Waste management system in the riparian towns of the ...

Urbanism Waste management system in the riparian towns of the RomanianDanube sector •R. Săgeată, N. Damian, B. Mitrică

199

WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE RIPARIAN TOWNSOF THE ROMANIAN DANUBE SECTOR

Radu SĂGEATĂSenior researcher, PhD, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy,

Human Geography and Regional Development Department,e-mail: [email protected]

Nicoleta DAMIANSenior researcher, PhD, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy,

Environment and GIS Department,e-mail: [email protected]

Bianca MITRICĂSenior researcher, PhD, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy,

Human Geography and Regional Development Department,e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. In Romania, managing and recycling household garbage is one ofthe least performing systems in the European Union. Numerous wastedumping sites are unconformable to European standards, besides there islittle garbage recycling. This paper makes a complex waste managementanalysis of the Romanian Danube riparian towns subjected to stronghuman pressure; this sector is also of great European interest for theprotection of its biodiversity. The main dysfunctions of garbage dumping,the price asked by scavenging services, the steps taken for the ecologicalmanagement of waste dumping sites in conformity with EU norms andbetter waste recycling, as well as future measures are also discussed in thispaper.

Key-words: garbage, ecological dumping sites, recycling

1. IntroductionThe challenges posed by environmentalquality and protection in the early 21stcentury led to a new approach to theinteraction between human society andthe environment, society having to copewith new global issues like populationincrease, globalization, the economiccrisis, climate change, loss of biodiversityand degradation of environmentalquality (Gandy, 1994; Arnott et al., 2008).

Socio-economic development and ahigher living standard make it necessaryto better protect the environment and itscomponents (soil, water, and air) and bemore careful with what pollutes them.One of the pollution sources is householdgarbage, which by quantity and dumpingsites could become a great environmentalrisk, particularly for the fragileecosystems (Verheij et al., 2008; Baycan-Levent et al., 2009).

Urbanism. Arhitectură . Construcţii • Vol. 7 • Nr. 3 • 2016 •

200

In view of the above, the complexrelationships among climate change,biodiversity, demographic pressure, use ofresources and the quality of life enhanceenvironment-associated uncertainty andrisks. Therefore, the new EU-stipulatedrequirements and exigencies call for amodern approach to global environmentalissues with highlight on the effects andpressure put by socio-economicdevelopment (Syrett and Sepulveda, 2012;Trentea et al., 2014; Forsberg and Lindgren,2015). EU provisions have in view threebasic aspects: to prevent waste yield byimproving production technologies andmake consumers opt for less-pollutingitems; policies of waste recycling and reuse(wrapping paper, cars out of use, batteries,electric and electronic devices, etc.) torecover and finally eliminate them; if wastescannot be recovered they should beeliminated in safe conditions for theenvironment and for people’s health undera strict monitoring programme (Zebek etal., 2015).

Proceeding from these goals, from the EUlegislation, and from the localparticularities, the new EU member-statesand the candidate state have elaboratedsustainable waste management models(Su et al., 2011; Boadway et al., 2013;Stefanovic et al., 2014) to limit up tocomplete elimination the pollutionproduced by uncontrolled dumping andstimulate the share of recycled wastes.This implies raising population’sawareness on the importance ofpreserving a clean environment on theone hand, and of implementing newtechnologies to reintroduce waste into theproduction cycle, on the other. At thesame time, one should be very carefulwith the type of waste carried fromcollection to dumping sites lest accidentalpollution along the route should occur(Egbu and Okoroigwe, 2014).

Therefore, the management ofhousehold waste in the riparian area ofa big navigable waterway like theDanube, is particularly important notonly for the cross-border implications ofpollution in a zone of intensedemographic pressure, but also for theeffect of pollution on the fragile naturalecosystems downstream this area e.g.the Danube Delta and the NaturalReserve Insula Mică a Brăilei.

Proceeding from the aboveconsiderations, the present study isaimed at highlighting dysfunctions in theoverall management system of theDanube riparian towns (particularly inthe lower sector of the River) in order tocorrect them in line with Europeanstandards. Moreover, having in view theimportance of the Danube, both for theRomanian and the EU economies, theauthors consider this analysis to berelevant for the study of domestic wastemanagement systems in the riparianurban settlements of some cross-borderwaterways.

