 Good morning to all participants, I hope you can hear me well and that everything is working well. It's nine o'clock, let's not prolong the start. We have already 70 participants and certainly we will have some more joining us later on. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to open the second one out of seven webinars which will take place within the process of development of environmental strategy. These are organized by SEI and the consortium and of a center sponsored by the Swedish Embassy. As you may know, we are already in the process and developing strategy, among others the strategy includes the waste management. It is a great challenge for all of us, you may know that we have seven groups, seven working groups, which are working to develop this strategy using participatory approach and involved engagement of multiple stakeholders. There is a novelty in strategic planning processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The challenge is even higher because this is the first time that Bosnia and Herzegovina will have a strategy which will bring us closer to EU membership. We also organized this webinar which aims at presenting the experience of Estonia in approximation process and in the waste management and development of relevant strategies relevant for their path. I will moderate this gathering together with my Draženko. We are the leading experts for the waste management in this process. I'm honored to present Mr Harry Mulder and Peter Eka who will be presenters at today's workshop and before I introduce them and give them the floor, I will kindly ask my colleague Draženko to provide a brief overview of the situation in the waste sector and the challenges in this sector which were identified by the working group and we identified these challenges within the working group in two sessions we already had. Draženko, the floor is yours. Thank you, Erin. Let me first welcome our presenters and all other participants at today's webinar. As I can see, we have many participants who are not members of our working groups, which is very good. Before I start, let me note that the working group for waste had two workshops and for our presenters and other participants, I will describe briefly the current situation in the waste management sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2019, based on the statistics we have available, 1.2 million tons of waste was generated in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 77% of this waste was collected and the major part of the collected waste originates from households, 18% from industry and 4% from public services. The organic fraction is predominant, up to 90% depending from one municipality to the other and the packaging waste accounts for 40%. I already mentioned 77% of the population is covered by the waste collection services and the dominant treatment of waste continues to be disposal, landfilling. We have seven sanitary landfills which were constructed within the project of the World Bank Solid Waste Management in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have several, four landfills at the municipal level but they are not non-compliant. They do not meet all the requirements to be sanitary landfills. We have 46 municipal non-compliant landfills in the Federation, the Publicasubska and Batko district. We have a large number of illegal dump sites and data from 2019 indicated 2900 and something illegal dump sites. In BAH we have five sorting facilities. The facility in Dobbo is non-operational and that is where they are sorting mainly the packaging waste. We have no facilities for treatment of animal waste, medical waste and some other hazardous waste. In Bosnia and Herzegovina we have operators in the Federation. We have operators for packaging and electronic waste. In the Publicasubska we have one operator for packaging waste. Regarding the funding of these services, mainly the utility companies charge their fees from households and partly they receive funds from local self-government units. And the price is based on the square meter of housing area and amounts to approximately 10. In the Federation it's 88 km per tonne and in the Publicasubska it's 113 km per tonne. Regarding strategic documents in place in the Publicasubska we have a strategy, a waste management strategy which is valid until 2026 and based on this strategy they also developed a waste management plan until 2029. In Bačko district they have strategy on waste management within the environmental strategy which is valid until 2026 and the strategy, waste management strategy in the Federation expired. I have already informed you of the principle on which we rely in the development of the ISAP. We are the second working group, the waste management group. We have working groups for all the levels of the government for levels for jurisdictions, Federation, Publicasubska and Bosnia and Herzegovina. So far we have had two meetings of the working groups and the working groups defined key challenges for all the levels of the government. And I will briefly address these key challenges. The working group for BIH identified the lack of an efficient mechanism of planning coordination monitoring of activities in the waste management sector and the second challenge is insufficiently efficient system of implementation of international obligation in the waste management sector, Basel Convention. Regarding challenges for the Federation and the Publicasubska they are rather similar, we have 11 of them defined challenges in the Federation, insufficiently developed legal framework, lack of policies, insufficiently efficient work of institutions, lack of policies for circular economy, the system of generation monitoring and reporting is not in place, lack of funds for adequate waste management, insufficient structure, insufficiently developed infrastructure for collection and disposal, insufficiently developed awareness, public awareness, insufficiently developed system for extended producers responsibility. The issue of treatment of special categories is not resolved in the Publicasubska, we have similar challenges. The only difference is the non implementation of measures for prevention of waste that the measures have been defined but they are not implemented and insufficiently developed system for management of hazardous waste and unresolved issues of black points, so-called black points. But it's called district, the working group also defined seven key challenges and perhaps I should mention the lack of the system of expanded producers responsibility, extended producers responsibility and the non-compliant local landfill. Very soon there will be arrangements for them to transport their waste to another compliant landfill in Svarnik. That would be all from me at this point. I wish you successful work and I invite all participants of today's webinar who are not members of the working groups to feel free to register for participation in any of the working groups. You can use the email addresses which you see on the screen. That would be all from me now. Thank you, Drazenko, and thank you very much for sticking to the timeline. We will try to do so. Also, now may I invite Mr. Harimura to make his first presentation and discuss the challenges and needs for approximation with EU and to share with us his experience from Estonia. He's director of the environmental program in Tallinn within the SEI. He has PhD obtained at the technological faculty in Tallinn and he also has a PhD from the university in Lund. His main focus is circular economy and environmental protection in the light of EU policies. He has more than 20 years of experience both at the national and international level on sustainable waste management and sustainable production and consumption. And you will later on also have an opportunity to meet Mr. Harimura who also was involved in the approximation processes in Estonia and to this and his experience and knowledge he will seek to share with us are very relevant for us. In terms of opening new perspectives and providing new opportunities for Bosnia and Herzegovina for strategic planning. As I said at the beginning this process is crucial for us at this point especially when EU is imposing new requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are looking forward to hear their presentations. Mr. Harimura, you have the floor. Good morning also from my side. It's really a pleasure to share some of the experiences from Estonian point of view. I think there are quite many interesting issues and lessons learned when it comes to the waste management policy European Union waste management policy implementation because Estonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina we have quite many similarities. So basically if we if you look back on our history or let's say the political history then this is also very similar. There are many other features which actually make our countries quite similar and when I was hearing the presentation about the challenges and issues which are up there in your country and different regions then I also recognize that there are quite many similarities and I think it will be maybe interesting to share some of our experiences when it comes to the approximation and implementation of EU waste legislation. Before I jump into the waste management and I will maybe still share some of the facts related to Estonia. I hope that you see my slides also in parallel. Not yet. I don't see them but now the screen sharing has started so you can start. So I tried to do in parallel presentation in English but I hope that you can follow it in your own language in a way but we will have a sometime at the end of the workshop so that you have definitely a chance to ask clarification questions. Unfortunately the time which is today given for us for this short overview is very short and me and Peter we really like to talk. So I hope that we don't run into the problem related to the time so please keep an eye so that we don't get stuck into certain issues. But again when it comes to Estonia as I already said there are many many similarities and Estonia is definitely one of the smallest European Union member states especially when it comes to the population. But as I already said there are certain similarities 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 challenges or even problems when it comes to the development of waste management system and in this small country we used to have more than 200 small municipalities. Today we have split it into almost half or let's say they are approximately 80 municipalities but still we clearly see a lack of cooperation and this is one of the challenges. And we will come to that once again and Peter will cover a little bit better this area. But when it comes to the economic structure then Estonia has shifted away from more industrial activities. So as you can see services are now sharing or taking the biggest share of the economic structure and Estonia is quite well known from its IT developments but still when it comes to industry then we have a specific 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. Estonia 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 Estonia is really a giant of waste basically generating more than 20 million tons of waste which is basically 17 tons per person. It sounds really crazy so I think the European average is something like three tons 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 better 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% to 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 with figures so this is 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. Okay, 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 will be something which influence will be 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 pellet policies 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 this is these are the priority areas where there will be a specific strategies and actions developed just to name them first of all of course plastic. This is 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. So I want to jump into the next slide please. And this is just to illustrate that that the overall view in this circular economy. New approaches not only end of life or basically waste management as you can see the whole lifecycle of products will be covered. 