06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final...

Contract N° 07010406/2006/441662/MAR/E3

Task 2 - Benefits for fYRoM and other countries of SEE of compliance with the environmental acquis Final Report– Part II: Country-specific report Albania

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 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

i

CONTENT CONTENT.................................................................................................................................... I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................III LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................V LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................XI 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ALBANIA .................................................................................XI 1.1 Benefit assessment air related directives..............................................................................xi 1.2 Benefit assessment water related directives ........................................................................xii 1.3 Benefit assessment solid waste related directives ............................................................... xiii 1.4 Benefit assessment nature related directives ...................................................................... xiv 1.5 Summary overview – Albania ............................................................................................ xvi 2 OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................1 3 INTRODUCTION TO ALBANIA...........................................................................................3 3.1 The environment ............................................................................................................... 3 3.2 The Economy .................................................................................................................... 3 4 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF AIR RELATED DIRECTIVES...................................................5 4.1 Current status of AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................... 5

4.1.1 National and regional level ................................................................................................. 5 4.1.2 Air Quality Regulation ........................................................................................................ 7 4.1.3 Air Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7

4.2 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................. 8 4.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Methodology – The Impact Pathway Approach ..................................................................... 9 4.2.3 Emission Reduction Scenarios ............................................................................................. 9 4.2.4 Extent of Benefits ............................................................................................................ 10

4.3 MONETARY VALUATION: REDUCED AIR POLLUTION .......................................................... 12 4.3.1 Benefits upon full compliance............................................................................................ 12 4.3.2 Trans-boundary benefits................................................................................................... 13

4.4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 14 5 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WATER RELATED DIRECTIVES...........................................15 5.1 Current status of different water uses and threats .............................................................. 15

5.1.1 Drinking water................................................................................................................. 15 5.1.2 Recreational uses of water................................................................................................ 16 5.1.3 River ecosystems............................................................................................................. 17

5.2 Assessment using qualitative and quantitative data............................................................. 18 5.2.1 Introduction to the Method of Assessment ......................................................................... 18 5.2.2 Benefits from improved drinking water quality and supply ................................................... 19 5.2.3 Benefits to recreational users of water............................................................................... 23

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Content 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

ii

5.2.4 Benefits to river ecosystems ............................................................................................. 28 5.3 Monetary assessment....................................................................................................... 32

5.3.1 Benefits of Cleaner Drinking Water.................................................................................... 32 5.3.2 Bathing and other surface water quality – use values.......................................................... 33 5.3.3 Improved river ecosystem quality – non-use value.............................................................. 38

5.4 Aggregation of Benefits And Conclusions ........................................................................... 40 6 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WASTE RELATED DIRECTIVES ...........................................47 6.1 Current status ................................................................................................................. 47

6.1.1 Waste generation and coverage ........................................................................................ 48 6.1.2 Recycling ........................................................................................................................ 49 6.1.3 Landfills .......................................................................................................................... 50 6.1.4 Packaging waste.............................................................................................................. 52 6.1.5 Incineration of waste ....................................................................................................... 52 6.1.6 Hazardous waste (HZW)................................................................................................... 53 6.1.7 Disposal of waste oil ........................................................................................................ 54 6.1.8 Batteries and accumulators............................................................................................... 54 6.1.9 Medical Hazardous waste ................................................................................................. 55 6.1.10 Disposal of PCB and PCT .................................................................................................. 55 6.1.11 TiO2 Directive .................................................................................................................. 55

6.2 Assessment using qualitative and quantitative data............................................................. 55 6.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 55 6.2.2 National targets for the future years in the field of waste management ................................ 55 6.2.3 Landfill Directive .............................................................................................................. 56 6.2.4 Packaging Directive.......................................................................................................... 63

6.3 Summary and interpretation of results ............................................................................... 65 6.3.1 Summary results of the assessment .................................................................................. 65 6.3.2 Extent of the benefits....................................................................................................... 65 6.3.3 Summary of analysis approach.......................................................................................... 66

7 BENEFITS OF COMPLIANCE WITH NATURE RELATED DIRECTIVES...............................67 7.1 Nature protection and biodiversity threats in the Albania ..................................................... 67

7.1.1 Current Status of Biodiversity............................................................................................ 67 7.1.2 Current Status of Biodiversity and Ecosystems.................................................................... 68 7.1.3 Indicators used to assess the current state of nature protection and biodiversity................... 69

7.2 Qualitative assessment of the benefits............................................................................... 76 7.2.1 Environmental Benefits..................................................................................................... 76 7.2.2 Social Benefits ................................................................................................................. 77 7.2.3 Economic benefits............................................................................................................ 77

7.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 81 8 LITERATURE ...................................................................................................................83 9 ANNEXES.........................................................................................................................85

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Abbreviations 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAT Best Available Techniques

CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons

CO carbon monoxide

CH4 Methane

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

KfW ‘Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau’

MEPPP Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Physical Planning

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NMVOVs non-Methane volatile organic compounds

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 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

v

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Key economic indicators for Albania................................................................................... 3

Table 4-1. Emissions of main air pollutants in Albania, period 1970 – 2004 (‘000 tons) .......................... 5

Table 4-2. Ambient air pollution concentrations – selected locations: Albania ........................................ 6

Table 4-3: EU Air Quality Directives Amenable to Monetisation ............................................................ 8

Table 4-4: 2020 Emissions in Albania used for the current study........................................................ 10

Table 4-5: Physical premature mortality impacts avoided in year 2020 ............................................... 11

Table 4-6: Physical Morbidity Impacts in year 2020........................................................................... 11

Table 4-7: Benefits of Full Compliance (Million €) ............................................................................. 13

Table 5-1: National indicators on water supply and sanitation............................................................ 20

Table 5-2: Short term urban water targets (Albanian NWSWW Strategy 2003).................................... 21

Table 5-3: Medium term urban water targets (Albanian NWSWW Strategy 2003) ................................ 22

Table 5-4: Population in coastal counties (CIA World Fact Book, 2007)............................................... 24

Table 5-5: Albanian beach water quality standards ........................................................................... 24

Table 5-6: Compliance with Albanian beach water quality standards (Microbiologic study for the coastal waters in Velipoja, Shengjini, Durres, Kavaja, Saranda and Himara area, IPH, 2006)..................... 25

Table 5-7 : Estimated reduction of N-tot and P-tot discharges due to the Urban Waste Water Directive. 27

Table 5-8: Characteristics of main rivers in Albania ........................................................................... 28

Table 5-9: UNECE river water quality criteria (Report on environmental situation in Albania 1997-1998, NEA) ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 5-10: River water quality according to UNECE criteria (Report on Environmental State 2003-2004)............................................................................................................................................. 29

Table 5-11: Willingness to pay for cleaner drinking water.................................................................. 33

Table 5-12: WTP for cleaner coastal water....................................................................................... 35

Table 5-13: WTP for cleaner inland surface water............................................................................. 37

Table 5-14: WTP for river water quality – non use values.................................................................. 39

Table 5-15: Aggregation of Annual Benefits from Full Compliance (million Euro per year) .................... 42

Table 5-16: Total benefits from full compliance with the water-related Directives ................................ 44

Table 6-1 – Waste management and collection ................................................................................ 48

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Tables 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

vi

Table 6-2 – Waste recycling............................................................................................................ 49

Table 6-3: Quantities of waste streams in Albania............................................................................. 50

Table 6-4 – Waste landfilled ........................................................................................................... 51

Table 6-5– Packaging waste ........................................................................................................... 52

Table 6-6– Waste incineration......................................................................................................... 52

Table 6-7 – Hazardous waste.......................................................................................................... 53

Table 6-8 – Waste oils ................................................................................................................... 54

Table 6-9 – Batteries and accumulators ........................................................................................... 54

Table 6-10: Estimates of reductions in methane emissions per year by 2020 (in ktonnes) .................... 58

Table 6-11 : Assumptions for the Municipal Waste Flow for the Period 2004–2020. ............................. 59

Table 6-12 : Assumptions for the Municipal Waste Flow for the Period 2002–2025, Strategy Scenario 2 – Increased Incineration............................................................................................................. 61

Table 6-13 : Recycling scenario for compliance with the Packaging Directive....................................... 63

Table 6-14: Estimated tonnes recycled and the changes in recycling levels per year (in tonnes and percentage) due to the Packaging Directive by 2020, ................................................................. 64

Table 7-1 : GDP arising from agriculture, tourism, forestry and fishery ............................................... 68

Table 7-2: Potential environmental, socio-cultural and economic benefits ........................................... 82

Table 9-1: Methane Emissions By Component, USEPA (1998) ............................................................ 93

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Figures 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1. Ambient air pollution concentrations – selected locations: Albania ...................................... 6

Figure 5-1: Location of existing and planned waste water treatment infrastructure in Albania............... 26

Figure 5-2: River water quality in Albania (UNEP, 1992) .................................................................... 31

Figure 6-1: 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 ......................................................................................................... 60

Figure 6-2: 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 ......................................................................................................... 60



Figure 7-1 : Number of designated areas according to national categories .......................................... 71

Figure 7-2 Benefits of EU accession for Albania- Protected areas: Increased coverage and increased quality 82

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Annexes 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

ix

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex 1: Drinking water quality standards (STASH 3904:1997 ICS 13060) ......................................... 87

Annex 2: Some parameters which determine Croatian water quality class criteria ................................ 91

Annex 3 : Quantitative review of methane emissions ........................................................................ 93

ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L excecutive summary06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ALBANIA

The country specific report for Albania 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.

1.1 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 395 equivalent cases of chronic bronchitis could be avoided per year (domestic and external) through the full implementation of EU air related directives. Of these, 137 are domestic.

• Furthermore, the implementation of the air related environmental acquis should lead to approximately 250 fewer cases of premature death arising from lung cancer per year and other related respiratory diseases, 82 of which are domestic.

The key monetary benefits are:

• Full compliance should lead to an annual benefit value in a range of 59 to 105 million EUR (reflecting the metric for premature death used) for Albania, starting from 2020.

• Total annual benefits to all countries, including EU and third countries have been estimated to equal 295 million EUR in 2020 using the VSL metric. This is due to the fact that emissions reductions in Albania 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.


xii

• 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.

1.2 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. The actual connection rate in the year 2005 is 72% instead of the 82.5%, which was set as an objective for the year 2004. Given the rather optimistic objective, 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 72% yields a total share of 77% which can be assumed to benefit from quality improvements of drinking water.

The coastal area and the inland lakes have a big potential for tourism in Albania. The water quality of the lakes and of most of the coastal area is good, except for Durres area (Golem, Shkembi I Kavajes, Durres, Currila). This is caused by discharge of urban waster water without treatment in this area. Based on the Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy, approved in 2003 by Council of Ministers, the aim is to treat 25% of the urban wastewater in 2012. According to the local experts, the improvement of the river water quality will result in increase of the number of local tourists. The total population was assumed to benefit from the bathing water quality improvement of inland waters, through a reduction of the nitrates and phosphates load discharged. The population of the coastal counties and the tourists visiting seaside resorts were assumed to benefit from the coastal bathing water quality improvement.

60% of the rivers in Albania belong to quality class III and 30% of the rivers belong to quality class IV to V. As it was not possible to assess what the precise effect of the implementation of the various water directives (mainly Urban Waste Water Directive, the Nitrate Directive and the Dangerous Substances Directive) would be on river quality, it has been assumed that the full implementation of the various directives will have 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 44.1 million EUR/year upon full compliance.


xiii

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 15.6 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 58.7 million EUR/year upon full compliance. These figures can be detailed for coastal and inland surface water. The domestic benefits of cleaner coastal water are estimated to lie between 5.8 and 32.7 million Euros per year. The respective range for inland surface waters extends from 9.8 to 26.1 million Euros per year. Due to lack of data, no distinction could be made between benefits for domestic and foreign tourists.

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 0.79 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 495 million EUR (lower estimate) and 847 million EUR (upper estimate). This is equivalent to 158 EUR/person and 270 EUR/person.

1.3 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SOLID WASTE RELATED DIRECTIVES

The EU Waste Directives will lead to major changes in handling, treatment and disposal of waste in Albania. 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. A priority is that 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 (cf. incineration of medical waste).

• 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.


xiv

Extent of the benefits:

• The full implementation of the Landfill Directive will lead to a reduction of methane emissions (captured) of between 7 and 65 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 64% of non-implementation levels (i.e. a 36% decrease), and under the incineration scenario it would be around 57% of non-implementation levels (i.e 43% 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 Albania, per year, by 2020 are:

- for glass: +14 ktonnes;

- for plastic: + 7 ktonnes;

- for paper: +53 ktonnes; and

- for metals: no change as the current recycling rate of 64% is already higher than the target of the Packaging Directive

• For all the recyclables together, the increase will amount to around +75 ktonnes.

1.4 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT NATURE RELATED DIRECTIVES

The current protected area coverage in Albania is 9.08% of the land, but there are plans to increase the total protected area to 14.64%. In some cases the requirements for protected areas will need to be increased in order to meet Natura 2000 objectives (eg widening the list of protected species). The increased size and quality of protected area, though the Natura 2000 network, can significantly help reduce the rate of biodiversity loss in Albania, which in the past 50 years has been one of the highest in Europe.

Among the environmental benefits, implementing the EU nature directives can help enhance the protection of the rich variety of plant and birds species and of large mammals, and potentially help saving some species from extinction (ie the about 90 threatened species, including red corals and sponges sold to the western markets). EU regulations can also help reduce deforestation – as currently there has been poor enforcement of the national system of protection, leading to high levels of biodiversity loss. The Albanian forests in fact represent some of the most diverse forest ecosystems in Europe. Improved forest management, eg in light of the EU Forest Strategy, will likely benefit the Albanian forest biodiversity, eg through reduced illegal hunting and poaching, reduced forest fires due to human activities etc, and may lead to a more sustainable harvesting of timber, which is currently a big threat for the forest ecosystems. Reduced deforestation can also proved benefits in terms of reduced soil erosion. Increased protection of migration corridors and natural areas will largely benefit bird species. Better regulating infrastructure and other building activities, in light of environmental criteria (eg through EIAs) will benefits all species, and large mammals in particular, as they are the most threatened by fragmentation due to uncontrolled urban/infrastructural developments. Improved water quality, in line with the Water Framework Directive requirements, and better control of pollutant activities (including waste water and waste infrastructures) will for instance benefit fish species, as the fish stock in Albania is particularly low due to polluted rivers. In addition, an effective implementation of the EU legislation can help regulate illegal fishing practices, which are currently threatening the marine habitats.


xv

A key social benefits will be awareness rising – particularly important given the low level of environmental awareness – which often leads to resource overuse. Natural parks and biodiversity hotspots will be better managed, therefore offering opportunities for locals and tourists to visit the areas and enjoy open-air activities, enhancing their amenity and recreational value. In addition, increased employment in nature related activities may help reduce depopulation, especially in the rural areas. A reduction in illegal hunting and cutting could also ensure a safer living environment. Furthermore, the Acquis implementation may improve the education and training of institutional staff, and can potentially lead to spread environmental education in schools and among citizens. Public participation in decision making can also benefit from the implementation of the Directives.

Economic benefits can result from tourism and ecotourism activities – which currently are not key economic resources, but have potential especially in the Mediterranean coast. The promotion of organic farming can also be beneficial, as agriculture is at risk of intensification in some areas, while in others there is an increasing rate of land abandonment. Sustainable agriculture can also attract additional EU funding. The nature directives can also indirectly stimulate sustainable forestry, harvesting of non timber products and fishing, which can lead to increased employment opportunities and help tackle the growing level of poverty in the country.

ARCADIS Ecolas / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L executive summary 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

xvi

1.5 SUMMARY OVERVIEW – ALBANIA

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)

• 395 equivalent cases of chronic bronchitis avoided per year of which 137 domestic

• 250 fewer cases of premature death per year of which 82 domestic

• Annual benefit of 59-105 MEUR from 2020 onwards for Albania

• Annual total benefit of 295 MEUR in 2020 for all countries

WATER • Improved drinking water quality ;

• Improved inland surface water quality for bathing and recreational purposes ;

• Coastal population and tourists benefiting from improved coastal bathing water quality improvement

• Improved ecosystem quality of surface waters

• 77% 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 44.1 MEUR at full compliance;

• Improved surface water (use value): annual benefit of 15.6 – 58.7 MEUR;

• Improved ecosystem quality of surface waters (non-use value): annual benefit of 0.79 MEUR/year;

• Total discounted benefits over 20 years of 495 – 847 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 : 7 to 65 ktonnes/year in 2020

• A decrease by 36% to 43% 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. 75 ktonnes of recyclables (paper, glass and plastic) per year in 2020

NATURE • Reduce high rate of biodiversity loss

• Regulate illegal activities like fishing, hunting, timber harvesting

• Increased quality and size of protected areas (from 9% to 14.5%)

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Objectives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

1

2 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this country-specific report is to carry out a benefits assessment for Albania, that follows the approach taken in the past Benefits of Compliance Studies for the EU13 and for Croatia.

Chapter 3 consists of an introduction to the main features of Albania.

In chapters 4 to 7 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 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

3

3 INTRODUCTION TO ALBANIA

3.1 THE ENVIRONMENT

There are 136 rivers and streams in Albania with a total length of 50,000 km. The water of this network is collected by 10 main rivers flowing down to the Adriatic Sea. The territory is divided into six river basins. The most important rivers (length within Albanian border) are Drini, Buna, Mati, Fani, Ishmi, Erzeni, Shkumbini, Devolli, Semani, Gjanica, Vjosa and Bistrica.

Lakes cover 4% of Albania’s territory and their number amounts to 247. The shores of the three major lakes, Ohrid (363 km2), Prespa (285 km2) and Shkodra (368 km2), are shared with neighbouring countries Macedonia, Greece and Montenegro. 626 reservoirs for irrigation with a total capacity of 562 million m³ are located along rivers Drini, Mati and Devolli. Larger wetlands, swamps and lagoons with key biodiversity importance such as Karavasta, Narta and Butrint lagoon are situated along the seacoast. There are also some big hydropower station artificial lakes (Fierza, Vau I Dejes, Uleza, Shkopeti, etc.).

The coastal line has a total length of 427 km, 273 km of which belongs to the Adriatic Sea and 154 km to the Jonian Sea. There are numerous beaches (about 22): Shkodra lake, Velipoja, Shengjin, Gjiri i Lalezit, Spille, Currila, Shkozet, Shkembi I Kavajes, Golem, Seman, Divjake, Vlore, Dhermi, Vuno, Himare, Qeparo, Borsh, Jale, Sarande, Ksamil, Pogradec Lake, Prespa lake. etc.

