TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSALS FOR …
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Moldova
GEF PAD Grant for Preparation of Sustainable Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Stockpiles Management Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
June 30, 2005
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Moldova
GEF PAD Grant for Preparation of Sustainable Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Stockpiles Management Project
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
June 30, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Map of Location 5
Abbreviations and Acronyms 8
Executive Summary 10
1 Introduction 24
1.1 Background 24
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Environmental Assessment 25
1.3 Methodology 26
1.4 Organisation of the EA Report 28
2 Description of the Project 29
2.1 Project Objectives 29
2.2 Project Beneficiaries and Project Area 29
2.3 Project Components 30
2.4 Project Financing, Coordination & Support 33
3 Legal and Institutional Framework 35
3.1 National Policies, Strategies and Programs 35
3.2 National Legislation and International Obligations 37
3.3 Applicable National and International Standards 43
3.4 Administration and Enforcement 46
3.5 National and WB Environmental Assessment requirements 49
4 Description of the Environment (Baseline) 54
4.1 Biophysical Environment 54
4.1.1 Location and Topography 54
4.1.2 Climate 54
4.1.3 Geology and Soils 55
4.1.4 Water Resources 56
4.1.5 Natural Systems, Habitats, Biodiversity and Protection 58
4.2 Socio-Economic Environment 60
4.2.1 Economic Evolution of Moldova and Poverty Issues 60
4.2.2 Current Features of the Agricultural Sector 63
4.2.3 Energy sector 65
4.2.4 Health and Education 66
4.3 Current pesticides and PCBs related information 68
4.3.1 Obsolete pesticides concern: history and state of centralization 68
4.3.2 Environmental Contamination with POPs 71
4.4 Risk assessment 73
5 Project Alternatives 87
5.1 Without Project Alternative 87
5.2 GEF Project Alternatives 91
5.2.1 Disposal options 92
5.2.2 Siting of facilities 98
5.2.3 Transportation routes within Moldova 98
5.2.4 Methods of collection, packaging and storage 100
6 Environmental Impacts 102
6.1 The Current Threat (Without project alternative) 102
6.2 Project Benefits 106
6.3 Project Impacts 108
6.3.1 Generic nature of impacts 108
6.3.2 Specific project direct negative impacts per components 115
6.4 Effects of Environment on the Project 118
6.5 Cumulative effects 118
6.6 Residual effects 119
7 Environmental Management Plan 121
7.1 Mitigation Plan 121
7.2 Monitoring Plan 135
7.3 Institutional Strengthening 143
8 Public Involvement and Information Disclosure 149
8.1 Public Consultation during Project Preparation 149
8.2 Public Involvement during Implementation 151
9 Conclusions 153
ANNEXES 154
Annex 1. List of Preparers 155
Annex 2. References 156
Annex 3. Record of Public Consultations Meetings 158
Annex 4. Contents of the Technical Appendix (in a separate volume) 165
Annex 5. Comparative review of WB Operational Policies, relevant Moldovan and EU legislation 166
Annex 6. State of Centralization of Obsolete Pesticides 171
Annex 7. Map of location of warehouses 175
Annex 8. Methodology Applied for Risk Assessment of Central Warehouses 176
Annex 9. Map of integrated risk assessment and ranking of central pesticide warehouses 178
Map of Location
[pic]
Moldova: Short country profile
The Republic of Moldova is a small, landlocked and densely populated country located in the South-Eastern part of Europe, bordering Romania and Ukraine. The country has a population of 4.3 million people of which 0.7 million live in Transnistria, Moldova's most industrialized region. Transnistria (secessionists region, is de facto - politically and institutionally - separated from the rest of the country. Out of the total population, 54% are rural inhabitants, most of them involved in agriculture activities. The prevalence of rural population has important social, economic, political and environmental consequences.
Moldova remains the poorest country in Europe despite recent progress from its small economic base. Despite good economic growth over the last three years poverty continues to be a serious problem, with per capita income in 2003 less than US$543[1], which makes Moldova one of the poorest states in Europe. More than a half of the population has consumptions levels below the internationally comparable absolute poverty line of US$2.15 per day, and a majority falls into the category of chronically poor[2].
Moldova enjoys a favorable climate and good farmland but has no major mineral deposits. As a result, the economy depends heavily on agriculture, featuring fruits, vegetables, wine, and tobacco. Moldova must import almost all of its energy supplies from Russia. Energy shortages contributed to sharp production declines after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.
As part of an ambitious reform effort, Moldova introduced a convertible currency, freed prices, stopped issuing preferential credits to state enterprises, backed steady land privatization, removed export controls, and freed interest rates. The government entered into agreements with the World Bank and the IMF to promote growth and reduce poverty. The economy returned to positive growth, of 2.1% in 2000, 6.1% in 2001, 7.2% in 2002, and 6.3% in 2003[3]. The Strategy for Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction forecasts a growth of 5% in 2005[4]. The economy remains vulnerable to higher fuel prices, poor agricultural weather, and the skepticism of foreign investors.
The main environmental problems are those that relate to water pollution (particularly ground water pollution), hazardous wastes, soil degradation/pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Although Moldova has limited forest coverage (10%), the wood harvest increased significantly in recent years, alongside with reduction of necessary activities for forestation and for combating of forest diseases. As the main sources of drinking water supply for rural areas is ground water, and pollution of this resource has been increasing in recent years, the quality drinking water supply is considered one of the country’s most important social and environmental problems. The management of wastes (including hazardous wastes) is an other major environmental concern having a significant adverse impact on country’s waters and soils as well as on the public health.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADR International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
CLRTAP Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
DDD Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethan
DDE Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethilene
DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethan
DES Department for Emergency Situations
DFID Department for International Development (UK Government Agency)
DOC Department of Customs
DSM Department of Standardization and Metrology
EA Environmental Assessment
EE&EIA Ecological Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment Law
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMP Environmental Management Plan
FAO UN Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global Environment Facility
GOST State Standard (in former USSR)
GRM Government of the Republic of Moldova
HCB Hexachlorobenzene
HCH Hexachlor-cyclo-hexane
HMS Hydrometeorological Service
IMDG International Maritime Dangerous Goods
IMF International Monetary Fund
ISO International Standards Organization
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration
MAFI Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
ME Ministry of Energy
MECTD Ministry od Ecology, Construction and Territorial Development
MEM Ecological Movement of Moldova, NGO
MENR Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
MOD Ministry of Defense
MOHSP Ministry of Health and Social Protection
MOTRM Ministry of Transport and Road Management
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NEHAP National Environmental Health Action Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIP National Implementation Plan
OHSE Occupational Health, Safety and Environment
OP Operational Policy
PAD Project Appraisal Document
PAH Poly-aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCM Public Consultation Meeting
PCT Polychlorinated Terphenyls
PDF B Project Development Facility (type B Grant)
PIU Project Implementation Unit
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants
ppm Part per million
PPP Public Participation Plan
REC Regional Environmental Center
RID Carriage of Dangerous Goods
RISP Rural Investment and Services Project
RPIEDM Regulation on Public Involvement in Elaboration and Decision-Making in Environmental Protection Area
SA Social Assessment
SEI State Ecological Inspectorate
SIDA Swedish International Development Agency
SNIP Construction Norms and Rules (in former USSR)
Tacis Technical Assistance to NIS countries
ToC Table of Contents
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
US$ USA currency
WB The World Bank
WTO World Trade Organization
Executive Summary
Introduction
All World Bank and GEF projects are subject to existing Bank safeguard operational policies and procedures, with OP 4.01: Environmental Assessment, serving as an umbrella one. OP 4.01, § 3 stipulates that an “Environmental Assessment (EA) takes into account the natural environment ... human health and safety; social aspects ... transboundary and global environmental aspects. EA considers natural and social aspects in an integrated way.” The entire EA process as set in the referred policy applies to “projects and components funded under the Global Environment Facility.” These safeguard policies require inter alia that: affected groups and local NGOs must be informed and consulted as part of EA process and project design and planning. GEF Instrument and policies stipulate that all GEF-financed projects have to provide for full disclosure of non-confidential information, and consultation with, involvement and participation as appropriate of, major groups and local communities throughout project cycle.
Moldovan EA and socio-environmental legislation, which is similar to policy objectives and operating principles, and the scope of Bank’s safeguard policies, together with other relevant national laws and stipulations of ratified international obligations, requires preparation of an environmental impacts assessment (EIA), transparent and timely information disclosure and meaningful public consultations. EIA together with project’s documentation is subject to a state ecological expertise review, which seeks to ensure that the proposed operation is consistent with applicable laws, international obligations and provides adequate mitigation and monitoring of potential adverse socio-environmental impacts, and that it enhances project’s benefits.
Project Objective
The main development objective of the project is to protect the environment and human health through the sustainable management of POPs pesticides and PCBs stockpiles. This objective will be achieved by environmentally safe disposal and management of POPs, creating national capacities for implementation of the Stockholm Convention requirements and of those stipulated under other relevant Conventions and Protocols ratified by Moldova. As POPs routinely escape from storage sites and from contaminated locations into the wider environment by volatilization, by ground and surface water run-off and by other means, the global project objective is to prevent threats to the quality of the global and regional hydrological cycle, the environment, human health and well-being, and to ensure that the POPs pollution will not recur in the future.
Project Description
The proposed project is consistent with and anchored in the Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of Moldova for 2005-2005 and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The project, which incorporates international best practice and lessons from preparing GEF-approved operations in the Slovak Republic, People’s Republic of China and the Philippines, has four main components, which are in turn divided into sub-components and activities. These include:
1. Environmentally Sound Disposal of Obsolete POPs Stockpiles
1.A – POPs Obsolete Pesticides Sub-Component
(i) – Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides
(ii) – Inventory and risk assessment
(iii) – Transportation and Final disposal
1.B – PCBs Sub-Component
(i) – PCBs detailed inventory
(ii) – Feasibility study of remediation measures at Vulcanesti substation
(iii) – PCBs disposal
2. Sustainable POPs Management
(i) – Strengthening POPs institutional capacity
(ii) – Inventory, monitoring and enforcement activities
(iii) – Training and capacity building for POPs handling
3. POPs Public Awareness and Replication Activities
4. Project Management
Moldovan Socio-Economic and Environmental Conditions
Republic of Moldova is a small, landlocked country of 33,800 sq. km with a population of about 4.3 million, with about 0.7 million people living in Transnistria (a secessionist region, where no project activities are proposed under the project, and the most industrialized part of the country.) Over 54% of population lives in rural areas, about 50% has consumption levels below the international absolute poverty line. The natural population growth in the last 6-7 years was negative, and population health, particularly of children and elder people, showed signs of deterioration.
After 10 years of downturn, the economy returned to positive growth – during 2000-2003 GDP grew by 24.1%, with the private sector accounting of almost 100% in agricultural production, 95% in retail trade and over 80% in manufacturing. At the same time, national development remains vulnerable to economic shocks related to high fuel prices, energy dependence, low foreign investors’ confidence, climate and natural changes (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes.)
Moldova has fertile soils and moderate continental climate, which determine high dependence of national economic growth on agricultural production. The main environmental problems are related to surface and underground water pollution, soil contamination and increasing erosion, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, which in turn have negative impact of population health and society well-being. While forests cover about 9.6%, flora and fauna is protected on less than 2% of the territory of Moldova.
In spite of the fact that Moldova never produced POPs PCB and prohibited POPs pesticides back in early 1970s, over 50 years of overuse of pesticides and other toxic chemicals left a damaging legacy: more than 5,650 tons of obsolete and prohibited pesticides, with more than 1,700 tons remain scattered all over the country and stored in 347 ramshackle storage facilities and over 4,000 tons buried in a 1974 built landfill (including 560 tons of DDT); over 20,000 PCB-containing power capacitors are stockpiled in 20 electric substations, with Vulcanesti substation housing about 12,000 – these are estimated to contain 380 tons of PCBs (the content of PCB in over 22,800 transformers if still unknown.) A pilot investigation, conducted during project’s EIA preparation within POPs sites boundaries showed that soil pesticides contamination exceeded national maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) for as much as 10-20 times, and PCB contamination at the Vulcanesti site exceeded MAC for over 1,000 times.
To address and prevent increasingly high risks to population and the environment, the GRM undertook in 1997-2003 a series of regulatory and practical actions trying to at least contain deteriorating situation. These included four GRM’s decisions regarding pesticides’ repackaging, centralization and restoring, and allocating limited financial resources from the budget and the National Environmental Fund to implement them. The State Ecological Inspectorate of the MENR elaborated a number of environmental and engineering criteria for assessing and selecting among them suitable facilities for centralized storage in all 32 rayons of Moldova.
Moldovan Institutional Framework
Legal Framework
Since independence, Moldova has worked towards improving and shaping its own environmental regulatory framework – to-date, over 100 laws, regulations, standards and norms, deal with environmental and natural resources protection, use and management in various sectors of economy have been adopted. The GRM uses a combination of command-and-control and market-based economic instruments to ensure their implementation and enforce compliance. Over 25 Moldovan legal and regulatory acts deal in general terms with managing the full life-cycle of toxic and hazardous substances and wastes, though they do not name specifically POPs regulated by the Stockholm Convention. The above-referred acts and procedures regulate various economic activities generating pollution; mandate environmental impact assessment, ecological expertise and audit for pesticides and toxic substances as well as development activities; establish environmental registration, permitting, licensing and reporting requirements; define standard-setting, testing and monitoring processes; regulate import, export, transportation, storage, disposal and destruction of various toxic, hazardous substances, wastes, technologies and processes; provide incentives and enforcement mechanisms.
Since 1991, Moldova actively participates in international, regional and bilateral environmental cooperation, signing 17 and ratifying 16 international conventions, including: Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context; Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution and Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Moldova signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on May 23, 2001 and ratified it on February 19, 2004. On January 27, 2005, Moldova acceded to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. Moldovan legislation stipulates traditional hierarchy of ratified international environmental obligation and norms over national ones.
At the same time, the existing regulatory framework does not stipulate 12 POPs regulated by the Stockholm Convention and clearly define management public and private sector responsibilities for banned POPs life-cycle. Legal framework requires amending and clarifying existing stipulation and ensuring that certain provisions of the Stockholm Convention and related international agreements are timely and completely transposed into the body of national legislation, standards and norms.
Administrative Framework
In accordance with the Constitution: the President is responsible for the state of the environment in the republic in front of the global community; and inter alia for approving general principles of environmental policy and adopting laws, national limits for the use of natural resources, standards for pollutants emissions and discharges, for industrial and communal wastes accumulation; payments rates for use of natural resources and environmental pollution, and wastes accumulation; national environmental and related programs and plans.
The GRM implements a national environmental policy; establishes incentives to facilitate environmental protection, clean production and reuse and neutralization of industrial and communal wastes; coordinates environmental activities of ministries, agencies and locals authorities; decides on siting and regimes of waste disposal and treatment testing grounds; stimulates environmental information dissemination and education; develops market base mechanisms of environmental management seeking to reduce wastes generation, toxic substances emissions and discharges.
The following GRM’s agencies have responsibilities related to sustainable POPs management:
MENR – is the primary authority responsible for: coordination national and sectoral environmental and natural resources management, monitoring and control; environmental inspection and enforcement; environmental standards; implementation of various international obligations; control and compliance enforcement particularly for production, storage, transportation, use, neutralization and burial of toxic and hazardous products and substances and their wastes. It has to clear (concur to) all Statutes, Lists and Registers on toxic and hazardous products and substances prepared and maintained by other ministries and agencies as well as to siting of specialized testing grounds for neutralization and burial of hazardous and toxic products, substances and their wastes. MOH – is the primary authority responsible for ensuring quality of population health. It establishes and maintains a National Register of Potentially Toxic Chemical Substances and lists new substances when necessary; amends a Statute on Procedures (Means and Methods) for the Use and Elimination of Hazardous Products and Substances and their Wastes; issues conclusion (opinion) regarding a Statute on Procedures for Transporting, Storing and Use of Mineral Fertilizers and Pesticides and a List of Chemical and Biological Means of Plants Protection and their Growth Stimulation; issues permits and licenses authorizing activities related to use and management of hazardous products and substances; approves maximum permitted concentrations (MPC) for pollutants in soil, water, air and food products; conducts a toxicological-hygiene expertise of toxic chemicals and issues authorizations for their registration as well as conducts sanitary-epidemiological expertise. MAFI – monitors and controls compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards regarding use and management of pesticides and mineral fertilizers; drafts a List of Chemical and Biological Means of Plants Protection and their Growth Stimulations and submits it for the approval by the Republican Inter-agency Council on Testing of Chemical and Biological Means for Plants Protection and their Growth Stimulation; tests the above referred chemical and biological substances and issues licenses for pesticides’ and fertilizers’ import and export as well as maintains a registry database of their application; establishes and maintains a network of laboratories for analysis and control of fertilizers and pesticides quality, and monitors their concentrations in soil, forage and all agricultural products. DES – concurs and control importing, exporting, transportation, use and neutralization of hazardous products and substances, particularly chemical, biological, explosives and flammables; issues permits for importing and exporting to and from, and transporting through the Moldovan territory of hazardous shipments as well as registers and maintaining the lists of such shipments; approves the lists of public and private sector judicial persons which use and are certified to transport hazardous and toxic substances; develops and approves rules, procedures and requirements for accident and emergency preparedness and mitigation related to transportation and use of hazardous and toxic substances.
The GRM, ministries and departments are in a state of continuous transformation: they are merged and/or split and new short-live ones are created (their functions and responsibilities are not timely reflected in their respective Statutes, and are often in-consistent with existing legislation), senior officials are rotated with increasing speed thus preventing preservation of institutional continuity and memory; and a number of technical professional staff is reduced to bare bones, causing to question GRM’s capabilities to manage and implement numerous already adopted programs and plans as well as ratified international obligations.
Local Authorities are responsible for: ensuring compliance with applicable legislation and standards; approving, with MENR concurrence, the limits for use of local natural resources and accumulation of wastes, and for emissions and discharges, except for those, which cross local boundaries; monitoring construction and operation of purification facilities and devices at public and private enterprises as well as implementation of measures aimed at prevention air, water and soil pollution; developing local environmental protection programs and managing local environmental funds; ensuring timely and transparent public participation and information disclosure.
Project Alternatives
A thorough, unbiased, transparent and early assessment of project alternatives from an environmental and social perspectives was one of the most important contributions the EIA made to improving the project’s design, planning and ultimate decision-making to ensure that selected options are environmentally and socially sustainable, and are economically feasible. Consideration of alternatives was in line with the overall project objective, and it unleashed creative design and planning focused at project’s cost-effectiveness, flexibility and ease in implementation. This approach sent an important message to all stakeholders, particularly potentially affected local communities and NGOs that decisions regarding technologies and locations for POPs removal and destruction would be taken based on objective evaluation of potential socio-environmental costs and benefits, and the need to meet Moldovan international obligations.
In the course of preparing the EIA, the local team visited and prioritized all 37 proposed pesticide centralized temporary storage facilities in accordance with the significance of their potential risk, taking into account the capacity to store the proposed POPs pesticides tonnage. The integrated risk matrix will be used in elaborating the schedule and routes for final repackaging and transporting to a selected destruction facility abroad.
Consideration of available project options built on the national process of alternatives elaboration which took place in the country during 1997-2003, and particularly within POPs NIP preparation and related public discussions. Short-listed alternatives were discussed with local stakeholders and their views were taken into consideration when proposing the preferred option(s.) Public participation was beneficial to EIA process in two ways – it helped to 1) solicit and obtain information and views of real importance, and 2) build consensus by creating a two-ways transparent and respectful communication process, and ultimately establishing trust and enhancing acceptability of selected alternatives. Public consultations were covered in national press, radio and TV. Project’s public participation in analyzing alternatives became one of the best ways to counter the “not in my backyard” syndrome in relation to POPs management (created in the country by some GRM’s arbitrary decisions earlier, and by perceived GRM’s inability to keep its promises). Local NGOs acknowledged that project’s public participation at two stages in EIA preparation was a transparent, timely, balanced, and responsive to stakeholder views.
As three of proposed project’s components are in essence supportive of institutional development and strengthening activities with no potential for adverse socio-environmental impacts, the EIA, though analyzing all project’s components, has primarily focused on and evaluated two key scenarios for the project’s component 1 I. “No Project or Business as Usual,” and II. “With Project.” Within the latter scenario, the following alternatives have been analyzed: II.1) “recoverery and local long-term storage,” II.2) “local land-filling,” II.3) “final destruction in Moldova,” and II.4 “final disposal/destruction abroad.” Within each alternative, in order to incorporate best international practice additional siting, design, technology options were also considered.
The project’s EIA was based on the assumptions that: 1) Moldova does not have financial resources, technical capabilities and facilities for POPs environmentally safe long-term storage, disposal and destruction; 2) there is a vocal public opposition to POPs local long-term storage, land-filling and destruction; 3) there is POPs disposal/destruction overcapacity in abroad (in the Western Europe, primarily by incineration at certified facilities; a limited number of non-combustion commercial technologies is also available; 4) there are many commercial licensed vendors, who are in a position to offer Moldova a package deal (repackaging-transportation-incineration) at currently low market prices, and who have access to the referred certified destruction facilities; 5) Moldovan POPs matrixes are suitable for disposal and destruction abroad.
I – “No Project or Business as Usual scenario” - rejected
Analysis of this option has involved projecting what would likely to happen if the proposed GEF project is not undertaken, and the GRM would continue a) current activities, with limited and drying out funding, to repackage and transport obsolete POPs pesticides from over 347 sites to a to-be-determined temporary storages located in each of 32 Moldovan rayons, i.e. local administrative territories, and b) doing nothing in regard to a high risk PCBs storage and dump in Vulcanesti, which requires urgent action.
Both sub-scenarios were rejected, because: all POPs pesticides and PCBs known storages and dumps have exceeded the end their designed life-time, and have no fencing, protection and containment; some might have been built in violation of environmental and construction norms and standards, and not to all then mandated specifications; some might have started leaking already and/or would start leaking for sure, without proper maintenance, in the near future, including creating emergency situations; some storages are loosing their integrity and increasingly threatening the environment and public health; continuing with limited work, without adequate funding, proper design, planning, EIA or environmental audits, without site’s monitoring, safeguarding and decontamination will lead to higher socio-environmental risks; ongoing repackaging and centralization is reported to be poorly managed and implemented in violation of applicable OHSE requirements; low public awareness and lack of timely, transparent and meaningful public consultations as well as “broken promises” will lead to increasing public opposition and conflict situations with local population and authorities; there is an uncertainty whether POPs will remain among the GRM’s priorities. Ultimately the EIA found that this scenario invited growing unnecessary health and environmental risks, and higher costs in the future. Ad-hoc and un-coordinated POPs-related activities, scattered allover the country, contribute little to regional or global objectives, and the PCB problem will remain unattended. No-project scenario will certainly lead to Moldova failing to comply with its international obligations under the Stockholm and related conventions.
II – “With Project scenario”
II.1 – “Recover and long-term storage” - rejected
Recovering and putting POPs pesticides and PCBs from scattered storages and dumps to a priority centralized sites and electric sub-stations, without proper inventory, maintenance, monitoring, training of the personnel and safeguards, will increase the potential for socio-environmental harm due to their vulnerability of being released by natural disasters (slides, floods, etc.,) accidents or human failures. More importantly, much higher costs for these POPs final disposal/destruction will be required at a later date. Furthermore, vocal public opposition to previous GRM’s attempts to arbitrarily decide the location of long-term storage sites will certainly increase as in public perception this option does not differ from “business as usual” alternative. The EIA reviewed two other possible variants under this scenario: a) creating one centralized storage for all POPs utilizing old military facility, and b) building a new one. Both were rejected due to vocal public opposition to the former, and lack of suitable site or the need for a time-consuming and costly feasibility, EA and public consultations regarding the latter.
II.2 – “Land-filling” – rejected.
Though land-filling of pesticides has been used in Moldova in late 1970s, this scenario was rejected due to: poor experience with the existing landfill; a high “sunk” cost; need for a timely, expensive and comprehensive site selection and feasibility, including geological, and EIA studies. High operating, maintenance and monitoring costs also contributed to rejecting this alternative. In addition, this option triggers lengthy land allocation process by various local and national authorities as well as time-consuming negotiations to obtain numerous licenses and permits. Furthermore, PCB wastes with concentrations greater then 500ppm are banned from landfill disposal. Lack of local capabilities to develop a technical design in accordance with best international practice and standards, and the need to contract expensive international consulting was another reason against this option. Significant public opposition is almost assured under this scenario. Also important is the fact that POPs will still require destruction at a later data, but at a much higher cost.
II.3 – “Final disposal/destruction in Moldova: i) mobile decontamination; ii) incineration; iii) non-combustion destruction – rejected
All the above reasonably available options were rejected due to: the lack of readily available commercial technologies for i-iii in Moldova; prohibitively high costs of deploying technologies in i-iii, including for labor, utilities, supplies, materials, amortization, administration, etc.; the need for an expensive, time-consuming and comprehensive site selection and feasibility, including geological, health and EIA, studies; inadequate quantities of POPs waste streams to justify expensive upgrading, leasing or construction of a dedicated facility(ies) for i-iii with waste pre-treatment, crusher and control units, and on-line monitoring; the long period required (3-5 years) to deploy and/or build facilities for technologies in ii-iii in view of lacking national environmental regulatory, technical and monitoring capabilities, prohibitively long licensing and permitting, and subsequently long period for upgrading or construction; the uncertainty regarding GRM’s willingness to host incineration or non-combustion technology-type facility, and vocal public opposition; the lacking and/or unclear liability regime; the possibility that non-combustion and/or mobile decontamination technologies will not perform to specifications; existing incineration overcapacity in Western Europe and low prices for incineration abroad. Ultimately, the EIA found that any potential Moldovan POPs disposal/destruction facility will unlikely be able to compete in the international market place, thus making no economic, in addition to socio-environmental, reason to be implemented.
II.4 – “Final disposal abroad: i) incineration – proposed, ii) non-combustion – rejected
The export to the Western Europe of POPs pesticides and PCBs repackaged wastes for incineration remains both legal and cheaper alternative, compared to non-combustion technologies, and a preferred option[5]. In accordance with UNEP 1998 assessment, there were over 30 licensed and operating incineration facilities in Europe. Due to incineration overcapacity in the Western Europe, market prices for incineration are low and are projected to be low in the near future. The benefit of this alternative is that POPs will be destructed at a commercial, licensed, smoothly functioning and well-monitored facility, which meets the requirements of the Stockholm Convention, EU and host-country legislation and applicable international agreements, and has 99.99% destruction efficiency.
The project activities in POPs pesticides and PCBs sites as well as transportation of the repackaged POPs to a selected destruction facility will be, in addition to contractor(s)’ self-monitoring and reporting, supervised by the duly national authorities, like Environmental Inspectorate, DES and the PIU, assisted by independent environmental management consultants. This supervision will also include verification of socio-environmental monitoring and a pilot cleanup of the PCB site. The verification should be reviewed and cleared by appropriate national authorities and the World Bank/GEF.
The EIA reviewed and proposed a number of alternative transportation routes by road and rail to the national border, which ensure compliance with the Moldovan regulations on transporting dangerous goods by road and rail as well as with applicable requirements under the Basel convention and European agreements, like ADR, RID and IMDG. The EIA report also considered two environmentally and socially safe options for direct and intermediary shipments of POPs to their final destruction facility. All these alternatives should be refined and adapted when the destruction facility and the recipient country is agreed upon.
Environmental Impacts
The EIA has found that the proposed project will not have significant adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas (e.g. wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats) that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented, and may take place in areas broader than individual sites or facilities subject to physical works. The project’s potentially adverse socio-environmental and health impacts are anticipated to be negligible to medium in magnitude and potential significance. All impacts are primarily site specific, can be contained within the existing POPs pesticides and PCBs site boundaries, and none of them is irreversible.
The main potential adverse direct, cumulative and indirect socio-environmental impacts are related to: possible POPs pesticides and PCBs leakages and contamination at and nearest area around storages and burial sites during repackaging at 347 old sites and centralization in the selected 37 storage facilities due to the presence of heavy machinery and increasing numbers of workers for about week-long time periods; possible air pollution, soil and water contamination during POPs burial openings, excavation, accidents during national and international transportation, temporary storage prior to export shipment, and final disposal/destruction in a territory of a host country; remaining environmental pollution and contamination of over 347 former POPs sites without timely and effective clean-up and rehabilitation, which may lead to expanding the “footprint” of POPs pollution and increasing adverse health and socio-economic impacts; socio-environmental impact of POPs disposal/destruction facility in a host country; inadequately wide public consultations, information disclosure and conflicts among various interest groups; the lack of adequate budgeting and poor implementation of proposed environmental and social mitigatory, monitoring and institutional development measures as stipulated in the EMP; the weakening of political will and changes in national priorities.
The EIA report noted that for all potential adverse socio-environmental impacts from all project activities (which are similar and site-specific, but spatially dispersed, well-defined and well-understood) generic avoidance, prevention, minimization, containment, mitigation measures, outlined in numerous environmentally due diligence, occupational, health safety (EHS) and emergency preparedness requirements, procedures, protocols and standards, are readily available and easily adapted, when different from local ones, to the Moldovan circumstances and POPs waste streams. These have been translated in a comprehensive EMP.
Information Disclosure and Public Participation
The project’s EIA public consultations built on and continued comprehensive nation-wide public dialogue with diverse national and international stakeholders and awareness campaign which had stared during POPs NIP preparation in 2002.
The MENR and PIU announced the national 1st public consultations on a draft ToR for the EIA and Table of Content (ToC) for an EIA report, and posted both documents together with a project brief well in advance on web-sites of the PIU and REC, which had a network of over 250 local NGOs. Further public announcements were made in the media, and PIU sent e-mail invitations to over 150 groups and individuals. Director of the PIU and Stockholm Convention National Focal Point were key contact/resource persons for public inquiries.
The 1st public consultations, at screening/scoping stage in EIA, on draft EIA ToR/ToC drafts took place on February 18th, 2005 with about 40 people in attendance. The PIU, local and international consultants made extensive presentations on project’s objectives, potential scope and components, introduced both drafts and explained the applicable Moldovan and World Bank legislation and safeguard policies. Stakeholders found both drafts to be good quality documents which adequately reflected on the proposed scope of the project, potential socio-environmental costs and benefits, and the requirements of Moldovan legislation. The comments were summarized in the public consultation minutes and subsequently addressed in the EA and EMP. The participants of the 1st round of public consultations urged the PIU and MENR to: a) continue and expand a well-established process of information dissemination and public dialogue regarding EA/SA and project processing through PIU/REC web-sites and mass media; b) post the final EIA ToR/ToC and SA ToR on the PIU web-site; c) hold intermediary consultations with selected affected communities and local NGOs on a draft EIA report at the time of arrival of World Bank pre-appraisal mission in May 2005; d) ensure that EIA report and the EMP are public accessible and available in Moldova.
Prior to public consultations on a draft EIA report, project and EIA preparation were enlightened and enhanced by intermediary local town-hall meetings and regional workshops with primary stakeholders organized under the SA conducted by a local NGO. Town-hall meetings were organized in all 32 administrative units of the country. These were supported by focused classes on “POPs and Human Health” in selected schools, conducted by the SA consultant jointly with the Ministry of Education. Three regional workshops followed and took place in the northern, southern and central parts of Moldova. To facilitate SA, project-specific and POPs-related booklets in Moldovan and Russian languages were prepared and disseminated at the above-referred meetings. During March-May 2005, the SA consultant developed and implemented a comprehensive information dissemination and awareness campaign in local media, including national and local newspapers, radio stations and TV, and the REC network. A series of POPs-related articles appeared in the Moldovan environmental monthly Natura, which has a wide outreach through the circulation of about 20,000 and 8,000 subscribers, including all government agencies, local mayor’s offices, educational establishments and public libraries.
While drafting an EIA report, conducting field surveys and pilot sampling to define priorities, the local EIA team visited all proposed centralized storage sites and held comprehensive discussions with local stakeholders ranging from representatives of mayors’ offices to local civil society groups. These local comments and observations were factored into the EIA and timely communicated to project’s technical and SA teams, and the PIU.
The 2nd public consultations to discuss a draft EIA report, announced in national newspapers, PIU and REC web-sites and network, took place on May 19, 2005, and a draft EIA report was placed on the PIU and REC web-sites. Special invitations to participate were sent to mayors of all 32 administrative units, where a PCB dump and temporary POPs pesticides storage facilities are or to be located, as well as to key stakeholders from the government, the private sector, academia and NGOs. Over 50 participants were actively engaged in discussing the draft EIA report and supported the proposed alternative to engage a certified contractor to ensure due diligent, environmentally and social safe collection, transportation and destruction of POPs pesticides and PCBs in a to-be-identified licensed facility abroad. All participants urged the GRM and the Bank to finalize and approve the project at the earliest possible date, and particularly to speed-up its implementation.
