 Dobre jutro svim učesnicima, nadam se da se čujemo i da je sve u redu, pošta i 9 cati ne bi dužili, ne bi dalje čekali, već imamo 70 učesnika kojoj verovatno će i određeni brev učesnika da nam se pridruži u nastavku. Belkom je zadovojsvo da otvorim drugi od ukupno 7 webinara koji se u sklopu projekta izred dej strategije okoliša, odnosno životne sredine za Bosno i Herzegovnu, skraćena nazvanim SF22030+. I organizovanog od strane i štokontkog instituta za okoliš i lokalnog partnera Enova i Cener tvoj avaciji T1, a pod pokrovetelstvom Švecki ambasadiju. Kako vam je poznato, u to koje proces izred dej strategije zašte okoliša, koji treknutno obrađuje 7 tematskih oblast, od kojih je jedna odpad. Za nas je to vrlo izazovan proces i za sve učisniki koji su učistuju u izradi. Znate da imamo i 7 radni grupa koje je veliki broj učisnika koji kroz jedan noviji dosada način strategijeszkog planiranja partic patotnim pristupom, učešćem veliko broj interesnih strana presta da je odreženi iskorak kada je u pitanju strategijško planiranje u Bosni i Hercegodni. Izazov je već tim veći jer po prvi put Bosni i Hercegodni će dobiti strategiju koja treba da nas približi Evropskom putu kada je u pitanju zašta okoliša. U tom svijetu organizovali smo je ovaj danošnji webinar koji ima za cilj da predstavi iskustva, estonije u procesima usklađivanja i provedbe zakonodavstva Evropske unije o odpadu i izradi odgovarići strategija koje su bili vezane za taj put. Moderatori danošnjih skupa ćemo biti kolega dražniku Bilića, moj ime Irem Silajđić i nas dvoje smo, zapravo, vodeći stručnjaci koji vode proces izradi strategije za oblast upravljanja odpadom. Na danošnje webinaru časme u gostiti naše izlagacije i zestonije, gospodina Hari Muru i Peter Eka koji će biti danošnjih predvače na seminaru. Prije nego što ih predstavim i dam im rječ zamoliću kolegu draženka da vrlo kratko da pregled trenutnog stanja u oblasti odpada i s njim povezanih izlazova u Bosni i Hercegovini koji su rezultat rada radne grupe za upravljanje odpadom u sklopu izradi ove strategije do koji smo došli velkros zajedničku diskusju u dvije radne grupe koji smo dosada organizovali u sklopu izradi strategije. Dražen koji zvoli? Hvala ire. Na početku ja bih dopozdravim pri svega naše predvače kao i ostale i učesnike u danesljom webinaru. Kao što vidim, porep članova radni grupa ima i dosta participanata koji nisu članovevi radni grupa. Na početku prije predavanje naši predvača, na pomenću da je radna grupa za odpad, podržala dva dvije radionice i ja ću ukratko za naše predvače i za ostale učesnike kratko prezentva trenutnu situaciju što se tiče upravljanje odpadom u Bosni i Hercegovini. Znači u 2019. godini, na osnovu istatijskih podataka, u Bosni i Hercegovini je generisano oko jedan zariz dva miliona tona odpada. Od toga se je zakupljeno oko 77 posto, a najveći predsnet ov sakupnog komunalna odpada potiče iz domačinstava. Zatim oko 18 posto je iz proizbodnih delatnosti i 4 posto je iz jaunih službi. Što se tiče sastava u sakupnog odpada, organiska fracija je predražno-dominantna i ona je i do 50 posto o zavisnosti od obština do obština, odnosno gradova, a ambalažnoj odpad je negdje do 40 posto. Oko 77 posto je stanovništo guhodženo usluhom prikupljenje odpada, a što se tiče preradi odpada, dominantni i tretmani odpada u Bosni i Hercegovini je i dalje deponovanje, postoji 7 regionalnih sanitarnih depunja koji se izgrađane kroz projekta svijedskih banku i uprenenju čustim odpada u Bosni i Hercegovini i postoje još četri međuopštinski ali koji nizadavljavi sveveve kriterijome da bude sanitarne, ono je sjedno i neke prelazne dozgole za rad, plan prelogeđavanja da bi postali sanitami, a i oko 76 neuridženih obštinskih depunja. Od toga je oko 36 republice sutkoj 39 u federaciji Bosni i Hercegovini i jedna je u Brčko districtu. Takođe veliki je broj i ilegalnih depunja. Znači, podaci iz 2018 godine bovre da je oko, da se u BH nalazi oko 2270 lokacija ilegalnih depunja, od čega je u republice sutkoj oko 270. U BH je instalirano oko 5 linija za sortiranje odpada, od čega linja u dobojoj ne radi i tu se vrši, znači, sortiranje, glavno, ambalažno odpada. Ne dostaju nam ostrojenja za obrad izbrinjanje poslini kategorie odpada, poslino, mislim, o odpadni mulj medicijski odpad, opasni odpad. U Bosni i Hercegovini posti i operateri, u federaciji Bosni i Hercegovini operateri za ambalažni i elektronski odpad, a u republice sutkoj je jedan operater za ambalažni odpad. Što se tiče finansiranja usluga, znači, u glavnom se komunalna ova preduzeća svoje usluge naplaćuju sa kupljenju od nakada od domačinstava i jednim gjelom iz lokalnih samouprava i cijena je u glavnom još na kvadratnom metru stambenej površini i kreće se negdje 10 feniga po kvadratnom metru, a godišnja negdje ponerisana cijena je u federaciji oko 88 maraka po toni ili 79 maraka po domačinstvu, u republice srpskoj 113 maraka. Izmijam se, u Brčkom je oko 80 maraka, a u federaciji Bosnjih Hercjom je oko 102 maraka. Također što se tiče, ali, strateški dokumentata u republice sutkoj postoji usvojena strategija upravljanja odpadom do 2026 godine i na osnovu te strategije je urađeni plan pravljanja odpadom do 2029 godine u Brčko Distriptu također postoji strategija upravljanja odpadom u okviru strategije zašte životne stredine i važi do 2026 godine, a strategije za upravljanja odpadom u federacije istekla. Već, irema vas upoznala koliko na kompensipu teče izrada u GESAPa i mi smo druga grupa, radna grupa za odpad i postoji radne grupe za četri nevoja vlazna. Zna nevoju Bosnjih Hercjom nej da psim grupa na nevoju federacije i ne grupe na nevoju Republice Srpske i Brčko Distriptu. Da sad održana dva sanstanka ovih radnih grupa i radne grupe su definisale ključne izazove za svaki nevoj vlasti i sada kratko sam provoči kroz ovih ključne izazove. Zna radna grupa za nevoju Bosnjih Hercjom nej da ne postajne efikasnog izazovisu i ne postajne efikasnoj mehanizma, planiranja, koordinacije, monitoriga aktivnosti u sektoru upravljanja odpadom i druga i izazove je nedoljno efika sa sistem implementacije međenaradnih objevia u oblasti upravljanja odpadom. Uklječi tu na Pazelskog konvenciju odilom. Što stice radnih grupa za Republice Srpske federacije one su dosta slične, pa je ovode su neki 11 definisano tih na nivou federacije Bosnjih Hercjom. Odpočuje od nedoljno razvina u zakonoskog okvira nedostatak politika koja je podržavili pravjenicu odpada njegovu ponovnu upodrgu i politike ka cirkularna ekonomi u upravljanju odpadom. Zatim nedoljno efika sa rada institucija u sektoru sistem generisanja, načinja, izveštavanja. Zatim nedostatak financijski instrumentata za dekvatno upravljanje. Nedoljno infrastruktura za prikupljanje i odlaganje odpada. Zatim takođe infrastruktura za njegovu tretman. Nedoljno razvina svijest jaunosti u pravilnom upravljanju prikupljanju i odlaganje odpada. Nedoljno razvina sistem produženog dovoljnosti za posebne kategorie odpada. Već sam zpomenil, način, da u federaciji samo posebne za dvije kategorie. Ne riješenje pitanje posebnih kategorie odpadna a odpadna ulja akulateri baterije i ne riješenje pitanje konteniminarih lokaliteta. Što se tiče Republike Srpskej, ove izvizivaju dosta toga sličića. Međutem je ovdje samanuprenja razlika neprovođine mjera za prevenciju odpada. Ja bi to istak ovdje planom su da finisa ne mjere, međutim te se mjere ne provode, zatim nedoljno razvijen sistem upeljena industrijskim i opasnim odpadom i ne riješenje pitanje lokaliteta većeg zagađenja životnog strene tzv. crne tačke. Brčko district isto radna grupa je definisela 7 kljušnih izazova i ovdje možda bi samo izvojio za Brčkoje nepostvenje, sistema izvaz, nepostvenje, sistema prodrženje zgodnosti i prezvađađa i neuređena lokalna deponija komunalno odpada koja prestavlja stvarno veliki program za Brčko, ali tu smo se upoznali sa nekim pomacima i uskoru bi komunalno prezeće Zbrčko trebalo da svoj odpad vozi u zvornih, tako da će uva deponija u to koju proces izlad je projekta sanacije i trebalo bi dođi da njehem zatvara. Javi za toliko, samo i znaželijem na sva ubena vlad i pozivam ovje sve učesnike, današnjek webinara koji nisu u članovi radni grupa da se sloveno prijavi bilo koju grupu. Znači možete u sve četri, možete neku koja vas interesuje. Znači prijavice, sva pačka va, ili slanja mela irem ili meni na ove navedene adrese. Toliko. Hvala draženko i hvala što si manje više bio za danom vremenu, potrud ćemo se da spratimo dnevni red i da ne iskačemo iz okvira. Sada bih pozvala gospodina Harija Muru da se svojom prvom prezentacijom nas pozna o izazovima i potrebama za razovjem u svijetlu okvira Evropske unije oblasti upravanja odpadom na primjeru Estonje. Možda bih samo kratko da prestajim gospodina Harija. On je direktor za program Štokomskog instituta za okoliš u Tallinu. Inače je doktor nauka iz oblasti okolišne tehnologije, koji je ste kao na Tehnološko Universitetu u Tallinu, a zvanje magistra nauka u upravljanja okoliša i okoliša i politika na Universitetu u Lundu. Gospodin Hari u njegovog polje interesovanja je u glavnom cirkularna ekonomija i zaštita okoliša u svijetlu EU politika i ima više od 20 godina iskustva u koordinaciji domačih i međunani prekata o državom upravljanju odpadom i o državom potrošnji proizvojni. Gospodin Hari, zajedno sa gospodinom Peterom, učesto u celom procesu aproximacije Estonije politikama Evropskie Unije u trenutku i Alkada Estonija pristupala Evropskoj Uniji i u tom smislu njegovog iskustva i znanja koji će nam trenjeti kroz današnje prezentacije su nam vrlo bitne u smislu otvaranja nekih novih pogleda i mogućnosti za Bosnju i Hercegovinu kada je u pitanju i u uvode sam rekla za nas je proces vrlo bitno ovom trenutku kada i Evropska Unija ima posebne zahtjeve za Bosnju i Hercegovinu i u tom smislu se radujemo da čujemo današnje prezentacije. Gospodin Hari, izvolte. Dajem, Irem i dobro od moja sada. To je vrlo plesio da se otvaraju svoje uvode. Ovo je uvode sada, da se otvaraju u uvode sam rekla uvašnje prezentacije u Evropska Unija kako i Bosnju i Hercegovinu uvode sam rekla. Kako se otvaraju uvašnje prezentacije i u vrlo bitno uvode sam rekla. Kakoce se otvaraju uvode sam rekla uvode sam rekla timин. I um Electricians kako se otvaraju u vrlo bitno u vrlo bitno. They tist, kao da imi ut Circle i i kao da te principal i još pristak, da se srećemo. A tako, da bih srećemo izgleda na izog, da nije skupno se očiniti. Kada se Stonija učinila, da se učinila da je svakortnog simularića. Stonija je definitivno jedna učinima očinima mažije i nisi u Unijskih veći. Vjeljima da se učinila do populacija. Da sam učinila, da se učinila da je svakortnog simularića, Especially earlier times, although being a small country, we used to have many municipalities. So the country was split into small municipalities and this is definitely an issue which I would say also could cause certain, let's say, challenges or even problems when it comes to the development of waste management system. u ovom svom kraju je da se nekošta 200 mašnje povrče. Uvrčo smo je spetit u kao hrvosti, ali, da se nekošta, 80 mašnje povrče, jer samo se izgleda kod koja se opreziraju. A to je jedna sve svakrjena. Ima smo prišli sve na učin i Petro i Petro se ima dobro petro za adnjeza. Kada se svega ekonomijska struka, Estonija stavljala od nekoj industrijne aktiviti. Kada se svega ekonomijska struka i Estonija stavljala od nekoj struka i svega struka i svega struka. M�同ie Curiosity comes to industry then we have a spesific industry we have this industry is mainly related to large scale resource utilization. And this is also a specific problem, which has caused many, many challenges, especially when it comes to the waste management. Estonija joined to European Union 2004 and we are today also part of the euro so. So next please. Maybe just few facts about the waste generation and waste management. And if you look on those figures you might think that Tastonija is really a giant of waste. Basically generating more than 20 million tonnes of waste, which is basically 17 tonnes per person It sounds really crazy. So I think the European average is something like 3 tonnes of waste per person. And here I'm not talking about municipal waste, but total waste generation. So Estonia exceeds this figure many, many times. And you might think that something is wrong with this country. But this is mainly because of our specific industry, which is related to oil-sale and oil-sale processing. And Petr will a little bit give you an overview of the challenge related to this type of huge amounts of mineral waste, which is generated in this industry sector. And this is maybe also something which is good to know for you, because when you do the accession process there's always an issue related to all waste, not only municipal waste. And then in Estonia the municipal waste share is only below, it's approximately 3% of total waste generation. You might think, you know, why we have to talk about municipal waste if there's so many other waste streams which have to be taken care. But when it comes to European Union waste policy and targets, then this is mainly based on municipal waste. So the municipal waste is definitely an issue where there is also need to focus more. And here we also can share some of the experiences because as you see, officially the recycling rate of municipal waste is only something close to 30%. And you, some of you maybe you know that European Union member states, they had to achieve 50% of recycling of municipal waste by 2020. And here you can see Estonia is definitely below of that. And maybe some of you also know that at the moment there are four official ways to calculate the share of waste recycling. This is still valid until 2025 and Estonia we utilize the possibility to change the calculation method. And official figures are now below 50, but this is just a temporary game with figures. So this will be over by 2025. But yeah, the real recycling rate is somewhere around 30%. At the same time, landfilling, I would say this is one of the success cases. And this is definitely an issue which we would like to share with you. You know, how to really move away from landfilling society to more recycling society or waste management system. And the issue here is incineration. So thanks to the incineration we very quickly approximately 10 years ago cut down our municipal waste landfilling rate. Ok, maybe this is enough about the background of Estonia because we will come to that anyway in next presentations. But maybe it's also worth to look into the recent developments on European Union level because this is something which will definitely will be something which will influence both Estonian developments