-
Contract N° 07010406/2006/441662/MAR/E3
Task 2 - Benefits for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and other countries of SEE of compliance with the environmental
acquis Final Report– Part II: Country-
The European Commission – DG Environment
06/11347/AL
October 2007
Patrick ten Brink (IEEP) Ljupco Avramovski (Enviro-L) Stijn
Vermoote (Arcadis Ecolas) Samuela Bassi (IEEP) Karen Callebaut
(Arcadis Ecolas) Arnoud Lust (Arcadis Ecolas) Alistair Hunt
(Metroeconomica)
ARCADIS ECOLAS N.V. Roderveldlaan 3 2600 Berchem Belgium Tel:
+32 3 328.62.86 Fax: +32 3 328.62.87
http://www.arcadisecolas.be
IEEP Quai au Foin, 55 1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: + 32 (0) 2 738
74 82 Fax: + 32 (0) 2 732 40 04 http://www.ieep.eu
http://www.arcadisecolas.be/http://www.ieep.eu/
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Content
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
i
CONTENT
CONTENT....................................................................................................................................
I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
.......................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES
.........................................................................................................................V
LIST OF FIGURES
.....................................................................................................................
IX LIST OF ANNEXES
....................................................................................................................XI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
..........................................................................................................XIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA..........................XIII Benefit assessment air
related
directives..........................................................................................
xiii Benefit assessment water related directives
.....................................................................................
xiv Benefit assessment solid waste related directives
..............................................................................xv
Benefit assessment nature related directives
....................................................................................
xvi Summary overview – former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
........................................................... xix 1
OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................1
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA......................3 2.1 The environment
...............................................................................................................
3 2.2 The economy
....................................................................................................................
4 3 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF AIR RELATED
DIRECTIVES...................................................7 3.1
Current status of AIR QUALITY
...........................................................................................
7
3.1.1 National and Regional
Level................................................................................................
7 3.1.2 Air Quality Regulation
......................................................................................................
12 3.1.3 Air Quality Monitoring
......................................................................................................
13
3.2 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT: AIR RELATED
DIRECTIVES.................................................. 14
3.2.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................................
14 3.2.2 Methodology – The Impact Pathway Approach
...................................................................
15 3.2.3 Emission Reduction Scenarios
...........................................................................................
16 3.2.4 Extent of Benefits
............................................................................................................
17
3.3 MONETARY VALUATION: REDUCED AIR POLLUTION
.......................................................... 19 3.3.1
Benefits upon full
compliance............................................................................................
19 3.3.2 Trans-boundary
benefits...................................................................................................
20 3.3.3
Conclusions.....................................................................................................................
20
4 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WATER RELATED
DIRECTIVES...........................................23 4.1 Current
status of different water uses and threats
..............................................................
23
4.1.1 Drinking
water.................................................................................................................
23 4.1.2 Recreational uses of
water................................................................................................
23 4.1.3 River
ecosystems.............................................................................................................
24
4.2 Assessment using qualitative and quantitative
data.............................................................
24 4.2.1 Introduction to the Method of Assessment
.........................................................................
24 4.2.2 Benefits from improved drinking water quality and supply
................................................... 25 4.2.3
Benefits to recreational users of
water...............................................................................
31 4.2.4 Changes in River
Ecosystems............................................................................................
39
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Content
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
ii
4.2.5 Future strategy on water management
..............................................................................
41 4.3 Monetary
assessment.......................................................................................................
42
4.3.1 Benefits of Cleaner Drinking
Water....................................................................................
42 4.3.2 Bathing and other surface water quality – use
values.......................................................... 44
4.3.3 Improved river ecosystem quality – non-use
value..............................................................
45
4.4 Aggregation of Benefits And Conclusions
...........................................................................
48 5 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WASTE RELATED DIRECTIVES
...........................................55 5.1 Current status
.................................................................................................................
55
5.1.1 Waste generation and coverage
........................................................................................
57 5.1.2 Recycling
........................................................................................................................
58 5.1.3 Landfills
..........................................................................................................................
61 5.1.4 Packaging
waste..............................................................................................................
64 5.1.5 Incineration of waste
.......................................................................................................
66 5.1.6 Hazardous waste
(HZW)...................................................................................................
67 5.1.7 Disposal of waste oil
........................................................................................................
70 5.1.8 Batteries and
accumulators...............................................................................................
70 5.1.9 Medical Hazardous waste
.................................................................................................
71 5.1.10 Disposal of PCB and PCT
..................................................................................................
72 5.1.11 Used
Tires.......................................................................................................................
72 5.1.12 End of life
vehicles...........................................................................................................
72 5.1.13 Construction and demolition waste
....................................................................................
72 5.1.14 Industrial contaminated sites
............................................................................................
73
5.2 Assessment using qualitative and quantitative
data.............................................................
74 5.2.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................................
74 5.2.2 National targets for the future years in the field of
waste management ................................ 74 5.2.3 Landfill
Directive
..............................................................................................................
76 5.2.4 Packaging
Directive..........................................................................................................
83
5.3 Summary and interpretation of results
...............................................................................
85 5.3.1 Summary results of the assessment
..................................................................................
85 5.3.2 Extent of the
benefits.......................................................................................................
86 5.3.3 Summary of analysis
approach..........................................................................................
86
6 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF NATURE RELATED DIRECTIVES
.........................................87 6.1.1 Current Status of
Biodiversity and
Ecosystems....................................................................
87 6.1.2 Indicators used to assess the current state of nature
protection and biodiversity................... 90 6.1.3 Threats to
Biodiversity in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
.................................. 95
6.2 Assessment using qualitative and quantitative
data.............................................................
99 6.2.1 Environmental
Benefits.....................................................................................................
99 6.2.2 Social Benefits
................................................................................................................100
6.2.3 Economic
benefits...........................................................................................................101
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
...............................................................................................................105
7 LITERATURE
.................................................................................................................107
8
ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................109
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Abbreviations
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAT Best Available Techniques
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CO carbon monoxide
DRF ‘dose-response’ function
ELV emission limit values
EPRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
HC hydrocarbons
HZW Hazardous Waste
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
MEPPP Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Physical
Planning
NMVOVs non-Methane volatile organic compounds
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NOx nitrogen oxides
NOx nitrogen oxides
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCT Polychlorinated terphenyls
PPP purchasing price parities
SO2 sulphur dioxide
VOCs volatile organic compounds
VPF Value of a Prevented Fatality
VSL Value of Statistical Life
WQO Water Quality Objective
WTP willingness to pay
PPP Purchasing power parity or parities.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Tables
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
v
LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Key economic indicators for former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ....................................
4
Table 3-1.Table of emissions for SOx, NOx, CO, TSP (2004)
................................................................
7
Table 3-2. Emissions on year level in tones per year (2004)
...............................................................
7
Table 3-3. Emissions of air pollution from stationary sources in
regions of RM (2004) ............................ 8
Table 3-4. Emissions of pollution substances from household with
fire wood......................................... 9
Table 3-5. Fugitive emissions on NMVOC from petrol stations in
regions............................................... 9
Table 3-6. Data from automatic monitoring stations in Skopje -
ambient air quality ............................. 10
Table 3-7. Data from automatic monitoring stations of ambient
air quality in Bitola ............................. 11
Table 3-8. Data from automatic monitoring stations for ambient
air quality – Veles ............................. 11
Table 3-9: EU Air Quality Directives Amenable to Monetisation
.......................................................... 14
Table 3-10: 2020 Emissions in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia used for the current study. . 16
Table 3-11: Physical premature mortality impacts avoided in year
2020.............................................. 17
Table 3-12: Physical Morbidity Impacts in year
2020.........................................................................
19
Table 3-13: Benefits of Full Compliance (Million
€)............................................................................