At the same time, the participants expressed a number of concerns, particularly related to: the GRM’s failure to comply with existing regulations and to keep its promises regarding temporary nature of POPs storage (in a few locations, POPs pesticides have been sitting in a centralized storage for over 2 years; poor coordination among government agencies and donors (e.g. NATO, GEF, MOD and MENR); inadequate prioritization and monitoring of activities within the on-going POPs pesticides centralization process (implemented by the MOD); potential for environmental and social risks during repackaging, excavation and transportation of POPs due to human failure; lack of financial resources and technical means to complete pesticides repackaging and centralized storage on-time. These issues were addressed in the final EIA report and appropriate mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures were elaborated in the project’s EMP. Other related to collection and destruction of prohibited pesticides which might still remain in private possession.
Environmental Management Plan
The project EMP outlines a) the mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during project implementation to avoid or control potential adverse socio-environmental impacts and to enhance project’s benefits, and b) the actions, responsibilities and costs needed to implement these measures. The continuous, consistent and comprehensive public consultation process helped to design achievable EMP. Information on progress with implementing mitigation, monitoring, institutional and awareness building activities will be shared with the public. Civil society and NGOs will be engaged in project monitoring and implementation.
The EMP was formulated in a way that it is easy to use. References within the plan are clearly and readily identifiable. It provides linkages to other relevant project components and activities. The EMP was a basis for negotiations and reaching agreement with the GOM on a project’s key socio-environmental performance standards and outcomes. EMP requirements will be translated into bidding and contract documents to ensure that EMP-derived obligations are clearly communicated to contractors. None of potential socio-environmental impacts were found to have significant, sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented adverse effects on human populations, key social parameters and fabric of Moldovan society or environmentally important areas (e.g. wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats) that are broader than individual sites and facilities subject to physical works, or selected existing transportation routes to national borders.
The project’s various inherent socio-environmental risks, specifically those related to recovery and excavation, repackaging, transportation, destruction of pesticides and PCB pilot clean-up activities are easily mitigated by: comprehensive POPs inventory and risk assessment; diligently and rigorously applying, monitoring and enforcing readily available Moldovan OHSE requirements and internationally acceptable best practice, standards and guidelines; utilizing commercially available and internationally acceptable POPs mitigation, and destruction technologies; engaging, through World Bank-approved transparent international procurement / tendering / bidding process, of commercial licensed vendor(s) to collect, repackage, transport and destruct POPs pesticides and PCBs at an existing licensed facility in a selected Western European country in accordance with EU and host country legislation, standards and applicable international agreements; improving POPs management though regulatory modernization and administrative strengthening, capacity building, raising public POPs awareness and civil society engagement.
Subsequently, for all project components and activities (which are similar in scope and are site-specific, but are spatially dispersed) that are well-defined and well-understood, the EA has referred to, developed and outlined in the EMP generic avoidance, prevention, minimization, containment and mitigation, environmental due diligence, occupational, health safety (OHS) and emergency preparedness requirements, procedures, protocols and standards of Moldova and those that were readily available and easily adapted to Moldovan circumstances and waste streams from internationally accepted and commercially available best practice, consistent with applicable standards and stipulations of international conventions acceptable to the World Bank.[6] Technical requirements and best practice will provide a consistent “how to” manuals that will guide the process of investigating and conducting cleanups. The timing, frequency, and duration of mitigation, monitoring, institutional and public outreach measures are specified in an implementation schedule, showing links with the overall project implementation plans.
Licensed contractors bidding invited to participate in a bidding process must demonstrate expertise and experience in the field, and access to certified disposal/destruction facilities in a designated Western European country. Quality control will be through intensive technical supervision by the PIU assisted by an international environmental consultancy. Cost estimates and sources of funds were specified for implementing all measures contained in the EMP, integrated into the total project costs, and factored into GEF grant negotiations.
Though the clean-up and rehabilitation of POPs sites (and corresponding the liability issue) are not financed and addressed under the project, the EIA recommended the GRM to consider these problems on a priority basis. Cleanup standards endorsed by the GRM, and, in their absence, those from EU and/or stipulated by WHO/UNEP should provide a consistent measure to determine “how clean” a site must be to protect public health and the environment.
Conclusion
Implementation of the project with well-defined EMP, with adequately budgeted and clearly defined mitigation, monitoring and capacity building activities and institutional responsibilities, will ensure inter alia: avoiding, preventing and mitigating potential adverse socio-environmental impacts and enhancing project’s environmental benefits; cleaner and safe waters and soils, agricultural products; protecting biodiversity; improving access to global markets of local products; increasing aesthetical and economic values of various environmental media and property, and stimulating tourism.
Introduction
1 Background
The use of pesticides and other chemicals, toxic to both human health and the environment, grew dramatically during the last 40 years in Moldova. Due to poor management practices and the imposition of bans in the use of particular chemicals, Moldova has accumulated over the years large amounts of PCBs and obsolete pesticides, in particular POPs[7]. This poses a serious threat to human health, the local and global environment. These substances possess toxic characteristics, are persistent, accumulate in the tissues of most living organisms and are likely to cause adverse human health or environmental effects near to and distant from their sources.
The total current amount of obsolete pesticides in Moldova is estimated at 5,650 tons[8], including about 3,940 tons buried at a pesticide dump in the South of the country and 1,712[9] tons stored in over 300 poorly equipped or unfitted facilities which lack proper monitoring and security. On the other side, about 20,000 PCB-containing power capacitors are stockpiled at 20 electrical substations allover the country. The total PCB content in these capacitors is estimated at 380 tons while the total weight of the capacitors is approximately 1,080 tons. The power capacitors are situated outdoors and PCBs leak from corroded equipment to the soil below the capacitor batteries. The investigation of soil quality in the vicinity of obsolete pesticides and PCBs stockpiles showed varying degrees of environmental contamination posing problems of occupational health and endangering the public health at large.
Moldova has severe public health and environmental problems linked to the intensive use of pesticides in the past. The existence of obsolete (including POPs) pesticides stockpiles and lack of remediation are a continuous threat to the health of thousands of people. Poverty and ignorance push the local inhabitants e.g. to dismantle the old pesticide stores for construction materials, to use the proximal (contaminated) lands for crop production or grazing the cattle. Long-term exposure to POPs in such ways is likely to produce insidious chronic effects and irremediably affect people’s health. Besides direct health effects, this may have notable impacts on the economy of rural regions by undermining the opportunities for organic agriculture and the export potential of food products, thus affecting the income of small farmers and the rural poor.
The Government of Moldova acknowledges that elimination of POPs will serve the long-term interests of public health, environment, and economic development of the country. In October 2004, the POPs National Implementation Plan was approved[10] aiming to provide a framework and management options in order to meet the obligations taken by Moldova by joining the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and to reach the national objectives and priorities regarding the POPs. The Government initiated repackaging of obsolete pesticides and their storage in a limited number of sites under more controlled conditions. Repackaging all obsolete pesticides in the country is expected to be finalized by the end of 2005. These activities provide an immediate solution to the current situation where pesticides are widely dispersed and present a serious environmental and health hazard. At the same time, the national authorities do not have capacity to handle the problem of PCBs in power equipment present at a number of sites. The Government of Moldova formulated a request to the GEF to assist in providing a more sustainable solution to the POPs problem thus helping the country to comply with its obligations under the Stockholm Convention. On the basis of this demand, the Moldova Stockpiles Management Project is being prepared.
2 Objectives and Scope of the Environmental Assessment
The identification of the potential effects of the project lead to the conclusion that despite its focus on mitigating a major source of environmental risk, the project itself is potentially a source of significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the project was classified as category A, according to World Bank policies, resulting in the need for the preparation of a comprehensive environment assessment study, which was conducted as part of the preparation of Moldova Stockpiles Management Project. The findings and recommendations of this study are summarized in the present report.
The objective of the environment assessment study is to evaluate the potential environmental risks and impacts associated with the project and to identify ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts. The environment assessment should include an Environmental Management Plan focusing on three generic areas: mitigation measures, institutional strengthening and training, and monitoring.
It is important to point out that, the environmental assessment seeks to provide comprehensive analysis limited - besides the PCBs - to obsolete/POPs pesticide stocks stored at former public locations, and therefore it excludes obsolete pesticides from private households. In addition, the environmental assessment does not extend to issues related to manufacturing, distribution and application of pesticides.
Furthermore, since the World Bank will be the project implementing agency for GEF, the preparation of the environmental assessment study was guided by the requirements of the World Bank’s environmental safeguard policies (under the umbrella of Operational Policy 4.01), as well as the international framework for regulating hazardous chemicals and hazardous waste, and the national environmental regulations.
3 Methodology
The WB has classified the project under Category A, due to the reason that persistent organic pollutants are triggered. The environmental impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works. This environmental assessment is being treated as a combination of sectoral environmental review and more in deep assessments of critical projects sites. That is why selective, affordable, participatory approach has been applied for EA study. Internationally accepted methodological steps have been implemented, as follows:
Screening. This stage has been applied to determine whether a proposed project might have significant environmental impacts. The project is beneficial by its intention of destruction of POPs stock in the country. The obvious project benefits at local/regional/national and international levels have been revealed and discussed during the NIP preparation. The stakeholders and public consultations came to the conclusion that no major environmental, health and social negative impacts are to be expected from the project. Those remaining ones can be avoided and mitigated by applying the international best practices and enforcing compliance. Nevertheless the potentially affected environment may include human beings, soil, water resources, and natural habitats, and that is why the EMP is focusing on sensitive project areas.
Scoping. The scoping stage included initial environmental examination of proposed project activities. The outline of the Environmental Assessment has been drafted through experts’ discussions and public consultation. The EA study boundaries lie within the country limits, as the project has countrywide application, but emphasising on the central rayon stores for obsolete pesticides and the Vulcanesti electric station, as a major project component related to the PCBs stockpiles management. Two major alternatives have been discussed namely “without project” and “with project”, considering different project configurations.
Environmental Assessment baseline. Since the project sites are spread all over the country the description of environment has been focused on the key national environmental concerns and aspects relevant to POPs, as well as on social and economic country features. The findings obtained during the screening and scoping stages guided and limited baseline description. Relevant specific information has been collected at rayon level, including general, weather, natural disaster risks, hydrology, soil, groundwater, flora, fauna, and protected areas information. The EA team visited all 37 sites where centralisation of obsolete pesticides has already been or will be implemented, as well as all identified PCBs stockpile sites (12 locations). For each visited site, a short description and evaluation of possible environmental impacts, identification of sensitive areas and simplified risk assessment has been conducted. The simplified scoring matrix developed allowed ranking of central stores against anticipated risks. The number of old and evacuated pesticides warehouses has been reviewed by field examination in order to develop “without project” alternative and identify residual impacts.
The study has also included a program of environmental sampling and analysis for POPs pesticides and PCBs. The sampling program has been prepared by the EA team, clarified by the PIU and implemented by the Hydrometeorological Service and the State Environmental Inspectorate.
Project alternatives and assessment. Various POPs elimination alternatives have been extensively discussed in the country for a long time. The realistic and affordable options have been evaluated at the stage of the NIP preparation[11], and, further, have been developed by the project teams. Project impacts have been assessed both as negative and positive ones. Among various methodologies for impacts prediction and description the matrixes and network approaches has been applied, as this methods allows visualising direct and indirect impacts, showing relations between environmental components and presenting “cause-response” links. Selected criteria were considered for determining the significance of an impact. Criteria included severity, extent, duration, frequency, possibility of occurrence, and possibility of reversibility. The findings of the assessment have been extensively discussed during workshops and have been generally agreed by stakeholders and public communities.
Environmental Management Plan. The EMP is incorporating a set of measures to ensure the project implementation is undertaken in an environmentally sound manner and without adverse socio-economic impacts. The EMP is focusing on three generic areas: mitigation, institutional strengthening/training, and monitoring. All three elements of EMP have been described and the responsibilities of various institutions have been identified.
Stakeholder Participation. The method used during the EA study pertinent to the public participation process is the participation by consultation. This is actually what both national legislation[12] and the WB OP 4.01 on Public Consultation and Disclosure required. Its overall goal is to ensure transparency in decision making and to provide for stakeholders the possibility to participate in the process of project design and for designer - to improve the design of the project as well as to select the best mitigating the environmental impact measures based to a considerable extent on the concerned public ideas and views.
4 Organisation of the EA Report
The report is organized in 9 chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief description of project background, as well as the objectives and methodology for the environmental assessment. Chapter 2 describes the Moldova Stockpiles Management Project development objective and components. Chapter 3 reviews the policy and institutional framework under which the environmental assessment has been prepared. Chapter 4 summarizes baseline conditions across the country. Chapter 5 gives a brief overview of the analysis of alternatives considered for dealing with the obsolete pesticides and PCBs stockpiles in Moldova. Chapter 6 presents the key environmental and social impacts associated with the project. Chapter 7 presents the Environmental Management Plan, including estimated costs, implementation and monitoring arrangements. Chapter 8 summarizes the participatory approach used in preparing the environmental assessment. Finally, Chapter 9 provides the conclusions of this report. The report has an Appendix, which includes site-specific data and other detailed information.
Description of the Project
The Moldova Stockpiles Management Project grew out of the deep concern of Moldovan society about and the sustained efforts of national authorities to rid the country of an estimated 3,000 tons of stockpiles of obsolete and highly toxic pesticides and 20,000 PCB-containing electric capacitors. Besides, it has to be ensured that policy and institutional frameworks are put in place so that the problem does not reoccur. Putting this into practice has taken about 2.5 years of preparatory work, inter alia, enabling Moldova to assess the problems in this field and to prepare the National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on POPs focused primarily on measures that can mitigate the direct negative impacts on environmental health and human well-being.
1 Project Objectives
The main development objective of the project is to protect the environment and human health through the sustainable management of POPs pesticides’ and PCBs stockpiles. This objective will be achieved by environmentally safe disposal and management of POPs, and by creating national capacities for implementation of the Stockholm Convention requirements and of those stipulated under other relevant international Conventions and Protocols ratified by Moldova.
The project will complement ongoing national activities in this area, specifically activities required under the Government Decision No. 1389 of 24/11/2003 on collection, centralized storage and neutralization of obsolete pesticides. It will build synergy with other IDA projects including the Energy II project, which includes several activities with regard to detailed inventory and safe storage of PCBs in energy sector. The project will also be linked with the World Bank-supported Moldova Trade and Customs project, particularly in supporting development of Moldovan Department of Customs capabilities related to monitor POPs import/export, transportation, identification and reporting activities.
2 Project Beneficiaries and Project Area
The Moldova Stockpiles Management Project is designed to eliminate or reduce a major source of risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, the benefits coming from the project are mostly in terms of risk reduction, improvement of life quality, and capacity building. The project will reduce threats on biodiversity since the elimination of POPs stockpiles and their sound management would decrease the pollutant burden and possible impacts on wildlife, domestic animals and humans. It will contribute to improved water (including drinking water) quality by preventing future contamination and threats to the water resources. The project will address land degradation by preventing soil pollution by various POPs and especially by pesticides. Besides its health and environmental benefits, the project would contribute to poverty reduction and the country’s sustainable development.
The project will target areas – and surrounding communities – where obsolete pesticides and PCB stocks are, or were, stored.
3 Project Components
The project will consist of four components.
Component I. Environmentally sound disposal of obsolete POPs stockpiles
This component will support on-the-ground investments for environmentally safe disposal of obsolete POPs, including co-financing for repackaging and centralized safe storage of obsolete pesticides, and PCBs in the energy sector, as well as their final destruction. These activities are priority activities specified in the POPs National Implementation Plan that was approved by Moldovan Government on October 20, 2004 (No. 1155). There are two sub-components under this component:
A. POPs obsolete pesticides subcomponent
The Government of Moldova initiated repackaging and centralized storage of obsolete pesticides and expects to finalize the operation in all counties by the end of 2005. These activities provide an immediate solution to the current situation where pesticides are widely dispersed and present a serious environmental and health hazard. However, the type of packaging used does not meet UN requirements and most of the pesticides repackaged have not been labeled for identification purposes. This subcomponent will finance quantification, identification and packaging of the pesticides in UN approved containers which will then render the materials safe for transportation and destruction. The following activities will be conducted:
(i) Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides. It is assumed that the GoM, with the support of Milieukontakt, a Dutch NGO which has initiated a regional project on obsolete pesticides, will continue conducting this job and will finish repackaging and centralized storage of all Moldova obsolete pesticides. Milieukontakt will carry out demonstration work on quantifying, identifying, packaging and storing of the pesticides in selected rayon(s), in accordance with FAO guidelines and UN requirements. The GoM will continue to repackage, transport and store the pesticides using the methodology applied previously which do not fully meet UN standards due to budget constraints. Although the materials will need to be repackaged in project financed containers, the process of collecting the obsolete pesticides in closed plastic barrels reduces the risks associated with handling and transport to a central station, and centralizing the pesticides from 300+ sites to about 30, will greatly reduce the level of effort required when packaging them in UN approved containers.
(ii) Inventory and risk assessment. Many of the obsolete pesticides that have been repackaged and centrally stored are unidentified. The purpose of this activity is to quantify and identify the obsolete pesticides. The analytical laboratory which is being financed by NATO will assist in this component.
A risk assessment of storage sites will also be carried out on the basis of data gathered as part of the inventory. The risk assessment exercise will provide a risk ranking for sites where pesticides are currently stored or were previously stored. On the basis of this national register of sites and their risk ranking, decisions can be made regarding prioritization of sites for further action.
(iii) Repackaging for transportation and final disposal. The objective of this activity is to eliminate all obsolete pesticides as well as empty containers that previously held obsolete pesticides and associated materials that have been heavily contaminated including soil and building materials which can be removed from their current location. The preferable option for final disposal is the export of the waste for treatment or destruction in another country where appropriate licensed, registered and monitored facilities dedicated for management of hazardous waste exist. Repackaging, labelling, transportation and destruction (or other treatment) would be carried out by a contractor appointed through international tender and selected on the basis of both technical and financial evaluations of bids received.
B. PCBs subcomponent
This subcomponent will support the following activities:
(i) PCBs detailed inventory. This activity will finance an inventory of PCBs in capacitors, transformers and other electrical equipment in use at power substation sites and large electricity consumers, as well as of PCB-contaminated equipment used or stockpiled. According to the inventory undertaken as part of the NIP preparation, almost 20,000 PCB-containing capacitors are located at 20 electrical substations throughout the country. The total PCB content in this equipment is estimated at 380 tons while the total weight of the capacitors is approximately 1,080 tons. Besides the use in the energy sector capacitors are widely used by large consumers of electricity. An inventory of capacitors held by electricity users has not been undertaken yet. Based on expert judgement the total PCB content of those capacitors is roughly estimated at 20-50 tons. The project will assist in conducting the full inventory of PCBs in capacitors in the country.
According to an inventory of the electrical equipment a total of 22,806 power transformers are in use in the country. The total content of oil in transformers is approximately 18,000 tons whereas about 5,400 tons are in use in switches, inductors and other equipment. Whether this equipment is or not contaminated with PCBs is largely unknown. The project will provide for the inventory of contamination of oils in transformers and other electrical equipment.
(ii) PCBs disposal. The PCB-containing capacitors in the electrical substations are a significant and growing menace to the environment. The project will support the final disposal of the PCBs contained in capacitors in a specialized facility abroad. All capacitors at the substations are to be dismantled from the batteries, packed in UN-approved IBC containers, stored for a short time at the substations before final shipment for disposal outside the country. This would include excavating broken capacitors buried at the Vulcanesti station.
(iii) Feasibility study of remediation measures at the Vulcanesti substation. Due to the incidents with capacitor explosions and leakage by corrosion the steel construction holding the capacitors at the Vulcanesti substation and the ground below may be highly contaminated. The project will conduct a feasibility study to identify the most cost-efficient measures for preventing further dissipation of the PCBs from the contaminated site to the surrounding. The study will include an exact mapping of the contaminated sites, sampling and analysis, mapping of PCBs contamination levels, site environment characterisation, risk assessment, and assessment of different site cleanup designs. After decision on the site cleanup design a detailed work schedule for cleanup including standard safety procedures will be prepared. The feasibility study and remediation of the Vulcanesti station may serve as demonstration project for future remediation measures at other substations and other contaminated sites.
Component II. Sustainable POPs Management
Within this component three groups of activities will be financed:
(i) Strengthening POPs institutional capacity. The project will support: (i) developing integrated POPs management, including creation within the MENR of a Center on Chemical Safety and strengthening of Waste Management Sector to coordinate and manage Moldovan national obligation related to the transposition of modern regulations and international obligations under several international treaties related to POPs and specifically Basel, Stockholm, LRTAP and its Aarhus Protocol (and potentially Rotterdam Convention); and (ii) conducting a revision of existing legal and institutional arrangements (gap analysis; comparing EU legislation and Convention requirements – preparation of Table of Concordance; revision of international obligations related to POPs and hazardous wastes and updating of national legislation in this area). These activities will include development of a regulation on the responsibilities of electrical equipment owners to notify and label the equipment; development of guidelines for identifying PCB-containing equipment. It is also proposed to develop a license system for undertakings involved in decontamination, dismantling and removal of PCB-containing transformers, as well as to develop a system for management of PCB-containing waste and obsolete PCB-containing equipment as an integrated part of a general hazardous waste management system.
(ii) Inventory, monitoring and enforcement activities. This subcomponent will finance support for the: (i) strengthening the enforcement capacity (MENR, Department of Customs, Ministries of Energy, Agriculture and Industry) to ensure compliance with regulatory controls; (ii) developing innovative financial mechanisms for environmentally safe disposal of POPs (and hazardous waste) and for sustainable POPs (and hazardous waste) management; (iii) developing procedures and guidelines for monitoring and reporting, as well as for creating a new permitting system, based on the EU IPPC Directive; and (iv) improving environmental monitoring by upgrading the analytical laboratory capacity for conducting POPs analyses and identification.
(iii) Training and capacity building for POPs handling. This subcomponent will support relevant training activities for target beneficiaries - MENR, ecological inspectors, Hydrometeorological Service, Moldelectrica. A special attention will be on training for the Moldelectrica and other staff that would do the actual work for POPs inventory, repackaging and restoring on the ground. Guidelines and Procedures will be prepared for environmental inspectors and the staff involved in POPs handling. Additionally there will be developed special Guidelines for safe re-packaging POPs pesticides and PCBs.
Component III. POPs public awareness and replication activities
This component will be based on the Communication Strategy prepared by the GEF POPs enabling activities project. The component will support public awareness and a participation program on POPs related environmental and health problems, as well as replication of project results across the region. The project will also support improving inter-agency information sharing and information management system as well as strengthening of National Environmental Information Center - relation to EIONET and relevant international Convention Secretariats; database of comprehensive, accurate and regularly updated aggregated information quantifying POPs, with the possibility for upgrading (by other sources and projects) for other relevant environmental information.
Component IV. Project Management
This component will finance implementation of the project including, incremental operating costs of the PIU, audit services, and monitoring and evaluation.
4 Project Financing, Coordination & Support
It is expected that total project cost will be at the level of US$ 13.22 million. The GEF will finance US$ 7.2 million which will be complemented by financing from the Government of Moldova (US$ 1.47 million including IDA credits Energy II and RISP 2, as well as in-kind contribution from project beneficiaries), and other donors at the level of about US$ 4.55 million.
The GEF project will build on the baseline activities that are being/will be undertaken by the Government of Moldova by providing additional support to overcome identified threats. GEF resources and common efforts coordinated by the Government, interested Ministries and local population, will allow implementation of an efficient management system for obsolete POPs stockpiles including safe storage. GEF funding will provide the resources essential to accelerate the POPs activities, demonstrate the need for a holistic approach to POPs sustainable stockpiles management and safe elimination, and undertake a public outreach program.
The ongoing government commitment to the project is evident by the activities underway to address POPs. In 2003-2004, 4 million MDL were allocated for the centralized storage from the State Budget and the National Ecological Fund. In 2005, the allocated budget was raised to 6 million MDL. With this financing, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Emergency Situations have started repackaging and safely storing obsolete pesticides. To-date, more than 1,700 tons of these substances have been repackaged and stored. In 7 out of a total of 37 districts the work has been completed. In another 14 districts the MOD together with DES have initiated repackaging. Moldova will support the project activities further with funds within the World Bank WB Energy II project. The Energy II project provides US $ 0.2 million for activities related to PCBs disposal in the energy sector.
The Government of Moldova has launched discussions with bilateral donors (France, Denmark, Turkey, NATO) regarding investment and technical assistance for complete destruction of obsolete POPs. So far, two co-financing arrangements have been reached including:
● Euro 0.125 million NATO project on upgrading MAFI analytical laboratory capacity to identify the content of obsolete pesticides. Based on the request of Moldovan Government, NATO will provide laboratory equipment as well as its operating costs for the next 2 years.
● Euro 0.77 million MILIEUKONTAKT project on elimination of acute risks of obsolete pesticides. This project will support demonstration activities for obsolete pesticide storage sites remediation as well as technical assistance for conducting these activities, and for strengthening institutional capacities in this regard. Furthermore, the project will support a broad information dissemination and public awareness campaign.
Further consultations are needed to identify complementarities for the proposed activities and projects and possible co-financing.
Legal and Institutional Framework
1 National Policies, Strategies and Programs
The most important policy documents developed over the last decade relevant to the environment protection in general and particularly to the management of toxic and persistent chemicals are:
The National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), approved by the Government in October 2004[13], provides a policy framework and describes interventions which are needed to reach the national objectives and priorities regarding management of POPs and enabling Moldova to reach its obligations under Stockholm Convention;
The Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2004-2006) is the overarching policy framework for the sustainable development of the Republic of Moldova in the medium term. It serves as the basis for developing and implementing new assistance strategies by international financial organizations and donor countries, as well as for the preparation of the annual state budgets for 2005 and 2006. The environmental component of the Paper makes direct reference to the POPs centralized environmental sound storage and destruction as a short-term action;
The Mid-term Strategy for Socio-economic Development of the Republic of Moldova to 2005, approved by the GRM in 2001, stipulates that ecological-economic goals shall include: regulating impacts from economic activities on the environment; preventing environmental pollution and ensuring environmental quality and rehabilitation; improving methods for utilization of natural resources and ensuring their continuous and safe exploitation; improving environmental education; enhancing environmental research and implementation of environmentally clean technologies. Also it is mentioned that international environmental standards will be introduced in all sector of national economy, particularly the ISO 14000 standards.
The Concept of the Environmental Policy of the Republic of Moldova (2001)[14] is the document which formally replaced the Republic of Moldova National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) which (the latter) has determined the development of the environment management system of the country within 1996–2000. The Concept has two key objectives to: 1) prevent and reduce negative impacts of economic activity on the environment, natural resources and health of the population within a framework of national sustainable development, and 2) ensure ecological security of the country. Main directions of Moldavian environmental policy include inter alia application of two principles – “economy through ecology” and “cost-benefit”. Relevant to the current study the following statements present in Concept should be mentioned: introduction of clean technologies and improvement emissions & discharges purification, wastes minimization, collection, neutralization, recycling and reduction of their toxicity. Politically the Concept is clearly oriented toward European integration.
The National Environmental Health Action Plan (NEHAP, 2002) provides directions for the next 10 years for protecting human health and assigns responsibilities among Government agencies, with specific focus on aligning the country with EU by ensuring harmonization with its policies, procedures and practices. NEHAP has a few references to POPs, including in: § 4.1-Water stipulating elaboration of a POPs decontamination system for waste water discharges; § 4.2-Air stipulates development of POPs air emissions monitoring systems and of a program for “neutralization” of the referred emissions; § 4.3-Soil seeks to encourage improving existing legislation and elaborating new maximum allowed concentration for various POPs as well as provides for establishing a national POPs inventory; § 4.5-Food – stipulates improved control of pesticides contamination of food; § 4.10-Natural Catastrophes and Industrial Accidents provides for creation of a national register of potentially toxic chemicals; § 5.1-Sectors of the economy provides for elaboration of a control system for electrical transformers, which contain PCB; § 5.4-Agriculture stipulates developing regulations regarding importing, storage and use of pesticides.
The National Program for Industrial and Consumption Wastes Utilization (2000)[15] was developed based on the principle of wastes minimization, their maximum economic utilization and ecologically justified disposal of wastes. The Program seeks to promote ecologically clean production aiming at reduction and prevention of wastes accumulation, pollution prevention and ecological effectiveness. The scope of applicable standards is defined as well as reference is made to the requirements of the Basel Convention and relevant rules of EU.
The Energy Strategy until 2010 (approved in 2000) set the strategic goals of the energy sector: increase of energy efficiency and energy supply, ensure the energy production and environmental safety. The Strategy is focusing on introducing less polluting energy technologies aimed at preventing and minimizing environmental pollution.
The National Program on Ecological Safety (approved in 2003) tackles the natural and man-made impacts which may result in the degradation of environmental ecosystems and may affect the human health. Among considered man-made impacts are those arising from the industry, agriculture, power engineering etc. and those due to transboundary pollution and wastes generation. The actions to be taken to secure the ecological safety include comprehensive monitoring, risk assessment, ecological insurance, prevention and warning system, international and regional cooperation.
The Concept of Sustainable Development of Settlements in Moldova (approved in 2001) promotes the creation of favorable conditions in localities and involving of population in decision-making process in the field of environmental protection.
The Investment Strategy of the Republic of Moldova (2002)[16] proclaimed that one of the major national investment goals is to attract and increase investment into environmental protection, raising efficiency of utilization of natural resources and reducing negative environmental impacts due to economic activity. It also seeks continuation of harmonizing national legislation and standards with that of EU.
The Strategy to Facilitate Export in 2002 – 2005 stated that Moldova, as a full WTO member (since May 2001) shall pay great attention to environmental protection and related requirements of international trade agreements. In addition, in order to establish a free economic zone with the EU, Moldova must demonstrate progress in a number of areas, including harmonization of legislation and standardization.
2 National Legislation and International Obligations
National Laws
The laws governing the implementation of the national policies and their implementation being the most relevant ones toward the persistent organic pollutants control in Moldova are as follows:
Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (adopted in 1994, amended in 2000). The overall goal of environmental protection in the country is defined by the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova which declares that each person has a right for the ecologically safe environment.
Law on the Environmental Protection (1993) established a legal foundation for developing normative acts and regulations applicable to different environmental media in order inter alia to protect land and subterranean resources, waters and air from “chemical, physical and biological pollution, and from other impacts.” The law sets the basic principles of environmental protection, including the priority of environmental goals, mandatory environmental compliance, environmental liability, prohibition of implementation of any programs and projects without a positive conclusion of the state ecological expertise and concurrence by the population in the area of impacts, payments for use of natural resources and non-compliance, and use of collected monies for environmental mitigation and rehabilitation.
The Law on Ecological Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment (EE&EIA, 1996) determines the goals, objectives and principles of Ecological Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as fundamentals of both procedures (the detailed description is provided in the sub-chapter 3.5.1 below).
The Law on Regime for Hazardous Products and Substances (1997) establishes the legal basis for activities related to production, storage, transportation and use of hazardous and toxic products and substances as well as their import and export in order to avoid, reduce or prevent their negative impacts on population and environment.
The Law on Wastes from Industrial Production and Consumption (1997) aims at fostering efficient management of wastes in order to reduce their amount and increase recycling, reuse and prevent environmental pollution and degradation. § 3 stipulates that the government develops and approves the State Program for Use of Wastes of Production and Consumption; coordinates activities of relevant ministries and department; approves a Statute on Waste Management, establishes limits for waste disposal, approves Procedures for Using Licenses for Waste Management.
The Law on Payment for Environmental Pollution (1998) proclaims that the aim of the law is to create an enabling economic system which will: make it unprofitable to pollute the environment, stimulate construction and operation of waste purification and utilization systems and introduction of clean processes and technologies as well as create environmental funds to finance environmental investments.
The Law on Water Protection Zones and Strips of Rivers and Water Bodies seeks to ensure protection water in rivers and water bodies from pollution, depletion and degradation as well as to regulate economic (industrial and agricultural) activities in protected zones and strips. § 13 stipulates certain restrictions on activities in established water protection zones, particularly prohibiting siting and construction of storage facilities for mineral fertilizers and pesticides, pesticide preparation and mixing facilities and construction of waste water treatment facilities. This article also stipulates a permitting regime to be jointly enforced by MECTD and MOH. §§ 16 – 18 establish monitoring, control and enforcement regime in protected zones as well as liability for violation and non-compliance with the law.
The Law on Civil Protection (1994) § 1(1) stipulates that civil defense is a system of statewide measures and activities implemented in peace and war times in order to protect population from natural and environmental disasters, accidents and catastrophes, natural hazards and fires as well as from weapons of mass destruction. § 1(7) establish a Department of Civil Defense and Emergency Situations as the central sectoral public management body.
The Law on Fund of Natural Areas Protected by the State (1998) deals with various types of specially designated national territories. § 5 refers to Moldovan obligations and requirements under international conventions, agreements and treaties, namely: 1992 Convention On Biological Diversity, 1979 Bern Convention On the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 1979 Bonn Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and 1971 Ramsar Convention On the Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. § 26(c) prohibits the use and application of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and other toxic chemical substances in protected areas of scientific importance.