concerning waste management. But this is also something you also maybe have to take into account because this train is going very fast and in a way nowadays or today European waste belly policy is basically integrated into the much wider scope of circular economy. And if you take the next slide then as you might know approximately one year ago European Commission adopted the new circular economy action plan which now as I already said will have much wider focus. It's not any more traditional waste management alone but it is much more now about the design of products. Also really bringing in and trying to change our consumption habits. It is also about focus on specific areas and maybe it's worth to mention those areas also because these are the priority areas where there will be specific strategies and actions developed just to name them first of all of course plastic. This is one of the most I would say challenging areas. I will come back to that also soon but also electronics and ICT batteries and vehicles. This is because of the very fast development in the mobility sector because there will be lots of new batteries available because of the electricity based mobility system development. Then specific areas related to again our consumption habits such as textiles, food and then of course construction and building materials and this sector in itself because 50% of the resources that we consume every day they are related mainly on buildings and construction activities. So these are the specific priority areas where there will be specific strategies and actions developed in coming years and there will be lots of new requirements and also targets related to those specific areas. Can you jump into the next slide please? This is just to illustrate that the overall view in this circular economy new approach is not only end of life basically waste management. As you can see the whole lifecycle of products will be covered and there are many other kind of regulations or areas of regulations which also now will be integrated under the circular economy and maybe it's worth to mention use of materials and then of course the reach or let's say European Union chemical policies one of those driving legal areas where there is lots of new developments going on of course design and production this is first of all related to specific requirements on specific products at the moment the main focus has been on products which consume electricity or energy but in the future there will be also very specific requirements concerning the material use and the circularity and what is a specific focus area with where there is definitely less attention put earlier this is related to consumption and use there will be most probably also several new pieces of legislation but also such issues like eco labels public green procurement and these are the areas which should also contribute into the prevention of waste generation. So as you can see tomorrow's waste related or let's say resource use and waste related European Union regulatory framework will be much wider than today's waste management related directives and regulations so from that point of view you can see that this is not only a task for let's say environmental related authorities but it should be much much much wider. Okay let's jump to the next slide and very briefly you know most of you already know that still although the focus will be wider under the circular economy framework we still see that most of the targets established by different European Union waste related directives are still related to recycling so this heavy let's say significant increase of recycling which is required and just to name some of them there is this gradual progress to 65% recycling when it comes to municipal waste by 2035 this is I would say one of the biggest challenges for some of the member states and I would say also for Bosnia and Herzogubina I think this recycling related how to improve the recycling of municipal waste this is definitely one of the challenges and then the other issue which is related to less landfilling so cutting down the landfilling and by 2035 the landfilling should be below 10% in each member state and I would say this is also from the Bosnian Herzogubina point of view one of the most urgent or most like a kind of priority area where there is a need to put more attention and of course in parallel with packaging recycling increasing targets for recycling of packaging also challenging especially when it comes to the plastic as a material as you see the biggest jump in concerning the recycling requirements or targets is related to plastic packaging this is a big challenge really a challenge also here in Estonia really how to ensure higher or let's say more recycling when it comes to this very difficult material waste stream which is the plastics also some other areas or let's say packaging materials I would like to mention maybe class as such in Estonia this is definitely a challenge because it's mainly related to consumption in households and more in general sales packaging it's very difficult to collect class in a way in bulk and also it's quite costly to collect it and there will be also new developments when it comes to the calculation how to calculate and really report to the European Commission when it comes to recycling targets this is something where there is a real mess at the moment in the European Union and other countries have their own kind of calculation reporting systems and we see very big differences among those EU member states and this is definitely an issue how really to ensure that all member states follow the same rules and the figures which are reported by the member states they should be comparable and really should be transparent and this is something which is one of the challenges and definitely a challenge for Poland and Herzegovina because it's already now important to develop a really smart system to collect this information and also to monitor this system so I would say one of the challenges for your country also let's jump to the next slide I would like to mention that we are out of time so please try to wrap up here briefly just to indicate some of the issues which are very important and one of those as I said it's related to the plastics a specific plastic strategy under the circular economy action plan you can see there's lots of challenging requirements especially when it comes to single use plastic there's many types of plastic related products which will be banned and when it comes to plastic bottles you see the specific targets which have to be achieved by the end of this decade we can see that this high level of recycling of plastic bottles can be achieved via only I would say the deposit system which we also would like to a little bit discuss with you and show you the examples of Estonia I would say one of the biggest success cases the deposit system for beverage packaging and if we quickly jump on then I'm not going to go in details when it comes to new next targets and issues which are on the table but just to mention some of them bio waste collection which will be mandatory by 2023 it's important because if you would like to achieve the recycling target of the municipal waste then it's not enough to collect packaging waste packaging waste is only one third of the municipal waste stream the other one third is formed by the bio waste so really you should already start to think how to collect the bio waste full waste how to ensure the recycling of this waste stream and then of course to indicate the textile waste which is also not so big stream in the municipal waste I would say it is somewhere around 5% but still you can see that there will be requirements to organize a separate collection of this type of waste streams also and now when we jump on this is just to indicate the current situation but I think you can later on also yourself see what is the situation and where Bosnia and Herzogovina would fit in this figure but as you can see and then if you take another slide you can see that the main aim is to increase recycling and then at the same time of course prevention of waste generation the prevention of waste generation is one of the biggest challenges because if you are in the curve of consuming more and hopefully also both Estonia and Bosnia and Herzogovina will enjoy the economic growth and it is very very difficult to cut down the amounts of waste and if you jump another slide just to show you again the picture here and as you can see it is the big variety when it comes to different member states concerning the recycling, land filling so it is really big difference here and that is why this also illustrates the different approaches and strategies on how these different countries have tried to solve or reach the EU waste policy targets and maybe another and which is I hope the final slide again here I'm not going to spend too much time I will leave the flow for better to cover some of those issues but just to indicate the very important first step which I think Estonia did correctly this is the relatively high land fill tax which really allowed us to leave the land filling as such and really to go forward to more recovery and recycling and the key I would say measure here is land fill tax and it is a crucial issue to discuss also in Bosnia Herzegovina as you also heard earlier very challenging recycling targets for especially plastic and plastic bottles you can't do it without the deposit system it's more or less clear so you should really think on how to introduce the deposit system for beverage packaging for municipalities, private sector and so on in Estonia we have failed in a way we have not really involved municipalities they are not very strong and motivated to be part of the municipal waste management system and as we can see almost 10 years there is no real success when it comes to recycling so these type of lessons I think we would like to share with you we will consume more time I know that Peter will do the same I am pretty sure so Irem, hopefully you will you will somehow solve the problem but I will stop here my presentation and give a flow to Peter Thank you very much we will try to fit in it's really interesting and I hope that our attendees are enjoying and getting a lot of useful information especially on the aspect of our future environmental planning I would like to remind you that in the end we have a panel discussion with questions and answers with regard to the type of waste management that supports the webinar variant questions you can put in the Q&A or in the chat box that is in the bottom menu you can start to ask questions and then at the end we will calm down and give answers Now I would like to ask Mr. Peter to present the experience of waste management in the context of waste management where we will briefly explain how this process has developed and briefly present the main challenges that the waste management has faced in this process Peter radi u oblasti uprojanja odpadom više od 30 godina i to u javnom sektoru i učestovo je prakčno u kompletnom procesu prilegođavanja estonije evropskim tokovima danas radi kao konsultant u privatnoj, konsultanskoj firmi EarthCare tako da njegovu iskustvo kao generalnom direktora oddijela za odpad prime ministercu okoli 6 estonije će sigurno biti od veliko ginteresa za naše administrativno osoble i ministarstva da čujemo posebno ova nalena prezentacija Peter, izvolte Dobre jutro, od moj sajdu i možete sviće do slijede ovo ćeš otvarati ovaj da, dobra da, izgledajte otvaram se da otvarajte procesu kako estonije otvara ovo preparatora i dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro dobro Ono je povijednije, da već svojoj krajstvom, tjavljenjom krajstvom je nekaj kontrol, i ovdje, da je nekaj kontrol, to je uvijednije. I to je uvijednije uvijednije uvijednije uvijednije uvijednije uvijednije. I tako da, na 97 negustacije stavljali i 2001. I ovdje, nekaj nekaj nekaj nekaj negustacije stavljali. Da je dobtila, da je ovo Landfried Direktiv 99 i Estonija opravljali to Landfried Direktiv 2001, nekaj nekaj nekaj nekaj nekaj nekaj negustacije stavljali. Furnibnja, heykaj, nekaj nekajトф Wayne applauds what really yeah učinaj da se dobu vrlo 2001 na kada ovo je našao učina u Estoniju, učino od učina, u kako je zapravo u kako je učinila učina u učiniju kao spravo sve njoj sami oročne međe i pričo učinima, u času učinima u času kako je učinila, učinima učinima učinima učinima, učinima učinima učinima, učinima učinima učinima učinima učinima učinima u činima u činima učinima, have to instal the fence around, and should quarantine the working hours controlled, that means that somebody worker there controlling that is paused and so on. And the regulation didn't say anything particular when this or this landfills should be closed, but just giving the option that whether you will make those investments owners of the landfills or it should be closed. Principali se da se očinili dobro 2001 očinu očinu, svoj ljube galje ljube u svog ljube, je u njihodu, da imamo još vrlo, da imamo ljube u svog ljube, da imamo ljube na ovom ljube ništvo. Zato je to, da se to da, dobroko šta je. Nih je završen, da se njihova nije neka vrlo. Na drugom slideu. Ominu, i na 1991 što je o tom da to pakuče se odstavila, je to učinila učinila na 94, da je svoj ještje, povešla o topim, učinila učinila učinila. Čutak, učinila učinila, je to, co je nemačno je bitičnog, načinila, da je išljala, da je bilo pročinila prijavnog svoja učinila i tako da. baviti nam sada na 1996 i naštru skupnik, kako se dolačea, da je prepovrducno i prepovrducno. Koje njih ne li smo to zbizili, našli dolače tekst. Svoj ideji bolje u mnodne mladne určiti, zaradi na svoj nesog ili malo nečis možemo odrasto od uroda i dopromitne, Now, let's say, on the level of the single companies or whether it goes through the, and most it goes through the packaging organizations, there are then summarized targets. And if the targets are fulfilled, then there is no tax. But if there is under achievement of the targets, then the gap between the target and the sheet level will be taxed. And the tax is, in this case, let's say, much higher. u njegu, što je prijateljno 4 razlika, dano je prijateljno prijateljno za svojoj vasemanjemnog sektoru da opravljajte tragetu. I ovdje je bilo definitivno vrlo uvijedno ekonomično da možete otvoriti pakacijne koleksije i rezačnje. Kada se uvijedno. Svijedno, uvijedno, uvijedno, uvijedno, uvijedno. Sve na 1990-ci mogu neka šta je ještje malo ovalima... …neko šta hoće marišnije u vrste možete da je neko je... …to se možete radiširati da se se skupnili u vrstONi... …lij 