Non-state Cooperation in Environment Protection...

Alexander Ișcenco

Supervised by Iben Nathan

Funded by

the Explorers Club Exploration Fund

Non-state Cooperation in Environment Protection Area: A Solution for Waste Management in the

Republic of Moldova

Copenhagen 2012

University of Copenhagen

Non-state Cooperation in Environment Protection Area: A Solution for Waste Management in the Republic of Moldova

Page 95 of 133

Chapter I

Why is waste an important issue to be addressed?

The chapter includes:

1.1 Brief description of

waste types;

1.2 Their impact on the

environment, economy

and human health.


Page 96 of 133

Chapter II

How can waste be managed efficiently?


2.1 Explanation of the waste

hierarchy;

2.2 Present relevant waste

management policy

instruments;

2.3 Reveal some specifics of

the waste management

market.


Page 97 of 133

Chapter III

Why is waste management and governance a problem in Moldova?


3.1 Brief description of the

Republic of Moldova;

3.2 Waste generation and

accumulation there;

3.3 State of the waste

management market;

3.4 Reasons of inefficiency

in waste management;

3.5 Negative consequences

of it for Moldova.


Page 98 of 133

Chapter IV

Why should private companies and NGOs be involved in waste management?


4.1 Characteristics and

reasons of involvement

of private companies;

4.2 Main strong points and

contribution of

environmental and

other NGOs.


Page 99 of 133

Chapter V

How can non-state actors work together to address the waste issue?


5.1 Definition and motives

for non-state

cooperation;

5.2 Comparison of its

advantages and

disadvantages;

5.3 Process of cooperation

development;

5.4 Good case practices.


Page 100 of 133

Chapter VI

How can the waste issue in Moldova be solved through non-state cooperation?


6.1 Data collected and used

for modelling non-state

cooperation in Moldova;

6.2 Theories and methods

applied in the model;

6.3 The model framework

of non-state cooperation

development;

6.4 Practical implications of

the model in Moldova;

6.5 Application of the model

to the example of “Hai,

Moldova!”


Page 101 of 133

Chapter VII

Chapter VII

What are the applications and limitations of the present work?


7.1 Potential of applying the

model and the whole

research to other

similar countries;

7.2 Limitations of the model

and the work that

require further

research.


Page 102 of 133

ANNEX

Tables.

Table A1 – Main Types of Waste Based on Their Source and Composition.

# Type Major Sources Composition Share in Total Quantity

1. Municipal Solid and Biodegradable Waste (MSW and MBW)

Households, tourism, commercial enterprises, NGOs, state authorities, etc.

Paper and cardboard, organic material (food and garden waste), glass, plastics, textiles, wastewater.

Approximately 14% of all waste generated.

2. Packaging Waste Households, industry, tourism, commercial enterprises, NGOs, state authorities, etc.

Glass bottles, plastic containers, aluminium cans, food wrappers.

In the range of 17 – 20%.

3. Industrial Waste Manufacturing companies and state-owned enterprises.

Metals, plastic, various gaseous and liquid chemicals, waste from energy production.

Ranges from 30% to 60%.

4. Construction and Demolition Waste

Construction, demolition, and infrastructure maintenance enterprises.

Concrete, bricks, wood, glass, metals, plastic, solvents, asbestos, asphalt, excavated soil.

About 25 – 30%.

5. Mining Waste Mining sites, quarries, and minerals treatment and storage facilities.

Topsoil, overburden, waste rock, sulfur, waste from processing of the ore body (tailings).

Around 29%.

6. Agricultural Waste Farmlands, agricultural enterprises.

Organic waste (slurry, manure), pesticides, plastic, veterinary medicines, waste water.

Up to 60 – 80%.

7. Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE, or e-waste)

Households, industry, commercial enterprises.

Televisions, cell phones, computers, refrigerators and other equipment.

Approximately 4%.

8. End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) and Tyres

Households, industry, commercial enterprises.

Used cars, trucks, lorries, and their components.

Nearly 3 – 5%.

