ChapterA1.6including the following main principles:

• 85% of waste will be collected covering 100% urban population and 60% rural population.

• 30% of packaging waste in the household containers (out of 33% of dry recyclables found in

the mixed waste) 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

the government acts as the final guarantor. It is preferable that the borrower is a company wherein

several municipalities are the shareholder and thus guaranteeing jointly the loan repayment. 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.


61

A5.2 Legal aspects

LEGAL ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS

ENTITY LEVEL

Laws

Bylaws

Strategies

Plans

Guidelines

Amendments to Law on Waste: further transposition of the EU Landfill Directive.

FBiH waste legislation is partially harmonized with that of the EU. According to

the Landfill Directive Specific Implementation Plan for BiH and Action Plan For

Implementation of the Landfill Directive57 the following provisions should be

included and further regulated in the Law on Waste Management:

• Imposing a ban on the disposal to landfill of specified waste types

(Landfill Directive, Article 5.3);

• Regulating standards of construction and operation (Annex I);

• Regulating types of waste that may be accepted and the procedures for

acceptance, including the requirement for pre-treatment (Article 5,

Article 6, Article 11, Annex II and Commission Decision);

• Post closure management (Article 13).

• Regulating control and monitoring procedures in operation and after-care

phases (Annex III)

• Regulate reporting and its format

By-laws on the following waste streams need to be adopted to provide options to

landfill:

• End of life vehicles - implementing Directive 2000/53/EC. Especially

relevant for the LFD 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 PCTs. 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:

• Landfill operational manual

• Waste sampling and analysis by Utility Companies

• Reporting

• 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 (e.g. landfill tax on

non-compliant municipal landfills) to promote the use of compliant facilities.

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

services.

Regulations on Communal Affairs. FBiH does not have Law on Communal

Affairs. Instead, communal affairs are regulated by 10 cantonal laws that have

different approach to same activities (e.g. tariff calculation). There is an urgent

need to adopt Federal Law on Communal Economy to unify approach, principles

and methods of providing communal services at cantonal and municipal level. A

possibility to organize waste collection and disposal at regional level should be

57 EU IPA 2008 Project Strengthening of Bosnia And Herzegovina’s Environmental Institutions and Preparation for Pre-Accession Funds –

EnvIS (EuropeAid/128786/C/SER/BA)


62


introduced through this Law, also specifying the tasks/responsibility of the

Canton. This activity is already initiated by the Association of Communal Utilities

of FBiH.

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. The definition should be supported by scope of municipal waste based on

selected List of Waste codes to include codes 20 01, 20 02, 20 03, and 15 01.

Details are given in Annex A5.1.

This definition should also be included in regulations on Communal Affairs at all

levels.

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 Fund of FBiH and

Agency for Statistics based on an agreed entity/national format.

In order to support adequate data reporting, methodology for determining the

waste quantity and composition should be 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.

Development of new FWMS/FWMP. Federal Waste Management Strategy and

Federal Waste Management Plan are expiring in 2018 and 2017, respectively, and

need to be renewed. Since 2018 Strategy targets have not been met, the new

Strategy should be based on realistic targets. A critical review of the targets and

existing waste management system should be made that will account for financial

and technical capabilities of the sector. It is recommended to use conclusions and

recommendations of this Sector Reform Report especially those concerning

regionalization for collection and for disposal, financing conditions, role of

municipalities, VAT payment for households, waste separation targets-realistic

scenario, promotion of PPP’s, etc.

Development of new Federal Waste Management Plan needs to follow a

participatory approach where all relevant cantonal authorities and professional

umbrella organizations (BASWA, Association of municipalities, etc) are involved

in planning the regional and inter-cantonal waste management solutions.

Technical specifications. In addition to legislation, it will be necessary to

introduce implementation instructions, such as technical specifications for landfill

design and closing, preferably meeting EU requirements, transfer stations,

recycling facilities, etc. Preparation of an entity manual with standard waste

acceptance procedures is needed, as the relevant EU legislation has only partially

been transposed. A full transposition requires adaptation of the criteria to local

conditions and the use of waste acceptance criteria as a basic tool for licensing

and supervising landfills. Environmental monitoring, reporting, waste

management practices at the landfill should be part of the manual.

CANTONAL/MUNICIPAL LEVEL


63


Laws

Bylaws

Plans

Instructions

Guidelines

Planning Waste Management. Improve municipal Decisions on communal order

regulating municipal waste management that will allow municipalities to better

plan and organize waste management services. The Decisions will set the tasks

and obligations of municipalities, waste generators, including the legal basis for

payment and introduction of penalties as well as set framework conditions for

waste management planning. Moreover, the regulations can set the conditions for

private sector involvement. Municipal regulations should also be harmonised with

federal and cantonal laws on waste management and communal affairs, specially

concerning the aspects of defining the obligations for waste generators and

municipalities’ publicly-mandated responsibilities for waste management.

Development of CWMP/MWMP. Missing Cantonal and Municipal Waste

Management Plans are needed to meet national as well as the EU requirements.

Guidelines could be developed indicating the contents of such plans, and can be

based on EU formats. The existing Plans need to be updated to match

requirements of new Federal Solid Waste Strategy and new Federal Waste

Management Plan (once they get developed).Municipal Waste Management Plans

should be the basis for developing a regional collection/separation system.

In case when waste disposal regions do not territorially correspond to the

Cantonal coverage, a Regional Waste Management Plan might be needed for

better organization of the service. Development of Regional Waste Management

Plan should be introduced in the Law on Waste Management that currently does

not recognize this planning document.

A5.3 Institutional aspects

INSTITUTION RECOMMENDATIONS

FEDERAL LEVEL

Federal Ministry of

Environment and Tourism

Implementation of solid waste management policy at Federal level requires

capacity with a strong competent staffing. Presently the FMET does not have a

distinct Solid Waste Management section, staffing is lacking and does not have

sufficient capacities to handle all relevant tasks such as preparation of

amendments to legislation, preparation of by-laws for landfill design, setting up of

a WIS, preparation of guidelines, control and enforcement, policy development

such as a new FWMS and FWMP. It is recommended to create a distinct Solid

Waste Management section in FMET responsible for planning, coordination,

supervision and monitoring of waste management on federal level.

In short term, it is suggested to contract outside expertise to provide technical

assistance to the Solid Waste Management section in FMET. In long-term, new

employment should be made and expert company should train new staff members.

It is proposed to conclude a three-year contract with an expert company.

For implementation of the proposed reforms it is recommended to set up a

Working Group with representatives of stakeholders. FMET should take the

initiative and it should chair the Working Group.

Introduce regular consultation with the Association of Municipalities and with the

Association of Utility Companies. The Associations should be strengthened

through twinning with foreign Associations. This should be promoted and

supported by FMET.

Federal Administration for

Inspection Issues (FAII)

Improvements in inspection and enforcement will be needed to improve sector

performance. A review of their organization and operations, including staffing,


64


tasks, bottlenecks (especially (un)availability of financial resources),

shortcomings, etc., is key to inform recommendations for improving their

performance.

Federal Environmental

Protection Agency

The creation of an autonomous FEPA for carrying out the daily tasks of

implementing legislation and Strategy should be considered by re-organizing the

existing Fund for Environmental Protection (FEP) of FBiH. Capacity

strengthening and training is recommended. Specific task would be reporting and

keeping a register on all landfills in FBiH and the control thereon.

Association of Towns and

Municipalities of FBIH

Formalize the role of the Association of Municipalities as official discussion

partner for all municipal (environmental) matters. Consider 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. Set up twinning projects with similar foreign

organizations and introduce “training of trainers”.

Association of Communal

Utilities of FBIH

The same role that is foreseen for Association of Towns and Municipalities of

FBIH in building capacities of Municipalities can be applied to the Association of

Communal Utilities of FBIH and communal utilities. They are already recognized

as official discussion partner for all utility matters. They should be involved more

in providing help and advice to solid waste utilities on day-to-day operations. This

would require detailed review of their organization and operations, available

expertise and building the Association’s capacities to undertake this role.

Working Group for

implementation of the

Reform Plan

A Working Group for implementation of the Reform Plan should be set up under

auspices of FMET. The Working group can consist of representatives of FMET,

cantonal ministries of environment, Association of Towns and Municipalities of

FBIH, Association of Communal Utilities and independent solid waste

management experts.

CANTONAL LEVEL

Cantonal Ministries of

Environment

The same recommendation can be given for Cantonal Ministries of environment

as for the FMET. Cantonal Ministries are understaffed in general and employment

of at least one person that is responsible for planning, coordination, supervision

and monitoring of waste management at cantonal level is needed. At Cantonal

level policies have to be developed on basis of the federal strategy for

regionalization of waste collection and disposal including capacity needs for

waste transfer stations, separation/sorting and landfills.

The company contracted by FMET, within the same framework contract, can

perform training and capacity building activities of cantonal staff though

organization of joint in-class and individual on-job training sessions.

Cantonal Administrations

for Inspection Affairs

The same recommendation as for the federal inspection can be given for the

cantonal inspection.

MUNICIPAL LEVEL

Municipalities Municipalities, through their Department of Communal Utilities handle all

municipal communal activities including water and wastewater, solid waste

management, street cleaning, market places, etc. It is recommended to establish a

dedicated Waste Management section in this Department that will undertake all

waste management needs.This includes 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. but also the

operations of waste collection and disposal. It is recommendable to divide the

collection and disposal functions into two independent companies. In this way,

transparent and accountable functions will be created with a functional cost

control.When needed each of the two operational companies could become

shareholder in a regional company or in a PPP.The proposed institutional set up at


65


municipal level is shown in Figure A5-2.

The Association of Towns and Municipalities of FBIH can perform capacity

building of municipal SWM section through different capacity building programs.

The activities can be funded by the Fund for Environmental Protection.

It is proposed that Regional Landfills will not be operated by a single municipal

company but by an independent company with the users of the landfills as

shareholders. In this way, the commitments under the inter- municipal agreement

can be secured.

Communal Utilities Capacity building among operating companies is urgently needed to implement an

efficient and effective Waste Management system with accountable stakeholders.

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 Utilities can

perform capacity building programs. The activities can be funded by the Fund for

Environmental Protection.


66

Figure A5-2: Proposed Institutional Set-up at Municipal Level

A5.4 Financial aspects

To overcome the present problems, many basic changes are needed guided by prevailing successful

international practises. Especially changes in the tariff calculation and tariff collection system and

strengthening of the accounting principles within the waste collection and disposal companies are of

high priority for FBiH.


67

Tariff calculation guidelines are needed to achieve financially sustainable waste management systems

and to introduce cost control mechanisms. The guidelines should preferably take into consideration

the following main criteria:

• 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. Costs for

public awareness/communication with waste generators should be included in the tariff

calculations such as setting up of a dedicated section with experts and costs for campaigns.

Annual costs are estimated at BAM 5/inhabitant for an average municipality of 30,000

inhabitants.

• 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 follow the “Tariff

setting methodology for the water supply and sewerage services in BiH” as recently

developed by UNDP.

The proposed changes in the tariff calculation (no VAT) and collection system (no extra costs for

waste collection companies) will have a positive effect on reducing required tariff increases.

Moreover, it will be an incentive for private companies to conclude PPP’s and to invest.

The existing tariffs both for households and CII sector have to be reviewed taking into account the

guidelines mentioned above. Increase of tariffs for households up to a maximum of 1% of the

spendable income should be introduced in a phased way.

Tariff collection from households should become 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


68

obligations of the households should be laid down in a Municipal Regulation wherein the tasks and

obligations of the stakeholders (Municipality, waste collector, waste generator) are defined.

Tariff collection from the CII sector will be handled by the service provider (waste collector) based on

individual contracts. The system is visualized in Figure A5-3. 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 opening up so-called “buying points” for valuable dry recyclables

(plastics, paper/cardboard, metals/cans) by the municipality or waste collector. Experience shows that

economic incentives in low-income countries are a valuable instrument to increase waste separation.

Figure A5-3: Payment flow scheme for Municipal Waste Management

Accounting with a clear cost allocation system is required to assess the efficiency of the operations.

Thereto Key Performance Indicators can be introduced. In principle, the tariffs have to be based on

the actual costs of the services provided in the previous years with possibility to adapt during the on-

going year in case of unforeseen price increase (“force majeure”) such a salary, fuel price, etc.

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

participate in regional systems.

A5.5 Operational aspects

A5.5.1 General

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 municipalities and the low waste quantities.


69

Increasing the quantities can decrease costs per ton and thus creating financially sustainable waste

management systems. This could be achieved by introducing a regional collection system in addition

to a regional landfill system whereby Municipalities set up a joint company (D.O.O.) with the

municipalities being the shareholders, and representatives of the City Council of each municipality

being the members of the Supervisory Board. The company would serve all municipalities in its

territory and would 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 under contract with the EPR scheme. The advantages of a regional

collection system are:

• Reduction on equipment procurement costs. Studies reveal that 10% could be saved.

• More efficient route planning shortening the collection time.

• 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).

• Of greater interest 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.

Although regionalization will be a municipal decision through cooperation with other municipalities,

it does not imply that regionalization should cover a total Cantonal area. However, the involvement of

the Canton Administration will be needed.

A5.5.2 Collection and transport

In order to compare the costs of single municipal and regional approach, the collection and transport

costs using 1,100 litres containers have been calculated (see Annex A4.2). The results are summarized

in Table A5-1. 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 collection

concept is internationally widely used in thinly populated countries. It can be concluded that the

regional approach is not resulting in higher costs as compared to the single municipal approach.

Table A5-1: Collection and transport costs (BAM/ton)

Single municipality Regional

LF at 15km LF at 30km LF at 60km LF at 30km

Truck size 10m³ 20m³ 10m³ 20m³ 10m³ 20m³ 10m³ 20m³

BAM/ton 51 49 65 57 88 71 50 40

Average 50 62 79.5 45 Source: Consultant’s calculations.

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 bottleneck at 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. However, the limited waste quantities in each municipality

and the road conditions could hamper the introduction of transfer stations (see chapterA1.1).


70

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 directly to the landfill. An

estimate of required trucks in 2025 can be made when we assume an equal mix of 10m³ and 20m³

trucks as follows:

Table A5-2: Required number of collection trucks

Average distance to RL (km) 30

Annual waste quantity (tons) 653,910

Mixed waste 579,362

Recyclables 74,546

Average load (tons) 7.5

Trips/day (Annex A4.5) 1.5 0.56

Days/year 260

Capacity/truck/year (tons) 2,925 1,092

Trucks needed 198 68

Availability (85%) 233 80

Existing capacity (15%) 35 12

Required collection trucks 198 68

In addition to the compactor trucks for mixed waste collection it will be required to procure also skip

trucks for collection of industrial waste (5-8 m³ containers). The required number is estimated as

follows:

Table A5-3: Required number of skip trucks

Average distance to RL (km) 30

Annual waste quantity (tons) 65,000

Average load (tons) 5

Cycle time:

2x30km: 75

Loading: 20

Unloading: 15

Total (minutes)

110

Available/day (one shift) 410

Trips/day 3.7

Days/year 260

Capacity/truck/year (tons) 4,810

Trucks needed 13.5

Availability (%) 85

Required 16

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 construct so-called

“bring stations” but to introduce door-to-door collection. Normally, most of the bulky waste

(furniture, mattresses, timber, etc.) is collected with open 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. A rough estimate can be made based on the

EU requirement of minimum 4kg/cap/year to be collected or approximately 8,800 t/y. This would

mean that only 5-6 trucks operating 260 days/year would be sufficient for the Federation. Also,

private transport companies could be hired in occasionally.