2. Material and methods

2.1. The Romanian and European garbagemanagement legislation

The EU Acquis on waste managementcontains 16 normative acts, transposed inthe Romanian legislation in the form oflaws, Government decisions andMinister’s Orders. The Romanianlegislative framework includes laws No.211/2011 on the waste regime, elaboratedin conformity with the EuropeanParliament & Council Directive No.2008/98/EC (Waste FrameworkDirective) and No. 139/2002 on theapproval of Government Ordinance No.87/2001 on public scavenging services inlocalities, supplemented by GovernmentDecisions No. 1,470/2004 on the National


201

Strategy for Waste Management and theNational Waste Management Plan; No.856/2002 on waste management evidenceand approval of waste lists, inclusive ofhazardous wastes; No. 349/2005 on wastestorage and No. 870/2013 on theapproval of the National Strategy forWaste Management 2014-2020;Government Orders No. 1,215/2003 onthe approval of Technical Regulations onwaste burning and No. 794/2012 onpacking wastes data-reporting procedure.The National Waste ManagementStrategy 2014-2020 (NWMS) proposes aseries of measures contributing to a goodecological and economic management. Itwas underlying the elaboration of theNational Waste Management Plan(NWMP). This Plan stipulates that allwaste dumps that do not meet nationallegal provisions shall be closed until 2017.These two documents were used in theelaboration of regional, county andmaster plans, as well as in wastemanagement feasibility studies. Inconformity with the Directive2008/98/EC and its inclusion in thenational legislation (Law No. 211/2011regarding the waste regime), NWMS andNWMP were reviewed.

Out of the multitude of EU andRomanian legislative provisions, asynthesis of major targets had in view theprevention of waste generation and of thenoxious effects of wastes; reusing wastesthrough recycling, or in any other way, toobtain by-raw materials, or employ somecategories of wastes as energy source;building and operating installations,implementing methods and technologies,designating sites and equipping them forthe treatment, use and elimination ofwastes in order to prevent impairment ofthe environment and of people’s health;transport means suitable to the nature ofcarried wastes, homologated technologies

and installations to valorize wastes;organize programmes of populationtraining and education in wastemanagement; elaborate sectoral strategiesand programmes of waste managementand follow their implementation(National Waste Management Strategy,2014-2020).

The decentralisation of wastemanagement services implied distinctcosts for the Danube riparian town-users.The investigations conducted by theauthors in the Danube riparian townsduring November 2015, revealed that theprices charged by the scavenging servicesoperators varied between 2.46 and 8.40lei/pers./month).

In many instances, although old dumpshad been closed as stipulated by law, theshortage of conformable dumps madehousehold garbage (especially in thecountryside) be dumped on new,uncontrolled sites (Orlescu and Costescu,2013).

2.2. Cross-border pollution and particularitiesof the Romanian Danube border sector

Cross-border pollution is generated by aphysical source situated totally or partlyin an area under the national jurisdictionof a state (the polluter), its effectsprejudicing an area under the jurisdictionof another state (the polluted) (GenevaConvention, 1979). Such a situationpresupposes either direct pollution, thatis, air or water transport of some residualsubstances from one state to the other, orindirect pollution through the transportof impure agricultural or industrialproducts from one state to the other;hidden pollution is the result of placingsome high-polluting industries, possiblywithout anti-polluting installations, onthe territory of other states (which ismore profitable), the pretext being


202

industrial development of the hostcountries, or exploitation of some rawmaterials on the territory of other states.The technologies used are noxious for theenvironment. Another method is to hireland in third countries and dump somehigh-polluting wastes there (Ianoş et al.,2009; Prokkola et al., 2015).

Cross-border areas subjected to intensehuman pressure are also most vulnerable todirect cross-border pollution (Lackowskaand Zimmermann, 2011). This is the case ofthe Romanian Danube sector (1,075 km,37.6% of the whole length of the River), anold and intensely populated area (over 995km of Romania’s border-line with Serbia,Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova andUkraine) (Voica et al., 2014). Therefore, it isboth a EU internal border along theRomanian-Bulgarian sector (470 km) and anexternal border between Romania andSerbia (285.5 km), Romania and Ukraine(239.9 km) and a small frontier (0.569 km)between Romania and the Republic ofMoldova.

The most important Danube sector interms of discharge and navigation is theLower Danube sector, in which major coresof demographic concentration date back to

the Antiquity, e.g. a Dacian alignment ofsettlements (Sucidava-Oescus, Zimnicea-Novae) overlain by Roman ones (Ratiaria-downstream of Vidin, Oescus-Ghighen, atthe mouth of the Iskar, Novae-Svishtov,Durostorum-Silistra, Axiopolis-Cernavodă,Carsium-Hârşova and Noviodunum-Isaccea) (Botizan, 2004). After thepenetration of the Slavs, the Lower Danubesector became a relatively stable boundarybetween the Romanian and the Slavicethnic bloc (Serbian, Bulgarian and laterRusso-Ukrainian) subsequently perceivedas kind of frontier-line.

