The capacities of natural resources are non infinite yet the demand keeps increasing. Together with the turning ingestion, the sum of waste generated continues to increase. To guarantee that the resources are non overly exploited and to utilize the reclaimable stuffs in an optimum manner, effectual steps need to be taken. What is more, waste that can non be used for other intents demands to be deposited in a manner that is non harmful to the environment and accordingly to human wellness.
A healthy environment is indispensable for the wellbeing of people and the EU puts a large accent on environmental protection. EU ‘s Sixth Environmental Action Programme sets out four precedences which are to be met by the Community by 2012 and “ natural resources and wastes ” is one of them. Bulgaria, a Member State since 2007 should already hold reached EU criterions whereas Croatia, as a state endeavoring to go a member of the EU is still taking to accomplish the ends set by the EU in this field. This paper will concentrate on waste direction policies of both states with a end to achieve EU criterions, viz. on waste bar, recycling and disposal of waste.
The chief statement of this paper arises from the impression that both states are dawdling behind criterions the EU imposes in the field of waste direction. Legislation might be adopted but existent execution is missing. In order to beef up that, both states have elaborated waste direction programs with aims to be achieved in some countries. One of the grounds for slow execution is the large fiscal input needed for reforms. Furthermore, the extent of bing administrative constructions is non sufficient or these are non strengthened plenty. Educational activities sing intervention of waste are unsatisfactory which manifests itself in a low motive of the populace and a negative attitude towards waste direction. Both, webs for separate waste disposal as a stipulation for recycling are unequal and so are landfills which are non adequately regulated. What is more, both states have a job with illegal garbage dumps. On the whole, none of the three facets in focal point is sufficiently strengthened.
The paper consists of two parts. First, EU policies in the field of waste direction will be discussed so as to show a general model which both states in focal point purpose to accomplish. Since there are more than 70 Acts of the Apostless refering waste direction merely a general purpose and the most of import facets will be presented. Second, an analysis of both selected states will be conducted and developments presented. Three facets of the waste direction will be taken into consideration: waste bar, recycling and waste disposal. Different factors that have influenced the degree of advancement for each of these three facets will be presented and compared. Some concrete instances will be mentioned in order to back up the statements and statistical informations included.
The literature used for the first portion will be the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the EU and different waste directives. For both states, national statute law will be taken into consideration every bit good as national schemes and programs associating to blow direction. Furthermore, assorted publications of the EU, province establishments or NGOs will be used.
Waste direction in the European Union
Environmental protection plays an of import function in the EU policies. The Sixth Environmental Action Programme adopted in 2002 for a clip span of 10 old ages sets out cardinal environmental precedences of the EU and determines “ natural resources and waste direction ” as one of four thematic schemes, the other three being a ) clime alteration, B ) nature and biodiversity and degree Celsius ) environment and wellness and quality of life. EU aims to protect the environment and accordingly human wellness by efficaciously modulating waste direction in EU Member States. As of 1 Jan 2010 there were about 70 different Acts of the Apostless refering the field of waste direction. Directives are organized into four groups depending on the field they regulate. First group lays down a model for waste direction[ 1 ], the 2nd encompasses particular types of waste[ 2 ]3rd one focuses on cargo, import and export of waste[ 3 ]and the last includes directives concentrating on installations for processing and disposal of waste[ 4 ].