3.2 THE ECONOMY

The key economic indicators for Albania are given in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Key economic indicators for Albania

Indicator Most recent year

Population and growth rate 3,135.000 on 1 January 2005

3,149.000 “ “ 2006

Growth rate in 2005 0.5 %

Population size per settlement (cities, major towns)

INSTAT, Statistical Yearbook 1995-20041:

• Elbasan: 86,890

• Fier : 62,968

• Durres : 126,813

• Tirana : 465,398

• Shkodra : 77,126

• Vlora : 78,476

• Korça : 56,194

• Berat : 36,506

• Lushnje : 37,556

Population size by region (NUTS2 2 and NUTS Albania has 12 districts

1 www.instat.gov.al

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Introduction 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

4

Indicator Most recent year 3 if possible)

GDP at current prices(in million leks) 752,367 (for the year 2004)

GDP per capita in leks

In USD

In EURO

241

2,341

1,884

This is for the year 2004

GDP growth rate – past and projections Past: 6.2%

No projections available from INSTAT

Number of households 733,860 in the year 2005

Country surface area 28,748 km2

GDP/cap/PPS (2003) 3,983

2 National unit of territorial space

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits assessment of air related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

5

4 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF AIR RELATED DIRECTIVES

4.1 CURRENT STATUS OF AIR QUALITY

4.1.1 National and regional level

Historical trends for air pollutant emissions are summarised in the table below (Table 4-1). NOx and CO have risen over time, reflecting the increase of traffic volumes. At the same time, emissions of Particles and SO2 have fallen, in tandem with the decline in industrial production from 1990.

Table 4-2 and Figure 4-1 show that the highest concentrations of most pollutants are evident in the capital, Tirana. A recent evaluation of air quality in Tirana (Krzyzanowski. M., June 28 2006) states that “Current assessment of air quality in Tirana is based on old, unreliable equipment. However the data produced by this equipment indicate that the level of pollution is very high. In 2004, annual average PM10 level ranged from 67 to 126 µg/m3 in urban centre and residential areas, and reached 432 µg/m3 at a kerb-site. NO2 levels (21-40 and 57 µg/m3, respectively) from a more reliable passive monitoring confirm that the road traffic contributes a substantial part of the pollution. It can be assumed that these levels of pollution significantly affect the health of Tirana’s population. If the assessments done in other parts of Europe would be extrapolated to Tirana, the estimated loss of life expectancy of Tirana population due to the pollution would exceed 1.5 – 2 years of life.”

Table 4-1. Emissions of main air pollutants in Albania, period 1970 – 2004 (‘000 tons)

Year 1970 1989 2004 Particles total 81.5 349.2 145.4 SO2 177.1 462 236.5 NOx 2.5 6.6 19.3 CO 1.2 3.3 31.7 HC 0.5 1.6 17.9 TOTAL 262.8 822.7 450.8

0

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

9 0 0

1 9 7 0 1 9 8 9 2 0 0 4Y e a r

T h o u s a n d to n s

P a rtic le sS O 2N O xC OH CT o ta lT ra ffi c

Burimi: Instituti i Studimeve Ambjentale(ISA), Tirane, 2005


6

Figure 4-1. Ambient air pollution concentrations – selected locations: Albania

Table 4-2. Ambient air pollution concentrations – selected locations: Albania

Average levels of air quality – 2004

µg m -3 SPM PM10 SO2 NO2 O3 Pb

Tirana 1 280 126 16 40 97 0.2

Tirana 2 233 108 13 31 100 0.16

Tirana 3 151 67 14 23 102 0.13

Tirana 4 965 432 26 57 93 0.3

Tirana 5 219 99 13 21 103 0.2

Elbasan 1 244 112 17 23 94 0.22

Elbasan 2 468 157 33 34 88 0.53

Elbasan 3 201 88 10 17 105 0.23

Durrësi 209 95 12 18 99 0.34

Fieri 1 227 105 19 23 92 0.34

Fieri 2 117 46 18 6,3* 100 0.05

Vlora 157 69 10 17 103 0.43

Korca 137 56 8 11 90 0.21

Shkodra 229 103 9 14 95 0.46

AL limit 140 60 60 60 120 1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Tirana 1

Tirana 2

Tirana 3

Tirana 4

Tirana 5

Elbasan

1

Elbasan

2

Elbasan

3

Durrësi

Fieri 1

Fieri 2

VloraKorca

Shkodra

Norma j

one

Norma B

E

LGSPM10SO2NO2O3


7

EU limit 80 50 50 40 110 0.5

In addition, it is notable in Albania that 85 percent of vehicle fleet is diesel fuelled. The average age of the vehicle fleet is over 11 years, with only 5 percent less than six years old.

4.1.2 Air Quality Regulation

The WHO study quoted above, (Krzyzanowski, 2006), states that the EU approximation process puts additional pressure to upgrade national legislation related to air quality and factors affecting it. As a consequence, existing Albanian limits for air quality are to be amended by 2008-2009 year, in accordance with respective EU Directives.

4.1.3 Air Quality Monitoring

There are 15 air sampling points in Albania, mostly urban. Methods of measurement are manual (for SPM, PM 10, SO2, NO2 and Pb) and diffuse tubes (for O3). No automatic stations exist yet. There is a lack of genuine monitoring stations. Air quality data obtained for the last six years are not station data (in the concept of EU Directives on equipment and methodology of monitoring). There are no regular inventories yet, in accordance with CORINAIR Methodology, but a team of experts is preparing to establish an inventory by 2009. Training of monitoring staff is also identified as a significant constraint.


8

4.2 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT

4.2.1 Introduction

Table 4-3 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 Albania 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 4-3: EU Air Quality Directives Amenable to Monetisation

Air Quality - Relevant Directives

SO2

NO

x

Particulates

VOC’s

CO2

CO

Heavy m

etals

Dioxins

Furans

Halogens

Ozone

CH4

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 Albania 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 Albania project partners found that little research was publicly available on the quantification of the effects of implementing individual EU Directives in Albania. 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.

The four categories of pollution impacts that we quantify are:

• Premature deaths avoided (mortality).

• Illness avoided (morbidity) – e.g. bronchitis3, asthma.

3 Benefits include the benefit to the individual of not incurring the illness, and also benefits of reduce hospitalisation days and reduced activity days.


9

• 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.

4.2.2 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 the General Part (annexes), the models and data used for the benefit estimations in the current project are described in more detail.

4.2.3 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


10

EMEP4 (Mylona 19995). 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 – Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia – 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 Environment6.

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 Albania are presented in Table 4-4.

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 4-4: 2020 Emissions in Albania 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]

21 25 20 21 5 26 41 36 31 14

4.2.4 Extent of Benefits

The mortality impacts of the pollution emission reductions assumed above for Albania are shown in Table 4-5 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 Albania - 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 4-6 - as equivalent number of cases of chronic bronchitis avoided.

4 EMEP is the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air pollutants in Europe 5 EMEP/MSC-W Note 1/99, July 1999. "EMEP EMISSION DATA. Status Report 1999". By Sophia Mylona 6 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)


11

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 4-5: Physical premature mortality impacts avoided in year 2020

Total NH3 NOX SO2 PM

Metric YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths YOLL Deaths

Albania 739 82 88 10 139 15 95 11 417 46

Outside Albania 1.509 168 101 11 397 44 499 55 512 57

Total 2.248 250 189 21 536 59 594 66 929 103

Table 4-5 shows the number of premature deaths avoided from emission reductions in Albania. The results show that a total of 82 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 Albania. Note that the reduction in deaths caused by the reduction of emissions is separated into those occurring within Albania and those occurring outside Albania as a result of trans-boundary effects. It is interesting to note that the trans-boundary impacts comprise roughly two-thirds of the total impacts for Albania’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 chronic bronchitis avoided to give the number of cases of chronic bronchitis-equivalents. The total number of cases per year are approximately 400.

Table 4-6: Physical Morbidity Impacts in year 2020

Morbidity impact (equivalent number of chronic bronchitis cases avoided each year

Cases

Albania 137

Outside Albania 258

Total 395


12

4.3 MONETARY VALUATION: REDUCED AIR POLLUTION

4.3.1 Benefits upon full compliance

The monetary estimates of the benefits resulting from the air pollution emission reductions assumed above in Albania are presented in summary form in Table 4-7. 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 Albania. Additional benefits accrue to the EU, and to third countries, as a result of reducing emissions in Albania, and the relationship between domestic action and foreign benefit is presented in Section 0.

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.

See the annex (part 1 – general) 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 4-7.


13

Table 4-7 shows that the total benefits to Albania are equal to 105 million Euro each year following full implementation of the EU Directives in Albania. 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 Albania amount to 1.005 million Euros.

Table 4-7: 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




Albania 105 59 383 216 517 292 1.005 567

Outside Albania 191 108 697 394 942 533 1.830 1.035

Total 295 167 1.080 610 1.459 825 2.834 1.602

* Assuming full implementation in 2020 and linear implementation 2010-2020. The analysis used a 4% discount rate.

4.3.2 Trans-boundary benefits

Table 4-7 above presented the benefits that accrue to Albania as a result of its own emission reductions and the benefits outside Albania, which compares with the total benefits that accrue to Albania. 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 foreign benefits from domestic action (i.e. excluding domestic benefits from domestic action) amount to 295 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.


14

4.4 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).

In summary, the key benefits identified are:

• It is estimated that 395 equivalent cases of chronic bronchitis could be avoided per year (domestic and external) through the full implementation of EU air related directives. Of these, 137 are domestic.

• Furthermore, the implementation of the air related environmental acquis should lead to approximately 250 fewer cases of premature death arising from lung cancer per year and other related respiratory diseases, 82 of which are domestic.

The key monetary benefits are:

• Full compliance should lead to an annual benefit value in a range of 59 to 105 million EUR (reflecting the metric for premature death used) for Albania, starting from 2020.

• Total annual benefits to all countries, including EU and third countries have been estimated to equal 295 million EUR in 2020 using the VSL metric. This is due to the fact that emissions reductions in Albania 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 / Enviro L Benefits of compliance with water related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

15

5 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WATER RELATED DIRECTIVES

5.1 CURRENT STATUS OF DIFFERENT WATER USES AND THREATS

5.1.1 Drinking water

The number of water and sanitation connections in Albania has increased moderately over the past decade in urban areas but stagnated or even decreased in rural areas. Historically, rural areas have been granted less attention by the (ex) government and this is quite visible in the very poor level of service provided. In the early 1980s, there has been a political campaign known as ‘drinking water action.’ It consisted of expanding piped water supply in rural areas. During this action about 1460 villages were supplied with drinking water. After the political changes (1990) more water supply systems were destroyed, taking off the pipelines, pumps, etc.

Groundwater is relatively abundant in Albania and well distributed over the country. Groundwater resources are Albania’s major source of drinking water, 70% of the main cities are supplied by wells. The quality of ground water which is used as a drinking water is of good quality at the source. The problem is in the distribution network where the level of the losses is to be taken into consideration. Chlorination is another treatment that needs to be improved in order to assure permanent drinking water quality. In Vlora (Plazhi I ri, Uji I Ftohte) and in Fushkuqe area there are salt water intrusion into ground water aquifers.

In 1994, Albania suffered a cholera epidemic. The principal cause was the quality of drinking water at the tap of the consumers. The total number of persons who suffered from cholera was 625.

Information on periods of time at which interruption in the water supply occurs is based on measures reported occasionally by water companies and on the first set of data received from the World Bank-supported Water and Sanitation Benchmarking and Monitoring Project. From 1997 to 2000, the average daily frequency of uninterrupted supply in urban areas was estimated at 2-4 hours per day and up to 2 hours per day in rural areas. Improvements of last years have increased the average frequency to 9 hours of uninterrupted supply per day in urban areas, and up to 3 hours per day in rural areas that have access to centralized water supply systems. However, minimum and maximum values fluctuate from 2 hours to 24 hours per day. There are some cities that are supplied with water for 24 hours non-stop; while others have sometimes less than 2 hours per day especially during the dry season of the year. Augmented targets are based on expected increase in investments for the sector as well as in the better management of water demand, control of losses, tariff policies and installation of water meters7.

The lack and mismanagement of water supply systems reflects the situation in the duration of supply in touristic areas, which is less then 3-4 hours per day. In order to improve this situation the authorities minimise the water quantities of urban or other areas which are not touristic. This means the reduction of hours of water supply not only for the population, but also for the local industries or the other local economic activities which are connected to the water supply system. In line with the overall policy to increase investments on the areas with high growth rate (Durres, Vlora, Himara, Velipoja, Shengjini, Saranda, Kavaja, etc.), the specific objective of the Albanian Government will be full improvement of water supply and sanitation services in the touristic and potential for tourism development areas. Starting from 2006 a number of studies and designs have been completed or are in progress covering the whole

7 The practice shows that the installation of water meters at the consumers has increased the continuity of service, (e.g. Korça, Burrel, etc.). The water facilities in collaboration with the Water Regulatory Body, has also increased the water tariffs. The tendencies in Albania are in this direction, stressing the idea of a good management.


16

coastal zones from Shkodra Lake in the North to Butrinti in the South. Some efforts have been made during the summer 2006, mainly in Durres - Kavaja areas, implementing emergency projects resulting in increased amounts of water coming in Durres city. Significant improvements are expected from ongoing projects financed by World Bank, KfW in the cities of Durres, Lezhe, Saranda and Kavaja. Considerable amounts of money have been planned for these areas for implementation of projects starting from 2007. It is expected to have 24-hour water supply by the summer of 2008 in all touristic areas.

The water supply infrastructure is in a ‘critical’ situation, because of problems such as interruption of supply, high level of losses, lack of the energy, illegal connections, the old age of a considerable part of the system. There are the old technologies of water treatment (manual disinfection), and the equipments in some pumping stations are from China (1970), the materials of distribution network is composed from different kind of pipelines (Steel, cast iron, PE), galvanized steel etc. (AWSWW Strategy 2003).

Albania has abundant water resources, but the lack of drinking water at the tape is a critical problem. This is related not only with the need for the investments but firstly with the management of water supply systems, with the misuse of drinking water (e.g. irrigation, car washing, etc.). The responsibility for the management is not under the local government but is the central government.

5.1.2 Recreational uses of water

5.1.2.1 Coastal water recreation

The Durres beach area (Golem, Shkembi I Kavajes, Shkozet, Currila etc.) is a public beach with an enormous amount of tourists during summer season. In the others areas there are more tourists coming from different regions of Albania, Kosovo etc. In Saranda area, there are daily visitors coming from Greece. etc. a map of the coastal sea water quality is in preparation.

Eutrophication is a threat to coastal lagoons. The trophic index of Hakanson is estimated for some Adriatic coastal lagoons based on measurement of Clorophylla A since 2002, enriched with other parameters (transparency, phosphorus, Biological oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen) since 2005. The quality of waters based on trophic index of Adriatic coastal lagoons has been improving from year to year.

Tourism is the top priority in the Albanian Government Programme. That is why working groups are created to follow up the situation. The responsible authorities (the Ministry of Tourism and the local governments), the Ministry of Public Works transport and Telecommunication and the other institutions are included. Different measures have been taken to improve the bathing water quality such as construction of the sewerage systems to evacuate the used waters from the beach areas, the awareness campaigns with the tourist communities to maintain the beach, the collection of solid waste, etc. Some waste water treatment plants are under construction, e.g. Kavaja, Durres, Lezha, Saranda, Pogradec, Shengjin and in the future in Velipoja, Vlora etc. The elimination of the discharges at beach areas is the principal action to be taken.

The Albanian government approved the laws n°7908 (05/04/1995), n°8763 (02/04/2001) and n°8870 (21/03/2002) "On fisheries and shellfish" in accordance with the European Directives Fish water 78/659 EEC and Shellfish water 79/869 EEC.

5.1.2.2 Inland water recreation

The rivers Seman, Buna, Shkumbin, Valbona, Drini etc. are regularly used for recreation. Especially Valbona river, which is in the north of the country.


17

Pogradec Lake, Prespa Lake, Butrinti Lake, Shkodra lake, Lura Lake, are regularly used for tourism and recreation. Especially for Pogradec Lake the KfW Bank is investing in the treatment of urban wastewaters, which are actually discharged directly into the lake without any treatment.

There are about 1,500 fishermen and 1,000 fishing licences in Albania. The recreational fishing has begun to be important. Up to now there are about 1,300 recreational fishermen.

The Decision of Council of Ministers No. 177 (31/03/2005), on the allowed norms of liquid releases and the zoning criteria of receiving water environments requirements for urban polluted waters, describes the criteria for sensitive areas and less sensitive areas:

Sensitive zones

An aqueous body is identified as a sensitive zone if belongs to any of the following groups:

• Natural fresh water lakes, other fresh waters, estuaries and coastal waters which are eutrophic or which may become so in the near future, if no measures for their protection are undertaken. The following aqueous bodies should be taken in consideration in cases when specific nutritive elements should be verified in order to lower their level through further treatments:

- lakes and on flows arriving in lakes/reservoirs/closed bays which are verified to have a weak aqueous reversal, where accumulation may occur: in these zones, the elimination of phosphor is important for lowering the eutrophication scale. When agglomerate releases occur, the elimination of azoth should be considered as well

- estuaries, bays and other coastal waters which have a weak aqueous reversal, or which take big amount of alimentary: in these zones, when there are big releases of agglomerates, the elimination of phosphor and/or azoth is important for lowering the eutrophication scale

• Fresh surface waters destined for potable water where the concentration of nitrates, may overpass the allowed norms, if necessary measures are not taken

• Zones where a further treatment is necessary in order to realize the allowed values for specific categories of aqueous bodies in this zones

Less sensitive zones

A marine aqueous body or a zone may be identified as less sensitive if releases of polluted waters do not affect the respective environment in terms of specific morphologic, hydrologic or hydraulic conditions.

For the identification of less sensitive zones, the risk that the released load can be transferred in a nearer zone where it may cause non repairable environmental damage should be also taken in consideration. The presence of sensitive bodies out the territory of the country should be made known in order to be careful too.

The aqueous bodies below should be taken into account for the designation of less sensitive zones: open bays, estuaries and coastal waters with a good aqueous reversal and which is not subject of eutrophication or diminution of oxygen, or which have no good chances to become eutrophicated or have a diminution of oxygen due to urban polluted waters released therein.

5.1.3 River ecosystems

Ishmi river and Gjanica river are the most polluted rivers in Albania. Problems are caused by micro pollutants (BTEX), BOD5, COD, phenols etc. Because of the high level of pollution in Gjanica river, all species in this river are destroyed. There are projects for the rehabilitation of these rivers.


18

The Albanian rivers have a steep fall and until now no eutrophication processes have been detected. Coastal erosion is a threat to coastal habitats (State Environmental Report 2003-2004).

The extraction of inert materials (as gravel, sand) on the bed of the rivers presents a risk for flooding, because of the erosion around the areas of extraction. In the same time the protection constructions are damaged from the erosion process of the soil. The incidence of flooding is not very frequent. The area which is exposed to this phenomenon is near the Lezha from Drini river, when the discharges from the hydropower are in abundant quantities (once in 3 - 5 years). Mati river or Bistrica river are also rivers that caused flooding in the areas. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment which are responsible for the maintenance and the protection of the rivers plan interventions to protect the areas under the flooding risk. This means the construction of dams and panels along the length of the exposed areas.

5.2 ASSESSMENT USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DATA

Many of the directives interrelate and combine in their effect on the environment and many insights on the quantitative benefits are more suitable at the state of environment level (e.g. quality of rivers or bathing waters), rather than at the level of the individual directives. Consequently, the following assessment is structured according to the different end-uses of water rather than by the individual directives.

5.2.1 Introduction to the Method of Assessment

Health benefits are twofold. They can accrue from improved quality of drinking water as well as from improved quality of bathing water.

