, , 2012 : : . - , : . - , - : . - , : : . - , :. - , :. - , - .- , ,, ,,, . . . ,, . . . , . . - , .- , ,, . , , . -, . : , , TITLE: Grade about the municipal waste conditions and ways of managing the municipal waste in Cesinovo-Oblesevo Abstract Keepingcleanandhealthyenvironmentiseveryonesresponsibility.In RepublicofMacedoniawecansaythatwestillhaveunsuitablecentralaswellas localwastemanaging.Asaresultofthis,cooperationamongallrelevantfactorsis essentialinordertorealizetheoutlinedplansandprograms.Thepresentwaste managingconditioninthemunicipalityofCesinovo-Oblesevocanbegradedas insufficient in terms of the waste criteria defined in the European waste directives as well as in the positive legal regulations in Republic of Macedonia. In this research we aregoingtoshowtherealsituationasithappenstobeinsidetheareaofthe previously mentioned municipality and we will try to present our views and plans on how this waste managing should agree with the laws on waste managing and the EU directives. Ifthecurrentwayofwastemanagingisstillusedinfutureandnoother measures are taken, the outlook is that a great number of small unregulated refuse dumps will appear. The whole population should be able to use the waste dumping service. AccordingtoNPUOthemunicipalityofCesinovo-Oblesevoislocatedinthe Eastregion.Thisplanstipulatesthatwasteshouldbedumpedinaregionalrefuse dump which would be used only for satisfying the needs of waste dumping. Key Words: municipal waste, ways to manage municipal waste, Landfill. 1........................1 1.1. , , ..................................................................................................2 2. 5 3. .6 4. ...7 5. .8 6. ....13 6.1. ....13 7..17 8...20 8.1. ..21 8.2. ..24 8.3. .25 8.4. ..27 8.5. .29 8.6. , 31 8.6.1. ...31 8.6.2. ...32 8.6.3. ...34 8.7., . ..34 9. .36 9.1. .41 10. ...41 11. - .51 12. 55 13. ,, ....57 14. .59 15. ...62 16. ...63 16.1. ...68 17.,, ...67 18. ..74 19. 75 19.1. .76 20. , .........................................................................................84 20..87 21. ...91 22. ..92 6.1. -..14 6.2. 15 6.3. .16 8.1. (/)...28 8.2. .30 9.1. 37 9.2. 39 9.3. ..40 10.1. ...43 10.2. ........................................................................................................................45 10.3. -..50 10.4. - 50.17.1. 2012 69 .17.2. 2013 70 .17.3. 2014 70 .17.4. 2015 71 .17.5. 2016 72 .17.6. 2017 73 .17.7. .73 5.1. .10 5.2. 11 7.1. ..19 7.2. ....................20 14.1. , ..60 14.2. () ............61 16.1. 64 19.1. .80 19.2 , 81 19.3. ...82 19.4. ..83 20.1. ..85 .1. .....................................9 .2. .................................9 3.O-.................................................................................................................13 4.-.................................................................................................................15 5. -............................................17 6. Ancheuser-Busch ..................26 7. .....................................................................................................45 8. .......53 1. (/).............................29 2. ........31 3. .........................................33 4. 