The basic demands sing waste direction of the EU are determined in Directive 2006/12/EC[ 5 ]. It states in the preamble that “ the indispensable aim of all commissariats associating to blow direction should be the protection of human wellness and the environment against harmful effects caused by the aggregation, conveyance, intervention, storage and tipping of waste ”[ 6 ]. The Directing obliges Member States to guarantee that the waste is disposed of in a manner that does non jeopardize neither the environment nor human wellness and prohibits uncontrolled dumping of waste. It is a affair of competent governments to publish licenses for waste intervention and supervise the operations.[ 7 ]Harmonizing to the Directive, all Member States must pull up a waste direction program.[ 8 ]
1.1 Waste hierarchy
The guiding policy in the EU waste direction is the so called “ waste hierarchy ” . This is an order of how waste should be treated from the most to the least desirable option: bar, reuse, recycling, other recovery ( such as energy recovery ) and disposal.[ 9 ]The most desirable is of class to accomplish waste bar. Member States should “ take steps to minimise the production of waste peculiarly by advancing clean engineerings and merchandises which can be recycled and re-used ”[ 10 ]. Reducing the sum of waste generated or riddance of risky substances at the production phase contributes to easier disposal and what is more, reuse of stuffs does non lend to farther depletion of natural resources. This first stage is connected to development of higher criterions already at the production degree. Furthermore, educating the populace about inauspicious effects which can originate from disposal of certain stuffs is of import so as to promote the consumers to purchase environmentally friendly merchandises which will accordingly excite manufacturers to conform to consumers ‘ demand. The purpose of the first phase as opposed to all others is to cut down the sum of waste being generated in the first topographic point whereas the other phases foresee steps for the most appropriate handling with waste already generated.
Second and 3rd phase, i.e. recycling and reuse are the most favourable ways of managing waste. The last two stairss are recovery and disposal. Energy recovery can for illustration be achieved by incineration of waste. Waste that can non be reused or recycled is incinerated or deposited into land ( a landfill etc. ) or other lasting storage such as containers. Due to infinite limitations, this paper will merely concentrate on landfills. Harmonizing to this hierarchy, the last two phases are seen as the last resort. They are least desirable because of their possible inauspicious effects on the environment for illustration groundwater, dirt, air and human wellness.
1.2 Execution of EU waste legislative assembly
Harmonizing to the latest study by the European Commission on the execution of the waste statute law, the community Torahs have been “ moderately good transposed into national statute law ” but the “ real-world application remained unsatisfactory in many countries ”[ 11 ]. The difference in advancement is apparent, some states are beef uping attempts to accomplish the aims whereas many are dawdling far behind – these are preponderantly states which joined the EU in 2004. In some of them, 90 % or more municipal waste continues to be landfilled whereas Germany for illustration, the state with the lowest rate landfills merely 1 % .[ 12 ]
Member States of the EU are presumed to hold harmonized their statute law with EU criterions and are expected to follow with their duties. However, transitional periods can be negotiated which allow the states to prorogue the acceptance and execution of Torahs in some countries. Bulgaria for illustration has been granted such a passage period in a figure of countries which allows the state more clip to accomplish full execution of alterations. Bulgarian Waste Management Act was adopted in September 2003 and it transposes the demands of the Directive 75/442/EEC on waste. It is the chief papers modulating intervention of different types of waste and it recognizes the waste hierarchy. Sing waste direction, the plan aiming to accomplish execution of the EU acquis is Operational Programme “ Environment 2007 – 2013 ” ( hereinafter: OP ) . It estimates that around a‚¬1 billion will be required for bettering Bulgaria ‘s waste direction substructure so as to follow with EU statute law.[ 13 ]
The Avis issued by the European Commission in 2004 asserts that in Croatia waste direction is the most debatable field within the range of environmental protection. Harmonizing to the papers, it is non merely necessary to harmonise the legislative model of Croatia with EU Torahs but it has to be made certain that the valid Torahs are implemented expeditiously.[ 14 ]The major job bing in Croatia before 2004 was a deficiency of cardinal strategic paperss for waste direction and accordingly no significant advancement was made. In 2004 Croatia made a measure frontward in harmonising its Torahs with EU legislative assembly by following a National Waste Act[ 15 ]. Full alliance with EU Torahs has non been achieved yet.[ 16 ]Croatia has elaborated a National Waste Strategy[ 17 ]( hereinafter: Scheme ) in 2005 and a corresponding National Waste Management Plan[ 18 ]( hereinafter: Plan ) for the period from 2007 to 2015. It is estimated that a sum of a‚¬3.250 billion will be required to follow with the full waste acquis.[ 19 ]The Strategy acknowledges that the current unsatisfactory status of waste direction can in greater portion be attributed to the deficiency of financess every bit good as unequal execution of ordinances.[ 20 ]
2. Case survey
2.1 First stage – waste bar
By cut downing the sum of waste deposited, the negative impact of waste on the environment and human wellness lessenings. Through steps taking to accomplish that a smaller sum of waste is generated, less harm is done to natural resources, less primary stuffs are consumed and public wellness improves, to advert merely some good factors.