수도 ovalima ještje možete da se povedi u vrstONi... …ko to se zadevaš umonic《Affin milestones 2017》... …savno, za 20 ročeski. Da je ono ertirano, zna. Ono koji je veći nisam, tvoj su način, da se gledali prilj. Privoljnih je nekosti osobitnih. Zbana je želite u odmizi su za učiniti malo. Pešte se zemljali. Da su se pravi, nekto da su učiniti malo. Vsve osrednih učiniti prilj. Učiniti i učiniti pričati. To je, možда, peći da se nešto spića. li biti za nekaj bilo, kao i koleksijan sektor, malo na odvrdu 2000-cu se lovalo po učinku i na prije 10. A ljetno, spetšelima, koja se stavila u učinku vrštvenim učinku, je dan se zvonila da se pradije učinke politije na većnog moraću. Zato da brći prvi finansije nekaj bilo nema oce, da se što opatio u učinku na prije kompanije, u vlastnih kompani. I tako, najbolj što se bomo uvijeli u uvijeli ljubovog očnog sektora, je to da je u vlastnih kompani. I ovdje, uvijeli ljubovog sektora u vlastnih kompani. i koji je prišljeno u našem udom vashtoč inefficienta. Prije stranje, kao? Here is just our, nothing, but the development of the waste stack that was done in 1992 was very simple and very short in today's comparison, then we had intermediate law for the transposition period kako je što se uživite sve više na dno sada u uštrije. Za 2004-a sada se je vrlo u samih dnoj koje je sve nasljetima. Zdaj skupo moram u naštrije, u sviju dobroga, u sviju dobroga, u pračne, u principale. Što se uživite sve nekada sada u sviju dobroga, Radom se izgleda, tkta u sve % 2002 elektronika, elektronica i mojlačima. F Olympics prada je su uamo se prijedniti u početima na učinima sejno je posnil. Čistim što se ješta kako progratili da se semo se sad uvijete na svoje svoje negosatične i predpusti. To je definitivno svijetne svoje svoje nijegu kraju, o koji je svoje negosatične svoje svoje njiži kraju. Žele, sve žele to je od svojh ditačnih hrmbog. da je to obzirno. Učeštno, to je, da je bilo 20 ljubi sada, da je to već neko je učinno, da našto se učinno nekaj direktiv u učinku se učinno izgleda i na koji je to dobro učinno. A paketa je veliko veliko izgleda. To je začinno. Pa, prinsipul našto se učinno neko je izgleda. Tegel, da se je učinno izgleda u kaći direktiv. To bete stavljačnog njih, da njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih njih, da je ospustito u plaku legislativog, a da je to to do biljne opljivacije. Upljivacije je, da brat i dvije dve vrste je te institucije. na kako se nemači, da je uvijek izvizula, začinujemo počinu, da je uvijek izvizula srećenom, kako je uvijek izvizula srećenom. Sve nemači je da je dobro investiment, načinu da je dobro investiment, na njih njega kraju, u Estoniju i Bosniju, i u Ercegovina, da je vrlo veliko investiracima. I način je to nemožno, da ima to investiracima u već basicne ideje, koji je u vrlo, koji je producija, koji je začin. U začin, producija, koji je začin da ima začin. I način, da je to nemožno, koji je začin. I učin, da je to nemožno, for Bosnija i Ercegovina, ...that e-u phones will be made available and that will help a lot of us... ...but regardless of that there should be always local financial instruments which will support it definitely. Pogleda na njih. Oga, a to je... ...naživati... ...naživati i implementacijne periode. U naših ocenu na 1990-u, se je neko zvonima srbitno i investijnoj srbitnih. da se skandinavice nječe je večo izgleda u Poltavu Kregomu, ali sve, da svak je dobro je nekaj dobro učinit, odvijaći se po vlastku i učiniti ukrenu, sa kako odmijega na nekome l الكista na da budu se u vlastku, na raz blanketi nastavljenu, da pokazete još o nještih. A in u naštih ayoske, u malih ovoj kručićak, po 5-10 rovnih rovnih rovnih. Tako što analizirajući, što se je znači. I to je začinan uročnima. Uročnima je uročnima toola. Uročnima uročnima je uročnima uročnima. da želite o špati ljudi, ne račite što su ufronati na ukljavnu ljudi za ukljavnu ljudi. Oč beingskog pačina već je to su ukljavnu ljudi po tuštima, da malo je odstavila velika ljudima. Counti ljudi, mašljajljavnu ljudi, vsak ljudi u ukljavnu ljudi, da ljudi je bilo ukljavnu ljudi za ukljavnu ljudi. ali prošli nekaj nisem ovo načinog učinog, i da se učinog nekaj učinog učinog učinog učinog učinog učinog učinog. Kada je? Peter, povedajte učinog učinog i sve da smo u učinog. Sve kako se vrlo učinog, malo da se malo ovo vrati, da se povedači, da se malo učinog. Da, pa, pa radim prijece, povedajte, učinog učinog učinog učinog učinog učinog. da je to neko što se nečo odstavljalo. Zato je to učinajte ojšelja. To, koji vam znači, je da se pripraviti na nekušljavce, pripraviti na nekušljavce, je definitivno vrša, da se učinajte i da se učinajte. To je pripravitavna prijavka na poštri, na Bosniju, Ersakovina. i sada se možete da uživati, da je bristu, za naši prejoritari, za naše priječno. Koje je to da je što se osmene, da se uživati naši negusacije, a pošku i tako, za to je se da neće da je zaštite uživati, kako se prišlo, da se uživati naši prejoritari naši prejoritari, da se sve vrati prekođate. Sve sve se prosetirite, kako je uvijednije da nekandide na naštri sve nemojte kaj je opatno dobro, da se je boj da ima u uvijedniju djeliru u vrstku i vrstku. U ovom mora, da, da, da, se možete vići i odvijednih odvijednih izvijednih odvijednih izvijednih odvijednih, uvijednih izvijednih, znači, uvijednih izvijednih, i što je uvijedna. To je već uvijednog. Kako se prejdaš, na uvijednih nekakvima nekakvima na uroda i na europijsku, nekošli mašljavili dao je uvijedna za implantaciju uvijednog lantviju. Koji je lantvija za lantvija uvijedna, ašto, ašto. U ovom pričetu, je to da se da je uvijednog, da energijerska je prijavima i da pristimu energijerska njih informacija, i izgledajte nekada za energijski sektor. Znači, da svoje otroje termi, kao u lansku direktivu, svoje opravljali nekako da je dobro u direktivu. Svoje otroje, da je dobro u produceru, svoje opravljali nekako da je dobro u direktivu. I to je, da se sve izgleda, Čak je problem, da ima vija prokrijait, da bilo ima način učin učin motoru, učin da te obtijetno čak ću da bi se 3-to komodne最 strano i da se drugi prokrijaiti nekada pristim. Prosto je t棺 oprima st galaxiesine u samarbinu, da smo mogu packsići štih. intervencija. Ja, to je pošta, kako se učinila ojšelijski stacijer Landfills. I to je u ovom razljavu, ali to je pošta, što se učinila, da je bilo, da to je nešto učinila u Landfillsu direktivu, da je učinila u Watermixeru. I to je bilo, da to je učinila u 2009, orient Takes of money that there was so much to do this in research that was not found any workable solution and was agreed again with the European Commission that this pumping with water mixture where water is finally considered a transport. Carrier of the ash and ashes itself not liquid that is let's say more or less a consideration of interpretation. nemožite da se ukladeš da ide se duža krušnja opravitva na ekonomi do kraju. Da, i se li... ... da se dobro segao, da u bilog učinu vse učinutne svali učinutnih. Učinutnih svali učinutnih, koji je učinutnjili da je preveča producija podnosnja, ili elektrovičke i elektronike batterije, danu sadačniku, materiju, učinje i tako. I nekaj da je nekad vrlo vendirajni industri, da je se je prištvačno. I da nekaj da je tada nekaj, da je to vrlo vendirajni, da se pravdu, da se vrlo vendirajne ljubiti, koje je, ovdje, nije to nekaj da je, da se početno stavilo, da sadačni i kompani, da se sve u knjavu prijevaku i da se danes ima financije poštavnosti kako je u wardanju. Užli smo na učinju klasizmiji, da se onda umohlje krasного pisku za drugu klasizmiji, klasizmiji klasizmu klasizmu do nekakvih rocksn�ah povrata. Negravo, njivečno njivečno poštavno, da se značnije do Sonoku, mnodnih companiesa načinju skuputnih svijetna doma o klasijnje, da se podbijao klas u konkretu, na jednu. Ovo je neko neče sve simpla na smeltu. Znam, da se je povijete. There are producers who would like to produce a glass foam. Ovo je insolacion material. Hvaliti materijala. And definitely not comparable in the sense of the investments needed, then it would be total remelting to the new glass product. So it is to say that perhaps such a simpler, more simpler, recycling methods could be watched and looked. And of course if there is no big metallurgy installation that nothing to do. That's usually not to be because the metal is well traded. paper might be partly the same if there is some neighboring countries to look how it cooperates plastic again. It's a big big problem as Ari also covered and the new targets on the plastic weights they are going pretty high, pretty demanding. But what is perhaps the positive side is that the plastic recycling could be done in rather let's say small or medium size enterprises also. It is not necessarily the very big plants needed only. So it means that this is how to ignite certain new initiatives and the private sector definition and the private sector usually better mentioned so this is in new country usually the state owned or even municipally owned although it could be something of course nothing wrong but anyway how to bring the private investments into the waste management especially do the recycling. So this is a important issue. So I don't know are we time over or just but if there is something interesting regarding the landfill closure and you can go just scroll scroll further and here is that what our experience is that the new landfills that these very investment rich objects so this is first thing and here is just our experience how we covered the old landfills and in the in the 90 in the beginning of the 90s there was 300 then it was 200 and in the moment when the landfill directly was closed 150 so it reduced remarkably already during the 90s and then rapidly after that and of course most of them there were very small one two and mostly they were covered also in a let's say simplified manner usually giving more less hill little hill couple shape and then covered by one meter two meter perhaps the soil that was very average of course there were some cases where there was very clear that the local groundwater is is contaminated and in some cases also the cover of the landfills was much more also plastic layers were used in couple of places but big landfills were really covered very carefully and then the rather extensive vein so that was 1991 so the map of the country very dotted very dotted so next and here we see yeah the closure cost of the closure that means that the big landfills all all it together was in the smaller landfills it was really relatively cheap or not not very expensive exercise anyway and the financing method we used was the same that most or nearly all let's let's say so those municipal waste landfills were municipally owned and but municipalities didn't have money really for it and so the closure of those was performed in a model that 10% usually that changed a little bit but the average pay the municipalities and 90% there is a center of the environmental investments established which really gets their money mostly from the environmental taxes including landfill tax and they are really the authority dividing or dealing with the EU supports on that fields both of and means that those Estonian own resources also were divided to those projects plus european so it was in big part anyway this closer project was was supported by state and the most part of the closure of the landfills those municipal landfills was 30 plus millions per 1.3 million people if to calculate some close to 33 euros per per inhabitant so just to compare that that would be the comparable number perhaps and yeah well with the industrial industrial landfills also considering then it was another 100 millions that was much more expensive definitely and this is to emphasize all the time that not the only municipal waste not the only municipal landfills but also industrial and mining waste eaps and and so on so next and this is just to say that all those also in Estonia there were many people who considered that the landfill directive or implementation this is just about the landfill just to let's close the old one let's with the new ones and that's done actually but it's very much more complicated it requires the rearrangement the will waste management system and first thing that it requires is the collection system that should ensure that nearly 100 percent of the households on the other generators of the municipal waste are covered with the collection so this is absolutely first priority in these changes and the another is definitely the need to offer to develop and to offer the service of the waste stations we call them waste stations in the british anglish to call them usually civic amenity sites or recycling yards so they have many names but the idea is the same so let's move next yeah and this is the same i already said that the local waste stations public amenity sites are absolutely needed because why the the clear explanation is that to avoid the wild dumping to avoid the littering you have to offer the alternative and the people can't really take or put everything to the container so this is not possible and secondly this is also needed for the recycling you have to collect the certain types of the waste also for the recycling and here are those civic amenity site recycling yards very very useful object and this is a network it takes time to develop them we have in stony i think roughly hundred of waste stations today so it means that in bigger cities four five at least several and in most of the municipalities one or in smaller municipalities still they have one for certain region actually and this is an issue in that very sense that this is also investment the average waste station have been with the price tag let's say close to 200 to 300 000 euro and yet it is also operational cost related so usually something around 20 to 30 000 euro per year is also operational cost and in both cases there should be decided that where it comes and the investment again in stonia big part from the state but the operational cost this is up to the municipalities so next if there is time but if not yeah this is just a picture how the biggest municipal waste landfills near thailin looked after the closure and there in the corner in the right corner you may see that this is today operating on of the thailin city civic amenity site so this area is in a way still in use next and so this is exactly what i said perhaps this about civic amenity sites and the need to join the households to the collection and in 2001 that means that more or less yet in the middle of the negotiations there was made a study and that showed that 79 percent of the households were joined to the