6 .................................................................................................38 5. .......................39 6. ...........................................................................................................44 7. ........46 8. .............74 1 1. . ,, . , , . . -, , , . - , . , . . - 18, 19 21 . , , , , . 2 , . 1.1.,, . , ( ). . , . . , ., . . ,-,, , , , . . , : - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; - ; 3 - ; - . ? . ,, ,, ,, . , . ,,,,, , ,, . ( ) , , , . ? . ? . 4 , 2010 545763.2009, 2010 1,17%. - 140 262 , 25,7% .,424 893 78% , 22% ( ). 2010721507. 2010 351 , 0,85% 2009 . (100%) , . 5 2. . . - , -. , Waste management practices municipal John Pichtel. , . 6 3. . . , . , , ,, . . 7 4. ., . 8 5. - - , 1999 . 2000..14 -,13, .. .,, , - . 2423,415 . 15,2%,35,40%. . , . , .- , . . .1. Pie. 2. Coverage of population with utilities.2. Pie. 2. Coverage of households with utilities , .,.,.. . . (,.).85%0%0%66%0%0%9 Pie. 2. Coverage of population with utilities .2. Pie. 2. Coverage of households with utilities , .,.,.. (,.).15%0%0% 34% , .,.,.. (,.). 10 1,3 . . . ,- , , , . 5.1. Figure 5.1. Municipality dumping ground "Bukovski dol" 11 9500 $, 3 . 2 ,2,33 . , . 5.2. Figure5.2. Improper waste disposal along river Bregalnica 100 . , 65%. 15,7%. 3. Pie 3. Percentage of recovery utilities in the Municipality Cesinovo . , . , 35%12 .O. Percentage of recovery utilities in the Municipality Cesinovo-Oblesevo9 . , . - , . - , .-, . 65%0%0%-Oblesevo , . , 13 6. - ., ,528. 528 (2010),( 3,5 , 2002) . - .. ,, ,,;. ;. , . , . . ( . ) ... . 6.1. - . , . , , , . . 14 ,,. ,., - . 6 . - : 6.1. - Table 6.1. Agricultural areas in Cheshinovo - Oblesevo ()/Totalarticultar land(ha) / Arable land Plovedn and gardens Orchards Vineyards Meados Pastures 2929515601107691295631898549 .4.Pie 4. Pecentage of agricultural areas in Cheshinovo 2002 - : 6.2. Tabble 6.2.Statistical data on population- Municipality Cesinovo-Oblesevo Total population ,., . 30%0% 2%0%24%15 . Pecentage of agricultural areas in Cheshinovo - Oblesevo 2002 : 2. Tabble 6.2.Statistical data on population Total population Households Apartments74902423 - ., , . 44%

-2002 Apartments 2201 , , 16 . , 100%. -, , : 6.3. Table 6.3. Annually created fractions /Fraction % /Representation ()/Total(tons) /Organic36 /Wood// /paper and cardboard 416,30 /Plastics2081,60 /Glass520,40 /Textiles520,40 /Metals416,32 /Hazardous Waste // /Composites// /Compleks produkts // /Inert waste1040,8 /Other categories 46193,92 /Small parts312,24 /Total100408 5. Pie 5. Percentage of representation of fractions in the composition of waste yearly in the Municipality Cesinovo-Oblesevoj-, , .7. :1) ; 2) 3) . 1) , ; 2) ; 48%17 - . Percentage of representation of fractions in the composition of waste yearly in Oblesevo , , . ; . : 1) , ;2) ;1%4%20%5%5%4%10%3% . Percentage of representation of fractions in the composition of waste yearly in :, 18 3) ;4) ;5) ;6) ,,,,, , ;7) 8) , . , . / () . , , . . , , 19 , . . - je . 7.1. Figure 7.1.Illegal dumping ground ina village Obleshevo 20 7.2.o Figure.7.2. Inappropriate treatment of the waste near the water channel for the areas with rice in Cheshinovo. 8. , . ., . . 21 . ,, . . ,e .8.1. OVAM 1981 . 