National waste Acts of the Apostless of both states recognize that it is a precedence to cut down both, the sum of waste and the injuriousness of waste.[ 21 ]Bulgaria is nevertheless non yet obliged to permute all its committednesss into pattern since it has been granted a transitional period until 2011.[ 22 ]
The same as Croatian Waste Act, the Strategy recognizes waste bar and decrease of the sum of waste as one of the strategic ends.[ 23 ]It lays down policies for sustainable waste bar for the period until 2025 by promoting cleaner production and usage of nonhazardous stuffs. Bulgarian OP mentions the importance of the decrease of municipal waste but does non stipulate any activities which should be done for waste bar.
Sing the financess for waste direction, Bulgaria has been able to take advantage of different fiscal beginnings. The sum of financess allocated to different facets of waste direction nevertheless is disproportional and compared to blow bar well more financess are intended for the so called “ end-of-pipe ” solutions.[ 24 ]It is recognized that more financess need to be invested in sustainable solutions.[ 25 ]Croatian Strategy suggests that around a‚¬40 million will be needed for waste bar, viz. for cut downing packaging waste, promoting cleaner production, educating plans etc.[ 26 ]As will be seen below, this sum is well lower than the financess Croatia intends for other facets of waste direction.
The chief authorization for waste direction in Bulgaria is Ministry of Environment and Water. Other needed administrative capacities are established nevertheless deficiency of qualified and experient staff poses a major job in reassigning the waste direction policies.[ 27 ]OP recognizes that administrative capacities of regional or local establishments responsible for the enforcement of Torahs need to be farther strengthened. To compare, in Croatia the chief authorization for execution of the activities set out in the Plan is the Ministry for Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction. On the regional degree regional centres for waste direction are foreseen but these are still in the stage of creative activity. Presently, the execution of Torahs is limited by the deficient figure of staff, and furthermore, proper preparation every bit good as proficient equipment are missing.
In waste bar, instruction and consciousness raising play an of import function. The intended populace for such instruction is wide. First, industries or concerns are targeted which should take to bring forth less waste or to utilize substances which do non hold possible inauspicious effects on human wellness or the environment once they are turned into waste. Besides they should take to utilize reclaimable stuffs so as to avoid farther depletion of natural resources. Second, it is of import for the people working in the waste direction sector to be educated decently and in conclusion, consumers ‘ consciousness must be raised so that they are witting of the effects that disposal of specific stuffs can hold. Therefore it is more likely that consumers will pay more attending to what they are purchasing and seek to avoid merchandises which contain toxic or unrecyclable stuffs.
Bulgarian OP recognizes the importance of instruction for waste bar and acknowledges that measures for waste minimisation are deficient and they need to be strengthened.[ 28 ]Croatian Plan besides recognizes the importance of instruction and it foresees amplification and realisation of an educational plan intended for NGOs, industry and broader populace. It states that activities with a position to diminish waste coevals should go on to be carried out, such as sustainable instruction on the horizontal and perpendicular line of the society every bit good as actions for publicity of responsible consumer outlook.[ 29 ]Performing of activities in this field has however been deficient and unsystematic. Croatian Center for Cleaner Production has initiated and is executing educating activities aimed at cleaner production for industry, administrative organic structures, educational establishments and public. Until now, 58 concerns in Croatia have taken portion in its undertaking of “ clean production ” and around 200 experts have been trained. Apart from that, no systematic plans for instruction exist on the national degree.[ 30 ]In Croatia, a job refering the encouragement of cleaner production for industries is the unpreparedness of industries to do large alterations in the manner they are runing. Changes done in order to accomplish cleaner production have largely been such that do non necessitate large fiscal inputs. The least likely steps taken for illustration are the alteration of stuffs, production procedure or engineering.[ 31 ]Croatia established an inducement for concerns to recycle certain stuffs, a system of “ waste exchange ” where concerns exchange different types of waste which can so be used for farther production. However the advantages of this step are non being used efficaciously.