71

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 and separate containers for CII entities. The minimum number of

containers required on basis of waste volumes in 2025 and 5days collection/week can be calculated as

follows:

Table A5-4: Required number of containers

1,100 litre 240 litre

Collected (t/y) 769,304X0.85= 653,908

Recyclables (33%x35%) 74,546

Mixed waste (t/y) 579,362

Tons/day (260 days) 2,228 287

Density (kg/m³) 185 80

Volumes (m³) 12,045 3,584

Cap/cont. (m³) 0.8x1.1=0.88 0.8x0.24=0.192

Number containers(5/week) 13,687 18,667

Number of containers (2.5/week) 27,374 37,334

In case containers will be emptied 2-3 times/week (average 2.5) the total number of required

containers will be doubled but number of collection trucks will decrease as collection routes/truck will

be shorter and thus more trips/day can be made. The actual number of containers will depend on the

waste density. In Table A5-4 a density has been taken of 185kg/m3 for mixed MSW and 80kg/m3 for

mixed dry recyclables (glass, paper, plastics, cans). These figures are based on existing literature in

BiH such as the SIDA/Grontmij reports and Waste Weight Determination published by the Agency

for Statistics and also taking into account international publications. Densities reported by

Municipalities in their questionnaires for mixed municipal waste are varying between 125-450 kg/m3.

It is obvious that regulations are needed for regular sampling and analysis by waste collection

companies for getting more reliable information.

The above confirms that lack of reliable data on waste quantities is hampering the planning of

equipment. All landfills handling more than a certain annual quantity (e.g.5,000t/y) should be obliged

to install surface mounted weighing scales wit recording system. Thereto the FMET should adapt the

legislation concerning landfill design criteria. In addition, legislation should oblige the Utility

Companies to carry out regular waste sampling and analysis and the FMET should prepare the

required guidelines.

A5.5.3 Transfer stations

The purpose of implementing transfer stations (TS) is to reduce transport costs to regional landfills as

compared to direct transport by the collection trucks. The feasibility will depend on (i) annual

throughput; (ii) distance to collection area; (iii) road conditions for high capacity trucks; (iv)

investment costs. In FBiH currently no transfer stations are available except for an open space

unloading of truck and loading the trailer with bulldozer employed in Visoko.

In order to calculate the need of a TS as compared to direct transport, in Annex A5.2the following

types of transfer stations are compared:

(i) TS with intermediate storage to equalize any irregularity in input (collection trucks) and output

(long haul truck). This type TS will consist of shed (avoiding waste to be soaked during rain and

snow) where waste can be dumped on the floor. Thereafter it will be loaded with a front loader into a

long haul truck consisting of truck and trailer (12 tons) with open top containers. The investment costs


72

are estimated at BAM 385,000 for civil works and BAM 175,000 for a front loader and BAM 275,000

for the truck/trailer combination with containers.

(ii) TS with ramp with direct transfer from collection truck into long haul truck/trailer (20 tons) with

compression. Although investment costs are lower, the operational disadvantage is the matching

between truck arrivals for input (collection trucks) and output (long haul truck), which might result in

waiting time for the collection trucks. Moreover, the loading point is not protected from rain and

snow. The investment is based on costs obtained from similar TS in Gradiska (only BAM 70,000) and

BAM 400,000 for the long haul truck.

In Annex A5.3the costs are calculated for various types of transport viz. (i) truck and trailer with two

open top containers transporting 12 tons waste (example in Visoko); (ii) truck with compaction trailer

transporting 20 tons of waste (example in Gradiska); (iii) waste collection truck with 10 tons

capacity; and (iv) waste collection truck with7.5 tons capacity.

The feasibility for the two types of TS as described above has been calculated on basis of 11,000 t/y

for two options:

Option 1: direct transport from collection area with 7.5 and 10 tons trucks to a RL located at 50km

distance;

Option 2: transport by 7.5 and 10 tons collection trucks to a TS located at 15km and (a)intermediate

storage or (b) direct transfer into large capacity long haul truck (12 or 20 tons) and transporting the

waste over 50km to a RL.In addition, costs are calculated in case that TS is at 5km distance (c) and

that RL is at 70km distance (d).

The results are presented in Table A5-5.

Table A5-5: Transfer and transport costs (BAM/ton excl. VAT)

Calculations for

11,000 t/y

Distance

(km)

Collection truck Long haul truck

7.5 ton 10 ton 12 ton 20 ton

Option 1: Direct

transport

50 213/7.5=28.4 230/10=23 --- ---

Option 2:

TS with

(a) Intermediate storage

To TS

Transfer

To RL

15

50

2.13x30/7.5=8.5

14.9

--

2.3x30/10=6.9

14.9

--

261/12=21.8

349/20=17.5

Total 20 t truck to RL 40.9 39.3

Total 12t truck to RL 45.2 43.6

(b) Direct transfer

To TS

Transfer

To RL

15

50

8.5

3

--

6.9

3

--

21.8

17.5

Total 20 t truck to RL 29 27.4

Total12t truck to RL 33.3 31.7

(c) Direct transfer

To TS

Transfer

To RL

5

50

2.8

3

--

2.3

3

--

21.8

17.5


Total 12t truck to RL 27.6 27.1


73

Calculations for

11,000 t/y

Distance

(km)

Collection truck Long haul truck

7.5 ton 10 ton 12 ton 20 ton

(d) Direct transfer

To TS

TS

To RL

5

70

2.8

3

2.3

3

30.5

24.4


Total 12t truck to RL 36.3 35.8 RL= regional landfill; TS=transfer station. Source: Annex A4.5 and A4.6.

Based on the figures given in tables above, the following can be concluded that distance to TS is an

important cost item. The TS should be as close as possible to the collection area. Investment in

construction of TS is an important cost item and can make the system not feasible. Low costs

installation can also create operational problems and thus indirect costs (e.g. waiting of collection

trucks). Direct transport with high capacity collection trucks (10 tons) is feasible up to about 50km

distance.

In general, it can be concluded that the benefit of a transfer station is highly depending on the capacity

of the collection trucks, the distance to the RL, location of the transfer station and the investment

costs. In addition, the road conditions in the area are important to allow high capacity trucks for long

haul transport. Therefore, the implementation of transfer stations should be carefully evaluated for

each case individually.

A5.5.4 Separation and sorting

According to the Landfill Framework Directive no waste is allowed to be landfilled without

treatment, which includes separation of waste. In addition, the LFD stipulates certain conditions for

reduction of biodegradable waste (paper, cardboard, organic waste, wood and some textiles) to be

landfilled.

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system for packaging waste and WEEE is partly

introduced in FBiH. The system implies a take back obligation of the individual

importer/filler/packer/distributor of a certain percentage of the materials put on the market by him for

the first time. However, the Producer can become a member of a joint organization taking over his

individual responsibility. The joint organization may set up its own parallel waste collection system or

can conclude contracts with third parties such as the municipal Utility Companies. The EPR system

can substantially contribute to achieving the targets. Thereto a well-defined organizational system

should be introduced with a clear allocation of responsibilities, tasks, financing, control, monitoring

and reporting.

The implementation of any waste separation activity for dry recyclables and organic waste should be

based on a detailed assessment of the market opportunities as current experience indicates that there is

hardly a market for glass recycling and the same is reported for composting.

In order to improve waste separation at source so that the targets set in the Federal Waste

Management Strategy are achieved, the Municipal Utility Companies may implement a uniform

system using 240 litres containers for separation of dry recyclables in addition to 1,100 litres

containers for mixed waste. It is assumed that households will separate in 2025 about 30% of the dry

recyclables (out of 33% that is found in the mixed waste stream). The increase in collection costs for a

separated collection system is expected to be BAM 22/ton (Annex A4.5).

In Annex A5.4 various options for integrated Waste Management services are presented for the year

2025 and the results are shown in Table A5-6. It is based on the following assumptions: (i) waste


74

generation rate 1kg/cap/day and 85% collection coverage; (ii) mixed waste separation 10%; (iii)

separation at source 30%x 34%; (iv) 25% rejects during sorting. It clearly shows the financial

advantages for regionalization of collection services. It also shows that separation of mixed waste is

more expensive than separation at source with sorting. Moreover, the separation of mixed waste is

limited to about 10%.

Currently various separation lines are available but operating at very low capacity. A pilot project is

proposed to upscale the operations of existing lines before constructing any new lines. The findings

can be used for upgrading other lines. A first pilot project could be started up in Sarajevo canton, as

there is one cantonal collection company. The pilot project would comprise the delivery of containers

for dry recyclables and Technical Assistance (TA) for management and awareness campaigns. At the

landfill in Sarajevo is a sorting line installed with a capacity of 5 t/h or about 8,300 t/y. If we assume

daily collection or 32tons pre-separated dry recyclables, it would result in the need of about 2,000

containers of 240 litres. In addition, extensive awareness campaigns with supporting materials

(advertising, posters, TV spots, brochures, etc.) are proposed with a one-year support from

international experts.

Table A5-6: Options for separation at source

BAM/ton Single municipality (30,000) Regional collection (120,000)

Quantity

(Tons)

ML at 15km RL at 30km Quantity

(tons)

Mixed

waste

Separation at

source

Collection 9,307 50 62 37,230 45 45

Disposal 8,477 87 49 33,507 49 498

Separation 1,107 62 20 3723 16 9

Total 199 131 110 103

Tariff/hh/y ex VAT¹ 225 148 124 116

Current tariff excl.

VAT

87

¹ Assuming 1.13 t/hh/y. Note: Disposal costs as per Annex A5.5.

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 feasibility study is under preparation for the construction of such plant at the regional landfill in

Zenica. A preliminary assessment (see Table A5-7) has been made for a plant with a waste input of

50,000t/y and a RDF production of 15,000t/y (without any grant financing or subsidies).

Table A5-7: 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


75

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

M+R

-civil works (1%)

-M/E works (3%)

33,000

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 Feasibility study

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 and (ii) the sales price for dry recyclables as the

market is strongly fluctuating.

Although not being a municipal waste, many municipalities are dealing with the problem of animal

waste (slaughterhouse waste, dead animals) being disposed at the landfills. In view of the quantities

involved and investments required it is recommended that municipalities will set up a joint facility

(e.g. a small incinerator). Thereto the municipalities should initiate a feasibility study on expected

quantities, collection and transport system, rendering of the waste, market assessment for livestock

feed use and a financial analysis.

A5.5.5 Disposal

Cost calculations are presented in Annex A5.4and summarized in Table A5-8for a compliant regional

landfill (120,000 inhabitants) and for a single municipal landfill (30,000 inhabitants) in 2025.

Table A5-8: Landfill cost calculations (BAM/ton)

Regional Municipal

OPEX 20.19 39.83

CAPEX 29.21 46.69

Total excl. VAT

incl. VAT

49.40

58

86.52

101

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 FBiH 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 A3.4, 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 A3-2). 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 cost solutions might be available depending on the local conditions. In fact,

there are currently a few municipalities in FBiH that are transporting waste to landfills located 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).


76

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 locations and planned service

areas of these 8 RLs are shown in Figure A5-4. 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)

Figure A5-4: Existing Regional Landfills and theirService Areas in BiH

According to the 2000 Waste Management 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 A3-2), 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


77

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 FBiH: 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

site. Where deviation from an originally planned RL is suggested, it is highly recommended that the

region-specific information be further reviewed in detail. We recommend detailed (pre-)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.

In this assessment, and to provide the recommendations, the municipalities are grouped into 4 major

groups based on: (A) municipalities that are being serviced by a RL (previously shown in Figure

A5-4, also shown in Figure A5-10), (B) municipalities that will be served by a RL in FBiH(shown in

Figure A5-5, coloured in blue), (C) municipalities that will be served by a RL in RS (shown in Figure

A5-5, coloured in green), and (D) where RL concept is not feasible for (at least without a low-cost

transfer station) in which case a controlled ML is a possible solution that has to be studied in detail

and compered with transfer station option (shown in Figure A5-5, coloured in grey). In the following

sections, these four (4) groups are described in detail. It should be noted that in addition to planning

for construction of new regional and/or municipal landfills, sustainability of the existing facilities

should be taken into account for planning of the required investments. For example, regional landfills

at Sarajevo, Livno, Mostar and Zenica require investments for urgent expansion and/or leachate and

LFG system upgrading. Moreover, it should be noted that along with implementation of new sanitary

RLs and MLs, substantial investments will be needed for closure of non-compliant municipal landfills

and dumpsites.

A summary of recommendations for possible landfill site planning based on the existing situation are

illustrated in Figure A5-5 below. The overall disposal system including the existing regional landfills

and the possible additions for the future are summarized and illustrated in Figure A5-10 at the end of

this chapter.


78

Figure A5-5: Possible additional ML and RL development in FBiH

Group A is consisted of municipalities that are already in catchment area of one of the 4 existing RLs

of (1) Sarajevo, (2) Zenica, (3) Mostar, and (4) Livno. This group includes 28municipalities, with

total population of 1,053,304, and estimated to produce 409,098tons/year of MSW in 2025 (see

Annex A1.3). This form 53% of the overall waste generation in FBiH.

A1 – Sarajevo Regional Landfill:

Sarajevo Regional Landfill serves 9 municipalities shown in Figure A5-6 and listed below with

estimated annual MSW of 190,000 tons/year. The amount may be slightly underestimated since

average federal waste generation rate is used for calculation. Since Canton Sarajevo is 90% urbanised,

the actual generated waste amount and can be up to 20% higher.

Centar 26,821

Hadzici 6,689

Ilidza 32,434

Ilijas 5,784

Novi Grad 57,623

Novo Sarajevo 31,503

Stari Grad 17,972

Trnovo 340

Vogosca 8,875 (potential addition)

Total 188,041 tons/year


79

Figure A5-6: Sarajevo Regional Landfill Service Area

Sarajevo RL is the largest landfill in the BiH requiring approximately 1 ha sanitary cell expansion

every year. Furthermore, in order to maintain sustainability of this landfill, immediate investments are

required to minimize leachate generation by implementation of progressive closure (capping) system,

upgrade leachate treatment system and upgrade landfill gas collection and flaring system.

A2 – Zenica Regional Landfill:

Zenica Regional Landfill serves 10 municipalities shown in Figure A5-7 and listed below with

estimated potential annual MSW of 125,000 tons/year. This regional landfill received about 56,000

tons of MSW in 2016, indicating difficulties that some of the included municipalities have been

facing in transportation of high quantities of waste to this facility and the associated costs.