Based on the discussion in the qualitative assessment section and the previous benefits study8, the following directives are assumed to have a positive impact on the drinking water quality: Drinking Water, Urban Waste Water Treatment, Surface Waters for Drinking, Dangerous Substances, Groundwater, and Nitrates.

The following directives are assumed to have a positive impact on the water resources used for recreation and hence also on health (mainly through bathing): Bathing Water, Urban Waste Water Treatment and Dangerous Substances.

The quantification of the benefits can be carried out any of three ways:

A. Dose response function between pollutant concentrations and health impact. This can be done in one of two ways: (i) using local pollutant concentrations and health impact statistics, which is the ideal bottom up approach, responsive to local situations, but very data intensive; or (ii) using existing dose response functions, but linking these to local pollutant concentrations to obtain insights into the number of cases of illness and mortality. This is less onerous, marginally less responsive to the local reality, but does rely on the existence of good pollutant concentration data;

B. An avoided illness approach using health incidences without using a dose response function. This assumes that the implementation of the directive will lead to the eradication of health impacts. This approach requires data on illness and mortality incidence related to water pollution and

8 Ecotec, “The benefits of compliance with the environmental acquis for the candidate Countries”, sub-study assignment for EC DG Environment, July 2001


19

subsequently some means of identifying what share of the improvements can be attributed to the directive;

C. A willingness to pay (WTP) approach, where the number of parties affected or potentially affected by the contaminants is identified. For the subsequent step of monetisation, these affected or potentially affected parties express a value that they would be willing to pay to avoid the pollution (sometimes studies also give willingness to accept compensation values). The first step is an identification of which parties are affected, which requires knowledge of connection rates (for those that gain new connection), and household numbers that would gain from quality improvements. For the second step, that of valuation, this can be done by a local survey, which would be more accurate, but extremely data and time intense, or by a benefits transfer approach, where the willingness to pay of the same type of situation is thought to be transferable to Albania under appropriate assumptions. No willingness to pay studies for new connections (e.g. to drinking water network) or for water quality improvement (drinking water, bathing-recreational water, non-use benefits use of water) are available for Albania.

Because one of the project requirements is consistency with the methodology used in the previous benefits study, the willingness to pay method (benefits transfer approach) has been selected. However, it is worth noticing that some dose response functions for exposure to water pollutants exist, such as studies of IPH-Tirana, “On epidemiology of infectious diseases in Albania 1960 – 2001, and their control and prevention”, Prof. Dr. E.Z.Kakarriqi, 2003), “The quality of drinking water and health impact during 2000 2005”, IPHealth, 2006), etc.

5.2.2 Benefits from improved drinking water quality and supply

The complete assessment of the benefits of drinking water involves the use of a willingness to pay (WTP) estimate for ‘clean’ drinking water. This methodology requires an estimate of the total number of households that stand to benefit from the implementation of directives affecting drinking water and subsequently attributing a value to these benefits.

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. In practice, the benefits will relate to both new accesses to supply and to availability of improved drinking water. Where the existing WTP exercises look at quality improvements only, it may thus be unnecessary to distinguish between the population having access to public water supply and those that will gain new access. Indeed, the WTP transfer value we have used is based on quality improvements rather than new connections.

While it is clear that regarding all currently and newly connected households as beneficiaries could slightly overestimate the benefits as some households with existing connection have good quality water, the choice of only focusing the analysis on those households that would gain connection would likely lead to a much more significant underestimate. Furthermore, the linkage of cleaner water to the acquis Communautaire is more explicit than the linkage to increases in connection rates9. Despite this, the overestimation of benefits from quality improvements may be compensated by the negligence of a possibly EU-induced increase in the connection rate.

9 Currently there is no explicit legislative requirement for the extension of the drinking water network. However, it is clearly likely with economic development, the general implementation of the environmental acquis, and the existing policies of extending water supply to more households, that more households will become connected to drinking water supply in the near future. Indeed, a major indirect driver for this is likely to be the Urban Waste Water Directive, as agglomerations with more than 2000 inhabitants will have to have a waste water treatment plant and associated sewage system. It is common practice when digging up the road to ensure that both waste water / sewage networks and drinking water networks are implemented together given cost savings and obvious interconnections. Hence with the progress of the UWWT Directive one could expect progress with the drinking water network.


20

Connection percentage to public drinking water supply

Approximately 72% of the population now has a water connection (data for 2005), with 93% in urban and 66% in rural. Population connected to sewers is approximately 68%, with a higher percentage in urban areas and a much lower one in rural areas, around 32%. A large number of rural families use septic tanks and pit latrines that are evacuated through discharging into the nearby environment.

The total population in the year 2005 consisted of 3,135,000 persons. The total number of households equalled 733,860 in that year. Assuming an even spread of the population over the households, this results in a figure of 4.27 persons per household. A connection rate of 72% of the population in the year 2005 thus equals a connection of 528,379 households.

Estimate of the number (or percentage) of gains of new connections

As an illustration, Table 5-1 gives some national indicators on water supply and sanitation.

Table 5-1: National indicators on water supply and sanitation

Year

Indicator Baseline value (2002)

Intermediate value (2004)

MDG

(2015)

Percentage of population supplied from centralized water systems

71 82.5 97

Percentage of population with access to centralized sewerage

NA 53.8 70

Average duration of scheduled water supply (hours/day)

3.1 6 13

Percentage of water samples meeting national standards

50 84.2 95

Number of waterborne diseases per 1000 habitants per year

17.74 11.97 5.6

Proportion of untreated water (%) 100 100 61.2

Number of urban10 sanitation service failures per 1 km of sanitation network

NA 3.5 1.75

Water and sanitation affordability ratio 1.2 1.4 TBD

Table 5-1 gives an intermediate and a long term objective for the percentage of the population connected to a centralized water system. It involves an increase of approximately 10% in the year 2004 and approximately 25% in the year 2015 (compared to the baseline value). The actual connection rate in the year 2005 being 72% instead of 82.5% (for the year 2004), these objectives seem to be rather optimistic. In the previous benefits study, some country experts reported on the estimate for the number of new connections. The majority of experts who could make such an estimate gave an estimate of 5% of the total population. In the previous study, this percentage was applied to all accession countries in which more country-specific estimates had not been available. Taking into account the rather optimistic estimates, given in Table 5-1, we apply this percentage also to Albania. Adding the 5% estimate of new

10 The rural objective for 2015 is not calculated therefore the summary table refers only to urban values


21

connections to the current connection rate of 72% yields a total share of 77% (or 565,327 households11) which can be assumed to benefit from quality improvements of drinking water.

Drinking water quality

The drinking water quality standards, approved in 1998 by the Albanian Government (STASH 3904:1997 ICS 13060) are given in annex.

The standards, mentioned in annex, are very similar to the WHO recommendations, with some of the parameters even more strict when compared to EU Directive 80/778. Drinking water quality compliance is measured as the percentage of all microbiological samples passing national drinking water quality standards for all parameters within a specific group. If at least one of the parameters within the group is not met, then the whole sample is considered to fail the standard. This indicator is reported as “Percentage of annual samples in compliance with national standards from total samples taken according to the Protocol applied by the relevant authorities”.

There are about 500 monitoring points at the distribution water supply system in Albania in the urban area. For the studied period (2000- 2005), the average of bacterial pollution is about 4.015 % of water samples analyzed. Between May 2004 and May 2005, the IPH has reported testing of 3,801 samples, out of which only 15.8 percent do not comply with national standards. The percentage of the population supplied with safe drinking water is estimated to be 96.72% (data of 2005).

Some years ago the Institute of Public Health has organized a programme for the monitoring of nitrates in drinking water, controlling the water sources which are used for water supply. The water samples has been analysed in a laboratories of the Institute of Public Health. In 1998, the IPH controlled the ground water quality in some areas where intensive agricultural activity was assumed. After the analyses the level of nitrates was under the standard, negligible. There were no nitrates in spring water, because of the lack of agriculture activity in those areas. The level of pesticides in spring water was below detection limit.

Along with the political change of the early 1990’s, the restriction on migration was lifted and a wave of uncontrolled migration towards the cities started. This phenomenon is known as ‘mass urbanisation’, reducing the rural population by almost 10 percent by the end of the decade. The installation of water meters and the cutting of illegal connections and the transformation of them into legal connections are now in process. The number if this category of consumers is about 10-15% of the population. Based on the objectives designed to the water strategy, all the consumers will be equipped with water meters. To fulfil this task there is a need to construct water supply systems especially in rural areas and in the ‘new urbanised areas’, that are created from the movement of the population after the year 1990. Short term and medium term water targets are given in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3.

Table 5-2: Short term urban water targets (Albanian NWSWW Strategy 2003)

Year

OBJECTIVES OUTCOME INDICATORS NSSED

2006

2002

Baseline 2003 2004 2005 2006

I. Achieve MDG targets in Albania:

(a) Water quality

[Percentage of served population receiving safe water]

93 80 82 85 90 93

11 Assuming that the population is evenly spread over the total number of households


22

Year

OBJECTIVES OUTCOME INDICATORS NSSED

2006

2002

Baseline 2003 2004 2005 2006

(b) Minimum quantity

Percentage of served population receiving at min.2 hours of water supply per day

65 52 55 57 60 65

(c) Basic access

[Percentage of population connected to water network]

94 88 90 91 92 93

(d) Sustainable water supply

- Percentage of population served by systems which cover O&M costs

10 6 6 7 8 10

-Percentage of population served by systems which cover full costs (including debt services & investment needs)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sustainable Access to Safe Water & access to improved sanitation

(e) Improved sanitation Percentage of population connected to sewerage network 75 68 69 70 72 75

II. Water Quality (a) Percentage of samples complying with standards of residual chlorine 80 50 55 60 70 80

(a) Average of hours of supply per day 9 5 6 7 8 9 III. Improvement

of Service Quality

(b) Percentage of population connected to wastewater treatment facility

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 5-3: Medium term urban water targets (Albanian NWSWW Strategy 2003)

Year

OBJECTIVES OUTCOME INDICATORS MDG

2015

2007

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

(a) Water quality

[Percentage of served population receiving safe water]

98 93 94 94 95 96 97

(b) Minimum quantity

Percentage of served population receiving at min.2 hours of water supply per day

98 67 70 75 80 85 90

(c) Basic access

[Percentage of population connected to water network

99 95.0 95.5 96.0 96.5 97.0 97.5

I. Achieve MDG targets in Albania: Sustainable Access to Safe Water & access to improved sanitation

(d) Sustainable water supply

- Percentage of population served by systems which cover O&M costs

100 40 50 60 70 80 90


23

Year

OBJECTIVES OUTCOME INDICATORS MDG

2015

2007

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

- Percentage of population served by systems which cover full costs (including debt services & investment needs)

100 20 35 45 60 70 85

(e) Percentage of population connected to sewerage network 85 75 76 77 78 79 80

II. Water Quality Percentage of samples complying with standards for residual chlorine 100 83 86 90 92 95 98

(a) Average of hours of supply per day 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 III. Improvement

of Service Quality

(b) Percentage of population connected to wastewater treatment facility

30 N/A N/A 11 15 20 25

5.2.3 Benefits to recreational users of water

The following Directives are likely to generate benefits to recreational users of water: Bathing Water, Urban Waste Water, Fishlife, Dangerous Substances and Nitrates. The quantification process requires a calculation similar to that for health benefits in which expert judgement is substituted for dose-response coefficients. The following data are required for this quantification process:

• The change in the water quantity and quality due to the implementation of a directive or relevant directives;

• How this change will affect the current water-based recreational behaviour (including swimming, angling etc);

• The affected population (usually referring to mean current population undertaking the relevant recreational activity and the change in this population with the improvement in water quantity and quality after the implementation of the relevant directives).

There could be a number of reasons why a Directive will have an effect on the quality (and quantity) of water used for recreation. However, there is very limited information about what the implementation of a Directive will entail and hence its resulting improvements to recreational waters in quantitative terms. Although by all means not the only directive of relevance, there is some work about the Urban Waste Water Directive in this context. This Directive will have a positive effect on the quality of inland waters and, in some cases, groundwater. An assessment of the effect on the quality of these various water resources is not available. However, some estimates of the effects on wastewater discharges are available from the estimated reductions of phosphorous (P-tot) and nitrogen (N-tot) discharges as a result of the full implementation of the urban wastewater directive.


24

Affected population

6 of the 12 counties of Albania border the Adriatic Sea. An overview of the population of these counties is given in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4: Population in coastal counties (CIA World Fact Book, 2007)

County Districts Population

Shköder Malësi e Madhe 37,000

Pukë 34,000

Shköder 185,000

Tirana Kavaje 105,000

Tirana 521,000

Lezhë Kurbia 54,000

Lezhë 68,000

Mirditë 37,000

Durrës Durrës 182,000

Krujë 64,000

Fier Fier 200,000

Lushujë 64,000

Mallakastër 40,000

Vlorë Delvinë 11,000

Sarandë 35,235

Vlorë 147,000

TOTAL 1,784,235

The number of tourists visiting the coastal areas in the year 2002 equalled 450,019. This number was provided by local experts, we assume that it refers to domestic tourists only.

Coastal water quality

Old standard for bathing water quality are in place, however they are being reviewed as to adopt the EU standard. The same holds for the beach water quality standards, given in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: Albanian beach water quality standards

Echerichia coli / 100 ml Directive of Ministry of Health 04.05.1989 Minimal value Maximal value

Pathogens micro organisms

Recommended values 200 – 400 /100 ml Until 1000/100 ml for same samples

Do not allow at 1 liter

Before the season three series of sampling each 2 weeks should be carried out. During the season sampling should be carried out 2 times per month


25

The IPH has monitored the water quality of bathing waters in Albania in the year 2006. An overview of compliance with the beach water quality standards is given in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6: Compliance with Albanian beach water quality standards (Microbiologic study for the coastal waters in Velipoja, Shengjini, Durres, Kavaja, Saranda and Himara area, IPH,

2006)

Velipoja Shengjini Durresi Kavaja Vlora Dhermi Himare Borsh Sarande

Comply 100 100 77.18 80 66.67 100 100 100 16.67

Do not comply 0 0 22.82 20 33.33 0 0 0 83.33

In general the south area (Saranda, Zvernec, Jala, Himare, Seman) has a good quality. In Durres area (Golem, Shkembi I Kavajes, Durres, Currila) the microbiological standards are not met. This is caused by discharge of urban waster water without treatment in this area. In Shengjin area the quality of bathing water should be under control.

Inland bathing water quality

In general the water quality of the Albanian lakes is good. Each of the natural lakes (Ohrid, Prespa and Shkodra) represents an originality of fauna and flora biodiversity. They are classified in the first group (from classes I-III) regarding water quality. The lakes mentioned here are suitable for bathing. All three lakes have a big potential for tourism in Albania.

Wastewater treatment infrastructure

Current situation

In Albania the construction of the treatment plants for the treatment of urban wastewater started from the year 2005, with the first phase of the mechanical/biological treatments plants of Kavaja city, financed by the KfW Bank. The treatment plant in the Kavaja area is in function from 2005 (1st phase). The aerated lagoon combines oxidation and decantation. When completed (2025), this plant will have a capacity of 135,000 inhabitants.

Others treatment plants are in construction, more specifically in Durres, Saranda, Lezha (Shengjin) financed by the World Bank, in Pogradec financed by the KfW Bank:

• Durres area: the treatment plant for the treatment of wastewaters of this area is a combined system composed of a Conventional Treatment Plant and an Artificial Treatment Basin. Capacity: 250,000 inhabitants in the year 2020

• Lezha & Shengjin and Saranda area: the treatment plant for the treatment of wastewaters of Lezha & Shengjin and Saranda is an Aerated Lagoon System. The projected capacity for year 2020 is:

- Lezha: 36,000 inhabitants

- Shengjin: 15,000 inhabitants

- Saranda: 60,000 inhabitants

Studies are completed for the cities Korca and Tirana.

A map indicating the existing and planned waste water treatment facilities is given in Figure 5-1. the following legend is used:


26

: treatment plant constructed (in function)/or in construction phase

: treatment plant in project

Figure 5-1: Location of existing and planned waste water treatment infrastructure in Albania

In general the industries that are connected to the sewerage system, discharge the wastewaters without any treatment. The only treatment is a mechanical treatment which means decantation, suspension and filtration. It concerns about 500 small and medium enterprises. All the companies which are required in their permits to do self-monitoring of discharges exceed the allowed norms. There are no data related to discharges into the sewage system and discharges into natural waters.


27

The amount of N-tot and P-tot in (raw) sewage has been estimated, using standardised emission factors (10 g N per capita per day and 2 g P per capita per day) and population (as far as it concerns towns with more than 2000 inhabitant (equivalents)):

• Amount of N-tot in raw sewage : 11 505 tonnes / year;

• Amount of P-tot in raw sewage : 2 301 tonnes / year

The discharge of nutrients by wastewater treatment plants has been estimated, assuming a moderate level of treatment. Additionally the discharges from households not connected to sewerage have been estimated (as far as it concerns towns with more than 2000 inhabitant (equivalents)) :

Today’s situation:

• Residual amount of N-tot discharged : 10 419 tonnes / year;

• Residual amount of P-tot discharged: 2 084 tonnes / year

Taking into account the requirement for additional connections to sewerage (which leads to higher effluents in waste water treatment plants requiring treatment) and the various requirements for nutrient reductions for different sizes of towns as required by the directive, the additional reduction of nutrients has been estimated. As no information on sensitive areas was available (which makes a difference for the required level of treatment) it has been assumed that all areas can be considered as sensitive, leading to a relatively high level of reduction.

We can safely assume that nutrient removal will be required for all sewage treatment plants above 10000 PE under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

Expected evolution under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Based on the Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy, approved in 2003 by Council of Ministers, the aim is to treat 25% of the urban wastewater in 2012.

Situation after the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

• Residual amount of N-tot discharged : 4 694 tonnes / year;

• Residual amount of P-tot discharged: 755 tonnes / year.

Reduction • Residual amount of N-tot discharged : 5 725 tonnes / year;

• Residual amount of P-tot discharged: 1 329 tonnes / year.

Table 5-7 : Estimated reduction of N-tot and P-tot discharges due to the Urban Waste Water Directive

Country N-reduction P-reduction

Kt/year % kt/year %

Croatia 5.7 55 % 1,3 64 %

While the reductions in N and P are important for the assessment of the extent of benefits, it has not been possible to link the information about the reduction in the N and P discharges to potential benefits to recreational uses of water. This is not only because such a link is missing but also because there are


28

other factors unrelated to N and P concentrations in water that affect the quality of a water-related recreational experience.

Thus, the assessment of recreational benefits that will be presented in section 5.3.3 follows a similar approach to the assessment of health benefits. This requires identification of the affected population and an estimate of the demand they have for better water quality for recreational purposes. This demand is based on the relevant WTP estimates found in the literature. Since such demand can be met by implementing a number of Directives and combinations of Directives, it would be wrong to assign these values to the predicted reductions in P and N concentrations alone.

Strictly, the best estimate for the affected population would be those undertaking water-related recreational activities. Fishermen fishing without a license might occur on the small rivers or lakes where there are not many people. There is no data on which specific rivers are already regularly used for recreation. Other data on the specifically affected population could not be collected. As such the total population, including domestic tourists, where appropriate, can be assumed to be the measure for ‘affected population’. Using this definition, willingness to pay studies that only address specific users should not be regarded as representative. Thus, the willingness to pay figures have been taken from studies that use a broader definition of the affected population.