Another manner of actuating citizens to bring forth less waste would be to bear down the waste aggregation based on the sum of waste generated and non based on the surface of the abode. In Croatia, both ways are applied, but this depends on the phase of waste handling.[ 32 ]In Bulgaria, waste direction fees are charged based on the value of the existent estate. Enterprises exist for altering this into a weight based attack, such as it already exists for industrial waste. Such steps encourage the consumers to bring forth less waste. However, these can merely be taken when it can be made certain that people will non seek to avoid paying higher fees by dumping the waste at illegal garbage dumps.
2.2 Second stage – recycling/waste separation
Recycling contributes to more responsible direction of natural resources. The usage of recycled stuffs non merely decreases farther depletion of resources but it besides contributes to the decrease of the sum of waste disposed. Recycling is based on separate aggregation of different types of waste such as paper, glass, plastic, metal etc. Due to infinite limitations, this chapter will merely concentrate on the really first stage: webs for waste separation.
National waste Acts of the Apostless of both states recognize recycling as an of import strategic end of waste direction.[ 33 ]Sing the criterions to be achieved harmonizing to the EU directive on packaging, Bulgaria has been granted a transitional period for recycling of boxing waste until 2011 but each twelvemonth it has to make certain marks.[ 34 ]
As respects the budget intended for recycling steps and set uping of an efficient waste separation system, in Bulgarian instance the OP asserts that the fiscal agencies are non sufficient. The same decision as for waste bar can be drawn – there is a disagreement between the sum of financess intended for these two facets and for the end-of-pipe solutions.[ 35 ]Similarly, Croatian Strategy acknowledges that fiscal agencies for this facet of waste direction do non do. Puting up a web for separate waste aggregation merely for municipal waste requires a‚¬990 million and systems for other types of waste such as for case risky, agricultural or industrial waste require farther a‚¬920 million.[ 36 ]
Croatian Plan foresees that separate waste aggregation for municipal waste should be strengthened. It suggests how this can be achieved, among other possibilities by puting up a web of particular aggregation points with different containers for different waste types or distribution of such containers in colonies. The Plan recognizes the importance of equal location for such aggregation points. They should be easy accessible and in a radius from 2-4 kilometer or less in less populated countries and farther depict how such aggregation points should be organized.[ 37 ]Presently there are 9 such installations in Zagreb and merely six more in other parts of Croatia.[ 38 ]At these points citizens can dispose of waste free of charge nevertheless no industrial waste is accepted. Harmonizing to the informations from 2005, in Croatia around 39.000 containers for disposal of different waste types were distributed.[ 39 ]
In 2008 Bulgaria was still non to the full following with EU Packaging Waste Directive which was apparent from low rate of recycling.[ 40 ]Separate aggregation of packaging waste was initiated in 2003 and last twelvemonth, around 65 out of 264 municipalities were covered by separate aggregation systems.[ 41 ]Along with unsatisfactory separate aggregation of municipal waste, the system for roll uping risky waste is unequal. In 2007 there were 18 landfills for risky waste in Bulgaria, operated by concerns bring forthing waste. None of them met the legal criterions.[ 42 ]A program has been drawn up for set uping a national centre for intervention of risky waste which has yet non been implemented. Similarly in Croatia, a job with disposal of waste pigments and varnishes which fall into the class of risky waste can be exposed. In Zagreb viz. no safe or equal topographic point exists where they can be deposited.[ 43 ]Collection points do non desire to accept this type of waste so citizens are left with nil else but to dispose of it together with other waste or at an illegal garbage dump.
In Croatia, public consciousness for recycling is non high plenty. Public sentiment about waste direction is preponderantly negative and this consequences in the attitude towards puting up of new aggregation sites or recycling installations. Likewise, Bulgarian NGOs define the low consciousness among citizens and the deficiency of motive for separate aggregation of waste as a lending factor to unsatisfactory conditions.[ 44 ]
In Croatia a positive illustration can be exposed. Croatian Packaging and Packaging Waste Ordinance has proven to be really successful as it has stimulated the aggregation of 95 % of all registered produced fictile imbibing bottles, which makes it one of the most effectual European Torahs.[ 45 ]Still, it is of import to observe that this Ordinance merely includes a portion of plastic packaging – it does non include a system of aggregation of other plastic.