system means 21 percent of population was outside of collection system nobody knew where they were did put their waste and some years later or 2012 it was considered 95 so it means that it's 100 is perhaps even not easily achievable although there are countries that tenmark where there is principally impossible to be outside if there is property where there is a living rooms that is already counted to the waste management system and you are charged whether you are living there not leaving that's not the problem so next this is a new the small map is showing where the new landfills are standing and five of them and perhaps that in the long run this might be over investment we don't need them perhaps too much but if i compare again our southern neighbors i think that they did invest more to the landfills and also over investments took place in a in a bigger share although i agree that also in estonia there was and the one example that the picture is that also in not in all but in couple i think new landfills also au funds very used other were also estonian on financing resources next and so this is just industrial landfills next slide that was one industrial landfill rather difficult really to close because there was some thermal processes yes next slide tar lakes nasty nasty heritage shall to say next slide and so this is on industrial waste also was faced also landfill after the closure cover with limestone and and some plantation were put there and it looks much nicer today next slide and so this is one of the industrial landfills big ones really big ones you can see perhaps on the picture next next slide and so this is one oil shale ash landfill which was recultivated so that on the top of it was the wind farm was established so that was very good kind of solution that uh landfills which didn't have a very big use of now it produce energy next slide so but i think that the time is over so i will stop here or ah yes thank you ah hvala gospodnu piteru ah prezentacije bila vrlo detaljna ah ja bi sad te zeložilo obzirom da prema dnevnom redu imamo malu pauzu da je skratimo na 5 minuta i da se vratimo u 10 15 pitanja je mnogo zaista bi nam bilo važno da zavšim u predliđenom vremenu kako bi uspjeli odgovoriti na sva pitanja neka su slična pa ćemo i grupi sati po temama tako da evo prelaže 5 minuta pauze do 10 15 i onda se vraćamo sa novom prezentacijom evo već je 10 15 nadam se da ste svi za svojim računarima i da možemo nastaviti da da su i naše kolegje i za estoni je također tu u naravna prezentacija se odnosi na transformaciju sistema upravljanja odpadom u estoni koja u principu treba prenjeti iskustva o glavnim principima i izazovima u preokrietu jelik koji se i desio kada je u pitanju hierarchija upravljanja odpadom i koja su to stečena iskustva kada je u pitanju odmak od laganja odpada ka konceptu cirkularne ekonomi je mislim da će ovu prezentaciju ona je u principu zajednička i dijeli se sa narednom koja se odnosi na faktore mislim da će započeti gospodin piter, tako da ja dajem riječ kolegji piteru da nastavi djav, djav, djav, imaš dobro, to je vrlo vrlo što i to je značno što ovu prezentaciju, značno, kao cirkularne ekonomi je značno idejalno, da ti dobro možete dobro, da imaš dobro, nekada, tega se pravda nemaša, da je vrlo je već značno, da je već značno, da je vrlo koji je u vrlo što je značno i, da nemaša, nemaša, već stvarno regiju Vajstvo regime je uvršeno u uročnog terminologu EU. To betra da svečne uvršenje uvršenje se odvršenje u uvršenje. To betra da svečne uvršenje uvršenje se odvršenje u uvršenje. Kako se svečne uvršenje uvršenje u uvršenje se odvršenje u uvršenje se odvršenje u uvršenje. Svečne uvršenje su odvršenje svečne uvršenje. Što je neki svečnog uvršenje, znači svečne u uvršenje. Nisu ničine neko uvršenje neki nekaj pasteri, ničine uvršenje u uvršenje. Znači, je to uvršeno. imaš nekaj neko se odvijedno od 100 % otvijedna materijala, ali nekaj, je tezrno potencijal. I definitivno, hrani iz vasdučnog radnog, koji je od svojka od 90-taj u vasdučnog radnog legislacije i Harry Mora je to je pravio učinit, cirkula koloma, koji je nekaj koncert, ali da se učinimo, nema da je prišlo, da je to da je to da se začavili, ali je to da je je izpronavno za začavljenje, A uče, uče, ne, njih, ne, ne, njih, njih, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne, n, ne, ne, ne, ne, ne. Ja, imam druga. I da, ovdje mešljete, da odljimu i obradi sponibilitve as a concept included in the E loop legislation, is definitely challenging from one side but also very important to solve a certain environmental problems. And that's, of course perhaps, interesting that somewhere in the suggests 2000 there was Miss Bird and expected that there gonna be much more waste streams material streams covered with IPR extended producer responsibility on the level, Cisno od 2006 sada njih nekada nema nobnu prihavnu prihavnu. Da mimo da se ovom povrdučičnu sada nještje sada nještje plastike. Ove plastike nještje plastike, kako i uvijede otvorega prihavnu prihavnu pričušnima na velice, naro, tako učinitih arjaša, tko učinitih produkcija, kao učinitih sakraga dobiljaga. To je učinit, koji je očinit. Toči da, gleda, što je tako dupasne, da se je našto biljavno, da je izgleda što je tako taj neko opravno, da je najmaša, da je imaš da učiniti učinitih vrečnosti taj nekosti, koji je tako tako učinitih producerji, na vrste svih čloupkoj požele, jer su učinili nogom na svog predstavljenju. Prac se, od sestamhlu pročajno nije zaštavimo za polishne sekota, za sestamhle ili sestama u autoritich. Ovrste, učinili sega kako nammoji lahko osmidili, još nemožete otvariti predstavu jebog produk fraudu. I ovaj seň je nijak sestam k bratice kijem je rekla. Predoje je da bih prokrima ljudi da su uzutite ljudi, koji posebeste nebyste particiju. Sve to je idet od순 najepoje radnog kompeticije. Predoje su tjeras nebeš neko particiju po batteriju. Stati se definitivno od stati autoritvi have one obligation to quarantine the equal conditions on the market, and then it comes that they have to follow those freeriders. And therefore, I think that it's not as simple as it seems, but then again the directives allow the member states to implement also itself, extended the producer responsibility besides the EU requirements. investigation, koji ne uaszavljeni. U Estoniju u nekoma listu mogli smo dobro medjela traje. Traje je u mniskom ljudu na europejskirke politice, da su za tjere moneyi, i koma d'o u mniskom ljudu. Ne genek je bilo諸a pride prokredota. Imelno, to ne ne možeš sve števri, ali je bilo problematijne, a jedno od problemu koji je bilo bilo, je da je bilo nekako bilo pakacija, koji je otvorila na marketu, ali danas je bilo otvorila i otvorila, kako je otvorila plastičke pakacije. Značno je bilo pakacija, otvorila i otvorila i otvorila. Po svoju stvo, je bilo je nekaj povijede, da se je urođe, da se prouldo. Sve, neča dobro. Nama koji je veši učin' učin' o planu na učin' našog učin'? Doznaši da ovo je učin' učin' učin' od učin' učin' učin' za broja. Svom glavom, koji imamo učin' učin' na učin' učin' za broja, učin' učin' za broja. I na nekome radašnog njeh, nije to ne se uvrlo, dobro što je vrlo po 10 rokov, u nekome uvrlo nekoje uvrlo. Uvrlo, na uvrlo uvesmanje pročne, je pečno vrlo pjeljnije, da u vrlo ovu uvrlo zbog dešnoj dvini uvrljajšanih. Tzvo je uvrlo uvrlo srednije s uvrlo lanticom. sva biljene, ukljeviće da uradiraju, kako izpogatimo야 ispog magneticne konce, sva silaške vina, ljubiške i taktih. O向o nekako vidi, dali bude u kraitom u kretom. Da bilo lahko očinutno otvarno, da je ukljeva sa akcijem vp. Tko sam ukljeva sva biljene ukljeva po pana mjesto i svaške kama su da se pokradili za svom ukljeva u pačna rovj schoolu? Ukljeva je ukljeva i ukljeva da eskavam, kako je neću mnog MBT za mjesta municipјa, ovoj, i to vas učinog, da njihšo, učino, koji je nepravim u svog učinog, učino, nisi nisi, ili nemalo, nepravim u kvalitnih učinog, ноја што и да било тираж u kvaliti prista, prista i rećenje. To je definitivno ne da se svoje da, da se svoje dobro se prišli, da je što je, da se po svojoj uvijednih, da treba u svakom. Da, ja što sam, ljubi krenu nisem, ne beš, da u vrstne, na tako djevnoj, vrstnjeni za svoj našli, da se ne veči, da seš, da se što su, da seš, da je najbolj, da sešne nekada, da je te djevnoj, da sešne politične, To je uključila i da je uključila. Pobjedno. Pobjedno. Pobjedno je ekonomije. Nisam, da na stonu je od 90-u ročne dajovice i definitivno je to je jedno od nekaj najinfluenštih ekonomije. Sve je to začinila, da je to načinila uključila. Zivim, ovdje, ogr unlessithou Sad, oblen na separство Potem otなんだ birmo tečnici za što se kažite zatakljan nekaj soli explosives are već za nego, nekaj su korun upgrade representiji kako ste dosjetite Nemoje, jer se nam je ogr su svi move neks шτη da format på de komand svoje opravih kraelis u svoj učinog učinog, svoj učinog učinog, da je bilo objezavno odslučit. I da je bilo ekonomijak instrument, da je učinog učinog učinog, prikričnog učinog, da je učinog učinog, učinog učinog učinog, učinog učinog učinog, i, da li je znađerila, to je tajete i agri-gatjera plastica. Agri-gatjera plastica je iznađnjena u tradiju. Našta razgleda. Uvijeg je jer bilo imato i i učin u učinu. Zdaj, da ješ nekako diverjala 2015, da je se 30 euro per ton, nije nisu vrlo već hvala. Da se u europei da se je u učinu u ušnje začinu učinu. but from other, it was enough to enable the investment to the researcher and it wasn't really a absolutely new built and it was a power station working with the natural gas so it was like that waste description block was added there and the connectivity to the heat and the electricity kako je u vrljavnom. Ravno, investirac je bilo od 100 milijer euro u 2013. Sada je, u vrljavnom, stetan, ali u vrljavnom, da nekada poločnog taxa u Landville, koja je ili oprezavana u Landville, ne mogli doplati vidjetu. Zato, sve, nije financija ili su potreba, zelo po njom zavušavlu. Zavljeli merdeo smjelo pa obojeno i Ujurno je svoju uitek s moračima. Učinili od Toko otakljane od Pankadu i nakonio otaklje da sve njom je biljene zelo, da da je učinila vratu po njom od učinila i tako zaštavne lantvarnak. Daj se sve zaštavna od svakosa skola pri sva, pustur u kvalike u lantvarnja. Ali sta je suštavno u 50-60 euro, znači, da, bez nekog zavrstva, stavljanoščak je bilo otvoril je otvoril je 20-40, a u njih, u njih, otvorili kratkoj kratkoj površčak je od 80-200 euro, i otvorili kratkoj površčak je odvorail. I ovdje je bilo ovo evo diskussije da uključi uključi uključi uključi da uključi uključi, da uključi uključi uključi, ali za značno to ještje nisu što je uključio. Svijedna uključa. Značno uključi uključi uključi od 90'a i da je uključio nisu pod jeskog dvora u centre svemanjne investije, a neko je odsleda u kažavu al AEI fundu. Pada je dvice linje da je jevnog uključa. Jedna je stvarnoća sesturnja, finančnja, neko jevnog uključa uključa, a namarje, da je ULANFIL DAX nekaj uključa je makutnja uključa da uključa. Ja,次. A tvojče je ljubitam da se večkama očim je bio i imaš počutom otvojite, da je to budu prvno što je prekočovo, da je to treba hrvno nemoj verjete da se uvrti neko učinirajte neko sport, učima počutom, uč materijanja, svoje nekova investije otvorila, td. Pčetno vrne i kao riječe je otvorila a kako se riječi na čim kao dlupno razne otvorili začu uvijednih ljubar, u svoj koji je, kako se neko sve otvorili, potreba li se otvorili kada uvijednih ljubar, otvorili začu uvijednih ljubar. U svoj uvijednih ljubar je to vrlo zavirati s kod konečnog šta sve nukomplijantne ljubarije, nukomplijantne ljubarije s rekelijstvima ljubarije, i ještje su da se oporili, da ješto je veliko nekaj lantil, da je to. I da vidiš da ojšelje, u svom, u svom, lantil, nekaj lantil, da je već nekaj ljubi ljubi, rispilbelli. Malo što je, i na drugog ta raša ueveritavna glazda se to papovo.... da je uveriti, ispite, razmatnišljeng i birst, ili uveritava glazda na povrdu maželji. Ali da je scale 15 milijon euro. kad to makod se povrdu te 10 euro na uveritavna grazda. A za uveritavna, profil-našta u svaru, kada je otvrpao . Porosno, da se je u lovima druž Spitara kako je jeste naši ukljući ne evolvečno uključak i ukljavno uključka u našu uključku, načinu, načinu. Koji je nije u litim i u možerima, koji je bilo dobro, ali je to kosa kako je. I ovdje, to je jedna z ovdje površnje, kako je uvršnjati to kosa kako je uvršnjala. Da, da se nekaj slijepo. I da, kao da, sve sada, priješnja HV je 70-90 ljubima. Kako je ljubima na Estonija, je kompani i se da se dači dači dači. Zato to nije stavno kontrolno. Sada ti u njih, sve je monizipale kompani, monizipali možete kompani, i sve je private kompani. I u svojih doma, kompani se dači se poslije dači dači dači dači, da je vršena, i da se dači dači, dači dači dači dači dači, dači dači dači dači dači dači dači dači. Zdaj samo u 2001, u zemljenju regulacije, je bilo prizvam 10 euro per ton. I smo hvalili da se prizvam, da u pašnjama, u pašnjama sektoru, da kako su poličilje poslustitje, i da je ljude sentinija kakvo je začinjena reštavno, nije začinje to nema da se pripraviti i se neštašnije u nekakočne obrpunice, u nekočne odmah, nemoja, mbt, nemoja, rizakljana, nemoja. I ovako, kao u Stoni, nema što se nožite, Ovo je značnima. U nještjih palijegi nještjegi je bilo vore. Zdaj je stavila, kao u nještjih palijegi, da se bilo u vore. Ono, da se bilo, da je to se u sve sve sve sve. Da se bilo, da se znači nešto se bilo. Sve da se bilo, da se bilo. To se bilo, da se bilo, da se bilo. Što se bilo, da se bilo, da se bilo. There should be, instead, the social benefit system, which would support those families or persons in need. And also in Estonia we have had, and still I think even have the social... Well, you have your living costs, and if your income is lower below a certain level, then you can apply for the social benefits to support or to cover your living costs. And the living costs are such, they definitely include electricity and heating, if this is a central heating, something like this, but definitely, definitely also waste management costs. And waste management costs anyway from the total housing related costs is very, very small amount, so that's not even significant. But put it that way, look the household, housing and living costs separately from the needs of the waste management. So this is perhaps to say. Next slide. Yeah, and this is just the packaging tax or the excise duty tax, as I said. And there is with recycling and recovery targets. And we see here that the targets are given like differently or differentiated way for the usual or container collection and for the deposit system. Because we have also the deposit system