9. Hazardous Waste Households, industry, commercial enterprises, military facilities.

Dangerous chemicals, batteries, medical waste, military waste, radioactive substances.

About 1 – 3%.

10. Space Waste Space industry, space research institutions, military facilities.

Operational and non-operational spacecraft, rocket bodies, and their fragments, space equipment items.

Unknown.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Eionet (2009) and Letcher et al. (2011)


Page 103 of 133

Table A2 – Brief Country Profile of the Republic of Moldova, 2011 – 2012.

# Parameters Description

Geography 1. Area 33,843.5 km2, where 11% is covered by forests and 1.4% - by water 2. Highest point Bălănești Hill (429.5 m) 3. Main soil types Black soil / chernozem (75%); alluvial meadow soils (12%); brown

and gray forest soils (11%) 4. Main water resources Rivers Dniester, Prut, and Răut 5. Natural resources Arable land, gypsum, lignite, limestone, phosphorites 6. Climate Temperate continental with average temperature range from +20oC to -

4oC and precipitation of 600 mm 7. Biodiversity 5,500 species of plants and 15,500 species of animals

Administration 8. Capital Chișinău (789,500 residents) 9. Other large cities Tiraspol (148,900 residents); Bălți (144,300); Cahul (39,700) 10. Government Parliamentary republic 11. Independent since 27th of August, 1991

Society 12. Population 3,560,430 inhabitants with the density of 117 people per km2 13. HDI 0.649 (medium Human Development Index) 14. Poverty rate 29% of all population 15. Median age 35.4 years (men – 33.5 years, women – 37.4 years) 16. Life expectancy 69.3 years (men – 65.3 years, women – 73.5 years) 17. Ethnic groups Moldovans – 76%; Ukrainians – 8%; Russians – 6%; Gagauzes – 4%;

Romanians – 2%; Bulgarians – 2%; Others – 2% 18. Official language Romanian 19. Major religion Christianity

Economy 20. GDP 12.04 bln USD (PPP); 7.2 bln USD (nominal) 21. GDP per capita 3,383 USD (PPP); 2,022 USD (nominal) 22. GDP growth 6% 23. Public debt 19.3% of GDP 24. Inflation 8.1% 25. Unemployment 7.4% 26. Currency Moldovan Leu (MDL): 1 MDL ~ 0.08 USD ~ 0.06 EUR ~ 0.48 DKK 27. Gini coefficient 37.1 (very high inequality of family income) 28. Main economic

activity Agriculture and food processing (40% of GDP; 60% of land)

29. Main exports Foodstuff, animal and vegetable products, textiles 30. Main imports Mineral products, base metals, machinery and electrical equipment

Business 31. Ease of Doing

Business Index 81 (starting a business rank – 88, closing business / resolving insolvency – 91)

Source: elaborated by the author, based on

BBC (2012); CIA (2012); Iscenco (2011c); National Bureau of Statistics (2011);

Republic of Moldova – Official Website (2011); The World Bank (2012a)


Page 104 of 133

Table A3 – Notations for the Model of Non-state Cooperation in Waste Management. # Symbol Definition Explanation

1. A Adoption costs Costs associated with time requirements to obtain, adapt and implement the inputs from cooperation.

2. B Benefits Total direct benefits an economic agent gains from joining the alliance.

3. b Cost reduction Percentage reduction in cost per unit of effort and/or output. 4. C Total costs Total costs of an economic agent. 5. c Costs per unit Costs per unit of output produced by an economic agent. 6. d Disposable waste Waste that is going to be disposed to a landfill or

incinerated. 7. E Efficiency gain Internal efficiency gain to an economic agent. 8. h Waste management

costs Costs of collecting, sorting, storing, and treating waste streams.

9. j Non-state actor An economic entity represented by company or NGO. 10. k Opponent An economic entity opposing the decisions and efforts of j. 11. M Monitoring costs Costs necessary to encourage members do their part and

prevent or punish free-riders within the alliance. 12. N Benefits of

monitoring Avoidance of lost benefits and additional costs, because other alliance members do not practice shirking.