Visoko 12,034

Zavidovici 10,535

Zenica 44,184

Zepce 8,343

Busovaca 5,108

Travnik 16,392

Travnik-Nova Bila 8,868

Vitez 7,570

Kakanj 11,651 (potential addition)


Total (Actual 2016) ~ 56,000 tons/year


80

Figure A5-7: Zenica Regional Landfill Service Area

Zenica 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. This facility is also required to install a leachate treatment plant. Tendering procedure

for purchase of the plant is currently under preparation.

A3 – Mostar Regional Landfill:

Mostar Regional Landfill is currently serving 4 municipalities of Mostar, Široki Brijeg, Ljubuški,

Grude and received about 41,000 tons of MSW in 2016. This RL can potentially serve two additional

municipalities shown in the list below and bringing up the total potential annual tonnage to

approximately 74,000 tons/year. However, Mostar RL requires immediate construction of new cell

expansion in order to be able to receive additional waste in the near future. Posusje is another possible

addition to Mostar RL service area, subject to feasibility of a low-cost transfer station and waste

transport from this municipality).

Mostar 40,894

Grude 5,058

Ljubuski 7,518

Siroki Brijeg 8,213

Citluk 4,980 (potential addition)

Capljina 7,562 (potential addition)

Posusje ---- (subject to feasibility of a low-cost transfer station)


Total Actual (2016) 41,000 tons/year


81

Figure A5-8: Mostar Regional Landfill Service Area

A technical review of Mostar landfill existing layout and operations was recently completed. Full

report is available as a separate document.

Sustainability of Mostar RL depends on availability of investments for expansion, closure of the old

phases as well as new landfill operation equipment. This site is urgently required to install a leachate

treatment plant (LTP). Procurement process for supply and installation of an LTP for Mostar RL is

currently ongoing.

A4 – Livno Regional Landfill

Livno Regional Landfill was recently constructed and will soon start serving three municipalities of

Glamoc, Kupres, and Livno with estimated annual tonnages shown below. Livno RL can also

potentially serve Tomislavgrad, bringing the total potential annual tonnage to 22,000 tons/year MSW.

Glamoc 1,385

Kupres 1,949

Livno 10,072

Tomislavgrad 8,640 (potential addition)



82

Figure A5-9: Livno Regional Landfill Service Area

Livno RL currently does not have a leachate treatment plant and will soon require investments.

Group B is consisted of municipalities that will be served by one of the 8 possible (future) RLs of (1)

Zivinice, (2) Bosanska Krupa, (3) Gornji Vakuf, (4) Gradacac, (5) Fojnica, (6) Gorazde, (7) Stolac,

(8) Bosanski Petrovac described below. Total population that will be served by these 8 RLs is

approximately 540,798, estimated to generate about 184,367tons/year of MSW. These 8 possible RLs

and their service areas are shown in Figure A5-5 and Figure A5-10.

B1 – Zivinice Regional Landfill:

Zivinice Regional Landfill is one of the originally planned RLs for the FBiH. Preparation phases

(feasibility study, environmental assessment, and detailed designs) for development of this site are

fully completed and pending availability of funds, construction of this RL can start immediately. This

site is planned to receive approximately 25,000 tons/year of MSW. However, with potential addition

of Lukavac, Srebrenik, and Kladanj municipalities to the service area of this landfill, total annual

waste tonnage of approximately 52,000 tons/year is anticipated. Another possible addition that needs

to be studied in detail is city of Tuzla which is currently operating its own city landfill 6-7 years

remaining lifespan.

Zivinice 17,615

Banovici 6,891

Lukavac 13,322 (potential addition)

Srebrenik 10,842 (potential addition)

Kladanj 3,894 (potential addition – temporarily to use Zvornik)

Tuzla ---- (need to be further studied)



83

Investment for construction of Zivinice RL is required. Considering the size of the potential catchment

area for this landfill (52,000 tons/year), as well as level of readiness for this development, priority

shall be made to this investment.

B2 – Bosanska Krupa Regional Landfill:

Three municipalities of Cazin, Buzim, and Bosanska Krupa have been constructively cooperating for

about 20 years. These three municipalities used to dispose their waste at old Bosanska Krupa

controlled landfill and were planned to be served by a potential RL in Bihac. Considering closure of

the controlled Bosanska Krupa landfill, the fact that no RL was constructed in Bihac, and the long-

haul distance between these municipalities and the current Bihac ML, these municipalities started

using a new site as a uncontrolled landfill located between the cities. This site, which has been used

for about 10 years now, has the potential to be upgraded to a potential RL continuing to service these

three municipalities. The estimated annual waste tonnage based on the population of the

municipalities is about 32,000 tons/year.

Cazin 18,693

Buzim 4,973

Bosanska Krupa 8,772


A full Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study is required to assess suitability of

the location for the potential RL.

B3 – Gornji Vakuf Regional Landfill:

Gornji Vakuf Regional Landfill is one of the RLs that was originally planned to be constructed,

however, the selected location has faced public objections. This regional landfill would serve four

municipalities of Gornji Vakuf, Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, and Prozor Rama with total estimated annual

waste tonnage of 27,000 tons/year.

Gornji Vakuf 6,090

Bugojno 11,596

Donji Vakuf 5,017

Prozor Rama 4,232


Conducting a complementary ESIA study is recommended for in-depth review of existing issues

related to the selected site, and if not resolvable by additional public consultations, availability of

alternative locations should be investigated.

B4 – Gradacac Regional Landfill:

Gradacac Regional landfill is a possible RL that could serve four municipalities listed below (and

potentially a fifth one). The annual waste tonnage that will be disposed in this possible RL is

approximated to be about 26,000 tons/year.


84

Gradacac 12,404

Domaljevac-Samac 2,039

Odzak 6,639

Orasje 5,478

Gracanica ---- (need to be further studied, see Doboj RL under RS report)


Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA are required to evaluate the existing

conditions and to define next steps based on the existing potentials.

B5 – Fojnica Regional Landfill:

Fojnica Regional landfill is a possible RL that could serve three municipalities listed below. The

annual waste tonnage that will be disposed in this possible RL is approximated to be about 11,000

tons/year.

Fojnica 3,803

Kiseljak 5,668

Kresevo 1,472


Region-specific assessment, (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA are required to evaluate the existing


B6 – Gorazde Regional Landfill:

City of Gorazde is currently using a uncontrolled municipal landfill with severe environmental

impacts. This city has allocated a new location that could potentially be used for a sanitary municipal

or regional landfill. This possible RL could potentially serve Pale Praca and Foca-Ustikolina in

addition to the City of Gorazde. Therefore, it is estimated that this possible RL could serve about

23.734 people generating approximately 8,600 tons/year of MSW. Possible additions that needs to be

studied in detail are municipalities from Republika Srpska that are found in the Gorazde RL

catchment area including Foca, Cajnice, Rogatica and Rudo.

Goradze 7,980

Pale Praca 204

Foca-Ustikolina 437

Foca (RS) ---- (need to be further studied)

Cajnice (RS) ---- (need to be further studied)

Rogatica (RS) ---- (need to be further studied)

Rudo (RS) ---- (need to be further studied)


A full ESIA study is needed for the selected site. Due to the severe conditions observed at the existing

Gorazde uncontrolled municipal landfill, it is highly recommended that a priority be given to advance

this project.Possible additions from RS needs to be further studied.


85

B7 – Stolac Regional Landfill:

Stolac Regional landfill is a possible RL that could potentially serve three municipalities of Stolac,

Neum, and Ravno, listed below. The annual waste tonnage that will be disposed in this possible RL is

approximated to be about 7000 tons/year of MSW.

Stolac 4,309

Neum 1,893

Ravno 728


Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA are required to evaluate the current


B8 – Bosanski Petrovac Regional Landfill:

Bosanski Petrovac Regional landfill is a possible RL that could potentially serve three municipalities

of Bosanski Petrovac, Drvar, Bosansko Grahovo and possibly Kljuc. These four municipalities are

approximated to generated about 11,000 tons/year of MSW.

Bosanski Petrovac 2,640

Drvar 2,621

Bosansko Grahovo 782

Kljuc 5,193 (potential addition if Mrkonjic Grad RL is not feasible)


Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA are required to evaluate the current


Group Cis consisted of municipalities that could possibly contribute their waste to one of the regional

landfills in Republika Srpska. As mentioned before, this is already being practiced in some areas due

to feasibility and economic incentives. The three regional landfills in RS that are already receiving

waste from neighbour municipalities in FBiH are (1) Zvornik, (2) Doboj, and (3) Bijeljina.

Furthermore, a possible regional landfill in Mrkonjic Grad (RS) can also serve additional

municipalities from FBiH. The municipalities from FBiH that may potentially be serviced by one of

these four RLs in RS are highlighted in green in Figure A5-5 and Figure A5-10.

C1 – Zvornik Regional Landfill (RS):

Zvornik Regional Landfill in RS is currently receiving waste from municipalities of Kladanj, and

Sapna located in FBiH. In this reform plan, it is suggested that municipality of Kalesija can possible

join Zvornik RL service area.

Kalesija 8,052

Sapna 3,066

Kladanj 3,894 (potential addition until Zivinice RL is ready)



86

C2 – Doboj Landfill (RS):

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 have to

relocate 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 RL. Current municipalities and potential additions are

listed below.

Lukavac 13,322 (temporary until Zivinice RL is ready)

Doboj Istok 2,318

Doboj Jug 936

Maglaj 6,098 (potential addition)

Tesanj 11,174 (potential addition)

Usora 1,494 (potential addition)


A site selection study and full ESIA study are needed for any potential new site for this RL.

C3 – Bijeljina Regional Landfill (RS):

Bijeljina Regional Landfill is a well-established RL in RS which is currently receiving waste from

municipalities Teocak located in FBiH. Celic municipality also signed inter municipal agreement but

is not disposing its waste yet.

Celic 3,309

Teocak 2,411


C4 – Mrkonjic Grad Regional Landfill (RS):

Mrkonjic Grad is one of the locations in RS that is suggested to be upgraded to a possible RL serving

municipalities both in the RS and FBiH. The municipalities that could potentially benefit from

contributing their waste to the possible Mrkonjic Grad RL includes Kljuc, Dobretici, and Jajce with

total estimated waste tonnage od 13,791 tons/year.

Kljuc 5,153

Dobretici 368

Jajce 8,270


Region-specific (pre-)feasibility study and full ESIA study are required to evaluate suitability of the

existing ML location for RL.

C5 – Prijedor Regional Landfill (RS):

Prijedor Regional Landfill is one of the originally planned RLs in RS. This landfill is currently not

receiving any waste from FBiH. However, there is possibility that the waste from Sanski Most (~ 30


87

km from Prijedor RL) to be transported to this regional landfill. Estimated waste generation in

municipality of Sanski Most is approximately 12,000 tons/year

Site-specific (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA study are required to evaluate suitability of the proposed

option.

Group Dis consisted of municipalities which are not within feasible distance from of the existing or

possible RLs in FBiH or RS. One alternative solution that should be investigated in detail and based

on the site-specific information and road conditions, is construction of low-cost transfer stations

(individual and/or joint transfer statins). These possible waste transfer options are shown in Figure

A5-5. The general cost calculations presented previously were not in favour of this alternative.

Therefore, the second option, which is upgrading of non-compliant municipal landfills into controlled

municipal landfills (ML) is suggested in the following section as an alternative to the originally

planned RLs. For the FBiH, this includes municipalities of Bihac, Velika Kladusa, Posusje, and

Olovo. Similar possibility applies to municipalities of Konjic and Jablanica (to jointly share one ML)

and municipalities of Breza and Vares (jointly). The possible municipal landfills are highlighted in

grey in Figure A5-5 and Figure A5-10.

D1 – Bihac Controlled Municipal Landfill:

The current Bihac ML is expected to have sufficient capacity for the next 10-15 years. It is suggested,

pending positive results from a full Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study, that

this site be upgraded to a controlled ML, serving the municipality of Bihac with estimated annual

tonnage of 23,896 tons/year.

A(pre-)feasibility study and full ESIA study required to evaluate suitability of the existing ML to be

upgraded to a Controlled (or Sanitary) ML.

D2 – Velika Kladusa Controlled Municipal Landfill:

The current Velika Kladuša ML is expected to have sufficient capacity for the next 10 years if waste

separation is to be introduced. This site has limited space but can be upgraded to a controlled ML,

serving the municipality of Velika Kladusa with estimated annual tonnage of 10,446 tons/year.


upgraded to a Controlled ML possibly serving other municipalities as well.

D3 – Olovo Controlled Municipal Landfill:

The current Olovo ML is expected to have sufficient capacity for the next 20 years. The investment –

technical and environmental studies have been completed based on which urban permit and

environmental permit are obtained for rehabilitation and closure of existing landfill. However,

according to the permit, this site can be upgraded to a controlled ML by extending it to the

surrounding municipality own land, serving the municipality of Olovo with estimated annual tonnage

of 2,973 t/y tons/year.


upgraded to a Controlled ML.


88

D4 – Konjic-Jablanica Joint Controlled Municipal Landfill:

Municipalities of Konjic and Jablanica are among the municipalities which were originally planned to

be serviced by Mostar Regional Landfill. However, this appeared not to be feasible due to the very

long haul distance between these cities and the location of the regional landfill. There might be a

possibility that a joint low-cost transfer station be feasible for waste transport to Mostar and/or

Sarajevo landfills. However, this has to be investigated in detail. A different approach could be use of

a controlled municipal landfill shared by the two municipalities. This potential joint municipal landfill

could potentially receive 12,000 tons/year of MSW which are currently being disposed in

uncontrolled municipal landfills.

Konjic 8,590

Jablanica 3,380


Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and ESIA is required to evaluate the current


D5 – Breza-Vares Joint Controlled Municipal Landfill:

Municipalities of Breza and Vares are among the municipalities which are originally planned to be

serviced by Zenica Regional Landfill. However, this appeared not to be feasible due to very long haul

distance between these municipalities and the location of the regional landfill. A different approach

could be in this case use of a controlled municipal landfill shared by the two municipalities. This

potential joint municipal landfill could potentially receive 7,000 tons/year of MSW which are

currently being disposed in uncontrolled municipal landfills. Alternative solution that should be

studied in detail is construction of a low cost joint transfer station for waste transport to Zenica

Regional Landfill.

Breza 4,019

Vares 2,822


Region-specific assessment and (pre-)feasibility study is required to evaluate the current conditions

and to define next steps based on the existing potentials.

Figure A5-10 below summarizes the overall disposal system for FBiH, 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 FBiH

that could potentially transport their waste to one of the regional landfills in RS (coloured in green). It

should be noted that these possibilities are subject to detailed technical (pre-)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.


89

Figure A5-10: Overall disposal system at FBiH – existing and possible future facilities


90

A6 INVESTMENTS

Institutional

Authority Proposals Costs (USD)

FMET Strengthening of Waste Management

Department.

Problem:

Present staff would consist of only one person

Tasks:

-Preparation of amendments to legislation (Law on

Waste management, Tax Code in view of VAT

payments by households)

-Preparation of by laws

-Preparation of guidelines (financial, technical,

operational, etc.)