5,9308., . 50%, ( 1995) : ; (); . : ; 22 ( );(55/52 / , ) , . . 1998 68,8% : ( ):.- , ( ). ( ): 1997 5,8. . . . : . .( ). . : 23 (1998)( :,,, , ). 1998 37.3% 16,7%, , 2000 ,:(), ( ) ( ). ., VLACO, . VLACO : ; ; ; ; ; ( ); ; ; ; ; 24 . .8.2. ( , ,),1995 . :- ; - ( ) - . :(4), ,,,-, ; , . . . , 2001, 80 . . 25 8.3. .1960, . ,. . 1997 260 . 1996 . - . (,,,,, ,.), Ancheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Carrier Corporation.Ancheuser-BuschCompanies,Inc., 1998,7000 . : (). , , ,. .,, , 13 1991-1998, 1998 , 2,5 . 1998 , Ancheuser-Busch : - 291 000 , - 7 000 , - 2350 - 2 300 6. Pie 6. Percentage of waste compost of CarrierCorporation,,.1998 .Carrier. ,(,), , ,, . .. . , , 17%6%6%26 2350 , 2 300 . . Ancheuser-Busch Percentage of waste compost of Ancheuser-Busch in SAD ,,.1998100 40000 .,4000 ,(,). , ,, . . , . , 71% , 100 40000 ,4000 ,(, , ,, . , . 27 .,, . . , ,, ( ). () ., . , Carrier . Carrier e. 8.4. 1990 , . 1991 . ,, ., .537 ,. (8.1) ,/ . 28 . ,, , . . . , . . . ,, / , . 8.1. (/) Table 8.1.Licensed fees in Euros /Glass 0.08 / / Paper/paper board 0.20 /Packages made from aluminum 0.29 / aluminum 0.77 / Plastics 1.51 / Carboard for liquids 0.86 / Composites 1.04 /Natural materials 0.10 29 1. (/) Chart 1. Licensed fees in Deutschland( Eu\kg) 1991-1997 6,9 6,0 . (2), 1999 E. 8.5. 1994 . . , . . :0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60 ( / ) 30 ,,, ; . , ( ).(3), (/) , . 8.2. Table 8.2 Fees paid by manufacturers /Material ( / ) / Compesation (Eu/kg) /Paper0,04 ()/metal (aluminum)0,17 ( )/Metal (metal barrels0,01 ( )/Metal(Sheet metal)0,17 /Plastics0,17 ( )/Plasitic (foam)0,17 /Cards0,02 .2. Chart 2. Fees paid by manufacturers in Sweden ., . 8.6. , 1920. 1940 . 1943 , ,.,00.020.040.060.080.10.120.140.160.18 ( / )31 Fees paid by manufacturers in Sweden . , . 1920- .. 1940- . 1943 Jtekeskus.,Paperinkerys., . , , . , . . 1943 tekeskus. Paperinkerys. . 32 (, ). 1940-,. . (,,,). 1970-. ., , . :,. , 70% 2000 75% 2005 .8.6.1. ,(, ),. , . . Paperinkerys , . ,. ,, . . Paperinkerys, Paperinkerys . 33 (, .) . , (,Paperinkerys ).8.6.2. 1944.2000 734000, 142 . 3. Chart 3. Guantity of updated paper in Finland 34 200067%. (97%) , . 8.6.3. . , 1970-, , .8.7., . 2002 , . , NOVA Chemicals Evergreen Partnering Group, 1993NOVAChemicals, . , NOVA, . , . (,,)125 ,, BrightonHighSchool.,, . 35 MarkLesky,NOVAChemicals, , .STRIVE ., . 6 .350.000USD, , . 40,8 , 12 . 800.000 USD . 20%, . 14 . .,, . 50%. ., .Evergreen . ,, 36 10%25% . 9. 2002 , ()- , . , , . ,406 1994 . , - 6 (2011-2015 ) , , . , . 6, : 37 .9.1. 6 Tabble9.1. Forecast the total amount of factions that would be created within next 6 years /Fraction%/Representation()/Total (tons) /Organic336,00 /Wood// /paper and cardboard 497,9 /Plastics 20 489,6 /Glass5 122,4 /Textiles5 122,4 /Metals4 97,9 /Hazardous Waste // /Composites// /Compleks produkts // /Inert waste 10 244,8 /Other categories 461163,5 /Small parts 373,4 /Total1002448, 4. 6 Chart4.Forecastthetotalyears :, , 34% ., , , . , ,. (,(,,, .,), : 020040060080010001200 ()38 thetotalamountoffactionsthatwouldbecreated :, , 34% . , , . , ,. (,(,,, .,), : createdwithinnext6 : , , , 34% , , . , ,. (,), (,,, 9.2. Table 9.2. Average purchase / Paper / Plastics / Metal / Textiles 5. Chart 5. Average purchase 0123456 39 . purchase prices of secondary raw materials (-) / Cost (from-to) .4.62/ 2.12 / 2.2.5 den/kg, . 