20
Table 4-1: Future water supply norms in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (ERWRM) ........... 26
Table 4-2: Future water supply norms in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia on a river basin scale (ERWRM)
.......................................................................................................................
27
Table 4-3: Water demand by tourists in the year 1996 on river
basin basis ......................................... 28
Table 4-4: Total drinking water demands by tourists for the
years 2010 and 2020 (ERWRM)................ 28
Table 4-5: Sanitary compliance of drinking water supply
monitoring (sampling) for period 1997-2003 (Republic Health
Institute)
.......................................................................................................
30
Table 4-6: Type and quantity of water intake and losses
...................................................................
31
Table 4-7 : Comparison between the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia bathing water standards and EU bathing water standards
(76/160/EEC) – microbiological
parameters................................ 32
Table 4-8: Overview of the waste water treatment infrastructure
in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Republic Institute
for Health Protection)
..................................................................
36
Table 4-9: Calculated nutrient content of wastewater
.......................................................................
38
Table 4-10: Willingness to pay for cleaner drinking
water..................................................................
44
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Tables
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
vi
Table 4-11: WTP for cleaner inland surface
water.............................................................................
45
Table 4-12: Improvements to River Water Quality – Non-use Values
.................................................. 47
Table 4-13: Aggregation of Annual Benefits from Full Compliance
(million Euro per year) .................... 50
Table 4-14: Total benefits from full compliance with the
water-related Directives ................................ 52
Table 5-1: Existing Waste Management Arrangements - Problem
Analysis .......................................... 55
Table 5-2 – Waste management and collection
................................................................................
57
Table 5-3: Total municipal waste generation and composition –
year 2004 ......................................... 57
Table 5-4 – Waste
recycling............................................................................................................
59
Table 5-5: Overview of the recycled commodities in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – year 2004
......................................................................................................................................
60
Table 5-6 – Waste landfilled
...........................................................................................................
62
Table 5-7: Contribution of Methane (CH4) in CO2-eq emission in
Waste Sector .................................... 62
Table 5-8: Identified non – compliant municipal landfills
...................................................................
63
Table 5-9: Number of municipal landfills per risk class
......................................................................
64
Table 5-10– Packaging waste
.........................................................................................................
64
Table 5-11: Packaging waste expressed as percentage of total
waste................................................. 65
Table 5-12: Main characteristics of Drisla hospital waste
incinerator ...................................................
66
Table 5-13– Waste
incineration.......................................................................................................
67
Table 5-14 – Hazardous
waste........................................................................................................
68
Table 5-15: Annual quantities of industrial hazardous waste and
proposed disposal options (mining activities) – year 2004
.............................................................................................................
69
Table 5-16: Annual quantities of industrial hazardous waste and
proposed disposal options (mining activities excluded) – year 2004
...............................................................................................
69
Table 5-17: Projection industrial hazardous waste
generation............................................................
70
Table 5-18 – Waste
oils..................................................................................................................
70
Table 5-19 – Batteries and accumulators
.........................................................................................
71
Table 5-20: General data on medical hazardous
waste......................................................................
72
Table 5-21: Industrial contaminated sites -
‘hotspots”.......................................................................
73
Table 5-22: Targets for recovery /
recycling.....................................................................................
74
Table 5-23: Estimates of reductions in methane emissions per
year by 2010 (in ktonnes) .................... 78
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Tables
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
vii
Table 5-24 : Assumptions for the Municipal Waste Flow for the
Period 2002–2020. ............................. 79
Table 5-25 : Assumptions for the Municipal Waste Flow for the
Period 2002–2025, Strategy Scenario 2 – Increased
Incineration.............................................................................................................
81
Table 5-26 : Recycling scenario for compliance with the
Packaging Directive....................................... 84
Table 5-27: Estimated tonnes recycled and the changes in
recycling levels per year (in tonnes and percentage) due to the
Packaging Directive by 2020,
.................................................................
84
Table 6-1: IUCN Protected Areas: I-V Management Categories
.......................................................... 91
Table 6-2: Flora - Number of endemic and threatened species
among the higher plants ...................... 93
Table 6-3: Fauna - Diversity and endemism of species in
different taxonomic groups........................... 93
Table 6-4: Potential environmental, socio-cultural and economic
benefits ..........................................106
Table 8-1: Methane Emissions By Component, USEPA (1998)
...........................................................137
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Figures
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
ix
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Map of the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
........................................................... 3
Figure 4-1: Bathing water quality of Ohrid Lake (Republic Health
Institute)......................................... 33
Figure 4-2: Bathing water quality of Prespa Lake (Republic
Health Institute)....................................... 34
Figure 4-3: Bathing water quality of Dojran lake (Republic
Health Institute)........................................ 34
Figure 4-4: Quality of surface waters in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia in the year 1996 ... 40
Figure 5-1: Composition of the total municipal (household and
commercial) waste .............................. 58
Figure 5-2: Simplified diagram of Recycling Network in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia..... 59
Figure 5-3: Packaging waste as percentage of the total waste
........................................................... 65
Figure 5-4: Annual generation of HW (Mining and Thermal
Processes excluded) – year 2004 ............... 68
Figure 5-5: Strategy scenario 1 - Estimates of projected volumes
of waste generated, collected, recycled, composted, incinerated and
disposed for the period 2004-2020 assuming a zero municipal solid
waste generation growth
.........................................................................................................
80
Figure 5-6: Strategy scenario 1 - Estimates of projected volumes
of waste generated, collected, recycled, composted, incinerated and
disposed for the period 2004-2020 assuming a high municipal solid
waste generation growth
.........................................................................................................
80
Figure 5-7: Strategy scenario 2 - Estimates of projected volumes
of waste generated, collected, recycled, composted, incinerated and
disposed for the period 2004-2020 assuming a zero municipal solid
waste generation growth
.........................................................................................................
82
Figure 5-8: Strategy scenario 2 - Estimates of projected volumes
of waste generated, collected, recycled, composted, incinerated and
disposed for the period 2004-2020 assuming a zero municipal solid
waste generation growth
.........................................................................................................
82
Figure 6-1: Number of designated areas according to national
categories ........................................... 90
Figure 6-2: Natural Protected areas in the the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia ........................ 92
Figure 6-3: Number of species, endemic and threatened vertebrate
species in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (European Red
List of
Vertebrates)..........................................................
94
Figure 6-4: Percentage of certain types of erosion of the
torrent flow area in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(Annual Report 2004 on Soil from the MoEPP - Macedonian
Environmental Information Centre)
................................................................................................................
97
Figure 6-5: Index of Utilized Agriculture Area by category of
use, 2000-2004, 1999=100 (State Statistical Office, 2005)
..........................................................................................................................
98
Figure 6-6: Area under organic
production......................................................................................102
Figure 6-7: Benefits of EU accession for the the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia - Protected areas: Increased coverage and
increased quality
.....................................................................106
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Annexes
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
xi
LIST OF ANNEXES Annex 1: Regulation on classification of waters
(The Official Gazette of the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia of Macedonia No. 18-99)
.......................................................................................111
Annex 2: Insights on ecosystems features
......................................................................................125
Annex 3: Insights on biological diversity
.........................................................................................129
Annex 4: Institutional, legal and economic framework
.....................................................................133
Annex 5 : Quantitative review of methane emissions
.......................................................................137
-
ARCADIS ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L
Executive Summary 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with
environmental acquis - final report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
The country specific report for the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia provides an overview of the current status of the
environment in the field of water, waste, air and nature and the
results of the benefits assessments. A benefit assessment is
carried out using quantitative data for Air, Water, Waste and
Nature respectively – as in past benefits assessments. Next to
this, a monetary analysis is carried out for parts of Air and
Water. Nature and Waste are excluded from the monetary assessment
since the main benefit values come from air and the benefits from
water are also quite transparent and easy to communicate. The more
general description of the benefits in qualitative terms is
presented in the general report.