The Law on Transport § 2(2) stipulates that relevant Moldovan international obligations have priority over provisions of national legislation, norms and standards. § 6(3) provides that transport enterprises and facilities shall ensure sustainable use of land, prevent water-logging, reduction of land quality and soil contamination by wastes and untreated waste-waters, prevent erosion and land-slides and comply with environmental legislation. § 9(d)(e) instruct transport enterprises to protect the environment from negative impacts of transport activities, ensure compliance with environmental legislation, standards, labor norms as well as certify transport activities and facilities in accordance with applicable international standards. § 13(4) prohibits siting of transport facilities, which handle explosives, flammables, radioactive, poisonous and toxic substances, close to residential areas, protected natural territories. An appropriate minimum distance shall be approved by special legislation and norms. § 13(7) established that senders and recipients of explosives, flammables, radioactive, poisonous, hazardous and toxic shipments must assure the safety of loads and their transportation and have mobile units and means to prevent and mitigate accidents during transportation of such items.
The Law on Standardization proclaims standardization as one of major factors in developing of national economy and environmental protection, and § 3 provides that the standardization aims at protecting consumers’ rights, ensuring quality of products, processes and services, safety, health and environmental protection. § 4 stipulate the following standards in Moldova: national standards, professional standards, and standards of firms. Other standards include: technical regulations, medico-biological regulations, sanitary norms, sanitary-hygiene norms and rules, environmental protection norms. § 4(4) stipulate that the above standards and norms shall be based on the latest achievements of science and technology, international and regional standards, etc. § 8 stipulate that each ministry, agency and economic object, irrespective of the form of ownership, shall have a unit responsible for standardization process and compliance. § 9 establish the process and procedure for developing and approving national, sectoral, media and product standards.
The Law on Health Protection stipulates that public administration shall take all necessary social and medical measures to prevent illnesses, improve the environment, maintain the safe and hygiene life and working conditions, etc. § 17 proclaims the citizens right to health and the preservation of national gene fund, which assured inter alia by the safe environment. § 19 stipulate that every citizen has the right for compensation of health damages caused by various negative factors, including the violation of sanitary-epidemiological norms.
The Law on Licensing Certain Types of Activity (2001) seeks to define legal, organizational and economic foundation and scope of the licensing activity. § 2 stipulate that a license is a document, issued by a licensing authority, which certifies the right of a licensee to implement certain activity under the condition of compliance with stipulated requirements. § 8 provides a list of activities subject to licensing, including: (32) storage of toxic chemical substances and products.
The Law on Industrial Safety of Hazardous Industrial Facilities establishes legal, economic and social foundation for safe operation of hazardous installations and seeks to prevent accidents and timely localization and rehabilitation of their consequences as well as to protection the environment and population. § 4 and Annex 1 establish the notion and a list of dangerous production objects. § 5 stipulates that hazardous activities shall be conducted in accordance with industrial safety requirements and shall ensure protection of the population and territories from emergency situations, in accordance with sanitary-epidemiological, environmental, fire, sanitary-hygiene and construction norms and requirements.
The Law on Access to Information (2000) regulates relationships between providers and users of information, establishes principles, conditions and procedures for ensuring access to information, determines the rights of people requesting information and obligations of providers of information, and creates a mechanism for protection of the right to access to information. § 4 establishes state principles of access to information, including the right of any person to search, receiving and reviewing official information, and prohibits discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, gender, views, political affiliation and social origin. § 7 established the scope and procedures for limiting access to information. § 20 stipulate principles of payment for receiving official information. § 21 stipulate the general principles for protecting the right to access to information.
The Water Code (1993) seeks to ensure sustainable water use, protect water resources from pollution, contamination and depletion as well as prevent negative impacts of polluted waters on human health. §§ 8 – 12 established that siting, design, construction and launching into operation of any new or reconstructed facilities and other objects is permitted only after completion of a state sanitary-epidemiological expertise and only when such facilities have water purification and pollution prevention devices.
The Land Code (1991) proclaims protection of land to have higher priority than other types of land use activity. §6 stipulates that the State shall financially and administratively support inter alia development of various types of effective land management and use, including those aimed at reducing land pollution by waste, and research regarding interrelationships between environmental and land protection. § 16 requires routine coordination with a national environmental authority regarding any plans for land development and construction. §31 instruct all industrial, communal and other land users and owners to prevent any negative impacts of agricultural lands. The Code establishes different types of land based on the purpose of their use and mandates respective protection regimes. Chapter XII deals with protection and improvement of land quality. §80 stipulate that land protection measure shall be elaborated and implemented at planning, design, construction and operation or various facilities and technologies. The Code prohibits launching into operation of any facilities and technologies that do not protect land. §82 stipulates that in order to protect land quality, environment and health of people, maximum permissible concentrations of chemical, biological and other active substances in soil shall be elaborated and approved by separate legislation. This Code is complemented by the Law on State Land Management, State Land Cadastre and Land Monitoring (1992).
The Code on Underground Resources (1993) aims at sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection and safe mining activities. In accordance with §35 underground storage of toxic substances and wastes is authorized only under a special permit to be issued by a national environmental authority, and such storage is allowed only after the completion of a state ecological expertise. The burial of extremely toxic and radioactive wastes is established by other legislation.
International Conventions
There are a number of Conventions ratified by Moldova with direct relevance toward the POPs Project:
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm, 2001) was ratified in 2004. The overall objective of the Convention is to protect human health and the environment from POPs that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are toxic for humans and wildlife.
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel, 1989) was ratified in 1998. The goal of the Convention is “environmentally sound management”, the aim of which is to protect human health and the environment by minimizing hazardous waste production whenever possible. Environmentally sound management involves strong controls from the generation of a hazardous waste to its storage, transport, treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal.
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP, Geneva, 1979) was ratified in 1995. The Convention aims to protect human and his environment against air pollution and endeavor to limit and, as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution including long-range transboundary air pollution.
Aarhus Protocol to CLRTAP on Persistent Organic Pollutants was signed in 1998. The Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) focuses on a list of 16 substances that have been singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The substances comprise eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three by-products/contaminants. The ultimate objective is to eliminate any discharges, emissions and losses of POPs. The Protocol bans the production and use of some products outright (aldrin, chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, hexabromobiphenyl, mirex and toxaphene). Others are scheduled for elimination at a later stage (DDT, heptachlor, hexaclorobenzene, PCBs). Finally, the Protocol severely restricts the use of DDT, HCH (including lindane) and PCBs. The Protocol includes provisions for dealing with the wastes of products that will be banned. It also obliges Parties to reduce their emissions of dioxins, furans, PAHs and HCB below their levels in 1990 (or an alternative year between 1985 and 1995). For the incineration of municipal, hazardous and medical waste, it lays down specific limit values.
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (Rotterdam, 1998) was ratified in 2004. The purpose of this Convention is to promote shared responsibility and cooperation in the international trade in certain hazardous chemicals. In order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm, the Convention facilitates the sharing of information and prior informed consent among joined countries and contributes to the environmentally sound management of certain hazardous chemicals. Presently, the Convention covers 27 pesticides (including five severely hazardous formulations) and five industrial chemicals. Additional pesticides, industrial chemicals or formulation are added as they meet the Convention's criteria
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) was ratified in 1993. The Convention sets out the obligations of Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across borders.
Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (Helsinki, 1992) was ratified in 1993. It is designed at protecting human beings and the environment against industrial accidents by preventing them as far as possible, by reducing their frequency and severity and by mitigating their effects. It promotes active international cooperation between the contracting Parties, before, during and after an industrial accident.
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making Process and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus, 1998) was ratified in 1999. The Convention requires guaranteeing the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and refers to the goal of protecting the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to health and well-being, which represents a significant step forward in international law.
3 Applicable National and International Standards
National Regulations
When talking about the applicability of international and national standards toward the POPs Project implementation the process driven approach is used. It means that the subject of analysis was the standards and normative determining the processes of:
i) identification
ii) packaging (packaging for transport and packaging for storage)
iii) transportation and
iv) storage of POPs and PCBs.
The following, pertinent to the POPs issue, Regulations are in force:
Regulation on Transportation of Hazardous Materials on the Territory of the Republic of Moldova[17] stipulates that DES and MECTD are responsible for supervising of importing, exporting and transportation of hazardous substances and products. § 5 make MECTD responsible for monitoring and control of hazardous and toxic wastes across Moldovan borders in accordance with requirements of the Basel Convention. §7 makes Customs Department responsible for ensuring control and monitoring and enforcing compliance with applicable legislation and regulations when hazardous loads are transported across national borders. §9–13 provide a classification of hazardous shipments, which are subject to different transporting rules and procedures depending on their toxicity, explosiveness, flammability, poisonous, etc. as well as introduces UN accepted marking of dangerous goods. In accordance with §65, MECTD ensures monitoring, control and enforces compliance with applicable environmental legislation regarding toxic and hazardous substances and product, while DOC and Road Police monitors and enforces the referred rules.
Regulation on Control over Transboundary Transportation of Wastes and their Disposal[18] sets the national transportation rules complying with the ADR provisions.
Regulation on National Monitoring and Laboratory Control Network for Monitoring Environmental Pollution by Radioactive, Poisonous, Highly Toxic Substances and Bacteriological (Biological) Substances[19] sets the objectives, the structure of this system and designates and designates the implementing agencies, namely: MOH Centers for Preventive Medicine, MAFI subordinated centers and laboratories, Hydrometeorological Centre and the MECTD.
Regulation on Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Enterprises subject to Privatization[20] sets the procedure of environmental impact assessment at economic entities posing environmental risks. The latter include units which produce, store, pack and/or sell: pesticides, electric equipment containing PCBs, plastic materials, fertilizers, etc.
Sanitary Regulation on Storage, Neutralization and Landfilling of Toxic Substances and Wastes[21] sets the requirements for storage and disposal of toxic substances and wastes from industrial enterprises and agriculture farms. It stipulates: the criteria for site selection; requirements for landfill design and construction; criteria for selecting the methods of disposal; requirements for landfill inspection/checks; analytical methods for pollutants determination in soil.
Regulation on Management of Phyto-Sanitary Products and Fertilizers in the National Economy[22] is the basic document setting mandatory sanitary, environmental and hygienic requirements for all aspects of agriculture chemicals management. The requirements in the following areas are particularly pertinent to the Project activities: storage and transportation of phyto-sanitary products; decontamination of transport units, equipment, packaging materials and premises; safety measures; and individual protection equipment.
Regulation on Procedures and the Statute for Selection and Information Exchange in the Protection of Public Areas in Emergency Situations[23] defines natural and man-caused emergency situations and their sources, including those that were caused by accidents which lead to emissions and discharges of toxic and hazardous substances and subsequent pollution of various environmental media and disrupted routine public life style.
Regulation on Public Involvement in Elaboration and Decision-making in Environmental Protection Area (RPIEDM) [24] establishes the procedure of public involvement and participation in environmental decision making. The regulation proclaim the main principle of decision making: public involvement should anticipate any decision on planned activities likely to negatively impact the environment. The Regulation sets the responsibilities and rights of main actors: public, developer and local authorities.
National Standards
The following national standards are applicable to the identification, packaging, transportation and storage processes envisaged by the Project:
Hygienic Norms for the Content of Residues of Phyto-Sanitary Preparations in the Environment[25] stipulate the maximum allowable concentrations/limits of pesticides residues in the environment as well as the maximum daily intake values; lists the pesticides determination methods and sets their costs.
General Sanitary-Hygienic Requirements for Air Quality of the Working Areas[26] set maximum allowable concentrations for toxic chemicals in the air of working areas (e.g. industrial premises, open air, transport units).
Sanitary Rules for Protection of the Atmospheric Air in Residential Areas[27] set general requirements for all economic entities which are sources of air pollution.
General Requirements for Protection of the Surface and Ground Waters against Pollution with Pesticides[28] stipulate the requirements concerning the sanitary zones for groundwater intakes and protection zones for rivers. It provides the classification of pesticides according to their polluting potential for groundwater as well as to their risks for living organisms.
General Requirements for Categorizing the Soils according to the Impact of Chemical Pollutants on them[29] provide a classification of soils depending on their tolerance to chemical pollutants.
Safety Requirements for Use of Pesticides for Plant Protection[30] apply to all activities related to the use of pesticides, including storage; loading; transportation; decontamination of premises and transport units; and use of individual protection equipment.
Rules for Pesticides Acceptance, Sampling, Packaging, Labeling, Transportation and Storage[31].
Construction Norms for Dry Fertilizers and Pesticides Storage Facilities [32] set the requirements to be complied with when designing storage facilities for agriculture chemicals, including building, operating and environmental safety requirements.
Guidelines for Designing Landfills for Toxic Industrial Wastes[33] stipulate the requirements concerning siting, capacity, collection of toxic wastes, methods of disposal, sanitary protection zones and environmental monitoring.
Instruction concerning the Selection, Preparation and Sending of Obsolete Pesticides and their Package Materials for Disposal[34] stipulates the requirements related to the process of identification/selection of obsolete pesticides; and the organization of their sending to specialized facilities for disposal.
International Standards
In terms of identification, packaging, transportation and storage the provisions to follow are put down in the (i) Basel Convention General Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes Consisting or, Contaminated with Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)[35] as well as in the (ii) Basel Convention Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes Consisting of, Containing or, Contaminated with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Polychlorinated Tetraphenyls (PCTs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls are applied[36].
The guidelines provided in these documents are intended to serve as a stand-alone general guidance and also as what might be termed an “umbrella” guide to be used in conjunction with the specific technical guidelines.
4 Administration and Enforcement
Apart from POPs implementation the institutions which are relevant to environmental management system in Moldova are:
The Presidency. The president is responsible in front of international community for the state of the environment in the Republic of Moldova.
The Parliament is responsible for approving the environmental policy, laws and programme. There is a Parliamentary Commission on Environment and natural Resources within the structure of the Parliament.
The Government is responsible to enforce the adopted policy and laws through its lines ministries and state departments. Besides within the structure of the Government there is a Department of Agriculture and Environment and several ad hock and permanent commissions.
Toward the POPs Project implementation the following institutions have direct implications:
The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR) is the central national environmental authority designated as the Stockholm Convention competent authority. MENR is responsible for: state legal monitoring, control and compliance enforcement particularly for production, storage, transportation, use, neutralization and burial of toxic and hazardous products and substances and their wastes.
The Ministry of Health and Social Protection (MOHSP) is responsible for establishing and maintaining the National Register of Potentially Toxic Chemical Substances and for listing new substances when necessary. It also amends the Statute on Procedures for the Use and Elimination of Hazardous Products and Substances and their Wastes; issues conclusion regarding the Statute on Procedures for Transporting, Storing and Use of Phyto-Sanitary Means and Fertilizers and the List of Chemical and Biological Means of Plants Protection and their Growth Stimulation.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI). MAFI includes the State Service for Plants Protection and the State Center for Phyto-Sanitary Means and Fertilizers Certification, which has a designated certified laboratory. The State Register of Phyto-Sanitary Means and Fertilizers, approved by the interdepartmental Council for phyto-sanitary means and fertilizers approval, is elaborated, maintained and updated through a joint effort of MAFI, MOH and MENR. In accordance with the Governmental decision No.1543 The MAFI is responsible to collect the information regarding the progresses made toward centralization of the POPs pesticides.
The Ministry of Energy (ME) is concerned about several aspects of environmental and energy saving issues but the problem of PCBs is not specifically on their agenda. Increased pressure from the unresolved problem of PCB oils and power equipment (particularly old capacitors) has driven the energy sector to seek solutions. NIP stipulates MOE responsibility related to PCB issue within the power enterprises.
The Ministry of Transport and Road Management (MOTRM). In accordance with the Governmental Decision N 637 от 27.05.2003 - is responsible for toxic wastes trans-boundary transportation as well as for training of the drivers to carry out this kind of transportation.
The Ministry of Defense (MD). In November 2003, in accordance with the Governmental Decision No 1543 MOD and DES started repackaging and transportation of obsolete pesticides in a few districts.
The Department of Customs (DOC) administers export and imports by ensuring compliance with restrictions established by MENR, MAFI, MOH, which furnish the department with lists of prohibited pesticides and chemicals in accordance with national legislation and international obligations. DOC enforces these restrictions at the border with MAFI and MENR helping customs officers with specific technical issues.
The Department of Standardization and Metrology (DSM) possess all the standards related to storage of toxic wastes, transportation of toxic wastes, is responsible to supervise all activities which fall into the category of dangerous ones, relevant to civil protection issue.
The Department for Emergency Situations (DES). In November 2003, in accordance with the Governmental Decision No 1543 MOD and DES started repackaging and transportation of obsolete pesticides in a few districts. Also this department is responsible to undertake precautionary measures in terms of civil protection issue.
The local authorities have responsibilities for environmental protection and management in the limits of their territory, ensuring compliance with applicable legislation and standards. The legislation stipulated a range of obligations for economic entities (e.g. to operate on the basis of environmental permits, prevent pollution, manage toxic substances in environmentally safe way, etc). Related to POPs processes the LA are all mentioned in the Governmental Decision No 1543 as being responsible to secure selection of the storage sites as well as to assist the MOD and DES in centralization and repackaging work.
Environmental Enforcement
Moldovan legislation stipulates: a) disciplinary, b) administrative, c) civil, and d) criminal liability for non-compliance and violation of environmental, health, safety and social legislation, regulations, standards and norms, permits and licenses. In addition, market-based instruments of environmental protection, like taxes, fees and fines for use of natural resources, pollution and over-pollution, are used in the country. These are being enforced and penalties are being imposed by authorized governmental ministries and agencies as well as through judicial process. Environmental prosecution may result in temporary or permanent termination or closure of relevant facilities and processes, or lead to mandatory retrofitting and upgrading to meet environmental, health and safety standards and norms. Natural and legal persons liable for environmental harm and damage must compensate and pay to required rehabilitation, restoration, etc.
The following executive and specially authorized state bodies are responsible for enforcement of constitutional principles and legislative acts in environmental protection field:
● Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (Environmental Inspection as a sub-ordinated institution)
● State Forestry Department
● Ministry of Health and Social Protection (Sanitary-Epidemiological Service)
● Ministry of Internal Affairs (Traffic air pollution)
● Ministry of Agriculture and Food Processing Industry
● State Geology and Mineral Resources Agency of Moldova.
5 National and WB Environmental Assessment requirements
National EIA and other procedural requirements
The national procedures for environmental consideration has been introduced sine 1985, and currently includes the package of mechanisms and tools, as: so called ecological expertise, environmental impact assessment, environmental audit, pasportisation of facilities/units/entities, construction expertise, planning and designing rules and normatives, environmental and health permission and penalty system, environmental risk assessment of privatized enterprises, etc. Formal EIA procedures were introduced in Moldova since the year 1996. Current legislation is treated EIA process as project-level oriented, applicable at the planning phase to complex and potentially dangerous (to the environment) projects, which could lead to significant impacts. The strategic, regional or sectoral environmental assessments are not incorporated yet.
Thirty-two topics are on the list of activities obligatory requiring an EIA. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) may require EIA for other types and scales of projects if significant impacts are foreseen, but the criteria are not specified. Among listed projects only: (1) installations and polygons for reusing, dumping and neutralization of industrial wastes, including toxic and (2) electrical enterprises, which required more than 2,000 m2 of surface area, have been found as are subjects for EIA. There are no formal EIA requirements for re-packaging and stocks of pesticides, remediation of contaminated sites, as well as for storage of electrical equipment.
The EIA should be conducted at an early stage of the project (before designing) if new construction, upgrading, reconstruction, modernisation, production profile changes, conservation or liquidation of existing enterprises or new development planning is expected to be implemented. The EIA is conducted by national certified experts following the defined methodology[37], report structure and documentation requirements. The brief Statement on the Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) should be a subject of public and ministerial revisions. Corrected SEIA and other documentation should be presented to the so called State Ecological Expertise[38] for adoption. A positive decision on the SEIA provides the official basis to initiate detail design of the project.
Once the technical and economic evaluation (feasibility study) and detailed design is prepared it is again subject to review by the State Ecological Expertise. The EIA findings should be incorporated in the chapter “Protection of Environment”, of the Engineering Design Report including mitigation measures and the environmental management plan. The State Ecological Expertise can be conducted either by the MENR responsible department, or by the Zonal Ecological Agencies, depending on the scale of the project and its economic importance. In addition to the obligatory State Ecological Expertise, so called “ministerial” and/or “public” expertise can be voluntarily applied.
The EIA procedure is a complex one. The steps to be followed for the submission and approval of the EIA findings are illustrated in Figure 1 next page.
The EIA procedure has several weaknesses, as follows: (i) there are no criteria for initial environmental examination of projects/activities not included in the formal list[39]; (ii) scoping and screening are not included as formal EIA steps; (iii) the decision-making process based of EIA study is not clearly defined[40]; (iv) there are no criteria established for review of the EIA by the State Ecological Expertise, which does not become formally involved in the EIA process until late in the procedure; (v) there is no opportunity for official early public input to the process[41].
Figure 1. EIA Process in Moldova
An environmental audit is applied only to existing facilities, enterprises, factories, or other economic activities. The purpose of the audit is to evaluate environmental impacts at the operational phase[42].
National requirements for public involvement in EIA process
When public participation is the subject of a legal analysis there are 4 human rights which all together make the sense of the notion and which should be addressed. They are: (i) the right to know (public information), (ii) the right to participate (public involvement procedures), (iii) the right to be heard (considering the public opinion under the decision making process) and, (iv) the right to appeal (attacking the decision in court).
(i) The access to information is guarantied by Constitution of the Republic of Moldova which by the articles 34 (“the right to access to information can not be stopped”) and 37 (“the state guaranties the right to the free access to the environmental information”) sets the general framework of the issue in question.
Moldovan legislation stipulates a large spectrum of provisions assuring the right to know of the citizens - for instance, in environmental matter there are more then 10 environmental laws containing provisions on access to information. However, the only law which comprehensively governs the access to all kind of information is the organic Law on Access to Information. Unlike the majority of laws this one sets a very clear procedure of access to public interest information and stipulates all conditions when the information is exempted from public access due to certain reasons like e.g. state / commercial secret, documents under preparation and internal working documents.
(ii) All above mentioned environmental laws did not provide a clear procedure of public participation - this right is rather declared then instrumental in the laws. The law where the procedure of public participation is described is the Law on Environmental Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment (EE&EIA) as well as the Regulation on Public Involvement into Environmental Decision-Making (RPIEDM). At the same time, the provisions toward the right to participate within the EE and EIA Law are very restrictive[43] making the procedure of participation problematic to the general and even affected public. Besides, there are a number of procedural confusions and contradictions between the Law and Regulation.
(iii) The EE&EIA Law and the RPIEDM do oblige the responsible public authorities to make public (publishing in media, radio, TV broadcasts, etc.) the decision made. However, nor the Law neither the Regulation obliges the authorities to make accessible to the public the reasons and considerations on which the decision is based.
(iv) The provisions of the EE&EIA and RPIEDM do imply the decision-makers to make the decision accessible to the public (publishing in mass media). Nevertheless, nor EE&EIA neither RPIEDM obliges the decision makers to provide within the decision published also the guidelines on appeal procedures.
WB safeguards operational policies
The Bank’s safeguard policies require that potentially adverse environmental impacts of projects are identified, avoided or minimized where feasible, and mitigated or monitored. All 10 WB safeguard policies have been analyzed in the context of the applicability to the project outline. The Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) is clearly triggered[44]. The Pest Management (OP 4.09) policy[45] is not applied[46]. The Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) and Forestry (OP 4.36) have been identified as not triggered, but for the several project sites identified during risk assessment, located nearby sensitive habitats and important forest areas, required safety and precautionary measures should be incorporated.
A comparative review of WB Operational Policies, relevant Moldovan and EU legislation is presented in Annex 5.
Description of the Environment (Baseline)
1 Biophysical Environment
1 Location and Topography
Moldova is a landlocked country of 33,800 km2 with a population exceeding 4 million (2004 estimate)[47] situated in southeastern Europe and is one of the most densely populated countries in the region. Chisinau is the largest city with a population of 700,000 and other large centres include Tiraspol, Balti and Bender. Moldova is bordered by Romania on the west and by Ukraine on the north, east and south. Most of its territory is drained by two large rivers, the Dniester and the Prut, both part of the Black Sea basin. The landscape is dominated by rolling hills, and void of mountains and plateaus. The country forms a varied mosaic of undulating open and wooded steppe alternating with plains. The multitude of landscapes and local topographical features determines the variety of toxic chemicals pathways in the environment. The picture of chemical contamination and impacts can be very complex, considering that natural conditions in Moldova are typified by a substantial variation in soils, landscapes, vegetation buffers and water resources.
2 Climate[48]
Moldova has a moderate continental climate, with short mild winters and long hot summers. The coldest month is January with average temperature ranging from minus 3ºC to minus 5ºC. Spring weather is unstable and can be characterized by rapid temperature rises. Summer is long, hot and dry. The warmest month is July, with average temperature ranging from 19ºC to 22ºC and the maximum daily temperature frequently exceeding 30oC. The average annual air temperature is 7.5-10.0ºC and average soil surface temperatures are within the 10-12ºC range. The warm period lasts 146 to 180 days per year. Temperature and humidity are important factors which determine the environmental fate and lifetime of organic chemicals. The ambient conditions in Moldova allow persistent organic chemicals to remain in soil for long periods of time. It is well known that some organochlorinated compounds can persist in the soil for 10-20 years and more. This explains why DDT is still being detected in the Moldovan environment despite the fact that it was banned in 1970 and it was not used in significant amounts since then[49].
Annual precipitation varies from 550 mm in the north of the country to 350 mm in the south and falls mainly in the summer months as torrent rains, often accompanied by squalls and hail. Summer precipitation is quite variable, ranging from monthly averages of 55-85 mm to 200-300 mm. About 18% of total precipitation falls as a mixture of rain and snow during the winter months. Precipitation water is a carrier of many pollutants and the precipitation pattern is an important factor determining the spatial distribution of chemicals in the environment. During the torrent rains the runoff, carrying all kind of chemicals adsorbed on the soil particles, is a major contributor to the surface water pollution, while during winter and springtime the problems of chemical contamination of the groundwater are of bigger concern. Strong winds are rare but should not be ignored as contributors to the contamination of the surroundings in the vicinity of chemical pollution sources (chemical stores, highly contaminated lands). This is particularly relevant for volatile and dust pesticide formulations.
3 Geology and Soils
Moldova’s geology is dominated by the Moldovan plate of the Eastern-European geological platform. Sedimentary materials of sandstone, clay and limestone cover the crystalline basement. The variety of soil mechanical and composition profiles determines the accumulation potential of the soil related to persistent organic compounds as well as the movement of pollutants into the groundwater with leaching precipitation water.
Moldova is located within the seismic Carpathian region and is subject to earthquakes, the intensity of which can reach a rating of 6-8 (locally 9) on the Richter scale. This leads to stricter requirements to be applied to engineering works and consequently to higher construction costs[50]. The safety precaution principle is a very important consideration to be applied to any building intended for long-term storage of toxic and dangerous chemicals as any damages occurred in basement, floor surface and roof of the building can result in unexpected contamination of the neighbouring environment.
Moldova is blessed with excellent soils for agricultural production; the black soils comprise 75% of all agricultural land. One of the most serious environmental issues in the country is the progressive loss of topsoil: approximately 2 million hectares of land are affected by erosion and soil losses are estimated at 26 million tons of soil annually. During the last 35 years the area of eroded land increased by 265,000 ha (7,500 ha per year, on average)[51]. Soil erosion also leads to the silting of water bodies, transporting adsorbed chemical substances to surface waters, causing pollution and other losses in terms of services to the population both for drinking and irrigation purposes.
Huge amounts of pesticides were used in the agricultural sector in the past decades in order to protect the large-scale monoculture fields easily invaded by pests, weeds and fungi. In the 1950-1990s, an estimated amount of 560,000 tons of pesticides were used, including 22,000 tons of persistent organochlorine compounds[52]. This resulted in heavy contamination of the soils. The application of pesticides was so high that locally the residual levels of organohlorine compounds exceeded maximum allowable levels by up to 50 times[53]. Since the middle 1980s, the application of pesticides has diminished significantly and currently the background monitoring conducted by the Hydrometeorological Service (HMS) does not report significant contamination of soils by persistent pesticides at the selected sites [54].
It has to be stressed, however, that data on the soil pollution by pesticides near the pesticide stores and former stations for preparation of chemicals solutions are worrying. Several surveys of such areas showed a significant level of soil pollution with persistent organic pollutants, including DDT, in the radius of up to 200 м from the storage facilities[55]. In most of such locations the national standards for DDT and its metabolites in soil were significantly exceeded (up to 15-20 times), even at a depth of 1 m.
4 Water Resources
The surface water resources of Moldova are mainly (90%) formed by the transit flow of the Danube, Dniester and Prut rivers. The internal rivers network consists of nearly 3,300 water courses with a total length of 16,000 km. Most rivers are small and only nine have a length exceeding 100 km. About 3,500 reservoirs have been created on the rivers, designated to trap sediments, provide irrigation, domestic/industrial water, and support fisheries.
The water quality of the Dniester and Prut rivers is generally considered as suitable for irrigation, recreation and drinking purposes. Currently, the main source of pollution of surface waters is improperly treated sewage. Most wastewater treatment plants are ill-maintained, consequently surface waters are still receiving significant loads of organic pollution and are subject to strong bacteriological contamination[56]. A general improvement of the river water quality in terms of chemical pollution was observed over the last decade due to the significant decline of the industrial and agricultural production. Most of the internal rivers are canalized, with regulating dams and flood protection dykes, and most are moderately or heavily polluted[57],[58],[59]. The reported level of pollution with synthetic organic compounds and pesticides is low[60].
There are few small natural lakes in Moldova. Most of the water bodies are reservoirs created on the small rivers which are regulated by weirs, build in cascade. The reservoirs are subject to siltation due to soil erosion, eutrophication and pollution from land-based sources. Nevertheless, they are an important local resource for livestock watering, fishing, commercial fish farming, maintaining domestic waterfowl, and recreation. The high value of local water resources for the rural population requires special attention if any actions involving pesticide stores management are to be taken. The water reservoirs are currently often used for commercial fish-farming which is an important economic activity in the rural areas. This makes the water streams and associated reservoirs particularly sensitive to pollution by toxic, persistent and cumulative chemical compounds.
The floodplains of many of the small internal rivers are highly exposed to flooding, due to climate and landscapes characteristics, poor technical status of weirs and inadequate safety management[61]. Several cases of severe floods on small rivers have been reported over the last decade. The pesticide stores, located closely to the floodplain, have been washed out thus contributing to the pollution of water resources[62],[63].
90% of Moldova’s groundwater resources are related to the deep aquifers. Deep groundwater, especially from the Lower Baden Sarmat aquifer, underlying the entire country, is an important source of domestic and industrial water. Deep groundwater resources are characterized by high levels of salt content that are often close to, or exceeding the drinking standards for fluoride, sulphate and TDS. Shallow groundwater is present throughout the country in recent Quaternary sediments, which are composed mostly of sand, sandstone, and occasionally, gravel. This shallow acquifer is fed from the infiltration of precipitation and is therefore vulnerable for pollution from the earth surface. In the same time, this is a major drinking water source for rural population: about 50% of the country population relies on shallow wells for drinking and domestic purposes.
A study implemented in 1997 in two pilot regions[64] indicated pollution of shallow wells by atrasine, prometrine and organophosphorus insecticides at trace concentrations. Most of the contaminated wells were located near orchards, tractor brigades, pesticide warehouses and within arable fields, but also in the limits of villages. DDE and HCH have been reported in some wells at a level varying from 0.00014 to 0.00028 mg/l.
5 Natural Systems, Habitats, Biodiversity and Protection
Natural landscapes and biodiversity in Moldova are limited due to the long lasting and intense agriculture use of this area. At present, natural ecosystems cover no more than 20% of the country’s territory; they are fragmented and notably degraded[65]. The forest cover index is 9.6% and virgin forests are rare (86% of the woods are planted). The steppe ecosystems are in a continuous process of degradation, since the specific habitats have been almost totally converted into arable land. Natural meadows were completely destroyed on the area of about 200,000 ha and have been preserved only as small isolated spots. Aquatic ecosystems, wetland and marches cover approximately 2.8% of the national territory[66]. Moldova’s biodiversity is represented by more than 5,500 species of plants, 1,200 species of mycophyta and about 15,000 species of fauna, including 461 vertebrates and 14,400 invertebrates. The greatest biodiversity value is associated with forest, aquatic and wetland ecosystems[67], which are among the most vulnerable natural habitats in the country.
The number of wildlife species requiring protection is constantly growing[68],[69]. The current edition of the Red Book includes an extremely high share of animal species from certain classes (e.g. 57% of reptile species, 43% of mammals, 20% and 24% of fish and birds, respectively). Because of the degraded status, fragmentation and sensitivity of nature to human impacts, the biodiversity and habitat conservation is an important theme in any assessment of the factors, which may lead to further degradation of the national ecological potential and affect sustainability of country development.
The state has developed a system for the protection of important and threatened habitats and landscapes and between 1962 and 1998 the total area of protected areas has increased from 3,700 ha to 66,500 ha or 1,96% of the national territory, which is still very low in comparison to the majority of European countries[70]. The categories and areas of natural protection are indicated below.