13. n Number of participants

Total number of non-state actors participating in a cooperation framework.

14. P Penalty costs Punishment incurred by an alliance member when it is caught shirking.

15. Q Output Total output of a company / NGO. 16. r Reusable /

recyclable waste Waste that will be either reused one or more times or recycled into resources for production.

17. S Benefits from shirking

Total benefits gained by an economic agent from shirking / free-riding on other alliance members’ contributions.

18. T Contribution costs Costs related to continuous participation in the alliance. 19. t Time Any given point in time. 20. u Waste reuse rate Average number of times waste from a unit of good

has been reused as inputs for producing another unit. 21. V Valuation of a

favourable outcome Economic agent’s valuation of a favourable outcome as a result of its efforts.

22. x Sensitivity of outcome

Means by which efforts and pressures from different sides are converted into a certain political, legislative, economic, social, or environmental outcome.

23. α Coefficient of shirking

Proportionate reduction in contributions made by an economic agent to the cooperative activities (here 0 means no shirking, 1 – complete shirking).

24. γ Adoptable productivity improvements

Fraction of partners’ productivity improvements that can be successfully incorporated by other adopters.

25. π Profit / net gains Expected value of net gains to an economic agent. Source: elaborated by the author, based on

Coskeran et al. (2006) and Grimes-Casey et al. (2006)


Page 105 of 133

Figures.

Figure A1 – Waste Generation and Composition in Selected Countries, mln metric t.

Source: Letcher et al. (2011)

Figure A2 – Period of Decay for Some of the Waste Products, years.

1

5

5

40

50

50

80

400

800

1000

1000

4000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Paper

Cigarette filter

Leather

Boot sole

Monofilament fishing line

Plastic card

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Green Living (2009);

Green Living Tips (2010); Hotărîre Nr. 35 din 01.06.2010; Iscenco, A. (2011b)


Page 106 of 133

Figure A3 – Ecological Footprint and Available Biocapacity per Capita in Europe.

Source: EEA (2010)

Figure A4 – EU-27 GHG Emissions by Sector in 1990 and 2009.

Source: UNFCCC (2010)

Figure A5 – Generation of the Two Most Impactful GHG in Landfilled Waste.

Source: Letcher et al. (2011)


Page 107 of 133

Figure A6 – Comparison of Waste Generation and Recycling among the Regions.


IPCC (2011); Iscenco (2011d); Letcher et al. (2011); Worldmapper (2011)

Figure A7 – Location, Map and Flag of the Republic of Moldova.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Republic of Moldova – Official Website (2011)


Page 108 of 133

Figure A8 – Main Soil Types of the Republic of Moldova.

Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal (2005)

Figure A9 – Ecological Footprint versus Global Available Biocapacity per Person, 2003.

Source: EEA (2007)


Page 109 of 133

Figure A10 – Management of Hazardous Waste in Selected Countries, 1995 – 2004.

Note: The category “Other” covers different kinds of disposal activities, i.e. not recovery

treatment. Release into water bodies and permanent storage are included here.

Source: EEA (2007)

Figure A11 – Growth of the Landfill Area in Moldova and Waste Disposed There.

1103 1232 1304 1355 1306 1300 1350 1402 1415

6062

14190

19210

28952 29500 30000 3150033630

45727

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Landfill Area, ha Volume of Waste, thousand m3

Source: Iscenco (2011c); Hotărîre Nr. 35 din 01.06.2010


Page 110 of 133

Figure A12 – Problem Tree for Waste Management in Moldova.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Particip.gov.md (2012)