Our analysis is based on data collected in the period of March –
June 2007 by national environmental experts. To this purpose, IEEP
and ARCADIS Ecolas developed questionnaire templates for the
national experts to fill out. The questionnaires provided us a
picture of the current situation and, whether possible, past trends
and future scenarios. The templates are presented in annex of the
general report.
In this chapter, a summary is provided on the qualitative,
quantitative and monetary (only water and air) benefit assessments.
The main results are summarised on the last page of this executive
summary. It is advised to consult the full report for background
information on the methodology used and assumptions made as these
reflect the context in which presented figures should be
interpreted.
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AIR RELATED DIRECTIVES
The study has assessed the extent of the benefits from lower
emissions for the following pollutants: particulates, sulphur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds
(VOC’s), and ammonia (NH3).
In summary, the key benefits identified are:
• It is estimated that 381 equivalent cases of chronic
bronchitis could be avoided per year (domestic and external)
through the full implementation of EU air related directives. Of
these, 50 are domestic.
• Furthermore, the implementation of the air related
environmental acquis should lead to approximately 237 fewer cases
of premature death arising from lung cancer per year and other
related respiratory diseases, 30 of which are domestic.
The key monetary benefits are:
• Full compliance should lead to an annual benefit value in a
range of 22 to 38 million EUR (reflecting the metric for premature
death used) for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, starting
from 2020.
• Total annual benefits to all countries, including EU and third
countries have been estimated to equal 285 million EUR in 2020
using the VSL metric. This is due to the fact that emissions
reductions in Macedonia will lead to reductions in pollution
exposure of the populations in neighbouring countries.
-
ARCADIS ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L
Executive Summary 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with
environmental acquis - final report
• The gaseous pollutants comprise almost 73% of the benefits
whilst PM10 accounts for almost 27% of the total benefits.
• Avoided early mortality is the largest source of benefit; the
value attributed to avoiding early mortality amount to over 64% of
the total benefits valued.
The results presented are still likely to be under-estimates of
the true benefits of compliance with these standards. The principal
reason for this is that the benefits of reductions in some
pollutants, notably CO, CO2 and CH4, are not valued since the
impact-pathways are not yet defined for all end-points.
It should also be noted that uncertainty remains integral to the
analysis – in other words the analysis does not try to hide the
uncertainty in the estimates, on the contrary. Two examples of
uncertainty include the monetary valuation of the receptor
end-points, particularly premature deaths avoided.
Whilst the limitations must be acknowledged, the project team is
confident that the results, if seen in the context of the
uncertainties, do present very important conclusions on the scale
of benefits that can accrue from the proper implementation of the
Directives, from which broad policy conclusions can be drawn.
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT WATER RELATED DIRECTIVES
Benefits of improved drinking water will accrue (i) to
households that have a new connection to water supply, and (ii) to
households that already have water supply, but are guaranteed
better quality water. 88.9% of the population is supplied with safe
drinking water today. In absence of a more accurate estimate of the
number of new connections, it was preferred to apply an experts’
estimate of 5% increase to calculate future connection percentages.
Adding the 5% estimate of new connections to the current connection
rate of 88.6% yields a total share of 93.6% which can be assumed to
benefit from quality improvements of drinking water.
Although it is a well known fact that urban wastewater is one of
the most dangerous pollutant sources of the surface water in the
country, there is no data on the urban wastewater quality, due to
lack of systematic monitoring. The Urban Waste Water Directive will
have a positive effect on the quality of inland waters and, in some
cases, groundwater. The total population of the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia was assumed to benefit from the bathing water
quality improvement, through a reduction of the nitrates and
phosphates load discharged.
The distribution of the present surface water quality was
estimated to be 5% class I, 50% class II, 40% class III, 5% class
IV and 0% class V, showing that the current water quality condition
of most of the surface water is not satisfying the requirements of
the secondary legislations (regulation or ordinance). As it was not
possible to assess what will be the precise effect of the
implementation of the various water directives (mainly Urban Waste
Water Directive, the Nitrate Directive and the Dangerous Substances
Directive) on river quality, it has been assumed that the full
implementation of the various directives will lead to the effect
that the real water quality in all watercourses will be such that
the designated Water Quality Objective class I or II will be met.
This seems a reasonable assumption, as the main cause of not
meeting the WQO is the discharge of various substances by sewage
and industrial discharges and these discharges will be dealt with
by the directives.
The total benefits of clean drinking water are estimated to
amount to around 58 million EUR/year upon full compliance.
-
ARCADIS ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L
Executive Summary 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with
environmental acquis - final report
An additional important benefit from the implementation of the
water related environmental acquis is the benefit of access to
quality bathing and surface waters. The total benefits of an
improved surface water quality to the domestic population are
estimated to amount to 8.5 million EUR/year upon full compliance –
for the lower WTP value. For the high estimate, the benefits to the
domestic population are estimated to be at around 22.3 million
EUR/year upon full compliance.
Next to the recreational value of surface water, which has been
covered above, many people have a WTP for improved river ecosystem
quality even if they do not visit the respective river at all. The
total non-use value of improving river ecosystem quality is
estimated to amount to 0.21 million EUR/year upon full
compliance.
The total discounted benefits to the domestic population of
compliance with the water-related Directives has been estimated at
around 546 million EUR (lower estimate) and 658 million EUR (upper
estimate). This is equivalent to 270 EUR/person and 326
EUR/person.
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SOLID WASTE RELATED DIRECTIVES
The EU Waste Directives will lead to major changes in handling,
treatment and disposal of waste in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. The country has a wide range of ways in which it can
choose to implement the set of waste directives. For example, it
can choose to give priority to recycling or to incineration. This
choice will affect the extent and value of the benefits arising
from each Directive. It is therefore not always possible to
identify exactly what will occur as a consequence of a specific
Directive.
The main benefits from implementing the Waste Directives
are:
• Better management and monitoring of waste streams through the
Waste Framework Directive.
• Lower pollution to groundwater and surface water from leakage
of unprotected landfills and, as a result, lower risks of
contaminating drinking water.
• Reduced health and explosions risks as well as lower impact on
global warming as methane emissions from landfills are captured and
made to generate energy. Existing landfill sites will have to be
upgraded and illegal dumping sites closed.
• Benefits to eco-systems and other environmental resources as
emissions from waste activities into air, water and soil are
reduced and the recovery of energy is increased through the
Incineration Directive.
• Reduced health and environmental risks by improved treatment
and disposal of hazardous waste such as hazardous solid waste,
medical waste, PCB waste, used tyres and batteries etc.
• Increased efficiency in the use of material and reduced
production of primary material as a result of higher levels of
recycling. This is a result of the targets of the Packaging
Directive, diversion targets from the Landfill Directive and
targets of the WEEE Directive, ELV, Batteries, Waste Oils etc.
directives.
• Lower costs for waste collection, treatment and disposal, as
less waste will be produced.
EU waste directives will help avoid:
• Pollution into air, soil and water (methane, CO2, particulate,
heavy metals from sewage sludge, PCBs/PCTs, waste oil) and
ecological risks from waste treatment sites and hazardous
waste.
• Respiratory diseases and noise nuisance to local population,
risks to health from contaminated water supplies, air and soil.
Extent of the benefits:
-
ARCADIS ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L
Executive Summary 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with
environmental acquis - final report
• The full implementation of the Landfill Directive will lead to
a reduction of methane emissions (captured) of between 4 and 40
ktonnes annually by the year 2020.