-Setting up of WIS (reporting, database management)

-Development of FWMS/FWMP after 2018

-Setting up and leading Work Group with all

stakeholders as members on implementation of

Reforms

-Preparing operational manual for EPR system

-Preparation of Operational manuals (landfills)

-Consultation with Cantons and municipal Waste

Management Departments

-Preparation of re-organization proposals

inside/outside ministry to increase effectiveness and

efficiency (FEP, Municipalities)

Approach:

- Employ staff members and

- Contract outside company for three years for in-

house working, capacity training and transfer of

know how. Specialists to include: (i) legal;(ii)

financial;(iii) SWM; (iv) PA/capacity training

assisted by back up specialists.

Contract party: FMET

1.2 million

Municipalities Reorganisation of Department for Communal

Utilities comprising a separate and autonomous

Waste Management section.

Problem:

No clear operational/financial division of Waste

Management services from other services. No

accountability. No cost allocation transparency.

Contracting and tariff collection. Lack of financing

for investments.

Tasks:

Preparation of a study to formulate the tasks,

responsibilities, financial and operational procedures

especially in view of tariff collection and possible

participation in a regional scheme.

Approach:

150,000


91

Select a large, middle and small municipality as pilot

subjects for the study. Contract specialist company to

prepare the restructuring study with special attention

to division of tasks (collection and disposal),

costs/revenues, tariff collection, legal aspects, future

tasks and responsibilities in view of regionalization.

Contract party: Association of Municipalities or

directly with three (interested) municipalities

Region/Canton Problem:

High cost/ton, lack of Key Performance Indicators to

assess efficiency

Tasks:

Assessment of current operations at regional level.

Approach:

Prepare a technical, operational and financial

assessment to obtain “lessons learned” of a regional

company (RAD Sarajevo).

Client: Canton Sarajevo.

250,000

Region/Canton Problem:

Waste separation at source is in its infancy

Task:

Set up a pilot project for one year to introduce

separation of dry recyclables in Sarajevo Canton

Approach:

-Prepare an assessment in Sarajevo canton to set up

the pilot project for one year defining all parameters

and contractual conditions

- Purchase of 2,000 containers (240 liters) for storage

of 32 t/day and daily collection .

-Recruit from RAD Sarajevo two PA experts for

daily tasks (24 mm)

-Provide materials for distribution, publications,

advertising, etc.

- Provide trainer at sorting line

-Provide outside project manager

Client:RAD Sarajevo

400,000

Association of

Municipalities/

Association of Communal

Enterprises

Problem:

Technically and financially weak organizations

Task:

Institutional strengthening to act as a discussion

partner towards Ministry/Canton and for support to

their members.

Approach

-Appoint/recruit trainers to be trained (two per

association)

-Arrange for international training with associations

of municipalities and through technical/ operational

courses

-Trainers to be responsible for giving regular courses

to members, to advise and response to questions, to

prepare manuals/guidelines

-Financial support for a period of 3 years for

“Training of trainers”. Local costs (salaries, office,

etc) to be financed through membership fee.

500,000


92

Clients:

Association of Municipalities. Association of

Communal Enterprises

Equipment

Collection trucks New waste collection trucks

Problem:

Approx. 85% of existing trucks are older than 10

years. New trucks are needed in view of increase in

collection coverage, separation at source and

replacement old trucks.

Tasks:

-Procure preferably on a regional scale new hydraulic

back loaders (preferably 10 and 20m³) for mixed

municipal including training for maintenance

-Procure skip loaders and containers (5-7m³)

Approach:

Prepare tender documents and issue a tender. Total

number of trucks for the Federation is:

-Back loaders:266x 135,000 plus spare parts and

training

-Skip loaders: 16 x120,000 plus spare parts and

training

35.9 million

2.0 million

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 in the Federation (based on

2.5/week collection):

1,100 litres: 27,374 x 250 plus spare wheels

240 litres: 37,334 x75

7.4 million

2.8 million

Landfills

A) Upgrading existing RL’s

Sarajevo

(High priority to resolve

leachate management issue

by leachate minimization

(landfill closure) and

treatment)

The following works and facilities are needed:

- Leachate treatment plant **(recommended to be

done together with leachate minimization)

- Closure of 10 ha (reduce leachate generation, can

be done in one or two phases)

- Expansion 7 ha * (can be done in one or two

phases)

1 million

3.8 million

2.6 million

Mostar

(high priority to due to

significant environmental

impact from leachate from

old landfill)

The following works are needed:

- Leachate treatment plant **

- Closure 5 ha

- Expansion 4 ha *

1 million

1.6 million

1.1 million

Zenica

(expansion is urgently

The following works are needed:

- Closure of 3 ha

0.82 million


93

required) - Expansion of 4 ha * 1.5 million

Livno

(green field, installation of

LTP is a priority task)

The following facility is needed:

- Leachate treatment plant *

0.5 million

B) Upgrading municipal landfills

Bihac Annual quantity: 24,000 tons waste

The following works and facilities are needed:

- Detailed technical (pre-)feasibility study and full

ESIA study required.

- Assuming suitability of the location, this work

requires: remediation and closure of 3 ha area

with new cell on top; Infrastructure: gate house,

roads, office, etc.; Equipment such as bulldozer,

compactor, excavator. The investments are

estimated at USD 2.35 million)

to be

determined

(tbd)

Velika Kladusa Annual quantity: 10,000 tons waste

- Detailed (pre-)feasibility study and full ESIA

study required to evaluate suitability of the

existing ML to be upgraded to a Controlled ML

tbd

Posusje

Annual quantity: 6,300 tons waste

- Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study

and ESIA are required to evaluate the current

conditions and to define next steps based on the

existing potentials. Possible options to be

technically and economically investigated in

detail are:

Option 1: construction of a low-cost transfer

station and transport of waste to Mostar Regional

Landfill,

Option 2: upgrading the existing landfill to a

Controlled Municipal Landfill.

tbd

Konjic/Jablanica Annual quantity 11,970 tons.


and ESIA is required to evaluate the current

conditions and to assess possibilities for joint

landfill (compared with joint transfer station for

waste transport to one of the RLs, Mostar or

Sarajevo)

tbd

Olovo Annual quantity: 2,973 tons.

- Site-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and

ESIA is required to evaluate the current

conditions and to assess possibilities for

expansion the existing municipal landfill

(compared with transfer station for waste

transport to Zenica RLs)

tbd

Breza/Vares Annual quantity 6,841 tons.


94

Region-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and

ESIA is required to evaluate the current conditions

and to assess possibilities for joint landfill (compared

with joint transfer station for waste transport to

Zenica Regional Landfill)

tbd

C) Construction of New RL’s

Zivinice ** (High priority due to level

of readiness and

magnitude of the results

from project

implementation)

Annual quantity approx. 52,000 tons

- High level of readiness (feasibility study,

environmental assessment, and detailed designs

completed) and large service area.

- A 4ha cell or approx. 400,000m³ for 5 years

would require an investment of approx. USD 6

million

6 million

Bosanska Krupa* (priority due to

environmental impacts,

high quantity of waste, and

ongoing municipal

cooperation)

Annual quantity approx. 32,000 tons

- Site-specific technical (pre-)feasibility study and

ESIA is required to assess suitability of current

location for long term RL

- Subject to suitability of the site, total investment

of 2.7 - 3 million is required (Closing existing

landfill 3ha is roughly estimated at USD 1.2

million. Infrastructure facilities estimated at 0.8

million and equipment at USD 0.65 million)

tbd

Gornji Vakuf Annual quantity approx. 26,000 tons

- Conducting a complementary ESIA study is

recommended for in-depth review of existing

issues related to the selected site, and if not

resolvable by additional public consultations,

availability of alternative locations should be

investigated

tbd

Gradacac Annual quantity approx. 26,000 tons




existing potentials

tbd

Fojnica Annual quantity approx. 11,000 tons




existing potentials

tbd

Gorazde** (High priority due to

severe environmental

impact posed by the

existing conditions)

Annual quantities approx. 8,500 tons

- Availability of potential site and conceptual level

design.

- ESIA and technical review of the existing

conditions and design is required to assess the

suitability of the location and prepare next steps

for detailed design.

tbd

Stolac Annual quantity approx. 6,900 tons


95




existing potentials

tbd

Bosanski Petrovac Annual quantity approx. 6,000 tons




existing potentials

tbd

Wild dumps It is proposed to prepare a stock taking study on wild

dumps to assess the number, surface, estimated

quantities, works required and costs for closing.

tbd

** 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)


96

ANNEXES


97

Annex A1.1 Population per Municipality and Canton (2013)