The width of the River in its Lower sectorhas limited the number of crossing-points, these developing especially alongsome fords, where local topographicconditions favoured the emergence ofdoublet settlement systems, which intime became cores of demographicconcentration and of industrial activities(Fig. 1). After World War II, the central-based economic system and the oversizedindustrialisation policy were a commonfeature of all the states in the area,enhancing the process of urbanizationand industrialisation and implicitly ofhuman pressure (Blažek and Netrdová,2012; Mitrică et al., 2016) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Doublet settlements in the Romanian Danube border sector and types of connection among them. I.Settlements (inh.): 1. Over 1,500,000; 2. 100,000 – 500,000; 3. 50,000 – 100,000; 4. 25,000 – 50,000; 5. 10,000 –

25,000; 6. 0 – 10,000; II. Type of operational connection : 7. International traffic; 8. Low border traffic; 9.Terrestrial borders.


203

Fig. 2. Human pressure in the Romanian Danube sector

Fig. 3. Industry in the Lower Danube sector. 1. Bridges, 2. River harbours, 3. River-maritime harbours, 4.Maritime harbours, 5. Airports, 6. Copper ore extraction centres, 7. Iron-and-steel plants, 8. Shipyards, 9.

Chemical and petro-chemical industries, 10. Building-materials industries, 11. Paper and cellulose industries,12. Cement factories, 13. Thermal-power stations, 14. Water-power station, 15. Nuclear-power station, 16.

Terrestrial borders, 17. Cross-border connections, 18. Danube – Black Sea Canal.

So, cross-border pollution has becomeever more present, occasionallyengendering tensions between Romaniaand some of its riparian neighbours(Bulgaria, Ukraine), because natural sitesof national value lie alongside the LowerDanube sector (the Danube DeltaBiosphere Reserve, the Iron Gate NaturalPark, Djerdap National Park, the NaturalReserve Insula Mică a Brăilei, etc.).

The 127 Romanian Danube sectorriparian settlements shelter 1,275,750inhabitants (Census of Population andHousing, October 20, 2011).

The extensive demographic polarisationis visible in the distribution of populationby two residential environments: urban,englobing 21 settlements (16.5% in all)with 932,466 inhabitants (73.1% of thepopulation total) and rural, 106communes (83.5% of all the Danuberiparian administrative units) with only343,284 inhabitants, that is 26.9% of thewhole riparian population. The bipolarGalaţi and Brăila core numbered 429,734inhabitants (46.1% of the whole urbanpopulation and 33.7% of the totalRomanian Danube riparian inhabitants),and together with its two cross-border


204

connections (Reni and Giurgiuleşti) theycome to have over 450,000 inhabitants.Far down the hierarchical scale rank thetowns of Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Tulcea,Călăraşi and Giurgiu with 100,000-60,000inhabitants, all these towns representingcross-border systems of doubletsettlements.

The oversized industrialisation policypromoted after the Second World War,turned the Romanian Danube sector intoan important industrial-pollutingpolarisation axis: chemical units inDrobeta-Turnu Severin, Turnu Măgurele,Giurgiu, Brăila, Galaţi and Tulcea; thewater-power plants Iron Gate I and IronGate II; thermal-power plants in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Brăila and Galaţi; iron-and-steel plants in Galaţi and Călăraşi;nuclear power station at Cernavodă (Fig.3). This industrialisation drive led to thefunctional diversification of settlementtypes (Fig. 4).

Another consequence was severe cross-border pollution (carried by the N-E andN-W winds) which, over the years, haveseveral times tensioned Romanian-Bulgarian and Romanian-Soviet relations(Horlings and Marsden, 2014).

Following the post-1989 structuralchanges, the economic evolution of theseDanubian settlements experienced aslowdown caused by the general declineof the Romanian economy, hence a lowervolume of goods would cross the LowerDanube sector, industrial production inthe port-towns of this sector declining;the dismemberment of the CMEAassociation of states meant an importantloss of export markets, and a negativeimpact on the export-oriented industrialbranches, iron-and-steel in particular; thedramatic reduction of investments inindustry prevented the modernisationand retechnologisation of industrial units,maintaining a low labour productivitylevel. Besides, environment protectionactions, putting pressure on pollutingindustries (chemical plants and ferrousmetallurgy), obliged them to restrictproduction in order to meet pollutionstandards (Angelo and Wachsmuth, 2015;Legras, 2015).