An increase in recreation is expected when the river water quality will improve.

5.2.4 Benefits to river ecosystems

The main rivers in Albania, together with the main settlements in their catchment’s area, their total length and the surface of their catchment’s area are given in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8: Characteristics of main rivers in Albania

Rivers Main settlements in the catchment's area (nr. of inhabitants in 1000)

Rivers length (km, in Albania)

Catchment area (km²)

Drini, Mati, Fani, Buna

Kukes (102), Shkoder (250), Lezhe (160), Burrel

Drini: 285; Mati: 115 Buna 44 km

Drini 14.173; Mati 2.441

Ishmi, Erzeni Tirana (678), Shijak, Durres (281) Erzeni: 109 Erzeni: 760

Shkumbini, Devolli

Elbasan (354), Lushnje, Kavaje, Korce (264)

Shkumbini: 181 Shkumbini: 2.444

Semani, Gjanica

Berat (182), Fier (381), Ballsh Semani: 281 Semani: 5.649

Vjosa Gjirokaster (107), Permet, Tepelene Vjosa: 272 Vjosa: 6.706

Bistrica Sarande, Delvine

TOTAL 1287

Albania’s river water quality is based on the classification criteria defined by UNECE. The classification system is based on the number of parameters analysed and compared with the biological, physical and chemical quality of river water in different countries. The parameters are Ptotal, NO3, O2 dissolved, BOD5, COD and NH4+. The UNECE river water quality criteria are given in following table:


29

Table 5-9: UNECE river water quality criteria (Report on environmental situation in Albania 1997-1998, NEA)

Category Ptotal (mg/l) NO3 (mg/l) Dissolved O2 (mg/l)

BOD5 (mg/l) COD (mg/l) NH4+ (mg/l)

Class I < 10 <5 >7 <3 <3 <0.1

Class II 10-25 5-25 7-6 3-5 3-10 0.1-0.5

Class III 25-50 25-50 6-4 5-9 10-20 0.5-2

Class IV 50-125 50-80 4-3 9-15 20-30 2-8

Class V >125 >80 <3 >15 >30 >8

For Ptot these class criteria do not comply with the criteria for Croatia (see Table 5-10). For NO3, the Albanian criteria are one class lower than the Croatian ones (e.g. class I Albania = class II Croatia for NO3). As such it is difficult to use the Albanian classification criteria for the monetary assessment. However, an estimate for the non-use value can be made, when altering the classes for NO3 with one order of magnitude (e.g. class I becomes class II).

The quality classification of rivers in Albania, according to these UNECE criteria, is given in Table 5-10 (Report on Environmental State 2003-2004). The overall quality of the river was estimated, based on increasing the class for NO3 with 1 unit and an expert judgement interpretation of the quality scores for the different parameters.

Table 5-10: River water quality according to UNECE criteria (Report on Environmental State 2003-2004)

River Code P(total) mg/l NO3 mg/l BOD5 mg/l

COD mg/l NH4 mg/l Overall quality

Tirana T1 IV I I I II II

T2 V I III V IV V

T3 V I III IV IV IV

Lana L1 IV I I II III III

L2 V I V V V V

L3 V I V V V V

Erzen E1 V I II II III III

E2 IV I I II II III

Gjanice F1 V I V V III V

Seman F2 V I IV III III IV

Seman+Gjanice F3 V I II II III III

Kir K1 III I I I II III

K2 IV I I I II III

Drin D1 V I I I II III

D2 V I I I II III

Shkumbin El1 III I I I III III

El2 IV I I II III III

El3 IV I I II III III

Drin/Lezhe Le3 V I III III III III


30

Based on the overall quality assessment, listed in Table 5-10,it can be estimated that 60% of the rivers in Albania belong to quality class III and 30% of the rivers belong to quality class IV to V.

A map depicting urban and industrial wastewater discharges and the resulting river water quality is given in Figure 5-2.


31

Figure 5-2: River water quality in Albania (UNEP, 1992)


32

Effect of the implementation of the EU water acquis

As it was not possible to assess what the precise effect of the implementation of the various water directives (mainly Urban Waste Water Directive, the Nitrate Directive and the Dangerous Substances Directive) would be on river quality, it has been assumed that the full implementation of the various directives will have 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.

5.3 MONETARY ASSESSMENT

The monetary assessment is based on the benefits transfer procedure, which involves borrowing the relevant WTP estimates from the existing literature (in other words, applying results from one country and transferring them to another, with appropriate weightings to reflect GDP differences in terms of purchasing power parities). The benefits transfer procedure represents a feasible alternative where country-specific WTP estimates are missing, as in the case of Albania.

Since it has not been possible to estimate the health impacts of water directives in quantitative terms, WTP per unit of impact (such as to avoid a case of morbidity) cannot be used in this part of the assessment. In order to implement the approach adopted here, relevant WTP estimates that are expressed per unit of the affected population (adult individuals or households) and the relevant ‘affected’ population needs to be identified. This section presents the WTP estimates used, while the discussion about affected population can be found in section 5.2.

Total WTP for clean water (drinking and recreational) indicates a lower limit for use and non-use benefits. There may be other use and non-use values that have not been identified or that are not included in the existing WTP estimates. Where WTP is related to avoided health damages, the WTP numbers are based on perceived rather than actual health risks. If people are not well informed about the health risks, their WTP may underestimate the actual health benefits. However, it should be noted that the benefits are based on the assumption that certain water quality improvements can actually be achieved. The analysis does not address the question whether and how the demand for clean water will be met (whether by one or a combination of water related directives or by any other measure).

5.3.1 Benefits of Cleaner Drinking Water

Choice of WTP

For assessing the benefits of cleaner drinking water, we basically had two options: (i) either update all WTP studies; or (ii) use the same WTP studies that were used in the previous studies for Croatia and for the 13 previous Candidate Countries. For reasons of comparability, we chose the second option, but we re-investigated the robustness of the figures.

a. Lower bound WTP estimate: this estimate is based on Hanley (1989) which elicited the WTP responses of a sample in the UK for nitrate content of drinking water to meet the standard of 50 g/m3 of water. The result of this study is Euro 25/household/year (in 1999 prices);

b. Upper bound WTP estimate: this estimate is the average of the results of the following studies:

Jordan and Edwards (1993), Schultz and Lindsay (1990), Edwards (1988), Power (1991) and Mitchell


33

and Carson (1986). All five measure ‘WTP to avoid groundwater contamination’. The causes include contamination by fertilisers and pesticides and WTP reflects the households’ concern for clean drinking water. An average of these five studies (Euro 650/household/year in 1999 prices) is taken.

We are no longer confident that the lower bound estimate for the WTP for cleaner drinking water is a realistic figure, given the limited coverage of pollutants in the WTP estimate. We have reasons to think that the resulting WTP of 25,2 €/household/year (in 1999 prices) is a fundamental underestimate. It is apparent that the upper bound estimate is more representative of the benefits than the lower bound estimate and therefore we decided to not longer include the lower bound estimate in our evaluations.

Besides this aspect we largely follow the same approach as in the study for the previous candidate countries, with the exception – as in the Croatia study - that the number of benefiting households is based on the expected connection rate of 91% rather than on the total number of households.

Choice of population numbers affected

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. In 2005, the total number of households in Albania was 3,135,000 and the connection rate to public water supply is 72%. Assuming additional new connections to public water supply for 5% of Albanian households, 77% (or 565,327 households) can be assumed to benefit from quality improvements of drinking water. For a more detailed justification and description of the assumptions and data sources, please refer to section 5.2.2.

Table 5-11: Willingness to pay for cleaner drinking water

GDP/capita Euro 1999

WTP WTP USA Euro 1999 (PPP) country

No. of benefiting households

Low WTP High WTP

(high) relative (high) Million Million Euro/year

Million Euro/ year

Country

to USA

B D F=B*D G E*G F*G

Albania 650 0.12 78 0.565 2.4 44

Previous CC*

650 0.23 149.5 58.712 499 8777

The total benefits of clean drinking water are estimated to amount to around 44 million EUR/year upon full compliance.

5.3.2 Bathing and other surface water quality – use values

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 15.6 million EUR/year upon full


34

compliance – for the lower WTP value. For the high estimate, the benefits to the domestic population are estimated to be at around 58.7 million EUR/year upon full compliance.

New European WTP studies allow for a distinction between coastal and inland waters (see general report). Thus, the totals for surface water given above consist of an aggregate of the following figures: the domestic benefits of cleaner coastal water are estimated to lie between 5.85 and 32.7 million Euros per year. The respective range for inland surface waters extends from 9.8 to 26.1 million Euros per year.

Due to lack of data, no distinction could be made between benefits for domestic and foreign tourists.

COASTAL WATERS

The following table presents the benefit estimates for coastal waters.


35

Table 5-12: WTP for cleaner coastal water

WTP Turkey Euro 1999 Goksen et al. 2000

WTP Poland Euro 1999 Zylicz et al. 1995

WTP Poland Euro 1999 Zylicz et al. 1995



WTP: country

WTP: country

(PPP) (PPP)

WTP: country

Population (in coastal counties)

Tourists at seaside resorts

Low WTP High WTP

(residents, (domestic visitors,

relative relative (residents, (tourists,

(low) high) high) to Turkey to Poland (low) high) high) Million Million Million Euro/year

Million Euro/year

Country

A B C D E F=A*D G=B*E H=C*E I J F*(I+J) G*I + H*J

Albania total tourists

4 19.9 97.5 0.65 0.41 2.62 8.19 40.12 1.784 0.450 5.85 32.7

Previous CC* _ 19.9 97.5 1.34 0.87 _ 17.5 _ 131.052 _ _ 2512.0

* The figures given in this row apply to the aggregate of the previous candidate countries Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. Any averages are weighted averages. Population in this row refers to adult national population, as this was the approach chosen in the previous study.

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro L Benefits of compliance with water related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

36

Choice of WTP

For coastal waters, there are three studies that lend themselves for a benefit transfer approach:

• Goksen et al. (2000) found a WTP of 4 Euros per person and year for a clean-up project at the Bosporus (Turkey). This study reflects a rather low estimate, such that this WTP figure is suitable as a lower bound.

• Georgiou et al. (1996) received an average WTP response for cleaning up UK’s Great Yarmouth beach, which had failed to meet the EC Bathing Water Quality Directive standard, of 19 Euros (at 1999 prices). After a benefit transfer procedure, the resulting WTP for Croatia (6.8 Euros) would be only slightly above the Goksen et al. figure (5.7 Euros). Thus, the results from Georgiou et al. are close to the lower bound, which we leave unaltered.

• The upper bound is represented by a study by Zylicz et al. (1995) on WTP for pollution control at the Baltic Sea in Poland, which was also used in the study for the previous candidate countries. Zylicz et al. determined WTP numbers of 19.9 Euros/year for the general adult population and 97.5 Euros for domestic visitors. Especially the WTP for visitors is rather high – and even higher after a benefit transfer to foreign tourists – such that the results of this study lend themselves as an upper bound.


According to the CIA World fact Book 2007 (CIA, 2007), 1.784 million people live in the Albanian counties that border the sea. In addition, 450,019 domestic tourists visit seaside resorts annually. Thus, we regard the total domestic population that benefits from increased confidence in high water quality of coastal waters as 2.234 million. Both the studies of Georgiou et al. (1996) and Zylicz et al. (1995) found higher annual willingness to pay numbers for visitors than for residents. This allows us to differentiate between residents and tourists in terms of the applicable WTP in calculating the high estimate, as Zylicz et al. is used for this purpose.

INLAND SURFACE WATERS

The following table presents the benefit estimates for inland surface waters.


37

Table 5-13: WTP for cleaner inland surface water



WTP Benefiting WTP Latvia Euro 1999 Ready et al. 2002

WTP Balaton Euro 1999 Mourato 1999

(PPP) (PPP)

WTP country

country population

Low WTP High WTP

(low) (high) relative relative (low) (high) Million Million Euro/year

Million Euro/year

Country

to Latvia to Hungary

A B C D E=A*C F=B*D G E*G F*G Albania 5.7 22.5 0.55 0.37 3.1 8.325 3.14 9.8 26.1 Previous CC*

- - - - - - - - -

* In the previous study on 13 CC, the benefits of cleaner inland surface waters were not calculated separately.

Choice of WTP

Ready et al. (2002) estimated the benefits from making the Gauja river in Latvia suitable for swimming and fishing at Euro 5.7 per person and year. This study reflects a rather low estimate, such that this WTP figure is suitable as a lower bound.

Mourato (1999) received an average WTP response of Euro 22.5 per person and year for a clean-up programme of the Hungarian Balaton lake. Due to the great tourist importance of the Balaton lake in Hungary, this estimate can be regarded as rather high, which is why we use it as an upper bound. It should be said, however, that much higher figures could be produced by transferring US estimates for angling alone. A large number of US studies give WTP values for angling of between 57 and 380 Euros per household and year (see general report). However, we regard the transferability if these studies as limited, especially in comparison with the studies from Latvia, which explicitly includes angling benefits, and from the neighbouring country Hungary.


The studies used for benefit transfer measure WTP per person of the general population. The WTP figures are averages across the part of the population who undertake water-related recreational activities and the part that do not. Due to lack of such data, the total population of Albania was assumed to benefit from the bathing water quality improvement.


38

5.3.3 Improved river ecosystem quality – non-use value

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 0.79 million EUR/year upon full compliance (see Table 5-14).


39

Table 5-14: WTP for river water quality – non use values

UK WTP per HH, km & yr

UK WTP per HH, km & yr

GDP/ capita

WTP per HH, km & yr

WTP per HH, km & yr

Total no. of households

River length (km)

% of rivers classified as 'poor'

% of rivers classified as 'fair'

WTP for poor to good

WTP for fair to good

WTP for the total change

poor to fair

fair to good

Euro 1999

poor to fair

fair to good

(fYRoM: classes IV & V)

(fYRoM: class III)

(Million Euro year)

(Million Euro year)

(Million Euro year)

Green and Willis 1996

Green and Willis 1996

(PPP) country country

Country

Euro 1999

Euro 1999

relative to UK

Euro 1999

Euro 1999

Million

A B C D=A*C E=B*C F G H I J=(D+E)*F*G*H K=E*F*G*I L=J+K

Albania 0.0078 0.0029 0.17 0.0013 0.0005 0.734 1287 30% 60% 0.52 0.28 0.79

Other CC* 0.0078 0.0029 0.34 0.0027 0.001 58.712 330213 51% 39% - - 2373.0

* The figures given in this row apply to the aggregate of the previous candidate countries Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. For the other previous candidate countries there was insufficient data to carry out this analysis. Any averages are weighted averages.


40

Choice of WTP

The study chosen for benefits transfer to estimate the non-use values attached to the improved river ecosystem quality is the one by Green and Willis (1996). This study elicits the non-use value attached by UK households to the changes in the classification of rivers from ‘poor’ to ‘fair’ and ‘fair’ to ‘good’. WTP for a change from ‘poor’ to ‘fair’ is given as Euro 0.0078 per UK household, km of river, and year (in 1999 prices). The respective WTP number for a change from ‘fair’ to ‘good’ is calculated as Euro 0.0029.

For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that implementation of the environmental acquis will lead to ‘good’ water quality in all rivers, which corresponds to classes I and II. Class III is considered to be ‘fair’ quality and classes IV and V are regarded as ‘poor’ quality. This implies that class III rivers will be subject to the change from ‘fair’ to ‘good’ (WTP: 0.0029 Euros per UK household, km and year). Classes IV and V will be subject to the change from ‘poor’ to ‘good’ (WTP: 0.0078 + 0.0029 = 0.0107 Euros per UK household, km and year).

Water classification and total length of rivers

The total river length of the main rivers is 1,287 km. The most important rivers in Albania are Drini (285 km), Mati (115 km), Buna (44 km), Erzeni (109 km), Shkumbini (181 km), Semani (281 km) and Vjosa (272 km).

It was estimated that 30% of the rivers belong to class III and that 60% of the rivers belong to classes IV and V. For further details we refer to section 5.2.

Choice of population numbers

The proximity of the settlements to a river throughout the country is unknown. It can it be assumed that almost everyone lives reasonably close to a river.

Given that almost everyone lives reasonably close to one of the 1,287 km of river in Albania, the total number of households, i.e. 733,860 is regarded as the relevant multiplier.

5.4 AGGREGATION OF BENEFITS AND CONCLUSIONS

Benefits covered and benefits neglected

The study has assessed the extent and value of the following benefits:

• Benefits from the availability of drinking water and its improved quality;

• Recreational benefits from cleaner coasts, lakes and rivers for bathing and other recreational uses;

• Non-use benefits due to improved quality of river eco-systems.

Given data availability and other considerations, the study has not included the following benefits

• Benefits to industrial abstractors, agriculture and aquaculture, although these are likely to be significant;

• Non-river eco-system benefits;

• Some of the social benefits and wider economic benefits mentioned in the general report;


41

• Transboundary benefits to EU Member States and other countries.

This means that the total benefits will in fact be higher than estimated here.

Extent of the benefits

The Albanian households are expected to benefit from access to drinking water quality as well as from its improved quality in the order of magnitude of 44.1 million Euros annually. With a population of 3,135,000, this is equivalent to around 14.1 EUR/person. All EUR values given in the section refer to Euros of 1999.

Recreational benefits of an improved quality of inland surface waters to the Albanian residents are estimated to be between 9.8 and 26.1 million Euros annually. Recreational benefits of coastal waters are estimated to be between 5.85 and 32.66 million Euros annually.

The non-use value of the expected improvement of river ecosystem quality is estimated to be 0.79 million Euros per year.

The total annual benefit to the domestic population of compliance with the water related Directives has been estimated at around 60.5 million EUR/year upon full compliance (lower estimate) and 103.6 million EUR/year (upper estimate). This is equivalent to 19 EUR/person and 33 EUR/person – per year upon full compliance. These estimates are based on the aggregation of the estimated benefits to health, recreational use of water and the non-use benefits of improved (river) water resources.


42

Table 5-15: Aggregation of Annual Benefits from Full Compliance (million Euro per year)

Coastal Water Drinking Water

Domestic benefits@

Benefits to foreign visitors

Inland Surface Water (use value)

Total Annual Benefits from Full Compliance# (domestic population only)

Total Annual Benefits from Full Compliance# (including foreign tourists)

Low esti-mate

High esti-mate

Low esti-mate

High esti-mate

Low esti-mate

High esti-mate

Low esti-mate

High esti-mate

River quality (non-use value)

Low esti-mate

High esti-mate

Low esti-mate

High esti-mate

Country

A B C D E F G H I J = B + C + G+I

K = B + D +H + I

L=J+E M=K+F

Million EUR of 1999 per year

Albania NA12 44.1 5.9 32.7 - - 9.8 26.1 0.79 60.513 103.6 60.5 103.6

Other CC*

504 8733 - 2512 - - - - 2373 5389 13618 - -

EUR of 1999 per capita of total population per year

Albania NA12 14.1 1.9 10.4 - - 3.1 8.3 0.3 19.313 33.1 19.3 33.1

Other CC*

3.8 66.6 - 19.2 - - - - 18.1 41.1 103.9 - -

* The figures given in this row apply to the aggregate of the previous candidate countries Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. The high estimate in this row consists of the sum of columns B, D and G. For details on the methodology for the low estimate in this row, please refer to the previous study.