Table X. Habitats and Landscapes Protected in Moldova
|Categories of natural objects and complexes |Number |Area (ha) |
|Scientific reserves |5 |19,378 |
|Nature monuments, including: |130 |2,907 |
|Geological and paleontological |86 |2,682 |
|Hydrological |31 |100 |
|Botanical |13 |125 |
|Natural reserves, including: |63 |8,009 |
|Forests |51 |5,001 |
|Medicinal herbs |9 |2,796 |
|Complexes |3 |212 |
|Landscape reserves |41 |34,200 |
|Resource reserves |13 |523 |
|Multi-purpose management areas, including: |34 |1,030 |
|Typical areas of steppe vegetation |5 |148 |
|Typical areas of meadow vegetation |25 |675 |
|Protective forest belts |2 |208 |
|Botanical gardens |1 |105 |
|Dendrological gardens |2 |104 |
|Garden architecture monuments |20 |191 |
|Zoological gardens |1 |20 |
|TOTAL |310 |66,487 |
The management of the majority of protected territories is deficient. Enforcement of legal requirements is poor. In some cases the protected areas are left in the custody of economic agents, mayors’ offices, educational institutions, which do not have capacity or even interest for adequate management of these areas.
Pasture grassland is limited for most villages and local authorities usually designate the less productive lands for community pasture purposes. Due to lack of pasture lands, areas like forests, wetlands, river floodplains and roadside plantings are used for grazing. This often involves areas located nearby or even inside the territory of the pesticide storage facilities, which increases the risks of acute toxic effects for cattle or sheep and chronic intoxication for humans, as well as the potential for environmental dissipation of POPs.
There are no data available on the level of contamination of the natural and protected areas with pesticides. A study undertaken in two pilot areas in the late 1990s[71] did not reveal any pesticide contamination of shallow groundwater wells located in forests and semi-natural areas (ravines, etc). Description of the environment at the rayon level is presented in the Technical Appendix.
2 Socio-Economic Environment
1 Economic Evolution of Moldova and Poverty Issues[72]
With independence, the Republic of Moldova began facing a set of political, economic, environmental and social problems, which it had to resolve alone, relying on its own potential and resources. The process of state building and self-determination was going in a context of social and economic crisis, and radical transformation of the economic system. Lack of experience in resisting external “shocks”, crises in the economy and social sector, as well as insufficient experience in implementing system and sectoral reforms, unstable internal political situation, territorial disintegration of the country – all these predetermined the considerable mistakes and costs of the transition period.
Until independence, the Moldovan economy was highly integrated into the Soviet economy through the mechanism of the inter-republican division of labour and economic ties with the other union republics. The high degree of integration was reinforced by an almost complete lack of domestic energy resources, of non-agricultural raw materials, machinery, equipment and components for production, and of subsidies for the country’s agrarian sector from the Union budget. The Transnistria conflict has broken economic ties within the country. As a result of the territorial disintegration, Moldova lost control on its eastern border of a considerable part of its energy, irrigation and industrial sectors.
The period of adaptation to the collapse of the Soviet Union and internal disintegration coincided with the beginning of the reform and restructuring of the economic system. A switch from the centrally planned economy to the market economy was executed energetically in all main areas, including price liberalization, foreign trade and investment, opening up the internal market, mass privatisation, land reform and formation of a new banking system. However the consequences of the reforms, and their effect on social development and environment were not accurately predicted; no account was taken of the low level of preparedness of the people and of economic agents to live and act in the changing circumstances. Thus the practical results of the reform to a large extent failed to meet expectations of society and government.
The transformation of ownership relations was the key and radical reform. The mass privatization of the state property did not justify the aspiration in the emergence of a new class of owners interested in the development of production by increasing competitiveness; renovating and modernizing fixed assets, comply with the environmental obligation, attracting investment and quality management. The main agrarian reform, the transfer of land and assets (including part of the pesticides warehouses) into private ownership, was carried out without providing adequate enough to render informational, technological, commercial, financial, consulting, environmentally oriented and other services to peasants. As a result the problems of ecological degradation and uncontrolled pollution intensified. Most of pesticides warehouses, shared between farmers, has been dismantled and part of obsolete pesticides has disappeared. At many locations the farmers used the bricks, blocks and other construction elements for building facilities for livestock and other household needs. Lack of control, low level of information and awareness of the rural society concerning the negative impacts of improper pesticide management practices, and poverty of rural population, altogether leaded to this situation. Larger and environmentally well-designed regional pesticides warehouses had a better fate but without proper operation and maintenance and clear perspectives of future use, these assets are in the process of advanced physical degradation.
In 2000, the Moldovan economy moved onto a growth trajectory. From 2000 to 2003, GDP rose by 24,1%, industrial output by 54,1%, and investments in fixed capital by 21,5%. The economy entered the period of upturn with a new structure. As a result of implementation of reforms, the non-state sector became dominant. In 2002, its share in GDP was 75%, with a share of over 80% in industrial manufacturing, over 95% in retail trade, almost 100% in the agrarian sector, and 54% in the sector of paid services. The correlation between major economic sectors remains unfavourable – agriculture in 2002 accounted for 21,0% of GDP and nearly half of all employed in the economy (49,6%), industry accounted for 17,3% of GDP and a bit more than one tenth of the employed (11,4%). The economic stabilisation and growth was not reflected in improving the environmental management. Low capacity of the public, health and environmental authorities to control and manage pesticides warehouses status leaded to further deepening of environmental pollution problems.
In a domestic regional context, the economy of Moldova is evolving in an unbalanced way. In the course of the crisis years, a gap between the social and economic development of capital city Chisinau and the rest of the country increased. Differentiation of the economic potentials of the capital and regions is caused by the degradation of industry and infrastructure of smaller cities during the 1990 crisis, and by the low efficiency of the agrarian sector in regional economies, resulting in an absence of necessary conditions and resources for development, including environmental consideration. The rural communities are very significant poverty epicenters, which generates environmental concerns, with impacts on the population’s health and well-being, which results in increasing the level of rural poverty driven by the environmental cycle. Moldova is among the poorest countries in Europe, with a per capita income of US$543 and over half the population living on less than one US dollar equivalent per day.
The social crisis was deeper and more dramatic than the economic one. With large-scale release of labour from the economy, high inflation and falling real state expenditures for social needs, the losses of the population were limited not only to narrowing income resources and declining purchasing power, but also to a diminished ability to enjoy social assistance from the state, in the form of benefits and free social services. The main indicators of social development are presented in the table below[73]:
|Years |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |
|Number of permanent residents as of 1 January, thousands |3663.7 |3655.6 |3649.9 |3644.1 |3635.1 |3627.8 |
|of people | | | | | | |
|Population aging rate (individuals of 60 and over per 100 |13.3 |13.5 |13.6 |13.6 |13.6 |13.9 |
|people) | | | | | | |
|Average life expectancy, years: | | | | | | |
|- male |62.9 |64.0 |63.7 |63.9 |64.5 |64.4 |
|- female |70.3 |71.4 |71.0 |71.2 |71.7 |71.7 |
|Births per 1, 000 people |12.5 |11.3 |10.6 |10.2 |10.0 |9.9 |
|Deaths per 1,000 people |11.8 |10.9 |11.3 |11.3 |11.0 |11.6 |
|Rate of natural increase |0.7 |0.4 |-0.7 |-1.1 |-1.0 |-1.7 |
|INCOME OF POPULATION | | | | | | |
|GDP per capita, USD |527.1 |464.8 |321.3 |353.7 |408 |459 |
|Share of population with income below USD 2,15 per day (by|- |52.7 |70.8 |64.5 |52.4 |39.8 |
|purchasing power parity), % * | | | | | | |
|Share of poorest population (I quintile group) in national|5.8 |5.9 |6.2 |6.7 |6.6 |6.8 |
|consumption, % | | | | | | |
|Average monthly nominal wage, USD |47.6 |46.5 |29.0 |32.8 |42.2 |51.0 |
|EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR MARKET | | | | | | |
|Number of employed in the economy, thousands of people |1646 |1642 |1495 |1515 |1499 |1505 |
|Number of employed in agrarian sector, thousands people |684 |750 |731 |766 |764 |747 |
|Unemployment rate according to ILO methodology, % |… |9.2 |11.1 |8.5 |7.3 |6.8 |
In spite of the facts of emerging and targeting efforts to mitigate social crisis the perceptions of many national and international experts are that social and economic improvements are slow and sometimes negligible. The critical issues now are not only to make improvements, but also to ensure that improvements are visible and understood by stakeholders.
Poverty in the 1990s grew in association with reductions in national output, investment, employment, and degradation of physical and biological environment, damaging of infrastructures, neglecting of environmental obligations and decreasing of real income of the population. As with many countries in transition, poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon, but because of its geographical and geo-economic and geo-political location, Moldova has specific features, which have amplified its vulnerability to poverty. These include regional economic crises, sensitivity to natural disasters, political and social instability, territorial separation, combined with fear for the future arising from experience of its recent history. Poverty in Moldova affects not only traditionally vulnerable categories of the population such as the less educated, unskilled, unemployed, it also affects those who are able to work, and who are qualified and healthy. Children, who account for one third of Moldova’s poor, are severely affected by the worsening economic conditions. There has been an increase in infant and child mortality and the spread of infectious diseases among poor children. The vulnerability of pregnant women and mothers has also increased. Current severity of poverty in the country does not suppose the environmental issues being high on the agenda of both the authorities and the population. Such an attitude is also generated by low awareness, non-transparent decision-making and poor environmental education.
2 Current Features of the Agricultural Sector [74]
Since Independence in August 1991, Moldovan agriculture and food industries have faced a series of shocks, including a large unfavourable adjustment in terms of trade, civil unrest, and severe droughts. A drastic reduction in input of capital into agriculture has gone hand in hand with a significant decline in production and the economic disruption associated with the break-up of the Soviet Union. Agriculture and food processing make up more than half of the Moldovan economy and most of the labour force is engaged directly or indirectly in agriculture.
Moldova has no production capacity for inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, mineral or vitamin nutrition additives, veterinary medicines or fuels, and consequently the country relies on imports of these commodities. The relatively faster rise in prices of imported commodities relative to the rise of prices for exported commodities has led to the need for very large adjustments in the sector. The decline is mainly the result of decreased productivity, as total agricultural area has not changed significantly. Yields of the crop are 20-60% lower, than the 1989-1991 levels. One of the reasons is decreasing of the land fertilization efforts and loose of the pest control. Labour productivity has also declined. The agricultural production structure also changed. During past years the areas under low resource crops with assured markets (wheat, corn, sunflower) have increased and areas under intensive crops (tobacco, vegetables), requiring stricter pests control have been reduced. The food processing industry has adjusted better to the changes. About one third of all these economic units have been successfully restructured being able to modernize their equipment, management, as well as their raw material supply.
The privatization and restructuring of large-scale state and collective farms is now practically complete. The contrasting picture with about half the land being cultivated by various medium to large enterprises, consolidating the land through various leasing agreements and the second half is owned mainly by small independent farmers has resulted in a very fragmented structure of land ownership and misbalance between agricultural technologies applied, including pesticides and fertilizers. The transition toward market economy resulted in a loss of jobs in agriculture. As estimated in some villages about 40% of active, skilled and experienced population is presumed to have gone abroad or to the urban areas.
Food and agricultural products traditionally dominated Moldovan exports. Moldova still remains a net exporter of agriculture and food products mostly to CIS countries, but their contribution in the volume of exports is slightly declining. The major part of the loans/credits provided by national banks goes to food processors and input suppliers. Credits provided to the individual sector in Moldova come mostly from non-bank financial institutions supported by the New Lending Initiatives under the World Bank Rural Investment Support Project (RISP, 2000). Foreign donor agencies play a very important role in the national economy. A large number of international financing and donor organizations such as USAID, TACIS, SIDA, DFID, Soros Foundation, from Japan, Poland and the Netherlands have recently become more active in providing support to the agricultural sector, including investment, grants, soft loans and guarantees to banks, and technical assistance. Moldova under its membership agreement with the WTO has made commitments limiting subsidies. Moldova has signed Free Trade Agreements with 17 countries.
A more active involvement of the country in international trade stressed the issue of agricultural products safety. Heavy use of pesticides in the past has resulted in soil and groundwater contamination, further exacerbated through poor enforcement of regulations concerning pesticides management. In the 1980s, the frequency of detection of pesticide residuals (including DDT and HCH) in Moldovan foodstuffs was pretty high ranging from 5.6% (1984) to 19.8% (1990). The most contaminated were fruits, canned goods, dairy products and meat. In 1993 21.6% of all agricultural produce contained pesticide residues, although less than 1% exceeded the allowable limit. Poor warehouses management also contributed to the pesticides entering the environment and circulating in the food chains. The contamination frequency decreased during the last decade, but still data from 2000 indicated that pesticide residuals were present in 3.1% out of about 12,000 analyzed samples of food crops[75].
3 Energy sector[76]
The current situation in the energy sector reflects the difficulties associated with the process of reform and the application of market principles. The country’s energy sector is developing in a context of an almost complete absence of primary energy resources (98% of consumed energy resources are imported) and sizeable foreign debts to suppliers. The major problems in the development of the energy sector are associated with the inappropriate technical and financial structures of many energy sector enterprises, as well as with insufficiently effective organization of energy supply and energy consumption. These problems in electrical sector manifest themselves in:
i) high depreciation levels of energy equipment and power lines (up to 70%)
ii) low utilization coefficient of technical-industrial equipment and high voltage electricity network with a trend of falling consumption of power, heat energy and natural gas;
iii) high level of energy losses in electricity lines (up to 53%);
iv) large debts of the population, economic agents and budgetary institutions for consumed energy due to their low paying capacity;
Until 1998, electricity was supplied by only one public enterprise, the Moldenergo State Company. Since then, the electrical sector has been diverted to decentralisation. Three categories of enterprises with investment capitals are existing nowadays: (i) power generation companies; (ii) electricity transport company Moldelectrica; and (iii) electricity distribution companies: three out of five privatized by Union Fenosa, Spain; and two state owned companies.
The national objectives of the medium-term energy policy are to enhance energy security of the country and to create an environment for efficient and stable development of the sector[77].
The energy sector is estimated as priority for PCBs safety management in the country[78] as it is the largest source of environmental pollution with PCBs. Currently the PCBs continue to be used in power installations and other types of equipment. The main pathways of environmental pollution are the PCB oil leaks from electric equipment, heat exchangers and hydraulic systems, evaporation from different technical installations, and discharges of industrial liquid waste.
A preliminary inventory identified that about 24,000 tons of dielectric oils are used in electrical installations, including approximately 18,000 tons in high voltage transformers, 380 tons in capacitors and 5,400 tons in circuit breakers, inductors and other electrical equipment. From the total amount, 95-97 % is in the equipment that belongs to power producers, transporters, and distributors and 3-5% in the installations of power consumers.
The power units keep no records about the type of oil currently or previously filled in transformers. Thus, no direct evidence exists at this moment on whether the transformer oil is or is not PCB-contaminated. A few selected analyses executed by Fichtner (Germany) in 1999, in transformers from the transport division of the power system, and by Union Fenosa (Spain) in 2003, in 25 transformers from power distribution companies, did not provide proof of any PCB presence.
In contrast to transformer oil, the capacitors used in Moldova contain PCB (trichlorobyphenil). According to the inventory undertaken as part of the NIP preparation, almost 20,000 capacitors are located in 20 electrical substations throughout the country. The whole stock of PCBs contaminated capacitors is state-owned. Most of the capacitors (12,000) are kept in one assembly consisting of 18 capacitor batteries at the Vulcanesti substation in the south of Moldova. About 300 discarded capacitors are kept in closed containers at the station. Also, two dumps with approximately 1,000 broken capacitors each are located at this substation giving a total of 14,000 spent capacitors in Vulcanesti. The total PCB content in 20,000 capacitors is estimated at 380 tons while the total weight of the capacitors is approximately 1,080 tons.
The capacitors represent a significant hazard to the environment and a real threat for the health of people working at or living in the vicinity of the substations. Most of them have been in operation for more than 30 years. The capacitors are situated outdoors and PCBs leak from corroded capacitors to the soil below the capacitor batteries. Due to past incidents of capacitor explosions and leakage by corrosion the ground below capacitor batteries is highly contaminated. The analysis of soil samples taken by the HMS in 2003 and 2005 below the capacitors as well as on the territory of several substations showed a worrying degree of environmental contamination with PCBs (12 congeners), particularly high at the Vulcanesti (culminating with concentrations of 5300 ppm and 7100 ppm) and Donduseni (95 ppm) substations. Even out of the direct reach of PCB leaks from capacitors, their concentrations in the topsoil on the territory of the substations exceeded the national standard (0.06 ppm) in almost every sample.
4 Health and Education
Life expectancy is 71.7 years for a female and 64.4 years for a male, one of the lowest in Europe. The mortality rate is slightly increasing (11.6 per 1000) while the birth rate showed a steady decreasing trend. During the last 6-7 years, the natural growth rate is negative. Cardiovascular diseases are the single major cause of death and the rate is higher for men. Children’s health in general has deteriorated and malnutrition has become a serious problem among children. Infant mortality is three times higher than the average EU level.
The pesticide use and public health has been considered to be closely related and studied. Among the pesticides that have been used in Moldova in the past, the organochlorinated pesticides, which include all the pesticides listed in the POPs Convention are thought to pose the biggest health and environmental risks due to their toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation potential. In the 1990s, their use in Moldova almost ceased. However, their intensive use in the past, persistence in the environment and the related health risks still make of them a health and environmental issue.
Poor enforcement of specific rules and working instructions related to pesticides storage, transportation, preparation, use, etc. as well as insufficient awareness of the population on the health risks associated with pesticides leaded to multiple violations of the regulations on handling toxic substances, including uncontrolled pesticide use on the individual plots of farmers. This leaded to occupational health problems for many people directly involved in pesticides handling.
Investigations undertaken in Moldova by the health authorities in the peak period of pesticide application denoted a significant exposure of humans by organochlorinated pesticides were identified in the breast milk of women living in villages where significant amounts of these pesticides were applied[79]. The vast majority of breast milk samples (between 87% and 96% in different villages) have been proved to be contaminated. The concentrations of pesticides in body fluids showed a clear correlation with the level of pesticide application in the fields. The toxic effects of organochlorinated pesticides on exposed people included reproductive dysfunctions and other functional disturbances in women as well as increased frequency of masculine sterility, the incidence of both related to the level of pesticides use.
Epidemiological studies also revealed a correlation between the level of persistent pesticides use in previous years and the morbidity through chronic hepatitis and liver cirrhosis in investigated areas of Moldova. Research findings identified a strong positive correlation between the general level of pesticides use and infant mortality. The demonstrated chronic effects on children and teenagers related to pesticides application included immune system disruptions as well as physical and mental retardation. The comprehensive estimation of health status revealed an evident general worsening of children’s and teenagers’ health indices in areas with high level of pesticides application.
Starting with the land reform in the mid 1990s, the number of large pesticide users (agriculture farms) was in a continuous decline. Consequently, the number of people professionally exposed to pesticides at the work place also dropped from 34,700 persons in 1993 to 8,800 in 2002. This does not mean, however, that the total number of exposed people decreased in the same proportion since many peasants continue to apply pesticides on their individual plots in smaller amounts and under less controlled conditions as well as contaminated building materials from demolished pesticides warehouses has been used for construction within the limits of villages. This might in fact have increased the risks of pesticide use instead of decreasing them. The lack of adequate information, control and peoples education is one of the reasons.
In 1989 the literacy level of the adult population was 96.4%. Those with secondary and/or higher education represented about 70% of the adult population. In 1998, 80% of the 4,700 children not at school, but who were of eligible age for schooling at the mandatory level, were from the rural areas.
In the transition period pre-school education has been affected the most with the elimination of kindergarten and this has affected the rural areas. In the school preparatory groups only 64% of the respective age children are enrolled as the parents can not maintain the costs. Again, the rural areas, due to higher poverty levels, are the most affected. In general, in the rural areas the education infrastructure is deteriorating. There is a chronic shortage of textbooks and supplies and teaching staff is generally unsatisfactory, probably as a result of low wages and unacceptable living conditions.
3 Current pesticides and PCBs related information
1 Obsolete pesticides concern: history and state of centralization
In the 1970-1980s, large amounts of obsolete pesticides have been accumulated in Moldova, due to poor pesticide management practices and the imposition of bans in the use of particular chemicals. In order to find a solution for the ever-increasing amount of obsolete pesticides accumulated in the country, a pesticide dump was built in 1978 at Cismichioi, in the South of Moldova. In 1978-1988, 3,940 tons of obsolete pesticides were buried there. Another part was stored at several hundreds of pesticide warehouses allover the country, owned by state and collective farms. During the land reform in early 1990s, those farms ceased to exist and most of the pesticide stores were destroyed or dismantled. The obsolete pesticides stockpiles remained in unfitted facilities, lacking guards and sometimes even in the open air.
Storing of POPs obsolete pesticides under inappropriate conditions led to the contamination of adjacent lands and resulted in increase of environmental and health impacts.
According to official data, by the moment of commencement of activities on repackaging and transportation of pesticides to centralized storehouses, 1,712 tons of obsolete pesticides were stored in 344 poorly equipped or unfitted facilities with lack of proper monitoring and security[80]. According to the same source, since 1995 the amount of pesticides declined by about 600 tons, supposedly due to theft and uncontrolled use in agriculture, illegal disposal and dissipation in the environment by evaporation, leaching into groundwater, surface runoff, etc.
Since 1997, three Governmental Decisions have been taken towards pesticides collection and centralized storage.
In 1997, the Government of Moldova adopted the Decision Nr. 474 “On Actions toward Collection and Centralized Storage of Out-of-Use and Banned Pesticides” asking for collection and centralized storage of pesticides at the existing pesticide storage facility in Calarasi.
In 2001, the Government adopted another Decision[81] stipulating the measures to be undertaken, timeframe and responsibilities of involved ministries, departments and local public authorities with regard to centralized storage and disposal of obsolete pesticides. In particular, it asked the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Ecology and the local authorities to select 3-4 storehouses in each judet (former administrative unit in Moldova) to be used for centralized storage; the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Healthcare, the Institute of Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences and the Department for Standardization and Metrology to participate in laboratory investigation of pesticides to determine their chemical composition and amount of active substance; the Ministry of Agriculture and the local authorities to rehabilitate the storehouses; the Institute of Chemistry to investigate the possibilities of further incineration of pesticides; the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Healthcare and the Department for Standardization and Metrology to make provisions for transportation of pesticides to cement factory for further elimination while the Ministry of Agriculture was given the task to apply to the Council of Europe for a grant to support the elimination of pesticides.
In 2002 the Government adopted the Decision No. 1543 “On Additional Actions toward Centralized Storage and Disposal of Out-of-Use and Banned Pesticides” which stated that the Ministry of Defense and the Department of Emergency Situations is to ensure the transportation of pesticides as well as other relevant technical actions. This Decision also asked the National Ecological Fund to co-finance the implementation of measures towards centralized storage of pesticides. It designated the former depot for flammable and explosive substances situated in Papauti (rayon Rezina) to be used for obsolete pesticides storage. MAFI, MENR and MOD were assigned to implement this work.
Both decisions had not been implemented due to some objective and subjective reasons including in particular, proactive confrontation and remonstrance from local communities and authorities against disposal of obsolete and non-used pesticides.
In 2003 the Government adopted the Decision No. 1389 “On approval of modifications and agenda in the Governmental Decision 1543 as of 29 November, 2002”. The latest Decision stated that heads of rayons, and mayors of settlements must select one storehouse on the administrated territory, and in coordination with the Ministry of Defense and Department of Emergency Situations should make provisions for the repackaging, transportation and guarding of pesticides until a destruction option is found. The implementation of this Decision is under way.
The State Ecological Inspectorate outlined a number of criteria to be used while selecting the sites for centralized storage, which should comply with existing sanitary and ecological requirements. In particular, the following criteria were suggested:
i) the distance to closest water bodies should not be less than 2000 meters;
ii) the minimum distance to water bodies used for non-fishery purposes has to established in relation to warehouses’ capacity as follows: up to 20 t - 200 m; 20-50 t - 300 m; 50-100 t - 400 m; 100–300 t - 500 m; 300–500 t - 700 m and more than 500 t – 1000 m;
iii) distance from houses, poultry and livestock farms, water sources, sites of livestock and poultry concentration (e.g., grazing areas) should be not less than 200 meters.
Besides, while selecting the sites for centralized pesticides storage at the rayon level the following criteria have been taken into consideration: appropriate technical condition of potential storage facilities requiring minimum costs for their rehabilitation; amount of pesticides already stored in those facilities to avoid extra re-packaging and transportation of pesticides, etc.
To ensure the implementation of the Governmental Decisions, 3,233,500 MDL were disbursed in 2003-2004 from the National Ecological Fund to cover the costs of repackaging, transportation and storage of pesticides to/at the assigned warehouses.
The ECOS team investigated all designated rayon storage facilities (description of investigated warehouses is presented in Technical Appendix) and the following facts were noticed, pertinent to the activities currently undertaken by the Government:
● there is an obvious lack of plastic barrels for packing solid pesticides and metal drums for liquid pesticides;
● MOD and DES lack fuel for transportation purposes;
● activities were not sufficiently well planned;
● selected sites not always complied with environmental and health requirements;
● there were violations of the technical and sanitary rules, and environmental requirements during repackaging, transportation and storage works;
● the involved personnel is not sufficiently trained;
● labeling of barrels (and bags) with indication of weight and pesticides name was not done properly or at all;
● many storehouses were over-packed with barrels;
● covers were absent on many plastic barrels;
● at many storehouses, e.g. in Floresti, Cimislia, Ratus and others the liquid pesticides were not repackaged and are stored in old rusty barrels;
● in some centralized storehouses there were old used and new spoiled barrels;
● there was no appropriate guarding of the storehouses territory,
● the storehouses territory is often used for passage or grazing of livestock.
The MOD and DES report on repackaging and collection of obsolete pesticides, dated February 15, 2005, indicated 1,670,287 kg of solid pesticides repackaged in bags, including 958,049 kg placed in plastic barrels. 92,469 liters of liquid pesticides have reportedly been transferred to new drums. The remaining amount of pesticides to be repackaged, collected and transported is 684,325 kg (Annex 6).
2 Environmental Contamination with POPs
Existing data on the contamination of the environment with POPs pesticides and particularly PCBs are scarce. There is no systematic information on the level of contamination of lands adjacent to the pesticide stores and/or on the pathways of POPs dissipation in the environment. This was one of the major impediments to a comprehensive assessment of the risks associated with POPs stockpiles and contaminated sites in Moldova. A few surveys undertaken by the State Ecological Inspectorate in 2002 and 2003 revealed a significant level of soil contamination with POPs pesticides (including DDT) around most checked facilities[82]. These surveys, however, were limited in scope and extent and were rather fragmentary in temporal and spatial terms.
The EA team, supported by PIU, designed a sampling and analysis program to bring more light on the issue of environmental pollution with POPs. Several components of this program were implemented during the spring of 2005 and their results are briefly presented and discussed below.
Pilot investigation of contamination with POPs pesticides (Orhei rayon)
A pilot investigation of soil contamination near 24 former as well as currently operating pesticide storage facilities in the Orhei rayon was undertaken. The program was designed by the EA team and implemented by the SEI central laboratory. One indicative sample was taken from each location, usually at 50 meters from the storage facility, in the point where the movement of pesticides would be most likely. In selecting the sampling point, consideration was given to the landscape features, adjacent land-use, and proximity to the residential areas. The study revealed that at most sites the 50-cm surface/top soil layer is significantly polluted with POPs. The national standard for ((DDT+DDE+DDD) in soil is exceeded at some locations as much as 10-20 times, even at 50 meters from the facility or the remains of the former facility. Some of those facilities are situated close to health and environmentally sensitive/vulnerable areas like residential areas or water bodies or water courses. The results of this survey demonstrate (and confirm) the large extent of the problem of soil contamination in areas close to former and currently operating pesticide stores. This represents a direct threat to human and environmental health and urges for measures being taken to eliminate/limit this risk. The factual results of the investigation are presented in the Technical Appendix.
Investigation of environmental pathways of POPs pesticides (Pascani)
A thorough integrated investigation of environmental pathways of POPs was performed in the vicinity of an old pesticide store in village Pascani, Hincesti rayon. The Pascani facility was used for pesticide storage for about 30 years and presently contains several tons of obsolete pesticides including 1,300 kg of toxaphen[83]. The visual investigation of the facility revealed significant potential health and environmental risks associated with this store. The building, in poor condition, is situated in the river Lapusna floodplain, at the outskirts of the residential area and close to agriculture lands and pastures. The groundwater table is close to the earth surface and the area is exposed to flooding.
The study was designed by the EA team and implemented by the SEI central laboratory. Soil, surface and ground water, vegetation and bottom sediments were investigated for POPs. The results (see the Technical Appendix for details) showed a high level of soil contamination with ((DDT+DDE+DDD) in the area adjacent to the storage facility (16.6 times exceedance of the national standard). Areas situated at 200-500 m uphill and downhill of the store were not significantly contaminated. Bottom sediments and vegetation also did not accumulate high amounts of POPs pesticides while water showed to be the least suitable propagation way for POPs (insignificant concentrations). The results show that the soil is the main migration pathway of POPs in the environment. One of the conclusions could be that further priority remediation measures should focus on cleaning up the soils in areas adjacent to pesticide stores and an environmental monitoring program is to be tailored for studying the soils as capture media for POPs and source of long-term residual impacts.
Vegetation and bottom sediments are other notable pathways of POPs, despite the content of POPs pesticides in investigated samples did not exceed the national standards.
Investigation of soil contamination with PCBs
Data on environmental contamination with PCBs are scarce. Most PCBs and PCB-contaminated equipment in Moldova are concentrated in the energy sector, particularly in power capacitors. The capacitors represent a significant hazard to the environment and a real threat for the health of people working at or living in the vicinity of the substations. Most of them have been in operation for more than 30 years. The capacitors are situated outdoors and PCBs leak from corroded capacitors to the soil below the capacitor batteries. Due to past incidents of capacitor explosions and leakage by corrosion the ground below capacitor batteries could be highly contaminated.
The analysis of soil samples taken by the HMS in 2005 below the capacitors as well as on the territory of several substations showed a worrying degree of environmental contamination with PCBs (12 congeners). This was particularly high at the Vulcanesti (culminating with concentrations of 5300 ppm and 7100 ppm) and Donduseni (95 ppm) substations. This correlates with the reported facts about explosions of capacitors that occurred at these stations in the past. In the same time, even out of the direct reach of PCB leaks from capacitors, their concentrations in the topsoil on the territory of the substations exceeded the national standard (0.06 ppm) in almost every sample. This poses very seriously the problem of occupational health for electrical substations staff.
The factual results of the investigation are presented in the Technical Appendix.
4 Risk assessment
Central Warehouses Risk Assessment
The EA team visited all rayons and evaluated the process of selection of central warehouses, after discussions with relevant rayonal authorities. The status identified is as follows:
● Out of the total 37 sites, only in 4 rayons (Straseni, Ialoveni, Drochia and Glodeni) central warehouses have not been designated yet.
● In Floresti, Taraclia and Stefan Voda rayons, two central warehouses per rayon have been selected.
● In the Criuleni rayon, the central warehouse selected is also used for storing obsolete pesticides from the Dubasari raion and the Chisinau municipality.
● The Singerei rayon and Balti municipality are using one central warehouse.
Forced by the current situation (unaccomplished selection process), the EA team has evaluated the risks associated with selected central warehouses at 41 sites. All sites have been visited and investigated (repots of field teams’ are annexed in the Technical Appendix). The spectrum of warehouses has been categorized using different risk criteria and the most concerned sites have been identified. Finally, an integrated risk evaluation has been done, allowing ranking warehouses according to various risk criteria.
Risks induced by the large amount of pesticides stored and the technical condition of buildings
Seven of the considered warehouses are intended to store relatively large amounts of pesticides exceeding 100 tons per facility (Ratus, Alexandreni, Tudora, Cimislia, Grimancauti, Gradinita and Oniscani). Larger amounts of stored pesticides require longer time and more operations to be undertaken for repackaging, loading and inventory and this may pose higher risks of spills, operational failures and accidents. The technical status of warehouses in Alexandreni[84] and Tudora is quite good, ensuring safe conditions for long-term storage. More or less satisfactory is the technical status of selected warehouses in Ratus (one section has been renovated, 305 tons are already stored) and Gradinita (142 tons are stored). The designated storage facilities in Cimislia (150 tons stored, but not all stock repackaged) and Oniscani are in poor condition. At the latter store, one section is in technically satisfactory conditions but considering the expected large amount of obsolete pesticides to be stored (124 tons) the other sections require significant rehabilitation. The facility in Grimancauti (132 tons of obsolete pesticides expected) must not be used as a storage place as the building is seriously damaged.