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 this is one of those driving legal areas where there is a 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 this is these are the areas which should also contribute into the prevention of waste generation so as you can see the those 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 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. You will see that most of the targets established by different European Union waste related directives are still related to recycle so this heavy let's say significant increase of recycling which is required. So just to name some of them there is this gradual progress to 65% recycling when it comes to waste 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 Herzegovina, I think this recycling related how to improve the recycling of 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 the 10% in each member state and I would say this is also from the Bosnian Herzegovina 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 tension. And of course in parallel with packaging recycling increasing targets for recycling of packaging also challenging is 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 or 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 to collect the class in 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. Different countries have their own kind of calculation reporting systems and you see we see very big differences among those new member states and this is definitely an issue know how really to ensure that all member states follow the same rules and the figures which are imported by the member states. They should be comparable and really should be transparent and this is something which is I would say one of the challenges and definitely a challenge for her personally and then absolutely not because it's already now important to develop a really smart system to to collect this information and also to monitor the system so it's I would say one of the challenges for for your country also. Let's jump to the next slide mentioned that we are out of time so please try to wrap up very very briefly just to indicate some of the issues which are very really important and one of those as I said it's related to the plastics specific plastic strategy under the circular economy action plan you can see there's a lot 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 have 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 you know go in details when it comes to new. Next targets and issues which are on the table but just to mention some of them by waste collection which will be mandatory by 2030 2023 it's important because if you would like to achieve the recycling target of the municipal waste and 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 you know how to collect the bio waste full waste you know how to ensure the recycling of this waste 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 in the municipal 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 Herzegovina would fit in this figure but as you can see you know 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 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 Herzegovina will enjoy the economic growth and it's 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's the big variety when it comes to different member states concerning the recycling landfilling so it's really big difference here and that's why this also illustrates 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 floor 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 landfill tax which really allowed us to leave the landfilling as such and really to go forward to more recovery and recycling and the key I would say measure here is landfill tax which I think it's 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 again you know how to organize this system this is something that we will discuss today you know what is the role of 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 this type of lessons I think we would like to share with you and I have already consumed more time I know that Peter will do the same I'm pretty sure so Irem hopefully you will you will somehow you know 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 Thank you I believe I'm confident that our participants are enjoying and receiving very important information especially from the point of view of our strategic planning at the end we'll have a panel discussion question and answer discussion since this is a zoom that supports webinars you can ask your questions in the chat that you can find in the bottom menu you can start asking questions immediately and we will take them afterwards and provide answers I invite Mr. Peter Ik to give his presentation of experiences from Estonia in the context of alignment with the EU legislation in waste management to explain how the negotiations went on and present the main challenges that Estonia faced in the process Just very briefly Mr. Peter is working in waste management for over 13 years in the public sector and he participated in the whole process of harmonization with the EU legislation He is currently working as a private consultant in earth care consulting company His experience as the general manager of the waste department within the Ministry of Environment of Estonia will be of great interest for our administrative staff and our ministry staff to hear this next presentation Peter the floor is yours Good morning from my side and could you please switch to the slides or I will share this one Good and let's start and I tried to use the time given to cover the process how Estonia joined the EU and what was the preparatory work for it and after all so that means that the part being there already the part of implementation so to say So let's start next night So there is just dates when and how Estonia came closer to the European Union more or less after gaining or regaining independence 91 four years later already Estonia applied for the membership 97 European Commission decided to start negotiations and actually they were started 98 and the full package of the negotiations not only the environmental issues all that lasted four years and eight months so it's a pretty long period anyway and yeah well it ended that we joined to do 2004 with the nine other Eastern European countries Next slide please Next slide this is a title chest and now just looking back how it all developed that there was already first waste law in 1992 that was even let's say that nobody didn't even even perhaps dream very much yet about the European Union it was so far and and this very time the economy collapsed and the living standard was very low and every salary was something like 50 euro per person and and everybody remembers this time and me personally too it was difficult times anyway but even then actually a certain foundation to the waste management was laid and with this law for example the waste permit system and base reporting system and such things were put in place and already in the mid 90s the economy started to develop and things got better and and of course this European Union wasn't really just a dream but something already on the screen visible when the negotiations started and this very time or less we had yet permitted already I will emphasize here permitted dumping sites up to 250 around and there is just one picture that very often such countryside dumping sites there was no control and if there was no control it was absolutely free of charge and that was rather terrible really situation where to come out more or less next slide and yeah as I said that the 97 negotiations started and 2001 and during this namely the period of the hour negotiations there was adopted they will land redirected 99 and Estonia transpose this land redirective 2001 more less than the time when we really finished the negotiations and that was rather I would say even a breaking point of this old style or old model in the waste management and principally here is a picture how it showed even a couple of years later where Thailand the biggest landfill municipal waste landfill in Estonia the ditch around the landfill looked this is more or less the water with any kind of litter pretty nasty picture was it indeed but speaking about this 2001 when this landfill regulation was issued in Estonia transposing the landfill directive. It was for the all existing landfills where a couple of very simple rules or requirements and principally up to the end of the 2001 that means relatively short time half a year was required that every such a small landfill will install a weight bridge have to install the fence around that should quarantine the working hours control that means that somebody worker there controlling that is both and so on and the regulation didn't say anything particular when this or this landfill should be closed but just giving the option that will make those investments owners of the land please or it should be closed and the principle already during this 2001 more than half or quite the big number of the small landfills just in itself. And made the decision that okay we'll close this landfill will not invest into this landfill anymore so that was rather let's say. Good approach I think so not directly forcing but just putting some simple demands next slide. And then 1991 that is about the packages came already the first packaging act just to remind that 94 that was issued the packaging directive, although this act if to look now it was perhaps a little bit simple and didn't emphasize yet very clearly this. Extended producer responsibility and so on but but some basics already were there and 1996 and the support so to say to the packaging act itself was packaging excise duty we could call it simply also packaging tax. But the idea there is I think in many countries is the same approach, although in different names might be that there are defined the recycling and recovery targets. And now, let's say on the level of the single companies or whether it goes through the 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 shift level will be taxed and the tax ease on this case. Let's say much higher in our case it is approximately four times higher than would be the average price to be paid for the waste management sector to achieve the target so to say. And these have been definitely very very important economic measure to motivate the packaging collection and recycling. Well, and about the institutional development I would say in 1990s as Hari already also described that we had from outside the big number of the small municipalities which was a problem. And although there was made also attempts to push through the administrative reform and reduce the number of the municipalities that ended up finally. Only 2017 it took mostly 2020 years that was strange but true. But on this very 90s mostly in the beginning at least most of the municipalities or the bigger municipalities they had their own municipal waste management companies and they started to privatize them. That was the full