On the right-hand side of the River, thatis in Bulgaria and Serbia, urbanizationwas not that intense (450,000 urbanpopulation), moreover they had no urbancore comparable to that of Galaţi-Brăila inRomania.

Fig. 4. Functional types of settlements in the Lower Danube sector


205

The only largest town with over 100,000inhabitants was Ruse (149,600), next inline coming Izmail (84,800), Vidin(48,100), Silistra, Svishtov, Kilia, Lomand Reni, each with more than 10,000inhabitants. Some of the smallersettlements, yet important for the cross-border connections operational in theRomanian Danube sector, wereKladovo, Prahovo, Brza Palanka andTekija in the Romanian-Serbian sector;Giurgiuleşti bordering on the Republicof Moldova, and Vylkove in theRomanian-Ukrainian Danube Deltasector (Perkmann, 2003).

The extent of demographic pressure inthe Romanian Danube sector isindicated by the proportion ofpopulation in the Danubian counties(23.13% of Romania’s inh.). Thesecounties constitute the enlargedDanube-riparian border-zone, the veryterritorial unit covered by ourintegrated analysis of householdgarbage management systems in theRomanian Danube sector, becausedumping sites are not placed on theadministrative territories of ripariansettlements, but in their neighbourhood(Ianoş et al., 2012).

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Wastes collection in Romania between“traditional model” and current imperatives

Romania’s EU membership has imposeda new set of regulations to themanagement of household wasteconformable to the European legislationand the country’s commitments to it.Despite some obvious progress in mattersof legislation, Romania lags behind inmeeting the deadline of implementing itscommitments, a situation liable to moneypenalties. Another aspect is the slow-going implementation of legislation:

when Romania joined the EuropeanUnion (2007), over 95% of the localauthorities were not aware that legaltargets of collecting and using emptiesdid exist, although they were legallyobliged to have the necessaryinfrastructure for selective wastecollection (Trentea et al., 2014).

Besides, the management system ofdomestic refuse was extremely precariousat the time: according to the NationalInstitute for Statistics, only 54% of thecountry’s population benefitted fromscavenging services (80% in town andonly 22% in the countryside), andmunicipal waste recycling rate was of13.16% in 2013, growing by 12.1% versus2007, the year of Romania’s membershipto the European Union.

Placing selective garbage cans has onlypartly corrected these deficiencies, as thesecans were limited to collecting only certaintypes of waste (paper/box board,plastics/packings, PETs, and metalware),the collection of other types of waste, suchas nylon/lycra textiles, with low-degradingpotential, being almost inexistent, althoughsome technological procedures toreintroduce them into the industrial circuitdid exist in the world. Moreover, there isalso uncontrolled waste collection: thereare many situations when garbage cans, inwhich mixed wastes had been dumped, areemptied by unauthorised people who sellthem at recycling points; there are alsosituations when these cans are seldomemptied, becoming sources of pollution,especially in the warm season (Alam andBahauddin, 2015).

Romania is among the new EU-memberstates where most quantities of towngarbage are dumped, recycling andreusing them representing only 2.6% inall (Platon et al., 2015).


206

3.2. Household garbage dumping sites in theriparian settlements of the Romanian Danube

sectorThe legal framework for garbagedumping sites, exploitation andmonitoring of new sites, as well asexploitation, monitoring and closingdown old unconformable sites isprovided by the Goverment Decision No.349/2005. In order to implement theEuropean Council Decision No.1999/31/EC concerning dumping sites,Romania was given a period of transitionuntil July 2017 for the stagewise closureof 101 unconformable sites (see the datareported by the Ministry of Environment,Waters and Forests).

According to the National WasteManagement Strategy, new, modern,waste management systems were to becreated in both town and countryside, atcounty or regional level; the location ofnew ecological sites has to comply withgeneral and local urbanistic planning,must not be located in flood-prone areasor protected natural areas, in the vicinityof harbours and free zones. The distancebetween the dumping site and theresidential areas has to be of at least1,000 m; zonal ecological sites shouldhave a dumping capacity for at least150,000 inhabitants; a dumping siteshould be exploitable for minimum 20years.