In 13 warehouses, the amount of stored pesticides is expected to be within the range 50–100 tons per facility. The technical status of buildings and sections designated for obsolete pesticides storage in Bugeac, Hitresti, Taraclia, Albota de Sus and probably in Bardar and Milestii Mici[85] is satisfactory. In Temeleuti, Gaidar, and Carpineni[86] the status of warehouses is less satisfactory and additional rehabilitation may be required. The condition of Tirnova (61 tons) and Cismichioi (61 tons) stores as well as the two sites located at the military training fields in Cahul (54 tons) and Ungheni (78 tons) is poor. In Tirnova, an automobile garage, located on the territory of the bone meal factory (not in operation), was designated and is already used as a central warehouse. In Cahul, an old pig farm is used for storing obsolete pesticides. In Ungheni, a former military depot for toxic chemicals is used, but additional rehabilitation is required.
The rest of warehouses (21 in total) are intended to store less than 50 tons per facility. The stores in Ghindesti[87], Papauti[88], Ciobalaccia[89], Sadaclia, Zgurita, Sturzovca, Porumbeni, Pelivan and Cuhnesti, are in relatively good technical condition but additional rehabilitation may be required for some of them. At the Olanesti, Nisporeni, Straseni, and Vorniceni designated sites, the technical condition of buildings is suitable for short and medium term storage, but there is no adequate protection against unauthorized access to the storage area. The stores in Clocusna (22 tons), Edinet (3 tons), Recea (23 tons), Cosauti (26 tons), Iargara (25 tons), Bulboaca (20 tons), Suri (15 tons), and Chipesca (36 tons) are in the worst condition. The warehouse in Suri was not originally designed for pesticide storage: it is a store for agriculture products located in an agro-industrial area, which includes currently used depots for apples and vegetables. At the Bulboaca military training polygon, a seriously damaged improper building is used for storing obsolete pesticides.
Risks induced by proximity to residential areas
12 designated warehouses[90] (29 % from total investigated number) are located at relatively close distance (not exceeding 500 m) to residential areas. Five stores are placed within or at the outskirts of populated areas, in some places close to schools (Cahul). The most concerned warehouses are:
● Bugeac (Gagauz Eri, Comrat sector), situated at 300 m from the residential area and within active industrial area, with several depots, shops, artesian water sources and other relevant facilities. The nearest areas are also used for agricultural production, grazing of livestock and apiary.
● Olanesti (Stefan Voda rayon), situated at 100-150 m from the nearest households. The village is located downhill from warehouse and is exposed to runoff from that direction. A ravine directed to the village is situated at 20 m from warehouse. An artesian water source is also located downhill. The area is visited by peasants and livestock and adjacent land is used for agriculture and grazing. The warehouse is not fenced.
● Straseni, situated within the industrial zone of town, with several depots and stock buildings. The residential area is situated close to the warehouse as well. Shallow drinking wells, artesian boreholes and a watering place for livestock are located close to the territory of the store.
● Albota de Sus (Taraclia rayon), located within the village limits (distance to residential buildings and households about 100-150 m). The warehouse is located uphill of the village and is likely to contribute to the contamination of drinking wells, arable lands and pastures joining the warehouse perimeter.
● Chipesca (Soldanesti rayon), placed at the outskirts of the village and within its industrial area. The warehouse is located on the hill and runoff is directed towards households and drinking wells. Arable lands and the nearest drinking well are distanced at 10 m and 40 m respectively from the facility. Livestock grazing places are present as well.
Risks induced by proximity to agriculture fields and plantations
37 warehouses (or 90 % from total considered sites) are situated close to crop fields, orchards and vineyards. The distances from warehouses to the sensitive agriculture zones, vulnerable by contamination of agriculture products and productive lands, are usually between 10 and 200 m. The list of most concerned warehouses includes 31 sites, where the distance to agricultural fields is only 10-50 m from the perimeter of warehouse territory.
Risks for livestock
In total, 23 warehouses (56%) have been identified to pose risks for livestock due to use of lands, situated at 500 m from warehouse or closer, for grazing of cattle and sheep. The lands around warehouses are not productive pastures, but peasants are forced to use all available green areas, as they have no alternative lands for feeding their livestock.
Risks for forest ecosystems
Twelve warehouses[91] (29%) are situated closer than 500 m to forest areas, different by size, value and vulnerability. The forests located in the vicinity of warehouses are mostly planted on slopes for mitigation of soil erosion and prevention of ravine formation. It should be stressed that five warehouses (Tudora, Cimislia, Gradinita, Papauti and Stuzovca) are located at the forest edge and the distance to the trees is only 10–60 m. The unknown pesticides stock from these warehouses may contain herbicides, defoliants, desiccants, which in case of air dispersion may seriously affect the vegetation and trees, as well as toxic insecticides which can damage the wild fauna and contaminate the mushrooms, springflowers and berries, which are collected by local people.
Special attention should be given to the following sites of biggest concern:
● Tudora (Stefan Voda rayon), natural and valuable forest located on the Nistru river terrace. The site is included in the list of priority regions for biodiversity conservation (future Lower Nistru and Nistru Delta reserves). The distance from warehouse is about 40-50 m. The forest is located downhill of warehouse and can be polluted by runoff.
● Cimislia, a relatively large forest on slope, with Robinia trees. The distance from warehouse is about 50 m. The forest is located uphill of the warehouse, but air pollution may affect the associated flora and fauna.
● Gradinita (Causeni rayon), a large valuable natural forest, dominated by Robinia and oak trees, included in the list of priority regions for biodiversity conservation. The distance from warehouse does not exceed 50 m. The forest is located downhill, the runoff and air contamination may affect the forest ecosystem. The protected forest reserve Leuntea is located close to the site.
● Papauti (Resina rayon), a large valuable natural oak forest. Located downhill of the warehouse. The distance to the forest is about 100 m.
Risks for surface and ground waters
Eight warehouses[92] (20%) are situated in areas with relatively high groundwater table, thus shallow groundwater aquifer contamination is concerned. The most evident high groundwater level has been observed at the following sites:
● Recea (Riscani rayon). Discharging springs are visible close to the warehouse. The groundwater table has been estimated at the depth about 2 m.
● Temeleuti (Floresti rayon). A spring, wetland vegetation and a drinking shallow well have been identified downhill of the warehouse. The distance to the shallow groundwater table may be estimated at 3-4 m.
● Straseni. The warehouse is located in the floodplain of the Bic river. The adjoining territory is covered by permanent wetland vegetation (reed). The depth to the groundwater is estimated at about 2-4 m.
● Sturzovca (Glodeni rayon). Wetland-associated vegetation and small discharging springs are present in the proximity of the store. The depth to the water in the dug well located on the territory of the facility is about 2 m.
Part of the designated warehouses is placed near water courses and water bodies. At least 18 warehouses (44%) are situated at less than 500 m from surface waters. Most of them are small rivulets and small - but important for local population - water reservoirs. Eight warehouses[93] (20%) are located relatively close to the rivers’ floodplains and predominantly on the first terraces of the rivers. The location of warehouses close to the floodplains can generate additional environmental risks for sensitive meadow and river ecosystems. The most concerned warehouses are:
● Ratus (Telenesti rayon). The warehouse is situated on the first terrace of the floodplain of the river Ciulucul Mare, at about 200-250 m from the floodplain itself. The landscape makes possible the contamination of meadow vegetation, pasture zones and drainage/irrigation channel directly discharging to the Ciulucul Mare river.
● Bugeac (Gagauz Eri, Comrat sector). The warehouse is placed in a dry valley, but close to the large floodplain of river Ialpug.
● Nisporeni. The warehouse is situated on the first terrace of river Nirnova and uphill of drainage/irrigation canals, which drain the floodplain and further discharge to the river. Currently, the floodplain area is used by local population for pasture. The distance to the drainage channels does not exceed 150-200 m.
● Carpineni (Hincesti rayon). The warehouse is placed on the first terrace of the river Lapusnita and may contribute to pollution of the extensive floodplain area downhill. The distance to the river is about 400 m, but existing ravines and abrupt hillsides may easily accelerate the movement of washed out contaminants to the main stream. The designated obsolete pesticides store is situated at the edge of the river sanitary and protection area.
● Recea (Riscani rayon). The warehouse is located close and uphill of the Copacheanca river floodplain. The distance to the river and large water reservoir used for fish-farming is about 400 m. Local fish-farmers expressed their great concern since they consider the warehouse being a dangerous pollution source for the water body. The selected obsolete pesticides store is situated at the edge of the river sanitary and protection area.
● Straseni. This is the only designated central warehouse which is located directly in a river floodplain: the Bic river is flowing at about 400 m away. The selected obsolete pesticides depot is situated within the sanitary and protection zone of the river Bic.
● Sadaclia (Basarabeasca rayon). The warehouse is situated on the first terrace of a large floodplain area associated with the Cogilnic river. The distance to the river is about 1 km.
In other settlements, namely Tirnova (Donduseni rayon), Sturzovca (Glodeni rayon), Temeleuti (Floresti rayon), Cimislia (Cimislia rayon), Albota de Sus (Taraclia rayon) the nearest water sources are presented by small springs, rivulets or ponds, located within 50-200 m downhill of the central warehouse.
Risks associated with transportation
19 warehouses (46%) have been tentatively identified to be concerned with the safety of obsolete pesticides transportation. The most concerned sites are:
• Gaidar (Gagauz Eri, Ciadir-Lunga sector). The available road is crossing the residential zone of village Gaidar and has damaged unpaved sections (1-1.5 km) near the village. Transportation during wet conditions is hardly possible.
• Iargara (Leova rayon). About 200 m of unpaved road from the warehouse facility are hardly passable under wet conditions. One bridge on the road Iargara-Sarata Noua is in poor condition.
• Gradinita (Causeni rayon). The road is passing in the vicinity of several villages (Gradinita, Plopi-Stiubeni and Cirnateni) and natural protected areas (Leuntea). A few damaged road sections have been identified.
• Olanesti (Stefan-Voda rayon). The main road is passing the village Olanesti. Hardly trafficable during wet conditions.
• Oniscani (Calarasi rayon). The road is passing along the river floodplain.
• Nisporeni. The road is passing along the river floodplain.
• Carpineni (Hincesti rayon). The road is passing along the river floodplain and is crossing several villages (Negrea, Sofia).
• Ratus (Telenesti rayon). The road is passing village Ratus and along the river floodplain.
• Chipesca (Soldanesti rayon). The road is damaged on some sections; one bridge could be problematic during poor weather conditions. The road is passing village Dobrusa.
• Temeleuti (Floresti rayon). The road is damaged near the warehouse (150-200 m) and crossing village Solonet.
• Clocusna (Ocnita rayon). The road from warehouse is damaged and sloping. One bridge is seriously damaged. The site is hardly reachable during wet conditions. The road is passing village Clocusna.
• Cimislia (Cimislia rayon). The road from warehouse is seriously damaged on the slope. It is hardly passable even in dry period.
• Porumbeni (Criuleni rayon). The road is deteriorated by heavy cars from the closely located mine. The road is hardly passable even in dry period.
• Milestii Mici (Ialoveni rayon). About 1 km of slope and unpaved road in the village Milestii Mici could be hardly accessible under wet conditions.
• Vorniceni (Straseni rayon). The 2 km unpaved road from warehouse could be hardly accessible during wet conditions.
• Pelivan (Orhei rayon). There is about 1 km of unpaved village road with difficult access to the warehouse during wet conditions. The road is passing village Pelivan.
Integrated risk assessment
Simplified integrated risk assessment and ranking system has been applied in order to cluster the central warehouses by the risk factors identified during the study (refer to Annex 7 for more details). The integration involved the following risk criteria:
● Amount of pesticides stored or expected to be stored after centralization
● Technical status of buildings
● Distance to the nearest populated area, agriculture lands, water courses, forests, and pastures.
● Location of warehouse against vulnerable floodplain zones.
● Estimated depth to the first groundwater aquifer.
● Need for repackaging of pesticides in the open space (out of warehouse if internal space is limited).
According to the estimation of integrated risk and classification of warehouses associated risks by 4 categories (higher, considerable, moderate, low) the following conclusion may be drafted:
● Higher risks have been identified for Ratus, Bugeac, Cimislia, Grimancauti, Chipesca, Recea and Straseni sites.
● Considerable risks are associated with Temeleuti, Gaidar, Tudora, Clocusna, Nisporeni, Oniscani, Edinet, Carpineni, Pelivan, Sadaclia, Sturzovca, Albota de Sus and Gradinita sites.
Within this integrated classification, one can distinguish between the risk factors focused on population (distance to settlements, agriculture lands, livestock grazing fields) and the risks mostly associated with the environment (distance to water bodies, forested areas, pastures, wetlands, river floodplains, and depth of groundwater table). These risk criteria were substantiated with factors as the amount of pesticides stored and the technical condition of the facilities.
Considering the risks for the population the situation looks as follows:
● Higher risks have been identified for Cimislia (agriculture, pastures), Grimancauti (agriculture, pastures), and Chipesca (village, agriculture, pastures) sites.
● Considerable risks are associated with Ratus (residential area), Gaidar (agriculture, pastures, residential area), Cismichioi (agriculture, pastures), Olanesti (residential area, agriculture), Tirnova (agro-industrial zone), Cahul (residential area, pastures), Oniscani (agriculture, pastures), Edinet (residential area, agriculture, pastures), Gradinita (amount stored), Clocusna (agriculture, pastures, village), Recea (residential area, agriculture, fish-farming), Straseni (residential area), Vorniceni (vineyards), and Albota de Sus (residential area) sites.
Considering the risks to the environment the situation is as follows:
● Higher risks have been identified for Ratus (floodplain), Temeleuti (groundwater, springs), Cimislia (forest, surface water), Grimancauti (groundwater), Carpineni (floodplain), Recea (water reservoir and river) and Straseni (floodplain, groundwater, wetland) sites.
● Considerable risks are associated with Bugeac (forest, floodplain), Gaidar (water stream), Tudora (forest, spring), Nisporeni (floodplain, river), Chipesca (forest), Oniscani (water stream), Gradinita (forest, protected area), Pelivan (water stream, forest), Sadaclia (forest, floodplain) and Sturzovca (water stream, forest, groundwater) sites.
Table 1. Integrated risk assessment and ranking of central warehouses
|Warehouse (rayon) |Amount of pesticides|Warehouse technical |Available space for |Distance to |Distance to |
| |storing |status |repackaging |populated locality |agricultural zones |
|Technical Capacity for implementation|Sufficient |Sufficient |Insufficient |Insufficient |Sufficient |
|in Moldova | | | | | |
|Human Capacities |Sufficient |Insufficient |Insufficient |Insufficient |Sufficient |
|Time needed |Medium |Medium |Long |Medium |Medium |
|Social Risks |High |High |High |Low |Low |
|Environmental Risks |High |High |Medium |Medium |Low |
|Probability of Success |Medium |Low |Low |Low |High |
|Does the alternative provide a final |No |No |Yes |Yes |Yes |
|solution to the POPs problem? | | | | | |
|CONCLUSION |Rejected |Rejected |Rejected |Rejected |Accepted |
|The reason |The alternative does|The alternative does|Lacking local |Lacking local |The method provides |
| |not provide a final |not provide a final |technological |technological and |a final solution to |
| |solution to the POPs|solution to the POPs|capacities. |human capacities. |the POPs problem at |
| |problem. Very high |problem. Very high |Investments needed |Investments needed |reasonable cost, |
| |social and high |social and high |are comparable with |are comparable with |with low-to-medium |
| |environmental risks |environmental risks |alterna-tives of |alterna-tives of |environmental and |
| | | |lower environmental |lower environmental |low social risks. |
| | | |and social risks |and social risks | |
1 Siting of facilities
Siting of warehouses for storage of obsolete pesticides is important safeguard principle, which may minimize health and environmental impacts at the great extent. For the project implementation is crucial to know exact locations, warehouses technical conditions, amount of pesticides stored, storing conditions and probability of impacts to the sensitive environment and end-points.
The selection of central raional warehouses has been triggered by the Government and partly implemented, resulting in obsolete pesticides centralization in 23 rayons. In 4 rayons there is no formal decision taken, but it should be done soon[100].
2 Transportation routes within Moldova
At the time being there is no specific information on transportation pathways of POPs pesticides from the rayon warehouses to the border of the country. It will mainly depend on the final project design or, later, on proposals from international contractors. Whatever way will be selected, applicable Moldovan legislation as well as international standards, procedures and regulations, and Occupational Health, Safety and Environment (OHSE) standards, due diligence and best practices, with technology transfer from international contractors will have to be applied. All contracts will include OHSE stipulations in accordance with Moldovan, international and host country laws.
There are two transportation options within Moldova (up to the national border): by road or railway, and, further, by the same transport (or by navy cargo, loaded in neighbor country, if it is a case) to the destination place. The EA study looked into the road and rail-road routes to Western Europe and assessed technical capabilities to transport POPs. The most safe and direct routes will be selected after host country will be identified.
The EA study proposes to consider two major project configurations related to the transportation of POPs pesticides: (i) to evacuate pesticide stocks from each rayon warehouse separately, directly to the final destination (can be implemented by road transport), or (ii) to concentrate (phased-up) pesticides stocks at one appropriate site for relatively short time and afterwards to transport them out of the country (by railway or road transport).
The EA proposes the following approach, which is considered more environmentally safe:
1. To select one site meeting the technical and environmental criteria for implementation of pesticides identification, re-packaging, short-term storage of pesticides and containers, transport maneuvering spaces and loading facilities.
2. To renovate and improve this intermediate platform according to the safeguard requirements.
3. To transport to this platform the stocks of POPs pesticides already packed in plastic barrels, starting from the rayon storage facilities posing the greatest risks for human health and environmental contamination.
4. To take on-site samples for identification of unknown pesticides and to repack them if necessary.
5. Finally, to load the principal transport units (vehicle or railway) for transportation outside the country.
This approach may reduce the impacts generated by moving and disturbing the barrels for inventory and re-packaging at each of the 37 central storage facilities in Moldova, considering that some of them are not environmentally safely sited.
Railway transportation should also consider the needs for train wheels changing at the border station, as Moldovan railways have different distance between lines as in other European countries.
On the other side, a total amount of 1,100 tons PCB-containing capacitors and highly polluted soil will be exported for destruction outside Moldova. The transport of capacitors should be in accordance with the stipulations of:
● Moldovan regulations covering the transport of dangerous goods by rail or road[101],[102];
● International transport rules: The European Agreements on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) and Rail (RID) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG);
● The EU waste shipment rules set out in EU Waste Shipment Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93).
The requirements relating to transboundary shipments of PCB and PCB-containing equipment shall be followed.
Talking about the choice to be made between road or rail options for transportation of POPs wastes some arguments to ease the decision making are pointed out below:
The principle the team applied is to the maximum extent avoid to expose new sites (e.g. railway station) to pollution risks. At the same time we estimate that more then 760 transportations by car should be undertaken to export all the POPs. It is obvious that statistically trucks transportation (vs. railway transportation) is more risky for environment. This concern, however, will burden mainly all the European transit countries the carriers will have to pass through on their way to destruction facility since within Moldova the trucks will have to undertake the same 760 transportations in both cases (no matter toward railway station or directly to the national border pass).
Thus, we are weighting the two options’ environmental risks as being similar which needs the same mitigation measures described further in the EMP chapter.
In conclusion: the team recommend that the decision is taken by project management and the contracted company based on the managerial criteria (cost-efficient solutions, the level of customs clearance burden, etc.).
3 Methods of collection, packaging and storage
The activities related to identification, repackaging, temporary storage, and transportation, and clean-up of POPs pesticides and PCBs will be conducted in accordance with Moldovan legislation and standards, international requirements and best practice, as well as Occupational Health, Safety and Environment standards and due diligence.
The EA study proposes the following approach to be considered, as most appropriated from the environmental point of view:
1. To finalize centralization of obsolete pesticides at the rayon warehouses but under improved process management, better pesticide handling and in accordance with safeguard principles.
2. To start phased evacuation of obsolete pesticides from the most risky rayon warehouses.
3. To make sampling, repackaging and inventory at the designated intermediate platform (as described above).
4. To improve guarding of all rayon warehouses.
Environmental Impacts
1 The Current Threat (Without project alternative)
It is well known that pesticides are able, by virtue of their various physical and chemical properties to enter all environmental compartments and affect human, animal and plant organisms through various pathways. At present the health of local people and the quality of their environment is severely compromised by the presence of obsolete pesticides, including POPs and unidentified stocks, and by conditions of their storage in about 340 deposits over the country. It is also important to note that over 1000 pesticide warehouses and a similar number of grounds for preparation of pesticide solutions had been in use in Moldova in the past. It can be estimated that a few thousand areas, which are potentially polluted and pose health and environmental risks, may be found in Moldova. The level of their contamination needs a thorough detailed investigation coupled with pertinent analysis, for which the country has no financial capabilities.
Currently, an estimated 2500 tons of obsolete pesticides, from which about 60% non-identified are distributed in 340 storage sites around the country. These stocks have been accumulated over the past years for a combination of reasons including lack of co-ordination in procurement, poor storage conditions and stock management, and oversupply of products. Neglecting of safety rules and mismanagement during last decade leaded to non-appropriate storage conditions. Significant amount of obsolete pesticides is stored in the open, deposit facilities are deteriorated and physically damaged, contain leaking drums and burst sacks. Many of the pesticides have leaked or are leaking from their containers. Liquid and dissolved by penetrated rainfalls pesticides have soaked into unprotected soil at many sites. Elsewhere liquids have seeped through store foundations. Paper and plastic packs containing powder formulations have burst to release their contents. These have been dispersed by air movements, exposure to flowing water or precipitation and by the movement of people and animals through contaminated sites. Some stores are sited in areas with high water table and others in river floodplains. Pesticides released are therefore constantly entering the aquatic environment and sources of drinking and irrigation water.
The problem of obsolete stocks in Moldova is particularly serious as a significant number from the remaining warehouses are located closely to residential areas (mainly rural ones) or/and nearby pastures, arable land and orchards/vineyards. Some of the stores are located within areas, which are regularly passed or visited by unprotected people. The result is that children, women, men and livestock are exposed to pesticide vapors, dust and contaminated soil, water and other materials on a virtually constant basis.
It is also important to recognize that contamination of agro-products has potential impacts on the urban population’s health, as many products are sold in local markets which have no rigorous pesticides residuals control. The economic losses, driven by contamination of agriculture and food products, can significantly limit Moldova opportunities on the external markets.
It should also be stressed that no reliable risk assessment, mapping and inventory of potentially contaminated sites and pesticides stores have been conducted in Moldova.
Since 1995, the total amount of recorded pesticides decreased by 600 tons. There is no clear reason available for this situation. It was assumed that some of stored pesticides were washed out with the runoff or infiltrated into the groundwater, leading to soil and water contamination, or were stolen. On the other side, the centralisation of obsolete pesticides at the rayon warehouses implemented by the MOD/DES showed that the amount of evacuated waste is significantly higher than it was reported before (sometimes twice as much as reported). It can be partly explained that floor dust, packaging remaining, empty drums are currently registered as pesticide wastes and are transported to the central rayon stores together with the obsolete pesticides per se.
Among selected rayon warehouses for temporary storage of obsolete pesticides only few are located in relatively safeguarded surroundings. 29% of the storage facilities are situated close to residential areas, 90% nearby agriculture fields and/or pastures, and 44% not far from natural water streams and their floodplains. The conditions of storage are not totally adequate, violations of storage rules and safety standards are visible, guarding is insufficient, perimeter fences and precaution/safety/alarming labels are missing at many locations, their territory is crossed by livestock and people.
Few stores have undamaged solid floors and only a very small number have any spillage containment measures build in, which are significantly deteriorated in many places. Most stores were not equipped with water and power. The soil under and around many of the stores, as well as the walls, are contaminated to varying degrees and strong chemical smells emanate from most stores indicating high levels of contamination.
In general, the packaging materials for obsolete pesticides were found to be in poor condition and hardly suitable for transportation. Already implemented repackaging in a few rayons was done for solid pesticides by use of non-UN approved plastic drums, which are new and relatively safe, but sensitive to physical crack damage and fragile if frozen. The liquid wastes have been filled into non-UN approved used metal and slightly corroded drums, but not at all deposits yet. At a few central warehouses the solid pesticide waste has been transported without proper packaging in drums (only placed in ordinary plastic bags, which is prohibited by national requirements). The old and empty metal drums, which are heavily corroded and contain pesticide remains, have been transported to the central rayon deposits occasionally. Some of them were left at the original places or were dumped in ravines, earth holes, or just on the territory. The labels are generally missing. The composition of unidentified formulations has not been studied. The issue of ownership of obsolete stocks and responsibility for their storage still needs to be clarified.
The picture would not be complete without description of the fate of emptied deposits. In many places the local population demolished the old warehouses. The disassembled construction materials were used for building livestock stables or for other household needs. Contaminated bricks, limestone blocks, wood, gravel and other construction residuals are now moved into village limits and stored near living houses, livestock and drinking wells. The continuation of this process in more than 300 sites all over Moldova, left after the completion of centralisation of obsolete pesticides stocks, is likely to generate significant health and environmental risks by spreading out contaminated materials.
In conclusion, it may be stated again, that if no or limited action is taken for improving the obsolete pesticides management, the severity of impacts, originated from improper storing and mismanagement of obsolete pesticides stock to the national environment and human health, would increase, even considering self-degradation and life-time of obsolete pesticides formulations. It is obviously not the case for POPs pesticides, as they are persistent, bio-accumulative and remaining in the environment and in organisms for a long time. It would not be an exaggeration to affirm that poverty alleviation, the human right to leave in a healthy environment, economic development and sustainability, country external market options and country international image would be affected by failure to dispose of obsolete/POPs pesticides in an environmentally safe manner.
A number of broad environmental, social and economic issues as well as their cause and effects have been identified during the study and the stakeholder/public consultations. The diagram below (Figure 2) indicates the identified important environmental components, their causes and effects as well as assessment of severity of impacts.
POLLUTION SOURCE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PROCESS AND FACTORS CONTAMINATION/POLLUTION PATTERN BIOPHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS IMPACT EVALUATION
Concerning the PCB issue, Moldova has accumulated a large number of PCB-containing capacitors, especially in the power sector. According to the NIP, almost 20,000 power capacitors are located in 20 electrical substations throughout the country. Of these, 12,000 capacitors are kept in one assembly at the Vulcanesti substation. Additionally, two dumps with approximately 1000 broken capacitors each are located at the same substation. The total PCB-content in all capacitors (excluding the pits at Vulcanesti) is estimated at 380 tons.
In most of the substations the capacitors have not been in operation since the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990. The PCB-containing capacitors in the electrical substations are in a condition where leakages due to corrosion take place and the leakages are deemed to increase in the coming years. As most of them are not in use, leakages may continue for long time before they are discovered. In Vulcanesti, for example, the ground below the capacitor assembly has been highly contaminated by the explosions of capacitors in the 1970s and releases from corroded capacitors during the last 33 years. Further the soil and groundwater around the two pits with about 1000 broken exploded capacitors each may be highly contaminated.
The PCB-containing capacitors are a major environmental threat to the groundwater resources and human health in the region, in particular the occupational health. At most substations, the personnel are complaining about health problems which are associated with the presence of capacitors. Either real or mostly imaginary, these concerns indicate a perceptional pressure for something to be done. Besides, in some places rural households are located within 10 m from the capacitor batteries (culminating with the playing ground for children at 3-4 m from capacitors at the Orhei substation), which creates a real menace for people’s health.
If no or limited action is taken and, consequently, the PCBs are left at the sites undisturbed the threat to human health and the environment - both in Moldova and globally - posed by site leaking, is going to increase. If left unaddressed, the situation could only be worsening. In addition, under such circumstances it looks hardly possible that the obligations taken by Moldova under the Stockholm Convention, i.e. identifying and ensuring environmentally sound management of both spent PCB equipment and PCB still in use, can be met.
2 Project Benefits
At present the health of local people and the quality of their environment is severely compromised by the presence of these chemicals and the conditions of their storage. Environmental improvement is the primary concern of this project but additional benefits will be yielded including:
● National capacity building in handling and management of hazardous waste including legal and institutional arrangements, raising laboratory analysis and information management capacity, providing know-how, and training
● Poverty reduction and economic growth, especially in rural areas, through creating more opportunities for producing clean/organic agriculture products
Providing that the project is successful, with project objectives being met, the local, regional, national and international benefits can be substantial. The expected benefits are described in table below for each of the project components.
Table 2: Project Benefits
|Project Component |Project Benefits |
| |(environmental, health, socio-economic) |
|I. Environmentally sound disposal of POPs stockpiles |Overall reduction of the environmental, health, and socio-economic risks|
| |associated with POPs dissipation in the environment (at both global and |
| |regional/local level); |
| |Assisting Moldova in meeting its obligations under the Stockholm |
| |Convention; |
|A. POPs obsolete pesticides subcomponent: |Eliminating the health and environmental risks of further releases of |
|Immediate repackaging and centralization; |POPs from temporary unsafe storage sites; |
|Inventory and risk assessment; |Raising opportunities for organic agriculture thus increasing the income|
|Repackaging for transportation and final disposal; |levels of small farmers and the rural poor; |
|Pilot remediation activities. |Improving the export potential of agriculture products; |
| |Increasing the land value in the proximity of emptied warehouses; |
| |Reduction of poverty in rural areas; |
|B. PCBs subcomponent: |Environmentally sound and immediate destruction of the bulk of |
|PCBs detailed inventory; |identified PCB-containing equipment in Moldova, under controlled |
|PCBs disposal; |conditions; |
|Feasibility study of remediation measures at the Vulcanesti |Demonstration project for the management of PCB-containing equipment |
|electric substation. |identified during the detailed inventory; |
| |Gaining exact data on the extent of the PCBs problem in Moldova |
| |(including non-energy sector) providing for development of a future |
| |management plan; |
| |Reduction of occupational health risks through inventory and labelling |
| |of all PCB-containing equipment; |
| |Knowledge transfer on POPs-contaminated sites remediation and using the |
| |Vulcanesti cleanup program for remediation of sites heavily polluted |
| |with other hazardous substances. |
|II. Sustainable POPs management: |Enhanced institutional capacity to manage POPs in an environmentally |
|Strengthening POPs institutional capacity; |sound manner, including: (i) new policy and regulations of PCBs |
|Inventory, monitoring and enforcement activities; |management; (ii) improved capacity to monitor POPs; (iii) better |
|Training and capacity building for POPs handling. |enforcement of POPs-related environmental regulations; (iv) development |
| |of human capital through training and experience. |
|III. POPs public awareness and replication activities |Raising public awareness on POPs risks for human health and the |
| |environment; |
| |Potential benefits in terms of avoiding exposure and prevention of |
| |future use and accumulation of POPs (esp. in households) |
|IV. Project management |This can provide indirect benefits by coordinating/managing all the |
| |project activities |
3 Project Impacts
1 Generic nature of impacts
The project consists of 4 distinct components which could have either direct or indirect impacts on various aspects of environment. In following, each component/sub-component is addressed in terms why and how the environment can be affected.
POPs obsolete pesticides sub-component
This sub-component will finance quantification, identification and packaging of the pesticides in UN approved containers which will then render the materials safe for transportation and destruction. The following activities will be conducted:
(i) Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides.
This activity will have a variety of direct environmental impacts if no adequate preparation and mitigation measures are applied.
Implementation is normally required of carefully designed and enforced preliminary actions such as: (i) preparation of evacuation and emergency plans as the first step in repackaging and transportation of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes, including identification of priority sites at the rayon level, setting up the time-table, defining of labeling and storing systems and registers, nomination of responsible agencies and supervisors, selection of transportation routes, and familiarization of involved partners and general public; (ii) repair of selected rayon warehouses in order to prevent pesticide movement out of the facilities by means of dust, infiltration, washing-out; (iii) establishing of warehouses protection system against non-authorized access, warning labeling, guarding. This preparation stage should be urgently improved using the experience of the demonstration activities supported by Milieukontakt, a Dutch NGO, which initiated a project aiming to implement the best practices for obsolete pesticides handling in one rayon.
The physical actions include the following: (i) circulation of military trucks around pesticides storage facilities; (ii) hosting 10-15 solders and officers for 2-5 days at each storage facility, in field camps or in the village; (iii) using available space at the facilities for temporary storage of empty drums and packages. All these activities are not generating significant negative impacts to the environment and rural livelihoods as they are compatible with the normal activities in rural areas.
Practical implementation of repackaging procedures, collection of pesticide-associated wastes and floor dust, keeping of packed pesticides and contaminated wastes on the territory of evacuated stores for a while, loading the trucks and transportation to the central warehouse as well as re-loading and placing of pesticide barrels/packs at the central warehouse are more concerning issues.
Disturbance of existing chemical stores and the movement of chemicals may expose those working at the sites to severe hazards and may cause additional environmental dispersion of hazardous products. This could result in exposure of people working nearby and other local inhabitants, and the environment at large. Many Moldovan pesticide stores are located closely to the residential, agriculture and water environments.