I mean 90s was privatization everything stayed down municipal on mostly was privatized and also base management. And it is later to say perhaps it was even privatized a bit a little bit too much but anyway, such a collection sector somewhere in the early 2000s already was more less fully in the private hands. And later on, especially when we started to establish a new regular landfills then was one reason to bring the municipalities back to the waste management, because the rules of the financing didn't really definitely allowed to give a big financial support to the private companies back to the public companies and so the first approach with new landfills or waste management sector centers was namely that those were the municipal companies then established. And, yeah, well, and as I said that this 1999 became the directive of the landfills. This was the directive and that changed the rule of waste management. Basically, next slide please. Our just nothing but the development of the way stack that the first was 1992 that was very simple and very short in today's comparison, then we had like intermediate law for the transposition period which already transposed. Let's say most part of existing this time. requirements, but for the 2004 it came forth exactly on the same day when it's only became a member states. And came to force the new way stack full decked also packaging act principally separated. And this already then implemented the old newer directives, which were issued there for example the 2000 end of life Vegas 2002 waste electric directive and so on so it means that this extended producer responsibility in more broader sense than only packages. Next slide. Yeah, and just shortly to describe that how the process went of this negotiations and preparations and this is definitely a very serious issue in all countries which have been, which have had those negotiations being conducted the country first, and clearly, it starts from the very detailed humble that is absolutely required. And although that was for us it was already 20 years ago and the situation is very different. If you look that which directives a law existed this time and where it have developed today, and the package is much much more challenging that's for sure. The principle have remained most likely at least that means that there is going on deceiving by each directive. And that means that every candidate country have to make a special file, but he's really already implemented. And concerning this directive that remains to be transposed in the sense of the legislation, but then it comes definitely to the implementation and implementation means like basic two things only is the institutions, whether there are already institutions established and targeted or not targeted but really given a power by legislation who are responsible to do this or this or this. And the second thing is definitely also the investments because the chains of the ways management in any country. I suppose in Estonia definitely in Bosnia, Erzegovina also that requires a huge amount of investments. And in a short time it is not possible to cover those investments with a very basic idea that is in the ways management that is the producer base in the short run the producer base have to cover the cost but in a short run during those changes that's not possible. And usually and I think that it will be a case also for Bosnia Erzegovina that the EU funds will be made available and that will help a lot of but regardless of that, there should be always local local financial instruments which will support it definitely. Next slide. So, and this is already about negotiations and implementation period and in our case in the 90s we had pretty much of support, both, let's say, like knowledge side and also investment side from the Denmark, because the Scandinavian countries were very, very visible in the Baltic region especially. I said that every directive requires very detailed analysis how to how to implement it and definitely also on the means that the new landfills should be placed a waste management center, there is definitely needed also the in that very sense to analyze that which way streams right now we have and which way streams we have to face after let's say five years, that sort of analysis also, or always needed them, and this is why the waste management planning is very useful tool and the way planning of course is required by a directive in general way. It does not say that on which levels. It says that whether in national level or in regular level this is up to the every Member States or country that country to decide in Estonia that was done at the beginning given on the three levels to try to make the national level then on the county or regular level and then on the municipal level. Later on the county level is really left out and but still there is a national waste management plan and and also required that the municipalities will have to prepare their own plans. Next slide. Peter just just to jump in and say that we are out of time I see you have 20 slides more but just to let you know that you can shoot the wrap up. I will here bring up just one very important point. Hurry already referred to and that this is nothing really to take very exactly the example that is our case with our oil shell issue but what I want to emphasize is that going to those negotiations preparing to those negotiations. It is definitely clear to find out and to make clear that is the absolute priority for for example for the Bosnia Erzegovina and then to try to use definitely a rather limited space for exemptions for those higher countries because that was said also for Estonia I mean during those negotiations and before and and so on that this is definitely not the very useful approach if you would come up and to apply the exemptions for the let's say many requirements in the EU because the process itself by is like consider that the candidate country have to demonstrate that they are already almost there that they are able to implement the legislation in a big part of the country in the majority and there yes indeed there could be some questions where certain extra extra conditions usually means that there's a certain prolongation certain extra time is given so that's very difficult and if I just compare our southern neighbours Latvia, Lithuania, other Eastern European countries, many of them applied the extra time for the implementation of the landfill directive how long the old landfills could be used and so on and so on. In our case this is just to say that there was consideration that energy sector is the highest priority and we have to cover the energy sector needs and this extra exemptions were asked only for the energy sector. That means that all other terms also in in the landfill directive were applied exactly as was given in the directive all other in the extended producer responsibility were applied exactly as was required in the directive. And this is perhaps to say that this is a serious issue and also for the Bosnia Eftukvina would be very important to figure out which issues are the utmost importance and not to and let's say priorities on to three not more. And then others should somehow be taken that we have to implement them as they are and we have to work hard if needed. So this is perhaps from my side with this intervention right now. Yeah, this is just a picture how it looked our oil shale power stations landfills. And this is in this very time it was, but that's just the history already today definitely that it was like considered that this is not in line with the landfill directive to pump that ash to the landfill with water mixture. And there was like consideration that that should be ended 2009, but later on, although they did put really a lot of money into this in the research, there was not found any workable solution and and was agreed again with the European Commission that this pumping with water mixture where where water is finally considered as a transport carrier of the ash and ashes itself, not the liquid. That is, let's say that more or less consideration interpretation of directive. So, nothing more that you have to also figure out what is your crucial issue for the economy for the for the country as such. And there is perhaps to say yet that beside the of the let's say average municipal waste there is those waste streams which are covered already by a with the extended producer responsibility waste electric electronic batteries, then all packaging material and so on. And there is need to develop the recycling industry also as much. And of course, this is not the straightforward that everything should be recycled locally, which is obviously not even possible perhaps but at least to find out that which companies could do something and to try to find also the financial means how to support them. Well, we have only one class recycling factory that they are also limiting themselves to the transparent class that means class to glass back to the new charts and models, but then again, there is perhaps not the first preference but anyway, that is recycling. Some companies are producing payment stones, putting the class colors fine class colors that to the concrete for example, so this is more or less simple or much simpler industrial process. There are not yet but I know that they're coming obviously some producers who would like to produce the class foam from the class so so this is like insulation material. Rather, quality, high quality material and definitely not comparable in the, in the sense of the investments needed, then it would be remelting total remelting to the new class product so it is to say that perhaps such a simpler more recycling methods could be watched and looked. And of course, if there is no big metallurgy insulation, there's nothing to do and that's usually not the big 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 that 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 definites and the private sector, usually better mentioned so this is in no country, usually the state owned or even municipally owned, although it could be something because nothing wrong but anyway how to bring the private investments into the waste management, especially do the recycling. So this is an important issue. So, I don't know. Are we time over or just if there's something interesting regarding the landfill closure and you can 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 I will cover the old landfills and in the in the 90s in the beginning of the 90s that was 300 then it was 200 and then in the moment when the landfills directly was close 150 so it reduced remarkably already during the 90s. And of course, most of them they were very small on two actors, 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 soil. That was a very average. Of course, there were some cases where there was very clear that local groundwater is contaminated and in some cases, also the cover of the landfills was much more also plastic layers were used in a couple of places, but big landfills were really covered very carefully and then the other 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 very expensive exercise anyway, and the financing method we used was the same that the most or nearly all let's let's say so those multiple ways landfills were municipally owned. 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 average pay the municipalities and 90%. And 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 in big part anyway this closer project was was supported by state and the most part of the closure of the landfills, those municipal and for 30 plus millions, a better 1.3 million people if to calculate some close to 33 euros per per inhabitant and so just to compare that would be the comparable number, perhaps. 