Canton Municipality Population per

municipality

Urban

population %

Rural

population %

Una-Sana

Canton

Bihać 56,261 76.4 23.6

Bosanska Krupa 25,545 45.1 54.9

Bosanski

Petrovac

7,328 51.6 48.4

Bužim 19,340 11.9 88.1

Cazin 66,149 21.7 78.3

Ključ 16,744 32.3 67.7

Sanski Most 41,475 47.6 52.4

Velika Kladuša 40,419 12.4 87.6

Total 273,261 38.5 61.5

Posavina

Canton

Domaljevac-

Šamac

4,771 77.4 22.6

Odžak 18,821 48.7 51.3

Orašje 19,861 19.1 80.9

Total 43,453 38.3 61.7

Tuzla Canton

Banovići 22,773 29.4 70.6

Čelić 10,502 34.2 65.8

Doboj-istok 10,248 0 100

Gračanica 45,220 29.6 70.4

Gradačac 39,340 34.3 65.7

Kalesija 33,053 6.7 93.3

Kladanj 12,348 34.3 65.7

Lukavac 44,520 28.1 71.9

Sapna 11,178 18.5 81.5

Srebrenik 39,678 18.1 81.9

Teočak 7,424 37.9 62.1

Tuzla 110,979 72.6 27.4

Živinice 57,765 30.3 69.7

Total 445,028 37.4 62.6

Zenica-Doboj

Canton

Breza 14,168 22.1 77.9

Doboj-jug 4,137 0 100

Kakanj 37,441 32.7 67.3

Maglaj 23,146 27.8 72.2

Olovo 10,175 25.4 74.6

Tešanj 43,063 12.8 87.2

Vareš 8,892 35.1 64.9

Visoko 39,938 28.9 71.1

Zavidovići 35,988 25.6 74.4

Zenica 110,663 66.6 33.4

Žepče 30,219 19.2 80.8

Usora 6,603 0 100

Total 364,433 36.6 63.4

Bosnian- Foča-Ustikolina 1,933 0 100


98


municipality

Urban

population %

Rural

population %

Podrinje

Canton

Goražde

Goražde 20,897 59.9 40.1

Pale-Prača 904 0 100

Total 23,734 52.7 47.3

Central Bosnia

Canton

Bugojno 31,470 54.7 45.3

Busovača 17,910 22.7 77.3

Dobretići 1,629 0 100

Donji Vakuf 13,985 51 49

Fojnica 12,356 31.4 68.6

Gornji Vakuf-

Uskoplje

20,933 24.9 75.1

Jajce 27,258 29.7 70.1

Kiseljak 20,722 18.2 81.8

Kreševo 5,273 20.4 79.6

Novi Travnik 23,832 40 60

Travnik 53,482 30.9 69.1

Vitez 25,836 25.7 64.3

Total 254,686 32.6 67.4

Herzegovina-

Neretva

Canton

Čapljina 26,157 24.2 75.8

Čitluk 18,140 18.6 81.4

Grad Mostar 105,797 61.7 38.3

Jablanica 10,111 41.6 58.4

Konjic 25,148 44.4 55.6

Neum 4,653 69.5 30.5

Prozor 14,280 27 73

Ravno 3,219 0 100

Stolac 14,502 27.3 72.7

Total 222,007 45.7 54.3

West

Herzegovina

Canton

Grude 17,308 25.4 74.6

Ljubuški 28,184 15.6 84.4

Posušje 20,477 31.2 68.8

Široki Brijeg 28,929 22.2 77.8

Total 94,898 22.8 77.2

Sarajevo

Canton

Centar Sarajevo 55,181 100 0

Hadžići 23,891 22.3 77.7

Ilidža 66,730 100 0

Ilijaš 19,603 26.5 73.5

Novi Grad

Sarajevo

118,553 100 0

Novo Sarajevo 64,814 100 0

Stari Grad 36,976 100 0

Trnovo 1,502 0 100

Vogošća 26,343 42.6 57.4


99


municipality

Urban

population %

Rural

population %

Total 413,593 91.1 8.9

Canton 10 Bosansko

Grahovo

2,449 35.8 64.2

Drvar 7,036 56.3 43.7

Glamoč 3,860 51 49

Kupres-FBiH 5,057 61.3 38.7

Livno 34,133 26.5 73.5

Tomislavgrad 31,592 18.2 81.8

Total 84,127 29.4 70.6

Grand total 2,219,220 46.9 53.1


100

Annex A1.2 Forecasted waste generation per municipality and canton

Canton Municipality Urban

waste

(tons

/year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

Urban

waste

(tons/

year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

2013 2025

Una-Sana

Canton

Bihać 16,473 2,665 19,139 20,892 3,004 23,896

Bosanska

Krupa

4,415 2,815 7,231 5,600 3,172 8,772

Bosanski

Petrovac

1,449 712 2,161 1,838 802 2,640

Bužim 882 3,420 4,303 1,119 3,854 4,973

Cazin 5,501 10,398 15,899 6,977 11,716 18,693

Ključ 2,073 2,276 4,348 2,629 2,564 5,193

Sanski Most 7,566 4,363 11,929 9,596 4,916 14,512

Velika Kladuša 1,921 7,108 9,029 2,436 8,009 10,446

Total 40,281 33,758 74,039 51,086 38,039 89,125

Posavina

Canton

Domaljevac-

Šamac

1,415 216 1,632 1,795 244 2,039

Odžak 3,513 1,938 5,451 4,455 2,184 6,639

Orašje 1,454 3,226 4,679 1,844 3,635 5,478

Total 6,382 5,380 11,762 8,094 6,063 14,156

Tuzla

Canton

Banovići 2,566 3,228 5,794 3,254 3,637 6,891

Čelić 1,377 1,387 2,764 1,746 1,563 3,309

Doboj-istok 0 2,057 2,057 0 2,318 2,318

Gračanica 5,130 6,391 11,521 6,506 7,201 13,707

Gradačac 5,171 5,189 10,360 6,559 5,847 12,405

Kalesija 849 6,191 7,040 1,076 6,976 8,052

Kladanj 1,623 1,629 3,252 2,059 1,835 3,894

Lukavac 4,795 6,426 11,220 6,081 7,241 13,322

Sapna 793 1,829 2,621 1,005 2,061 3,066

Srebrenik 2,752 6,524 9,276 3,491 7,351 10,842

Teočak 1,078 926 2,004 1,368 1,043 2,411

Tuzla 30,879 6,104 36,983 39,162 6,879 46,040

Živinice 6,708 8,083 14,791 8,507 9,108 17,615

Total 63,720 55,962 119,682 80,813 63,060 143,872

Zenica-

Doboj

Canton

Breza 1,200 2,216 3,416 1,522 2,497 4,019

Doboj-jug 0 831 831 0 936 936

Kakanj 4,692 5,058 9,751 5,951 5,700 11,651


101


waste

(tons

/year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

Urban

waste

(tons/

year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

2013 2025

Maglaj 2,466 3,355 5,821 3,128 3,780 6,908

Olovo 990 1,524 2,514 1,256 1,717 2,973

Tešanj 2,112 7,538 9,651 2,679 8,494 11,174

Vareš 1,196 1,159 2,355 1,517 1,305 2,822

Visoko 4,424 5,700 10,124 5,610 6,423 12,034

Zavidovići 3,531 5,375 8,906 4,478 6,057 10,535

Zenica 28,246 7,420 35,666 35,823 8,361 44,184

Žepče 2,224 4,902 7,125 2,820 5,523 8,343

Usora 0 1,326 1,326 0 1,494 1,494

Total 51,082 46,403 97,484 64,784 52,288 117,072

Bosnian-

Podrinje

Canton

Goražde

Foča-Ustikolina 0 388 388 0 437 437

Goražde 4,797 1,682 6,479 6,084 1,896 7,980

Pale-Prača 0 181 181 0 204 204

Total 4,797 2,252 7,049 6,084 2,537 8,621

Central

Bosnia

Canton

Bugojno 6,597 2,862 9,459 8,367 3,225 11,592

Busovača 1,558 2,779 4,337 1,976 3,132 5,108

Dobretići 0 327 327 0 368 368

Donji Vakuf 2,733 1,376 4,109 3,467 1,550 5,017

Fojnica 1,487 1,702 3,189 1,886 1,917 3,803

Gornji Vakuf-

Uskoplje

1,998 3,156 5,154 2,533 3,556 6,090

Jajce 3,103 3,847 6,949 3,935 4,335 8,270

Kiseljak 1,445 3,403 4,848 1,833 3,834 5,668

Kreševo 412 843 1,255 523 949 1,472

Novi Travnik 3,653 2,871 6,524 4,633 3,235 7,868

Travnik 6,334 7,419 13,752 8,032 8,360 16,392

Vitez 2,545 3,854 6,398 3,227 4,342 7,570

Total 31,865 34,437 66,302 40,413 38,804 79,217

Herzegov

ina-

Neretva

Canton

Čapljina 2,426 3,980 6,406 3,077 4,485 7,562

Čitluk 1,293 2,964 4,257 1,640 3,340 4,980

Grad Mostar 25,017 8,134 33,152 31,728 9,166 40,894

Jablanica 1,612 1,185 2,797 2,044 1,336 3,380

Konjic 4,279 2,807 7,086 5,427 3,163 8,590

Neum 1,239 285 1,524 1,572 321 1,893

Prozor 1,478 2,093 3,570 1,874 2,358 4,232


102


waste

(tons

/year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

Urban

waste

(tons/

year)

Rural

waste

(tons/

year)

Total

waste

(tons/

year)

2013 2025

Ravno 0 646 646 0 728 728

Stolac 1,517 2,116 3,634 1,924 2,385 4,309

Total 38,862 24,212 63,074 49,286 27,282 76,569

West

Herzegov

ina

Canton

Grude 1,685 2,592 4,277 2,137 2,921 5,058

Ljubuški 1,685 4,775 6,460 2,137 5,381 7,518

Posušje 2,449 2,828 5,277 3,105 3,187 6,292

Široki Brijeg 2,461 4,518 6,980 3,122 5,091 8,213

Total 8,280 14,714 22,994 10,501 16,580 27,081

Sarajevo

Canton

Centar Sarajevo 21,148 0 21,148 26,821 0 26,821

Hadžići 2,042 3,727 5,768 2,590 4,199 6,789

Ilidža 25,574 0 25,574 32,434 0 32,434

Ilijaš 1,991 2,892 4,883 2,525 3,259 5,784

Novi Grad

Sarajevo

45,435 0 45,435 57,623 0 57,623

Novo Sarajevo 24,840 0 24,840 31,503 0 31,503

Stari Grad 14,171 0 14,171 17,972 0 17,972

Trnovo 0 302 302 0 340 340

Vogošća 4,301 3,036 7,336 5,455 3,420 8,875

Total 139,502 9,956 149,459 176,923 11,219 188,142

Canton 10

Bosansko

Grahovo

336 316 652 426 356 782

Drvar 1,518 617 2,135 1,925 696 2,621

Glamoč 754 380 1,134 957 428 1,385

Kupres-FBiH 1,188 393 1,581 1,507 443 1,949

Livno 3,467 5,036 8,503 4,396 5,675 10,072

Tomislavgrad 2,204 5,188 7,391 2,795 5,846 8,640

Total 9,467 11,930 21,397 12,006 13,443 25,449

Grand

total

394,238 239,003 633,241 499,990 269,314 769,304


103

Annex A1.3 Forecasted waste quantity to be disposed per disposal region

No. Name of the

planned

regional

landfill

Municipality/Town Population

per

municipality

Total waste

quantity to

be

disposedper

municipality

in 2013

Total waste

quantity to

be disposed

per

municipality

in 2025

Dry

recyclables

collected

in 2025

MUNICIPALITIES DISPOSING TO CURRENT AND PLANNED REGIONAL LANDFILLS IN

FEDERATION BIH

1. "Karanovac"

in Bihać

Grad Bihać 56,261 13,014 20,311 2,547

2. Bosanska Krupa 25,545 4,917 7,456 935

3. Bosanski Petrovac 7,328 1,470 2,244 281

4. Bužim 19,340 2,926 4,227 530

5. Cazin 66,149 10,811 15,889 1,993

6. Ključ 16,744 2,957 4,414 554

7. Sanski Most 41,475 8,112 12,335 1,547

8. Velika Kladuša 40,419 6,140 8,879 1,113

9. Drvar 7,036 1,452 2,228 279

Total for the region 280,297 51,798 77,984 9,779

10. "Dusine" in

Orašje

Domaljevac –

Šamac

4,771 1,110 1,733 217

11. Odžak 18,821 3,707 5,643 708

12. Orašje 19,861 3,182 4,657 584

13. Gradačac 39,340 7,045 10,545 1,322

15. Brčko Distrikt 83,516 16,582 27,923 3,501


16. „Separacija

1“ in

Banovići

Banovići 22,773 3,940 5,858 735

17. Kladanj 12,348 2,211 3,310 415

18. Živinice 57,765 10,058 14,973 1,878


19. Regional

landfill in

Srebrenik or

Lukavac

Gračanica 45,220 7,834 11,651 1,461

20. Lukavac 44,520 7,630 11,323 1,420

21. Srebrenik 39,678 1,783 9,215 1,156


22. "Desetine"

in Tuzla

Sapna 11,178 1,783 2,606 327

23. Tuzla City 110,979 25,149 39,134 4,907



104

24. "Mošćanica"

Zenica

Kakanj 37,441 6,630 9,903 1,242

25. Visoko 39,938 6,884 10,228 1,283

26. Zavidovići 35,988 6,056 8,955 1,123

27. Grad Zenica 110,663 24,253 37,556 4,710

28. Žepče 30,219 4,845 7,092 889

29. Busovača 17,910 2,949 4,342 544

30. Travnik 53,482 9,352 13,933 1,747

31. Novi Travnik-

Nova Bila

23,832 4,436 6,688 839

32. Vitez 25,836 4,351 6,434 807


33. „Gračanica“

in Gornji

Vakuf-

Uskoplje

Bugojno 31,470 6,432 9,853 1,236

34. Donji Vakuf 13,985 2,949 4,342 544

35. Gornji Vakuf -

Uskoplje

20,933 222 313 39

36. Jajce 27,258 2,794 4,264 535


37. "Uborak" u

Mostaru

Čapljina 26,157 4,356 6,428 806

38. Čitluk 18,140 2,895 4,233 531

39. Jablanica 10,111 22,543 34,760 4,359

40. Konjic 25,148 1,902 2,873 360

41. Mostar City 105,797 4,819 7,302 916

42. Neum 4,653 1,036 1,609 202

43. Ravno 3,219 2,428 3,597 451

44. Stolac 14,502 439 619 78

45. Široki Brijeg 28,929 2,471 3,663 459


46. „Trešnjica“

in Goražde

Foča - Ustikolina 1,933 264 372 47

47. Goražde 20,897 4,406 6,783 851

48. Pale - Prača 904 123 174 22

Total for the region 23,734 4,793 7,328 919

49. "Smiljevići"

in Sarajevo

Centar Sarajevo 55,181 14,381 22,798 2,859

50. Hadžići 23,891 3,923 5,770 724

51. Ilidža 66,730 17,391 27,569 3,457

52. Ilijaš 19,603 3,321 4,917 617

53. Novi Grad

Sarajevo

118,553 30,896 48,980 6,142

54. Novo Sarajevo 64,814 16,891 26,778 3,358

55. Stari Grad

Sarajevo

36,976 9,636 15,276 1,916


105

56. Trnovo 1,502 205 289 36

57. Vogošća 26,343 4,989 7,544 946


58. "Korićine"

in Livno

Bosansko Grahovo 2,449 443 665 83

59. Glamoč 3,860 1,452 2,228 279

60. Kupres-FBiH 5,057 771 1,177 148

61. Livno 34,133 1,075 1,657 208

62. Tomislavgrad 31,592 5,782 8,561 1,074


MUNICIPALITIES CURRENTLY DISPOSING TO REGIONAL LANDFILLS IN REPUBLIKA

SRPSKA

63. “Eko-Dep”

Bijeljina

(RS)

Čelić 10,502 1,879 2,813 353

64. Teočak 7,424 1,399 1,970 247

Total to the region 17,926 3,278 4,783 600

65. "Crni Vrh"

Zvornik

(RS)

Kalesija 33,053 7,045 10,545 1,322

Total to the region 33,053 7,045 10,545 1,322

66. Lipac Doboj

(RS)

Srebrenik 39,678 2,211 3,310 415

67. Doboj – Istok 10,248 7,630 11,323 1,420

68. Doboj - Jug 4,137 1,783 2,606 327

69. Tešanj 43,063 6,308 9,215 1,156

70. Usora 6,603 1,363 2,049 257

71. Maglaj 23,146 25,149 39,134 4,907

Total to the region 126,875 44,443 67,638 8,482


106

Annex A1.4 Forecasted waste composition per canton

CANTON WASTE

COMPOSITION

2013 2025

Una-Sana Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 16,128 18,065


Other 10,886 13,807

Total 40,320 51,136

RURAL WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 13,495 13,430


Other 9,109 10,264

Total 33,737 38,016

Posavina Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 2,551 2,858


Other 1,722 2,184

Total 6,378 8,089




Other 1,453 1,637

Total 5,382 6,065

Tuzla Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 25,515 28,580


Other 17,223 21,843

Total 63,788 80,899


Organics 22,371 22,264


Other 15,100 17,015

Total 55,926 63,019

Zenica-Doboj Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 20,448 22,904


Other 13,802 17,504

Total 51,119 64,831



107

CANTON WASTE

COMPOSITION

2013 2025

Organics 18,553 18,465


Other 12,524 14,112

Total 46,383 52,266

Bosnia Podrinje Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)



Other 1,294 1,641

Total 4,794 6,079


Organics 901 897

Recyclables 744 957

Other 608 686

Total 2,254 2,539

Central Bosnia Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 12,728 14,257


Other 8,591 10,896

Total 31,820 40,356


Organics 13,784 13,718


Other 9,304 10,484

Total 34,460 38,831

Herzegovina Neretva

Canton

URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 15,553 17,422


Other 10,499 13,315

Total 38,883 49,314




Other 6,534 7,363

Total 24,200 27,270

West Herzegovina URBAN WASTE (tons/year)



Other 2,239 2,839

Total 8,292 10,517



108

CANTON WASTE

COMPOSITION

2013 2025



Other 3,971 4,475

Total 14,707 16,572

Sarajevo Canton URBAN WASTE (tons/year)

Organics 57,761 64,699


Other 38,989 49,447

Total 144,402 183,137




Other 1,995 2,248

Total 7,390 8,327

Canton 10 URBAN WASTE (tons/year)



Other 2,559 3,246

Total 9,479 12,022




Other 3,219 3,628

Total 11,923 13,435


109

Annex A2.1 Detailed description of provision of the Law on Waste Management

Article 1 of the Law on Waste Management regulates the categories of waste, except for radioactive

waste, gases emitted into the atmosphere and waste water, and all waste management activities,

operations and installations.

Article 2 defines the objective of the Law, which is to promote and ensure the most significant

conditions for prevention of waste generation, processing of waste for reuse and recycling, extraction

of raw materials and its use for energy production and safe disposal.

Article 3 highlights the priorities in waste management, whilst taking into account the environmental

benefits, the technical feasibility for using best available technologies, and economic feasibility. It

stipulates that waste management will be carried out in such a way that all measures are taken to

ensure the treatment and disposal of waste do not endanger human health and do not cause harm or

substantial risk to the environment, and in particular:

• poses no risk to water, air, soil, animals and plants;

• does not cause nuisance through noise or odours; and

• without adversely affecting nature or areas of particular interest.

In order to achieve these objectives and to prevent pollution and mitigate effects on human health and

the environment, waste management will be conducted in a manner to ensure:

• minimal waste generation, and in particular reduction of hazardous characteristics of waste to

a minimum;

• reduction of waste by quantity, particularly taking into account the waste streams;

• waste treatment in a manner that guarantees return of raw materials from waste;

• incineration or landfilling in environmentally sound way of those waste types that cannot be

recovered, reused or subject to energy production.

The provisions of Article 5 define the basic principles of waste management, among which are

included:

• prevention - prevention of waste generation or reduction of quantity and harmfulness of

generated waste in order to reduce the risk to human health and the environment and to avoid

environmental degradation;

• waste producer responsibility –the waste producer is responsible for selection of

environmentally most sound solution according to product characteristics and production

technology, including the product life cycle and use of the best available technologies;

• polluter pays principle - the producer or owner of waste bears all the costs of prevention,

treatment and disposal of waste, including after care and monitoring.

The Law also contains provisions on the planning of waste management, where the authorities are

obliged to develop waste management plans that contain strategic objectives with detailed priorities,

general technical requirements, a list of measures to be taken etc.

These provisions require the development of strategic Waste Management Plan at FBiH level, as part

of the Strategy on Environmental Protection. The Strategy is brought by the Parliament of FBiH for a

period of ten years, upon proposal from the Government of FBiH.

Articles 9 and 10 stipulate the obligation of developing waste management plans at the cantonal level,

where these plans have to be consistent with the Waste Management Strategy of FBiH. Cantonal

regulations will further define the obligations of municipalities in the development of municipal waste

management plans, which need to include at least:


110

• programs on the collection of household hazardous waste;

• programs for the use of municipal waste fractions;

• programs for reduction of the percentage of biodegradable waste and packaging waste in

municipal waste;

• programs to raise public awareness on waste management;

• locations of waste management facilities;

• modes of cooperation between municipalities in order to achieve these objectives.