# It would be misleading to present a single central estimate as this would implicitly suggest a very accurate knowledge of the relationship between pollutant, impact and monetary benefit. Hence, the lower and upper bounds reflect the bounds of confidence in the results given methodological uncertainties.

@: due to lack of data, no distinction could be made between domestic and foreign tourists. These data apply to all tourists

The estimates in Table 5-15 refer to annual benefits that would accrue to Albania from full implementation of the acquis, with the values reflecting the amount at the date of full implementation. Until then, the benefits will grow to the levels given above, and be lower in the first years as progress is made (e.g. not all rivers would move to Class I or Class II in the first years). Furthermore, there are clearly benefits that would accrue after the date of full implementation, because any water quality improvements can be assumed to be permanent and to offer benefits long into the future.

12 NA = not applicable

13 This figure is not comparable to the below figure for the previous 13 CC, because the estimae for the 13 CC is based on the low estimate for the WTP for drinking water (column A).


43

The total benefits (net present value) of the implementation of the water-related Directives depend on the assumptions with respect to the years that the calculated annual benefits apply to. Furthermore, they depend on the discount rate. For the calculation of total benefits to Kosovo in Table 5-16, we use a discount rate of 4% and assume full implementation by 2020. Benefits are assumed to start in 2005 and to increase linearly until 2020. Beginning with the year of full implementation (2020), five years of full annual benefits are taken into consideration (until 2025). This implies that the underlying water quality improvements would have been achieved also without the environmental acquis by 2025. In reality, benefits from approaching EU standards may have started earlier than 2005, and implementation in the reference situation would be a process over several decades. We believe that, all in all, the assumptions taken are sufficiently conservative to ensure that the total benefits displayed in Table 5-16 are not an overestimate.

The total discounted benefits to the domestic population of compliance with the water-related Directives has been estimated at around 495 million EUR (lower estimate) and 847 million EUR (upper estimate). This is equivalent to 158 EUR/person and 270 EUR/person.

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits assessment of water related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

44

Table 5-16: Total benefits from full compliance with the water-related Directives

Annual benefits Total discounted benefits#

Low estimate† High estimate† Low estimate† High estimate†

Million Euro of 1999

Albania 60.5 103.6 495 847

Other CC* 5 389 13 618 52 400§ 132 600§

Euro of 1999 per capita of total population

Albania 19.3 33.1 158 270

Other CC* 41.1 103.9 399.6§ 1 011.3§

# Assumptions for the fYRoM: 4% discount rate;full implementation in 2020; linear increase of benefits between 2005 and 2020; 5 years of full benefits (2021-2025).

* The figures given in this row apply to the aggregate of the previous candidate countries Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. Due to differences in the applied methodology, the figures given in this row are not directly comparable with the other rows. For details on the methodology in this row, please see below and refer to the previous study.

§ In the previous study for other CCs, full implementation was assumed for 2010. Thus, the assumptions for calculating total discounted benefits in this row are somewhat different. The previous study assumed a linear increase of benefits until full implementation, and ten years of full benefits thereafter.

† It would be misleading to present a single central estimate as this would implicitly suggest a very accurate knowledge of the relationship between pollutant, impact and monetary benefit. Hence, the lower and upper bounds reflect the bounds of confidence in the results given methodological uncertainties.

Whether to look at annual benefits or at total discounted benefits is a matter of preference. Usually, annual benefits are the indicator which is easier to relate to. However, one needs to bear in mind that this indictor represents the benefits for a single year only and that the respective numbers will apply – fully or partially – to a multitude of years.

Interpretation of the results

The benefits given in the first row of Table 5-16 accrue to the national population. They are based on the relatively low (relative to EU and indeed average other New Member States) per capita GDP values, which explains a significant element of why the benefits/capita values for Albania are lower than the average of the then 13 Candidate countries under the previous benefits study.

Clearly, the estimates suggest that the benefits of improved water quality need to be taken into account when the relevant decisions on funding priorities, investments and policies are due.

Despite this, all figures should be seen in the light of the uncertainties that are associated with the methods used. These uncertainties mostly refer to

• uncertainties related to the methodological challenges of WTP studies in general,

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits assessment of water related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

45

• uncertainties regarding the accuracy of the benefit transfer procedure that makes it possible to apply the results of foreign WTP studies to Albania,

• uncertainties connected to the lack of information regarding current water quality and, as a consequence, the lack of adjustment for local environmental circumstances in the transfer of foreign WTP estimates,

• uncertanties regarding full implementation of the Directives and the related water quality improvements.

These uncertainties underline the need to see the valuation results in conjunction with the more extensive qualitative analysis.

It is not really possible to identify explicitly what benefits can be attributed to which particular directive. This is especially so for the water related directives given the inter-linkage of the effects of the upstream emissions related directives (e.g. UWWT and dangerous substances directives) and the down stream quality related directives (e.g. bathing water and drinking water directives). It is clear that there can be no full and appropriate implementation of the downstream directives without the upstream directives being addressed in parallel.

Finally, many will be tempted to carry out a simple cost benefits analysis, taking the benefits results from this study, and comparing them to the cost estimates from other studies and drawing their own, and often incorrect, conclusions regarding the “appropriateness” of implementing the acquis. The aim of this analysis has not been to carry out such a comparison, or indeed to provide information for others to do so. While such comparisons are inevitable, it is important that those carrying out such comparisons bear in mind the meaning of the results, the limitations to the coverage of the benefits value, and the many other benefits as outlined in chapter 2 of the general report that are not monetised but equally important to decisions of prioritisation of funding for the environment.

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits assessment of waste related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

47

6 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT OF WASTE RELATED DIRECTIVES

6.1 CURRENT STATUS

The waste management system in Albania presents several problems and difficulties. The responsibilities are shared between the Ministry of Health for hospital waste, Ministry of Public Works for inert waste and urban waste, Ministry of Industry and Energy for industrial and mining waste, Ministry of Agriculture for waste generated in its sector and old pesticides) and local authorities (municipalities and communes), but the cooperation between stake holders is poor and inefficient.

Several laws and other legal acts have been prepared, which are based on EU–legislation, but rarely implemented and enforced. There is a lack of necessary infrastructure (sanitary landfills, incinerators, collection containers, etc), trained human capacity for the waste sector and the regional and national inspectorate.

Albania does not have a National Waste Management Plan yet but last year (2006) the environmental strategy was prepared with a chapter on waste management. However, no targets were set. It is planned to have a national plan on waste management in 2009.

The information system on data collection, estimations and surveys as well as the methodology for waste data is undeveloped. Therefore, there are no databases on waste generated, collected, recycled, disposed, imported or exported.

Presented data are taken from annual report of municipalities, based on the simple estimation without equipment on measurement of waste.

The most important short term goals in waste management include:

• remediation of dumpsites

• construction of new sanitary landfills according to EU directive and standards.

• increase the separate collection of recycling waste and their processing which will reduce the amount of waste to landfills.

• The construction of landfills for inert waste which up until now is dumped in local dumpsites.

Furthermore it is an intention to stimulate reusing, recycling and as well as composting. The analyses on composition of waste have shown that 40-50% of waste is biodegradable waste.


48

6.1.1 Waste generation and coverage

Some key-indicators related to waste generation and coverage in Albania is presented in following table:

Table 6-1 – Waste management and collection

Indicator Year

Total waste generated (t/year) 1.214.000 tons (for 2004) This includes municipal waste and inert waste (from construction and demolition activities). There is no data on industrial waste generated.

Total municipal waste (t/year) 623.000 tons (for 2004)

Municipal waste generated per capita (kg/inhabitant/year) 404 kg/inhabitant/year

Coverage of waste collection system (% of population covered) 80%

Type of treatment (% landfilled, recycled, incinerated, etc) Disposed in non appropriate sites

Quantity of waste illegally dumped (t/year) All waste is dumped in non appropriate sites: 1.214.000 tons (for 2004)

Quantity of waste imported/exported (t/year) no data

Source : National Environmental Strategy (2006)

About 80-90% of solid wastes in urban areas and about 10-20 % in rural areas are delivered to landfills (which in fact are dumpsites), the rest are simply dumped illegally.

Urban waste management is decentralized. Local authorities decide the fee, which should be paid by each household for waste collection and transportation. The fee only covers collection, transportation and cleaning of roads. In most of the cities the waste collection and transportation service is carried out by private waste management companies which are contracted by municipalities. Rural areas are not yet covered by waste management services. Waste is dumped on any available site in the villages or nearby.

All types of waste (urban, industrial, etc) are transported to the same landfills. The transports of wastes do no have the proper quality and frequency.

All municipal waste, including the shares that are collected and transported, is disposed at illegal and uncontrolled landfills. None of them have a permit from local government, nor an environmental permit. In total, there are 65 uncontrolled landfills in the country. These are open areas, fenceless and without supervision or environmental protection (soil, ground- and surface water, odor, air). The landfill sites do not have facilities for sorting, processing, or recycling of waste. Not only municipal waste is disposed in the landfills but also industrial waste, construction debris, hospital waste and hazardous waste (such batteries, oil of cars), etc. None of the landfills meet international standards for construction and health waste in terms of location, protect lining, drainage system, leachat treatment, gas collection, etc..


49

6.1.2 Recycling

Actually the recycling of waste is not a very developed sector in Albanian economy. There are some private recycling companies that are collecting, importing and processing different types of waste: scrap, paper, plastic, textile, used tyres. The main problem is lack of sorting of waste at the source. The individual collectors and companies have difficulties to find clean and separate waste. The biggest part of recyclable waste comes from household solid waste (urban areas), and partly come from industrial sectors. The market of recycling waste collectors is mostly informal. There are about 12.000 informal individual collectors and 100 collection companies for different recyclable waste streams.

Sectors of paper, plastics and glass recycling are not yet developed as functional systems, only small quantities of glass of scrap steel, glass, paper and aluminum cans are sorted for recycling and sometimes exported. At the moment, the metal recycling sector is the most developed one, there are 2 big smelters. There are a few small composting centers in Albania.

There is no national strategy on waste, last year (2006) the environmental strategy was prepared with a chapter on waste management. However, no targets were set.

Some key-indicators related to waste recycling in Albania is presented in following table:

Table 6-2 – Waste recycling

Indicator 2004

Total municipal waste recycled (t/year) – detail if available (e.g. paper, metal, glass, etc) See text

Number and capacity (t/day) of recycling facilities No data

Amount (t/year) and share (%) of biodegradable waste produced No data

Amount (t/year) and share (%) of biodegradable municipal waste composted No data

Number of composting facilities There are just a few and very small facilities.

Capacity of composting facilities (t/day) No data

The main findings of the IFC- Recycling Linkages project, which was carried out during 2005-2006 and focused on the recycling waste market and industry assessment, include the contribution rates of household waste to the recycling waste market in Albania:

• Metals 27.171 t/y,

• paper 66.781 t/y,

7% 17%

10.5%

4.5%61%

Metallic Scrap

Paper & Carton

Plastic

Glass

Other


50

• plastic 40.756 t/y

• glass 17.467 t/y,

While metal waste recycling from industry is approximately 118.000 t/year. The paper, plastic and glass waste streams from industry are irrelevant in the recycling industry so we can assume the above mentioned figures as mainly referring to households.

Quantities of waste streams that are generated, processed, imported and exported are shown in table below:

Table 6-3: Quantities of waste streams in Albania

Sectors / subsectors Quantity generated (t)

Quantity processed (t)

Quantity exported (t)

Quantity imported (t)

Metal/ferrous/iron/steel 145,000 95,000 50,000 40,000

Metal/nonferrous/aluminum 9,282 4,300 4,982 -

Metal/n.fe/cooper (what do you mean by “cooper”?)

1,586 700 886 -

Metal/n.fe/zinc-coop (what do you mean by “zinc-coop”?)

1,130 100 1,030 -

Paper 66,781 1,350 - -

Plastic 40,756 3,800 54,701 -

Glass 17,467 - 331 -

6.1.3 Landfills

Current dumpsites are not official and do not have any construction permit or environmental permit. The hazardous waste generated from the industrial sector, hazardous waste generated from municipalities is disposed together with urban waste. At the moment, one of the biggest problems with dumpsites are uncontrolled fires, which release and spread toxic gases (dioxin, furans) in residential areas and causing serious impacts to health. Many poor people and children (mostly Rome) work and live near landfills, which are open and without enclosure.

Furthermore the dumpsite leachate is discharged to surface water posing a treat to pollute groundwater.

Furthermore, Albania faces the big challenge to close and remediate all illegal dumpsites. At the moment, there are no detailed plans for closing illegal dumpsites. The municipalities have the responsibility to prepare local plans on waste management. Amongst others, these plans should foresee the closing of uncontrolled dumpsites, and findings of appropriate sites for new landfills. Following initiatives on rehabilitation of dumpsites and construction of regional landfills are ongoing:

• rehabilitation of Tirana dumpsite ( investment will start)

• regional landfill for Shkodra region ( North west of Albana) (the investment fund is missing )

• regional landfill for Korca region (south-east of Albania) (detailed design )

• regional landfill for south west of Albania ( EIA process)


51

The obligations for the capture of methane emissions (for the short term of operation) and the use as a source of energy (in long term of operation) are set in the environmental permit for new landfills issued from Ministry of Environment

Regarding the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste, no targets have been defined until now and are not regarded as one of the most urgent problems in waste management in Albania. The main target in short term period in NES (National Environmental Strategy) is the secure closure of old waste dumpsites and construction of 5 regional landfills. Because of the difficulties in road infrastructure in transporting of waste to these regional landfills should be supplemented with small landfills or transfer centres. Other priorities described in the national environmental strategy (however without describing targets), include:

• Level of reduced leachate into land and groundwater

• Reduction in the risk of explosion or health impacts from gaseous emissions

• Reduction in the risk of spread of disease due to reduced potential base for disease

• Reduction in odours and visual disturbance from landfill sites

• Reduction in noise and disturbance from transport to landfills

Some key-indicators on waste landfilling are presented in following table:

Table 6-4 – Waste landfilled

Indicator Year 2004

Total municipal waste landfilled (t/year) All municipal waste is going to dumpsites (they are not landfills). Only small quantities are segregated (paper, cans, scrap, plastic) and are recycled.

Number of (official/legal/permitted) landfills– and how many / what share are compliant with EU standards (eg have landfill liner to protect against leachates) and which not.

NONE-There is not yet any new landfill finished. The Ministry of Environment has issued environmental permit for 3 regional landfills but they have not started to be constructed yet. A CARDS project for construction of a national landfill for hazardous waste is ongoign, but the process is interrupted, because of public opposition and protest.

Capacity of (official) landfills (t/day) N/A

Area covered by (official) landfills (m2) No data

Methane emissions from landfills No data (there is not landfill yet)

Number of illegal landfills / waste dumps 65 (for each municipality) and a lot of small dumps in rural areas.

In rural areas waste is dumped nearby and sometimes near the rivers and ditches.


52

6.1.4 Packaging waste

Some key-indicators on packaging waste in Albania are presented in following table:

Table 6-5– Packaging waste

Indicator Year 2004

Total packaging waste collected (t/year) See chapter 6.1.2

Total packaging waste recycled (t/year) See chapter 6.1.2

Total packaging waste landfilled (t/year) No reliable data that cover all country

Number and capacity of facilities for the recycling of packaging waste

For metal: Ferrous: 1 big foundries, 4 small Non ferrous: 3 big mills foundries Paper: 2 big mills Plastic: 3, there are more facilities that processing polyethylene and other plastic granules imported.

The only source of data on recycling waste is the IFC project (year 2005). There is no waste collection system for non-industrial packaging in place. No packaging recycling targets been set (glass, plastics, paper, metals) until now in Albania. As already indicated, the recycling market is poorly developed. The collection of different waste streams is done partly by informal people. The data on waste streams segregated and recycled are not accurate or reliable.

6.1.5 Incineration of waste

There is only one incinerator in Albania. It incinerates medical waste in the Tirana hospital but on an irregular base.

Up until now, no targets have been set for incineration for future years and no targets have been set for residues from incineration (2010 - 2020). The incineration of waste is not a main target in the National Environment Strategy of 2006.

An overview of the total volume of waste incinerated and the capacity of the incineration installations is presented in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6– Waste incineration

Indicator Year 2004

Total waste incinerated (t/year) N/A

Number of incineration facilities none

Capacity of incineration facilities (t/day) N/A

Energy recovered annually N/A


53

6.1.6 Hazardous waste (HZW)

The main problem at the moment is the presence of big quantities of hazardous waste in identified hot spots, which are old abandoned industrial sites. An ongoing CARDS project includes a feasibility study on the remediation of these hot spots, the definition of the best alternative for the disposal of the hazardous waste accumulated in old industrial plants and new hazardous waste that will generated from industry, an EIA report and drawing up of a detailed design. The project is however interrupted because of repetitious refuse of the plans by the community.

Second, quantities of HZW have been identified recently in several privatised companies that have inherited from the past (in storehouses inside the enterprise) non used or expired chemicals. There are not appropriate stores for their storage, according the security standards, emergency precaution, etc.

Industrial hazardous wastes are stored at abandoned industrial sites or together with municipal waste. Unfortunately there are no statistics on how much hazardous waste is accumulated or generated at present.

An overview of some indicators on hazardous waste is presented in the following table:

Table 6-7 – Hazardous waste

Indicator year 2004

Total hazardous waste generated (t/year) and collected (t/year) – detail if possible type of waste

N/A- there are not reliable data.14

Total hazardous waste treated(t/year) – detail if possible type of waste N/A -There are no facilities for treatment or disposal of HW. -A few quantities of hospital waste are incinerated.

Number and capacity (t/day) of hazardous waste treatment facilities None

-There are no facilities for treatment or disposal of HW.

Number and capacity (t/day) of hazardous waste disposal facilities N/A

Quantity of waste imported/exported pursuant to the Basel Convention (t/year) – specify type (lead batteries, medicines, waste paint, etc…)

N/A -The HW is prohibited to be imported or transit in Albania. -The export of HW is doing only for old pesticides in 2006.

14 The National Environmental Strategy has estimated that the 3-4% of industrial waste is hazardous. (The industrial waste is estimated approximately 170.000 tons/year). The hazardous hospital waste are not estimated, as well as HW from municipalities.


54

6.1.7 Disposal of waste oil

There is presently no system in place for the collection and the processing of used engine oils and components. Used oil are not separated, they are disposed at non-controlled landfills or burned.

Some key-indicators on waste oils in Albania are presented in following table:

Table 6-8 – Waste oils

Indicator Year 2004

Total oil produced (t/year) No data

Number of power plants exceeding 3 MW There are 2 power plants that exceeding 3 MW ( 25 MW and 160MW) which are actually working. Another power plant with 120MW has recently licensed for construction.

Number of factories using waste oil as an additional fuel (power plants, cement factories etc)

No data

6.1.8 Batteries and accumulators

The batteries and accumulators from dismantling cars or industry are disposed of at non appropriate sites and are missing the necessary attention. The batteries from municipalities are disposed together with urban waste. There are some new incentives from private companies to collect the batteries and export them for recycling. Some big companies have shown their interest in contracting specialised companies for the collection and removal of their used batteries.