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 only municipal waste not only municipal landfills but also industrial and mining waste, eaves 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 landfills directive or implementation this is just about the landfills just to let's close old one let's with the new ones and that's done actually, but it's very much 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% of the households on other generators of the municipal waste are covered with the collection so this is absolutely the first priority in these changes. And then another is definitely the need to offer to develop and to offer the service of the waste stations will call them waste stations in the British English to call them usually civic amenities 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 base stations public amenities sites are absolutely needed because why the clear explanation is that to avoid the wild dumping to avoid the littering you have to offer the alternative. So people can't really take or put everything to the containers that 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 amenities site recycling so that's very, very useful object and this is a network it takes time to develop them. We have in Estonia I think roughly 100 of these stations today. So it means that in bigger cities for five, at least several and in most of the municipalities, one or in smaller municipalities still they have one for certain region actually. So 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. In both cases, there should be decided that where it comes and the investment again in Estonia 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 Thailand looked after the closure. So in the corner in the right corner, you may see that this is today operating on of the Italian city civic amenities site so this area is in a way still in use. Next. And so this is exactly what I said, perhaps this about civic amenities sites, and the need to join the households to the collection and in 2001. I said, more or less, yet in the middle of the negotiations, there was made a study and that showed that 79% of households were joined to the system means 21% of population was outside of collection system nobody knew where they did put their waste. And some years later, or to that fell, it was considered the 95 so it means that it's 100 is perhaps even not easily achievable, although there are countries that Denmark 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're leaving 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, we're sort of neighbors, I think that they did invest more to the landfills and also our investments took place 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 a couple I think new landfills also EU funds very used, other were also Estonian on financing resources. Next. And so this is just the 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. So this is on on industrial waste also was faced also landfill after the closure cover with 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 to the next slide. So this is one oil shale ash landfill which was recalculated so that on the top of it was the wind farm was established so that was very good kind of solution that event fields which didn't have 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. Thank you. Mr. Peter this presentation was very detailed very sorrow. And according to the agenda we have a break scheduled let's shorten it to five minutes and let's come back here at 1015. Any questions and we would really like to finish presentations at the time in order to be able to answer the questions we received quite a lot of similar questions so we will put them together so let's meet again at 1015 to see the new presentation Thank you. I hope you are all back that we continue. Our colleagues from Estonia are hopefully back also. The next presentation is about the transformation of the waste management system in Estonia. In principle, we expect them to share their experience of the main principles and challenges and the turning point that happened in the hierarchy of waste management and what are the experiences. Which meant that they went away from the waste disposal and filling to circular economy. This presentation is a joint presentation. And also the other one on factors I believe it will be started by Mr. Peter. So I give the floor to Mr. Peter to proceed. Indeed, this is a big challenge and this is something that obviously could never be 100% a sheet because the circular economy is a certain, let's say, ideal, you have to move towards but you will touch, not finally, more or less. But anyway, exactly that this management should lead to. And I would start to hear that it's extremely important to implement very coherent and let's see even strict waste regime and waste regime comes from the this, let's say, term is used in the terminology and that means that everything concerning with the waste should be covered with waste permits. That means that all actors working on the waste should be covered with the waste permits. And if somebody is giving to somebody waste that also the who will receive it should have a permit until it is recycled that already classified as an on waste that could be made exemptions they are needed but I mean generally. And secondly that means that everything that is done with the waste every process should be really foreseen in the permits, starting from the definitely landfilling but later on whether somebody is storaging away somebody sorting somebody is really treating it, somebody is recycling that is all waste, waste treatment that's important second thing that I definitely would like to emphasize also is important to implement as in detail as possible the waste list European waste list. I mean, generally everybody knows that that's like a simple thing but, but there is a tendency that in many countries, it is used in a very simple and perhaps a simplified way that means that the small number of the waste codes are used, and many other waste streams which actually occur which are generated, they are put to whether municipal waste, whether, I don't know, in construction demolition waste very often. And there is only one code used for the construction demolition waste instead of using steel and concrete or tiles and concrete and wood and whatever other material based. So this comes really from the, from the waste collection that means that the waste collection companies whoever is offering this service, they have to be careful or intended really to this issue why it is needed it is first of all to understand what is actually collected and where it all goes. And it is very difficult to plan certain changes and new installations and so on and so on. If everything is put to the one pot, so to say with a couple of small number of them. So just as an example is that the European list contains 850 roughly, and we have in a waste report some 450 codes so more or less but but also sometimes we have another problem that there are codes but they're still described with the wrong codes then with the very general codes and so on. And definitely the same goes for the R&T codes that means that recovery including recycling and disposal. And of course if the recycling is not very developed then more or less everything is the disposal codes but especially as recycling and recovery will develop and that should be developed. Then which codes are used and what is exactly the recycling what these other forms of recovery. This comes with much more important level of the these perhaps today just consider so next slide perhaps. And yeah well one is what I just hear what to say is that I think it's very useful it's not required exactly but it's been very useful in Estonia we have done it roughly after five six years is a general study on the composition of the mixed waste and also collected packaging waste and that gives you insight that first how the certain initiatives on the source separation have worked how much it have affected and secondly definitely it gives the potential of the source separation because that is not yet source separated. So this is usually in the mixed waste, and you can't really source separate more than there is paper or plastics or metal in the mixed municipal waste. Yet you have of course it's understandable, but practically you can never sort out 100% of certain material, but anyway it gives you the potential. So basically the hierarchy of the waste management which is from the beginning of the 90s part of the waste legislation and hurry more already mentioned the circular economy which is like new concept but if to look then I think that then any center part it also includes the industry, but now this is the first levels of the hierarchy, the prevention and documentary use know those have just given totally new type of shine, perhaps. Next one. And here is mentioned that the extended producer responsibility as a concept included in the 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 early 2000s that was kind of very positive mood and the expectation that they're gonna be much more waste streams material streams covered with EPR extended producer responsibility on the level. But just after the 2006 battery directive, no new such directives have been issued. Of course, we can hear say that this reduction of the certain plastic one way plastic items or this single use plastic directive also implements the extended producer responsibility to the very, let's say narrow targeted area of the plastic products including the cigarette filters, for example. But this is a just example but anyway, that means that why the outreach that the extended producer responsibility is not so simple as it seems first, it does indeed allow to organize the collection of those waste types so that the costs are targeted to the producers or to those who are putting the goods to the market, but yet the extended producer responsibilities always very challenging also for the public sector for the state, first of all to the state or regional authorities. So that you should have there the good registers you should register both producers and the products, and this is the basis where you can really follow whether the producers are really doing what is required. The point is that there are always so called free riders who are not really participating and this comes then of course the issue of the competition. Those who are not participating, they are getting the better position on the market. So state definitely has state authorities have one obligation to quarantine the equal conditions on the on the market and then it comes that they have those free riders so this is and therefore I think that it's not so simple as it seems but then again the directives allow the member states to implement also itself extended the producer responsibility beside the EU requirements. And many countries have done it. The France is a champion here they have many way streams in Estonia we have extended the list of the beyond the EU list, we have tires and tires are in most of the European country countries except the Germany and couple of others but under the extent the producer responsibility and we have yet the agriculture or plastic. It's not very big stream but it was considered a problematic. And one of the problems we had then before was that it was not considered exactly the packaging when put to the market but then it was started to collect and to show as recycled plastic packaging. So it was, let's say, really blurring the packaging recycling report and one way to avoid it is to say