Lack of waste management

companies in the majority of locations

Inefficient Waste Management

Inadequate infrastructure for quantifying and eliminating

waste

Insufficient monitoring and

control over waste

management practices

Residents are not informed

about the issue and waste

management practices

Low investments in developing waste

management

Local instruments for financing waste

management are not used

Inefficient public awareness raising and

informative programmes

Small size of waste management market, thus

it is not so attractive

Low administrative capacity to handle the

waste issue

Incomplete and inefficient legislative basis for waste

management

Reduced access to waste management services for

population

Creation of unauthorized waste dumps

Low economic value of waste and thus reduced

recycling rate

Waste of financial and

other resources for “liquidating”

illegal dumps

Increasing amounts of

waste disposed to landfill sites

Reduced recovery of

valuable resources and

energy

Pollution of the environment, including soil, water, and air

Overloading and reduced duration of exploitation of

landfill sites

Negative effects on human health and thus increased

morbidity rate

Negative effects on land and thus on agricultural and touristic activities

Necessity of financial and other resources for

constructing new landfills

Economic effects related to higher health costs, lower labour productivity, etc.

Reduction of the overall quality of life in the

country

P R O B L E M

R E A S O N S

C O N S E Q U E N C E S


Page 111 of 133

Figure A13 – Institutional System of Waste Management in Moldova.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Hotărîre Nr. 35 din 01.06.2010

Figure A14 – Classification of Waste in Moldova Based on Its Toxicity, t, 2002 – 2003.

2215

695

940

5202

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Class IV - Reduced Toxicity

Class III - ModerateToxicity

Class II - High Toxicity

Class I - Extremely Toxic*

Note: *Class I waste has been significantly reduced since 2003.


State of the Environment in the Republic of Moldova (2004)

Parliament

Government

Ministry of the Environment

Ministry of Construction and Regional Development

Ministry of Health

State Ecological Inspection

Sanitary and Epidemiologic Service

Public Administration Authorities

Physical and Juridical Persons

Waste

Delegation of tasks Collaboration Control over waste management Waste management process (generation, collection, transportation, disposal, incineration)


Page 112 of 133

Figure A15 – Stakeholders for Efficient and Sustainable Municipal Waste Management.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Joseph (2006)

- Keep waste management as priority; - Provide infrastructural inputs and services; - Have a definite organizational setup with trained staff; - Implement legislation and punish violators; - Compliment public / private participation; - Involve the informal sector into participation; - Maintain an up-to-date database about waste management.

Municipalities - Keep waste management in mind while developing city plans; - Demarcate space for waste management facilities with ideal buffer zones.

City Planners - Lead the cleanup campaigns and work in unison towards the interest of a clean city; - Pressure the municipalities to make the waste management issue a priority; - Do not to turn the cleanup campaigns into a political issue.

Politicians

- Ensure that all employees understand the importance of the waste issue and not only take actions on the cleanliness front within the office/factory premises but also spread the message among their stakeholders; - Provide waste collection facilities outside office/company premises so that the passers-by do not throw waste on the street; - Support / sponsor cleanup campaigns.

Companies - Take lead in forming ward committees and ensuring community participation; - Network with other environmental organizations in the area and integrate their efforts; - Use existing contacts with the municipality and other influential bodies to ensure maximum support; - Involve unemployed youth in the area; - Organize / support cleanup campaigns.

NGOs

- Practice source reduction and source separation; - Cooperate with civic bodies in identification of sites for waste management facilities and their operation; - Pay for waste management services.

General Public - Influence minds on the culture of sustainable waste management; - Inculcate a strict discipline in the children’s mind with regard to waste; - Carry out relevant research and development.

Teachers / Academia - Take up various opportunities of part / full time employment that the NGOs and cleanup campaigns would open for them; - Separate waste; - Influence / keep check on parents / domestic servants.