Article 15 provides general provisions related to waste management and, inter alia, states:

• produced waste may be used if it is ecologically beneficial, technically and economically

feasible;

• waste is disposed of only if it and/or its energy is impossible to be used in the existing

technical and economic conditions and if the costs of recovery are unreasonably high

compared to the cost of disposal.

Article 25 lists the provisions for municipal waste management, where it is emphasized that the

collection and treatment of municipal waste is carried out in accordance with special regulation on

public utilities, the establishment and operation of utility companies is regulated by legislation at

cantonal level (i.e. cantonal laws on communal affairs), households are obliged hand over their waste

to waste management utility companies and hazardous waste to collection centres, or entity

responsible for the provision of waste management services, waste producers other than households

shall use the public service for the waste they produce, if their waste has the same or similar

properties to household waste.

Article 26 stipulates that performance of public services, particularly services for the selective

treatment of waste, will be regulated by cantonal legislation, where public services include:

• collection of waste from households and other premises producing municipal waste;

• treatment of municipal waste, including the management of recovery and/ or disposal;

• locations for selective waste collection.

The provisions of Articles 29, 30 and 31 relate to the treatment, collection and use of waste,

respectively, in which case the operator of waste treatment plant is considered as producer of waste if

waste is produced during treatment, and the operator will keep a record of data on waste taken to

treatment and that is generated during treatment and inform the competent authority, in accordance

with special regulations at least once a year. The waste collection operator collects waste from

producers and holders and transports it to waste collection sites, transfer stations or areas for reuse

and recycling, treatment or disposal. A waste collection operator may take over waste from the owner

at collection sites. Waste may be reused as material and through energy recovery. Waste will be used

in such a way that products resulting from its use does not cause greater environmental load than

products from basic raw materials.


111

Annex A3.1 List of collection and disposal companies

No. Canton Municipality

/City

Name of the company Address Director

1. Una Sana

Canton

Bihać JKP „KOMRAD"

d.o.o. Bihać

Ivana Frane Jukića 61

Tel. +387 37 318 018

Fax. +387 37 318 025

[email protected]

Hadis Jusić

JP „Regionalna

deponija“ d.o.o. Bihać

(regional landfill, still

not constructed)

Tim za implementaciju projekta -

PIT (Project Implementation

Team)

Ul.V korpusa 15/11 77000 Bihać

Bosna i Hercegovina

Tel/fax: + +387 37 224-058; 228-

311: 228-310

E-mail: [email protected]

-

2. Bosanska

Krupa

JKP „10 Juli“ d.o.o.

Bosanska Krupa

Džemaludina Čauševića 4

Tel. +387 37 471 072

Fax. +387 37 471 072

[email protected]

Nijaz

Tatarević

3. Bosanski

Petrovac

„Komunalno“ d.o.o.

Bosanski Petrovac

Titova bb

Tel. +387 37 881 426

Fax. +387 37 881 427

Duško Bosnić

4. Bužim JKP „KOMB“ d.o.o.

Bužim

Viteške brigade 26

Tel. +387 37 410 086

Fax. +387 37 410 031

Hamid

Šahinović

5. Cazin JKP „Čistoća“ d.o.o.

Cazin

Generala Izeta Nanića bb

Tel. +387 37 512 735

Fax: +387 37 514 273

[email protected]

Sedin Šišić

6. Ključ JKP „Rad“ d.o.o. Ključ Ul. Braniaca BiH

Tel. +387 37 661 226

[email protected]

Sanela

Draganović

7. Sanski Most JKP „Sana“ d.o.o.

Sanski Most

Meše Selimovića bb

Tel. +387 37 686 019

Fax. +387 37 686 311

[email protected]

Stečajni

upravnik –

Mirzet Kasić

8. Velika

Kladuša

JKUP „Komunalije”

d.o.o. Velika Kladuša

Ul. Ive Marinkovića

+387 37 775 195

+387 37 775 196

Almir

Pajazetović

9. Posavina

Canton

Domaljevac-

Šamac

Independent

department for

communal affairs of

Domaljevac – Šamac

Municipality

Ul. Sv. Ane 102

Tel. +387 31 716 600

Upravitelj

službe – Šimo

Leovac

10. Odžak JKP „Komunalac“

d.o.o. Odžak

Ul. R. Milovanovića br. 13

Tel. +387 31 762 347

Fax. +387 31 762 347

Devad Pobrić

11. Orašje JP „Komunalac“ d.o.o.

Orašje

Treća ulica br. 73

Tel. +387 31 713 266; +387 31

712 019

Fax. +387 31 712 019

Ahmet

Nurispahić

12. Tuzla

Canton

Banovići JKP „Komunalac“

d.o.o. Banovići

Branilaca Banovića 23

Tel. +387 35 875 355

Fax. +387 35 875 354

13. Čelić JKP „Čistoća“ d.o.o. Ul. Zlatnih Ljiljana Fahir Subasic


112


/City


Čelić Tel. +387 35 668 001

Fax. +387 35 668 002

[email protected]

14. Doboj-Istok JKP „Čisto“ d.o.o.

Doboj-Istok

Doboj Istok bb

Tel. +387 35 722 697

Fax. +387 35 722 697

Asim Hodžić

15. Gračanica JP „Komus“ d.o.o.

Gračanica

M. Ahmetbegovića 9

Tel. +387 35 703 381

[email protected]

Sead Memić

16. Gradačac JP „Komunalac“ d.d.

Gradačac

H.K. Gradašćevića 114

Tel. +387 35 817 219

Fax. 387 35 816 106

Damir

Okanović

17. Kalesija KP „Komunalac“ d.d.

Kalesija

Kalesijskih Brigada bb

Tel. +387 35 6631 214

[email protected]

Osmo

Muminović

18. Kladanj JP „Komunalac“ d.d.

Kladanj

Jaz 10

Tel. +387 35 622 026

Fax +387 35 622 026

/

19. Lukavac JP „Rad“ Lukavac Partizanski put bb

Tel. +387 35 554 439

Fax. +387 35 554 439

[email protected]

Nehrudin

Osmić

20. Sapna „Fontana“ d.o.o. Sapna Sapna bb

Tel. +387 35 597 072

21. Srebrenik JP „9 septembar“ d.d.

Srebrenik

Kiseljaci bb

Tel. +387 35 645 714

Fax. +387 35 644 032

Mirzad Fazlić

22. Teočak JKP „Teočak“ d.o.o.

Teočak

Centar bb

+387 35756 338

+387 35756 338

Mirzet Husić

23. Tuzla JKP „Komunalac“

d.o.o. Tuzla

Husinskih rudara bb

Tel. +387 35 302 555

Fax. +387 35 302 556

[email protected]

Admir

Bećirović

24. Živinice JKP „Komunalno“ d.d.

Živinice

Prva ulica 190

Tel. +387 35 774 473

Fax. +387 35 773 551

Sead

Muminović

„Rif – Post“ d.o.o.

Živinice

Đurđevik bb

Tel. +387 35 747 579

/

„Akva Invest“ d.o.o.

Živinice

Alije Izetbegovića br. 91

Tel. +387 35 740 350

Fax. +387 35 740 351

[email protected]

/

25. Zenica

Doboj

Canton

Breza J.P. „Komunalno“

d.o.o. Breza

ZavnoBiH-a br. 6

Tel. +387 32 783 491

Fax. +387 32 783 615

Bulbulušić

Esmir

26. Doboj-Jug JKP „Vis“ d.o.o.

Doboj-Jug

Matuzići bb

Tel. +387 032 691 423

Adnan Sprečo

27. Kakanj JP „Vodokom“ d.o.o.

Kakanj

Alije Izetbegovića 51

Tel. +387 32 557 951

Fax. +387 32 557 956

[email protected]

Sead

Imamović

28. Maglaj JKP „Komunalno“

d.o.o. Maglaj

Ulica Mladih 4

Tel: + 387 32 603 523

Fax: + 387 32 603 689

[email protected]

Amira Zukić

mailto:[email protected]




113


/City


29. Olovo JKP „Bioštica“ d.o.o.

Olovo

Školska br 3

Tel. +387 32 825 152

Fax. +387 32 825 338

Kasim Kljaljić

30. Tešanj JP „Rad“ d.d. Tešanj Trg Žrtava 3 augusta bb

Tel. +387 32 65 566

Fax. +387 32 650 428

[email protected]

Mirsad

Šaranović

31. Usora JKP „Usora“ d.o.o.

Usora

Sivša bb

Tel. +387 32 893 889

Fax. +387 32 893 080

Ibrahim Agić

32. Vareš JKP „Vareš“ d.o.o.

Vareš

Put mira bb

Tel. +387 32 843 054

Zafer

Kamenjaš

33. Visoko JKP „Visoko“ d.o.o.

Visoko

Naselje Luke II br 16

Te. +387 32 738 600

[email protected]

-

34. Zavidovići JKP „Radnik“ d.o.o.

Zavidovići

Podubravlje, br. 3

Tel. +387 32 870-442

Fax. +387 32 870-441

[email protected]

Midhat

Bajramović

35. Zenica PD „Alba Zenica“

d.o.o. Zenica

Sarajevska bb

Tel. +387 32 442 840

Fax. +387 32 440 611

[email protected]

Miralem

Galijašević

PD „Regionalna

deponija Mošćanica“

d.o.o. Zenica (landfill)

Ul. Mošćanica bb,

Tel. 387 32 446 360

[email protected]

Emir Zukić

36. Žepče JP „Komunalno“ d.o.o.

Žepče

Ul. Željeznička br. 3

Tel. +387 32 880 127

Jozo Dunđer

37. Bosnia

Podrinje

Canton

Foča-

Ustikolina

JKP „Ušće“ d.o.o.

Ustikolina

Ustikolina bb

Tel. +387 38 518 564

Hamid

Kušundžija

38. Goražde JKP „6. Mart“ d.o.o.

Goražde

Selvera Sijerčića br 21

Tel. +387 38 221 126

Fax. +387 38 221 358

Sadik

Silajdžić

39. Pale-Prača JKP „Prača“ d.o.o.

Prača

Magistralni put 46

Tel. +387 38 799 275

[email protected]

Meho Brdarić

40. Central

Bosnia

Canton

Bugojno JKUP „Čistoća“ d.o.o.

Bugojno

Slobode bb

+387 30 256 856

+387 30 270 031

[email protected]

Emir Sarajlić

41. Busovača JKP „Komunalac“

d.o.o. Busovača

Matice hrvatske b.b.

Tel. +387 30 735 030

Fax. +387 30 735 031

[email protected]

Vladimir

Jurišić

42. Dobretići JKP „Vodovod i

kanalizacija“ d.o.o.

Dobretići

Dobretići bb

43. Donji Vakuf JKUP „Čistoća“ d.o.o.

Donji Vakuf

Ul. 770 Slavne brdske brigade

Tel. +387 30 205 554

Fax. +387 30 205 554

Nahid Šarić

44. Fojnica JKP „Šćona“ d.o.o.

Fojnica

Hadrovići br. 15

Tel. +387 30 544 171

Fax. +387 30 544 172

[email protected]

Abas Nišić

45. Gornji

Vakuf-

JKP „Radovina“ d.o.o.

Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje

Mehmed Bega Stočanina bb

Tel. + 387 30 266 789

Nahid Šehić


114


/City


Uskoplje Fax. + 387 30 266 789

46. Jajce JKP „Čistoća i

zelenilo“ d.o.o. Jajce

H.V. Hrvatinića br 1

Tel. +387 30 656 149

Fax: +387 30 656 149

[email protected]

Safet Redžić

47. Kiseljak JP „Vodovod i

kanalizacija“

d.o.o.Kiseljak

Žrtava domovinskog rata br 6

Tel. +387 30 879 127

Fax. +387 30 879 129

[email protected]

-

48. Kreševo JKP „Komunalno“

d.o.o. Kreševo

Ul. Fra Grge Martića 143

Tel. +387 30 806 808

Fax. +387 30 806 808

[email protected]

Josip Miletić

49. Novi

Travnik

JKP „Vilenica-Čistoća“

d.o.o. Novi Travnik

Stjepana Tomaševića bb

Tel. +387 30 791 096

Fax. +387 30 793 076

Drago

Radeljak

50. Travnik JKP „Bašbunar“ d.o.o.

Travnik

Kalibunar 3a

Tel. +387 30 509 788

Fax. +387 30 511 345

[email protected]

-

JKP „Trebišnjica“

d.o.o. Travnik-Nova

Bila

Nova bila bb

Tel. 030 707 812

Fax. 030 707 812

Cell: 063 334 062

-

51. Vitez JKP „Vitkom“ d.o.o.

Vitez

Kralja Tvrka bb

+387 30 711-572

+387 30 711-369

Igor Miličević

52. Herzegovina

Neretva

Canton

Čapljina JKP „Čapljina“ d.o.o.

Čapljina

Don Ilije Tomasa 12

Tel. +387 36 806 124

Fax. +387 36 806 124

[email protected]

-

53. Čitluk JP „Broćanac“ d.o.o.

Čitluk

Duhanski put bb

Tel. +387 36 640 283

Fax. +387 36 640 283

Željko

Dugandžić

JP „Broting“ d.o.o.

Čitluk

Ulica Kralja Tomislava,bb

Tel. +387 36 640 063

[email protected]

Marin

Barbarić

54. Jablanica JKP „Jablanica“ d.d.

Jablanica

Ul. Omladinsko šetalište, b.b.

Tel. +387 36 752 378

Fax. +387 36 753 183

[email protected]

Muhamed

Idrizović

55. Konjic JKP „STANDARD“

d.d. Konjic

Musala bb.

Tel. +387 36 726 308

Fax. +387 36 726 308

Enver

Tehirović

56. Neum JP „Komunalno Neum“

d.o.o. Neum

Put sv. Ante bb

Tel. +387 36 880 123

Fax: +387 36 880 238

[email protected]

et.ba

Ljuba Goluža

57. Prozor-

Rama

JKP „Vodograd“

d.o.o.Prozor-Rama

Ul.Ćire Truhelke bb Prozor/Rama

Tel. +387 36 771 378

[email protected]

(direktor)

Branko Burlić

58. Ravno JKP „Popovo“ d.o.o.

Ravno

Ul. Igrište b.b.

Tel. +387 36 891 465

Vida Blažević


115


/City


Fax. +387 36 891 466

59. Stolac JP „Komunalno“ d.o.o.

Stolac

Humska bb

Tel. +387 36 853 423

Fax. +387 36 853 423

Marinko

Papac

60. Mostar JP „Komunalno“ d.o.o.

Mostar

Zagrebačka bb

Tel. +387 36 576 931

[email protected]

Esad Pobrić

JP „Parkovi“ d.o.o.

Mostar (podugovarač

od JP „Komunalno“

d.o.o. Mostar)

Zagrebačka bb

Tel. +387 36 576 931

[email protected]

Esad Pobrić

JP „Komos“ d.d.

Mostar (podugovarač

od JP „Komunalno“

d.o.o. Mostar)

Zagrebačka bb

Tel. +387 36 576 931

[email protected]

-

JP „Deponija“ d.o.o.