• Associated with the increase in the levels of
recycling/composting and incineration, implementation of the
Landfill Directive will lead to a decrease in landfill disposal
levels. Estimates for a decrease in landfill disposal levels (per
year) by the year 2020 were calculated as the levels of disposal
under the Landfill Directive, as a percentage of the
non-implementation baseline. Under the recycling/composting
scenario the disposal would be around 67% of non-implementation
levels (i.e. a 33% decrease), and under the incineration scenario
it would be around 52% of non-implementation levels (i.e 48%
decrease).
• The quantitative assessment of the impacts of the Packaging
Directive provide predicted changes in recycling levels across all
materials. The estimates for the increases in recycling levels for
the former Yugoslav Republc of Macedonia, per year, by 2020
are:
- for paper: +46,3 ktonnes; - for glass: +11,5 ktonnes; - for
plastic (PET): +3,3 ktonnes; and - for metals: no change as the
current recycling rate of 98% is already higher than the target
of the Packaging Direcitve
• For all the recyclables together, the increase will amount to
around 61 ktonnes.
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT NATURE RELATED DIRECTIVES
Improving the nature-related legislation in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia will primarily increase the size and quality
of natural protected areas. The implementation of existing national
targets can increase protected areas coverage from 7.3% (about
188,000 Ha) to 12% (300,000 Ha) – an increase of about 40%. In some
cases the requirements for protected areas will need to be
increased in order to meet Natura 2000 objectives. Furthermore,
increased protection will be achieved by the development of EMERALD
network Areas of Special Conservation Interest, in preparation of
the future implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.
The implementation of the Habitat and Bird Directive can hence
provide significant environmental benefits in term of more
effective protection of endangered and endemic species (especially
fish) and fragile ecosystems (like wetlands, relict lakes). The
protection of migratory birds across borders is also expected to be
improved. EU accession may also help mitigate some of the major
threats to biodiversity in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, such as habitat loss and fragmentation due to
urban/infrastructural projects, overuse of resources, water
pollution (especially from waste water), overfishing and illegal
hunting. Reduced pollution and increase nature protection in
protected area is also expected to lease to enhanced water quality,
including drinking water.
Key socio-cultural benefits will be increased amenity and
recreation value and awareness raising (eg through the promotion of
education and research). This can be particularly important given
the low level of environmental awareness in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (often leading to resource overuse). This can
also help preserve cultural identity. The adoption of EU processes
– like stakeholder consultations in the context of EIA – can
stimulate public participation in decision-making. In addition,
reduced illegal hunting can also increase public safety in rural
areas.
The economic benefits can be generated by increasing activities
like tourism and ecotourism (which currently are not key economic
resources), organic farming, sustainable forestry and harvesting of
non-timber products (like medicinal herbs, oils, mushrooms etc).
These activities can also lead to increased employment and
volunteer work opportunities (eg in tourism, forest management,
-
ARCADIS ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L
Executive Summary 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with
environmental acquis - final report
sustainable agriculture etc). Increasing the number of
programmes for nature protection and sustainable agriculture can
also bring additional EU-funding (PES, LIFE + programme etc…)
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Executive
summary 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with
environmental acquis - final report
SUMMARY OVERVIEW – FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
BENEFITS COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ACQUIS
Qualitative assessment Quantitative assessment Monetary
assessment
AIR • Improved monitoring and registration system of atmospheric
emissions and air
quality parameters
• General benefits to human health (mortality and morbidity),
eco-systems (eutrophication, acidification and ozone damages),
economy (impacts on agricultural crops (mainly ozone), absenteeism,
triggers innovative approaches) and social aspects (e.g. damages to
historic buildings, visibility issues in cities)
• 381 equivalent cases of chronic bronchitis avoided per year of
which 50 domestic
• 237 fewer cases of premature death per year of which 30
domestic
• Annual benefit of 22-38 MEUR from 2020 onwards for the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
• Annual total benefit of 285 MEUR in 2020 for all countries
WATER • Improved drinking water quality ;
• Improved inland surface water quality for bathing and
recreational purposes ;
• Improved ecosystem quality of surface waters;
• 94% of population benefits from quality improvements of
drinking water;
• All watercourses improved so that the designated Water Quality
Objective Classes I or II will be met;
• All surface waters benefiting from improved ecosystem
quality;
• Drinking waters: annual benefit of 58 MEUR at full
compliance;
• Improved surface water (use value): annual benefit of 8.5 –
22.3 MEUR;
• Improved ecosystem quality of surface waters (non-use value):
annual benefit of 0.21 MEUR/year;
• Total discounted benefits over 20 years of 546 – 658
MEUR/year.
SOLID WASTE
• Better management and monitoring of waste streams
• Reduced health risks linked to hazardous waste management,
closure and remediation of old landfills and waste dumps
• Lower pollution of ground- and surface water linked to leakage
of unprotected landfills
• Recovery of energy and better use of primary materials through
energy recuperation, re-use and recycling activities
• Reduced impacts on climate change through capture of
methane
• Reduced methane emissions : 4 to 40 ktonnes/year in 2020
• A decrease by 33% to 48% of volume of waste landfilled/year by
2020 under respectively the recycling & compositing scenario
and the incineration scenario
• An increase to a volume of ca. 61 ktonnes of recyclables
(paper, glass and plastic) per year in 2020
NATURE • Protection of endangered and endemic species
(especially fish) and fragile
ecosystems (e.g. wetlands, relict lakes). • Increased protected
areas coverage
from 7.3% to 12%
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Objectives
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
1
1 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this country-specific report is to carry out a
benefits assessment for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
that follows the approach taken in the past Benefits of Compliance
Studies for the EU13 and for Croatia.
In chapters 3 to 6 a benefits assessment is carried out using
quantitative data for Air, Water, Waste and Nature respectively –
as in past benefits assessments. Next to this, a monetary analysis
is carried out for parts of Air and Water. Nature and Waste are
excluded from the monetary assessment (as in the Croatia study)
since the main benefit values come from air and the benefits from
water are also quite transparent and easy to communicate.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Introduction
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
3
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a landlocked
country on the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe. It is
bordered by Serbia to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the
south, and Bulgaria to the east. The capital is Skopje. A map of
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is given in Figure
2-1.
Figure 2-1: Map of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
2.1 THE ENVIRONMENT
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a landlocked
country that is geographically clearly defined by a central valley
formed by the Vardar river and framed along its borders by mountain
ranges.
The Republic's terrain is mostly rugged, located between the
Šara and Osogovo, which frame the valley of the Vardar river. Three
large lakes — Lake Ohrid, Lake Prespa and Dojran Lake — lie on the
southern borders of the Republic, bisected by the frontiers with
Albania and Greece. Ohrid is considered to be one of the oldest
lakes and biotopes in the world. The region is seismically active
and has been the site of destructive earthquakes in the past, most
recently in 1963 when Skopje was heavily damaged by a major
earthquake, killing over 1,000.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also has scenic
mountains. They belong to two different ranges: Dinarska and
Rodopska. The Dinarska range is the oldest with subsequent erosion;
the Rodopska range is younger offering rugged, alpine
sceneries.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia present a great
diversity of fauna species, 6.5% of which are endemic. The most
threatened group is fish.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Introduction
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
4
Most of the forest area is owned by the state, and often timber
harvesting is managed rather inefficiently. In the pre-mountain
(subalpine) regions the forest are almost destroyed, due to
desiccation, fires, land drainage, mining and other anthropogenic
activities like building construction, expansion of tourist
settlements, road infrastructures and artificial lakes.
Grasslands ecosystems also occupy a large part of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and are expanding in some areas due
to forest degradation and abandonment of agriculture land.
Grasslands are though under anthropogenic pressure from agriculture
and mining activities.