Children / Youth

Municipal Waste Management


Page 113 of 133

Figure A16 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Non-State Cooperation in Waste Management and Governance.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Heyes and Dijkstra (2001);

Johnson et al. (2012); Merchant (2011); O’Neill (2009)

ADVANTAGES:

1) The “first-mover advantage”: opportunity to create demand and be the first to obtain the segments and niches of a particular market, such as the buyers willing to pay a premium for goods produced in an environmentally friendly way (for instance, with biodegradable / recyclable packaging); 2) Gains from the diversity of horizontal and vertical linkages between a broad variety of economic agents (between corporations and international NGOs, their local branches and community groups, etc.); 3) Increase of the participants’ market power and resistance to threats; 4) Availability of significant lobbying and bargaining power of the strategic alliance; 5) Increase of resource use efficiency; 6) Faster and more effective exchange of the necessary information; 7) “Cross-pollination” of ideas and innovations among the partner organizations; 8) Making environmentally damaging practices more visible and the actors behind them more accountable to the society; 9) Engagement of broad public (through NGOs) in waste management and governance; 10) Creation of incentives for eco-friendly behaviour, but not necessarily with serious loss of profits; 11) Faster and more efficient use of market-based incentive mechanisms of waste management; 12) Possibility to close gaps between policy elaboration and its implementation in practice and thus enhance the activity of state actors; 13) Possible emergence of certification and labeling schemes (for instance, for goods made totally from reused / recycled materials); 14) State actors can avoid political and economic costs of regulation and control, especially in the areas where they represent a great challenge.

DISADVANTAGES:

1) Voluntary nature of participation – anyone can leave whenever he/she wants to or not participate at all (and the ones out of cooperation are usually organizations with the worst pollution record); 2) Weak mechanisms to ensure the external accountability of non-state actors, as well as lack of sufficient enforcement and control over their cooperation due to its voluntary nature; 3) Particularly demanding managerial processes within an alliance due to the lack of ownership and control by one side or another (especially in non-equity alliances); 4) Complicated and time-consuming negotiations process – “too much talking and not enough doing”; 5) Need for significant and increasing commitment of resources that could have been used in other possibly more productive activities, i.e. opportunity costs; 6) Problem of free-riding by certain members of an alliance; 7) Possibility of obtaining important information about partners and then using it to overthrow them from the market; 8) Uneven distribution of power and influence within an alliance – certain large corporations may well press on smaller and weaker partners to push forward their corporate interests; 9) Cooperation can become complex and conflictual – there is a risk that NGOs become co-opted in the corporate agenda they do not agree with; 10) Issue of inequity among the participants and even exclusion of small but high-value-adding ones if they do not accept the “rules of the strong”; 11) Non-state cooperation can serve as a way for state actors to avoid their responsibilities regarding waste management and governance.


Page 114 of 133

Figure A17 – Stages of the Non-state Cooperation Development.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Johnson et al. (2012)

Figure A18 – Closed-loop system of the Kalundborg Symbiosis.

Source: VisitKalundborg.dk (2012)

Commitment of resources

Time

Courtship Negotiation Start-up

Addressing the demand

Maintenance Termination

Divorce / sale

Amicable separation

Extension


Page 115 of 133

Figure A19 – Countries Participating in “World Cleanup 2012” by “Let’s Do It!”.

Source: Let’s Do It! (2012)

Figure A20 – Activity Worksheet for the SWOT Analysis.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on Srivastava et al. (2004)

STRENGTHS:

- What are the advantages of cooperation? - What can the alliance do as well? - What are the factors supporting non-state cooperation in waste management?

WEAKNESSES:

- What could be improved? - What is not done properly? - What should be avoided? - What internal obstacles prevent progress? - Which elements need strengthening? - Are there any weak links in the cooperation system?

OPPORTUNITIES:

- Where are the good chances facing cooperation? - What are the interesting trends? - What benefits may occur? - What chances in waste management and governance may be possible? - What changes in socio-economic patterns, life-style, economic and environmental standards may occur?

THREATS:

- What external obstacles does the alliance face? - Are the required support and necessary facilities available? - Is the changing legislation, political situation or technology threatening the alliance? - Do the stakeholders show interest and willingness to engage in cooperative relations?


Page 116 of 133

Figure A21 – SWOT Analysis of Non-state Cooperation in Waste Management in the Republic of Moldova.