since 2005 for the pet bottles, metal cans and glass bottles for the beer and beverages. And here is the principle is the same, but I already mentioned that there are targets. And if the targets are not met, then the tax should be made for the gap remain. Next slide. So now about the municipal waste. And definitely one is who shall or could decide where it goes, how it is collected. And here is in Estonia the approaches that this is an obligation of the municipalities. Municipalities are obliged to organize a tender. And the different companies, mostly private companies who could participate on the tenders and then the winner of the tender is contracted. And for the three years or up to five years period, this company is really given a special right to collect the waste. And although the municipalities are not very often using it, but of course they have a power also to decide where exactly the waste is delivered. And the collection goes on the three levels, so to say. One is definitely the basic is on the property or it is called also in English the door to door, but on the property. And what is perhaps to emphasize, and I think that that might be difficult for the country like Bosnia-Herzegovina where the background is a little bit different. But still I think that to consider that there are practically in Estonia no public containers for the mixed municipal waste. So this is mixed municipal waste is always the responsibility of the property owner. And of course understandably this is not the big problem if we have private houses or one family houses, let's say. But this is a big problem if we have multi-storage houses, dwellings in the towns and cities. But at least yes in Estonia as I said that every dwelling house is considered like separate legal entity. There are partnerships of the flat owners or if it is might be today in some cases that there is property owner who is just renting them out. And this is target or targeted is just this owner company, perhaps of such a dwelling house. Anyway, the property owner is obliged to install the containers. This is not even obligation of the municipality. And municipality is setting the rules, which houses have to have containers. And the mixed municipal waste, so this is absolutely understand them, there is nothing to say. But our approach have been that, for example, the Tallinn City Council regulations said already that in 2003 there should be paper and cardboard container at every, more or less every dwelling house. And since 2007 there should be a bio waste container at every dwelling house with more than 10 flats. So this have been the approach also how to emphasize or how to develop this source separation. Why I'm really considering this important is that if the mixed municipal waste containers are, let's say in the public room and they are not really linked to any particular property. That makes I think rather difficult to implement the source separation. Because if the people have a simple option to just to deliver the mixed waste to the container somewhere in the streets, how to motivate them really to sort. So this is just to consider. I'm not saying that it could not be, but in my opinion it could be much more difficult. Second level is what do we have is so-called public containers. These are so far mostly packaging containers and today also containers for the clothing, textile waste or reusable items, perhaps not even yet the waste. Plus in some municipalities also for the paper and cardboard. And third layer is this recycling stations or public community sites or how to call them. There are not so close often because in countryside it could be up to 10, 15 kilometers in the local center somewhere in the small town usually. So it means that this is a place where not every family, every person tells every day, perhaps not even every week. But many people definitely visited weekly or on some month or something like this. But as I already mentioned before, this network of public community sites is extremely important to develop the source separation and to support waste management to the other ways. Next slide. And our approach to develop the source separation again not the only way to do it, but that our specific way that how the state government have communicated with municipalities and the municipalities have not been perhaps always very active to act in that field. There is regulation from Minister of the Environment, which is really describing in rather detailed way which waste streams or material streams the municipalities have to organize source separation for which. This ordinance at least does not say that which exact waste types should be collected on the property, which on the public route somewhere on the streets and which on the waste stations. So it is left to the municipalities to decide. And of course here is also that there is a certain list, which is like compulsory list, mandatory list and some there mentioned are like voluntary. And at the beginning in the 2007 the park waste from the bio waste was obligatory to organize the collection and the kitchen waste was not and later it was made in 2015. And also the kitchen waste separate collection is made obligatory to the municipalities. Next slide. And how the prices or the fees are set is as I said that this is a tender and on the tender today the service providers are offering the price and usually in most of the municipality today it goes even that might be different really from the many countries. The fees are not even go through the municipalities. That means that most of the households they pay directly to the waste service provider. And that have been debated and still debated and I see also, I really support that there is definitely more benefits in a model where the fees are collected by a municipality. And to say simply why there are a couple of things. One thing is that some people who are not paying the fees, so this is often not always only but often the people who does social problems kind of. And this is always easier if the municipality is dealing with these people instead of the private company. And the second thing is that this is for the future is that if we want to have rapid developments in the source operation and that definitely means also some differentiation of the service prices. And if all the service fees go through the municipality then the municipalities have much better options to differentiate those fees by local conditions and to make exemptions if needed and whatever actually to be flexible. Private companies usually and those issues are not necessarily flexible or vice versa could be also that they are putting very high price to the mixed waste so that it could cause other problems where the mixed waste is delivered. But this is the situation in our case yes that everything by tender and fixed price is 10. Next slide. So this is the public containers that we see as I said that mostly for the packaging and the clothing and of course the other picture shows that I think that this is also in your country. In winter period sometimes it is problematic so somebody have to take also this issue into account that how to how to sure that the waste could be collected around the year. But let's take the next slide here. So now the municipal waste and obviously about the treatment. And of course the one big issue is that the waste are easier. This have been the tradition to just to deliver the landfill and now the question is that this is in long run not acceptable that Harimora already referred that there is currently of course this is not yet very soon but 2023 35 there is expected that not more than 10 years. Of course there is said that there could be agreed special terms to some countries where the initial level have been very high. So that is not exactly that even if Bosnia would join that this 10% would imply. But anyway this is a certain target so to say and to reduce and even without that that is important to emphasize and this is basic requirement in the 99. This is reduction of the biodegradable waste. There of course was referred to as a benchmark of the level of the land filling in 1995. So it's very old time already but anyway there is a gradual reduction is required. And so that means that whether to do it through the source operation of the bio waste also that is definitely preferable. But there are other options to reduce both the bio waste and the general land filling and then we will come to the issue of the after treatment of the mixed municipal waste. And there are two options, MBT and the installation. And in our case the installation in 2002 waste management plan was discussed, evaluated, but considered too expensive. Because the evaluation was and I think that still of course correct is roughly 50 million euro per 100,000 ton per year capacity. So it means that we have 200 plus tons facility insulator and the cost was 100 million. But that was as I already just explained and just referring back to it that the landfill tax raise was perhaps this key that allowed to do those investments even without the special investment support even. That means that to say that we should not always really be so much in today's type of situation. But there should be definitely hope and that after five years after ten years there is absolutely not absolutely but quite different situation. And this is just a comparison that was brought in Estonia and that might be not correct for your country, but the oil shale we already mentioned here. And that is funny thing that such average mixed municipal waste they have an averagely equal calorific value. And if we many years of course we landfill something 300 400000 ton of mixed municipal waste so that was quite a lot of energy of course. But that is also true and this is very pretty often asked that if in most cases any power station or whatever energy producer they are paying for the fuel so fuel has also positive price. Then for the waste this is vice versa waste has a negative price and then many people don't understand why. But the explanation or the basic explanation is that when it comes to the waste insulation producing energy out of waste. This is much more incentive investments needing process and those investments should be covered also and that makes not possible really. Although there are in some countries also in Denmark I think they say that it could be done with a relatively low price but in most countries in Europe I mean. Insuration prices are something like starting from 60 euro per ton perhaps. In our country when the installation started 2013 then the initial gate fee was something around 30 euro per ton. There was no taxes as I said. Next slide. And this is just a picture from the from the installation. Yeah it is serious industrial installation. That's for sure. But what is the positive of it is that you get read from the bio waste. There is no lead shade issue on as such in the landfill. There is no landfill gas issue on the landfills after that actually and so on. And yeah next slide. Let's take next slide. And the one is what is in some countries at least concerns about air emissions. And here is just to say that yes indeed if the rules are not followed set for the waste insulation then it's rather harmful could be but the rules are very strict. And indeed if the rules are fulfilled or followed then the waste insulation is not really a harming environment in no way. In Sweden I have been in one of the new installations where it was owned by a municipality and of course they monitored the exhaust gases on the pipe or on the chimney of the waste insulation. And they also monitored the air quality on the streets. And they said that on the rush hour the air quality on the streets was worse than the exhaust gases really going to the atmosphere from the waste insulation. So this is just a comparison. Next slide. And of course when it is the waste insulation you have to face just new waste types. You're going to have two types of ashes so called fly ash and you have a potomash. Next slide. And that is perhaps positive side. It's not that big but anyway something like 3-4% from the input material is possible to take out as metals. And of course those metals are going to the recycling then and they are counted also towards the municipal waste recycling. So there is a tiny not very center but tiny support to the recycling also from the. And this is in line with the rules today because there is another kind of discussion being that whether if this potomash or something. Potomash first of all perhaps could be theoretical at least put to the concrete and consider those construction materials hence material. So this is today not accepted on those calculations at least. But the metals are. And potomash is after the treatment so called ageing and removing metals and so on and so on. So in our case this is used in landscaping of the landfill, the big landfill, the new landfill actually near the Thailand so they are itself using that material. And this is considered recovery and therefore as landfill tax is only for the disposal for this use of potomash there is no landfill tax so far. Next slide. And, yeah, well, as I said that this is the MBT, the mechanical biological treatment is from the investment point of view. This is definitely a simpler option, clearly, but what is the other side is that what is the aim of the MBT usually is that you separate the high calorific part plastic. Perhaps textiles, robber, such materials, and it has really sense if you have receiver for this particular materials. This is typically called RDF refused right fuel. And in most of countries where this is produced the cement industry is the receiver. So it means that this MBT requires, mostly requires really very good cooperation with the cement industry. But to produce the RDF without really knowing where to put it is really questionable. And second part of it is that in such a simplified way actually you crash and see you get this fine fraction, fine fraction is bio waste contained in the mixed municipal waste is usually glass colors, there are some plastics in, there's some hazardous waste contained in the mixed municipal waste in, so it's a mixture. And this is rather difficult waste stream because usually it needs aerobic treatment to put to the landfill. In some modes also in Estonia by the way it have been used also for the cover of the landfills in some. And in our case and in Northern Europe there have been definitely not accepted the proposal that it could be used in a more wider way in some wider landscaping in the construction of the roads or whatever actually the