5-8 ./ Foil 6 ./6 den/kg4.5 ./ 6 6 ./6 den/kg 1-2 .// Varios tupes 1 1 den/kg purchase prices of secondary raw materials (./) / Average price .5 ./ 2.5 den/kg 6 ./ 6 den/kg 6 ./ 6 den/kg 1 ./ 1 den/kg 40 : 9.3. Table 9.3.Possible income from recyclable materials / Fraction 2008-2013 ( ) Totalamountforthe periodfrom2008-2013 (in tons) () ./ Unit price (Average) den / kg Total possible revenue denars 489,662 937 000,600 97,9 2,5244 700 97,9 6,00587,400 122,4 1,122,400 /Total denars 3.892,100,000 . -a , , . , . (,):,, . , , 41 , . , , . 9.1. - , , ( ,.). . 10. . , . (2008 - 2020) ,. , (), . :

42 - ;- ;- / - . . :- ;- . . , ( KfW2004.), (, ). , . 43 10.1. . Table 10.1.Regional waste management in Macedonia Region Affected municipalities Population / Identifiend location of sanitari ladfill /Approximate investmen Costs in millions Eu , ,, ,-, 644 592 15 ,, ,-,,, , 277 729

8 - , , ,,, , .,, ,,, 222 639 10 ,, , ,,, ,, 238 436 10 ,, ,, 133 180 12 - , ,, 172 787 8 ,,, ,.,, ,-, , , ,, 203 213 8 - ,,, ,,, ,,, 171 416 8 6. . Chart 6 . Approximate investment by regions Waste management in the Republic of Macedonia

, 10 . . 0246810121416 44 investment by regions Waste management in the Republic of - , 10 . . investment by regions Waste management in the Republic of , 10 , - 10.2. Table 10.2. Total waste collected annauly by municipalities in the East region Municipality () Total waste (tones) - 8160550010303455 492010862 3227131220689 7. Pie 7. Percentage of collected waste per year for municipalities in the Eastern region1%5%2%34%45 10.2. Table 10.2. Total waste collected annauly by municipalities in the East region Total waste collected - () Waste collected per person Year (kg) % Collected waste in % 528298 8160466 5500550 1030321 3455192 4920606 10862350 704215 3227242 1312410 20689498 7. collected waste per year for municipalities in the Eastern region1%14%9%2%6%8%18% Table 10.2. Total waste collected annauly by municipalities in the East region Collected waste in 1 14 9 2 6 8 18 1 5 2 34 collected waste per year for municipalities in the Eastern region - 46 7. Chart 7. Waste collected per person in the municipalities of the Eastern region - 1% , , . . 298 . ,192,, 606 . . , QM, , 0100200300400500600700 / 47 . . - . . , . , . ; , . , ,., , . . 1.:( , ); 2.: ( 3 ): 48 a.:(. ,, .),.: 50% , 3 ,./: . , . 3.(6): (. /, .). , : a. : .: ,.:.: .: .: ,75%, 60%. , (:-, .) . 4.:. (n+3) ( 49 ,, 70% .). 5.::- . 6.: (.: 90% .). 7. : , ,, . () , (). , (). . .-. -, . 50 , . 10.3. - Table 10.3. Regional projects for integrated waste management, allocations (2008 ) /Milions eura 2008 Central budget IPA Others donardGrants Total Grants Own participation Total 20091.501.501.50 20100,511.522.032.03 20112.828,4711.301.2312.52 20123,5610.6814.241.0515.29 20134,1312.3916.521.3017.82 2014 / Total11,0233.061.5045,583.5849.16 Representation 22,4 % 67,3 % 3,1 % 92,7 % 7.3 % 100 % 10.4. Table 10.4. Regional projects for integrated waste management costs (2008 Milions eura 2008 Central budget IPA Others donardGrants Total Grants Own participation Total 20090.250.250.25 20100.090.281.251.621.62 20110.150.460.620.62 20121.263.785.040.345.38 20132.337.009.330.7910.13 2014 7.1821.5428.722.4431.6 /Total11,0233.061.5045,583.5849.16 /Representation22,4 %67,3 %3,1 %92,7 %7.3 %100 % 51 11. - - ,, 2000-2001. .