Source: elaborated by the author, based on interviews, survey and feedback

THREATS:

1) Not enough incentives to initiate cooperation; 2) Public demand insufficient to drive forward positive change in waste management; 3) Targeting and inclusion of inappropriate stakeholders in the future cooperation system; 4) Not agreeing on cooperation framework and thus no “sealing the deal”; 5) Shirking / free-riding and thus lack of trust among partners; 6) Cooperation can become complex and conflictual; 7) Exclusion of high-value-adding members; 8) Non-sustainability of cooperation system; 9) Shortness and non-achievements of cooperation; 10) Top-down style of governance and lack of certain legislation that make it challenging to cooperate in the area of waste management; 11) Little support and significant ignorance coming from other economic agents; 12) Small and highly monopolized market.

STRENGTHS:

1) The “first-mover advantage” - opportunity to create the demand and be the first to obtain a segment of the waste management market; 2) Increase of the participants’ market power; 3) Availability of significant lobbying and bargaining power of the strategic alliance; 4) Sharing of efforts and costs; 5) Increase of resource use efficiency; 6) More effective exchange of information; 7) “Cross-pollination” of ideas and innovations among the partner organizations; 8) Making environmentally damaging practices more visible and companies more accountable to society; 9) Creation of incentives for “eco-friendly” behavior; 10) Possibility to close gaps between policy elaboration and its implementation in practice and thus enhance the activity of state actors; 11) State actors can avoid political and economic costs of regulation and control.

WEAKNESSES:

1) Voluntary nature of participation; 2) Weak or no mechanisms to ensure the external accountability of non-state actors; 3) Particularly demanding managerial processes within an alliance; 4) Complicated and time-consuming negotiations process; 5) Need for significant and increasing commitment of resources; 6) Uneven distribution of power and influence within an alliance; 7) Participation of low-performing stakeholders in cooperation system; 8) Non-state cooperation can serve as a way for state actors to avoid their responsibilities regarding environmental management and governance; 9) Significant difficulty of establishing cooperation in rural areas.

OPPORTUNITIES:

1) Availability of environmental NGOs committed to improve waste management, large companies practicing CSR, and recyclers ready to accept waste; 2) Availability of reusable / recyclable waste, especially if source separation is established; 3) Possibilities of cooperation with state authorities; 4) Support from international organizations; 5) Engagement of broad public in waste management and cooperation activities; 6) Examples of successful non-state cooperation practices in waste management to capitalize on; 7) A large variety of opportunities to improve waste management services (such as waste monitoring, recycling, etc.) and benefit from it; 8) Possibility to avoid many state-related obstacles (such as corruption in state authorities); 9) Possibility to engage other economic agents through the evidence of waste pollution effects on the economy, environment and human health.


Page 117 of 133

Figure A22 – Recyclable Waste Generated in the Southern Development Region of Moldova in 2011, t.

Source: ADR Sud (2011)

Figure A23 – Selected Environmental Impacts in 2020 from the Use of Various MSW Management Practices in Chișinău, the Republic of Moldova.

Note: The values are related to the highest value within each impact category, i.e. if the

global warming impact of landfilling is equal to 100 % in 2020 then the value is only 30 %

for the two other scenarios.

Source: EEA (2007)


Page 118 of 133

Figure A24 – Graphical Version of the Model of Non-state Cooperation Development in Waste Management in Moldova.

Source: elaborated by the author


Page 119 of 133

Figure A25 – Guiding Version of the Model of Non-state Cooperation Development in Waste Management in Moldova.

Raising demand and creation of incentives

1) Is there any up-to-date information on generation and accumulation of waste and its effects on economy and human health available?

Establish waste monitoring and obtain relevant data

2) Are economic agents aware of the negative effects of waste pollution sufficiently enough to generate demand for better waste management?

Deliver messages through different channels

Courting potential partners

3) Is there any large economic agent with high stakes and power in waste management included as partners within the cooperation system?

Attract stakeholders with great interest and power

4) Is one or several participants of the cooperation system also a member within an international network of waste management companies/NGOs?

Establish or join an international network

Negotiation about cooperation system

5) Are there rules and procedures of negotiations understandable by all participants established before the actual negotiation process?