There is not yet a legal act on batteries.

Some key-indicators on waste from batteries and accumulators in Albania are presented in following table:

Table 6-9 – Batteries and accumulators

Indicator Year 2004

Amount of batteries separately collected (t/year) No data

Amount of batteries recycled (t/year) There are not recycling facilities for batteries

Amount of batteries disposed of at landfills (t/year) No data


55

6.1.9 Medical Hazardous waste

See above

6.1.10 Disposal of PCB and PCT

There is not any specific study or inventory on PCBs and PCTs and there is no incentive has been taken yet for an inventory or their disposal. In the framework of the implementation of the Stockholm Conventions, the National Plan on POPs has been prepared.

6.1.11 TiO2 Directive

There is no titanium dioxide industry in Albania

6.2 ASSESSMENT USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DATA

6.2.1 Introduction

The directives to be considered in quantitative assessment are the Landfill Directive and the Packaging Directive. A quantitative assessment of these Directives was carried out for the following reasons:

1. The directives in question have specific targets associated with them, which makes analysis manageable

2. The quality and quantity of waste related data, while not perfect, is sufficient to attempt an analysis

3. Compared with a number of the other waste directives, these Directives are likely to have the largest directly attributable impacts

While making all efforts to calculate reliable quantitative impacts is important, it is also important to note the inherent weaknesses of such a quantitative assessment.

While the directives to be examined set quantitative targets for diversion rates, recycling rates and emission levels, there are still a large number of uncertainties associated with for example the reliability of the baseline figures on waste composition, the volumes of waste generated, collected, etc. and how Albania will act in the light of the Directives. Hence, presented quantified benefits should be regarded as orders of magnitude rather than absolute figures.

6.2.2 National targets for the future years in the field of waste management

Albania does not have a National Waste Management Plan yet but last year (2006) the environmental strategy was prepared with a chapter on waste management. However, no targets were set. It is planned to have a national plan on waste management in 2009.


56

6.2.3 Landfill Directive

When calculation the quantitative benefits of compliance to the EU acquis on waste, policy targets for the future in the field of solid waste management should be taken into account as they will determine the speed of getting compliant to the acquis.

There are a number of important aspects of the Landfill Directive, which will give rise to significant benefits. This study splits the quantitative assessment into two parts, each one dealing with a different quantifiable aspect of the directive. The first section deals with the requirement to capture methane emissions from landfill. And the second section deals with the impacts from the targets for diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill.

To capture the possible approaches in the quantitative assessment, this study has examined two different scenarios. The first involves meeting these diversion targets purely by a mixture of recycling and composting. The second involves building sufficient incineration plants. In reality the approach taken by Albania is likely to adopt a mixture of recycling/composting and incineration to meet the diversion targets. For the quantitative assessment of this Directive, the study team has therefore been able to address:

• Changes in methane emissions from landfill

• Changes in quantities going to landfill

• Increase in recycling and composting of biodegradable component

• Increase in the incineration of biodegradable component

What the study team has not been able to quantify, includes:

• Level of reduced leachate into land and groundwater;

• Reduction in the risk of explosion or health impacts from gaseous emissions;

• Reduction in the risk of spread of disease due to reduced potential base for disease;

• Reduction in odours and visual disturbance from landfill sites;

• Reduction in noise and disturbance from transport to landfills.

6.2.3.1 Methane Capture

ESTIMATING METHANE EMISSIONS

The obligations for the capture of methane emissions (for the short term of operation) and the use as a source of energy (in long term of operation) are set in the environmental permit for new landfills issued from Ministry of Environment

In order to attempt a quantification of the external benefits associated with the Landfill Directive, it is important to have an estimate of the current level of emissions of methane from landfill.

Methane gas is produced from landfills at varying rates from different materials. In order to understand the quantities of methane produced in landfills, one would have to understand the nature of the waste landfilled over the past 30 years or so, and to understand the nature of the landfill conditions.

In this study data has been used from the UNFCCC inventory and high and low value for emissions per tonne of MSW landfilled have been estimated (see Annex 3).

The work has been performed with three values for methane emissions:


57

• UNFCCC data (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Albania (2002) First Communication of Albania to the UNFCCC);

• Our own low estimate; and

• Our own high estimate.

UNFCCC data: Exact figures on the contribution of landfills to CH4 emissions is lacking at the moment. It is reasonable to assume most of the CH4 emitted by the waste sector result from landfills. Based on the greenhouse gas emission inventory of 1994 as published in First Communication of Albania to the UNFCCC (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Albania (2002), financed by UNDP), CH4 emission estimates from the waste sector in 1994 (13, 94 ktonnes) are used as best available source of information:

Own low and high estimates: Our own estimates result in a range between 11 ktonnes CH4 and 108 ktonnes CH4 emissions for the year 2004, taking into account 623.000 tonnes of household waste has been generated in 2004 of which a 96% has been landfilled or dumped.

It is worth noting that the UNFCCC values do fall within the range of our calculated values.

PROJECTIONS AND BASELINE

Having estimated the amount of landfill methane, the next step in the quantitative assessment involves calculating how much of this methane will be collected and by when.

The amount of methane captured at the landfill is assumed to remain negligible until 2010 and then to increase in one step to a specified maximum percentage (60%) of what is emitted in 2010. We have used a maximum recovery level of 60%, which, upon examination of a number of sources that range considerably, seems sensible. White et al (1995)15 assume that 40% of landfill gas is typically recovered, although estimated recovery efficiencies of around 90% have been reported (Rodríguez-Iglesias et al, 1999; Huber and Wohnlich, 1999)16.

15 White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P. (1995) Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Lifecycle Inventory, Blackie Academic & Professional, Chapman & Hall, pp. 362.

16 Rodriguez-Iglesias, J., Marañón, E., Sastre, H., and Castrillón, L. (1999) ‘Characterisation of extraction wells and recovery of biogas in municipal solid waste sanitary landfills’, Proceedings Sardinia ’99, Seventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 4-8 October 1999, Volume II, p.457-64.


58

We suspect that the effect of the Landfill Directive will lead to reductions over time but contributions from past landfill deposits will remain significant. Therefore, given the levels of uncertainty concerning future arisings, and given also that we have used a range of estimates for current emissions, we have assumed constant emissions from 2010.

We have assumed:

• A baseline of zero methane capture from landfill sites ;

• All gas capture is related to the directive itself (though other influences, e.g. climate change policy / politics will play a role).

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Table 6-10 presents the amount of methane captured under the three values for methane emissions data.

Table 6-10: Estimates of reductions in methane emissions per year by 2020 (in ktonnes)

UNFCCC* Low Estimate High Estimate

Albania 8,4 -6,5 -64,6

* Based on the latest UNFCCC data available for 2002 and 60% capture level.

6.2.3.2 Meeting Landfill Directive Article 5 Targets

We have effectively chosen two strategies for the way in which Albania will meet Article 5 targets of the Landfill Directive:

• Maximum Recycling / Composting Scenario: in which Albania pursues an intensive source separation programme generating dry recyclables and compostables.

• Maximum Incineration Scenario: in which Albania incinerates an additional quantity of waste next to the quantities defined in the maximum recycling / composting scenario.

The quantitative methodology calculates, using data sets for the present waste arisings and treatment processes, how much biodegradable waste would have to be diverted from landfill by each of the target years. Using this information we are then able to estimate how much waste would be diverted into each possible treatment option depending on the scenario in question.

Given the amount of waste, which needs to be diverted from landfill, we can calculate the difference between an extrapolation of the present situation and the impact of the Landfill Directive in terms of increasing various treatment capacities compared with reducing landfill capacity.

STRATEGY SCENARIO 1 - MAXIMUM RECYCLING / COMPOSTING

There are a number of important factors affecting recycling and composting schemes including the need for participation in separation schemes, and the need for reliable markets for end products. In order to reach diversion targets via recycling and composting, Albania would have to implement the necessary

Huber, A., and Wohnlich, S. (1999) ‘Gas collection layers’, Proceedings Sardinia ’99, Seventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 4-8 October 1999, Volume II, p.465-70.


59

schemes over-time, well in advance of the target dates to approach sufficient diversion to meet the Landfill Directive.

Assumptions are based on country specific data collected, own estimates on the share of MSW recycled, targets defined in the draft National Environmental Strategy , targets as defined by the Landfill Directive and more general assumptions made on targets as to be reached to be in line with good practice (e.g. share of waste collected).

In the table below, the assumptions made to calculate the projected total waste generated, collected and treated are presented:

Table 6-11 : Assumptions for the Municipal Waste Flow for the Period 2004–2020.

Assumptions for the Forecast for the Flow of Municipal Waste Current situation Target1 Year1 Target 2 Year 2Population growth 0,50%GDP growth 6% 6%Coverage of waste collection 80% 95%Share biodegradable waste 52% 52%Share packaging waste 35% 35%Share MSW landfilling 96% 49% 2020Share MSW recycling 4% 15% 2009 35% 2020Share MSW incinerated 0% 0% 2020Share biodegredable waste composted 0% 15% 2009 65% 2020Residues:From recycling: 10%From bio-treatment: 20%From incineration: 30%

It is important to remark that at the moment no MSW is incinerated and that this situation is assumed to remain as such in this scenario as no intentions have been made to do so in the National Environmental Strategy.

The volume of waste generated in the future is an uncertain factor which is covered by calculating the total volumes generated under two separate sub-scenarios based on the population growth and GDP growth:

• The first one is a sub-scenario based on a zero growth of the volume of waste generated. The change in volume is solely linked to the change in population.

• The second one is a sub-scenario based on a high growth rate of the volume of waste generated. The change in volume is linked to a change in population and for a 100% linked to the change in GDP.

It is a reasonable assumption that the actual waste generation rate will be between these two margins.

The estimate on the future waste flow calculated on the basis of the above-mentioned assumptions is illustrated in following figures:


60

Scenario 1- zero MSW generation growth

-

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

ton/

year

Generation

Coverage

Recycling

Composting

Incineration

Final Disposal

Figure 6-1: 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

Scenario 2- high growth MSW generation

-

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

1.800.000

2.000.000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

ton/

year

Generation

Coverage

Recycling

Composting

Incineration

Final Disposal

Figure 6-2: 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

Calculated estimates by 2020 through implementation of the Landfill Directive and adoption of the proposed strategy scenario are:

• Total MWS amounts : 675-1.758 ktonnes/year generated of which 641-1.670 mtonnes/year collected

• recycled material: 224-584 ktonnes/year

• composted material: 217-565 ktonnes/year

• incineration : /

• Landfill Disposal : 416-1.085 ktonnes/year

The amount of waste diverted from landfill and hence the reduction in the level of waste to landfill thus amounts to a range between 441 and 1.149 ktonnes/year for the year 2020.


61

STRATEGY SCENARIO 2 –INCINERATION

For this scenario, it is assumed that waste incineration plants will be established. Thus, at the end of the planning horizon (year 2020), it is assumed that 35% of the total municipal waste amount is treated by incineration which reflects a situation in which one to three incineration plant with a capacity of 240 ktonnes/year should be built to reach this target. No changes are made on the targets for re-cycling and bio-treatment as it is considered difficult to implement these measures beyond the actual requirements of the EU legislation.

Table 6-12 : Assumptions for the Municipal Waste Flow for the Period 2002–2025, Strategy Scenario 2 – Increased Incineration.

Assumptions for the Forecast for the Flow of Municipal Waste Current situation Target1 Year1 Target 2 Year 2Population growth 0,50%GDP growth 6% 6%Coverage of waste collection 80% 95%Share biodegradable waste 52% 52%Share packaging waste 35% 35%Share MSW landfilling 96% 33% 2020Share MSW recycling 4% 15% 2009 35% 2020Share MSW incinerated 0% 35% 2020Share biodegredable composted 0% 15% 2009 65% 2020Residues:From recycling: 10%From bio-treatment: 20%From incineration: 30%

The estimate on the future waste flow calculated on the basis of the above-mentioned assumptions is illustrated in Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4:

Scenario 1- zero MSW generation growth

-

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

ton/

year

Generation

Coverage

Recycling

Composting

Incineration

Final Disposal



62

Scenario 2- high growth MSW generation

-

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

1.800.000

2.000.000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

ton/

year

Generation

Coverage

Recycling

Composting

Incineration

Final Disposal


Calculated estimates by 2020 through implementation of the Landfill Directive and adoption of the proposed strategy scenario are:

• Total MWS amounts : 675-1.758 ktonnes/year generated of which 641-1670 ktonnes/year collected

• recycled material: 224-585 ktonnes/year

• composted material: 217-565 ktonnes/year

• incineration : 224-585 ktonnes/year

• Landfill Disposal : 376-979 ktonnes/year

The amount of waste diverted from landfill and hence the reduction in the level of waste going to landfill amounts to a range between 665 and 1.734 ktonnes/year for the year 2020.

CHANGES IN LEVELS OF LANDFILL DISPOSAL

Connected with the increase in recycling/composting and incineration (depending on the scenario examined) there will be an associated reduction in landfill disposal. The estimates have been calculated for this reduction in landfill disposal per year, by 2020, under both scenarios. It compares a baseline prediction of landfill disposal levels (a BAU scenario), to the predicted situation under the Landfill Directive.

The increased incineration scenario will lead to larger amounts of waste being diverted from landfill. Therefore, in order to meet Landfill Directive diversion targets, principally adopting incineration would require lower landfill capacities than would be required of recycling/composting. Both the financial costs, and the constraints on access to capital, should favour a strategy based on materials recovery rather than energy recovery.

The level of disposal to landfill is around 36% lower than the level that it would have been without the implementation of the Landfill Directive based on the proposed recycling/composting strategy scenario. Where the Landfill Directive is implemented with support of an increased incineration strategy, the amount of waste sent to landfill in 2020 would be around 43% lower than the amount that would have


63

been landfilled without the directive’s implementation. In the former case, between 239 and 622 ktonnes will have been diverted from landfills and in the latter case between 279 and 727 ktonnes. This would significantly reduce the pressure on existing landfills and reduce the need for new landfill site construction.

6.2.4 Packaging Directive

The Directive sets recycling targets for a number of materials in the waste stream. To calculate the benefits, this study predicted the impact of the directive in terms of future recycling rates for these materials, and compared with an extrapolation of the present situation (in terms of current recycling rates).

At the moment, there is no strategy or action plan for compliance with targets set by the EU Directive on packaging and packaging waste in Albania. Hence, concrete packaging recycling targets have not been set yet.

6.2.4.1 Recycling Rates

One of the most significant uncertainties is how Albania will meet the targets set by the Packaging Directive. The directive sets minimum recycling quotas for the materials, however, there is also an overall cumulative minimum recycling target for all materials.

The scenario for compliance is:

Table 6-13 : Recycling scenario for compliance with the Packaging Directive

Packaging recycling targets 2020

Glass 60%

Plastics 22,5%

Paper 60%

Metals 50%

These are the minimum recycling targets required under the directive. The recovery option makes up the slack between the directive’s requirement for 60% recovery of all packaging (or incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery).

6.2.4.2 Packaging Data

General information on the current share of packaging waste is presented in chapter 6.1.4.

6.2.4.3 Baseline and Extrapolation

To understand the benefits associated with the directive, one needs to have a baseline from which to proceed.

The recycling rates of the most important recyclable waste types are presented in Table 6-3. As most of the volume of waste from paper, plastic and glass recycled are from household sources and the majority of these materials used by households are packages, it can be assumed that these recycling rates refer to packaging waste. For metals, assumptions have been made based on the share of metal waste from households (see chapter 6.1.2). We projected forward on a 2% per annum growth (reflecting the


64

supposed linkage between real per capita GDP and per capita packaging waste arisings). We have kept composition constant, though this is bound to change over time.

This study then combined these provided baseline levels of recycling, packaging arisings and composition data with the directive targets for recycling to derive the changes in levels of recycling each year from 2004 to 2020.

Table 6-14: Estimated tonnes recycled and the changes in recycling levels per year (in tonnes and percentage) due to the Packaging Directive by 2020,

Change in recycling compared to a BAU scenario Waste type tonnes/year recycled by implementing the Packaging Directive tonnes/year %

Glass 14.387 +14.387 +100%

Plastics 12.589 +7.372 +59%

Paper 55.006 +53.152 +97%

Metals* 23.782 0 0%

*: the current recycling rate is estimated 64% for metals, while the target for metals as proposed in the Packaging Directive for 2020 is 50%.


65

6.3 SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

6.3.1 Summary results of the assessment

The EU Waste Directives will lead to major changes in handling, treatment and disposal of waste in Albania. 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. A priority is that 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 (cf. incineration of medical waste).

• 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.

•

6.3.2 Extent of the benefits

• The full implementation of the Landfill Directive will lead to a reduction of methane emissions (captured) of between 7 and 65 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 64% of non-implementation levels (i.e. a 36% decrease), and under the incineration scenario it would be around 57% of non-implementation levels (i.e 43% 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 Albania, per year, by 2020 are:


66

- for glass: +14 ktonnes;

- for plastic: + 7 ktonnes;

- for paper: +53 ktonnes; and

- for metals: no change as the current recycling rate of 64% is already higher than the target of the Packaging Directive

• For all the recyclables together, the increase will amount to around +75 ktonnes.

6.3.3 Summary of analysis approach

The qualitative assessment as described in the general part covers the following waste directives: Framework Directive on Waste, Landfill Directive, Packaging Directive, Incineration Directives, Hazardous Waste Directive, Disposal of Waste Oil Directive, Sewage Sludge and Soil Directive, Batteries and Accumulators Directive, Disposal of PCBs and PCTs Directive, and the Titanium Oxide and Daughters Directive. Each analysis described the health, non-health exploitation, ecosystem, social and wider economic benefits of compliance.

The quantitative assessment on the other hand, only examined the potential benefits from the Landfill Directive and the Packaging Directive and is covered for each SEE country in this chapter. As described in the methodological discussion, the externalities that we were able to value were principally associated with health impacts. There are obvious gaps in the scope of both the methodology and the directives examined.

The qualitative assessment outlines important possible benefits from the directives not analysed in the quantitative assessment. For example, the potential benefits for health from compliance with the Hazardous Waste Directive (incl. medical waste, hot spots) are significant. Therefore it would be possible to apply this study’s methodology, which has yielded interesting results, to the assessment of other Directives such as this one. An examination of the extent and type of qualitative benefits (especially related to health for this methodology) from the directives not examined in the quantitative section gives a good indication of the scope for expanding the analysis. Examples include quantitative assessment of the benefits from the Hazardous Waste Directive (as mentioned above), the Sewage Sludge and Soil Directive and the Incineration Directive.

The results from this study do allow some important comparisons to be made. The advantage of attempting a holistic assessment of the benefits is that one is able to examine the combined results from the qualitative and quantitative assessments. While these results are not directly comparable, they are informative in a number of other ways.