Mostar (landfill)

Ul. Vrapčići b.b.

Tel. +387 36 282 011, 282 019

Fax. +387 36 282 011

[email protected]

Hasan Stupac

61. West

Herzegovina

Canton

Grude JP „Komunalno“ d.o.o.

Grude

Ul. Republike Hrvatske 15a

+387 39 662 142

+387 39 662 202

[email protected]

Vjekoslav

Filipović

62. Ljubuški „Alba BH“ d.o.o.

Mostar PJ Alba BH

Ljubuški

Rodoč bb

Tel. +387 63 326 288

Vlado Jerkić

63. Posušje JP „Vodovod“

d.o.o.Posušje

Fra Grge Matića 42

Tel. + 387 39 681 983

Fax. + 387 39 681 984

Frano Lebo

64. Široki Brijeg JKP „Čistoća“

d.o.o.Široki Brijeg

Kranjčićeva 1

Tel. +387 39 705 253

Fax. +387 705 253

-

65. Sarajevo

Canton

Centar

Sarajevo

KJKP „Rad“ d.o.o.

Sarajevo

(managing also the

regional Landfill

Smiljevici)

387 33 420 350

Selim Babić

66. Hadžići 387 33 623 914

67. Ilidža 387 33 400 476

68. Ilijaš 387 33 658 038 lok. 115

69. Novi Grad

Sarajevo

387 33 658 038 lok. 146

70. Novo

Sarajevo

387 33 658 038 lok. 115

71. Stari Grad

Sarajevo

72. Trnovo 387 33 658 038 lok. 146

73. Vogošća

74. Canton 10 Bosansko

Grahovo

JKP „GRAHOVO“

d.o.o. Bosansko

Grahovo

Kralja Tvrtka 15

Tel. +387 34 850 121

Fax. +387 34 850 121

Trtić Anđelko

75. Drvar JP „KOMUNALAC“

d.o.o. Drvar

Titova 48

Tel. +387 34 820 064

Fax. +387 34 819 753

76. Glamoč JP „Komunalac

Glamoč“ d.o.o. Glamoč

Dalmatinska bb

Tel. +387 34 272 421

Fax. +387 34 272 421

Dragan

Talijan


116


/City


77. Kupres JKP „Kupres“ d.o.o.

Kupres

Splitska 5

Tel. +387 34 274 381

Fax. +387 34 274 381

Tomislav

Pašalić

78. Livno J.P. „Komunalno“

d.o.o. Livno

Zgona bb

Tel. +387 34 201 778

Fax. +387 34 201 778

Tomislav

Vrdoljak

JP „Li-Čistoća“ d.o.o.

Livno (landfill

Koričina)

Trg Branitelja 1

Tel. +387 34 203 513

Fax. +387 34 203 513

Ivica Krivić

79. Tomislavgra

d

JKP „Tomislavgrad“

d.o.o. Tomislavgrad

Kulina Bana 6

Tel. +387 34 352 174

Fax. +387 34 352 917

Petar Radoš

„EKO Stojkić“ d.o.o.

Tomislavgrad

Borčani b.b.

Tel: +387 34 368 810

Tel/Fax: +387 34 368 811

[email protected]

Stojko

Martinović

„EKO Bužan“ d.o.o.

Tomislavgrad

Dobrići bb

Tel. +387 34 366 820

Fax. +387 34 366 820

-


117

Annex A3.2 Summary of questionnaires from waste collectors

Municipality

Inhabitants Quantities (2015) tons/year Generation

Kg/cap/year

Staffing

No/1,000t Census 2013 Questionnaire Served Households CII Industries Separated

Zivinice 57,765 12,200 contracts

(36,600)

10,455

(86%)

39,262 6,384 ------ ------ 1,455 74/45=

1.6

Zepce 30,219 31,000 12,000

(39%)

772 ------- 64 8/077=

10

Zavidovici 35,988 18,000 40%

(7,200)

7,570 100 ------- ------- 1,065 24/7.67=

3.1

Visoko 39,938 -------- 50%

(19,970)

8,337 ------- 417 30/8.3=

3.6

Srebrenik 39,678 6,292 contracts

(18,876)

55.7%

(10,513)

7,040 2,680 480 ------- 924 51/10.2=

5

Sarajevo 387,250 ------ 95%

(367,887)

197,000 538 535 ------

Sanski Most 41,475 6,750 contracts

(20,250)

85%

(17,213)

6,500 614 ------ 54 413 18/7,2=

2.5

Lukavac 44,520 46,731 27,700

(59%)

15,000 ------ 542 38/15=

2.5

Kupres 5,357 ------ 80%

(4,285)

----- ------- ------ ------ ------- --------

Konjic 25,148 ------ 80%

(20,118)

4,800 ------ ------- ------- 239 44/4.8=

9.2

Kljuc 16,744 18,714 16,461

(88%)

4,900 45 298 19/4.9=

3.9

Kiseljak 20,722 20,722 6,321

(31%)

1,600 ------ 253 6/1.6=

3.75

Gracanica 45,220 37,030 20,998

(57%)

8,627 3,049 ----- 56 553 41/11.6=

3.5

Glamoc 3,860 2,255 2,160 320 315 ----- ----- 294 3/065=

4.6

Doboj Istok 10,248 10,866 4,974 1,377 550 ----- ----- 387 7/1.9=


118

Municipality

Inhabitants Quantities (2015) tons/year Generation

Kg/cap/year

Staffing

No/1,000t Census 2013 Questionnaire Served Households CII Industries Separated

(46%) 3.7

Busovaca 17,910 18,000 9,000

(50%)

1,310 80 154 11/1.39=

7.9

Banovici 22,773 22,773 13,663

(60%)

16,692 3,210 1,498 ----- 1,456 40/19.9=

2

Travnik-

Nova Bila

----- 5,600 4,760

(85%)

305 20 19 18 68 4/0.343=

12

Total 575,678 339,107 (excl. industrial)/575.678=689kg or 1.6kg/cap/day

Municipality Tariff/household/year (incl. 17% VAT) Operational and amortization

Costs

Remarks

KM/m² Other

(KM/hh/yr)

Collection (%) Annual

Amount

(KM)

KM/Ton

Households CII

Zivinice ---- 6x12=72 82 80 1,124,417✶ 25 ✶ Data incomplete

Zepce 0.14

(126/hh/yr)✶ ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ✶Average 75m²/apartment

Zavidovici 0.12

(108/hh/yr)

---- 98 91 537,772 70

Visiko ---- 3.51x3x12=

126✶ ----- ----- ----- ----- ✶ Average 3 persons/household

Srebrenik 0.095

(86/hh/yr)

----- 76 86 748,972 73

Sarajevo 0.11m²+1.06

(112/hh/yr)

------ 81 86 24,803,614 126

Sanski Most ----- 10x12= 120 85 85 465,248 65

Lukovac ----- 7.9x12=95 92 76 951,907 63

Kupres ----- 2.34x3x12=84 ----- ----- ------ ------

Konjic ----- ------ 68 98 ------ ------


119

Municipality Tariff/household/year (incl. 17% VAT) Operational and amortization

Costs

Remarks

KM/m² Other

(KM/hh/yr)

Collection (%) Annual

Amount

(KM)

KM/Ton

Households CII

Kljuc ------ 2.5+3x2.3x12=

113

97 94 635,797 130

Kiseljak ----- 1.88x3x12=

68

84 84 212,704 133

Gracanica ---- 8x12=96 100 93 626,096 54

Glamoc ---- ? 80 60 ? ?

Doboj Istok ---- 848-84✶ 85 86 193,690 100 ✶2 or 4 removals/month

Busovaca ---- (6-6-10)x12=

72-96-120✶ 80 307,511 221 ✶1 or 2 or 3 and more persons

Banovici ---- 2.05x3x12=

74

100 100 1,297,746 61

Travnik-

Nova Bila

--- ? 37 95 115,779 338


120

Annex A3.3 Current landfills overview

No. Canton Municipality/Town Name of the planned

regional landfill

Status

1. Una Sana Canton Grad Bihać "Karanovac" in Bihać The first proposal was to construct regional landfill at the location

"Grabež - Drenovo Tijesno". The feasibility study for landfill

construction was developed, however the suggested location was

not approved by local communities.

The alternative location "Karanovac" in Bihać is found.

Preliminary design and EIA study are prepared in 2015. The

process of environmental permitting for the operator Public

Enterprise (PE) „Regionalna deponija“ d.o.o. Bihać is on-going.

Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism stopped the

procedure in 2016 after complaints from inhabitants from

settlements Ripač and Pritoka.

2. Bosanska Krupa

3. Bosanski Petrovac

4. Bužim

5. Cazin

6. Ključ

7. Sanski Most

8. Velika Kladuša

9. Canton 10 Drvar

10. Posavina Canton Domaljevac – Šamac "Dusine" in Orašje These municipalities showed interest to join into a region and

establish joint public enterprise for waste management. The

tendering procedure for investment and design documents is on-

going. Currently only municipalities, Orašje, Odžak and

Domaljevac – Šamac signed the Agreement on disposal to regional

landfill.

11. Odžak

12. Orašje

13. Tuzla Canton Gradačac

14. Brcko District Brčko Distrikt

15. Tuzla Canton Banovići „Separacija 1“ in

Živinice

Site selection is completed and design documents are ready.

Municipalities are currently using their own municipal landfills.

Two private collection companies from Zivinice that are serving

outskirts of municipalities are disposing their waste to Doboj and

Zvornik, respectively.

16. Kladanj

17. Živinice

18. Gračanica Regional landfill in

Srebrenik or Lukavac

An idea on assessment of opportunities for construction and

location selection on the border between municipalities Srebrenik

and Lukavac are put on table but no concrete steps toward

realisation. Srebrenik and Lukavac are currently disposing to

Doboj, while Gračanica is using its own landfill.

19. Lukavac

20. Srebrenik

21. Sapna "Desetine" in Tuzla The primary intention was to use landfill „Desetine“ in Tuzla as a

regional sanitary landfill for all municipalities in Tuzla Canton. 22. Tuzla City


121

After preliminary considerations, an alternative location „Huskići“

in Municipality Lukavac was proposed so that the idea of

construction of sanitary regional landfill Desetine was abandoned

and Desetine was continued to be used as a city landfill serving

Tuzla City. In the meantime, the alternative location „Huskići“ was

also abandoned. No other solution for Tuzla is proposed. Sapna is

currently disposing to Zvornik.

23. Zenica Doboj

Canton

Kakanj "Mošćanica" Zenica All municipalities signed the Agreement on joining the waste

management project and use of regional landfill Mošćanica in

Zenica, also committing to transport and dispose their waste to RD

Mošćanica.

Currently only Kakanj is not disposing at the landfill while other

municipalities bring their waste in a certain %. Only Visoko and

Zenica are disposing 100% of their collected waste to Mošćanica

landfill.

24. Visoko

25. Zavidovići

26. Grad Zenica

27. Žepče

28. Middle Bosnia

Canton

Busovača

29. Travnik

30. Travnik-Nova Bila

31. Vitez

32. Middle Bosnia

Canton

Bugojno „Gračanica“ in Gornji

Vakuf-Uskoplje

Development of investment, technical and environmental

documentation is currently on-going. Process is stopped at the

environmental permitting stage due the disagreement of local

communities.

33. Donji Vakuf

34. Gornji Vakuf -

Uskoplje

35. Jajce

36. Herzegovina

Neretva Canton

Čapljina "Uborak" in Mostar Currently operational but only municipalities Grude, Ljubuški,

Široki Brijeg and Mostar City currently dispose of their waste at

Regional landfill Uborak.

Other municipalities are continuing to use their municipal

landfills.

For municipalities Jablanica, Konjic, Neum, Ravno and Stolac it

would be necessary to construct Transfer stations due to their

distance to regional landfill Uborak.

37. Čitluk

38. Jablanica

39. Konjic

40. Mostar City

41. Neum

42. Ravno

43. Stolac

44. West Herzegovina

Canton

Široki Brijeg

45. Bosnia Podrinje

Canton

Foča - Ustikolina „Trešnjica“ in Goražde Urban permit and preliminary design for Trešnica are completed.

Development of investment, technical and environmental

documentation is pending availability of financial resources. All


122

three municipalities dispose waste at their own municipal landfills.

46. Goražde

47. Pale - Prača

48. Canton Sarajevo Centar Sarajevo "Smiljevići" in

Sarajevo

Landfill is operation and all municipalities in Canton Sarajevo

dispose their waste on Smiljevići landfill 49. Hadžići

50. Ilidža

51. Ilijaš

52. Novi Grad Sarajevo

53. Novo Sarajevo

54. Stari Grad Sarajevo

55. Trnovo

56. Vogošća

57. Canton10 Bosansko Grahovo "Korićine" in Livno First proposed location was „Pakline“ in municipality Kupres (at

the border with Municipality Tomislavgrad). The location was

assessed for its suitability to construct regional landfill that would

serve municipalities in Canton 10. However, it was concluded that

landfill is not feasible due to the small number of inhabitants.

Currently, a new location in Livno municipality is considered to be

used as regional landfill. At present, municipalities Glamoč,

Kupres and Livno are disposing their waste on Korićine landfill.

Koričine landfill is transformed into sanitary regional landfill.

58. Glamoč

59. Kupres

60. Livno

61. Tomislavgrad

62. Tuzla Canton Čelić “Eko-Dep” Bijeljina

(RS)

Municipalities Čelić and Teočak are joined to the regional landfill

"Eko-Dep" in Bijeljina (RS). They signed the Agreement on

establishment of joint company Eko-dep Bijeljina. Only Teočak

municipaliyis transporting its waste to Bijeljina. Čelić is using its

own municipal landfill.

63. Teočak

64. Kalesija "Crni Vrh" Zvornik

(RS)

Municipality Kalesija joined regional landfill Crni Vrh in Zvornik

and is disposing waste there.

65. Doboj – Istok "Lipac" Doboj (RS) The municipalities signed the Agreement to establish Regional

board for waste management in region of Doboj-Tešanj in 2005.

Only municipalities Doboj – Istok, Doboj – Jug and Usora are

disposing waste on Lipac landfill. Lipac is currently used as inter-

municipal dumpsite and will be transformed into sanitary regional

landfill.

66. Zenica Doboj

Canton

Doboj - Jug

67. Tešanj

68. Usora

69. Maglaj


123

70. Zenica Doboj

Canton

Breza Planned for transport to

"Smiljevići" Sarajevo

/"Mošćanica" Zenica

Due to the large distances, sometimes over 60 km from the

foreseen regional landfill, these municipalities are still using local

dumpsites. The only solution seems to be construction of transfer

station.