The following table lists the environmental hazards posed by the current situation and indicates which of these factors could be compounded as a result of the activities of this project:
Table 3. Potential for compounding environmental impact from the movement of stored pesticides[103]
|Current environmental hazard |Potential compounding effects of the project |
|Leakage of pesticides to soil and dispersal in soil through |Movement and transfer of pesticides from one container to another could|
|capillary action and soil microfauna |generate additional leakage and increase the area contaminated. |
|Leaching of pesticides to groundwater through contaminated soil |Disturbance of pesticides and their movement could increase the area |
| |contaminated and cause additional leaching to groundwater sources |
| |beneath the contaminated area. Exposure of pesticides during periods of|
| |rainfall could increase groundwater contamination. |
|Surface water contamination by surface runoff, wind dispersal or |Disturbance of pesticides could cause additional pesticides to enter |
|animal transport. In several cases stores sit on floodplains which|surface water through surface runoff or air movement. Exposure of |
|periodically cause additional surface water contamination. |pesticides during periods of rainfall could increase surface water |
| |contamination. |
|Dispersal of pesticides by air through volatilisation and wind |Additional exposure of pesticides to air during repackaging processes |
|dispersal. |could lead to increases in volatilisation and wind dispersal. Exposure |
| |of pesticides during periods of intense solar radiation, high |
| |temperatures or high winds could increase contamination. |
|Contamination of vegetation through uptake of pesticides in soil |Increased release of pesticides to air, water and soil during its |
|and surface contamination of plants. Contaminated vegetation may |movement could result in additional exposure of vegetation to |
|be crop plants, food sources for people, livestock or wildlife, or|pesticides and hence additional contamination. |
|other vegetation forming part of the natural environment. | |
|Direct or indirect toxic effects on the human population, |Additional releases of pesticides to the environment could result from |
|livestock and wildlife resulting from exposure to pesticides which|their disturbance and movement thereby increasing the potential for |
|have been released into the environment. Pesticides can also enter|organisms to be exposed to pesticides. |
|the food chain and contaminate several organisms. The toxic | |
|effects of exposure could be short term and acute, or long term | |
|and chronic. | |
These possible releases may have negative impacts, which are local, provisory and relatively comparable to the current pollution of areas around existing warehouses.
Transportation losses, accidents and failures during centralization phase may potentially release a relatively large amount of toxic, dangerous and persistent chemicals at new places and for new environmental components. Mismanagement or weak control and enforcement may significantly contribute to the pollution of natural or economic environments and humans beings, associated with settlements, located around selected central stores. Improper placing of drums within facilities and overloading may lead to further project operational troubles, as it may be required to move the stored drums for planned inventory, sampling and classification.
(ii) Inventory and risk assessment.
Generally, such activities as inventories and risk assessments have no direct negative impacts; conversely, they can indirectly benefit the environment and human being by means of better knowledge and planning. However, the inventory required under current conditions of packaging and centralization, may have direct impacts on the environment and human health at about 37 sites where centralization will take place.
A significant portion (up to 60%) of obsolete pesticides that have already been / are to be repackaged and stored at the centralized rayon warehouses, are still unidentified. Careful determination of unknown chemicals and pesticide stock labeling will be necessary, which is crucial for international transportation. The inventory of category and quantity of pesticide stocks to be further placed in UN-approved package material as well as identification of unknown compounds will require: (i) resorting, reloading and moving of barrels inside the warehouse, (ii) for overloaded stores - even moving to the open space, (iii) opening of a significant portion of barrels/drums with unidentified pesticides, evacuation of bags out of barrels and opening the bags for sampling, (iv) placing labeled barrels again within warehouse, but in better order suitable for further loading on trucks. All these movements may generate additional unwanted releases of pesticides to the air, spilling or dispersion on the soil, similar to those presented in the table above. The impacts may be local, but significant for working personal if spillage would involve POPs or toxic chemicals.
The risk assessment and creation of national register of storage sites selected or already used for centralization, as well as for other old stores over the country, have no direct negative impacts, but can be positive by means of storage sites ranking, identification of priority sites and formulation of site-specific mitigation measures and evacuation plans. The developed and tested methodology, scoring system and results of EA study may serve as a starting point in developing a toxic risk assessment approach that can be further upgraded using the international experience. The EA team has already trained staff, which may undertake further risk assessments over the country.
(iii) Repackaging for transportation and final disposal.
Potential impacts of this activity on the environment are direct. Repackaging of all liquid and solid obsolete pesticides, as well as associated wastes, including empty corroded metal drums, and heavily contaminated soils in UN-approved bags or tanks may lead to additional pollution of sites.
Potential impacts from handling and repackaging of solid obsolete pesticides will be local and less significant in comparison with inventory impacts, as all obsolete pesticides would already be placed in protection barrels, labeled, placed in good order and would not require any more opening. Only loading failure should be a matter of concern.
Negative impacts related to the liquid pesticides pumping into UN-approved containers may be more significant, as the operation could lead to leaks, volatilisation and wind dispersal. The same negative aspects are related to packaging of contaminated soils, floor dust, and other associated wastes at 37 central warehouses after evacuation of pesticide stock out of deposit. The air pollution with contaminated dust can be significant and can affect relatively large areas around.
Metal drums that will be emptied during repackaging and old heavily corroded drums, collected at the central deposits, will contain pesticide residuals and will have to be crushed by means of a drum crusher. This operation may affect local surroundings, livestock and population by vibration and noise. These kinds of impacts are local and minor in comparison with possible leakage of pesticides liquid fractions remaining in old and recently emptied drums. If no mitigation measures will be applied this operation could induce heavy contamination of soils at the place where a drum crusher machine would be installed.
The transportation of pesticides by railway or road is a potential generator of negative impacts by accident. The road carriage is statistically more dangerous in this sense. The roads in Moldova are generally not in a good repair since their maintenance is poor. Correlated with the specific Moldovan relief (many climbs and slopes), this increases the risks of obsolete pesticides transportation by road, especially in winter time. On the other side, the road traffic in Moldova is not very intense, which is decreasing the risk of accidents. The main road to the Western border of the country is crossing only a few settlements and thus the risk of a direct impact on the population is small. In the same time, this transport way is crossing, on a distance of 10-15 km, a state protected scientific reserve and a transport failure could affect a naturally valuable virgin forest area. The contamination of this area could result in important losses of natural values.
PCBs sub-component
This sub-component will support the following activities:
(i) PCBs detailed inventory.
Only local and insignificant direct impacts are foreseen during inventory, which require identification of oil contamination by PCBs in all transformers and other electrical equipment at the electrical sub-stations. Unintentionally released small amounts of oils at the sampling points may contaminate the ground, but can easily be mitigated. Direct moderate impacts may appear if sampling and other inventory actions will require stops in the normal operation of transformers and other electrical equipment. This may affect a wide range of consumers if prevention/mitigation plan will not be developed and carefully implemented.
The project may also involve testing of PCBs content in electrical equipment in use by large electricity consumers (water supply, transport, industrial enterprises), which are unknown for the time being. The equipment to be tested may be situated in sensitive areas (close to food and drinking water production sites, etc.) that would require careful prevention/mitigation both for leakage and possible operational disturbance of enterprises.
But in general, this sub-component will have significant beneficial impacts as it will provide for the first time a clear picture of PCBs contamination of oils and equipment over the country, in particular, in priority areas linked with the stipulations of the Stockholm Convention. All anticipated activities, such as development of related regulations, labeling system, involving of equipment holders in the process and increasing their environmental responsibility, know-how transfer and management guides, training and awareness raising, establishing of safety requirements and their enforcement, reporting and register would increase overall country chemical safety.
(ii) PCBs disposal.
The sub-component may have direct environmental impacts as handling of about 17,300 contaminated capacitors is required. Besides, it includes the excavation of some 2,000 broken capacitors placed in earth pits on the station territory and an estimated amount of 50 tons of highly contaminated soils, temporary storage of polluted soils and keeping of UN-approved packaging containers stock, as well as their transportation. It is important to note that all works, excluding shipment, are to be implemented on industrial sites (electrical substations) which reduce the significance of possible negative impacts, but some of them (minor ones) will involve more sensitive locations and end-points (e.g. population, food industry and agriculture) and thus require more attention.
The activities planned may affect the operation of some substations as a small part of the capacitors is periodically used by the state owned company Moldelectrica. The agreed replacing plan would help Moldelectrica to switch from PCB-contaminated capacitors to PCB-free ones and would show the commitment of the country to comply with Stockholm Convention requirements.
Dismantling of capacitors may affect the occupational safety of workers as they may have direct contact with leaking equipment and lead to further pollution of soil around the work places, but precaution measures can be easily applied to minimise effects.
Heavy machinery and trucks, forklift, scaffolding, lowering mechanisms and excavation equipment may generate some minor impacts (emissions, noise and vibration), comparable to the normal situation.
Possible establishment of buffer storage at the Vulcanesti site where the IBC containers can be temporarily placed will require paving of about 200 m2 and providing a bund wall and a sump. The impact is comparable with similar construction works and can not be significant.
Excavation of PCB capacitors in Vulcanesti and associated works with contaminated soil, handling of damaged capacitors, construction of temporary storage facilities, decontamination of excavation mechanisms will require special attention, as they may lead to negative effects on environment and health of workers. Excavation may be required for two pits at a depth up to 5-7 m and on the area of approximately 5 x 5 m and 25 x 15 m in order to remove at least 2 000 burned capacitors. The volume of contaminated soils may be higher as estimated. The building of lined site of 10 x 20 m with a 1.2 m high cofferdam by each pit and probably balustrades for temporary storage of polluted soils will be required. The most polluted soils layers can be found at the bottom of the pit, but after removing it may be placed at the top. The soil dispersion by winds and leaking of drained soil porosity water may contribute to the pollution of vicinity areas. The polluted leaking or rainfall water from pits bottom may further contaminate groundwater locally. It should be stressed that area of Vulcanesti power station is not regularly visited by people, but agriculture and sheep/cow grazing has been reported. The impacts can be local, but significant considering wider spreading of PCBs at high concentration.
Transportation itself is not expected to generate significant environmental impacts as it is comparable with normal traffic around the Vulcanesti sites and other sub-stations.
(iii) Feasibility study of remediation measures at the Vulcanesti substation.
Impacts of this component are indirect and positive. All anticipated activities will contribute to identification of environmentally safer and cost-effective measures to prevent further dissipation of PCBs from the contaminated site to the surroundings and may serve as a model for other substations and other contaminated sites.
Sustainable POPs Management component
Three groups of activities as (i) strengthening POPs institutional capacity, (ii) inventory, monitoring and enforcement activities and (iii) training and capacity building for POPs handling would not have direct impacts, but indirectly they would benefits overall country capacity to handle toxic and dangerous chemicals in an environmentally safe manner and in accordance with country’s international obligations.
POPs public awareness and replication activities component
This component is indirectly beneficial to the environment and to the human perception on POPs over the country and would provide substantial basis for participation, maintaining of database of comprehensive, accurate and regularly updated aggregated information quantifying POPs, as well as replication of project results across the region.
Project Management component
This component would not have direct impacts as it will deal with financing, operating, audit services, project monitoring and evaluation.
2 Specific project direct negative impacts per components
(A1) Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides.
|Impacts |Causes |Effects/Consequences |Evaluation of potential |Mitigation |
| | | |severity | |
|Disturbance of nearest |Reparation works; |Disturbance of wild fauna |Non significant and |Not specially required, |
|environment during central |Engineering machinery |during reproduction and |comparable with impacts |follows normal operation |
|warehouse reparation and |operation; |other sensitive periods; |after usual activities |procedures |
|heavy machines traffic |Traffic of heavy military |Noise, vibration; |Local (37 places) | |
|during transportation |machines in wet conditions |Slight disturbance of local|Short-term | |
| | |population usual activities|Easy reversible | |
| | |in areas adjacent to | | |
| | |pesticide stores (land | | |
| | |cultivation, harvesting, | | |
| | |grazing); | | |
| | |Damaging the local roads | | |
| | |and increased costs for | | |
| | |road maintenance | | |
|Pollution of nearest |Spillage of fuels and |Soil and water quality |Moderate |Required for prevention of |
|environment during central |lubricants from |deterioration; |Local (37 places) |contaminated dust movement,|
|warehouses reparation |construction machinery; |Crops and livestock |Short-term |occupational safety, and |
| |Contaminated dusts |contamination |Medium reversible |limitation of human and |
| |dispersion | | |livestock access |
|Pollution of surroundings |Leakage and spills during |Increased contaminated |Significant |Required for minimisation |
|during evacuation, |re-packaging; |area; |Countrywide (340 places) |of pollutants dispersion |
|loading/reloading, |Volatilisation and wind |Occupational exposure; |Long-term | |
|transportation |dispersion; |Health losses of local |Hardly reversible | |
| |Failures during |population; | | |
| |loading/reloading |Loss of biodiversity; | | |
| |operations; |Soil and water quality | | |
| |Traffic of contaminated |deterioration; | | |
| |vehicles |Health impacts following | | |
| | |handling and consumption of| | |
| | |contaminated agriculture | | |
| | |products | | |
(A2) Inventory and risk assessment.
|Impacts |Causes |Effects/Consequences |Evaluation |Mitigation |
|Pollution of surroundings |Small leakage and spills |Increased contaminated area|Moderate, but at some |Required for reduction of |
|during resorting, |during operation |Occupational exposure |sites where space inside |contamination during |
|reloading, opening, |Volatilisation and wind |Health losses of local |warehouse is limited and |operation and occupational|
|sampling |dispersion |population |all procedures should be |safety |
| |Failures during |Loss of biodiversity |implemented outside of the | |
| |resorting/loading/reloading|Soil and Water quality |storage facility, can be | |
| |operations |deterioration |significant | |
| | |Health impacts following |Local (37 places) | |
| | |handling and consumption of|Long-term | |
| | |contaminated agriculture |Hardly reversible | |
| | |products | | |
(A3). Repackaging for transportation and final disposal.
|Impacts |Causes |Effects/Consequences |Evaluation |Mitigation |
|Pollution of surroundings |Insignificant leakages and |Increased contaminated |Moderate |Required for reduction of |
|during re-packaging, |spills during re-packaging |area; |Local (37 places) |contamination during |
|loading/reloading, |to UN-approved containers; |Occupational exposure; |Long-term |operation and occupational|
|transportation |Volatilisation and wind |Health losses of local |Hardly reversible |safety |
| |dispersion; |population; | | |
| |Spreading of contaminated |Loss of biodiversity; | | |
| |dusts; |Soil and water quality | | |
| |Failures during |deterioration; | | |
| |loading/reloading |Health impacts following | | |
| |operations; |handling and consumption of| | |
| |Traffic of contaminated |contaminated agriculture | | |
| |vehicles; |products | | |
| |Leakage during drums | | | |
| |crushing | | | |
|Disturbance of environment |Drums’ crusher operation; |Disturbance for wild fauna;|Moderate |Not required, follows |
|during operation |Lifting equipment |Noise, vibration; |Local (37 places) |normal operation procedures|
| |operation; |Disturbance of local |Short-term | |
| |Traffic of heavy vehicles; |population normal |Easy reversible | |
| |Spillage of fuels and |activities; | | |
| |lubricants |Increased costs for road | | |
| | |maintenance; | | |
| | |Pollution of soil | | |
(B1) PCBs detailed inventory.
|Impacts |Causes |Effects/Consequences |Evaluation |Mitigation |
|Soil pollution by |Failure during sampling |PCBs contamination of |Insignificant at |Required for prevention of |
|unintentional releases | |grounds and working places;|electrical sub-stations, |pollution |
|during sampling | |Occupational exposures |but may be significant at | |
| | | |other owners of power | |
| | | |equipment | |
| | | |Local | |
| | | |Short term | |
| | | |Medium reversible | |
|Disturbance of electric |Operational stops; |Shortage of electricity to |Moderate to significant |Required for shortening of |
|companies and large |Sampling |consumers; |Local |sampling and other |
|electricity consumers | |Breaks of large electricity|Short term |inventory operations, |
|operation | |consumers normal operation |Easily reversible |related to the access to |
| | | | |the equipment |
(B2) PCBs disposal.
|Impacts |Causes |Effects/Consequences |Evaluation |Mitigation |
|Disturbance of electric |Operational stops; |Shortage of electricity to |Insignificant |Required for limited number|
|company operation |Replacing of equipment |consumers |Local |of sites |
| | | |Short term | |
| | | |Easily reversible | |
|Disturbance of environment |- Civil works; |Noise, vibration; |Insignificant |Not required, follows |
|during operation and |Lifting equipment |Disturbance of local |Local |normal operation procedures|
|transportation |operation; |population normal |Short-term | |
| |Spillage of fuels and |activities; |Easy reversible | |
| |lubricants |Pollution of soil | | |
|Occupational health |Dismantling of capacitors; |Increased health costs; |Moderate Local Medium term |Required |
| |Leakage from capacitors; |Lost work days and lost of |Hardly reversible | |
| |Work with contaminated |income; | | |
| |soils and damaged metal |Loss of life | | |
| |parts; | | | |
| |Improper handling of | | | |
| |equipment | | | |
|Pollution of environment by|Leakage from capacitors; |Health effects to the |Moderate |Required for prevention of |
|PCBs at the Vulcanesti |Temporary storage of |Vulcanesti power station |Local |further contamination of |
|power station |contaminated soils; |workers; |Medium term Hardly |surrounding territories |
| |Drainage water in the pits;|Wind dispersion of |reversible | |
| |Seepage from the storage of|contaminated soils; | | |
| |contaminated soil |Contamination of | | |
| | |groundwater aquifers | | |
|Temporary land acquisition |Establishment of buffer |Limitation for Vulcanesti |Insignificant |Generally not required |
|near the Vulcanesti power |storage; |power station available |Local | |
|station |Building of lined sites |lands |Medium term | |
| | | |Easily reversible | |
4 Effects of Environment on the Project
The natural environment can have important effects on the project, particularly to the operational schedule of expected activities and may increase negative impacts as well. That is why environment features themselves should be taken into consideration at the planning and operational stage for project components stipulated under paragraph 2.3
● Wet conditions may increase percolation of pesticides and PCBs from contaminated soils, spills and leakage into groundwater aquifer
● Torrent/heavy rainfall may wash out contaminated soils and residuals of pesticides and PCBs at the ground surface to the surface water streams
● Exposure of pesticides to intense solar radiation, high temperature, and strong winds may increase widening of contamination through the air
● High temperature may increase exposure rate of workers dealing with pre-packaging of pesticides, dismantling and handling of capacitors, civil works at the contaminated sites and excavation of contaminated soils.
● Movement of heavy trucks by non-paved village roads under wet conditions may provoke damages to the roads and increase the accident risks
● Transportation during unfavourable weather conditions (rain, snow, ice, fog) may increase road accidents and risk of wider contamination of environment
● Extremely low temperatures may affect the integrity of plastic drums with pesticides
● Repackaging of pesticides under strong wind conditions may affect closest sensitive environmental components, living areas, agriculture lands, and livestock.
5 Cumulative effects
Important cumulative effects will be related to project activities (A1) Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides and (A2) Inventory and risk assessment, and only partly to (A3) Repackaging for transportation and final disposal, resulting in widening of soil and water pollution. All three project components are involving pesticides which are persistent and have a strong cumulative and migratory potential.
Any operation related to immediate repackaging and centralization (activity under project component A1), taken at a certain site, may have significant local impacts (if mitigation measures are not applied to the required extent) to the nearest and sensitive environment. Assuming that about 340 places over the country will be triggered, the combination of these impacts, can be significant country-wide. Activities planned under project components A2 (inventory) and A3 (repackaging for transportation and final disposal) may contribute to the same environmental concern as widening of environmental pollution from another 37 places, involving higher volume of chemicals and longer operation at the site. Again, mitigation measures proposed should minimize negative impacts to a great extent.
Cumulation of releases, spills, and leakages which can happen at a single place during operations or as a result of operation failures/accidents, may lead to wider contamination of arable lands, natural ecosystems, livestock, living and occupational areas, resulting in higher health risk, losses of agricultural products international marketing opportunities and affecting wider wild biodiversity. It is particularly true for potential pollution of water streams and floodplains as it may quickly affect the whole watersheds and include international water courses as Prut and Dniester rivers, which are important water supply sources not only for Moldova, but also for Ukraine and Romania. Both rivers and their floodplains are important areas for protection of wild flora and fauna nationally and internationally, as important European migratory pathways for many endangered and protected species.
The cumulative impacts of PCBs potential releases during implementation of project components (B1) PCBs detailed inventory, and (B2) PCBs disposal are not concerned to the same extent as pesticide ones as PCBs are fixed at the oil drivers and respectively less migratory. Minor and local impacts can only be expected in industrialised areas where population’s access and effects to the natural environment are minimal.
6 Residual effects
Assuming that all mitigation is carried out for all potential impacts identified, residual effects after project activities should be minimal as compared to the actual status of environmental problems related to the POPs obsolete pesticides and PCBs.
Nevertheless the residual effects will remain. They are mainly related to the pesticides sub-component as described below:
● About 340 warehouses will be emptied from POPs obsolete pesticides, ensuring urgent and priority measures for elimination of health and environmentally dangerous chemicals. The project does not foresee any substantial remediation measures for these 340 sites. Emptied warehouse will remain as significant pollution sources because their walls, floors, and adjacent territories are contaminated. The impacts will be greatly minimised by the project, but if no remediation measures are applied the concerns may last for many years. Development of after-project alternatives for evacuated warehouses will be necessary country-wide and experience gained after Milieukontakt pilot and demonstration actions in one rayon may provide better understanding of available and affordable safeguarding options.
● Many other warehouses has been already demolished, ruined and non-inventoried. In total, the country has thousands of contaminated sites which require inventory, risk assessment and further remediation measures. The project would contribute to a country-wide risk assessment and creation of national register of storage and old warehouses and contaminated sites.
● 37 central warehouses will finally be emptied, but remediation measures will be again limited. If no reliable options for further safe use of buildings or their remediation are developed the emptied warehouses will contribute to the residual effects, as they will remain as pollution sources for a long time.
● Mitigation of residual effects by developing and promoting affordable and acceptable after-project options for a significant number of evacuated warehouses is an important aspect, since the old warehouses are generally not considered by the local authorities and the population as very dangerous places, finally resulting in using of free construction materials for household needs. This may drastically increase the residual impacts and may generate more severe impacts on human health.
Residual effects are also detected in the frame of PCBs project components.
● After the project a number of newly identified PCB-contaminated equipment will remain (in energy sector and in other industry as well), further generating relative human and environmental risks.
● Contamination of working territory and constructions on electrical substations is likely to have been produced already and next phase of investments will be necessary for decontamination of soils and support constructions where leaking capacitors are presently placed.
Environmental Management Plan
1 Mitigation Plan
POPs obsolete pesticides sub-component
(A1) Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides.
|Phase |Issue/Targets |Mitigating Measure |Cost |Institutional responsibility |
|Preparatory | | | | |
|Correcting decision of central |1. Minimize existing country |1.1. Revise decision and select new warehouse(s) in rayons |GOM/RLA/MAFI|1.1-1.2. GOM and RLA under consultation with |
|warehouses selection in some |overall and site specific |Briceni[104], Donduseni[105], Cahul[106], Ocnita[107], Edinet[108], | |MAFI, MENR, MHSP, SDES. |
|rayons; |environmental and health risks |Riscani[109], and Soldanesti[110]. | |1.3. GOM and RLA under supervision of MAFI, |
|Rehabilitation of warehouses in |2. Ensure better/ safety |1.2. Designate central warehouses in rayons Drochia[111], | |MENR, MHSP, and DC |
|some raions; |planning and emergency response|Straseni[112], Ialoveni[113] and Glodeni[114]. | |2.1-2.2. MAFI and/or contracted national company|
|Preparing an evacuation and |preparedness |1.3. Make additional adequate reparation of warehouses if needed in | | |
|emergency plan for each rayon | |some rayons, with particular focus on and specific protection | |2.3. MAFI in collaboration with MENR, MHSP and |
| | |measures in Cimislia[115], Calaras[116], Telenesti[117], | |MD |
| | |Floresti[118], Comrat[119], Ciadir-Lunga[120], Hincesti[121], | |2.4. SDES in collaboration with MAFI, MENR, MHSP|
| | |Orhei[122], Stefan Voda (Olanesti)[123], Vulcanesti[124], and | |and MD |
| | |Nisporeni[125]. | | |
| | |2.1. Conduct detailed inventory and risk assessment of all warehouses| | |
| | |per raion designated for re-packaging | | |
| | |2.2. Make inventory of places where facts of illegal dumping of | | |
| | |pesticides are known and collect obsolete/POPs pesticides stored by | | |
| | |population to be included in immediate repackaging plan | | |
| | |2.3. Prepare detailed rayon evacuation plan (repackaging plan per | | |
| | |warehouse, labeling and registration, evacuation schedule and | | |
| | |transportation routes) | | |
| | |2.4. Prepare a rayon emergency plan (for evacuated and central | | |
| | |stores, transportation) accompanied by provision of accidental | | |
| | |releases combating technology. | | |
|Rehabilitation of designated |1. Prevent air and soil |1.1. Remove and repackage contaminated dust and construction wastes, |GoM/MK[126] |MD, SDES and MK together with contracted |
|warehouses involving construction |pollution by spreading of |reassembling building parts before the start of | |construction company; rayon agricultural, health|
|machinery operations and civil |contaminated dusts and |reparation/rehabilitation works | |and environmental authorities to carry out |
|works at the contaminated areas |construction wastes dispersion |1.2. Implement works only under low wind and no rain conditions | |supervision and control. |
| |during reparation / |1.3.Ensure availability of water proof sheets for temporary coverage | |Contracted construction company; rayon |
| |rehabilitation works |of open building holes in order to prevent rain and wind effects | |agricultural, health and environmental |
| | |inside the building | |authorities to carry out supervision and control|
| | |1.4.Decontaminate construction machinery and transport after works | | |
| | |1.5.Keep the stock of construction materials out of contaminated | | |
| | |areas and bring to the site only daily required amount | | |
| |2. Prevent occupational health |2.1. Control health status of workers before and after the works |GoM/MK |2.1-2.3. Contracted construction company; rayon |
| |risk for workers |2.2. Use personal protection devices and respiratory masks | |health authorities to carry out supervision and |
| | |2.3. Ensure workers uniform to be kept at the site and decontaminated| |control |
| | |after finishing of works | | |
| |3. Minimize disturbance factors|3.rm local population in advance on possible restrictions for |GoM/MK |3.1-3.2. Local authorities under cooperation |
| |for nature and human |attendance of territories close to warehouses during reconstruction | |with contracted construction company |
| |surroundings |3.2. Establish temporary rules, agreed with local landowners and | |3.3-3.4. Contracted construction company; rayon |
| | |community, to prohibit planting of vegetables and livestock grazing | |health and environmental authorities to carry |
| | |around warehouses in reparation. | |out supervision and control |
| | |3.3.Establish precautionary symbols around warehouses in reparation, | | |
| | |clearly indicating not trespassing zones. | | |
| | |3.4. For noisy operations consider spring time reproduction of wild | | |
| | |fauna (for warehouses located closely to large forests. | | |
|Construction | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
|Operation | | | | |
|Repackaging of pesticides and |1. Prevent spillage and leaks |1.1. Cover the warehouse floor at the place designated for |GoM/MK |1.1-1.5. MD, SDES, MK rayon agricultural and |
|contaminated floor dusts and other |during repacka-ging and avoid |repackaging by two layers of polyethylene sheets for collecting | |environment authorities to carry out supervision|
|contaminated wastes at 340 |contamination of packaging |dispersed matters after the works. | |and control. |
|warehouses |materials |1.2. For pumping of liquid pesticides to install the pump and clean | | |
|Loading plastic drums to military | |drum at the metal platform, placed in the leakage keeping small | | |
|trucks | |reservoir. | | |
|Transportation to central warehouse| |1.3. Use clean wood platform elevated above the floor for placing of | | |
|Re-loading and placing of drums | |drums during bags loading to prevent drums external surface | | |
|inside the central warehouse | |contamination. | | |
| | |1.4. Immediately evacuate fulfilled in drums out of store and load to| | |
| | |trucks. | | |
| | |1.5. Keep empty new drum stock out of contaminated areas and bring to| | |
| | |the site only minimum required number of drums and only if fulfilled | | |
| | |drums are already loaded to a truck | | |
| |2. Minimize dispersion and |2.1. Consider strong wind and rainfall events as limiting factors for|GoM/MK |2.1-2.3. MD, SDES, MK for relevant warehouses; |
| |spreading of contaminated |repackaging | |rayon agricultural and environment authorities |
| |wastes, floor dust, old package|2.2. Ensure availability of water proof sheets for temporary coverage| |to carry out supervision and control |
| |and other contaminated |of open building holes in order to prevent rain and wind effects | | |
| |materials |inside the building | | |
| | |2.3. Repack all contaminated wastes and used support materials | | |
| | |(signs, shelving, fire extinguishers, timber, plastic pallets and | | |
| | |tubs, rubber floor coverings, disposable overalls, clothing, boot | | |
| | |covers, used respirators filters, used wipes, etc) | | |
| | |2.4. Develop specific additional mitigation measures for sites if | | |
| | |impacts to natural areas (forests, floodplains, surface and ground | | |
| | |water) and human settlements would be evident | | |
| |3. Prevent occupational health |3.1. Control health status of staff before and after the works |GoM/MK |3.1-3.4. MD, SDES, MK for relevant warehouses; |
| |risk |3.2. Provide adequate training to staff | |rayon health authorities to carry out |
| | |3.3. Use personal protection devices and respiratory masks | |supervision and control |
| | |3.4. Ensure staff uniform to be kept at the site and decontaminated | | |
| | |after finishing of works | | |
| |4. Prevent contamination of |4.1. Inform local population in advance on possible restrictions for |GoM/MK |4.1-4.2. Local authorities under cooperation |
| |agricultural crops and |attendance of warehouses closest territories during repackaging | |with MD, SDES and MK |
| |livestock and minimize |4.2. Establish temporal rules, agreed with local landowners and | |4.3-4.4. MD, SDES, MK. Rayonal health and |
| |disturbance factors for nature|community, for prohibiting of vegetables planting and livestock | |environmental authorities to carry out |
| |and human surroundings |grazing around warehouse | |supervision and control |
| | |4.3.Establish precautionary symbols around warehouses, clearly | | |
| | |indicating not trespassing zones | | |
| | |4.4. For noisy operations and extensive traffic consider spring time | | |
| | |reproduction of wild fauna (for warehouses located closely to the | | |
| | |extensive forest) | | |
|Decommissioning | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
POPs obsolete pesticides sub-component
(A2) Inventory and risk assessment.
|Phase |Issue/Target |Mitigating Measure |Cost |Institutional responsibility |
|Preparatory | | | | |
|prepare an inventory plan for each |1. Ensure better safety |Not specially required |GEF |Contractors |
|central store |planning | | | |
|develop risk assessment methodology, | | | | |
|tools and reporting | | | | |
|Construction | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
|Operation | | | | |
|resorting of drums |1. Prevent volatilisation, wind|1.1 Implement all required works inside warehouse if possible |GEF |1.1-1.4. Contracted company in coordination |
|reloading inside warehouse |dispersion, spillage and leaks |1.2 Designate special place/platform for sampling and identification | |with selected laboratory. Rayon agricultural |
|opening of drums |during sampling, resorting of |inside warehouse, preferably elevated from the floor and covered by | |authorities to carry out supervision and |
|sampling |drums and contamination of |two layers polyethylene sheets, in order to prevent contamination of | |control. |
|risk assessment of potentially |packaging materials |external surface of drums. | | |
|contaminated sites | |1.3 If operations inside warehouse are impossible or limited: (i) use| | |
| | |available and preliminary protected, rehabilitated and cleaned | | |
| | |sections of warehouse, or (ii) use of military tent safety placed | | |
| | |near warehouse, ensuring covering of floor by water proof material | | |
| | |and other spills prevention measures, or (iii) assemble temporary | | |
| | |water proof tent at the paved basement with barriers and fences. | | |
| | |1.4 Avoid works outside warehouse at strong winds and rainfalls | | |
| | |conditions | | |
| |2. Prevent occupational health |2.1 Control the health status of workers |GEF/ |2.1-2.4 Contracted company and selected |
| |risk |2.2. Use personal protection devices and respiratory masks |NATO |laboratory. Rayon health authorities to carry|
| | |2.3 Ensure workers uniform to be kept at the site and decontaminated | |out supervision and control. |
| | |after finishing of works | | |
| | |2.4 Sampling teams should apply adequate prevention/safety measures | | |
|Decommissioning | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
POPs obsolete pesticides sub-component
(A3). Repackaging for transportation and final disposal.
|Phase |Issue/Target |Mitigating Measure |Cost |Institutional responsibility |
|Preparatory | | | | |
|prepare repackaging, transportation |1. Ensure better safety planning |Not specially required |GEF |Contractors |
|and emergency plans |and emergency response | | | |
| |preparedness | | | |
|Construction | | | | |
|Not applicable (however, may be |1. Adequately protect designated |To be developed in details if decision will be taken accordingly. A full |GEF | |
|required if one site will be selected|site to minimize human and |site-specific risk assessment may be required | | |
|for repackaging |environmental hazards | | | |
|Operation | | | | |
|re-packaging in UN approved packs |1. Prevent volatilisation, wind |All repackaging works to be implemented at the designated and protected |GEF |1.1-1.8. Contracted company. Rayon |
|compression of old metal drums |dispersion, spillage and leaks |areas (well paved or lined platforms, under temporary waterproof roof, | |agricultural and environmental |
|loading of UN approved filled packs |during re-packaging and loading |with spills/leakage barriers) and only within the perimeter of warehouse | |authorities to carry out supervision |
|to heavy trucks |and prevent contamination of UN |Limit works under strong winds and rainfalls conditions | |and control. |
|transportation |approved packaging materials |Avoid surface contamination of UN approved packing materials, equipment | | |
| | |(lifting, pumping, etc.) and kept the UN-approved packs stock out of | | |
| | |contaminated areas. | | |
| | |Emptied old metal drums to be filled by absorbent with a drip tray before | | |
| | |crushing. Liquid residue of crushed drums to be pumped immediately into | | |
| | |head drum. Solid residuals after crushing to be placed in open head drums | | |
| | |with the PE-liner of 200 micron | | |
| | |UN approved transit bins to be preliminary leak tested by water, which | | |
| | |after all tests should be pumped at a required drum and further processed | | |
| | |as pesticides wastes. Dried transit bins to be lined with a layer of | | |
| | |polyethylene sheet. | | |
| | |The layer of absorbent (15 mm deep) to be placed inside each UN approved | | |
| | |box prior to packing | | |
| | |Collect and pack all wastes and used contaminated supporting materials in | | |
| | |double containment | | |
| | |Decontaminate all equipment and durable parts to be used in other site | | |
| | |before transportation | | |
| |2. Prevent occupational health |2.1.Control the health status of workers |GEF |2.1-2.3. Contracted company. Rayon |
| |risk |2.2. Use personal protection devices and respiratory masks | |health authorities to carry out |
| | |2.3. Ensure workers uniform to be kept at the site and decontaminated | |supervision and control. |
| | |after finishing of works | | |
| |3. Minimise disturbance of |3.1. Develop specific additional mitigation measures for sites classified |GEF |3.1-3.2 Contracted company. Rayon |
| |environment during operation |as highly and considerably risky for natural areas (forests, floodplains, | |environmental and health authorities to|
| | |surface and ground water, etc.) and human settlements. | |carry out supervision and control. |
| | |3.2. Avoid noisy operations and extensive heavy trucks traffic during | | |
| | |spring time (for warehouses located close to large forest areas) and | | |
| | |during the night (warehouses located near residential areas) | | |
| |4. Increase preparedness level |4.1 Provision of accidental releases combating equipment and capacity. |GEF |4.1. Contracted Company |
| |for accidental releases | | | |
| |mitigation | | | |
|Decommissioning | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
POPs obsolete pesticides sub-component
Remediation activities will not be financed in the framework of this project. In the same time, the GRM should take all available measures to mitigate the risks associated with emptied storehouses, including low-cost measures as local containment, fencing, labeling, etc. The project will finance capacity building activities including monitoring of old obsolete pesticides storage sites. Regular sampling of soil, surface and ground water will be undertaken at more than 300 sites in order to keep the situation under control and to prevent potential spreading of obsolete pesticides around.