ECOLAS / IEEP The benefits of compliance with nature related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

67

7 BENEFITS OF COMPLIANCE WITH NATURE RELATED DIRECTIVES

7.1 NATURE PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY THREATS IN THE ALBANIA

7.1.1 Current Status of Biodiversity

Albania is well known for its high diversity of ecosystems and habitats. Within its territory there are maritime ecosystems, coastal zones, lakes, rivers, evergreen and broadleaf bushes, broadleaf forests, pine forests, alpine and sub-alpine pastures and meadows, and high mountain ecosystems. Along the coastline of the country there are many ecosystems of significance in the Mediterranean region such as lagoons, wetlands, sand dunes, river deltas, hydrophil and hygrophil forests. Littoral and infralittoral communities of Mediterranean origin along the rocky coast are quite diverse and well preserved. The lakes and rivers are also important for the biological and landscape diversity of the country.

The integration of biological and landscape diversity with activities in other sectors, expanding and strengthening the network of protected areas, establishing ecological networks are all major concerns in Albania. Biodiversity conservation outside of protected area and ex-situ conservation are also problematic. More research and monitoring, environmental educational and training programmes are all needed, as well as raising awareness of conservation amongst the public and also with policy and decision makers in Albanian government.

Policy

The completion of the nature protection legislation to ensure approximation with the environmental acquis and the approval in 2006 of the law on biodiversity protection is a contribution to this field. Furthermore the draft law for the implementation of the CITES Convention “On the international trade of endangered species of wild flora and fauna” is planned to be approved by the end of 2007. In 2008 the existing law “On wild fauna and hunting” is to be replaced by a new Law on this field in order to better comply with the Birds Directive. Elaboration of legal acts for the implementation of the new law is another important activity.

A better enforcement of legal provisions regarding the hunting calendar and the elimination of illegal hunting are priorities. There are national laws in force which protect endangered species; namely the Law no. 9219, dated 08.08.2004 “On some additions and changes to the Law no. 7875, dated 23.11.1994 “On the wild fauna and hunting” and the Regulation no.1, dated 23.02.2005 “On the protection and management of wild fauna and hunting procedures”. However it must be said that law enforcement especially related to the Forestry Police, which is the main responsible body in this field is to be significantly improved.

Economics

Forests are a key habitat as they cover considerably more than 1/3 (36 %) of the country. But in the same time they are not a key economic resource for the country, as the result of different factors, one of which is the lack of real forest management after 1990s. Before 1990s there was some forest management although based upon the eastern experience, but as the country entered the period of democracy, in 1990s the illegal cutting and trade became a big problem. In the same time changes in the institutional structures, together with the idea that everything has to start from scratch, may be the reasons of this stagnation. From the employment point of view it must be said that forests are not really important for regional employment so far.


68

As for agricultural land, the main farming commodities include olive trees, some citrus production as well as some animal husbandry such as cows, sheep and lambs. The situation regarding the agricultural lands is very similar to the previous on forests. This land is a key habitat for species, but it is not a key economic resource, because of the nature of farming which is subsistence and semi-subsistence. As the result agriculture land is not really important for new employment opportunities under the title of job creation at the moment. Agriculture is also heavily affected by land abandonment.

Some economic data are provided n the table below’

Table 7-1 : GDP arising from agriculture, tourism, forestry and fishery

Indicator Most recent year (ideally 2004)17

Share (%) of agriculture and forestry in the GDP * 24,7 % (2004)

Share (%) of forestry in the GDP * N/a

Share (%) of tourism in the GDP 10 % 0r 50 million Euro

Surface area covered by forest (% and thousand hectares) 1063750 ha or 36 % (2005)

Surface area covered by agriculture (% and thousand hectares) 699000 ha or 24,31 % (2005)

Surface area covered by protected areas (% and thousand hectares)

284332,8 ha or 9,89 %

Number of tourists per year 550000 (2006)

7.1.2 Current Status of Biodiversity and Ecosystems

A description of the main ecosystems and biodiversity feature is given below, together with information on protected areas. The main individual ecosystems in figures (2005) are: Forest and woodland 1024000 ha, pastures 423000 ha, arable cropland 699000 ha, and other, wetlands and lakes 712 thousand ha.

Albania is well known for its high diversity of ecosystems and habitats. Albania boasts a landscape of coastal plains and a largely forested mountainous interior, and is home to the deepest lake in the Balkans. Within its territory there are maritime ecosystems, coastal zones, lakes, rivers, evergreen and broadleaf bushes, broadleaf forests, pine forests, alpine and sub-alpine pastures and meadows, and high mountain ecosystems. Albania is also well known for its rich and complex hydrographic network composed of rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater and seas.

Coastal

Along the coastline of the country there are many ecosystems of significance in the Mediterranean region such as lagoons, wetlands, sand dunes, river deltas, hydrophil and hygrophil forests. Littoral and

17 Please specify year

* Share of agriculture and forestry is published together in the data available for Albania for 2004.


69

infralittoral communities of Mediterranean origin along the rocky coast are quite diverse and well preserved.

Wetlands

Wetlands coverage is 60,215 ha and of this figure around 45,000 ha are designated Ramsar sites, namely: Karavasta, Butrinti and Shkodra Lake.

The lakes and rivers are also important for the biological and landscape diversity of the country. About 247 natural lakes of different types and dimensions, and a considerable number of artificial lakes are located inside the country.

The main rivers are Drini, Buna, Mati, Shkumbini, Semani, Vjosa, Erzeni, Ishmi, Bistrica and Pavllo and their courses have an important effect on the country’s coastal biodiversity.

Forests and grasslands

Albania is rich in forest and pastures resources. The forests cover approximately 1,000,000 ha or 36 % of the country’s territory and the pastures about 400.000 ha or 15 %. Approximately 60 % or 250.000 ha of the pastures are alpine and sub-alpine pastures and meadows. The forests and the pastures have a diversity of types, formations, and plant and animal communities.

The mountain alpine forest ecosystems are also rich in biodiversity. The higher areas are dominated by beech and pine forests and preserve a large number of endemic and sub-endemic plant species. A total of 27 plant species with 150 sub-species are endemic in Albania.

Agricultural

There is a diversity of landscapes in Albania due to its natural characteristics and long history of population and human activities. Traditional agriculture and stockbreeding developed in the countryside, in accordance with natural conditions, have been the major factors determining the Albanian landscape, where indigenous elements are not missing.

Migration corridors

There are annually met around 70 waterfowl and waterbird species with a total population of 180,000 individuals in Albania during the winter. Albania is also an important crossroad for the migration of birds, bats, and insects.

Species migrate through the rivers and the highest parts of Albanian mountains from their natural habitats outside Albania in Greece, Macedonia, and Yugoslavia.

The coastal wetlands and lakes inside the country are particularly important sites for the wintering of migratory species since about 70 waterfowl species with a population of 180,000 are wintering in these areas.

7.1.3 Indicators used to assess the current state of nature protection and biodiversity

The main indicators used to assess the current state of nature protection and biodiversity in Albania include:


70

• size of protected areas (expressed as per cent of country surface area and number);

• estimates of the expected growth in protected areas; and

• species status: total number, endemic and threatened species and species density.

These indicators can give only a general indication of the nature protection and biodiversity status in Albania. Each is discussed in more detail below.

SIZE OF PROTECTED AREAS

A list of proposed sites hosting the habitats and species of wild flora and fauna listed in Annexes I and II of the habitats Directive has not yet been produced. Albania signed the SAA Agreement only 6 months ago; therefore the work for the approximation of environmental acquis is in its initial phases. However, a contribution towards the preparation for Natura 2000 implementation in Albania is the designation of Emerald sites of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ASCIs) under the Bern Convention “On the conservation of European Wildlife and natural Habitats”. The Emerald network has been designated for 80 % of all potential Emerald sites in Albania, thanks to projects funded by European Commission through CARDS programme managed by European Environmental Agency and Council of Europe. So far 20 Emerald sites have been analysed and data on threatened habitats and species, as well as GIS maps have been produced.

Four sites among the coastal wetlands and lakes inside the country (Karavasta, Narta, Shkodra and Ohrid) have the characteristics of IBAs (Important Bird Areas), or Ramsar sites, because of their richness in biodiversity - with more than 20,000 waterfowl species at each site. So far only three sites (Karavasta, Butrinti and recently Shkodra Lake area) have Ramsar status in Albania. The sites that don’t hold this status currently may be candidates for receiving protected area status in the future. The Ohrid area is a protected area, though it does not have Ramsar site status.

The coverage of existing Protected Areas stands at 9.08 % (about 287,000 ha). The level of protection is based on the main study carried out in the frame of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan where for each proposed site the level of protection related to the main IUCN categories has been evaluated as well as at the same time being determined according to the Law no.8906, date 06.06.2002 “On protected areas” with IUCN categories being endorsed.

Transboundary habitat networks

The Albanian inland and marine ecosystems are a part of the Mediterranean and Balkan natural ecosystems. Transboundary lakes like Shkodra, Ohrid, and Prespa are points of floristic and fauna exchange with other Balkan countries.

The Albanian network is linked to neighbouring countries in several different ways. For example the link with Montenegro is through the sharing of Shkodra Lake in the north; with the FYROM in the east is through the mountainous segment Korab Gramoz and through Prespa Lake further down. Prespa lake is shared with Greece as well. To ensure a level of real cooperation between countries some projects have been and are being implemented for Shkodra Lake (bilateral) and Prespa Lake (trilateral). Further north, the Alps are shared with Kosovo and Montenegro.


71

Figure 7-1 : Number of designated areas according to national categories


72

ESTIMATES OF THE EXPECTED GROWTH IN PROTECTED AREAS

The current protected areas network is not sufficient to conserve the biodiversity resource; however detailed plans for a rapid increase in the total area of protected area have been formulated in the last 3 years starting from 2004. This is considered to be a promising approach, which will hopefully be implemented in the near future. This designation of new protected areas from 2004, in terms of coverage and number of sites, is planned to grow steadily with around 50,000 ha to be newly designated every year.

There are clear objectives regarding the increase of Protected Areas coverage in order to comply with the Habitats Directive of the EU. Particular attention is given to this issue after the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement in June 2006. A concrete programme has been compiled by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration for the period 2006-2011, with the objective to reach the figure of 14.64 % or 420.702 ha by 2011.

SPECIES STATUS: TOTAL NUMBER, ENDEMIC AND THREATENED SPECIES AND SPECIES DENSITY

Albania is distinguished for its rich biological and landscape diversity. This diversity is attributable to the country's geographic position as well as geological, hydrological, climatic, soil and relief characteristics. The high diversity of ecosystems and habitats (marine and coastal ecosystems, wetlands, river deltas, sand dunes, lakes, rivers, Mediterranean shrubs, broadleaf, conifers and mixed forests, alpine and subalpine pastures and meadows, and high mountain ecosystems) offers rich habitats for a variety of plants and animals. There are around 3,200 species of vascular plants and 756 vertebrate species. Approximately 30% of all European floras occur in Albania. Albania lies near to the single richest area for plant species in Europe associated with the Balkan peninsula, which has a total of 7,000 species associated with it, with the Iberian Peninsula coming next with 5,500 species. The high Albanian forests maintain communities of large mammals such as wolf, bear, lynx, and wild goat. Many of these species survive because of the precipitous mountain terrain, making it difficult for them to be hunted to extinction. Also characteristic of Albania are rich bird communities, including many eagle species such as the golden eagle. Coastal lagoons and large lakes inside the country are important areas, especially for wintering migratory wetland and estuarine birds.

In Albania, there are a number of globally threatened species since at least 72 vertebrate and 18 invertebrate species with global importance have at least part of their habitats and population in Albania. For some of them (Pelecanus crispus, Phalacrocorax pygmeus, Salmo letnica and Acipenser sturio), Albania has a critical importance.

Several species with nutrient and economic values have become nearly extinct such as Penaeus kerathurus (marine shrimp), which had been in abundance during the 1960’s and 1970’s in the Drini and Mati deltas. Today this species is rare, and losing its previous economic value. The same is true for Crangon crangon (a crustacean species).

The red coral (Coralum rubrum) and sponges of the genus Spongia are in high demand in western markets and are at risk of total extinction because of their extraction. Different species of fish crustaceans, molluscs, and other marine species are endangered because of the use of dynamite and poisonous materials for fishing, the consequences of which will be more evident in the future.

The known number of species, which have become extinct during this century, is not high; however the rates of biodiversity loss during the past 50 years are among the highest in Europe. The insufficient level of knowledge and studies concerning a large number of flora and fauna does not allow for an accurate estimation of biodiversity status in Albania. However, at least two species of plants and four species of mammals are totally extinct, while 17 species of birds do not nest anymore in Albania. During the last 25 years, approximately 122 species of vertebrates (27 mammals, 89 birds, and 6 fish) and four species of


73

plants have lost more than 50% of their population. The number of rare and threatened species of plants and animals is high and expected to increase. Today, the number of vertebrates included in the Albanian Red Book is around 273 species, or 36% of the vertebrates of the country.

7.1.3.1 Direct threats

The major direct threats to biodiversity are habitat loss and fragmentation, damage and degradation of habitats and ecosystems and disturbance of wildlife with loss of species. These are common threats to many other of the European states. This is associated with the development and modernisation of agriculture and industry sectors and building of infrastructure.

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION DUE TO URBANIZATION, INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

AND EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The existing network of sites and habitats of Protected Areas is a real one. However, the designation of corridors is a very important element to ensure connectivity is introduced in the last decade in Albania. The work is ongoing at the moment in terms of implementation.

The damage and even destruction of the habitat in the recent 50 years is the main threat to the flora and fauna of Albania. The destruction of several brushwood and wetlands of a total area of 200.000 ha, as well as the deforestation of about 250 000 ha of territory, made many wild species disappear or their population diminish. The main endangered types of ecosystems and habitats include marine ones (medium and infralittoral level), coastal ecosystems (sand dunes, delta rivers, alluvial and wet forests, lagoons and coastal lakes), and terrestrial ones such as alpine pastures and meadows, continental and glacial lakes, and oak and conifer forests.

Regarding threats to connectivity in Albania, rapidly growing development in transport routes and highways throughout the country, the construction of new hydroelectric power plants and growth in industry and housing constitute the major concerns.

OVER-EXPLOITATION OF ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES (INCLUDING HUNTING)

The main threat for forest ecosystems is the illegal cutting of trees, which is also leading to an increased risk of erosion. Since 1990s the illegal cutting and trade has become a big problem. The illegal cutting and trading of forests in the last 15 years has brought the situation to a point where several measures have to be taken in order to recover the picture and to ensure a sustainable management of forests in Albania. Law enforcement was and still is to some extent the biggest issue for Albania, as the sanctions foreseen by the Law “On forest and the forestry service”. However the trends are toward a decrease in the last couple of years of illegal cutting activities as the result of more efforts put on for the law enforcement by Forestry Police and other actors.

For bird species, illegal hunting is the major issue and species such as Alectoris graeca, Perdix perdix, and phalacrocorax pygmeus are the most affected by this activity. Large carnivores such as wolf (Canx lupus), brown bear (Ursus arctos) and lynx (Lynx lynx) are at risk as the result of some illegal hunting activities but at the same time as the result of habitat destruction (although the hunting of all the above mentioned species is prohibited by law).


74

7.1.3.2 Indirect threats

Major indirect threats to biodiversity include very low public awareness towards environmental issues and the development of tourism industry, especially along coastal areas which has high potential to develop with its Mediterranean climate, especially opposite the major tourist destination of Corfu.

POLLUTION

Pollution of rivers is a major problem in Albania, mainly due to the lack of waste water treatment plants and lack of lack of landfill facilities for towns and communes. As the result fishing stocks in the rivers are reduced or absent.

NATURAL HAZARDS

Some flooding and forest fires occur, especially in the summer season. With its partial Mediterranean climate, water shortage is a real problem along the coast. However, this is not only the consequence of water resources shortage, but it is also caused by lack of maintenance of water supply infrastructures and the collapse of very old pipeline distribution systems.

LAND ABANDONMENT

The increasing phenomenon of land abandonment, especially in the north of the country, contributes to major land degradation and desertification. 160,000 ha of land are estimated to have become abandoned or deserted in 2004. The abandonment of land and migration of the population mainly from the northern rural areas of Albania towards urban ones in the costal and southern and especially in the capital city of Tirana is one of the main factors. Lack of subsidiary schemes from the government as well as incentives to promote home made agricultural products is another financial reason that has contributed to the present picture.

TOURISM

The share (%) of tourism in the total economy is 10 % or 50 million Euro and represented 1.9% of GDP in 2003, declining to 1.6% in 2004. The total number of tourists per year is 550,000 (2006) and so tourism has not developed as an economic sector so far and does represent an immediate threat to the environment. However future development concentrated along the Mediterranean coast needs to be addressed in terms of planning of development and protected site designation.

LOW PUBLIC AWARENESS

A low level of education and a lack of information, especially in rural areas, have contributed to a low awareness in the general population of the relationship between human activities and the environment, the sustainable use of biological resources. The potential of biodiversity resources in term of the economy e.g. the biotechnology industry searching the flora for new pharmaceutical substances, has not even been realised.

Furthermore, the growing level of poverty, which does not recognise the principles of sustainable development, is manifesting itself through illegal forest and other resource overuse, hunting and fishing overuse, non-sustainable development of agriculture throughout the country that has not been addressed within a institutional and economic context.

The natural environment is also indirectly threatened by the reduced and unstable economic power of the State, in addition to the military actions that have been rocking the region for a long period of time.

The institutional capacity in terms of educated and trained staff, equipment and resources is considered quite low.


75

Nature protection legislation is incomplete, and there is a certain lack of spatial planning regulations for areas with special natural values. Lack of proper management and non responsible practices are for instance the main threats to wetlands.

Furthermore, the stagnation of the economy and the use of outdated technologies, poor quality of energy sources resulting from low economic power and lack of treatment of wastewater and waste gases, are leading to deterioration of the nature through pollution and waste of natural resources.

Competitive market conditions are also favouring the development of newer, more profitable but more intensive farming practices, at the expenses of the indigenous, low producing and/or less profitable genetic types.


76

7.2 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE BENEFITS

7.2.1 Environmental Benefits

One of the main benefits for Albania will lie in the increase in protected areas – both in the level of protection within the areas and their protection from human activity and in the increased breadth of areas planned.

In 2004 protected areas covered about 9% of the national territory (about 287,000 Ha). According to the 2006-2011 programme of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration of Albania this percentage should arise to more than 14.5% by 2011, covering about 420,000 Ha.

In general, the bigger the surface protected, the broader the benefits should be – if the Directive’s requirements for conservation and protection measures are put into place.

Forest ecosystems have been widely over utilised through clearfelling with no programmes for replanting in place. There has been poor enforcement of the national system of protection leading to high levels of biodiversity loss.

Enhanced protection could improve the living conditions of the rich flora and fauna existing in the country, and potentially help saving some species from extinction. For instance, in some cases the requirements for protected areas will need to be increased in order to meet Natura 2000 objectives (eg widening the list of protected species in certain areas).

There are some 91 globally threatened species found in Albania. These include the Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus crispus), Pygmy Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmeus), and the Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) for which Albania is a country of particularly critical importance. The high Albanian forests maintain also communities of large mammals such as wolf, bear, lynx, and wild goat, and also characteristic bird communities. Furthermore, there are around 3,200 species of vascular plants and approximately 30% of all European floras occur in Albania. Of this flora, there are 27 endemic and 160 subendemic species and this is very high on a European level.

Protecting migration corridors and natural areas will be key for bird species. Better regulating infrastructure and other building activities, in light of environmental criteria (eg through EIAs) will benefits all species, and large mammals in particular, as they are the most threatened by fragmentation due to uncontrolled urban/infrastructural developments.