that there are extra roots, and that works on the same. So next slide. And here we have the waste national waste measure plans and doesn't mention that this requirement comes from the directive. And we have done them, which are matching the EU financing period so far at least. And in some other countries, this have been not considered the big issue and those such plans have been made up to 10 years or something like different periods anyway. And the first national waste management plan was perhaps important in that very sense that in the middle of this period, the stone joined the EU so that was mostly dealing with the landfill issue or where to build how many to build how to cover old ones, what it costs how to finance and so on and such things. Not exactly definitely there were all other issues also but that was sort of the first issue big issue. The second waste management plan already dealt the issue that how to divert the waste away from the landfills. There was a big discussion and analyze like where to how much MBT for the mixed municipal waste or the integration and so on those comparisons. And the last one which was now they are really working with a new one that there is actually right now is legally speaking a chapter is no valid waste management plan. But this third plan was really trying to target the source separation and recycling. It is definitely not to say that only only those issues but something above of others that way. And I think generally, the waste management plan have not been kind of documented on the daily basis somebody would read and look and then really as a handful but but really showing the direction to all levels of the decision makers also politicians and it has been important and I think that useful. Yeah, next, next slide. Yeah, here is economic instruments as I said that. Well, in Estonia we have from the 90s already the landfill tax and definitely the landfill tax have been one of the most influential economic instruments and although it was at the beginning it was very low. Later on there is a slide slide obviously about the separating. Then we have this packaging tax or excise duty on the packaging that are really short explained that if the targets are not only then if the targets are not achieved, then the producers have to pay. But anyway, these have been really very strong convincing measure that they would work as much as possible with the collection and recycling. And there is no such a general tax on the waste integration. Although it have been also discussed and also the economic instrument is considered generally the extended producer responsibility which is implied on packaging on the use of life of vehicles on we and batteries and then as I mentioned also the tires and agriculture plastic agriculture plastic is is there on the on the picture also next slide. And what is really been the influence of the landfill tax and since 2015 it have not changed it have been 30 Euro per ton. And not particularly very high there are definitely in Europe there are much higher tax rates to see, but from other and it was enough to enable the investment to the insulator. And it wasn't really absolutely a new build that there was power station working with the natural gas. The waste insulation block was added there and the connection to the heat network and electricity agreed all was already there so it was enabling it but anyway, the investment was more than 100 million Euro in 2013. And this is actually as this is a state owned company but there's a company and they say that without the landfill tax which was influencing the landfill gate fee, they were not been able to make this investment. And just making this investment means that there was no financial support directly to build it. They made their, let's say, financial plan and they took credit from the bank, and they did build it and and as I said that there was very, very important support role from the landfill tax to achieve it. At this time, the landfill gate fees price that has to be paid to landfill you deliver the waste was something 50 to 60 Euro. That means that without the waste landfill tax it was something between 20 to 40. And now, nowadays already the landfill gate fees are something like 80 to 200 Euro and also gate, the generator gate fees have gone up, and there have been even discussion to introduce the new tax for the insulation and to raise the landfill tax but so far those have not been adopted so that just discussion. So, next slide. Yeah, as I said that this landfill tax since 90s and it was paid many years directly to the center of the environmental investments, which also dealt with all EU funds available. So it was like two lines to apply one was this Estonian own financial means and other application type of line was for the EU supports, and namely this landfill tax was a big important income source to cover those needs internally. Yeah, next. This is just an example that looking also back to the, and the only is to emphasize perhaps that there was a period and that this is absolutely unavoidable that when you may have both new landfills with the new engineered bottoms and the new collection and so on and all investments made were understandably also the gate fees much higher. And if somebody yet on certain reasons are keeping open the gates on the old landfill in some quarry, typically, where no investments have been made of course they could, if just left to say, and offer the service with a much lower price. In our case that was leveled with, let's say coefficient of factor, that all non compliant landfills non-compliant means non compliant with the landfill directive or land regulation requirements, then, and they still were permitted to operate, then they had just much higher landfill tax. So this is, and also here you can see that the oil shale waste also every waste has landfill tax although they have had much higher, much lower level, principally. Next slide. Yeah, and the income from the landfill tax, it have been roughly in the, of course today it is smaller because oil shale waste have been produced, generated and landed in a much smaller amount, but there was something like 15 million euro, that means something like 10 euros per inhabitant per country. And from that roughly half, if was delivered back to the waste sector projects. About 100% because these environmental investment centers, they also support all kind of environmental projects on environmental awareness, on environmental education, on nature conservation, definitely. There are a lot of areas where there is no direct income, but the cost part of course is there and therefore, yeah, this is one of the ways how to cover those costs. Next slide. And as I said just today already the price of the gauge fee is 70 to 90 something euro, every landfill in Estonia is a company and they can decide itself at the gauge fee, this is not state controlled. And there are today, some of them are municipal companies or municipally owned companies, yeah, and some are private companies and but in all those cases, the companies are itself in position to decide what is the gauge fee they receive the waste and as I said that the gauge fee always includes this landfill tax 30 euro per tonne, but somewhere in the 2001 when the land regulation was established then it was maximum 10 euro per tonne. There is clearly going to emphasize that the landfill gauge fee is always the benchmark in the waste management sector, where with which all other possible costs are compared. And if the landfill gauge fee is kept relatively low, then it simply doesn't really allow to come and to invest to the alternatives to the disposal of the land filling. Would it be, would it be, would it be insulation, would it be definitely recycling, therefore, and of course also in Estonia there was such a notion that but that about a low income people and then there was a social problems and so on and and this is like a reason we have to keep landfill prices low. I would say clearly that yes indeed those social questions or issues should be understood and but the waste policy could not be, is definitely not a good tool to address those social issues. 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 from costs, and if your income is lower below certain level, then you can apply for the social benefits to support your area or living from costs and the living from costs as 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 living related costs is very, very small amount so that's not even significant but but put it that way look the household housing and living room costs separately from the needs of the waste management so this is perhaps to say. Next slide. Yeah, and this is just land, 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 different differentiated way for the usual or container collection, and for the deposit system because we also the deposit system since 2005 for the metals, metal cans and glass bottles for the beer and beverages. And here is the principle is the same but 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 approach is that this is obligation of the municipalities, municipalities are obliged to organize the 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, these companies 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 there the collection goes on the three like levels so to say who's one is definitely the basic is on the property, or it was 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-storey 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 entities might be today in some cases that there is a 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. And this is not the 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 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 has 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. So that makes I think rather difficult to 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 on my opinion it could be much more difficult. So what is what do we have is so called public containers, and those are so far mostly packaging containers, and today also containers for the clothing textile waste or reusable items perhaps not even yet the waste. And some municipalities also for the paper and cardboard, and the third layer is this recycling stations or public community sites or how to call them. They are, they're not so close, often because in countryside it could be up to 1015 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 goes every day, perhaps not even every week. Many people definitely visited weekly or on some months or something like this, but as I already mentioned before, this network of the 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 operation. 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 on 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 operation for which that doesn't mean this. This ordinance at least does not say that which exact waste types should be collected on the property which on the public room somewhere on the streets and which on the other hand, there are certain conditions 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 that are mentioned are are like voluntary and at the beginning in 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 that 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. The private companies usually on those issues are not necessarily flexible or vice versa could be also that they're putting very high price to the mixed waste so that it could cause other problems where the wherever the waste waste mixed waste then is delivered. But this is the situation in our case yes that everything by tender and then fix prices then. 