PCBs sub-component
(B1) PCBs detailed inventory:
|Phase |Issue/Target |Mitigating Measure |Cost |Institutional responsibility |
|Preparatory | | | | |
|Not applicable as it is already | | | | |
|designed | | | | |
|Construction | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
|Operation | | | | |
|operational stops of electricity |1. Avoid unexpected leakage |1.1. Develop sampling program, including prevention and liquidation |GEF/equip-me|1.1.-1.3. Contracted company or |
|companies and large electricity |during sampling |measures, related to different types of equipment to be tested |nt holders |equipment holders |
|consumers | |1.2 Ensure absorption material and container for wastes available at the | | |
|sampling | |sampling time | | |
| | |1.3 Repack all materials contaminated during leakage | | |
| |2. Minimize the adverse impact to|2.1. Set-up of sampling plan agreed by electric companies and large |GEF/equip-me|2.1 Contracted company or equipment |
| |consumers/processes due to |electricity consumers, preferably accommodated to the planned operational |nt holders |holders |
| |operational stops of enterprises |breaks and prophylactic stops. | | |
|Decommissioning | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
PCBs sub-component
(B2) PCBs disposal at small electrical sub-stations
|Phase |Issue/Target |Mitigating Measure |Cost |Institutional responsibility |
|Preparatory | | | | |
|Not applicable as it is already | | | | |
|designed | | | | |
|Construction | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
|Operation | | | | |
|operational stops of electricity |1. Minimize the adverse impact to|1.1 Set-up of replacing plan agreed by electric companies, preferably |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
|sub-stations for replacing of |electricity consumers |accommodated to the planned operational breaks and prophylactic stops |nt holders | |
|capacitors | | | | |
|dismantling of capacitors | | | | |
|transportation | | | | |
| |2. Prevent leakage and |2.1 Carefully dismantle the capacitors by help of scaffolding and lifting |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
| |contamination of grounds, |mechanisms avoiding accidental fall from the original platform. |nt holders | |
| |platforms, IBC containers |2.2 Carefully lower the capacitors to the ground, covered by two layers | | |
| | |polyethylene sheets (for leaking, heavy corroded or damaged capacitors). | | |
| | |2.3 Avoid removal or damage of the ceramic isolators on top of the | | |
| | |capacitors | | |
| | |2.4 Place dismantled and visually checked capacitors to the IBC container | | |
| | |filled with absorbent materials at the bottom. | | |
| | |2.5 In case of broken capacitors, the IBC container should be filled with | | |
| | |absorption material after placing the capacitors in it. | | |
| | |2.6 Decontaminate original steel platforms on which the capacitors are | | |
| | |currently attached | | |
| | |2.7 Existing storage containers (two in Donduseni and two in Soroca) can be| | |
| | |decontaminated or can be used for storage of contaminated topsoil to be | | |
| | |further disposed as PCBs containing wastes | | |
| |3. Prevent occupational health |3.1.Control health status of workers |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
| |risk |3.2. Use personal protection devices, suitable gloves and respiratory masks|nt holders | |
| | |3.3. Ensure workers uniform to be decontaminated after finishing of works | | |
|Decommissioning | | | | |
|Not applicable | | | | |
PCBs sub-component
(B2) PCBs disposal at Vulcanesti electrical station
|Phase |Issue/Target |Mitigating Measure |Cost |Institutional responsibility |
|Preparatory | | | | |
|Not applicable as it is already | | | | |
|designed | | | | |
|Construction | | | | |
|establishing of two lined sites of 10 |1. Prevent further contamination |1.1. Establish two lined sites with cofferdam at the territory of |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
|x 20 m each with a 1.2 m high |of the surrounding territory |Vulcanesti electric station and near the excavated pits if space is |nt holders | |
|cofferdam | |available. | | |
|establishing of buffer storage for IBC| |1.2. If space within the perimeter of Vulcanesti electrical station would | | |
|containers | |be limited for construction, the temporary land acquisition closely to the | | |
| | |Vulcanesti power station fences would be necessary. | | |
| | |1.3 If lined sites should be placed down of Vulcanesti electric station | | |
| | |perimeter, the 1.2 m cofferdam should be protected against possible | | |
| | |flooding events after the heavy rains in the valley. | | |
| | |1.4 Drainage (perforated tubes or other type) for drained water | | |
| | |accumulation from the excavated soils should be installed above lining | | |
| | |sheets and ended by small accumulation reservoir equipped by treatment unit| | |
| | |(activated carbon filter) before discharge to the environment. | | |
| | |1.5 The cofferdam and excavated soils should be covered by a waterproofed | | |
| | |lining on the top. | | |
| | |1.6 Construction of 300-500 m of accessible road to the lined sites will be| | |
| | |necessary. | | |
| | |1.7 Buffer storage platform (preferably at the territory of Vulcanesti | | |
| | |electrical station) should be paved by asphalt (200 m2) and provided with | | |
| | |accessible road, a bund wall, a sump and fences with warning signs. | | |
|Operation | | | | |
|dismantling and packing of capacitors |1. Prevent leakage and |1.1. Carefully lower the original steel platforms with battery of |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
| |contamination of grounds, |capacitors by means of two powerful 4-weels-construction lifts. |nt holders | |
| |platforms, IBC containers |1.2.Carefully dismantle the capacitors using scaffolding and lifting | | |
| | |mechanisms avoiding accidental fall from the original platform. | | |
| | |1.3.Carefully lower the capacitors to the ground, covered by two layers | | |
| | |polyethylene sheets (for leaking, heavy corroded or damaged capacitors). | | |
| | |1.4.Avoid removal or damage of the ceramic isolators on top of the | | |
| | |capacitors | | |
| | |1.5.Place dismantled and visually checked capacitors to the IBC container | | |
| | |filled with absorbent materials in the bottom | | |
| | |1.6. In case of broken polluted capacitors, the IBC container should be | | |
| | |filled with absorption material after placing the capacitors in it. | | |
| | |1.7. Decontaminate original steel platforms on which the capacitors are | | |
| | |currently attached | | |
| | |1.8. Existing storage containers can be decontaminated or can be used for | | |
| | |storage of contaminated soil for further disposal as PCBs containing wastes| | |
| |2. Prevent occupational health |2.1.Control health status of workers |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
| |risk |2.2. Use personal protection devices, suitable gloves and respiratory masks|nt holders | |
| | |2.3. Ensure workers uniform to be decontaminated after finishing of works | | |
|excavation of dumped capacitors and |1. Prevent further contamination |1.1. Capacitors and associated soil with visible capacitor parts should be |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
|packing of contaminated soils |of surrounding areas |excavated and placed in IBC containers (filled with absorbent material at |nt holders | |
| | |the bottom) immediately. | | |
| | |1.2. Excavated soils from the dumping pits should be placed to the lined | | |
| | |sites (partly to the metal containers used for storing damaged capacitors).| | |
| | |The most polluted soil layers, particularly from the bottom of the pits, | | |
| | |should be placed at a lower part of the lined sites to prevent further | | |
| | |contamination of previously excavated soils by drainage leaking water. | | |
| | |1.3. It might be necessary to implement steel protective balustrades in | | |
| | |order to prevent soil collapse. | | |
| | |1.4 Water from the pit bottom should be pumped from the excavated area and | | |
| | |stored for analysis and required future treatment (activated carbon filter | | |
| | |placed at the lined sites if applicable). | | |
| | |1.5 Placing of excavated and slightly dried contaminated soils to the IBC | | |
| | |containers (filled by absorbent material t the bottom) should be | | |
| | |implemented in dry and no wind conditions. | | |
| | |1.6 Keep empty IBC containers stock out of contaminated areas in order to | | |
| | |prevent external site contamination. | | |
|Decommissioning | | | | |
|liquidation of lined sites |1. Prevent further contamination |1.1. Contaminated waters (if treatment is not affordable), lining |GEF/equip-me|Contracted company or equipment holders|
| |of surrounding areas |materials, drainage tubes and other supporting materials, which would be |nt holders | |
| | |probably higher contaminated, should be placed again in IBC containers | | |
| | |(filled by absorbent materials at the bottom) for shipment. | | |
2 Monitoring Plan
The potential benefits to the public health and the environment from successful completion of this project are significant. However, during its implementation significant hazards to both health and the environment may be created. Many layers of safeguards exist including measures written into the project document, professional guidelines, national and international law. Adherence to these should ensure a high level of health and environmental protection.
Regular monitoring will be required to ensure that mitigation is being carried out and to also determine whether or not additional impacts, not identified in this environmental review, have not been overlooked. Monitoring for the appropriate application of health, safety and environmental protection measures at all stages of the project will be the formal responsibility of the project management, the independent project monitors and counterpart staff designated for this task (e.g. the State Ecological Inspectorate). Key to effective monitoring will be the establishment of a set of simple baseline data against which to measure effects of various activities. In order for monitoring to be effective, monitoring results must be reviewed by project management, and where appropriate, acted upon to eliminate or reduce the impact to an acceptable level (e.g. established standard). A detailed monitoring procedure will be developed including: (i) designing a monitoring system, procedure and schedule; (ii) establishing a set of baseline data; (iii) monitoring different types of activities that will result either directly or indirectly from the project; (iv) preparing monitoring reports that will include recommended corrective actions; and (v) determining the cumulative effect of activities.
There will be two main monitoring types:
● Health monitoring: before, during and after operations in the field commence full medical examinations, including full blood tests, should be performed, tailored to monitor all staff working on the project. It is advised that operational staff is tested every three months. All analysis will be carried out by an accredited laboratory. In the case of workers showing adverse effects from their work activities an investigation into working practices, level of supervision and understanding of protective procedures will be undertaken by the Project.
● Environmental monitoring: This monitoring should be used to ensure that the working methodology adopted is correct and has the minimal effect on the workforce and the environment / general public. The key to the elimination of impact outside the working area is risk assessment. A training program will be tailored to focus on contamination prevention.
To follow up on the mitigation measures a number of qualitative and quantitative indicators are proposed designed to monitor that mitigation measures are being followed. The proposed indicators include the following:
● Increase/reduction in quality of the natural environment, including biophysical parameters (e.g. water quality) and biodiversity of flora and fauna, arising from project related activities;
● Increase/reduction in obsolete pesticide related human health impacts as a result of project related activities;
● Number of people trained in pesticide management, including handling and storage practices;
● More indicators should be proposed during the project implementation.
Details on the monitoring activities to be taken as part of the Environmental Management Plan are provided in the table below.
MONITORING PLAN TABLES
POPs obsolete pesticides sub-component
(A1) Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides
|Phase |What |Where |How |When |Why |
|Sub-Component 1.1 Destruction of Stockpiles of POPs Contaminated | | | | | | |
|Obsolete Pesticides | | | | | | |
|Activity 1.1.1 |Decontamination equipment. |TBD |TBD |TBD |Local |* MOD, DES |
|Immediate repackaging and centralization of obsolete pesticides |Safety equipment for workers. |TBD |TBD |TBD |International |* MOD, DES |
| |Air Quality Sampling Equipment |15 |TBD |TBD |Local |* SEI Lab, REI, |
| | | | | | |Hidrometeo |
|Activity 1.1.2. |Decontamination equipment, |included in |included in |included in |included in above | |
|Repackaging for transportation and final disposal |Safety equipment for workers |above costs |above costs |above costs |costs | |
| |Air quality sampling equipment | | | | | |
|Subcomponent 1.2 | | | | | | |
|Management of PCBs and Destruction of Stockpiles of Obsolete | | | | | | |
|Capacitors | | | | | | |
|Activity 1.2.1 |Purchase / Design Software for PCB Inventory database.|1 |1500 |1500 |Local |*CCM, PIU |
|Inventory of PCB Containing or Contaminated Equipment. |PCB Test kit. | | | | | |
| |Equipment for PCB analysis by gas chromatography |2500 |10 |25,000 |International |*Equip. Holders |
| | |TBD |TBD |TBD |International |*SEI Lab, Hidrometeo |
|Activity 1.2.2 | |- |- |- | | |
|Destruction of Obsolete Capacitor Stockpiles | | | | | | |
|a) Dismantling of 17,300 obsolete capacitors and packing in closed |Decontamination equipment | | | | | |
|containers |Safety equipment | | | | | |
|b) Excavation of 2,000 capacitors buried in two pits in the |Storage Tanks for drained water |TBD |TBD |TBD |Local | |
|Vulcanesti substation and packing in closed containers |Activated carbon filters |TBD |TBD |TBD |Local | |
|c) Shipment and destruction of 19,300 capacitors and up to 50 tons | | | | | | |
|highly polluted soil | | | | | | |
|Activity 1.2.3 |Sampling equipment and Gas Chromatography equipment |TBD |TBD |TBD |Local |SEI Lab, Hidrometeo |
|Feasibility Study of Site Clean-up at Vulcanesti Substation | | | | | | |
|TOTAL PER COMPONENT 1 | | | |TBD | | |
Institutional Strengthening: Training / Study Tours
|Project Structure: Components, sub-components and activities |
|Sub-Component 1.1 Destruction of Stockpiles of POPs Contaminated | | | | | | |
|Obsolete Pesticides | | | | | | |
|Activity 1.1.1 Immediate repackaging and centralization of |Safety at work in dangerous conditions |Hired workers |1 day |On the job place|Contractor |No cost |
|obsolete pesticides |(toxic substances) |Hired workers | | | | |
| |Emergency preparedness |6 (Regional EI inspectors) |1 day |On the Job | |No cost |
| |Air Quality sampling equipment | |1 day | |SEI Lab |TBD |
|Activity 1.1.3. |Safety at work in dangerous conditions |Hired workers |1 day |On the job place|Contractor |No cost |
|Repackaging for transportation and final disposal |(toxic substances) | | | | | |
| |Emergency preparedness |Hired workers | | | | |
|Subcomponent 1.2 | | | | | | |
|Management of PCBs and Destruction of Stockpiles of Obsolete | | | | | | |
|Capacitors | | | | | | |
|Activity 1.2.1 |Training in PCB Inventory database use |Inspectors, Holders’ |1 day |Chisinau |Local consultants |1550,0 $US |
|Inventory of PCB Containing or Contaminated Equipment. |Training the SEI inspectors to assist the |database keepers. | | | | |
| |holders of equipment to undertake the |Holders and SEI inspectors | | |Local consultant | |
| |inventory. | |1 day |Chisinau | |1550,0 $US |
| |Testing the Transformers training (sampling|Holders of Equipment and SEI| | |Local Consultant | |
| |and inventory methodology) |inspectors | | | |1350,0 $US |
| | | |1 day |Chisianu | | |
|Activity 1.2.2 | | | | | | |
|Destruction of Obsolete Capacitor Stockpiles | | | | | | |
|a) Dismantling of 17,300 obsolete capacitors and packing in |training in the safe methods of handling |Team of workers, SEI |0,5 day |On the work |Foreman |No cost |
|closed containers |and packaging of capacitors, |inspectors | |place | | |
| |personnel health and safety protection | | | | | |
| |measures, etc. | | | | | |
|b) Excavation of 2,000 capacitors buried in two pits in the |Training in filtering the water through |Team of workers |Half day |On the work |Equipment provider |Included in |
|Vulcanesti substation and packing in closed containers |activated carbon filter | | |place | |delivery price |
|c) Shipment and destruction of 19,300 capacitors and up to 50 | | | | | | |
|tons highly polluted soil | | | | | | |
|Activity 1.2.3 |Training on Sampling and Gas Chromatography|Sampler technicians from | | | |Trained under |
|Feasibility Study of Site Clean-up at Vulcanesti Substation |equipment |Hidrometeo, Moldelectrica, | | | |subcomponent |
| | |SEI | | | |1.2.1 |
|TOTAL PER COMPONENT 1 | | | | | |1,700 $US |
Institutional Strengthening: Consultant Services
|Project Structure: Components, sub-components and activities |Type of Service |Justification |Cost, $US |
| | | |(Local and |
| | | |Foreign) |
| |
|Component 1: Management and Destruction of POPs |
|Sub-Component 1.1 Destruction of Stockpiles of POPs Contaminated | | | |
|Obsolete Pesticides | | | |
|Activity 1.1.1 Immediate repackaging and centralization of |Provide consultancy in terms of selecting |In order to minimize the environmental and social risks of the project the |5,000 $US |
|obsolete pesticides |the warehouses aiming at the maximum |selection of the warehouses should be done in accordance with the national | |
| |lowering the environmental and health risks|standards for toxic substances storage. The elaborated by EIA Team risk assessment| |
| | |matrix should be applied while selecting the depots. | |
| | |Knowledge on national and international environmentally sound handling of toxic | |
| | |substances stocks standards will be provided to the local decision-makers. | |
| | |Recipient of the consultancy: LPA, MOD, DES | |
|Activity 1.1.3. |N/A | |- |
|Repackaging for transportation and final disposal | | | |
|Subcomponent 1.2 | | | |
|Management of PCBs and Destruction of Stockpiles of Obsolete | | | |
|Capacitors | | | |
|Activity 1.2.1 |Development of Detailed Management Plan to |There is no National regulation governing the PCB management in the country yet. |35,000 $US |
|Inventory of PCB Containing or Contaminated Equipment. |prevent accidents and releases of PCBs. |The activity 1.2.1 foresees the elaboration of such a regulation. The holders of | |
| | |equipment will have to develop their own Accident Prevention and Release of PCB | |
| | |Management Plan. Guideline for elaboration of such a Management Plan will be the | |
| | |subject of local consultancy. | |
| | |Recipients: PCB containing equipment holders, MENR, SEI, Energy sector | |
| | |institutions, etc. | |
|Activity 1.2.2 | | | |
|Destruction of Obsolete Capacitor Stockpiles | | | |
|a) Dismantling of 17,300 obsolete capacitors and packing in |N/A | |- |
|closed containers | | | |
|b) Excavation of 2,000 capacitors buried in two pits in the |N/A | |- |
|Vulcanesti substation and packing in closed containers | | | |
|c) Shipment and destruction of 19,300 capacitors and up to 50 |N/A | |- |
|tons highly polluted soil | | | |
|Activity 1.2.3 |International Consultancy to conduct the |Due to the two incidents of capacitor explosions in 70th , and leakage by |250,000 $US |
|Feasibility Study of Site Clean-up at Vulcanesti Substation |site Clean-up Feasibility Study |corrosion of the 33-years old capacitors in Vulcanesti substation, the clean-up of| |
| | |extremely contaminated Vulcanesti station area should be done. Measurements taken | |
| | |in the spring 2005 clearly demonstrate that the PCBs are mobile in the soil and | |
| | |there is an urgent need for preventing further dissipation of PCBs to the | |
| | |surroundings. | |
| | |A feasibility study should anticipate the elaboration of the Clean-up Plan. | |
| | | | |
| | |The feasibility study would have to have recent data (more detailed ones and | |
| |Local sub-contractor to deal with drilling |coming from rigorously considered sampling program covering media other then soil,|85,000 $US |
| |boreholes for groundwater sampling. Program|underground waters for instance). This work is recommended to be sub-contracted by| |
| |for soil, water and steel construction |Local Engineer, Geology company. | |
| |sampling and international samples analysis| | |
| | | | |
| | |Recommended to be considered tendered locally. | |
| |Development of the Remediation Plan | |70,000 $US |
|TOTAL PER COMPONENT 1 | | |425,000 $US |
Public Involvement and Information Disclosure
The Public Consultation and disclosure process has been governed by the rules established by National Legislation (EE&EIA Law and RPIEDM) and the WB, GEF OPs. aiming at securing the transparency of decision making and also, to the maximum extent, raising the role of the local stakeholders in the Project Cycle Management process’ decision points.
1 Public Consultation during Project Preparation
Considering the Sustainable POPs Management project elaboration a logic continuation of the NIP development process one can say that the public involvement began long before the formal POPs project cycle starts.
The participatory process during NIP development involved many representatives of civil society and representatives of interested institutions who endorsed the Document. Thus, the public involvement within the POPs Project preparation did not start from the Greenfield and to the considerable extent is built upon the experience and lessons leant from NIP elaboration. This made the planning of the public involvement process easier as well as ease it implementation.
Hence, the EA team, in coordination with the SA team and PIU, planned and structured the process in three steps: Information Dissemination, Identifying the stakeholders concern, Disclose the decision made with due explanation.
Step 1: Information dissemination
• Pro-active Public Information: On February 8, 2005, the MENR and PIU announced national public consultations regarding a draft ToR for EIA and draft Table of Content (ToC) for an EIA report, and posted both documents on the web-site of the PIU and REC. Announcements were made at the PIU web-site, in the media and through the network of REC with access to over 250 local NGOs. The PIU sent e-mail invitations to over 150 groups and individuals. Director of the PIU and Stockholm Convention National Focal Point were key contact persons for public inquiries.
• Public consultations on a draft ToR and ToC for an EIA took place on February 18th, 2005 with about 30 people in attendance. Presentation on project’s objectives, scope and components were made. Also both applicable World Bank EA and safeguard policies were presented. Representatives of the Ecological Inspection, MENR presented national requirements for an EIA and a state ecological expertise. All participants found both drafts to be good quality documents which adequately reflected on the scope of the project and requirements of Moldovan legislation, and that the project would be beneficial to Moldova. The comments are summarized and presented in the public consultation minutes (see Annex 3).
• More than a hundred persons from the affected villages were met (randomly) during the month of March 2005 to informally discuss and find out their thoughts and judgment towards the centralization of the obsolete pesticide in general and for how long the POPs warehouse is welcome in their own community. The general conclusion which can be drawn is that majority of the persons are against the idea to keep the pesticide stored for long time next to their houses. Moreover, their wiling to discuss the issue reveals the fact that there is not too much patience remained and that they want to know when exactly the pesticides will be taken away from their village. It should be also mentioned that this is a rare case when people and their mayors talk in unison.
• First notification on access to information: 1 month before the Public Consultation Meeting (PCM), published in a nation wide distributed news paper “Moldova Suverana” (all the mayoralties in Moldova are subscribed to this newspaper), a notification on access to information a) disclosed the information on POPs Project objectives and outcomes and invited persons to submit ideas, comments and proposals regarding the POPs Project objectives and planned actions. The published notification has elucidated the following: a) the list of relevant information available, b) where the information is stored, c) summary of the POPs Project and the description of the present Project Cycle stage ( particularly the objectives, the scopes and preliminary findings of both EIA and SA Studies), d) the ways the people can get the information and submit their ideas, suggestions, comments, concerns - i.e. via mail (address), hotline (phone number), e-mail (e-address), POPs web-site (web address), name of the responsible institution/officer and the time limits when suggestions and opinions could be forwarded.
• Pro-active targeted notification: Phone conversation with the mayors of all 37 sites in question were held to stress their attention about the published notification and invite them - in line with EE&EIA Law - to post the advertising at the publicly accessible places (usually on so called “Table of Announcements” mandatory present in each mayoralty in Moldova) as well as to identify one person (being not a representative of the local authorities) to participate on the community’s behalf in the second Public Consultation Meeting.
Step 2. Identifying the stakeholders’ concern
• In coordination with the SA Team and PIU the list of participants to the Public Consultation Meeting has been made: one representative of the local authorities from each site (mayor or vice-mayor), one representative acting on behalf of the concerned public, the representatives from Government, the MENR, local NGOs, academic institutions, WB projects, experts.
• 2 weeks before the PCM the invitations to attend the Public Consultation Meeting on the 19th of May 2005 in Chisinau (Enclosed the invitation contained the Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts - a short, written in every day’s language 5 page description of the findings of the EA Study) have been sent to the affected communities. Also, representatives from 20 NGOs have been invited.
• Public consultations on Draft EA Study and Social Assessment took place on May 19th, 2005 at the Ministry of Ecology in Chisinau with about 60 people in attendance. The minutes of Meeting are attached to this report as Annex 3.
• The received views and suggestions have been considered and those relevant reflected in the Final version of the EA Report.
Step3. Disclosing the decision made with due explanation.
• The final version of the EA (containing the Minutes of PCM annexed) is placed on the Web-site, and the letters with the decision made (the project strategy – alternative chosen) with due explanations of the reasons the decision is based on have been sent by regular mail to all participants at the PCM.
2 Public Involvement during Implementation
There are three main instruments of public participation during the environmental decision making: 1) access to relevant information, 2) the right to participate 3) the right to complain and appeal.
These instruments should form the foundation of the Public Participation Plan (PPP) to be developed once the PAD is approved and detailed Project design is completed.
The public involvement during the project implementation is seen as a process fitting some basics and simple principles that have to be followed while developing the PPP.
They are:
• Clearly identify the decision making points and link public to them.
• Correlate the PPP with the local legislation (and try to use also common sense if there is lack of some legal provisions, e.g. Moldavian legislation do not oblige the developer to explain to people the reason of taking a particular decision as well as to provide the information about how to submit complains (the right to appeal)
• Make sure the stakeholders are provided with relevant, reliable and up-dated information.
• Make sure the main groups involved are provided with the possibility to express its opinion.
• Make sure that public has been heard and make sure that the public has this sense too.
• Reserve enough funds to fit the scope of the PPP as well as set aside some financial resources which might be needed to cover the cost of independent public assessment of the project (project implementation).
The decision points during the project implementation will refer mainly to the procedure foreseen by national and international laws and regulation to govern the project activities.
At least the plan will involve public to participate in the planning of the (i) impacts monitoring and mitigation measures during the operational stages; then at the mid point of project implementation the public will be involved in the (ii) mid-term environmental, economic, and social impacts assessment of the project; and finally the public involvement will be secured (iii) in project results evaluation by interviewing public opinion after the project is complete.
All above will be achieved by using the large variety of methods of public involvement, like site visits, discussions, round tables, workshops, investigation of specific issues, interviews, etc. The PPP will form an integral part of the Project Operation Management Plan.
Conclusions
The project is considered to be an essential element in ensuring a safer environment for Moldovan population and in assisting the country to comply with its international obligations in the framework of the Stockholm Convention on POPs. In the same time, improving environment conditions by mitigating POPs-related problem can help to stimulate economic growth, reduce poverty and contribute to sustainable development, especially in rural areas.
The effective execution and mainstreaming the EMP into project activities, and adherence to the principles and framework outlined throughout this document will allow the considerable potential social and environmental benefits of the project to be realized. Through direct clean-up activities the project can make a significant contribution to environmental and human health issues, while capacity building, education and awareness will play a role in ensuring that the problem of POPs stocks does not reoccur. Long-term and potentially nationwide indirect benefits are anticipated as a result of enhanced capacity and skills that the Project will develop as a result of its capacity-building programs.
The potential risks represented by some of the project activities should be carefully considered and effectively managed. The need to comply with international conventions and national legislation on hazardous wastes and to follow best management practices is therefore paramount in ensuring safe and diligent implementation. The effective implementation of measures contained in the EA and the compliance with international and national conventions, legislation and codes must then be monitored and enforced.
Implementation of the project with well-defined EMP, with adequately budgeted and clearly defined mitigation, monitoring and capacity building activities and institutional responsibilities, will ensure inter alia: avoiding, preventing and mitigating potential adverse socio-environmental impacts and enhancing project’s environmental benefits; cleaner and safe waters and soils, agricultural products; protecting biodiversity; improving access to global markets of local products; increasing aesthetical and economic values of various environmental media and property, and stimulating tourism.
ANNEXES
Annex 1. List of Preparers
Project Developers:
Ruslan Melian, PhD, team leader
Valeriu Mosanu, PhD, environmental expert
Corneliu Busuioc, M. Sc., institutional/stakeholder/public participation expert
Victor Bujac, M.Sc., environmental engineer
Tatiana Belous, PhD, legal/economic expert
Field Team:
Veaceslav Purcic
Mihai Carabet
Petru Prunici
Vitalie Stepanov
Ion Mironov
Victor Ciocarlan
Annex 2. References
1. Atlas of the Republic of Moldova, 1978, 1990.
2. Biological Diversity Conservation. National Strategy and Action Plan, 2002.
3. Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developing countries. Provisional technical guidelines. UNEP, WHO, FAO. 1996.
4. Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2004-2006), Government of Moldova, 2004.
5. Flood Risk in Moldova, Acvaproiect, 2002.
6. JICA EIA study for water supply of the northern part of Moldova, 2002.
7. Market Access and Rural Services Project, Sectoral Environmental Review, draft, 2000.
8. Water Cadastre of the Republic of Moldova, 1998
9. Moldova: Public Economic Management Review, Report No. 25423-MD, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, The World Bank, Washington, DC, February 20, 2003, p.4.
10. National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
11. Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides Stocks in Ethiopia, Programmatic Environmental Assessment, 2004.
12. Problems of Flooding, European Associated Center on Flood Problems in Moldova, Acvaproiect, 2001.
13. Prut River Basin Management Project, TACIS, 2000
14. Prut River Tributaries: Environmental Protection Review. Protection Strategy and Options, TACIS, 2001
15. Red Book of Moldova, 2001.
16. Regional Study: Managing Natural Disasters in Europe and Central Asia, World Bank perspective, Country Risk Template (Republic of Moldova), World Bank, 2003.
17. Sectoral Environmental Review. Market Access and Rural Services Project, 2000
18. State of the Environment Report, 2003.
19. Statistical Yearbook, Department of Statistics and Sociology, 2004.
20. Study of the Quality of Rural Drinking Water, WB, 1997.
21. UNEP, Basel Convention Series. SBC Nr. 2005 / 1 & 2.
22. Volneanschi A., Romanciuc P. Hygienic evaluation of the content of organochlorinated pesticides in breast milk (Rom.) Proceedings of the III Congress of hygienists, microbiologists, epidemiologists and parazitologists of the Republic of Moldova, Chisinau, 1992. P. 68-70.
Annex 3. Record of Public Consultations Meetings
Meeting Minutes on Public Consultation on draft ToR/ToC for the EIA study
On February 8, 2005, the MENR and PIU announced national public consultations regarding a draft ToR for EIA and draft Table of Content (ToC) for an EIA report, and posted both documents on the web-site of the PIU and Regional Environmental Center (REC). Announcements were made at the PIU web-site, in the media and through the network of a REC with access to over 250 local NGOs. PIU sent e-mail invitations to over 150 groups and individuals. Director of the PIU and Stockholm Convention National Focal Point were key contact persons for public inquiries.