Set up clear negotiation rules and procedures

6) Is the positive value of the expected individual and common net gains from cooperation ensured and clearly visible to all negotiating parties?

Display positive net benefits of cooperation to all parties

- YES - NO - Key question - Key suggestion


Page 120 of 133

Source: elaborated by the author

Start-up of cooperation

7) Is there one or several large interested and powerful economic agents that agreed to cooperate and proceed with starting-up an alliance?

Involve additional large companies and NGOs

8) Is there an efficient system of monitoring the progress of cooperation and commitment of its members with high enough penalty costs in place?

Establish the monitoring and punishment systems

Maintenance of the alliance

9) Are there a number of heterogeneous alliance members sufficient enough to generate additional inflow of contributions and innovations?

Attract small- and medium-sized economic agents

10) Are contributions of all partners high enough to exceed the costs of their monitoring and thus maintain positive net benefits of the alliance?

Reduce number of partners or outsource monitoring

Termination of cooperation

11) Are there positive net benefits for all key players sufficient enough to keep them in the alliance until full realization of its purpose?

Reduce monitoring costs through external resources

12) Has the cooperation system achieved its purpose, vision, goals, etc. and delivered the intended improvements in waste management?

Maintain flow of benefits to keep the alliance

Start operating separately

Establish a new cooperation system


Page 121 of 133

Figure A26 – Quantity and Distribution of Participants of “Hai, Moldova!” in 2011.

Source: Hai, Moldova! (2011)

Number of participants, persons


Page 122 of 133

Figure A27 – Overview of Similarities and Differences in Waste Management in the EECCA and SEE Countries.

Source: EEA (2007)


Page 123 of 133

Interviews and Surveys.

Interview with Marc Zweig, Administrator at the Company AVE Ungheni SRL. 1

Details Interviewee Marc Zweig, administrator at AVE Ungheni SRL (www.ave.at) Interviewer(-s) Alexander Ișcenco, author of the research report;

Mihai Surdu, member of „Hai, Moldova!” (www.hai.md) Date 03.04.2012 Place Office of AVE Ungheni SRL

Națională 11, Ungheni, Republic of Moldova Summary

# Questions Key Notes from the Answers 1. Why did your

company come to the Moldovan market?

There is waste. There is no waste management system. Thus we came to offer our services of waste collection and treatment. Our first step was the city of Ungheni, as we had established the collaboration with the municipality here.

2. You have mentioned Ungheni as the first step. Do you intend to move forward to other cities?

Well, we are already present in other cities in Moldova. Chișinău, Durlești, Bubueci… You can se eon the map that we have spread to many cities and villages. (Mr Zweig shows the map of Moldova hanging on the wall with the AVE logo placed at the locations mentioned)

3. Do you experience any obstacles in operating and expanding in Moldova?

Umm… I don’t think this is the right place to talk about it…

4. AVE Ungheni has set up different containers for sorting waste. But how do you make people do the sorting?

Though education. We try to inform and educate people about waste management. We organize meetings with citizens, including the retired ones and children.

5. Don’t you use any economic incentive instruments, such as taxes, deposit-refund systems, etc.?

No… This does not depend upon us. There should be a proper state-regulated system established. And it does not exist here.

6. In your operations do you establish any partnerships with another company or NGO?

The company itself is a partnership. AVE Ungheni is an Austrian and Moldovan enterprise, the public-private partnership with the City Hall of Ungheni.

7. If you sort the municipal waste, do you also recycle it?

No, we have established cooperation with recycling companies abroad. As there is no recycling in Moldova, most of the waste we dispose to landfill sites, and plastic, paper and cardboard are exported to other countries, where it is recycled by our partners. For instance, PET is exported to Romania and treated there.

8. Is AVE Ungheni a Yes, this is the unique private waste management enterprise in the city

1 The interview was possible due to collaboration with the social movement “Hai, Moldova!” and with financial support from The Explorers Club Exploration Fund.