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. And in winter period sometimes it is problematic so somebody have to take also this issue into account that how to how to assure that the waste could be collected around the year, but let's take next slide here. So, now the municipal waste and obviously about the treatment. And, of course, the one big issue is that the ways are easier. This has been the tradition to do just to deliver the landfill. And now the question is that this is in longer I'm not acceptable that Harry more 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 and 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 but anyway this is a certain target so to say, and to reduce even without that that is important to emphasize and this is basic requirement in the 99 land for directive. 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 then even there is a gradual gradual reduction is required. Whether to do it through the source operation of the bio waste out so that is definitely preferable, but there are other options to reduce both the bio waste and general land filling, and then we will come to the issue of the of the treatment of the mixed municipal waste and there are two options MBT and the inspiration. And in our case, the inspiration in 2002 waste management plan was discussed the evaluated but considered too expensive, because the evaluation was and that it was also of course correct them is roughly 50 million euro per 100 million 100,000 tonne 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. 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 10 years there is absolutely not absolutely but quite different situation. Let's next slide. 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 a average mixed municipal waste, they have a very, very, very, very average the equal calorific value. And if we many years of course we landfill something 300 400,000 tonne of mixed municipal waste so that was quite a lot of energy of course. But that is also true and this is very, very 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. 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 insulation prices are something like starting from 60 euro per ton perhaps. In our country, when the insulation started in 2013, then the initial gate fee was something around 30 euro per ton. There was no tax as I said. Next slide. And this is just a picture from the installation. Yeah, it is serious industrial insulation. 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 landfills. There is no landfill gas issue on the landfills after that actually. And so on. And yeah, next slide. Let's take the 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 routes are not followed set for the waste insulation, then it's rather harmful could be. But the routes 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 the chimney of the waste generation 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 bottom ash. Next slide. And that is perhaps a positive side. It's not that big, but anyway, something like three to four percent from the input material is possible to take out as metals. And of course, those metals are going to the recycling then, and they're counted also towards the municipal waste recycling. So there is a tiny, not very center, but tiny support to the recycling also from them. And this is in line with the air rules today, because there is another kind of discussion being that whether if this bottom ash or something, the bottom ash first of all, perhaps could be theoretically at least put to the concrete and consider those construction materials, hence recycled material. So this is today not accepted on those calculations, at least, but the metals are. So next slide. And the bottom ash is after the treatment, so called ageing and removing metals 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 a landfill tax is only for the disposal for this use of bottom ash, there is no landfill tax so far. Next slide. And yeah, well, as I said, that this is the MBT, the mechanical biological treatment, these 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, rubber, 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 crush and sieve, you get this fine fraction. Wine fraction is bio-waste contained in the mixed municipal waste. It's usually glass colors. There are some plastics in, there are some hazardous waste contained in the mixed municipal waste in. So it's a mixture. And this is a 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 has 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 roots or whatever actually the root site. But in some other countries in Southern Europe, in Greece, 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 worked some years, doesn't work anymore. But it was like open row. It was crushed and just the scheme or the picture on the top there, it shows that it was used such a very, from the Germany system of the pipes are metal type of products which allowed to aerate it without any 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 dry material that was easier to see later to separate this plastics actually. Next slide. And yeah, that was now in a couple of cases, we have those MBT or those RDF-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 the problem. And usually, if they are really this MBT type of sort, is that you can get out 40 to 50 percent RDF from the input material of this mixed municipal waste and something 40 percent, perhaps then it comes to this fine fraction that they already explain what it is and what the problems are. And then usually there is some true, through the moisture, this is evaporating and you will get weight loss 10 to 20 percent. So that's the conclusion or summary. Next slide. And yeah, this is about the cement facility that RDF 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 all country, no big problem. Also, even in a small country like Estonia, we have them both. This is not a problem. Insuration, definitely, insurator, 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. Insurator 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 perhaps possible to install it. So 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. As I said that this fine fraction for the MBT, at least in after a couple of years, could not be any more calculated towards the recycling targets. Next slide. Yeah, this is, I think so, what I also said that, yeah, the certain discussion have been, but this is today not very practical anymore that if the RDF goes to the cement factory, there is usually some mineral part in and this mineral part comes apart of the cement. And that 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 the 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. Yeah, therefore, I'm just showing here that our gaze 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, a 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 faith in this. It is possible to get out from the landfilling system. And well, this is just right now here. I stopped with them because the time is over. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Peter. I think this presentation was very interesting. Although he had time to finish everything, you have it in your window. You have the link that can take you to the presentation. There's been a lot of questions about some issues, some, some things mentioned in the presentation and we will try to answer them in question and answer. I will ask Mr. Harry now to see whether he wants to continue. I know that he only has three slides or maybe to explain them in the discussion or maybe to give, to have the final word about the materials presented today. So as I understand, I have a chance to wrap up our presentations, right? Yes, yes. Yeah, well, all I would like to add, I already recognized that there are some questions concerning the incineration, because I understand that there is also a plan to build maybe or invest into the municipal waste incineration. And from that point of view, the figures Peter showed in the last slide are very, very good. Actually, this is mainly thanks to the incineration plan that the landfilling drop below 10%. And there's definitely, although Peter was politically maybe correct not wanting to say what is better, the other one or the other one, especially when it comes to incineration and MBT, but I would say especially in bigger cities such as Sarajevo or something like that, where you have really very wide or very, let's say the central heating system is there. So then definitely when attaching the incinerator to already existing power plant, the costs of investments are low. And economically, most probably this is also quite reasonable investment. And this is definitely an approach which allows you to cut down the landfilling. But there has been lots of discussion also in Estonia, whether the incineration has somehow been negative for recycling. Then the only thing that you have to really plan in the country is that not to invest or let's say to build too much of capacity, either both in incineration and MBT. Plus, if you have also cheap landfilling, then if you have overcapacity, then there is no way that you can go for more recycling. So in Estonia, we had also a slight problem because these investments were made in parallel, as Peter said, by private companies, although one of them is a state owned still. This was their own investment, I mean, incinerator and several MBT lines. And the capacity almost exceeded the amount of municipal waste that was produced at that time. Good thing is that the MBTs are now out of the business and they are basically not any more functioning. And at the moment, the capacity for incineration is fine. So this is important that you really, on your regional and national level, you should really make a careful planning not to build too much of landfills, but also not too much capacity for incineration or MBT. So basically, you already know that you have to recycle minimum 50% of your municipal waste. This means that you can't exceed the 50% capacity which is covered by landfills and incinerators and other means for mixed municipal waste. So don't overinvest, otherwise you will have a lock-in and it's very difficult to get out of that. But just very briefly to wrap up, there are a few slides at the end of Peter's presentation. They are basically just stressing what Peter has already said that it's very important to set up the legal framework first of all. Yeah, if you go on then you see the kind of scheme which tries to say yes, this was the one. That the legal framework is important and this is, but it's not the only task you have to do. And I also a little bit see that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, your main kind of effort has gone into the transposition of the legal framework. As Peter already told and it's clear, legal path to take over the EU waste legislation, it's very easy exercise. It becomes very more, 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 if you 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 producers. 