2.3 Third stage – waste disposal in landfills
Final disposal of waste is the least desirable option for intervention of waste. The EU recognizes this method as the last resort and it should be used merely if waste can non be treated in old stages. In instances when waste does stop up in landfills, it has to be made certain that these are organized decently so that waste is deposited without possible inauspicious effects on the environment, for illustration groundwater, dirt, air and human wellness.
With respect to accomplishing EU criterions for landfills, Bulgaria has been granted a passage period for landfill of certain liquid wastes until 2014.[ 46 ]However, by the clip of accession to the EU in 2007 it should already hold established an equal web of disposal installations for other types of waste. As will be seen below, such a web is still non in topographic point. As a consequence for neglecting to present a system of disposal installations which Member States must guarantee, the European Commission is presently taking Bulgaria to the European Court of Justice.[ 47 ]
The OP recognizes that Bulgaria still needs to put a batch to implement policies on landfill of waste. It viz. foresees that farther a‚¬737 million are required.[ 48 ]Similarly, in Croatia the betterment and shuting down of bing disposal installations are foreseen. Merely for municipal waste landfills a‚¬395 million are needed.[ 49 ]
In Bulgaria, landfills are the chief method for waste disposal for all types of waste. The per centum of municipal waste landfilled in Bulgaria in 2007 was around 80 % .[ 50 ]There seems to be an overburdening of a little sum of landfills, in 2004 for illustration 663 landfills existed in Bulgaria but in 59 of them 70 % of the full waste was deposited. What is more, 110 landfills did non command the waste that enters the installation.[ 51 ]Two old ages ago, a large sum of bing landfills for municipal waste did non run into the EU criterions. Large figure of them is illegal and even the 1s which are registered non ever follow with EU environmental criterions.[ 52 ]Bulgaria aimed to set up a system of 54 regional landfills by July 2009 and to shut down those which are unequal. A month before the deadline, 27 were being built. Lack of financess can be recognized as the chief job but an of import factor is besides the negative attitude of citizens who oppose the creative activity of such landfills near to their places.
Sing the landfilling installations in Croatia, the state of affairs is really similar. The bing substructure for waste managing continues to be inefficient and one of the chief grounds is non-compliance with Torahs. With respect to blow disposal this consequences in excessively many unequal landfills, non all of which are adequately regulated or have required licenses for operation.[ 53 ]In 2007 the Croatian Environmental Agency registered 283 disposal sites, 187 of which possess licenses.
Unsystematic attack to municipal waste direction in Croatia is a large job since a large sum of generated waste ends up in unregulated disposal sites. The war in the 90ies merely contributed to this factor. In 2000 for case from 1 172 534 tones of municipal waste 928 438 tones were disposed of in landfills and the remainder was non included in the organized waste aggregation.[ 54 ]Even today, the biggest sum of waste in Croatia still ends up in landfills. In 2007 for illustration, 85 % of all municipal waste was disposed of in landfills.[ 55 ]Croatia has started bettering the conditions of landfills in 2004. Until 2005, 28 municipal waste dumping installations were improved. Monitoring of disposal sites is unequal, in 2007 for illustration merely 41 were monitored.[ 56 ]
In both states there is a high figure of illegal garbage dumps. Bulgaria has made a important advancement in this field – of 5135 sites which were bing in 2002, 3554 were closed by the terminal of 2004.[ 57 ]Harmonizing to the Croatian Strategy, there were more than 3000 illegal dumping sites in Croatia in 2005. The figure is invariably altering since some are being closed but at the same clip, waste is disposed of in new countries. Monitoring is non sufficient nor the penalties appropriate. The sum of illegal disposal sites shows two things: foremost, the instruction of the populace is non appropriate. Peoples do non look to be cognizant that waste discarded in unsupervised topographic points can hold inauspicious effects on groundwater, dirt or biodiversity. What is more, if the province does non supply equal garbage dumps, waste that can non be disposed of in other topographic points will finally stop up in illegal garbage dumps.