City waste is collected by authorisedgarbage collecting firms, the localauthorities having the responsibility ofcontracting such firms (Law No.139/2002 on the approval of GovernmentOrdinance No. 87/2001 regarding publicscavenging services in localities). In therural area, garbage collection from thepopulation and the business sector isorganised only in the settlementsneighbouring some towns.

The normative acts in effect name threestages (2006-2009, 2010-2012 and 2013-2017) in which unconformable wastedeposits should be closed down. Anumber of nine sites were shut in the firststage (2006-2009), another six in thesecond stage (2010-2012) and five morecontinue to be operational until 2017(Table 1).

Tulcea is the only county in the study-area where two dumping sites (at Măcinand in Sulina), unconformable toenvironmental norms, are stilloperational. Closure deadline for theSulina sites (15,000 m3) is 2017.Transferring household garbage fromSulina and from the other Danube Deltasettlements to the conformable sitewhich is to be built at Mihai Bravu,requires adequate transportinfrastructure and garbage transportfacilities. Only little of the garbageproduced by the Danube Deltasettlements is collected selectively by thePublic Services Administration of Sulinaand by the Local Council of SfântuGheorghe. In 2004, the Administration ofthe Danube Delta Biosphere Reserveinitiated a public awareness educationalprogramme that is still going on; alsomore selective PET collection garbagecans were placed on the main Deltatourist routes and two PET tampingpresses were located in Sulina and atSfântu Gheorghe. Another projectlaunched by the DDBR was to raisepeople’s awareness on the danger posedby wastes to the deltaic environment andto people’s health.

The only county in the Romanian Danubesector without any ecological dumpingsite is Călăraşi, the homonymous townusing Slobozia site (Ialomiţa County),Olteniţa town resorting to Glina site(Ilfov County).


207

Table 1. Household garbage and scavenging services prices in the Romanian Danube riparian towns

Town CountyPopulation(2011 cens.

data)

Unconformableclosure year

Ecologicaldumping

site location

Towndistance toecologicalsite (km)

Tarifflei/pers./month

Tarifflei/pers./

km/month

MoldovaNouă

Caraş-Severin 12, 350 2012

Lupac 91 4.10 0.045

Orşova Mehedinţi 10,441 2009IzvorulBârzei

39 6.20 0.159

Drobeta-Turnu

Severin

Mehedinţi 92,617 2009 IzvorulBârzei

11 2.46 0.224

Calafat Dolj 17,336 2010 Mofleni 1 90 No data No dataBechet Dolj 3,657 2008 Mofleni 1 69 4.50 0.065Dăbuleni Dolj 12,182 2009 Mofleni 1 79 No data No dataCorabia Olt 16,441 2017 Bălteni 74 7.44 0.101TurnuMăgurele Teleorman 24,772 2007

Mavrodin 58 4.55 0.078

Zimincea Teleorman 14,058 2007 Mavrodin 57 6.67 0.117Giurgiu Giurgiu 61,353 2007 Frăteşti 14 6.00 0.428Olteniţa Călăraşi 24,822 2012 Glina 57 6.20 0.109Călăraşi Călăraşi 65,181 2012 Slobozia 45 6.97 0.155Feteşti Ialomiţa 30,217 2007 Slobozia 63 5.07 0.080

Cernavodă Constanţa 17,022 2012 Ovidiu 70 5.04 0.072Hârşova Constanţa 9,642 2010 Ovidiu 74 5.04 0.068

Brăila Brăila 180,302 2006 Siliştea(Muchea)

14 7.00 0.500

Galaţi Galaţi 249,432 2011 Tirighina(Barboşi)

7 4.67 0.667

Isaccea Tulcea 5,026 2009 Mihai Bravu 2 49 No data No dataMăcin Tulcea 8,245 2016 Mihai Bravu 2 61 No data No dataTulcea Tulcea 73,707 2015 Vărărie 4 7.67 1.917Sulina Tulcea 3,663 2017 estul oraşului 7 5.00 0.714

1 Mofleni – component settlement of Craiova Municipium. 2 Mihai Bravu – dumping-site under construction.

A new EU-funded ecological site is to bebuilt at Ciocăneşti (Călăraşi County).Until then, the transfer platformoperational in Călăraşi will reduce theenvironmental impact of uncontrolleddumping sites.

Similarly, the unconformable dumpingsite in Olteniţa was closed in 2012, and atransfer platform was built instead.Until the Ciocăneşti site will becommissioned, the town’s householdgarbage is carried to Glina dumpingsite.