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 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, but I would say roles and responsibilities, adequate financing mechanisms 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. With 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. Thank you. I will continue in our language. Indeed, we received a lot of questions, nearly 30 questions in our Q&A box. We tried to group some of them into nine topics, so whatever we fail to answer, I discuss this with Drazenko. We will try to provide written answers and we will ask you to provide written answers. We want to make sure that all questions are answered. I will start with the budget system. I think that was one of the first questions. Several participants asked different questions in relation to this system, which is rather interesting for Bosnia and Herzegovina, as you also mentioned, and the question was, to which extent was the coverage of waste collection developed before introducing the deposit system? What type of the packaging waste the system was most developed and what was the contribution of the state in the whole procedure? Do you think, to which extent do you believe the deposit system is successful? Croatia is recycling 25 percent Slovenia, 50 percent while they don't have the deposit system. There is another participant who said that they have deposit systems for packaging waste, but their balance is minus. What is the coverage with waste collection system? What kind of waste was collected mostly in this way and what is the level of success compared to the countries which don't have this deposit system in place? Perhaps Harry could answer this question or Peter. I think we missed something. There were some questions. What was them? Because there was no translation. Okay, so the questions were related to the deposit system. What was the level of 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 the deposit system? 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 were part of this development in the early stages in Estonia. 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, you could add a little bit 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. It's very important, 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, neighbouring 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. 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 the deposit system allows to take-back or collect approximately 90% of the 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, they are lower for producers. That's why producers are, in a way, today, happier with this system. And of course, there were lots of lobbying against 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, the producers are happy. So, Petr, if you want to add something, then... Yes, 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 five million euros. They made the accounting center and so on. And this is an important 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 on the starting 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 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% 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, 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 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 was 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 a 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 that our 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're similar. I mean, 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. 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? If yes, where? And is Estonia exporting waste? How is this integrated in the reporting and targets? Peter, I will take the first one and 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, you know, at the moment, of course, it depends on municipalities, the bigger municipalities. And this is also based on this ordinance, what Peter mentioned that the ministry has established that there are certain lists 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 that, but it's now more voluntary that also next to the next to the houses, there is packaging going at the container. But as Peter said, the packaging is usually collected via public containers. 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 many moves 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 possible Herzogovina, what to do with the civic waste. Yeah, 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, it's exported. Usually today, of course, today, countries, neighboring countries here more or less. And this is very changing as you may know that, of course, not too much, but anyway, until 2018 also from Estonia, something was delivered to the China. And China is not receiving anything anymore like this. So this is a problem where there are deliveries to the other Asian countries. And now in the EU, it should be solved. So basically, this is that. And the second question was about the hazardous waste. And the other waste indeed, this is a very mixture of different based streams starting, for example, the batteries and waste electronic, those are also, and the batteries are not treated in Estonia except the late batteries. We have a facility, definitely. And they are bringing in pretty much of late batteries from other countries, but other smaller batteries or whatever types of those are exported. We street it partly in Estonia, partly exported to the other countries. Some recyclers in Estonia take the we from the other countries. So it's rather such a changing. But the more other waste, which is perhaps the usual understanding that means that some home chemicals and paints and solvents and whatever such stuff is is collected. There are other waste companies. This is very well established for today. Private companies, network, dealing, offering services and collection and everything. And then what is burnable is burned. There is one, as I said that it was earlier, 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 insulating some 2000 tons, I think so. There is one very delicate, other those face type is medical waste coming from the hospitals, containing the human tissues or something. So this is also, let's say, insulated in this special insulator. And if something needs to be finally landfill, then there is also specially designated other those 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 model and then it will be landfill. But if needed, and that happens definitely then is also exported to the other countries. In our case, it's usually Finland, Sweden, Germany, perhaps such countries. Maybe just to add better, but in the very beginning, states still invested into the first capacity for hazardous waste treatment. The first major investments were made by the state and then later on they were rented to private companies and now private companies are more and more invested themselves, right? That's right. The very basic network was first established by a 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. For example, such a very, very serious issue and I don't know whether it have been so in Bosnia or Herzegovina, that is the old passage sites. Because as we regained our independence in 1991 there 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 iteration mostly. And some remained in Estonia, for example the mercury-containing waste, because no insulator, even the designated other those weight insulators, 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 regarding to costs of services. Basically the question was what is the price of landfilling now in Estonia? I think there was one of your slides about up to 70 euros. Did you gradually increase this price and how this impacted the price for the citizens collection and disposal of the citizens paid? How this impacted this tariff actually? Yeah, very good question. Actually, as I also indeed it was in my slides that in 2001, because not more than 10 percent then somewhere in the mid-2010, then it was some 40, 30, 40 euros 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 components, the cost component definitely the transport collection and so on. But average, just to put it in average, I think that average is something around five euros per household per month. But in many cases, especially the families living in their own family houses and they are sorting out usually the pile waste and composting in a garden and these people are sorting out the packages and delivering them to the packaging container means that they have very few also mixed municipal waste. I think in many places the average monthly fee could be only two, three euros per month. Okay, thank you very much. Funny, funny, just to amend this that 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 on the recycling at Hari also covered up. 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're too low that the 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 not the waste management as total, but namely the mixed municipal waste more expensive. Yeah, this is maybe a little bit the political issue because as the Estonian experience shows and as Peter mentioned, I would say for if you live in a big house with many flats then the average fee per flat is something I would say not more than two euros per month, which is basically one cup of coffee, you know. And 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's a lot of discussion, debate and 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 and we have made several examples by showing that the total communal cost for one household is could be several hundred euros, including energy heating and everything. So the waste part of this communal cost is below five percent. So it's ridiculously low compared to the other communal costs. And 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. Okay, 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 close 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 the 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 a couple of minutes. Well, I try to do better than because he's very sharp, I know. Actually, the period was obviously some 15 years or even more when it started in the end of the 90s yet. And it went up to 2015 when all those old landfills were closed and covered. And now about this financial quarantine, of course, on all those old landfills, which worked once and didn't collect anything for the future aftercare 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 obliged to collect certain funds separately for the final closure and aftercare 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, very justified, that was exactly a lot of opinions and level of the average citizens and the level of the local politicians that it is not a 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 and so on, and especially the people living in the on family houses, that they just delivered their waste itself to the local dumping site. So this is not any more acceptable. And if and many often and many of them say that I don't need, 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 two or three or 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're expected to put waste into the container. And even if you're not doing, you are still charged. So this is the basic approach to type of to make clear that no, you are generating the waste, everybody's generating the waste. And we collected and I mean, 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 various families pay so rapidly. So practically, there's no reason to say that there was like clear type of behavior or change in the people that now you raise the landfill tax. Now we're going to not more pay and I'm gonna really deliver the waste to the pushes actually. Well, that is perhaps a summary. Just a few clarifications. Yes, the key was that the 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, you know, we don't care about this service. But then they started to get bills, and then they recognize that there's 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, you know, 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 the 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 finalize this Q&A session and ask you to, if possible, to provide answers in written for the rest of the questions. And Drazenko is also having something to ask and to wrap up. So regarding the incineration, the question was what were recycling and landfilling 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 the EU Green Deal and other legal European policies, would you still take the same course? What are the biggest challenges with incineration, the administrative part or financial, logistical and social? Someone is asking also about the treatment price per tonne. 