Mountain ecosystems are under pressure due to overgrazing, the
uncontrolled removal of plant species, and the construction of
ski-lift and other infrastructures. The floral and faunal
components though are not considered at risk.
Lake and watershed ecosystems are very rich in terms of
biodiversity, but their state is alarming. Pollution from
wastewater, industrial agricultural pollution, and a lowering of
the water level in some lakes are among the highest pressures,
threatening wetland ecosystems and their related biodiversity.
Although some national laws for nature conservation are in place
(Law on Nature Protection - Official Gazette 67/2004), legislation
is still incomplete. Nature in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia is still under threat by lack of citizen’s awareness,
outdated technology, unsustainable agriculture practices, illegal
hunting, low institutional capacity, lack of strategic planning,
and uncontrolled urbanisation and industrialisation.
2.2 THE ECONOMY
Agriculture and forests contribute to approximately 11.3% of the
GDP. It is agriculture though – together with industry – the most
important economic sector in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, while forestry is not a key economic resource.
Agriculture is rather extensive and traditional, and at the moment
do not represent a strong threat to local biodiversity.
Nevertheless, economic development and market competition could
lead the Macedonian agriculture to become more intensive. Tourism
activities are not very developed, and contribute to only 1.6% of
the GDP.
The key economic indicators for the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia are given in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Key economic indicators for the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
Indicator Most recent year (ideally 2004) Population in your
country and growth rate 2022547 (censuse 2002) 0.2% (2000-2005)
(state statistical office)
Population size per settlement (cities, major towns) in your
country
Skopje - 506926 (census 2002) (state statistical office)
Population size by region (NUTS1 2 and NUTS 3 if possible)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is divided in 8
statistical regions (Population and names of regions in table
below) * The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is divided in 84
municipalities plus 1 municipality Skopje. The information for
population size can be find in statistic censuses from 2002 (state
statistical office) www.stat.gov.mk
GDP (ideally 2004 money terms) 5.76 billions Curently US$ (2005)
(world bank) 4.64 billions Euro (2005)
1 National unit of territorial space
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Introduction
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
5
Indicator Most recent year (ideally 2004) GDP per capita 2119
US$ (2005) (state statistical office)
1706 Euro (2005)
GDP growth rate – past and projections 4.0% annual (world bank)
4.1% (2004) 4.0%(2005) 4.0(2006) State Statistical Office
Predicted 6.0% for 2007 and 2008 (current predictions are that
2007 GDP will be no more than 4.5%)
Number of households - 564237 (census 2002) (state statistical
office) - Percentage of households that live in dwellings connected
to the public water supply system: 88.6%
- Percentage of households that live in dwellings connected to
the sewerage system: 62.9%
- Average number of household members
Number of dwellings 697529
Country surface area 25713 km²
Purchasing Power Parity 16.91 billion US$ (CIA Fact book) 12.51
billion Euro – according to current exchange rate us$/Euro
Share (%) of agriculture in the GDP (year 2003) 2
Crops app.:
Livestock app.:
9,8 %
7%
3%
Share (%) of agriculture, forestry and fishery in the GDP (year
2004) 3
11.3 %
Share (%) of forestry in the GDP (2003) 4 1%
2 Agricultural Report 2004, MAFWE: The value of the whole
agri-food sector (including the wider agribusiness sector i.e. food
and processing) is estimated to represent approximately 15%
GDP.
3 Agricultural Report 2005, MAFWE
4 Agricultural Report 2004, MAFWE: According to the Strategy for
Sustainable Development of Forestry in the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia (adopted in 2006) the share of forestry in the GDP is
only 0,3-0,5 %, but if the multifunctional uses are valorised, the
contribution will be higher.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Introduction
06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis
- final report
6
Indicator Most recent year (ideally 2004) Share (%) of tourism
(hotels and restaurants) in the GDP 5 (year 2002):
(year 2003):
(year 2004):
1,7%
1.9%
1,6%
5 Statistical Yearbook 2006
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
7
3 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF AIR RELATED DIRECTIVES
3.1 CURRENT STATUS OF AIR QUALITY
3.1.1 National and Regional Level
The following tables document the quantity of principal air
pollutants emitted from individual sectors within the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Table 3-1.Table of emissions for SOx, NOx, CO, TSP (2004)
SNAP SOx t/y NOx CO TSP
1 Public power, cogeneration and district heating plants
91,863 13,100 385 4675
2 Commercial, institutional and residential combustion
plants
1,062 1,502 41,443 1,533
3 Industrial combustion 6,450 2,744 552 1,209
4 Production processes 356 4,933 9,004 22,278
5 Extraction and distribution of fossil fuels 0 0 553 0
6 Solvent use 0 0 0 0
7 Road transport 775 9,200 40,927 0
8 Other mobile sources and machinery 251 2,069 2,025 225
9 Waste treatment and disposal 3.4 21 5.3 0.8
10 Agriculture 0 0 0
11 Nature 38,3 169 4,841 0
Total 100,799 33,737 99,735 29,921
Table 3-2. Emissions on year level in tones per year (2004)
SNAP NMVOCs NH3
1 Public power, cogeneration and district heating plants 1,690
0
2 Commercial, institutional and residential combustion plants
3,508 0
3 Industrial combustion 211 0,5
4 Production processes 1,108 0
5 Extraction and distribution of fossil fuels 425 0
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
8
6 Solvent use 8,484 0
7 Road transport 8,824 0
8 Other mobile sources and machinery 969 0,28
9 Waste treatment and disposal 1.1 0
10 Agriculture 0 7,384
11 Nature 98,866 1,382
Total 124,087 8,824
Source: Data from MOEPP Report for year 2005
Under the framework of the CORINAIR programme in 2005, in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia established an inventory for
emissions of air substances in different sectors. Analyses of the
period 2002-2005 showed a decrease of emissions in SO2, reflecting
falls in the level of production activity. SO2 pollution is
dominated by electricity production which relies on the use of poor
quality lignite, with high percentages of sulphur. This, together
with transport, is the main source of emissions of NOx. Data for
NH3 are available for 2005 and the main source is agriculture.
Pollutant emissions on a geographical basis are presented in the
following tables for 2004.
Table 3-3. Emissions of air pollution from stationary sources in
regions of RM (2004)
Pollution substances [tonnes]
Regions SO2 CO NOx TSP
Pelagonian 74,047 987 12,333 4,041
Vardar 2,282 628 1.022 749
Northeast 138 91 51 13
Southwest 13,370 3,611 815 610
Skopje 6,441 1,134 3,262 524
Southeast 619 298 261 69
Polog 735 9,064 5,019 18,706
East 959 482 242 71
Total 98,590 16,294 23,006 24,783
Data MOEPP - Land registry of air emissions
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
9
Table 3-4. Emissions of pollution substances from household with
fire wood
Pollution substances [tonnes] Regions
SO2 CO NOx TSP
Pelagonian 3,844 12,344 126 357
Vardar 1,805 5,798 59 167
Northeast 3,477 11,168 114 323
Southwest 3,597 11,551 118 334
Skopje 8,593 27,597 281 797
Southeast 2,928 9,403 96 272
Polog 4,717 15,149 154 438
East 4,210 13,521 138 391
Total 33,171 106,531 1,086 3,079
Table 3-5. Fugitive emissions on NMVOC from petrol stations in
regions
Regions Evaporable organic substance from oil derivates
[tonnes]
from Petrol from Diesel
motor oil
Total
Pelagonian 46.0 45.0 23.4 114.4
Vardar 25.5 32.7 18.0 76.2
Northeast 46.8 68.1 52.2 167.1
Southwest 40.2 43.3 23.8 107.3
Skopje 153.1 138.0 30.9 322.0
Southeast 31.13 47.00 26.15 104.3
Polog 62.7 87.5 60.7 210.9
East 30.8 33.7 20.1 84.6
Total 436.2 495.4 255.3 1186.9
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
10
Skopje
Evaluation of ambient air quality in Skopje is made by analysis
of polluting substances and data from monitoring networks given by
MoEPP, Hydro-meteorological Institute and Institute of
Health-Skopje. In Table 3-6, data from results analysis taken from
three autumatic monitoring stations for ambiental air quallity in
Skopje (Karpos, Centar and Lisice) are given, in frame of MoEPP, as
well from UHMR and Republic Health Protection Institute monitoring
networks.