roadside. But in some other countries in Southern Europe increase I think so in Portugal. Yeah, well they have a national level they have accepted that this material is used in as I just said. But what is also clear that with the new directive amendments in 2018, even if you would take this MBT fine fraction which contains the bio waste also in big part, definitely. And you could say that this is something like low quality compost and you could use it in landscaping for example, then this could not be counted towards the recycling of the municipal waste. And this is said because in some countries this have been counted towards the targets of the municipal waste recycling so far. So this is for the future so this is just to describe that yes it is cheaper but there are certain problems associated definitely. Next slide. And so this was very simple really you can't go simpler even I would say. On MBT in Estonia it works some years doesn't work anymore but it was like open row. There was crushed and just the scheme or the picture on the top there it shows that there was used such a very from the Germany system of the pipes are metal metal type of products which allowed to without any artificial artificial aeration. And that means that the bio waste contained there really degraded in big part and also the moisture really evaporated. So it was finally it was like a rather tri material that was easier to see later to separate this plastics actually. Next slide. And yeah that was now in in couple of cases we have those MBT or those f producing facilities today but they faced this problem that our only cement factory was closed and there is practically nowhere to deliver it so that's a problem. And usually if they are really this MBT type of sort is that you can get out 40 to 50 percent there def from the from the input material of this mixed municipal waste and something 40 percent. Perhaps then it comes this fine fraction that they already explain what it is and what the problems are. And then they usually there is some to through the moisture. This is evaporating and you will get weight loss some 10 to 20 percent. So that's the conclusion or summary. Next slide. And yeah this is about the cement facility that there def means good cooperation with the cement industry. That's absolutely clear. Next slide. And now to say that whether one is clearly better than another or could only one of them be implemented that first yeah well without no problem could be implemented on the same time in our country no big problem. Also even in a small country like Estonia we have at them both. This is not a problem. So to say so this is a big investment so there is a big issue that who could be capable making those investments. And second thing is definitely the heating energy. Inserator has this problem that if you don't have the central heating system which could really take this heat then economically it would be very very difficult even possible to install it. So that's that's for sure. But to compare and to say that one is better on the sense of the recycling that one of those will give more for the recycling. There is no reason. Both can separate metals usually. And in both cases metals could be calculated after recycling. But that's more almost all. And this is fine fraction for them. At least in after a couple of years could not be anymore calculated towards the recycling targets. Next slide. This is I think so what I also said that the certain discussion have been but this is today not very practical anymore that if the F goes to the cement factory there is usually some mineral part in and this mineral part comes apart of the cement The discussions have been that whether this could also be calculated towards the recycling. But I think that the latest interpretation on this wheel from European Commission say that no, we want to keep this simple and not even. Yep. And let's take next slide. Let's go further. Peter, just to let you know we are way out of time. I'm just showing here that our guess was that how the landfilling came down from 85 to even up to the 10%. So it is okay. It was let's say 13 years, 15 years, but just to show that it is really possible. Although in 2002 waste management plan that was considered like a little bit too expensive, not possible and so on and so on. So I would like just to bring this example us to encourage that the things are sometimes going faster than you can really expect and don't lose fate in this. It is possible to get out from the landfilling system. And well, this is just right now here. Stop with them because the time is over. Thank you. Hvala gospodnu Peteru. Mislim da njega prezentacija jako zanimljiva i ako nije stigao do kraja, vama je u chat prozoru postavljen link gdje možete skiniti prezentacije. Također dosta je bilo pitanja vezano za neki stvar koji se nalaze u ovoj prezentaciji. Tako da ćemo i kroz desesiju diskusije odgovoriti na neka pitanja posledno kada se tiču depresivnog sistema. Sada bi za malog gospoda je dan Harija, u koliko će on nastaviti sa ovom posljednom prezentaciju. Ja znam da on ima samo 3 slajda, pa možda radi je kroz neku diskusiju ili ako želi zajedno sa prezentacijom da ovu neku završnu, da je tako kažem riječ kada je u pitanju danas prezentirani materijal. Također, znam da imam otvore na prezentaciju, ne? Također, također. Također, sada možemo i kroz desesiju ispraviti na neki stvar koji se nalaze u ovoj prezentaciju. Znam da ima ima ima ima ovoj prezentaciju ispraviti na neki stvar koji se nalaze u ovoj prezentaciju. Kota je da sada mbt-i z protivno otvore na basis i na prindu vristitavno, a zapad na obokrtavno, dok se ne netačinu i bujavci. Sada otvore na to, da ima ima ima ima i sada ili tada kada to titel na neki stvar koji se nalaze u ovoj prezentaciju, da je sada malo obojna kretavno, da ne tečinu i neki nepa kratića na mbt-i nalaze. basically you already know that you have to recycle minimum 50% of your municipal ways that this means that you can't exceed the 50% capacity which is covered by landfills and incinerators and other means for mixed municipal ways. Kako ne biti, ne vrlošite, jer imate ti luk... Znamo, je to vrlo svih, da se uživite. Jedančin da se prvno vrlo što se pritite na uštrična lepa p忌a u nekog Petr's prezentacija, to je bila spetan, da Petr se odvijeli, da je imo je uvijek da se oprvijete objevno vrlo srednje. If you go on, then you see the kind of scheme which tries to say yes, this was the one. The legal framework is important, but it's not the only task you have to do. I also will see that in Bosnia and Herzegovina your main kind of effort has gone into the transposition of the legal framework. As Peter already told that it's clear legal path to take over the EU-based legislation, it's very easy exercise. It becomes much more difficult when it comes to the implementation. So therefore you should, in addition to development of legal framework, very clearly define the roles and responsibilities. And here I would say the key role is when it comes to municipal waste on municipalities. And as you heard, in Estonia we made slight mistake by not putting too much efforts on municipalities and really too much going for privatization. There has to be an optimum, of course private sector has to be there, but the key role has to remain and responsibility has to remain on municipalities. And of course the other part which is very important, this is adequate financing mechanism. It's very, very important without really designing a system on how to finance the system starting from taxes. And here I would say the Estonian positive example is this landfill tax. I would really recommend to think on that on your case also. Gradually increasing landfill tax has to be there. I want to achieve very quick changes. And this is also the source for new investments into the recycling and other more modern waste management infrastructure development. So this is important and then also taxes for packaging. I would say this is important together with EPR system, which means that the other very important role is covered by the producer. And what Peter also tried to say, maybe not so clearly, try to establish the extended producer system in a way, or pack it with legislation so that it is not really, let's say occupied or taken by waste management companies again. So it has to be under the control of producers. So you have to develop the system in a way that producers really take the responsibility that they control the system, the organization itself. And that they have a motivation to organize and set up a transparent system. And I would say Estonian experience also shows that the deposit system is something you should also consider, because this is extremely efficient transparent system to really achieve certain targets which are already there. Without the deposit system it's impossible, but when it comes to the deposit system, it's extremely important that this EPR organization is again under the control of producers, not some sort of system which is a kind of useful tool for some businesses or waste management companies who know who knows who. This is the main thing I would like to stress here. Of course, the third pillar is this public governance part, which is the basis anyway, and I would say roles and responsibilities, adequate financing mechanism backed with strong legislation, and of course awareness raising in parallel. This is the key and this is something you have to really take into account when developing your system in your country. For this, I think I will close my mouth. We have only, I think, some minutes left for questions and answers, but let's take them as much as possible. We are ready to take more time if needed, but yeah, please. Neka od njih smo pokušali da grupišemo u nekih 9 tema. Tako da ću ja postaviti sve ono što ne uspijemo odgovoriti. Evo ja i draženko smo se dogovorili da ćemo u pismenoj formi dostaviti kolegama da pokušaju odgovoriti na ta pitanja i naravno učiniti dostupni odgovore svim učesnicama. Ja ću krenuti od depositnog sistema. Mislim da je to bilo i među prvim pitanjima, nekoliko naših učesnika je postavilo različna pitanja vezana za ovaj sistem koji je sigurno od interesa za BAH. Evo i viste spomenili z nego značaj. Pitanjen bilo u kojoj mieri je razvijen sistem pokrivenosti odvoza odpada prije uvođenja depositnog sistema za imbalažu, znači koji je bilo tepen pokrivenosti. Za koji tip imbalaže je depositni sistem bio najefikasni u Estoni koji su prikupljeni procenti a koji su bili troško sami države u tom cilom postupku. Koliko smatrate da je depositni sistem uspješan u koliko recikliraju hrvatska 25% o Slovenija 55% a nemaju depositni sistem. I kaže još jedno pitanje u hrvatskoj zastupljen depositni sistem za dio imbalaže a u velikim suminusima gledano vezano za troškove. Evo to je nekako sumirano, znači koliko je procent bio pokrivenosti s temom prikupljanja odpada koji dio odpada bio najviše prikupljena ovaj način, koliko je su troškovi države i koliko je očite to uspješno u odnosu na zemlje u kojima nema uvedan depozitni sistem uzmeć primjer hrvatske ali koja ima, ali ima i velike troškove. Mislim da možda bi Harry moga od odgovori na ovo pitanje ili Peter. I think we missed something. There were some questions or what was said because there were no translation. Okay, so the questions were related to deposit system. What was the level of coverage at the time when the deposit system was introduced in terms of waste collection? What type of packaging waste was mostly collected? What were the costs the country has related to establishment of deposit system? And what is your opinion, how successful this system is comparing to the countries where there is no deposit system in place, especially having in mind that in Croatia for example the system is in place, but the country or the whole system has a big expenses. So it's in minus in terms of money. The deposit system is maybe a separate issue, which we can take as a kind of separate kind of workshop or something. But to be very short, both me and Peter, we were part of this development in the early stages in Estonia. And Estonia was one of the first companies outside of the Nordics, plus of course Germany where there was this deposit system has been in the place already many, many years. But in Estonia the success was that first of all ministry very clearly introduced it as a mandatory part. Later on Peter, a little bit to add from your point of view. This was very important that the ministry decided that this is important. It is introduced on beverage and low alcoholic drinks as Peter already said, covering plastic glass and metal basically all the materials for this type of beverage containers both one way and reusable ones. I would like to stress here that without the deposit system, it's almost impossible to keep the reusable bottles in the system. And in Estonia, in Latvia, Lithuania, neighboring countries were much more later. Now Lithuania has introduced also the deposit system in Latvia is on the way, but just to compare Estonia, the share of refillable bottles is much higher than in Latvia, Lithuania. And this is thanks to the deposit system. And this investment was made by producers, mainly beverage and low alcohol producers, importers. There were no costs for the government at all. They made the investment and if you keep it well managed and run and under the control of producers because they make the investments basically investments related to take back machines and so on. If it's well managed, then Estonia in a certain time better you can correct me. It was five years ago, there were almost zero costs for producers. So if we compare the costs for producers, comparing the deposit system and container collection system, then the deposit system is cheaper for producers. This is definitely a good argument to say that the deposit system is expensive. This is totally wrong argument, which is usually a little bit like presented in a wrong way, especially this is the lobby of container collection system organizations. So it's not definitely more expensive and especially when you take into account that deposit system allows to take back or collect approximately 90% of packaging put on the market. Can you imagine? 