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 a few words. As Peter showed in his slide, after the incinerator was introduced, the landfilling dropped in two years from 70% below 10%. This is already something just to understand what was the influence of incineration. And compared to that, we were very successful regarding the landfill 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 costs simply, operational costs, and there is no place 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 a very strong alternative for landfilling. But again, it can't be increased. 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 incinerate incinerators. So EU doesn't like this anymore. So most probably this will be limited. And I would just add, there was also a comment that the European Environment Bureau, I think so, have commented that this is not environmental and so on. And there are definitely different political opinions. But I would refer the European Commission issued a 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're incerating too much. That means that there was, I think, in hurry slides that there is today the target for 2035, 65% 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 big dream. Somebody's dream that we're going to reach, I mean, near 100% of recycling, it's simply not possible. And 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 a rather limited number. And therefore, it's 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 streams. So therefore, I'm not saying that the inceration is best thing in the world. But I really agree fully that the European Commission have said in this communication that it's fully in line with their 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 who are opposing really inceration, they are not agreeing that that means actually that you say that even if those waste are going to landfills. So this is more acceptable. Thank you, Peter, very much. I apologize to all the participants for leaving some of the questions unanswered. But we will ask definitely our experts to provide written responses. And these would be made available to you. Now I give the floor to Drazenko. He also wanted to ask a couple of questions. And then I will close this meeting. Before we close the webinar, I have two questions and they are related to the title of this webinar. How did the responsible bodies of Estonia act in the situation when they were transposing the EU legislation in the national legislation observed that the economic infrastructure did not enable full implementation of EU requirement in practice. A practical example, we have transposed legislation, but it's not being implemented in practice. We have laws and bylaws, but municipalities and cities who are actually in charge of organizing the waste management system are not implementing them in practice. That's my first question. The second question is you mentioned the cost of collection. This cost of three to five euros for households for waste collection. Does it include everything, collection, transport and landfilling or taking care of it, landfilling or whatever? Is everything included in this cost of five euros per household? Did you listen to the translation? The translation system doesn't work very well because I think we have to rely on you. Once you transposed the directives, what were the challenges? I mean, how did you overcome the challenge of, for example, infrastructure, lack of infrastructure in case when you don't have infrastructure to respond to the requirements of the EU legislation? How did you overcome that? For example, the communal enterprises, which are even understaffed or have all the equipment, etc. They cannot respond to the challenges that are set in the directives. The second question was about the price of services, which you said is three to five euros. Does this include the collection, transport and disposal? Is it possible to cover the cost with such small prices? Just shortly about the infrastructure. A very justified question. In my slides also, I brought up and emphasized the importance of the waste management planning. Namely, on the national level, and I think in your case also on the, let's say, a moderation subjects level, it is important to do really very detailed base management planning. That is needed, in which order actually were the priorities. And through this process, to give also the costs actually related. And then, of course, who could be possible owner of the projects, for example, in the municipal WSTS, indeed, those could be or even should be, I think so basically, the municipal structures. And now the next question is that how much are the municipalities or those structures itself to finance how much could, let's say, the state level to support, and that could be the share of the European Union funds, for example. So this is the way how we have done and established the basic infrastructure. And now the next thing is what I would also emphasize is the role of the private companies. Perhaps we are example that from one side it have been very successful, because the private companies have a very big role indeed, especially in the packaging collection and so on, but not only. And also even, let's say, municipal waste, pretty often it is given to the private companies that are dealing it. And that means that in such a case, not all investments should necessarily be done by public authorities, but something could be easily be left to them. If there are companies, of course, that means that there should be a certain legal environment to allow them to come to the market and to allow and so on. But of course, I also consider that in the long run, it could be a very good idea to have at least the basic infrastructure on the municipal waste, on the public hands to avoid over investments and struggle and so on and so on, and control lower also. And that is a good concept, obviously, but that doesn't really necessarily mean that even the collection should necessarily be done by public companies, not to mention recycling. And recycling could be easily, and even preferable, there would be a role of the private companies. Just to add a few words, yes, Estonia is a good example, maybe not to really follow when it comes to too heavy privatization. As we several times already said, municipalities gave away everything. And now, and this is one of the reasons, since there is also competition, why this fee is relatively low when it comes to this type of municipal waste collection. But at the moment, this is also one of these obstacles, barriers, why the system is not any more developing. If the private sector provides the service, especially under the competition, then they keep the fees low, but they are not really willing to invest into the improvement. And we clearly see in Estonia that the private sector has, in a way, stopped the investments and now, again, municipalities have to come in, especially when it comes to, let's say, biowaste collection and recycling. Because this is not economically profitable business. And let's say also, there are several other streams, like textiles and other problematic waste streams that have to be collected now and recycled. And this clearly, you can clearly see that the private sector is not willing to do big investments anymore into that. So, there is really a time to take, again, municipalities have to do this themselves. And that's why we will see that the costs for municipal, 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 if you do it efficiently. And then if you want to do it efficiently, in a way, in a certain amount, you have to involve private sector. But perhaps I would add this also to emphasize the importance in the waste management context to find the links to the other sectors. And just one example, one of many, would be the biowaste. And yes, indeed, it should be separately collected, that for sure. Secondly, now you have two options, whether you compost it or whether you could really produce a biogas out of it. And biogas production in many countries, I mean, in the Nordic countries, for example, is rather not yet in Estonia exactly that way. But I hope it goes that way. There are like a big or even medium, perhaps sometimes agricultural companies, who are really having cows or whatever actually. And then they have often different problems with manure and all the technical solutions to manage the old door and then whatever problems related to this manure is to put it to the biogas. And we have in Estonia some five, six rather big installations, really producing biogas in that way. And that is not yet in the places to organize the pre-treatment of the soil separated waste and to send this such a pre-treated biowaste to the biogas. And this is exactly the case that they are doing in Nordic countries and Germany in many cases actually. So why I'm emphasizing this is that this is typically nothing to do with the municipalities. This is private companies. And this is clearly also the green energy because among of other many, many requirements they who has, there are also requirements on the energy market. And I don't know really how it looks in Bosnia and Herzegovina right now, but it could be one of the way to develop the biogas production and to this biogas production also to offer part of the solution for the biowaste standing. Thank you very much. At the end of our workshop today, may I thank our presenters, speakers and our participants. At some point I've seen that we had 140 and something participants and Hari at the end of his presentation summed up the situation and provided a brief overview. A lot of that can be applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina and what we've seen today clearly shows that we have to start with a separate collection with separation at source. We only have some minor pilot project except for the Kenton Sarajevo in other municipalities. We didn't even have these projects in order to ensure further development of the system. In addition to landfilling, we need to offer alternative alternatives for waste treatment, waste handling. And what we could see today, one of the ways to improve the system is to include the private sector. I regret that I have seen that many representatives from the relevant ministries attended this workshop and they are working to introduce certain novelties and improvements but they do so only through adoption of legislation and don't do much more. But I regret to say that I didn't see any attendance of representatives of the municipalities and companies in the waste management sector but I do hope that in the process of the e-sub development we will be able to use these presentations that we will be able to benefit from them and I hope that in future we will have more members of the working group and that we will be able to apply some of your experience you shared with us. Thank you once again and I thank all the participants for attending this very very useful workshop in my mind. May I also thank you all and once again I would also like to invite you to participate in the activities of our working group. We have a huge job ahead of us and huge challenges so any help is mostly welcome so we view and consider the waste management from all points of view. I 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. Thank you. Thank you.