Table 3-6. Data from automatic monitoring stations in Skopje -
ambient air quality
SKOPJE Year average
concentration Max Min Limit value
Number of days in year with average day concentration above
Limit Value
Karpos 25 123 - 150 0
Centar 30 189 5 150 2
SO2 µ
g/m
3
Lisice 20 84 2 150 0
Karpos 52 116 15 85 5
Centar 52 106 25 85 14
NO
2 µ
g/m
3
Lisice 53 138 17 85 15
Karpos 1 5 0.4 1 276
Centar 2 6 0.3 1 270
CO
mg/
m3
Lisice 3 6 0.5 1 217
Karpos 34 103 3.7 110 0
Centar
O3
µg/
m3
Lisice 35 105 6 110 0
Karpos 92 366 11.9 120 47
Centar 104 420 1.1 120 61
MoE
PP
PM
10
µg/
m3
Lisice 114
7.2 120 91
Concentrations of CO are high at Karpos, Lisice and Centar. Warm
periods in winter, increased frequency of traffic and
meteorological conditions are the main reasons for the high levels
of this pollutant. Bitola The ambient air quality in Bitola is
monitored by two automatic monitoring stations operated by MOEPP
(Bitola – 1, Bitola – 2) and one monitoring station operated by
Hydro-meteorological institute. Data is shown in Table 3-7.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
11
Table 3-7. Data from automatic monitoring stations of ambient
air quality in Bitola
Bitola Year average
concentration Мax Min
Limit Value
Number of days in year with average day concetration above
Limit
Value
Bitola-1 25,47 78,39 7,059 150 0
SO2
�g/
m3
Bitola -2 12,40 30,03 5,159 150 0
Bitola -1 24,86 119,57 3,552 85 14
NO
2 µ
g/m
3
Bitola -2 34,12 115,00 8,025 85 3
Bitola -1 1,40 4,03 0,256 1 169
CO
mg/
m3
Bitola -2 1,22 5,98 0,304 1 158
Bitola -1 75,45 163,22 22,165 110 32
O3
µg/
m3
Bitola -2 78,06 145,31 21,95 110 60
Bitola -1 65,63 253,92 10,828 150 27
MO
EPP
PM
10
µ
g/m
3
Bitola -2 71,07 530,29 4,313 150 22
Source MOEPP- 2005 Veles Veles, as an industrial city, is one of
the most polluted cities in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. In Table 3-8, information from two automatic monitoring
stations in the frames of MOEPP (Veles-1, Veles-2), three
monitoring stations operated by Hydro-metrological institute and
two monitoring station in the frames of Institute of Health –
Vales, are presented.
Table 3-8. Data from automatic monitoring stations for ambient
air quality – Veles
Veles Year average
concentrations Мах Min
Limit Value
Number of days in year with average
day concentration above Limit
Value
Veles-1 29,76 111,86 10,082 150 0
SO2 µ
g/m
3
Veles-2 29,05 125,47 8,673 150 0
MO
EPP
NO
2
µg/ m
3 Veles-1 13,07 43,21 2,743 85 0
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
12
Veles-2 31,57 126,06 10,119 85 4
Veles-1 1,09 2,15 0,325 1 172 C
O m
g/m
3
Veles-2 1,28 4,42 0,307 1 208
Veles-1 66,16 122,23 8,797 110 15
O3
µg/
m3
Veles-2 75,42 147,89 19,083 110 60
Veles-1 54,83 210,75 5,194 120 10
PM
10
µ
g/m
3
Veles-2 80,43 260,97 10,207 120 56
Note: Maximal, minimal value and number of days with daily
average concentrations over Limit Value are taken from tables with
basic data where we can find daily average of polluting
substances
3.1.2 Air Quality Regulation
A new Law for ambient air quality was established in September
2004 in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in June 2005,
Regulation for Limit values on polluting substances in air came
into being. This is the first legal act in moving towards
harmonisation with EU directives. Resulting activities are likely
to include:
• Definition of National max. emission values for some ambient
pollutant substances consistent with
the EU Framework Directive (2001/81/ЕU). This is still in
preparation process, but it is planned to come in force not later
than 2008.
• National plan for implementation of emission reduction of POPs
which has been adopted in accordance with project office of POPs,
but needs corrections, modifications and amendments.
• Implementing CORINAIR methodology for an inventory of air
pollution so as to inform UNECE and CLRTAP (convention for
trans-boundary transfer of air pollution)
The activities for implementing the system for integrated air
pollution prevention and control are currently ongoing in
accordance with the EU Directive 96/61/ЕC and the Statute and
Ordinance for their implementation have been prepared. In the
Statute and ordinance, licenses for companies are defined. There
are specified terms for the control of air pollution and the limits
of their emissions. It is hoped that implementing this system will
achieve better results in terms of pollution emissions
reduction.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
13
3.1.3 Air Quality Monitoring
In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, air quality
monitoring is undertaken with static monitoring stations and with
hand-taking samples from defined sites. Measurement of ambient air
quality in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is made
by:
• Republic Institute of Health – Skopje: monitoring SO2 and
smoke concentatons in 7 places in the town
• Republic Institute for Health – Veles: monitoring SO2 and
black smoke in 3 places in the town • Hydro-meteorological
Institute: monitoring SO2 and smoke in 9 places in Skopje and 10 in
other
towns in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Berovo,
Bitola, Tetovo, Gevgelija, Kumanovo, Ohrid, Prilep, Stip, Veles and
v.Lazaropole.
In addition, the Ministry of environment and physical planning
(MOEPP) has 13 static automatic monitoring stations for air
quality, one mobile monitoring station and one station for traffic
pollution monitoring. In Skopje there are 4 static monitoring
stations for air quality in: Karpos, Centre, Lisice and Gazi Baba
and one station for traffic pollution monitoring in the area of
(Rectors office) head office of a university St. ”Kiril and
Methods”. Two stations exist in Bitola and Veles, whilst Kicevo,
Kocani, Kumanovo, Tetovo and the village of Lazaropole each have
one monitoring station, a mobile station is currently placed in
Kavadarci. These stations measure:
• SO2 mg/m3 • CO mg/m3 • NOx mg/m3 • O3 mg/m3 • particulates
(PM10) mg/m3
These monitoring stations also measure the following
meteorological parameters:
• wind speed (m/s) • wind direction (º) • temperature (ºC) •
Humidity (%) • pressure (hPa) • global radiation (W/m2)
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
14
3.2 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT: AIR RELATED DIRECTIVES
3.2.1 Introduction
Table 3-9 below lists the individual EU Directives for which we
have attempted to quantify, in physical and monetary terms, the
environmental benefits that would result from the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia adopting these Directives. The table
indicates the pollutants that are considered in each Directive.
Those indicators marked in bold show which pollutants we have been
able to include in our adopted methodology.