71. Olovo Planned for transport to


72. Vareš Planned for transport to

"Mošćanica Zenica

73. Dobretići Planned for transport to

"Gračanica" Gornji

Vakuf-Uskoplje

74. Middle Bosnia

Canton

Fojnica Planned for transport to


75. Kiseljak Planned for transport to


76. Kreševo Planned for transport to


77. Herzegovina

Neretva Canton

Prozor - Rama Planned for transport to

"Uborak" Mostar

78. West Herzegovina Grude Planned for transport to

"Uborak" Mostar

79. Ljubuški Planned for transport to

"Uborak" Mostar

80. Posušje Unknown ("Uborak"

Mostar)


124

Annex A3.4 Waste transport distances per region

No. Name of the

planned

regional

landfill(RL)

Municipality/Town Waste quantity /

municipality

Waste

quantity

/ region

Distances from

heart of

municipality to

proposed RL

(km)

MUNICIPALITIES DISPOSING TO REGIONAL LANDFILLS IN FEDERATION BIH

1. "Karanovac"

in Bihać

Grad Bihać 23.896

91,746

10

2. Bosanska Krupa 8.772 42

3. Bosanski Petrovac 2.640 46

4. Bužim 4.973 54

5. Cazin 18.693 35

6. Ključ 5.193 83

7. Sanski Most 14.512 108

8. Velika Kladuša 10.446 67

9. Drvar 2.621 71

Weighted average distance for the region

49.44

10. "Dusine" in

Orašje

Domaljevac –

Šamac

2.039

70,253

13

11. Odžak 6.639 38

12. Orašje 5.478 4

13. Gradačac 12.405 36

14. Srebrenik 10.842 44

15. Brčko Distrikt 32.850 26


32.73

16. „Separacija

1“ in

Banovići

Banovići 6.891

28,400

3

17. Kladanj 3.894 43

18. Živinice 17615,01612 15


15,93

19. Regional

landfill in

Srebrenik or

Lukavac

Gračanica 13.707

37,870

24

20. Lukavac 13.322 28

21. Srebrenik 10.842 10


21

22. "Desetine"

in Tuzla

Sapna 3.066

49,106

54

23. Tuzla City 46.040 5


8.06

24. "Mošćanica"

Zenica

Kakanj 11.651

123,684

27


125

25. Visoko 12.034 43

26. Zavidovići 10.535 63

27. Grad Zenica 44.184 13

28. Žepče 8.343 51

29. Busovača 5.108 21

30. Travnik 16.392 39

31. Novi Travnik-Nova

Bila

7.868 31

32. Vitez 7.570 25


29.72

33. „Gračanica“

in Gornji

Vakuf-

Uskoplje

Bugojno 11.592

30,968

10

34. Donji Vakuf 5.017 22

35. Gornji Vakuf -

Uskoplje

6.090 10

36. Jajce 8.270 56


24.23

37. "Uborak" u

Mostaru

Čapljina 7.562

80,549

39

38. Čitluk 4.980 27

39. Jablanica 3.380 41

40. Konjic 8.590 63

41. Mostar City 40.894 8

42. Neum 1.893 94

43. Ravno 728 82

44. Stolac 4.309 42

45. Široki Brijeg 8.213 28


25.88

46. „Trešnjica“

in Goražde

Foča - Ustikolina 437

8,621

27

47. Goražde 7.980 5

48. Pale - Prača 204 34


6.80

49. "Smiljevići"

in Sarajevo

Centar Sarajevo 26.821

188,142

7

50. Hadžići 6.789 15

51. Ilidža 32.434 4

52. Ilijaš 5.784 22

53. Novi Grad 57.623 2

54. Novo Sarajevo 31.503 5

55. Stari Grad 17.972 11

56. Trnovo 340 28

57. Vogošća 8.875 11


126


5.98

58. "Korićine"

in Livno

Bosansko Grahovo 782

22,828

73

59. Glamoč 1.385 33

60. Kupres-FBiH 1.949 44

61. Livno 10.072 4

62. Tomislavgrad 8.640 40


25.16


127

Annex A4.1 Cost breakdown obtained from waste collection companies (actual)

Municipality Sarajevo Srebrenik Sanski

Most

Lukovac Kljuc Kiseljak Gracanica Doboj

Istok

Busovaca Banovici Travnik

Served population 367,887 10,513 17,213 27,700 16,461 6,321 20,998 4,974 9,000 13,663 4,760

Waste quantity

(Tons)

197,538 10,200 7,168 15,000 4,800 1,600 11,732 1,927 1,390 21,400 362

Total annual cost

(BAM)

24,803,614 748,972 465,248 951,907 635,797 212,704 626,096 193,690 307,511 1,297,746 115,779

Disposal (%) 0 15.25 13.31 0 0 0.00 22.14 31.56 0.00 13.53

Salaries (%) 40.67 48.57 38.46 51.44 23.87 39.44 41.20 54.42 45.89 14.19

Administration (%) 15.24 0.51 28.09 3.98 17.57 14.37 2.20 1.60 8.56 42.56

Fuel (%) 10.79 12.31 7.31 7.56 10.42 11.39 10.83 6.65 7.57 4.36 9.85

Tyres (%) 0.67 1.38 0.85 1.26 0.59 1.00 1.76 4.85 0.45 1.32 1.47

Other expenses (%) 1.05 1.09 5.78 6.80 43.00 19.22 20.85 2.37 26.65 3.32

Amortization (%) 12.50 4.58 5.58 5.53 4.75 3.18 14.37 2.10 2.04 3.88 4.75

Other operational

costs¹

19.07 16.82 86.27 22.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.35 10.32

¹ No specification available.


128

Comparison with calculated costs (Annex A4.2: 15km to landfill and Annex A4.3: landfill operations)

Collection and transport Landfill Total

10m³ 20m³ Average % Cost/y

% Cost/y %

Salaries 106,881 90,343 98,612 27.35 182,160 27,25 280,772 27.3

Administration 26,720 22,585 24,652.5 6.84 10,000 1.5 34,652.5 3.37

M&R 38,568 43,986 41,277 11.45 25,200 3.77 66,477 6.5

Tyres 5,492 5,326 5,409 1.50 0 5,409 0.5

Fuel/energy 39,131 25,299 32,215 8.94 60,660 9.1 92,875 9.0

Lubricants 4,119 2,663 3,391 0.94 0 3,391 0.3

Insurance 7,099 8,183 7,641 2.12 4,599 0.7 12,240 1.2

Other 18,000 2.7 18,000 1.75

Amortization 138,585 155,978 147,281.5 40.85 367,632 55.0 514,913 50.0

Total 366,595 354,363 360,479 99.99 668,250 100 1,028,729 99.9


129

Annex A4.2 Collection cost calculation

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

Inhabitants 30000.00 30000.00 30000.00 120000

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/truckx90%(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

Available for collection and

transport

410.00 410.00 410.00 410.00 410.00 410.00 520.00 520.00

Cycle time truck


130

Collection/container (minutes) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4 4

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

5xweek)

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

loadersx1.15=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


131

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

Liter (0,3 liter/km) 27988.12 16408.43 50866.39 27847.59 16476.43 10652.61 116801.67 69425.18

Costs/year (KM1.9/liter) 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

Tires

4-6/truck; 30,000km 12.44 10.94 22.61 18.57 7.32 7.10 51.91 46.28

Cost (500-600KM/tire) 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

Cost/ton (KM) 65.64 57.69 88.40 70.51 50.80 48.82 49.64 40.25


132

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


133

Annex A4.3 Landfill cost calculations 2015

Assumptions Regional Single municipality

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 150 x50m² 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

Subtotal civil works (20 years depr.) 1493250 840000

Storage cell m² 24000 70 1680000 m² 10000 70 700000


134

Closing after 5 years m² 24000 50 1200000 m² 10000 50 500000


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 leachate ponds 2 30000 60000 30000

Wheel 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

Drivers 3 1500 54000 1 1500 18000

Guard 2 1200 28800 1 1200 14400


135

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(6hrsx260daysx300kw) 1 ltr=10.6kwh 374400 67109.43 208000 37283.02

Excavator(3 hours x 260 days x250kw) 93600 16777.36 0

Site:100kwx10hrsx312days 249600 29203.2 156000 18252

Leachate aerators (8hrsx15kwx2=240kwh/day) 87600 10249.2 43800 5124.6

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

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


136

Annex A4.4 Sorting line cost calculations

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%

collection

24528

6132.00 24528 85% 37230

Recyclables total (%)

30 7358.40 30 1839.60 30 7358.4 33 12285.9

Recyclables separation (%)

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

Sortingline 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 (tpy)

2575.44

643.86 24528 4300.07

Rejects (impurities in pre sorted

materials)

1287.72 50% landfill

321.93 50% landfill 22075.2 landfill 1075.00

20%

landfill


137

Output of saleable materials

(tons/year)

1287.72

321.93 2452.8 3225.05

Cost calculation

Investments

Item costs (KM) total

total

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

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

administr 1 1500 18000 18000 1 36000 1 18000

secretary 0 1300 0 0 1 15600 0

169200 135600 226800 150600


138

working time 50%-85%

84600.00 67800.00 260820.00 173190

overhead (15%)

97290.00 77970.00 299943 199168.5

Energy

6026.5296 1506.6324

20kWh/ton 0.117 51508.8 6026.529 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 1079674.52 28.86 511585.65

cost/ton

147.25 538.26 44.02 118.97

Revenues (assumption:

operator =collector)

Savings on landfill

73400.04 18350.01 2452.8 139809.6 3225.05 183827.78

Quantity (tons) 1287.72 321.93

Disposal: KM/ton(excl VAT) 57 57

Sales ex sorting line

262051.02 65512.76 456098.16

Paper/cardboard 140 347.68 48675.82 86.92 12168.95 662.256 49669.2 870.76 121906.842

Plastics 300 682.49 204747.48 170.62 51186.87 1299.984 389995.2 1709.28 512782.751

Glass 20 218.91 4378.25 54.73 1094.56 416.976 8339.52 548.26 10965.1657

Cans 110 38.63 4249.48 9.66 1062.37 73.584 8094.24 96.75 10642.6608

Total (tons)

1287.72 262051.02 321.93 65512.76 2452.8 456098.16 3225.05 656297.420

Total

335451.06 83862.77 595907.76 840125.199

Price KM/ton

130.25 130.25 24.30 195.375

Net result (KM/ton)

-17.00 -408.01 -19.72 76.40


139

Annex A4.5 Cost estimates for collection of mix of containers

15 km to LF 60 km to RL

COLLECTION Large truck (20m³) Small truck (10m³) Large truck (20m³) Small truck (10m³)

Assumptions Mix of containers Mix of containers Mix of containers Mix of containers

Container system (liters) 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:35%x33% in 240 ltr 8232.48 1075.02 8232.48 1075.02 8232.48 1075.01625 8232.4837

5

1075.01625

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

Cycle time truck


140

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

5

518702.2

5

1183149.08

2

741636.84 966985.70 625524.1

Containers 133134.00 32302.17 117778.2

5

32302.17 117756.442

7

32302.17 117756.44 32302.17

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 114809.6

6

78088.27 130619.66 81876.71 181969.13 94169.81

Total Including management (25%) 121288.90 92294.92 143512.0

7

97610.33 163274.57 102345.88 227461.41 117712.26

Fuel


141

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

Liter (0,3 litre/km) 15548.93 8557.89 23118.49 10429.70 38633.98 14084.46 69288.27 21482.85

Costs/year( KM1,9/liter) 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

Tires

4-6/truck; 30,000km 10.37 5.71 10.27 4.64 25.7559898

3

9.39 30.79 9.55

Cost (600KM/tire) 6219.57 3423.15 6164.93 2781.25 15453.59 5633.78 18476.87 5728.76

M&R

Truck (5%) 43945.25241 33440.19 38131.23 25935.11 59157.4541

1

37081.8418 48349.28 31276.21

Containers (2%) 2662.68 646.04 2355.56 646.04 2355.12885

4

646.043419

5

2355.13 646.043419

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 11831.4908

2

7416.36836 9669.86 6255.241

Sub-total OPEX 215558.20 154463.90 246338.8

8

154062.1

3

333203.61 182701.29 451817.93 206732.49

Miscellaneous (10%) 21555.82 15446.39043 24633.89 15406.21 33320.3609 18270.13 45181.79 20673.25

Total OPEX 237114.02 169910.29 270972.7

7

159249.1

5

366523.97 200971.42 496999.72 227405.73

Amortization

Trucks (5-7 years,3%) 141064.26 107343.00 122401.2

4

83251.71 189895.43 119032.71 155201.20 100396.62

Containers (7 years,3%) 21368.01 5184.50 18903.41 5184.50 18899.91 5184.50 18899.91 5184.50


142

Total CAPEX 162432.27 112527.50 141304.6

5

88436.21 208795.34 124217.21 174101.11 105581.12

Grand total 399546.29 282437.80 412277.4

2

247685.3

6

575319.31 325188.63 671100.83 332986.85

Cost/ton (BAM) 48.53 262.73 50.08 230.40 69.88 302.50 81.52 309.75

Combined BAM/ton 73.27 70.91 96.75 107.88

Average 72.09 102.32

ANNEX A4.2

(only 1,100 litres containers)

48.82 50.8 70.51 88.4

Average 49,81 79.46

Difference 22,28 22,86


143

Annex A5.1 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.


144

Annex A5.2Transfer station 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.


145


146

Annex A5.3 Transport costs calculation - transfer stations to regional landfill (50 km)

Truck +trailer Trailer with

compression

Collection

truck 10 t

Collection

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

(80%)

2.20 1.10 1.41 1.89 2.09 2.79

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

(7 yrs. 3%)

97258.11 48629.06 90801.65 121068.87 100671.40 116331.40

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

Opex 142224.36 71112.18 101064.47 134752.62 151872.32 195805.90


147

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.


148

Annex A5.4 Summary of options for waste separation

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

rate

cost tons/year unit

rate

cost tons/year unit

rate

cost ton/year unit

rate

cost

Collection/transport 9307 50 465350 9307 62 577034 37230 45 1675350 37230 45 1675350

Disposal 8477 86.5 733260.5 8477 49.4 418763.8 33507 49.4 1655245,8 33908,00 49.4 1675055.2

Collection and disposal/t 136.5 111.4 94.4 94.4

Separation/sorting

Collection 9307 22 204754 9307 22 204754 37230 22 819060

Sorting 1107 408 451656 1107 17 18819 37230 20 744600 4430 -76 -336680

1855020.

5

1219370,

8 4075195.8 3832785.2

Cost/ton 199.31 131,02 109.46 102.95

Assumptions:

(i) Dry recyclables separation 35%x34% with 25% rejects

(ii) Mixed waste separation 10%

(iii) Disposal rates as per annex A5.5.


149

Annex A5.5 Landfill cost calculations 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


150



Gatehouse area m² 250 900 225000 150 900 135000

Portacabin offices 100000 50000

Surface water ditch m 750 100 75000 460 100 46000

Leachate ponds l.s. 2 75000 150000 1 75000 75000


Storage cell m² 37500 70 2625000 13000 70 910000

Closing after 5 years m² 37500 40 1500000 13000 40 520000


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


151



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 aerators (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

Subtotal m+r 57200 30960


152



Waste covering

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

Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Review Strategic ...

Documents

Transcript of Municipal Solid Waste Management Sector Review Strategic ...