The town of Brăila, complying with EUregulations, has a first ecological sitesince 2002.

The distance between garbage collectionpoints and dumping sites (Fig. 5) is themain criterion that should be reflected inthe price of scavenging services. Itappears that the inhabitants of Galaţi andSulina are favoured in this respect,because the ecological sites lie within thetown bounds, at some 7 km from thegarbage collection points. At the otherend stands Moldova Nouă, the town’sdumping site being in Lupac Village, 91km away (Table 1). The unconformablesite in town had to be closed down in2012. Caraş-Severin County has anintegrated Waste Management Centre (acentral ecological dumping site, a sortingstation and a mechanical-biologicaltreatment station).


208

Fig. 5. Location of ecological dumping sites to s erve the Romanian Danube Valley riparian towns

Shorter distances (under 20 km) betweentown and dumping site have also othercounty-seats: Drobeta-Turnu Severin,Brăila and Giurgiu, with over 50,000inhabitants each, which produce hugequantities of household garbage.

Towns situated at a great distance fromecological sites are in the counties of Dolj(Calafat, Bechet and Dăbuleni), Olt(Corabia) and Constanţa (Cernavodă andHârşova). In Dolj County, Mofleni is theonly ecological site authorised to receive thegarbage collected from the whole county.

The household garbage of Cernavodăand Hârşova is carried to the ecologicaldumping site in Ovidiu Town, where awaste collection centre is scheduled to bebuilt.

Transport and dumping costs in Drobeta-Turnu Severin and Tulcea range from2.46 lei/pers./month to 7.67 lei,respectively (Table 1). The charge for thedistance covered by the garbage transportoperator is only partly reflected in theprice of scavenging services, the townslying at the shortest distance (up to 7 km)to the dumping sites pay twice the price

(4.67 lei/pers./month in Galaţi and 5.00in Sulina) than that practiced in Drobeta-Turnu Severin (2.46 lei/pers./month),which lies 11 km away, and even higherthan that practiced in Turnu Măgureleand at Bechet, towns that lie 58 and 69 kmaway, respectively.

In order to better illustrate the share ofexpenses for the transport of householdwaste from collection site to dumpingsite, the price to be paid was calculatedby kilometre of transported waste. Pricesvary widely, from 0.045 lei/pers./km inMoldova Nouă town and 1,917lei/pers./km in Tulcea town, due to thelocal monopoly established byscavenging companies (Su et al., 2011).

The unconformable dumping site inDrobeta-Turnu Severin was closed inAugust 2009. After the dumping sitesituated in Şimian Commune, near theTopolniţa River, was closed and turnedecological, a new ecological site beganbeing built, the first module wascommissioned in 2011. This dumping sitelies on the territory of Izvorul BârzeiCommune (Halânga Village) in thevicinity of Drobeta-Turnu Severin. The


209

site (19 ha) is conformable to Europeanstandards, being equipped with all thenecessary facilities.

The distance between Brăila City andMuchea dumping site is of only 14 km,yet the price practiced by the operator isof 7 lei/pers./month, which is some ofthe highest in all the 21 Danube ripariantowns. At the same time, people inMoldova Nouă, a town lying 91 km awayfrom the site, pay only 4.10lei/pers./month (Table 1).

3.3. Selective waste collection and recyclingSelective recycling in Romania targetsonly paper, boxboard, metal, plastics andglass items, waste collection going on alsoin public institutions in order to supportthe implementation of Directive2008/98/CE of the European Parliamentregarding wastes; the deadline for all EU-member states to recycle at least 50% ofall the quantity of waste is the year 2020(Wolfson and Frisken, 2015). Romaniaoccupies the last position in this respect,it recycling 2.6 % compared to over 50%in the EU-member states from Centraland Western Europe (Germany, Austria,Belgium and The Netherlands) and tentimes less than its neighbouring countries(Bulgaria: 28.5%, Hungary: 26.4%)(Eurostat. European Statistics, 2015).

Fig. 6. Selective collection cans(Photo: Radu Săgeată, 2015)

Since January 2014, selective wastecollection in Romania is compulsory, thelocal authorities having been obliged toimplement separate collection systems forcertain categories of wastes (only forpaper, metal, plastics and glassware) (Fig.6).

Fairly good results registered thecollection and recycling of plastics, sometowns (e.g. Brăila) having initiated PETcollection pilot projects. However, not alltowns have special waste-processingcentres. Recycling installations areusually located in towns with a largepopulation which are also high plastics-wastes producers. The products obtainedfrom waste recycling should have lowerprices than those processed from rawmaterials.