Table 3-9: EU Air Quality Directives Amenable to
Monetisation
SO2
NO
x
Particulates
VOC’s
CO2
CO
Heavy m
etals
Dioxins
Furans
Halogens
Ozone
CH4
Air Quality - Relevant Directives
Large Combustion Plants x x x
IPPC Directive x x x x x x x
Emissions from Mobile Sources
x x x x x x
Air Quality Framework + Daughter Directives for SO2, NOx and
Particulates
x x x
VOC Emissions: Storage & Transport of Petrol
x
VOC-Solvents Directive x
Tropospheric Ozone Pollution x
As agreed with the European Commission, we have adopted an
analytical approach that allows us to estimate the aggregate
benefits of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia implementing
these Directives by "bundling" the Directives together in the first
instance. The benefits of implementing individual Directives are
therefore not identified directly - though an indication of the
relative importance of the different directives is given below. One
reason for this bundling is that benefits from different directives
cannot be separated. For instance, a SO2 reduction due to the IPPC
directive leads to reduction in SO2 concentration and so helps
towards fulfilling the limits in the first daughter directive.
Another, more practical, reason centres on data availability and
resources available to the project team. The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia project partners found that little research
was publicly available on the quantification of the effects of
implementing individual EU Directives in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless, when discussing the results of
our analysis we put forward some suggestions for the relative
importance of individual Directives in accounting for total
impacts.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
15
The four categories of pollution impacts that we quantify
are:
• Premature deaths avoided (mortality). • Illness avoided
(morbidity) – e.g. bronchitis6, asthma. • Crop damage avoided. •
Material damage avoided.
One reason why our estimates of environmental benefits are
likely to be under-estimates of the true benefits of compliance
with EU Directives is that we are not presently able to quantify
the benefits associated with the following impacts avoided:
• Impacts on ecosystems. • Change in biodiversity. • Potential
effects of chronic exposure to ozone. • Impacts on cultural
heritage and monuments. • Material soiling. • Direct and indirect
economic effects of change in forest productivity, and fishery
performance.
Nevertheless, we would suggest that those impacts that we can
quantify are likely to represent a significant - and majority -
share of the total impacts in welfare (monetary) terms.
3.2.2 Methodology – The Impact Pathway Approach
Within the current project, the “impact pathway approach”,
developed within the ExternE project series ‘External Costs of
Energy,’ has been used to quantify the benefits from emission
reductions (European Commission 1995, European Commission 1999,
European Commission 2000b).
Impact pathway assessment is a bottom-up-approach in which
environmental benefits and costs are estimated by following - as
far as possible - the ‘impact pathway’ from source emissions
through air quality changes to physical impacts, before being
expressed in monetary benefits and costs. The ECOSENSE model, an
integrated software tool for environmental impact pathway
assessment developed within the ExternE projects, has been used to
make the benefit estimations. ECOSENSE uses harmonised air quality
and impact assessment models together with a database containing
the relevant input data for the whole of Europe.
Within ExternE, the ECOSENSE model was originally used to
estimate external costs from individual power plants. The
‘multi-source’ version that was used in the current project is a
modified version, which supports the usage of more complex emission
scenarios. In Annex of the General Part, the models and data used
for the benefit estimations in the current project are described in
more detail.
6 Benefits include the benefit to the individual of not
incurring the illness, and also benefits of reduce hospitalisation
days and reduced activity days.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
16
3.2.3 Emission Reduction Scenarios
The calculation of the emissions reductions as a consequence of
the full implementation of the air-pollution related acquis are
outlined for the principal pollutants.
RATIONALE
In this study we have established a baseline for emissions for
gaseous pollutants derived from the baseline scenarios identified
in the development of the Gothenburg Protocol (UN ECE 1999),
reported by EMEP7 (Mylona 19998). The policy scenario is derived
from analysis undertaken by IIASA in the current modelling being
undertaken in the revision of the National Emissions Ceilings in
the EU25. The emission scenarios for the SEE countries we are
concerned with – Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania – are
therefore judged to be compatible with those for countries within
the EU25 with socio-economic commonalities. The resulting pollution
reductions are therefore best viewed as a reasonable approximation
to the scale of reductions that would be brought about by adoption
of the EU environmental acquis. It is important to note that the
scale of reductions is comparable to those assumed in previous
equivalent analyses for DG Environment9.
METHOD
The case and reference scenario are outlined below.
CASE SCENARIOS:
Main: Emission ceilings are adopted in the policy scenario as
emissions at a country level. Data derived by IIASA are directly
reported by the individual country. The emission reductions for the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are presented in Table
3-10.
Reference scenario: Emission projections that do not include
compliance with the emission ceilings are derived from earlier
projections reported by EMEP (Mylona 1999). These emission
projections are used as non-compliance estimates for the reference
scenarios.
Table 3-10: 2020 Emissions in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia used for the current study.
Emissions for the Policy Scenario Compliance with Emission
Ceilings
Emissions for the Baseline Scenario without Emission
Ceilings
NH3 NMVOC NO2 SO2 PM NH3 NMVOC NO2 SO2 PM
[kt] [kt] [kt] [kt] [kt] [kt] [kt] [kt] [kt] [kt]
12 22 28 57 12 15 36 43 72 23
7 EMEP is the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and
Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air pollutants in
Europe 8 EMEP/MSC-W Note 1/99, July 1999. "EMEP EMISSION DATA.
Status Report 1999". By Sophia Mylona 9 Implementation and
Enforcement Capacities in Croatia - Benefits for Croatia of
compliance with the environmental acquis – Final Report. European
Commission, DG Environment (2005); The Benefits of Compliance with
the Environmental Acquis for the Candidate Countries. European
Commission, DG Environment (2001)
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
17
3.2.4 Extent of Benefits
The mortality impacts of the pollution emission reductions
assumed above for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are
shown in Table 3-11 below for 2020 – the year in which it is
assumed compliance with EU Directives is achieved. The benefits of
these reductions in EU25 countries and others – due to reduction of
trans-boundary transport of pollution from the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia - are also given. Details of the Ecosense
model from where these results are taken are given in Annex 1 of
this report. Note that exposure – response functions are taken from
the peer-reviewed literature, surveyed in 2007.
Morbidity impacts are of a disparate nature and so cannot be
expressed as a common unit. However, for illustration, the
morbidity impacts are presented - in Table 3-12 - as equivalent
number of cases of chronic bronchitis avoided.
Units for materials and crop damages are not as readily
meaningful and we cannot present these here. However, in the case
of materials, the impact being quantified is the premature ageing
of various building materials exposed to SO2 deposition from
acidification. Thus, in our context, the whole exposed material
surface area to SO2 will age at a slower rate than if the
Directives were not to be implemented.
Crop damage is measured primarily by the change in yield that
results from the change in pollutant concentrations in the air.
Thus, with knowledge of the geographical distribution of crop
plantations within a country, the acreage of a given crop affected
by a change in pollutant concentration can be estimated and the
percentage yield change can be derived.
Table 3-11: Physical premature mortality impacts avoided in year
2020
Total NH3 NOX SO2 PM
Metric YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths YOLL
Deaths
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
274 30 36 4 49 5 37 4 152 17
Outside former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
1.859 207 89 10 444 49 770 86 596 66
Total 2.133 237 125 14 493 55 807 90 748 83
Table 3-11 shows the number of premature deaths avoided from
emission reductions in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The results show that a total of 237 premature deaths per annum are
avoided when the emission reductions are implemented. The numbers
are for the premature deaths that would be avoided in 2020 - the
first year in which full implementation of the EU Directives is
assumed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Note that the
reduction in deaths caused by the reduction of emissions is
separated into those occurring within the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia and those occurring outside the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia as a result of trans-boundary effects. It is
interesting to note that the trans-boundary impacts comprise
roughly three-quarters of the total impacts for the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia’s emissions.