90%, almost close to 100%. At the same time container system allows to collect back hardly. If you talk about plastics, then definitely below 50%. And even compared to these figures, even then I would say the costs are at least in Estonian case or for producers. That's why producers are in a way today happier with this system. And of course there were lots of lobbying against of that in the very beginning, but after that when it was introduced and the real reality came out, then it turned out that it's cheap and at the moment producers are happy. So Petr, if you want to add something. Just some words. First, indeed that there was no investment from the side of the government practically. All was invested from the side of the producers. And the very initial investment was roughly 5 million euros. They made the accounting center and so on. And this is important to emphasize in many countries. The question is that what about those reverse vending machines, those collection machines installed. This is not required even, at least not understanding phase. It is possible to do it manually. But of course with the machines, this is better in our case. Those machines, every M's called, they are invested by retail shops. But not only their own cost because the deposit system is paying for them. The handling cost, the take back cost. And principally this is covering the cost. So this is on one side of the question was that was the level of collection before the deposit. I think it was so, if to put it roughly, it was not higher than 30 percent of the pet bottles and metal cans. And with the deposit, it went very fast with one year approximately 80. And now it's close, no 90 or more or less. That means that that was one of the arguments. So we really put it, it was that, as I said that the law was adopted in 2004 when we came to the European Union. And the more or less year later the deposit system came to the force and the argument force that we have to achieve the fast changes in the packaging collection. And that was one of the ways to do it. And the question was about Croatia. And of course I'm not exactly the expert, but a year ago in one seminar there was very good presentation from Croatian expert, actually the professor of the university. And he explained the situation, I can just refer to him, that the problem in Croatia is that actually this is not exactly the extended producer responsibility in that very sense that all the money goes through the state-owned fund. And to put it mildly, there are certain political interests to use those funds in other purposes. And that keeps the service fees for the producers higher than it would be in exactly and rapidly producer, produced model that is implemented in Estonia. And just to say that, to Hari also said that indeed I think it was three years approximately when there was very good conditions also in the world market on the materials collected, that was that the prices of the materials were high. Then the Estonian deposit system was run with zero fees for the producers, zero fees. Producers didn't pay anything. Of course they had the constant labeling and so on, but that's minor anyway, the service fees were zero. But this is exceptional. Nobody could really take that this is a kind of long-lasting situation and neither is in Estonia today there are fees, they pay again. But even if to compare those fees they pay, I would say that in some materials, those are definitely cheaper than it would be in the container collection. And in some others they are similar, and then on the glass it might be slightly higher. But the question is that they are also collecting it more effectively, they are collecting 90%. Okay, thank you Peter. I will continue in English, ja ću u na Englekskom i raču gledno prevo dradi u vijanov smeru da ne konflikujem. I will continue in English asking your questions. The next one about recycling. What kind of waste streams are mostly recycled in Estonia? What about hazardous waste? Do you have recovery capacities or are you exported? I don't have. And is Estonia exporting waste, how is this integrated in the reporting and targets? Peter, I will take the first one, I leave the second hazardous waste to you because of course we both would like to answer. But in a way when it comes to the source separation that recycling and if we talk about municipal waste then as you already understood from the EU perspective at the moment of course it depends on municipalities, the bigger municipalities and this is also based on this ordinance what Peter mentioned that ministry has established that there are certain list of mandatory waste streams that have to be collected. So in theory basically all municipalities have to collect all these major waste streams starting of course in addition to mixed municipal waste waste paper, packaging, bio waste and then of course this is something which is usually collected door to door. It's in most of the municipalities or at least in the process that the organized waste management collection or waste collection should cover in addition to mixed waste there has to be a container for waste paper, bio waste and more and more there is a tendency but it's now more voluntary that also next to the houses there is packaging going on the container but as Peter said the packaging is usually collected via public container. So this is the main set which is under the which is there in most of the municipalities but still it has to be improved and especially enforced what that we see at the moment that not all municipalities would like to deal with that so they try to do it as minimum as possible and then they'll save the different exemptions or they have exempted let's say individual houses or some other houses so it is still under the development but this is the thumb of the rule that in the future in addition to mixed waste, paper waste bio waste next to the door and packaging this is the minimum part and Peter you can take this the problem of hazardous waste because Estonia is small and this is maybe I have also as I understand this is also a problem in post-signal Herzogovina what to do with specific waste. But there was also a question concerning the recycling capacities and I would say that this is also problematic for the smaller or medium even countries to recycle all of and we do not have practically any metallurgical industries or metals are 100% classes I mean half to half half is recycled locally half is exported paper also some perhaps 20 is locally recycled 80% is delivered to the other countries plastics are really very changing but I think that some less than half is recycled in Estonia more is exported usually today countries neighboring countries and this is very changing of course not too much but anyway until 2018 something was delivered to China and China is not receiving anything anymore so this is a problem whether there are deliveries to the other Asian countries and now in the EU it should be solved so basically this is the about hazardous waste and the other waste indeed this is a very mixture of different waste streams starting for example the batteries and waste electronics those are also and the batteries are not treated in Estonia except the late Asian batteries we have a facility definitely and they are bringing in pretty much of lead Asian batteries from the other countries but other smaller batteries treated partly in Estonia partly exported to the other countries some recyclers in Estonia take the weave from the other countries so it's rather such a changing but the more hazardous waste which is perhaps the usual understanding that means that some home chemicals and paints and solvents and whatever such stuff is collected there are hazardous waste companies this is very well established for today private companies they are dealing, offering services and collection and everything and then what is burnable is burned there is one as I said it was sent to the cement kiln also pretty much of today this is a part of the problem but still we have one private company in Tartu they are incerating some 2000 tons I think so there is one very delicate hazardous waste type of human tissues or something so this is also let's say incerated in this special incerator and if something needs to be finally landfill then there is also specially designated other waste landfill there is treatment options physical chemical treatment but these needs to be solidified to the firm type of concrete like this is not exactly the concrete but concrete like total and then it will landfill but if needed and that happens definitely then is also exported to the other countries in our cases usually Finland, Sweden, Germany perhaps such countries maybe just to better but in the very beginning state still invested into the first capacity for hazardous waste treatment the first major investments were made by the state and then later on went it to private companies and now private companies are more and more investing themselves that's right the very basic network was first established by state this is true but later on it have been even privatized several of those collection centers it's more like in private hands today and this is what I said that we are really using if needed the services provided by Finland, Sweden, Germany it have been all the time it's such a very, very serious issue and I don't know whether it have been so in Bosnia, Ertogovina that is the old passage sites because as we regained our independence in 1991 we had also this collective farm system in Estonia and every collective farm had some storages of the old passage sites and in the end of 90s it all was first mapped and registered and then cleaned up those sites and there was roughly 600, 700 tons of old passage sites and most of them were also finally sent to Finland and Germany, I think so for the treatment interation mostly and some remained in Estonia for example the mercury containing waste because no insurator even the designated other those waste insurator they don't really accept anything that contains in higher concentrations mercury so that remained in Estonia that was solidified and put to the specially designated other those waste landfills Thank you very much we have more questions of course we will extend a little bit of seminar for 10 minutes if everybody agrees the next set of questions is regarded to costs of services basically the question was what is the price of landfilling now in Estonia, I think there was in one of your slides about up to 70 euros did you did you gradually increase this price and how this impacted the price for the citizens collection and disposal of the citizens how this impacted this tariff actually Yeah, very good question actually as I also indeed it was in my slides that in 2001 it was not more than 10% than somewhere in the mid 2010 and then it was some 40 30 40 euro and now it is some 70 to 90 roughly and the state have not really influenced those prices the landfills itself have come to this the influence to the service prices to the households it have been of course but not very I would say essential because there are other component the cost component definitely transport collection and so on but average I think that average is something around 5 euro per household per month but in in many cases especially the families living in the one family houses and they are sorting out usually the pile waste and composting in a garden and if the people are sorting out the packages and delivering the packaging container means that they have very few mixed municipal waste I think in many places the average monthly fee could be only 2-3 euro per month funny funny just to amend funny thing is that very often today also politicians in the parliament even if there is discussion about why the development and the source separation and under recycling but Hari also covered where is the problem and why and pretty often is put the finger on that actually the fees the households pay for the mixed municipal waste they are too low that this service is so cheap that the people don't feel themselves motivated to change their behavior to sort out more actually and therefore many people suggest that we have to do something to make namely the mixed municipal waste more expensive this is maybe little bit the political issue because as the Estonian experience shows and as Peter mentioned I would say if you live in a big house with many flats then the average fee per flat is something I would say not more than 2 euros per month which is basically one cup of coffee but at the same time this is very heated discussion on local level especially before elections or something like that somehow people tend to take this as a very significant sum and there is a lot of discussion, debate politicians are afraid to increase this fee and this is one of the reasons why our municipal waste management system is in a way stuck because nobody is willing to increase this fee although it's very low so basically we have made several examples by showing that the total communal cost for one household could be several hundred euros including energy, heating and everything so the waste part of this communal cost is below 5% so it's ridiculously low compared to the other communal costs but at the same time on the political level it's always an issue always local politicians tend to bring it up as a problem so to say but I would say that this is not really very high at the moment that has to be increased definitely in the future ok thank you very much the next set of questions related to landfill closure the question was how much time and money you needed to close all unsanitary or uncontrolled municipal landfill and did you actually closed all of them in Estonia does the landfills that are closed have already have secured financial guarantees and supervision for the next 30 years and how did you actually prevent to prevent the people to create dumping sites in situation when you started applying this landfilling tax and whether there were some negative feeling from the municipal side when this landfill tax and closure of municipal landfill was taking place so these are a couple of questions related to the closure and if you can just shortly answer them please because we have to wrap up these couple of minutes better than because he is very sharp i know actually the period was obviously some 15 years or even more when we started in the end of the 90s and it went up to 2015 when all those old landfills were closed and covered now about this financial quarantine of course on all those old landfills which worked once and didn't collect anything for the future after care fund there was no such thing and if they are closed then they are set by environmental administration certain rules for the monitoring for example but those costs are then to the municipality who really was the owner of the landfills so this is the basic approach of course in the new landfills and now operating currently they all are oblige to collect certain