In Croatia, a farther job refering the disposal sites are conflicting involvements of different groups such as province organic structures, concerns, experts or broader public and this particularly shows in dialogues for new locations of disposal sites or even when the current inadequate disposal sites should be improved. The grounds for this can be found in inappropriate instruction, deficient transparence or public engagement in determinations refering waste direction.
From the findings of this paper the undermentioned can be concluded: national waste direction Acts of the Apostless of both Croatia and Bulgaria include ordinances for the three countries presented in the paper: waste bar, recycling and waste disposal. Croatia as a campaigner state has non yet to the full aligned its Torahs with the EU waste legislative assembly whereas Bulgaria as a Member State should already follow with EU demands. Bulgaria has been granted certain transitional periods in all three facets discussed. As it was acknowledged in the chief statement, the chief troubles are non connected to acceptance of Torahs but they arise with respect to existent execution. Taking into consideration the sum of money both states expect they will hold to put in the waste direction sector – Croatia a‚¬3.250 billion and Bulgaria a‚¬1billion it can be concluded that fundss are the chief ground for deficient execution of Torahs. This fact is besides confirmed in strategic paperss of both states. The paper moreover revealed that both states intend to denominate a significantly lower sum of financess for waste bar compared to other sectors.
Required administrative constructions in Bulgaria have already been founded. As a comparing, in Croatia regional waste direction centres are still in the procedure of being established. In both states the establishments are non strengthened plenty, there is a deficiency of staff, proper preparation or proficient equipment. All this contributes to insufficient execution of ordinances. For case this is seeable in low monitoring of landfills which can therefore run without required licenses.
Equally far as instruction is concerned, in neither of the states sufficient activities are organized. This is apparent from negative public attitude towards waste direction or towards puting up new disposal sites, deficiency of motive for separate waste aggregation and for case in the instance of Croatia, in unpreparedness of industries to alter their policies. Low public consciousness is moreover shown in the large sum of illegal garbage dumps in both states since people do non look to be cognizant of the negative impacts uncontrolled disposal of waste can hold.
The paper confirmed besides that webs for separate waste disposal are unequal. Last twelvemonth merely around 25 % of Bulgarian municipalities had separate aggregation systems installed and what is more, the system for roll uping risky waste in the state is unequal. The state of affairs is really similar in Croatia, where non adequate containers for disposal of different waste types are distributed throughout the state and merely a little figure of roll uping points is runing. Some waste can non be disposed of in these installations – risky waste such as pigments and varnishes for illustration. These most likely end up in landfills together with other types of waste or at illegal garbage dumps. In Croatia, a positive illustration can be exposed – a really successful regulation based on which about 95 % of plastic imbibing bottles is collected.
As it was stated in the chief statement, landfills are non adequately regulated. Analogues can be drawn between both states in the fact that landfills largely do non run into EU criterions. In Bulgaria, a big figure still remains illegal and even the 1s that have licenses non ever follow with the EU norms. Some of them for illustration do non even command the waste that enters the landfills. Due to the fact that the province has failed to supply equal disposal installations a case launched by the European Commission is presently afoot against Bulgaria. When it comes to ordinance of landfills in Croatia, the state of affairs is unsatisfactory excessively. Three old ages ago, merely approximately 66 % of landfills possessed licenses and what is more, merely 41 were monitored. It has to be acknowledged that both, Croatia and Bulgaria have already started taking steps for betterment of landfills but a batch of attempts are still needed.
The last facet mentioned in the chief claim are illegal garbage dumps. In Bulgaria every bit good as in Croatia a large sum of those exist, nevertheless both states have already started uncluttering them up. Illegal dumpsites on one manus indicate inappropriate waste disposal direction since waste that can non be disposed of in provided installations will be left in uncontrolled countries. The same will likely go on if the disposal installations are non easy accessible. On the other manus, illegal garbage dumps are an index for deficient public consciousness and hence non merely decrease of the sum of illegal garbage dumps is of import but bigger accent demands to be given on educating activities.