The morbidity benefits for the emission reduction are expressed
in terms of the equivalent number of cases of chronic bronchitis
avoided in the country in 2020 - the first year of full compliance
with the EU Directives assumed. The equivalence between cases of
chronic bronchitis and other health conditions is reached simply by
dividing the total monetary value of morbidity benefits by the
value of one case of
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
18
chronic bronchitis avoided to give the number of cases of
chronic bronchitis-equivalents. The total number of cases per year
is approximately 381.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
19
Table 3-12: Physical Morbidity Impacts in year 2020
Morbidity impact (equivalent number of chronic bronchitis cases
avoided each year
Cases
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 50
Outside former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 331
Total 381
3.3 MONETARY VALUATION: REDUCED AIR POLLUTION
3.3.1 Benefits upon full compliance
The monetary estimates of the benefits resulting from the air
pollution emission reductions assumed above in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia are presented in summary form in Table 3-13.
All values presented are in million Euros (2005 prices), and relate
to the year 2020 - the first year of assumed full implementation. A
description and analysis of these results is given in this section.
The values here look at the benefits to the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia. Additional benefits accrue to the EU, and to
third countries, as a result of reducing emissions in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the relationship between
domestic action and foreign benefit is presented in Section
3.3.2.
Box 1 : Premature Mortality: Values of Prevented Mortality:
Range of Values
Modelling of air quality benefits in monetary terms has
historically been challenged by the use of appropriate metrics in
monetising premature death impacts. Whilst there is a case for the
numbers of deaths to be used on the basis that the Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL) has – until recently - been the only metric
for which there is empirical evidence, recent studies have tended
to use the Value of Life Year (VOLY) measure as more empirical
evidence has become available. The reason for the choice of using
VOLYs is that for these deaths brought forward (with higher air
pollution) or postponed (with lower air pollution) it is misleading
to use the full Value of a Statistical Life for monetary valuation,
because it attributes the full VSL to what is understood to be only
a small portion of a full life expectancy. Put differently, there
are many reasons why life is shortened. Air pollution in the days
immediately preceding death is but one of them. It is widely
understood though not fully established that higher air pollution
in the days before death is a contributory factor to earlier death
only in people who already have serious cardio-respiratory disease;
and it seems reasonable and even necessary to attribute the deaths
in greater part to that underlying disease and, perhaps, to the
risk factors (smoking, occupation, diet, poverty…) that caused
it.
To reflect these issues, recently (e.g. in the CAFE Programme)
DG Environment has tended to use both the VSL and VOLY metrics.
VOLYs have been calculated through ‘conversion’ of attributable
deaths from time series studies to equivalent changes in life
years. However, research as part of the NEEDS project has derived
directly elicited VOLYs across a range of eight European countries.
As a consequence the air quality modelling has made use of these
new values. Consistent with the DG Environment approach in the CAFE
analysis we use both VSL and VOLY metrics; we use values of €1
million and €40,000 for these, respectively.
The mortality avoided impacts comprise the only impact category
that can be easily aggregated from the results. It should also be
stressed that mortality avoided impacts typically comprise the
majority of the total benefits in valuations undertaken by
following the described methodology, and so are by far the most
significant.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
20
See the annex (part 1 - general part) for further discussion of
the results of the NEEDS VOLY-related research, as well as the
valuation of benefits of avoided illness.
To be consistent with previous analyses of benefits of
compliance with the environmental acquis in the following
paragraphs we highlight results using the VSL metric for monetising
reduced risks of premature death from air pollution. Equivalent
results using the VOLY metric can be identified from Table
3-13.
Table 3-13 shows that the total benefits to the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia are equal to 38 million Euro each year
following full implementation of the EU Directives in former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. When considering the period up to
2030, with full implementation by 2020 and including the benefits
accruing in the period 2010-202 preceding full implementation, the
total benefits for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia amount
to 327 million Euros.
Table 3-13: Benefits of Full Compliance (Million €)
Annual Benefits once full imp. Achieved
Total Benefits 2010-2020 before full imp.
Total Benefits 2020-2030 after full imp.
Total benefits over period until 2030
VSL=€1M VOLY =€0.04m
VSL=€1M VOLY =€0.04m
VSL=€1M VOLY =€0.04m
VSL=€1M VOLY =€0.04m
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
38 22 139 80 188 109 327 189
Outside former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
247 140 903 512 1.220 692 2.123 1.204
Total 285 162 1.042 592 1.408 801 2.450 1.393
* Assuming full implementation in 2020 and linear implementation
2010-2020. The analysis used a 4% discount rate.
3.3.2 Trans-boundary benefits
Table 3-13 above presented the benefits that accrue to the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a result of its own
emission reductions and the benefits outside the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, which compares with the total benefits that
accrue to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. One key point
of this analysis is that there are very significant trans-boundary
benefits from reduction in air emissions to levels resulting from
EU Directive implementation. Total annual foreign benefits from
domestic action (i.e. excluding domestic benefits from domestic
action) amount to €247 million once implementation is
completed.
KEY POLLUTANTS AND KEY BENEFITS
The benefits discussed above are most attributable to the
reduced number of premature deaths caused as a result of air
pollution. Mortality reduced benefits account for 64% of the total
benefits. Morbidity reduced benefits account for 32% whilst reduced
damage to materials and to crops account for 4% and 0.0001%
respectively.
In terms of pollutants, the gaseous pollutants (SO2, NOx, NH3
and NMVOC) and PM10 can be attributed 73% and 27% respectively.
3.3.3 Conclusions
The study has assessed the extent of the benefits from lower
emissions for the following pollutants: particulates, sulphur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds
(VOC’s), and ammonia (NH3).
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits of
Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
21
In summary, the key benefits identified are:
• It is estimated that 381 equivalent cases of chronic
bronchitis could be avoided per year (domestic and external)
through the full implementation of EU air related directives. Of
these, 50 are domestic.
• Furthermore, the implementation of the air related
environmental acquis should lead to approximately 237 fewer cases
of premature death arising from lung cancer per year and other
related respiratory diseases, 30 of which are domestic.
The key monetary benefits are:
• Full compliance should lead to an annual benefit value in a
range of 22 to 38 million EUR (reflecting the metric for premature
death used) for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, starting
from 2020.
• Total annual benefits to all countries, including EU and third
countries have been estimated to equal 285 million EUR in 2020
using the VSL metric. This is due to the fact that emissions
reductions in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will lead
to reductions in pollution exposure of the populations in
neighbouring countries.
• The gaseous pollutants comprise almost 73% of the benefits
whilst PM10 accounts for almost 27% of the total benefits.
• Avoided early mortality is the largest source of benefit; the
value attributed to avoiding early mortality amount to over 64% of
the total benefits valued.
The results presented are still likely to be under-estimates of
the true benefits of compliance with these standards. The principal
reason for this is that the benefits of reductions in some
pollutants, notably CO, CO2 and CH4, are not valued since the
impact-pathways are not yet defined for all end-points.
It should also be noted that uncertainty remains integral to the
analysis – in other words the analysis does not try to hide the
uncertainty in the estimates, on the contrary. Two examples of
uncertainty include the monetary valuation of the receptor
end-points, particularly premature deaths avoided.
Whilst the limitations must be acknowledged, the project team is
confident that the results, if seen in the context of the
uncertainties, do present very important conclusions on the scale
of benefits that can accrue from the proper implementation of the
Directives, from which broad policy conclusions can be drawn.
-
ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits
assessment of water related directives 06/11347 - fYRoM - Benefits
of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report
23
4 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WATER RELATED DIRECTIVES
4.1 CURRENT STATUS OF DIFFERENT WATER USES AND THREATS
4.1.1 Drinking water
The percentage of connections to public water supply systems in
the municipalities-urban areas is much higher then the average, it
varies from 82% (Berovo, Kumanovo) to 100% Skopje-Centre
municipality. The total number of inhabitants connected to public
water supply systems equals 1 200 000.
Regarding the r