- , - . - , . . . , - , (1,5% ). . : 120150 52 ,10 20 . 107,149 . , , , , . 60% . 98%, , , . , . . ,150 143 . , . , . 150 25 . , , 60 . . ,,,, . ., , 8. Pie 8. Examination of public thing for work of JPKD 10%15%0%53 ,5 . , 90 60 . , . ,, . ,,, . ., , .. Examination of public thing for work of JPKD Oblesevo 75%0% , 5 . 90 , , , . , ., . 54 , , . . ,, ,. , , . . , . : - , - , - , - , - , - (, , ). 55 : - , - ,- . 12. - , . ,, , . 11 : 1. 2. / 3. / 4. / 5. 6. / 7. 56 8. 9. , , 10. 11. ,, , , . , ,, ,, . : ( - ) * ; * ; * ; * ; * ; 57 * ; * . , ,, . , , . 21, , , , . 21 -. 13. ,, . , ,,, , . - , 58 , . () ., -, . ,, , , . - , , . - , , , . , , . , . 59 : 1. ; 2., ( , ); 3. . - . . ,- , . 14. .. . , . , . . 2000/2001.,,528 .- ,-. , , . : 60 14.1. , Figure 14.1. Exporting waste, village Obleshevo -, , . 61 14.2. () Figure 14.2. Bought containers (bins) for gathering the household waste - . : - ; - ; -, ; 62 - . . . 15. ,: , , , , , . . , (..8/2006) . , , . - 500 200 , . 63 - , . 16. , ., -, . - - , , , , , . -, . : * ; * ; * ; * . , , -, 64 , . , -, : * ; * ; * ; * - . 16.1. Figure 16.1. Actions, cleaning streets in the village Chiflik 65 . . , : * ; * ; *, ; * (); * (, ) (); *() . ,, , , . . , : 1. . 2. , ( , .). 66 , . ( ) .. ,, (,,, ) . ( ) ,, (),(,, ). ,. , , . . . , . 67 , ,., . . ,. , . , ,, . . . . . , , . ..., , , () . 68 16.1. - .. . - : . 17.,, , . -,,, . . ,. , , . 2012-2017., 69 . .17.1. 2012 Tabble 17.1. Defined priority tasks and major activities for 2012 ./ordinal number / Tasks / Activities / Funds Funding 1. Introducingthe sy for management with waste the all municipality Purshaseof vesselsfor raising waste 5000 Budgetthe municipality 2. Campaing amont the population for composting waste Educationthe population 1000 Donors 3. Imporving mangemnt municipality landfill Fencingof landfill 2000 Budgetthe municipality Total cost 8000 70 .17.2. 2013 Tabble.17.2. Defined priority tasks and major activities for 2013 . ordinal number / Tasks Activities () Fund (Eu) Funding 1. Regional approach to waste management 5000 2. Raising public awareness Educationthe population 500 Donors 3. Imporving management municipality landfill Fencingof landfill 2000 Budgetthe municipality Budgetthe municipality Total cost 75000 17.3. 2014 Tabble 17.3 Defined priority tasks and major activities for 2014 . ordinal number / Tasks Activities Fund Funding 1. Macing the stydi of tehnological solutions for management waste Intorduction of reuse and reculing of waste 5000 2. Raising public awareness Educationthe population 500 Donors 3. Cleaning ap illegal landfill Disclaimer and cleaning 3000 Budgetthe municipality Total cost 8000 71 17.4. 2015 Table17.4.Defined priority tasks and major activities for 2015 . ordinal number Tasks Activities Fund Funding 1. Purchase of containers and bin for recycling Organizing JPKD the larger scope of work 10 000 Porgrams of theMZSPP 2. Raising public awareness Educationthe population 500 Donors 3. Educationthe population for recyling 500 Budgetthe municipality Total cost 11000 72 17.5. 