Improved forest management, eg in light of the EU Forest Strategy, will likely benefit the Albanian forest biodiversity, eg through reduced illegal hunting and poaching, reduced forest fires due to human activities etc, and may lead to a more sustainable harvesting of timber, which is currently a big threat for the forest ecosystems. The Albanian forests represent some of the most diverse forest ecosystems in Europe and should be conserved for high tree species diversity.

Improved water quality, in line with the Water Framework Directive requirements, and better control of pollutant activities (including waste water and waste infrastructures) will for instance benefit fish species, as the fish stock in Albania is particularly low due to polluted rivers. Furthermore, underground water in aquifers which are common in sedimentary rocks across Albania needs to be protected in terms of substance restriction zones e.g. for nitrates.

Furthermore, given that some areas, like the lakes, are cross-border areas, enhanced biodiversity protection in Albania will also have benefits for neighbouring countries, and for maintenance of biodiversity on a European and global scale.

Implementing the Habitats and Birds Directive can also lead to improved environmental data collection.


77

Natura 2000 can also help sustainable agriculture, eg avoiding that current traditional practices becomes too intense and therefore unsustainable. This can be through synergy with Pillar 2 axis 2 measures under the common agricultural policy (EAFRD) which has potential to fund biodiversity conservation within farmland.

If the Habitats Directive were in place, there would be legal obligations for the Albanian government to address issues related to illegal hunting.

Furthermore, many species are currently threatened by habitat fragmentation, mainly due to transport infrastructure. Implementing EU regulations will enable Albania to take into account environmental impacts when planning infrastructural projects through the EIA regulations.

A major part of this process is instilling within institutions and agencies within Albania how important their biodiversity resources are at a European level.

7.2.2 Social Benefits

Increasing the size and level of nature protection will lead for instance to improve the landscape amenity. Natural parks and biodiversity hotspots will be better managed, therefore offering opportunities for locals and tourists to visit the areas and enjoy open-air activities, enhancing their amenity and recreational value. Improved amenity values will be a major social benefit not only for people living in Albania but also for visitors coming from Europe and other parts of the world. This benefit is enhanced by the fact that cross-border areas of conservation between EU/candidate countries and Albania (Shkodra Lake with Montenegro, Prespa Lake with Greece and FYROM, and Ohrid lake with FYROM) are very significant in terms of biodiversity and in terms of their potential to draw in ecotourism.

Since local people will benefit from employment opportunities in protected areas, there may be less depopulation. However, this impact will be limited as new employment opportunities will be limited. Furthermore, volunteers and community organisations could also be involved in nature protection activities, eg in Natural Parks.

A reduction in illegal hunting practices and illegal cutting, despite enhancing endangered species protection, could also ensure a safer living environment.

Under the Habitat Directive the public must be consulted in case of development plant is likely to have a significant impact upon a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or in case the re-introduction of a native species is decided. The Directive also requires Member States to promote education and general information on species protection and conservation. Therefore, implementing the Acquis may improve the education and training of institutional staff, and can potentially lead to spread environmental education in schools and among citizens. Implementation of the nature protection Directives is then likely to lead to increased awareness of the importance of protecting biodiversity, and opens up the opportunity for the adoption of more integrated approaches towards nature protection.

Natura 2000 sites will also offer opportunities for eco-tourism and leisure activities (see section on ‘recreation and tourism benefits’). Also, stimulating activities like eco-tourism and sustainable agriculture can help maintaining cultural identity, eg preserving traditional agriculture practices and enhancing the value of traditional handicraft.

7.2.3 Economic benefits

The main economic benefits that the Birds and Habitats directives and other EU policies can bring to Albania are discussed below.


78

LOCAL PRODUCTS AND ORGANIC FARMING

There is a potential benefit of developing a niche market for local products or to develop ecologically certificated brands (see also section on ‘Recreation and Tourism Benefits’ below). Such brands could include the products of organic farming and animal raising, medicinal plants and herbs, etc. These could be a valuable economic opportunity and could be protected by a particular/Natura 2000 logo18. Organic farming and biodiversity friendly agriculture could be for example a profitable source of revenue that could benefit from an improved environment.

There is not really a growing interest in organic farming; however intensive agriculture is not widely spread in Albania. The use of fertilizers also is not really increasing and so far it is not moving away from more traditional/sustainable practices.

Certain products are likely to arise from organic farming and animal raising and which would be subject to ecologically certificated brands. These include olives, olive oil, nuts, fig, citrus and cereals.

RECREATION AND TOURISM BENEFITS

Biodiversity can offer benefits for regions such as the identification of areas of local importance to be locally designated as regional Protected Areas, which can contribute to the economical development of that region by the promotion of tourism and eco tourism.

Improvements on the management of nationally Protected Areas can also contribute to the regional development by the increase of the number of visitors and as the result more employment opportunities for local people.

The beautiful existing landscape (eg the Ohrid Lake) is a great resource for recreational activities for Albanians and foreigners. A better promotion and infrastructure as well as services will contribute to the regional development.

Sustainable tourism in the Natura 2000 sites can provide job opportunities and revenues (eg from entrance fees). However tourism may pose threats to protected areas if the flows of visitors are not regulated. Making sure that tourism impacts will not offset the benefits gained will be a challenge for the national and local governments of Albania

The Natura 2000 network should preserve the natural attractiveness of the region and so attract more tourists and provide local revenues. Sustainable tourism will give an economic spin-off to local economies by creating small-scale opportunities for recreation (eg eco-tourism), traditional tourism (eg local handicraft), linked employment and hence, revenue generation. On the other hand local people may benefit from the improved supply of services and goods.

Albania offers unique possibilities for attracting both foreign and domestic tourists, in terms of its incredibly varied terrain with mountains, lakes and Mediterranean coast and associated rich biodiversity. However, so far, the eco-tourism has not been developed to make the most of this high potential.

Some data exist for the number of visitors in some National Parks like Butrinti NP and Dajti NP, but they do not exist for all of them. For Dajti national park the number of visitors is 110000 for 2005 and for Butrinti around 54000 in 2003.

18 see also ten Brink P, C Monkhouse and S Richartz Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000. Background Report for European Conference on “Promoting the Socio-economic Benefits of Natura 2000” Brussels 28-29 November 2002 IEEP 2002, www.ieep.org.uk


79

Tourism can also be an effective way to encourage and protect the production of traditional goods and practices. Traditional products still exist but are declining. Handicrafts from sheep wool, clay products, sheep cheese production in the highlands, certain cuisine specialities, traditional stone houses, traditional fishing techniques, utility of traditional medicine e.g. herbal medicine and many more exist on the whole territory of Albania, but are currently not playing a significant role in tourism. There is high potential to brand these local cultural identities but nothing or very little has been done so far.

The Albanian rivers also currently suffer from pollution agriculture. In time, these rivers could be a source of sustainable quantities of fish for local and tourism consumption, and could also provide a location for a sustainable fishing tourism activity. More information on the benefits related to improved water quality is presented in the chapter on Water.

DIRECT EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

The concepts of sustainable tourism and eco-tourism are introduced in the decade in Albania. The most serious effort so far is the drafting of a strategy on environmental and eco tourism from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports in 2006. This strategy will be approved shortly by the Council of Ministers of Albania. In terms of other sectors including crafts with potential in association with tourism, there are wooden handicrafts but this is not really important in terms of playing a role in branding and tourism.

The number of people employed in nature conservation activities in Albania stands in modest figures. Namely there are 6 people in the Nature Protection Policies Directorate in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration and 150 people serving as the administration of Protected Areas throughout the country. There are also Regional Environmental Agencies (40 people), but they contribute only on part time basis as they have other tasks to perform in the same time.

Meanwhile the involvement of unpaid volunteers is almost inexistent. There are expectations that the present figures will increase, but this depends heavily in the state budget performance and prioritizations as at moment environment stands low in the government’s budget.

195 people are employed in natural parks and reserves at the moment with the latest increase in 2007

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits assessment of nature related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

81

7.3 CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of benefits arise from the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives as Albania moves towards accession and full implementation. Key results will include the following:

• The current area protected in Albania is 9.08% of the land area, but there are plans to increase the total protected area to 14%; the information available does not allow to establish whether this is a sufficient coverage. The target though represents a net improvement; arguably the percentage of area covered is slightly lower than EU average, (which range between 15 to 30%)19 and could potentially be increased in the future.

• Albania is facing one of the highest rate of biodiversity loss in Europe in the past 50 years. EU accession may help mitigate some of the major threats to biodiversity in Albania, such as habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban/infrastructural projects not taking into account environmental impacts, deforestation and water pollution (especially from waste water), particularly afflicting fish species;

• The environmental benefits are mainly those resulting from the effective protection of endangered and endemic species (especially birds and large mammals) and fragile ecosystems (like forests); implementing the EU legislation will therefore lead to a reduced the level of risk to which species are exposed (eg pollution, illegal hunting and timber cutting, etc);

• Key social benefits will be increased amenity, recreation value and awareness rising – particularly important given the low level of environmental awareness (often leading to resource overuse);

• The economic benefits can be various: tourism and ecotourism (currently not key economic resources – but with potential especially in the Mediterranean coast), organic farming (as agriculture is at risk of intensification or land abandonment), sustainable forestry etc, which can lead to increased employment opportunities and help takle the growing level of poverty in the country.

The above-mentioned benefits should not be seen solely as a national gain. Protecting biodiversity in the Albania will bring biodiversity benefits at the European and global scales as well (eg in the high biodiversity value cross border areas of the relict lakes).

The benefits of increasing the size and the level of protection of protected areas are shown below.

19 Miller, C., Kettunen, M. & P. Torkler. 2007. Financing Natura 2000 – Guidance Handbook (revised version, May 07). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 102 pp.(draft version)

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Benefits assessment of nature related directives 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

82

Figure 7-2 Benefits of EU accession for Albania- Protected areas: Increased coverage and increased quality

A summary table of the environmental, social and economic benefits is shown below. A more detailed analysis is provided in the following chapters.

Table 7-2: Potential environmental, socio-cultural and economic benefits

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-CULTURAL ECONOMIC

• Enhanced protection of high biodiversity areas (eg relict lakes), including protection of wildlife habitats for native & migratory species

• Protection of migratory birds across borders

• Sustainable harvesting of timber

• Reduced deforestation (hence increased protection of forest habitats and reduced erosion)

• Sustainable agriculture

• Restricted hunting (especially birds and large mammals)

• Improvement of environmental data

• Reduced water pollution (Especially from waste water discharge – increasing fish protection)

• Reduced habitat fragmentation

• Employment (job creation, reduced depopulation)

• Volunteer work opportunities

• Recreation (eg open air activities) – for locals and tourists – nationally and transboundary

• Amenity value (landscape) – for locals and tourists - nationally and transboundary

• Increased safety (eg due to reduced illegal hunting)

• Increased public environmental awareness

• Preserving cultural identity

• Public participation in decision-making

• Promotion of education and research

• Generation of revenues from tourism and ecotourism (i.e. entrance fees) especially in the Mediterranean cost

• Additional EU-funding (PES, LIFE + programme etc…)

• Stimulation of local economic development

• Opportunities from forest (sustainable) harvesting

• Opportunities for organic farming

• Job creation (eg forest management, tourism)

• Reduced waste of resources

ARCADIS ECOLAS / IEEP / Metroeconomica / Enviro-L Literature 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final report

83

8 LITERATURE

CIA World Fact Book 2007. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html


85

9 ANNEXES


87

Annex 1: Drinking water quality standards (STASH 3904:1997 ICS 13060)

Parameter Unit Norm Maximal acceptable Value

Remarks

Colour mg/l Pt/Co 1 20 (*)

Turbidity mg/l SiO2

NTU=FTU=JTU

1

0.4

10

4

Odour 0 2 balle ne 12 °C

3 balle ne 25 °C

(*)

(+)

Taste 0 2 balle ne 12 °C

3 balle ne 25 °C

(*)

(+)

Temperature °C 20

pH pH unit 6.5 ≤pH≤8.5

9,5

Conductivity μS cm-1 ne 20°C

400

Chloride mg/l (Cl) 25 200

Sulfate mg/l (SO4) 25 250

Silicium mg/l (SiO2)

Calcium mg/l (Ca) 75 200

Magnesium mg/l (Mg) 20 50

Sodium mg/l (Na) 20 100

Kalium mg/l (K) 10 12

Aluminium mg/l (Al) 0.05 0.2

Total hardness German degree

10-15 20 SSI for the exception hydrogeologic conditions 25

Total dissolved solids mg/l ne 180 °C

500 1000

Total mineralisations mg/l 700 1200 2000

Dissolved oxygen mg/l No less than 8

Free carbonated anhydrides

mg/l CO2

Suspended matter Not allowed

Nitrate mg/l NO3 25 50

Nitrite mg/l NO2 0 0.05

Ammonia mg/l NH4 0 0.05 Local Dug wells up to

0.1 mg/l

Dissolved oxygen mg/l O2 1 3 Small local sources 5 mg/l


88


Remarks

(KMnO4)

Sulphur μg/l H2S 0 Acceptable

Solid extracted with chloroform

mg/l 0 0.1

Hydrocarbons dissolved in emulsion after extraction in ether

μg/l 0 10

Phenols μg/l C6H5OH

0 0.5

Boron μg/l B 300 1000

Surface agent reacting with blue-methylene

μg/l lauryl sulphate

200

Iron μg/l Fe 50 300

Manganese μg/l Mn 20 50

Copper μg/l Cu 100 1000

Zinc μg/l Zn 100 3000

Phosphorous μg/l P2O5 400 2500

Fluoride μg/l F

8-12 °C

25-30 °C

1500

700

Cobalt μg/l Co

Suspended matter 0 0

Residual free chlorine mg/l 0.3 0.5 DPD1 = 0.3-0.5 mg/l up to 1 mg/l.

O-tolidine 1.5 - 2 mg/l.

Silver μg/l Ag 10

Arsenic μg/l As 10 50

Cadmium μg/l Cd 3 5

Cyanides μg/l CN 0 10

Chrome (6+) μg/l Cr 0 50

Mercury μg/l Hg 0 1

Nickel μg/l Ni 20 50

Lead μg/l Pb 0 50

Antimony μg/l Sb 0 10

Selenium μg/l Se 0 10

Acrylamide μg/l 0.25

Bromate μg/l 10

Benzene μg/l 1


89


Remarks

Bromodichlormethane μg/l 15

Tetrachlorethylene μg/l 40

Trichlorethylene μg/l 70

1,2 Dichlorethane μg/l 3

Epichlorhydrin μg/l 0.5

Vinyl Chloride μg/l 0.5

Barium μg/l Ba 100

Pesticide:

- Alaclor

- Aldikarb

- Atrazine

- Bentazon

- Carbofuran

- chlortoluron

- 1,2 dibrom-3-chlorpropan

- 2,4 D

- 1,2 dichlorpropane

- 1,3 dichlorpropene

- Hexachlorbenzene

- Izoproturon

- Aldrine/dieldrine

- Chlordane

- D.D.T

- Heptachlor

- heptachlor peroxide

- Lindane

- Metoxichlor

- MPCA

- Metolachlor

- Molinate

- Pendimethalin

- Propanil

- Piridat

- Simazine

- Trifluralin

- Pentachlorfenol

μg/l

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

“

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

10

2

30

5

30

1

30

20

20

1

9

0.03

0.2

2

0.03

0.03

2

20

2

10

6

20

20

100

2

20

9


90


Remarks

- 2,4 DB

- Dichlorpop

- Fenoprop

- Mecoprop

- 2,4,5-T

“

“

“

“

“

0

0

0

0

0

90

100

9

10

9

PAK

- fluoranthene

- benzo3,4 fluoranthene

- benzo 11,12 fluoranthene

- benzo 3,4 pyrene

- benzo 1,12 perylene

- indeno (1,2,3 cd) pyrene

μg/l

nuk lejohet

0.2

Total Coliform N/100ml 0

Escherichia coli N/100ml 0 Individual wells up till 3/100

Faecal streptococcus N/100ml 0

Clostridium sulfito reduktues

N/20ml 0

Alfa total

Bq/liter

≤0.1

Beta total

Bq/liter

≤1


91

Annex 2: Some parameters which determine Croatian water quality class criteria

Parameter Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V

pH 6.5 6.5-6.3

8.5-9.0

6.3-6.0

9.0-9.3

6.0-5.3

9.3-9.5

<5.3

>9.5

Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/l) >200 200-100 100-20 20-10 <10

Conductivity (µScm) <500 500-700 700-1000 1000-2000 >2000

Dissolved oxygen (mg O2/l) >7 7-6 6-4 4-3 <3

BOD5 <2 2-4 4-8 8-15 >15

Total coliforms per liter <500 500-5000 5000-50000 50000-500000 >500000


93

Annex 3 : Quantitative review of methane emissions

Table 9-1: Methane Emissions By Component, USEPA (1998)

Methane Yield (ml/dry gram) MTCE/wet tonne

Newspaper 74,2 0,259

Office paper 346 1,207735849

Corrugated Boxes 152,3 0,531613208

Coated Paper 84,4 0,294603774

Al Cans 0 0

Steel Cans 0 0

Glass 0 0

HDPE 0 0

LDPE 0 0

PET 0 0

Food Scraps 300,7 0,335

Grass 144,3 0,214

Leaves 56 0,166

Branches 76,3 0,17

Yard Trimmings 0,191

Screenings

Textiles

Misc Comb

Mixed MSW 92 0,273

A range of estimates for methane emissions per tonne of MSW could be generated from different studies in the public domain. CSERGE et al (1993) looked at estimates from Aumonier and from Warren Spring Laboratory (WSL), and found ranges for best estimates of methane generation of between 53-81 m3 per tonne of municipal solid waste (MSW). The full range, from the low estimate assuming 20% methane oxidation, to the high estimate from Aumonier, was from 25-117 m3 per tonne. Powell’s (1992) mini-survey estimated recoverable quantities of the order 100 m3 per tonne (in which case, the actual quantities would presumably be much higher). Entec (1999) on the other hand, used much higher figures of the order 400-500 m3 landfill gas per tonne of MSW of which 50% was assumed to be methane (i.e. 200-250 m3 methane per tonne MSW). Using typical waste composition figures for the UK, and the USEPA (1998) methane generation figures in the Table above, ECOTEC (2000) obtained a value of 50 m3 at 5% oxidation rates, and only 42 m3 at 20% oxidation rates. It should be noted, therefore, that these are relatively low estimates of methane generation.

Because estimates for methane generation range to such an extent, and also because they are likely based on variables such as composition and climate, this study will take a number of different values for methane generation.


94

Firstly we will use the UNFCCC inventory data for total country methane emissions from landfill. However, because we have no basis to compare the relative merits of the methodologies, we will also use a value for methane generation based upon emissions per tonne of waste landfilled. As stated above, there is a wide range of values for methane generated per tonne MSW landfilled and hence this study will use a range bounded by a high and a low value. We have used a range of 25 – 250 m3, which equates to a range of 0,018-0,18 tonnes methane per tonne of waste.

06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final...

Documents

Transcript of 06/11347 - Albania - Benefits of Compliance with environmental acquis - final...