Page 124 of 133

single waste management company in Ungheni?

of Ungheni.

9. How do you think, will there be a recycling system established in Moldova soon?

The amount of waste in Moldova is not big enough to give incentive for a recycling company to come to the country. Therefore I believe there will not be any recycling here for the next ten years.

10. Then what can and should we do to make citizens practice proper waste management?

People should be pushed by the law. There should be proper waste management legislation enforced. Man is a lazy being, he needs to be directed in the right way by such means as legislation, fees, taxes, etc. And, of course, through education.

11. Do you consider an NGO such as “Hai, Moldova!” can do something about it?

Well… The girls from “Hai, Moldova!” approached me last year, and we tried to do some cooperation together. But then it all stopped… In general, I remained disappointed regarding “Hai, Moldova!”. They collected 6,000… 7,000 tons of waste… compared to the enormous amount that is generated nowadays. And we collect this amount in just one day.

12. But “Hai, Moldova!” is developing… So, are you open for possible future partnership with it?

Well… yes.


Page 125 of 133

Some Questions and Answers from the Survey by IMAS for the NGO “Hai, Moldova!”.

Details Sample Size 820 respondents (390 men, 430 women) 15 years and older from both

urban and rural areas Survey Mode Telephone interviews Organizer and Responsible Institute of Marketing and Polls IMAS-INC Chişinău

(www.imas-inc.md) Period 17.03.2012 – 21.03.2012 Place Republic of Moldova (except Transnistria)

Summary # Questions Answers

1. How is the problem of environment pollution dealt with in your area?

2. How do you see the

behaviour of Moldovan citizens with regard to environment protection?

3. When we discuss

environmental problems, do you consider that… ?


Page 126 of 133

4. To what extent is environment protection an important for… ? (0 – “Not important al all”; 10 – “Very important”)

5. To what extent are

you concerned about the following problems? (0 – “I do not care at all”; 10 – “I care very much”)

6. How much are you

interested in campaigns for environment protection?

7. Do you intend to

participate in the campaign “Hai, Moldova”! in 2012?

Source: IMAS (2012)


Page 127 of 133

Photo Gallery. Photo 1 – Locations of Different Waste Management Facilities at the Țânțăreni Landfill

Site Displayed at Its Entrance.

Taken by: Cucuietu (2012)

Photo 2 – Waste collection vehicle unloading its contents at the entrance to the Purcel

Mine “temporary” landfill.

Taken by: Iscenco (2012)


Page 128 of 133

Photo 3 – The functioning Purcel Mine landfill site near the village Bubueci, Moldova.


Photo 4 – “Genesis” of a new illegal waste dump near the lake Vosmiorka outside

Chișinău, Moldova.



Page 129 of 133

Photo 5 – MSW collection and sorting platform of the company AVE Ungheni SRL in the city of Ungheni, Moldova.

Taken by: Surdu (2012)

Photo 6 – Inside the container for waste separation in Ungheni, Moldova.



Page 130 of 133

Photo 7 – “Cage” for collecting PET with other types of waste in it.


Photo 8 – Participants of the “Hai, Chișinău!” campaign after the cleanup action

consuming food and drinks from plastic plates and cups.



Page 131 of 133

Photo 9 – Inbicon Demonstration Plant for thermochemical treatment of biomass and agricultural waste in Kalundborg, Denmark.


Photo 10 – Entrance to the Museum of Copenhagen and the temporary exhibition

“SKRALD!” (“TRASH!”) in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Taken by: Znaceni (2012)


Page 132 of 133

Photo 11 – Temporary “headquarters” of “Hai, Moldova!” with displays showing real-

time statistics on the number of participants and waste collected all over Moldova.


Photo 12 – Orange collection point at the Roses Valley Park receiving 33 old mobile

phones for recycling.



Page 133 of 133

Alexander Ișcenco

University of Copenhagen

www.ku.dk

Copenhagen, 2012

Main Supporters

Date post:	05-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hakhue
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Non-state Cooperation in Environment Protection...

Documents