2016 Table.17.5. Defined priority tasks and major activities for 2016 . Ordinal number Tasks Activities Fund Funding 1. Camapign among the population for composting waste and using compos Bidding for selection of developer for the study 5000 Porgrams of theMZSPP 2. Raising public awareness Educationthe population 500 Donors 3. Determination of places wil be designated for disposal of inert waste 3000 Budgetthe municipality Total cost 8500 73 .17.6. 2017 Table 17.6.Defined priority tasks and major activities for 2017 . Ordinal number Tasks Activities Fund Funding 1. Monitoring the situation regarding the composing of waste Filing out forms with a report of the activites 3000 Porgrams of theMZSPP 2. Purchase of containers and bin for recycling Educationthe population 15 000 Donors 3. Monitoring the situation regarding the recyling of waste Filing out forms with a report of the activites 3000 Budgetthe municipality Total cost 21 000 : .17.7. Tabble.17.7. Needed funds for a six-year period / Year () / Funds (Eu) 20128000 20137500 20148000 201511000 20168500 201721000 :64000 / Total 8. Chart 8. Needed funds for a six 18. . , . ,, . 05000100001500020000250002012 2013 ()74 . a six-year period . . . -, . , , 2013 2014 2015 2016 . , - 2017 75 : ; ; (- , ); ; ( , .); ( .); ; ; -, . ,, ( .) 2011 -. 19. - 2012 2017 , , . , 76 ,, . 2011, . - , . 2011 , . -18,1921 . 19.1. .1 10% - -, .- . 15,2%,17,2%. , . : 16,72%, 18%. 77 30% . , 380 1140 . 10% 30%. 38 . ,, . .2 3 - - , . , . . 78 2011 : . , , . 2011, , . .4 , . -, . 2011 : . , , ,, . 79 .5 2011 : - . .6 . . 2011 : 2011 : , , ( ). 80 19.1. Figure19.1. Dumping ground Ciflik .7 , . . , 81 . . . 19.2 : Figure 19.2. Actions, cleaning the school yard in the village Chiflik 82 19.3. Figure 19.3. Gathering the garbage along the streets in village Chiflik. 2011 : , . : , , . 83 19.4. Figure19.4. Cleaning the land roads around the village Chiflik .8 - . - - , . ,, 84 ., . 20. , : . -2423,415 . -, , .- .- . , , , : --7-83,Iveko daily 70c17; - (Ayalka Machine LTD Turcija); -1000120-(). 85 20.1. Figure 20.1.Samples of modern equipment for waste management . 86 : 1.( ; 2. ; 3. ; 4. ; 5. ; 6. ; 7. ; 8. ; 9. . : - :3. 966, 750 ; - 1000 120 : 1000 X 1240 = 1. 240, 000 ; - :30, 000 . - :5. 236, 750 87 21. - -. ,, -, , . : .,,,, 15,2%34%, . , , . 60%. , ,, ; : : ., , . - . 88 . , , . , . . . , , , , : -, -, - - - . , , . - . : 13; 50%; 89 20%() ; . : ; . : ; .. .: . : , , . , , , . , . 90 .. . - 1% , , . . 34%. -298. - 192 , - 606 . , ,-5% . , , : 1., ; 2. ; 3. ( ); 4. ; 5. ; 91 22. : - 92 23. : 1. : - , - , - ; 2. -: - ; 3. ; 4. ; 5. Waste management practices municipal John Pichte; 6. ,.. (2009): , , ; 7. Cheremisinoff P.N., 2003:"Handbook of Solid Waste Management and Waste Minimization Tehnologies", USA Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann; 8. Daven,I.J,Klein N. R, (2008): Progres in waste management researchUSA New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 9. Twardowska, I, et, al., (2004): "Solid Waste: assessment monitoring and remidiation",UK, Kidilington, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd; 10. ;11. ; 12. Internet .