Fig. 7. Selective collection afferent to a super-market point (Photo: Radu Săgeată, 2015)

Super-market networks have lately set uptheir own recycling systems (for plastics,


210

aluminium bottles, batteries and largedomestic devices) (Fig. 7).

Even so, the quantity of PET recycling inRomania is reduced compared to the EU.Western states, recycling consisting inbreaking up plastics pickings (byspecialist firms) and subsequentlyexporting them to factories abroad whichhave the complete recycling technology.

Rather few firms in these towns arespecialised in recycling glassware,boxboard and plastics. There is one firmfor boxboard collection in each of thecounties of Brăila (located in Brăila City),Călăraşi (in Călăraşi Town) andMehedinţi (in Drobeta-Turnu SeverinTown); plastics collection: one firm inCălăraşi County (Olteniţa Town),obviously limiting competition, hencehigher services costs. At the same time,trading companies, authorised to valorisepaper/boxboard and plastics, exist ineach county, with the exception ofTeleorman, Giurgiu, Călăraşi and Brăila,were collecting firms valorise glasswastes in the close neighbourhood, that isin Bucharest City, Galaţi and Vâlceacounties.

4. ConclusionsIn each Danube riparian county, projectsfor the integrated management of solidwastes stimulate a sustainable wastemanagement development system toreduce environmental waste impact andclose down dumping sites unconformableto EU standards.

Romania lags far behind the Europeancountries in implementing its wastemanagement commitments, many urbansettlements still missing ecological wasteplatforms; in the countryside, wastes aredumped on the sites singled out by thelocal councils, which are not in

conformity with EU standards, nor arethey authorised either.

Waste collection is another problem.Although selective collection has begunin many towns, yet the population is slowin complying with it. An important taskin changing people’s mentality devolveson non-governmental institutions whichshould involve the youth in environmentprotection actions.

In Romania, the implementation of theEU policies in matters of wastemanagement is inscribed in the NationalWaste Management Strategy 2014-2020and the National Waste ManagementPlan, both documents, approved byGovernment Decision No 1,470/2004,stipulate the following strategicobjectives: developing an institutionaland organisational framework; raisingdecision-makers’ awareness; stimulatingpreoccupations for reducing wasteamounts; using all technical andeconomic ways and means for wasterecovery and recycling; developingsorting methods and systems at thegenerating source and/or beforedumping; developing waste treatmenttechnologies and facilities in line with EUand national regulations, as well astechnologies for ultimate waste disposalin conformity with European andnational stipulations.

The EU-agreed stagewiseimplementation of selective wastecollection in Romania is as follows: a)2004-2006, experimentation (pilotprojects and raising population’sawareness; b) 2007-2017, expandingselective collection at national level; c)2017-2022, implementation of selectivecollection in more difficult areas(collective dwellings, dispersed ruralsettlements, mountain regions, etc.).


211

REFERENCES

Alam M., Bahauddin K. M. (2015), Electronic wastein Bangladesh: evaluating the situation,legislation and policy and way forward withstrategy and approach, PresentEnvironment and SustainableDevelopment 9(1): 81-101.

Angelo H., Wachsmuth D. (2015), UrbanizingUrban Political Ecology: A Critique ofMethodological Cityism, InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research39(1): 16-27.

Arnott R., Hochman O., Rausser G.-C. (2008),Pollution and Land Use: Optimum andDecentralization, Journal of UrbanEconomics 64(2): 390-407.

Baycan-Levent T., Vreeker R., Nijkamp P. (2009),A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Green Spacesin European Cities, European Urban andRegional Studies 16(2): 193-213.

Blažek J., Netrdová P. (2012), Regionalunemploy ment impacts of the globalfinancial crisis in the new member states ofthe EU in Central and Eastern Europe,European Urban and Regional Studies19(1): 42-61 .

Boadway R., Song Z., Tremblay J.-F. (2013), Non-cooperative pollution control in an inter-jurisdictional setting, Regional Science andUrban Economics 43(5): 783-796.

Botizan M. (2004), Guide-book for the RomanianDanube [in Romanian], RomanianAcademy Press, Bucharest, Romania.

Egbu A., Okoroigwe D. (2014), Informal collectionof household solid waste in three towns ofAnambra state, Nigeria, PresentEnvironment and SustainableDevelopment 8(2): 101-116.