funds separately for the environmental closure and after care until 30 years it doesn't necessarily mean that it will last 30 years but up to 30 years if the monitoring shows that it is necessary so this is different now the question and that is very justify that was exactly lot of opinions and level of the average citizens and the level of the local politicians that it is not the very wise option at all to close the old landfills and so on and so on and in my slides I will just refer to them that from the very beginning the basic approach was that all households as much as possible at least say should be joined to the compulsory waste collection system that the model that was really practiced before that the special and the countries but even in the small towns and so on that people living in the on family houses that they just deliver their waste itself to the local dumping site so this is not any more acceptable and many often and many of them said that we don't need here the waste collection service we do not even generate the waste actually so this is just a fairy tale and should not be taken seriously and just there is a rule that all households where the people are living there should stand the waste container which is emptied let's say once per month and the owner of the property or the house has to pay this bill would it be 2-3 euro whatever actually so this is to make clear for the people that this is a service and this is if somebody would like or does not like this is compulsory service and you are expected to put waste into the container and even if you are not doing you are still charged with a basic approach to to make clear that no you are generating the waste everybody is generating the waste and we collect it as a society, as a municipality, as a state we do not accept that you are dealing with your waste itself because in most cases this is not in line with the requirements of the law but the landfill tax influence in that very sense it haven't really influenced the prices the service prices but the average families pay so rapidly practically there is no reason to say that there was like clear type of behaviour or change in the people that now you raise the landfill tax now we are going to not more pay and they are going to really deliver the waste to the pushes actually well that is perhaps the summary just a few clarifications just the key was that municipalities were forced to form a register of local property owners and they automatically were then linked to the services so even in the very beginning some of them they said no we are not going to put any container out there because we don't care about this service but then they started to get bills and then they recognised that there is no sense and they of course in the very beginning took them to the courts and lots of hassle but then they understood that it's easier to pay the bill and put the container and then it took away the motivation to take this waste into the littering somewhere just to dump it somewhere this was the key and it took some years to introduce it but after that it started to work at least minimum one container for mixed municipal waste then this pressure for littering and dumping was taken away Thank you very much there are a lot of questions regarding the incineration especially because Kanton Sarajevo is examining the possibility of procuring the cogeneration plant maybe I will just ask two questions and then I will finalise this Q&A session and ask you if possible to provide answers in written for the rest of the questions and Draženko is also having something to ask and to wrap up regarding the incineration the question was what were recycling and landfill rates in Estonia before introduction of incineration and how these rates changed to date I think these answers are on the slides but if you can just in short and since EU for recycling is expecting the stricter targets what is the future of incineration in Estonia, what are the perspectives and if you are in position to decide on incineration today having in mind EU green deal and other legal European policies would you still take the same course and what are the biggest challenges with incineration administrative part or financial, logistical and social someone is asking also about the treatment price per ton I think there is also in slides so if you can just briefly what is the future of incineration and perspective of EU and what are the challenges I will take very quickly first and better but maybe they add few few words as Peter showed in his slide after the incinerator was introduced the landfilling dropped in 2 years from 70% below 10% this is already something just to understand what was the influence of the incineration compared to that we were very successful regarding the landfill the targets when it comes to the next steps then as I already said there was a slight fear that we have too much of capacity when it comes to incineration plus mbt but as already Peter mentioned mbt is out of the business because of economic cost simply operational cost and there is no to take this RDF so basically they are in a way out and at the moment the capacity of incineration fits very well to the big picture because they can't incinerate more than 50% of municipal waste so the other 50% has to be recycled but from the let's say 10 year perspective I think they have counted easily there will be no major changes and if we look on what other more developed countries they do like Sweden or other countries they still keep the incineration and it is clear that there is still need for incineration because incineration has an alternative very strong alternative for landfill but again it can't be increase so there will be no additional investments and most probably EU doesn't accept any public let's say support money which will go to the waste to heat or let's say incinerator so EU doesn't like this anymore so most probably this will be limited limited and I would just add there was also a comment that European environmental bureau I think so have commented that this is not environmental and so on and there are definitely different political opinion but I would refer the European Commission issued year or two their communication concerning especially the waste incineration and the idea in this communication was that the waste incineration is fully in line with the EU waste policy but the question is how much and in many cases indeed the European Commission have even criticized the countries that they are incerating too much that means that there was I think in hurry slides that there is today the target for 635% of the municipal waste should be recycled, two thirds that means that still is absolutely acceptable and I think that this comes close to the level where it's unavoidable already one third of the total municipal waste should be treated in some other way, you can't really that is only a pink dream somebody's dream that we're gonna reach I mean near 100% of recycling it's simply not possible and then this one third in long term is absolutely acceptable to incerate and even in some materials for example take a paper or take some plastics where this mechanical recycling could not really be held up too many rounds it's rather limited number and therefore is absolutely unavoidable even that part of the low quality paper and low quality plastics are really removed from the circulation and what you can do with them if you will really have to remove them to keep up the quality of the other stream so therefore I'm not saying that the inceration is best thing in the world but I really agree fully what the European Commission have said in this communication that it's fully in line with the waste policy and it is absolutely without any doubts preferable to the landfill so this is important to emphasize because very often it is I really see that those are opposing really inceration. They are not like agreeing that means actually that you say that even if those waste are going to the landfill so this is more acceptable. Thank you Peter very much Ja ću se izvimiti svim učesnicima što ostala pitanja ostadoše neodgovorena ali u svakom slučaju kao što sam rekla da imamo naše stručnake daju pisme neodgovore koji ću biti ovaj doostupni i bi ćete obavještani. Sada ću predate riječ draženku koji je isto želio par pitanja i da zatvori danšnji skup. Prije samog zatvaranja radionci moja dva pitanja ako ja su vezana sa danasljim naslovog webinara kako su nadležne organije skupali u situacijama kada su prilikom transpadovanja zakon oddavstva EU u nacelnoj propse uočili da privredna infrastutura nije mogučila podpuno provođenje zahkeva EU u praksi odnosno primer ko dnas imamo već zakon oddavstvo koje je transpadovano međutim u praksi još to nije zaživelo. Na nivog ministarstva imamo zakone, imamo pod zakon skakla međutim obštine i gradovi su nadležni za organizaciju upravljanja sistemom odpada na svojim teritorijama to ne sprovode u praksi. To je jedno pitanje i drugo pitanje kad se spomenili cijena odpada prikupljanja. Dali to od cijena od 3 do 5 euro što ste rekli da doma činstva plačaju za prikupljanja odpada dali je tu sve uračno to i prikupljanje transport i depanovanje odnosno njego zbrinjavanje daliko depanovanja recikraza u buhvata tu cijenu od 3 euro. Pobjera, da je to dobro i tako dobro da je to dobro da je to dobro ideja da ima odpada basic infrastruktura na uročnice na uročnice uročnice uročnice uročnice i to je dobro koncept uročnice, da je to dobro dobro, da je to dobro da je dobro prikupljanje nekih dobro recitruje da je uročnice i da je dobro prikupljanja. Pobjera, da joj uročnice da je Estonija kao da ne tako dobro uročnice uročnice uročnice uročnice, da je to dobro Očinje, da bilo, je to očin, da se je kompeticija, koji je bilo hvorei na učinu u učinu, kad je učinu učinu u učinu. Zavrstveno je to dofini i obsekili, kako el učinu ne bali. Kako učinu učinu vrstva do išljega, veliko se za kompeticija, nam zbog je nije hvore, ali ima da se ne zbog bilo Čaj izgleda prišljovati. Sve učinu se se zbog je stonija, hodin tako da obstavljano investorsa i, najnora, ga uneći učin očin, subječiti, neko na biologijne recijelice, bila to lakushovice. Zatoo je to ne ekonomikno-profitetne vidjela. Espe vendi pećni reć i svih svih stvorima, kao tekstijliskima, način od problematijica.irler ga treba dobično od 넘o u reći, učin da se kod svih reća ne pad svi izvedno there is really time to take again municipality have to do this themselves and that's why we will see that the costs for local residents will increase but at the moment I would say yes in Estonia this fee is relatively low. It is possible to do it efficiently, and then if you want to do it efficiently in a way in a certain amount you have to involve the private sector. However, I would also add that in the basement management context, was important to find the links to the other sectors. One example of many would depend on the bio-waste. And yes, it should be collected separately. Sada, kuće je pričete bio-gas u svih. Bio-gas na vidišku produče u mnog uživosti na njih možete odmog... Neko u Estonija, všečo u to, ali se sve vako ademirila. Pajte, ještoame, da sami li za uživosti čisela agrikaceri, da su weightedi, masjela... i dan da se učinili nekošne probleme, da je manjura. A nekošno tehnika solucija da se učinili sve učinili, da se učinili nekošne probleme učinili, da se učinili manjura, da se učinili biojoga. Učinili smo u 5-6, učinili smo učinili biojoga, učinili smo učinili biojoga. A to je nekošno u činu, i obdirajiti koncerno uplavno uplavno uvrštje i da uvršta uplavno pomečno uvrštje do bio gas. This is exactly the case, what they are doing in Nordic countries and Germany in many cases actually. So why I am emphasizing this, that this is typically nothing to do with the municipalities, this is a private companies and this is clearly also the green energy. jer, ili možete u nekaj komoda, da joj je komoda na oboru energiju, a ne bile, kako oči su po avojcega po posseneja govina, da se sve potrebnila igračka kodost, i da se ta pridorao sanju da otvaraj na premonatnim, ljubim pa, da u njegopu. Evo na kraju današnji radionici da se zahvalim u Kacima i takođe da se zahvalim u našim učesnicima u jednom trenutku, vidilo sam da je bilo oko 140 učesnika koji su uslušali vaša predavanja. Hari je u nakraju svojog predavanja sumirao, to kaži, stanje i iz toga se dobar dio može primjenti na Bosnju Hercegunu, ono što smo mi danas ovdje videli, znači da moramo početi sa odvojenim, sa kupljanjem, sa razdvajanjem otvada na miastu nastanka. Znači, to je kod nas je to malo te ne u pilot projekti postoje, osim što kaže Kanto na Sarajevo, ostalim vokstima nije ni nemovo pilot projekata. Takođe da bi omugućili dalji razvoj sistema, jedno zahvali ga da bi moramo, znači, osim depunija, ponuditi i neku alternativu neki nove vid zbrinjavanja otvada i ovo što smo danas kod će primijetili, znači jedan od videova napretka u sistema, u početku uključivanje dijela privatnog sektora. Meni je jako žao što sam primijetio, danas sam primijetio da je bilo dosta prestanika iz nadležnih ministarstava i oni su bili aktivni kroz ova pitanja i trudi se što kažu da da da povoljšanje neka uvedu, ali oni uvodi tako, jednostno donosi zakone, ali sad ne dosta je taj mehanizam kako dalje je primijent i žao mi, je što nisam primijetio liako malo da ima prestanika komunalnih prednozeća i obština, odnosno bradova koji su na kraju ti koji implementiraju te zakone i koji trebuje da sprovedu u praks. Nadam se da će u našem danjem radu u razgave u GESAP-a, ove vaše prezentacije će biti od pomoći kako nama koji organizimo to, tako i svimo ostavimo učestnici da radni grupa i nadamo se da ćemo u daljem radu imati ovih novih članova radni grupa i da ćemo primijentio vaše iskustva i prepruke koje ste u svojim prezentacijama, danas se odepodijeli sa nama. Još jednom se vama, zahvaljujem i takođe svim ostavim učestnicima na danasnoj, ja mislim, jako korisnoj radionici. Ja bi se zahvala svima i još jednom da spozdravim i pozovem da se prihvi u Žiteradu naše radne grupe, poslaj puno pred nama, a za htevi izazovili su veliki tako da svaka pomoć po navnicima je dobro došla, sa gledamo prihvaću prenaj alpadom i svih uglova. Tako da, evo. Thank you, our panelists and participants, thank you for all the experiences that you shared today and we hope that you will stay with us until the end of this process to guide us a little bit and provide a very useful insight in what the working groups will prepare and decide on the challenges and goals for the country. Thank you very much. Zahvaljujem se još jednom i do skoro obiđenja. Jo to. Thank you.