European Council (1995), Decision No. 1999/31/ECof 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-context

Forsberg G., Lindgren G. (2015), Regional policy,social networks and informal structures,European Urban and Regional Studies22(4): 368-382.

Gandy M. (1994), Recycling and the Politics of UrbanWaste, Earthscan Publication Ltd, London,UK.

Horlings L.-G., Marsden T.-K. (2014), Exploring the“New Rural Paradigm” in Europe: Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to theglobal competitiveness agenda, EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies 21(1): 4-20.

Ianoş I., Peptenatu D., Zamfir D. (2009), Respect forEnvironment and Sustainable Development,

Carpathian Journal of Earth andEnvironmental Sciences 4(1): 81-93.

Ianoş I., Zamfir D., Stoica V. I. Cercleux L. A.,Schvab A., Pascariu G. (2012), Municipalsolid waste management for sustainabledevelopment of Metropolitan Bucharest Area,Engineering and EnvironmentalManagement Journal 11(2): 359-369.

Lackowska M., Zimmermann K. (2011), New formsof territorial governance in metropolitanregions? A Polish-German comparison,European Urban and Regional Studies18(2): 156-169.

Legras S. (2015), Correlated environmental impacts ofwastewater management in a spatial context,Regional Science and Urban Economics52: 83-92.

Mitrică B., Şerban P., Mocanu I., Vârdol A. (2016),Urban Employment and Functionality inRomania in the Post-Communist Period,Urbanism Architecture Constructions7(1): 5-20.

Orlescu C.-M., Costescu I.-A. (2013), Solid WasteManagement in Romania: Current andFuture Issues, EnvironmentalEngineering and Management Journal12(5): 891-899.

Perkmann M. (2003), Cross-Border Regions inEurope: Significance and Drives of RegionalCross-Border Co-Operation, EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies 10(2): 153-171.

Platon V., Constantinescu A., Anastasiu N., PopaM., Mariş I. (2015), Recyclable materials [inRomanian], in: Romania’s strategicresources. Current issues and futurechallanges, StudIS Press, Iaşi, Romania, pp.145-172.

Prokkola E.-K., Zimmerbauer K., Jakola, F. (2015),Performance of regional identity in theimplementation of European cross-borderinitiatives, European Urban and RegionalStudies 22(1): 104-117.

Romanian Government (2013), The NationalStrategy for Waste Management 2014-2020,http://www.mmediu.ro/img/attachement/37/strategii-planuri-studii.

Stefanovic G., Skrijelj H., Ristovic I., MilutinovicB., Milosevic O., Popovic S. (2014),Sustainable Waste Management Model – CaseStudy: Novi Pazar, Journal ofEnvironmental Protection and Ecology15(3): 1005-1012.

Su J., Xi B., Yao B., Guohe H., Lu H. W., He L., JiD. (2011), Inexact Fuzzy Full-Infinite Mixed-Integer Programming Method for anIntegrated Air and Waste Management


212

System, Journal of Urban Planning andDevelopment 137(4): 355-496.

Syrett S., Sepulveda L. (2012), Urban governanceand economic development in diverse city,European Urban and Regional Studies19(3): 238-253.

Trentea A., Bodea L, Marcus I. (2014), AspectsRegarding the Use of Waste ManagementIndicators in Decision-making and PublicAwareness, Journal of EnvironmentalProtection and Ecology 15(2): 547-557.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe(1979), 1979 Convention on Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution, https://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/lrtap_h1. html.

Verheij R.-A., Maas J., Groenewegen P.-P. (2008),Urban – Rural Health Difference and the

Availability of Green Space, European Urbanand Regional Studies 15(4): 307-316.

Voica M., Meiţă V., Stancu E. (2014), Danube AreaSpatial Integration by Stimulating theRomanian Port Cities Regeneration,Urbanism Architecture Constructions5(3): 41-54.

Wolfson J., Frisken F. (2000), Local Response to theGlobal Challenge: Comparing Local EconomicDevelopment Policies in a Regional Context,Journal of Urban Affairs 22(4): 361-384.

Zebek E., Szwejkowska M., Raczkowski M. (2015),Legal and Organisational Solutions ofMunicipal Waste Management in Poland inCompliance with Waste Directive2008/98/EC, Journal of EnvironmentalProtection and Ecology 16(2): 652-658.

Received: 28 March 2016 • Revised: 17 May 2016 • Accepted: 18 May 2016

Article d istributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Waste management system in the riparian towns of the ...

Documents

Transcript of Waste management system in the riparian towns of the ...