Public consultations on a draft ToR and ToC for an EIA took place on February 18th, 2005 with about 40 people in attendance. The Press Agencies were represented by BASA-Press and Radio-Moldova Channel 1.
Mr. Valentin Plesca, Project manager made a presentation on project’s objectives, scope and components. Mr. Andrei Barannik presented both drafts and explained the applicable World Bank EA and safeguard policies. Representatives of the Inspection, MENR presented national requirements for an EIA and a state ecological expertise.
All participants found both drafts to be good quality documents which adequately reflected on the scope of the project and requirements of Moldovan legislation, and that the project would be beneficial to Moldova. Few comments are summarized below:
1. Mr. Ilya Trombitchi, Eco-TIRAS representative, suggested the project shall take higher aims, i.e. seek to ensure final destruction of POPs pesticides and PCB, and not be limited to proposed repackaging and long-term storage and such approach would only delay the final solution and may even increase the threat POPs pose to the environment and population (Mr. Barannik replied that an EIA will consider all feasible alternatives)
2. Mr. Vladimir Garaba, MEM Chisinau representative, suggested that all population of Moldova shall participate in consultations (Mr. Barannik replied that Moldovan population has actively participated in preparing the POPs NIP approved by the government, and the proposed project addresses priority issues identified in the NIP. It was further explained that public consultation should first take place with potentially directly affected local population and local NGOs, and that SA will identify concerns and solicit suggestions from key stakeholders thus taking into account views of broad societal groups. The project will envision active public participation in its implementation)
3. Mrs. Lilia Curchi, Natura News Paper, suggested that EIA should support public awareness. Another speaker suggested that public awareness was increasing thanks to environmental media, but was still low and inadequate (Mr. Barannik replied that the “pesticide and institutional components will address both issues, and Mr. Simoncic and local consultants are actively working with diverse stakeholders to develop the scope of relared project component.)
4. Mr. Trombitchi suggested that Transnistria has significant POPs-related problems and inquired why it had not been included in the project (Mr. Barannik replied that GEF and the World Bank responded to the request from the government of Moldova which identified priorities it was interested to address, and this did not include activities in separatists region.)
5. Mr. Arcadie Leahu, Laboratory of State Ecological Inspection representative suggested that water pollution an erosion should be taken into consideration during EA preparation (Mr. Barannik replied that it was standard practice for EA to consider all factors which could have an impact on the successful project implementation.)
6. Ms. Lilia Curchi suggested that there was an increasing awareness of the population, particularly school children on POPs issues, due to activities of environmental media, but this awareness was still low and inadequate, and proposed more attention to be paid to this activity in the project design (Mr. Barannik replied that the project will include a component that will seek to address related priority issues.)
7. one speaker suggested that public environmental management, legislation and level of knowledge regarding international best practice was inadequate and low (Mr. Barannik replied that technical pesticides, PCB and institutional component will seek to address these shortcoming and propose measure to strengthen relevant institutions, improve legislation and ensure technology and knowledge transfer.)
8. Mr. Mogoreanu noted that Moldovan legislation stipulated public expertise of the project and that World Bank on previous occasions refused financing for it (Mr. Barannik replied it was a good stipulation and according to the law it was up to NGOs to initiate it and arrange for its financing.)
9. Ms. Tatiana Stratulat, National Scientific and Practical Center for Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Health suggested that the ToC suggested too many alternatives for consideration (Mr. Barannik replied that local EA consultants may arrange alternatives and analyze them according by various types and criteria, but shall include the following key scenarios: “with and without project,” long-term storage and final destruction within the framework of socio-environmental and cost-benefit analysis.)
10. Mr. Ruslan Melian, ONG ECOS representative, suggested that the sites from which POPs pesticides would collect to a central storage would need rehabilitation (Mr. Barannik replied that during project preparation the scope and responsibilities for such rehabilitation would be elaborated.)
11. Mr. Gheorghe Copacinschi, Chief of Laboratory, State Ecological Inspection representative, stressed the importance of environmental monitoring and performance indicators (Mr. Barannik replied that World Bank EA policy required elaboration of an environmental management plan which would include targeted environmental monitoring and standards, and necessary indicators, including for project performance.)
Meeting Minutes of Public Consultation on draft EA and SA Reports
(Chisinau, 19 May 2005)
On April 28, 2005, the MENR and PIU announced national public consultations regarding the draft report on Environmental Impact Assessment and the draft report on Social Assessment. Announcements were made at the PIU web site, in the biggest national newspaper and through the network of REC with access to over 250 local NGOs. PIU sent invitations by mail to all Mayors and representatives of local public from 37 settlements/sites where obsolete pesticides are/are to be centralized. Director of the PIU was the key contact person for public inquiries.
Public consultations on the draft EIA and SA reports took place on 19 May 2005 with about 50 people in attendance. The mass media were represented by Radio Moldova Channel 1.
Mr. Valentin Plesca, Project manager, made a presentation on project’s objectives, scope and components. Mr. Corneliu Busuioc, member of EIA team, presented the main findings of the environmental assessment, implemented by ECOS. Mr. Vladimir Haraba, member of SA team, presented the results of the social assessment, implemented by MEM.
The participants found both reports to be comprehensive and good quality documents and the project would be beneficial to Moldova. Many of participants took part in discussions and their comments are summarized below.
1. Nicolai Curu, Mayor of village Gaidar, where 68 tons of obsolete pesticides are currently stored, expressed the worries of the local population about the present situation, which is not sustainable. The facility has been designated by the authorities as an intermediary and temporary solution, despite the relatively poor condition of the warehouse and the opposition of the locals. The pesticides are stored in improper conditions (only bags, no barrels) and the locals are concerned about the perpetuation of this situation. He suggested that the evacuation of pesticides from Gaidar store has to be urged.
Andrei Barannik replied that the GRM made several attempts to solve the problem but lacks finance and capacity, therefore it requested GEF assistance. The GRM plans to finalize the centralization by the end of 2005. It can probably be urged through mass media or even in court. As far as the GEF is concerned, the activity of the local project team allowed shortening the preparatory project phase by 6 months. Now the GRM will have to take a decision concerning the GEF project; further this will have to be endorsed by the World Bank (as the implementing institution) and, if things go well, the project can start at the beginning of 2006.
We know that the GRM cannot implement its own decisions but this is the problem of Moldova, the GEF only can assist the GRM in this. We have to do it right. It is very clear that the risks will increase in time and a final disposal solution has to be found for this problem.
2. Tatiana Ghilan, Mayor of village Tudora reported that over 200 tons of obsolete pesticides were deposited in the local store. The authorities promised to find a final solution for these pesticides and to evacuate the facility within 1.5-2 years but did not keep their promise. During the storage period the local authorities did everything they could to maintain the facility in good condition, in order to minimize the risks for the public. The Mayor suggested in this respect that, when prioritizing the process of repackaging for transportation and final disposal, the amount of obsolete pesticides stored as well as the ‘good housekeeping’ practices of the local authorities have to be considered as prioritization criteria.
Ruslan Melian (ECOS) mentioned that despite good status of the building there are other risk factors in Tudora like close sensitive areas (forest at 50 m) or landscape characteristics which facilitate pesticide transport to the surface and ground waters. This increases the index of integrated risk and makes earlier involvement of the Tudora site in the project activities more likely.
3. Col. Tudor Vasilcov (DES) had a reaction to the speech of the Mayor of Gaidar. He brought some clarifications about the works implemented by DES at the Gaidar site. He reported that Gaidar facility was only an intermediary solution on the way to the designated rayon storage at Bugeac, Comrat. This temporary solution was proposed (and imposed) due to a number of factors: (i) most of the currently stored 68 tons were stored there before the centralization process started; (ii) DES was forced (by the authorities) to implement the works quickly, despite the lack of plastic barrels for repackaging; and (iii) the works were implemented under difficult winter conditions. Despite that, implemented works improved the general situation at Gaidar site since prior to the DES actions, the obsolete pesticides were just dumped on the floor and now they are packed in bags and carefully stored. Col. Vasilcov informed that the Gaidar site is a priority concern and immediately after MAFI supplies the plastic barrels, the bags with pesticides stored at Gaidar will be put into barrels and evacuated to the designated rayon site in Bugeac, Comrat.
4. Petr Nezalizov, Mayor of Bugeac, Comrat suggested that designated rayon storage facility is a matter of permanent concern and a final solution for the obsolete pesticides problems has to be found as soon as possible since the current situation is not sustainable. He also acknowledged the conclusions of environmental assessment and agreed that export of obsolete pesticides to a third country for final disposal is the best option.
5. Ilia Trombitki (NGO Eco-Tiras) suggested that a carefully designed and controlled landfill should be seriously considered as a project alternative. In his opinion, a proper site could be identified even in such a densely populated country as Moldova and this solution could be cheaper than the transportation for destruction in a third country. Besides, the latter alternative has a moral component in the sense that any country has to try solving its own problems at home rather than exporting them to other countries and risking to induce protests from their population.
Andrei Barannik replied that the landfill alternative was considered during the EA Study but was not recommended due to a number of factors, which were reported by the EIA team.
6. Vistor Stratila (NGO Eco-Lex) suggested that, two years ago, the academician Tudor Lupascu offered to build a mobile incineration unit for hazardous waste, meeting all safety and environmental standards, at a cost of 500,000 MDL (some 40,000 USD). He asked whether this offer was seriously considered.
Several participants made remarks in the sense that this proposal was totally unrealistic and unfeasible. Col. Ion Doroban (MOD) reported that the Ministry had recent contacts with Norwegian experts who recommended the high-temperature incineration as the most frequently used, safest and cost-efficient current destruction method for hazardous chemicals.
7. Ion Alexandreanu, Mayor of Cimislia suggested that activities undertaken by GRM were not carefully designed and planned. For example, in Cimislia some 150 tons of obsolete pesticides are stored but not all of them are properly packed; due to improper storage of unidentified pesticides there were cases of self-ignition, etc.
Vladimir Haraba (MEM, Chisinau) replied that during this year the National Environmental Fund (so far, the main internal financing source) allocated only 0.5 million MDL out of 4 million MDL planned for this year but this is only part of the problem. The limited resources are usually dispersed for country-wide actions instead of focusing the efforts on finalizing the works rayon by rayon, with clear, tangible and measurable results.
8. Gheorghe Grecu, Mayor of Oniscani, Calarasi also stressed that GRM decision was not well planned (e.g. no provisions for guarding and fencing were made). He remarked that the problem will not stop to exist after the evacuation of current obsolete pesticides stockpiles if it will not be accompanied by wider pesticide management strategies and prevention measures.
9. One NGO representative asked about the future of emptied old pesticide stores.
Andrei Barannik replied that the project does not foresee clean-up activities at the old sites due to focus on eliminating the immediate current threat and budget constraints. However, the EA recommends the GRM to implement necessary low-cost measures in order to limit the current and residual risks. The project will provide resources for monitoring at the old sites.
10. Rodica Iordanov (Milieukontakt) stressed that problems can occur at the locations designated for centralized storage where the works have not started yet, due to the public opposition. The World Bank, together with GRM, should think of developing awareness programs and creating incentives for local communities in order to smooth the centralization. She asked whether the project foresees the disposal of PCBs (along with obsolete pesticides) and what will be done with the pesticide waste (packaging materials, contaminated dust, etc).
Andrei Barannik replied that this is the problem of Moldova. The GEF and World Bank can assist but this is Moldova that has the responsibility. The efforts should be concentrated to solve the problem gradually. The inclusion of clean-up activities may increase the project costs by US$ 4-5 million and this could be not endorsed by the GEF Board.
11. Nicolae Grosu (NGO Renasterea, Talmaza, Stefan Voda) stressed the problem of the obsolete pesticides currently stored in private households.
Col. Ion Daraban said that the population in the settlements where repackaging and transportation of pesticides was implemented has been informed about ongoing activities and consequently people brought significant amounts of obsolete household pesticides for repackaging. This explains the fact that reported amounts of pesticides repackaged by MOD and DES significantly exceeded the amounts reported by previous inventories.
Col. Daraban reported about the state of implementation of the last GRM Decision on centralized collection and safe disposal of obsolete pesticides. MOD (together with DES) was appointed as the implementing agency. MOD is now in advanced stage of discussions concerning a project financed by NATO. Twelve NATO countries expressed their commitment to contribute to the project including 7 countries contributing concrete amounts of money. The project has four components: (i) centralization; (ii) identification; (iii) destruction; and (iv) decontamination.
(i) The centralization phase is now 65% accomplished. In the same time, it must be stressed that obsolete pesticides are mixed. (ii) In order to define the suitable destruction method, NATO allocated 143,000 Euro for pesticides identification. The tender for equipment procurement is under way. The identification phase could last two years. (iii) There were talks with Norway and the French firm Lafarge (owner of a big cement factory in Moldova) concerning suitable destruction methods. The option of incineration in cement kilns was seriously considered. (iv) The old emptied storage facilities are a source of environmental contamination that should be dealt with. The walls and the floor of the stores are heavily contaminated and pose health and environmental risks. In the first phase, the buildings should be isolated using simple methods. The discussions with NATO are done on behalf of the GRM, and are instrumented via a coordination interdisciplinary group involving all stakeholder institutions (including MENR).
12. Vladimir Garaba (MEM, Chisinau) expressed his disappointment about the fact that no representatives of the civil society were invited to participate in the meetings of this group and the public was not informed about those discussions and decisions.
13. Valentina Jamba (MEM, Soroca) suggested that apparently the World Bank and the NATO project develop independently and this is totally wrong. It would be normal for them to cooperate in order to efficiently use the limited resources (e.g. repackaging, transportation and disposal to be done by one project and remediation of old sites, by another). She also expressed her discontent as regards the potential incineration of obsolete pesticides at the cement factory in Rezina and said she would organize public protests if the authorities would try to do it.
14. Gheorghe Grecu, Mayor of village Oniscani stressed the need for introducing POPs issues in school programs.
Annex 4. Contents of the Technical Appendix (in a separate volume)
A. Check-list for evaluation of selected obsolete pesticides storage facilities status
B. Criteria for selection of obsolete pesticides warehouses to be evaluated
C. Baseline data rayon by rayon (description of the environment; data on obsolete pesticides stored; reports of the field teams on the investigation of obsolete pesticides storage sites)
D. Survey of electrical sub-stations holding PCB-containing capacitors
E. Data on soil contamination with POPs
Annex 5. Comparative review of WB Operational Policies, relevant Moldovan and EU legislation
|World Bank Safeguard Policies |Relevant Moldovan Legislation |International Agreements ratified by |EU Legislation (selected and related to the scope of the project) |
| | |Moldova | |
|OP 4.00: Environmental and Social |On Local Public Administration – March 18, |Convention On Environmental Impact |REGULATION (EC) No 2493/2000 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 |
|Safeguard Policies—Policy |2003 |Assessment in a Transboundary Context |November2000 on measures to promote the full integration of the environmental dimension |
|Objectives and Operational |On Licensing of Certain Types of Activities|Convention On Long-range Transboundary Air |in the development process of developing countries |
|Principles & OP/BP 4.00: Piloting |– July 30, 2001 |Pollution (LRTAP) |Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the|
|the Use of Borrower Systems to |On Industrial Safety of Dangerous |Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants |risks of existing substances |
|Address Environmental and Social |Industrial Objects – February 11, 2000 |(LRTAP POPs) |Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April |
|Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported|On Standardization – April 12, 2000 |Convention On the Transboundary Effects of |2004on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC |
|Projects – March 2005 |On Industrial Safety of Dangerous |Industrial Accidents |DIRECTIVE 1999/45/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 31 May 1999 |
| |Industrial Objects – February 11, 2000 |Convention On the Control of Transboundary |concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of |
| |On Drinking Water – February 10, 1999 |Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their |the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous |
| |On Hydro-meteorological Activity – February|Disposal |preparations (Consolidated) |
| |25, 1998 |ILO C155 Occupational Safety and Health |Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution |
| |On Protection of Atmospheric Air– December |Convention |prevention and control |
| |17, 1997 |ILO C184 Safety and Health in Agriculture |Council Directive 88/347/EEC of 16 June 1988 amending Annex II to Directive 86/280/EEC |
| |On Wastes from Production and Consumption –|Convention |on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances |
| |October 9, 1997 | |included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (Consolidated) |
| |On Regime of Hazardous Products and | |Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against|
| |Substances – July 3, 1997 | |pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (Consolidated) |
| |On Ecological Expertise and Environmental | |Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous |
| |Impact Assessment – May 29, 1996 | |substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (Consolidated) |
| |On Fire Safety – November 9, 1994 | |REGULATION (EC) No 304/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUCIL of 28 January |
| |Code on Subterranean Resources – June 18, | |2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (Consolidated) |
| |1993 | |Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards |
| |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993| |involving dangerous substances |
| | | |Council Directive 94/55/EC as announced in Commission Directive 2001/7/EC adapting for |
| | | |the third time to technical progress Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation of |
| | | |the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road |
| | | |Council Resolution of 16 June 1988 concerning export from and import into the Community |
| | | |of certain dangerous chemicals |
| | | |Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste |
| | | |European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and |
| | | |packaging waste |
| | | |Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated |
| | | |biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) |
| | | |Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on|
| | | |the incineration of waste |
| | | |Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste |
| | | |Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from |
| | | |existing municipal waste-incineration plants |
| | | |Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste |
|OP/BP 4.01: Environmental |On Ecological Expertise and Environmental |Convention On Environmental Impact |DIRECTIVE 2001/42/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 June 2001 on |
|Assessment – January 1999 as |Impact Assessment – May 19, 1996 |Assessment in a Transboundary Context |the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment |
|revised August 2004 |On Health Protection – June 15, 1995 | |Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the |
| |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993| |assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment |
| |On Sanitary-epidemiological Well-being of | |Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain|
| |the Population – June 16, 1993 | |public and private projects on the environment (Consolidated) |
| | | |Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the|
| | | |assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with|
| | | |Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 |
| | | |Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying down the principles for assessment|
| | | |of risks to man and the environment of substances notified in accordance with Council |
| | | |Directive 67/548/EEC |
|OP/BP 4.04: Natural Habitats – |On Fund for Natural Territories’ Protected |Convention on Biological Diversity and |COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and |
|June 2001 as revised August 2004 |by the State – February 25, 1998 |Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety |of wild fauna and flora |
| |On Natural Resources – February 6, 1997 |Convention on International Trade in | |
| |On Fauna – April 27, 1995 |Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora | |
| |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993|(CITES) | |
| |Land Code – December 25, 1991 |UN Convention on Biological Diversity | |
| | |Convention on Wetlands of International | |
| | |Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat | |
| | |(RAMSAR) | |
| | |COE Convention on the Conservation of | |
| | |European Wildlife and Natural Habitats | |
| | |European Landscape Convention | |
|OP 4.09: Pest Management – |On Biological Security (Safety) – 21 |Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed | |
|December 1998 |December 2001 |Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous | |
| |On Plant Protection – October 1, 1999 |Chemicals and Pesticides in International | |
| |On Phytosanitary Quarantine – June 22, 1995|Trade | |
| |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993|ILO C184 Safety and Health in Agriculture | |
| | |Convention | |
|OP/BP 4.12: Involuntary | | | |
|Resettlement – December 2001 | | | |
|OD 4.20: Indigenous Peoples – | |UN International Covenant on Civil and | |
|September 1991 | |Political Rights | |
| | |UN International Covenant on Economic, | |
| | |Social and Cultural Rights | |
| | |UN Convention on the Rights of the Child | |
| | |COE Convention for the Protection of Human | |
| | |Rights and Fundamental Freedoms | |
| | |COE Framework Convention for the Protection| |
| | |of National Minorities | |
|OP 4.36: Forests – November 2002 |Forestry Code –June 21, 1996 |Convention on Biological Diversity | |
|as revised 2004 |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993| | |
|OP/BP 4.37: Safety of Dams – |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993| | |
|October 2001 | | | |
|OP/BP 7.50: Projects in |On Water Protection Zones and Strips of |UNECE Convention On the Protection and Use |DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 |
|International Waters – June 2001 |Rivers and Water Bodies – April 27, 1995 |of Transboundary Watercourse and |establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy |
| |Water Code – June 22, 1993 |International Lakes |(Consolidated) |
| |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993|Protocol on Water and Health to the UNECE |COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human|
| | |Convention On the Protection and Use of |consumption (Consolidated) |
| | |Transboundary Watercourse and International| |
| | |Lakes | |
| | |Convention on Cooperation for the | |
| | |Protection and Sustainable Use of the | |
| | |Danube River | |
| | |Convention on the Protection of the Black | |
| | |Sea Against Pollution | |
|OP/BP 7.60: Projects in Disputed | | | |
|Areas – June 2001 | | | |
|OPN 11.03: Cultural Property – |On Monuments Protection – June 22, 1993 |UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection| |
|September 1986 |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993|of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage | |
| | |COE European Cultural Convention | |
| | |COE European Convention on the Protection | |
| | |of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) | |
|The World Bank Policy on |On Access to Information – May 11, 2000 |UNECE Convention On Access to Information, |DIRECTIVE 2003/4/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 January 2003 on |
|Disclosure of Information |On Environmental Protection – June 16, 1993|Public Participation in Decision Making and|public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC |
| | |Access to Justice in Environmental Matters |DIRECTIVE 2003/35/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 May 2003 |
| | | |providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and |
| | | |programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation |
| | | |and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC |
Annex 6. State of Centralization of Obsolete Pesticides[127]
|Rayon |Loca|Total planned amount per rayon, |Incl|State of centralization |
| |tion|P.U.F., kg |udin| |
| |of | |g | |
| |sele| | | |
| |cted| | | |
| |ware| | | |
| |hous| | | |
| |es | | | |
| | | | | |
Annex 8. Methodology Applied for Risk Assessment of Central Warehouses
The methodology developed by ECOS and applied to the current study included the following steps.
Basing on the information contained in the questionnaires/check-lists filled in during the field investigation of each central warehouse; the mapping of land-use situation; and the identification of areas potentially exposed to pollution by air dispersion (radius 300 m) and runoff (up to 1000 m, depending on the landscapes characteristics) a set of indicators was obtained. The list of criteria was discussed and most important ones were used for further analysis as presented in the table below. Ranking of qualitative and semi-qualitative information was applied for each individual criterion as indicated in the table. This allowed for clustering 10 selected criteria in three categories, named LOW, MIDDLE and HIGH risks.
|Risk category |Mark |Rank of individual criteria |
|for each | | |
|individual | | |
|criterion | | |
| | |
|HUMAN HEALTH RISK INDEX |Amount of pesticides stored or expected to be stored |
| |Warehouse physical status |
| |Available space for repackaging |
| |Distance to populated areas |
| |Distance to agriculture areas |
| |Distance to pastures |
|ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INDEX |Amount of pesticides stored or expected to be stored |
| |Warehouse physical status |
| |Available space for repackaging |
| |Distance to water courses |
| |Distance to forest |
| |Location in the river flood plain |
| |Depth to groundwater aquifer |
The calculation of numeric values for total, health and environmental risks allowed for ranking integrated indexes according to four categories: HIGH, CONSIDERABLE, MODERATE and LOW. The thresholds limits are indicated in the table below.
|Integrated risk category |Mark |TOTAL RISK INDEX |HUMAN HEALTH RISK INDEX |ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INDEX |
|HIGH |H |> 20 |> 15 |> 15 |
|CONSIDERABLE |C |17-20 |13-15 |13-15 |
|MODERATE |M |13-16 |10-12 |10-12 |
|LOW |L |< 13 |< 10 |< 10 |
Annex 9. Map of integrated risk assessment and ranking of central pesticide warehouses
[pic]
-----------------------
[1] Source: National bank of Moldova. bnm.md
[2] Moldova: Public Economic Management Review, Report No. 25423-MD, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, The World Bank, Washington, DC, February 20, 2003, p. 4
[3] Source: Department of Statistics and Sociology, 2004 Statistical Yearbooks
[4] Strategy of Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction (2004-2006), Chisinau, May 2004
[5] “The conclusion is that incineration is not only the best, but the most cost effective. Incineration is still most widely used and most competitive in Europe and US.” World Bank Office Memorandum from Mr. Steve Gorman, GEF Executive Coordinator to Mr. Leonard Good, CEO/Chairman, GEF, dated April 25, 2005 at: .
[6] E.g.: in accordance with OP 4.09, § 7 “The Bank requires that any pesticides it finances be manufactured, packaged, labeled, handled, stored, disposed of, and applied according to standards acceptable to the Bank.” Footnote 7 further stipulates that “[t]he FAO's Guidelines for Packaging and Storage of Pesticides (Rome, 1985), Guidelines on Good Labeling Practice for Pesticides (Rome, 1985), and Guidelines for the Disposal of Waste Pesticide and Pesticide Containers on the Farm (Rome, 1985) are used as minimum standards.”
[7] POP-pesticides as addressed under the Stockholm Convention are: aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, heptachlor, DDT, mirex, hexachlorobenzene and toxaphene.
[8] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[9] This number is provided in the registers kept by MAFI. More detailed on-site inventories showed that the total amount is likely to be more substantial and could be between 2,500 and 3,000 tons.
[10] Government Decision No. 1155 of 20.10.2004 on the approval of the National Strategy and the National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants.
[11] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004
[12] Law on Environmental Expertise &Environmental Impact Assessment - No 851 from 29.05.96 and the Regulation on Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decision Making – approved by Governmental Decision No 72 from 25.01.2000.
[13] Government Decision no. 1155 of 20 October 2004.
[14] Approved by Parliament Decision No 605-XV of 2 November 2001.
[15] Adopted by Government Decision No. 606 of 28 June 2000.
[16] Approved by the Government Decision No. 234 of 27 February 2002.
[17] Government Decision No. 672 of 28 May 2002.
[18] Government Decision No. 637 of 25 May 2002.
[19] Government Decision No 477 of 19 May 2000.
[20] Government Decision No 394 of 8 April 1998.
[21] Chief Sanitary Ordinance of 3 November 1995.
[22] Approved by MAFI Ordinance No. 231 of 28 November 2003.
[23] Government Decision No. 347 of 25 March 2003.
[24] Government Decision No. 72 of 25 January 2000.
[25] Chief Sanitary Ordinance No. 06.3.3.50 of 21 August 2003.
[26] GOST 12.1.005-88.
[27] Approved by the Ministry of Health Protection of USSR, Decision No. 4946-89 of 16 May 1989.
[28] GOST 17.1.3.04-82.
[29] GOST 17.4.3.06-86.
[30] GOST 12.3.041-86.
[31] GOST 14189-81.
[32] SNIP II-108-78.
[33] SNIP 2.01.28-85.
[34] Approved by the Ministry of Agriculture of USSR.
[35] UNEP, Basel Convention Series. SBC Nr. 2005 / 1
[36] UNEP, Basel Convention Series. SBC Nr. 2005 / 2
[37] There is no formal methodology developed yet
[38] Responsible agency for nation wide projects is the Direction of Ecological Impact and Waste Management of MENR.
[39] JICA EIA study for water supply of the northern part of Moldova, 2002
[40] Prut river basin management project, TACIS, 2000
[41] Sectoral Environmental Review. Market Access and Rural Services Project, 2000
[42] A decision to conduct an environmental audit is made if (among other reasons): (i) enterprise, factory or any activity had not received approval from the Department of Ecological Expertise, but was built/operated; (ii) enterprise, factory or other activity for which the significant environmental impacts are recognised by the environmental authorities or general public, or for which there is insufficient information for effective environmental management.
[43] The way of public participation within EIA and EE process is so called Public Environmental Expertise. The right to perform PEE is limited to only “registered” associations which have to have respective record in their statue; not included people that can be influenced by the project or those who are interested to comment and acting on people’s behalf on the project. The RPIEDM offers this right to individuals.
[44] The Bank requires EA of projects proposed for Bank financing to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable, and thus to improve decision making. EA evaluates a project's potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence; examines project alternatives; identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation. EA takes into account the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property); and transboundary and global environmental aspects. EA is initiated as early as possible in project processing and is integrated closely with the economic, financial, institutional, social, and technical analyses of a proposed project.
[45] In assisting borrowers to manage pests, the Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. The Bank assesses the capacity of the country's regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management.
[46] Moldova has never produced pesticides or PCBs. None of the POPs pesticides is presently permitted for use in agriculture, forestry or households. The project does not finance purchase or production of pesticides but rather is financing disposal of the existing stockpiles. The project will finance training in integrated pest management and strengthened pesticide control. The project is co-ordinating with the WB Moldova Rural Investment and Services Project (RISP) II IDA credit which supports integrated pest management and the strengthening of pesticides control. The project is working closely with the WB Rural Investment Project which is financing improved pest management practices.
[47] The census undertaken in 2004 provided a number of 3,388,000 inhabitants. However, this does not comprise the population on the left bank of the river Nistru (Transnistria) which is estimated at approximately 700,000. Transnistria is politically and institutionally separated from the rest of the country and does not participate in activities initiated by the official authorities of the country.
[48] Atlas of the Republic of Moldova, 1978, 1990.
[49] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[50] Regional Study: Managing Natural Disasters in Europe and Central Asia, World Bank perspective, Country Risk Template (Republic of Moldova), WB, 2003.
[51] State of the Environment Report, 2003.
[52] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[53] Market Access and Rural Services Project, Sectoral Environmental Review, draft, 2000.
[54] It has to be pointed out that the HMS monitoring program is very limited, both in terms of spatial coverage and parameters analyzed.
[55] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004
[56] Water Cadastre of the Republic of Moldova, 1998
[57] Prut River Tributaries: Environmental Protection Review. Protection Strategy and Options, TACIS, 2001
[58] State of the Environment Report, 2003
[59] Water Cadastre of the Republic of Moldova, 1998
[60] Prut River Basin Water Management Project, Tacis, 2000.
[61] Regional Study: Managing Natural Disasters in Europe and Central Asia, WB perspective, Country Risk Template (Republic of Moldova), WB, 2003
[62] Flood Risk in Moldova, Acvaproiect, 2002.
[63] Problems of Flooding, European Associated Center on Flood Problems in Moldova, Acvaproiect, 2001.
[64] Study of the Quality of Rural Drinking Water, World Bank, 1997.
[65] Biological Diversity Conservation. National Strategy and Action Plan, 2002.
[66] State of the Environment Report, 2003.
[67] Biological Diversity Conservation. National Strategy and Action Plan, 2002.
[68] Red Book of Moldova, 2001.
[69] Biological Diversity Conservation. National Strategy and Action Plan, 2002.
[70] Ibidem.
[71] Study on the Quality of the Rural Drinking Water, World Bank, 1997.
[72] Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2004-2006), Government of Moldova, 2004.
[73] Department of Statistics and Sociology and (*) Policy and Poverty Monitoring Unit
[74] Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2004-2006), Government of Moldova, 2004.
[75] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[76] Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2004-2006), Government of Moldova, 2004.
[77] Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2004-2006), Government of Moldova, 2004.
[78] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[79] Volneanschi A., Romanciuc P. Hygienic evaluation of the content of organochlorinated pesticides in breast milk (Rom.) Proceedings of the III Congress of hygienists, microbiologists, epidemiologists and parazitologists of the Republic of Moldova, Chisinau, 1992. P. 68-70.
[80] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[81] Decision No. 30 of 15-01-2001 on actions toward centralized storage and disposal of out-of-use and banned pesticides.
[82] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[83] Toxaphene is one of the 12 POPs referred to in the Stockholm Convention.
[84] Privately owned and operational warehouse
[85] Both warehouses are privately owned and no permission from owners to visit the sites has been obtained
[86] Privately owned
[87] Privately owned and operating warehouse
[88] Former depot for flammable and explosive chemicals
[89] Privately owned and operating warehouse
[90] Ratus (Telenesti rayon), Alexandreni (Singerei rayon and Balti municipality), Bugeac (Gagauz Eri, Comrat section), Olanesti (Stefan Voda rayon), Clocusna (Ocnita rayon), Cahul SDES training field (Cahul rayon), Ciobalaccia (Cantemir rayon), Recea (Riscani rayon), Straseni (Straseni rayon), Hitresti (Falesti rayon), Albota de Sus (Taraclia rayon), Chipesca (Soldanesti rayon)
[91] Gaidar and Bugeac (Gagauz Eri, Ciadir-Lunga and Comrat sections), Tudora (Stefan Voda rayon), Cimislia (Cimislia rayon), Gradinita (Causeni rayon), Papauti (Rezina rayon), Chipesca (Soldanesti rayon), Carpineni (Hincesti rayon), Pelivan (Orhei rayon), Cosauti (Soroca rayon), Sadaclia (Basarabeasca rayon), Sturzovca (Glodeni rayon).
[92] Ratus (Telenesti rayon), Temeleuti (Floresti rayon),Grimancauti (Briceni rayon), Nisporeni (Nisporeni rayon), Recea (Riscani rayon), Straseni (Straseni rayon), Sturzovca (Glodeni rayon), Hitresti (Falesti rayon)
[93] Ratus (Telenesti rayon), Bugeac (Gagauz Eri, Comrat sector), Nisporeni (Nisporeni rayon), Carpineni (Hincesti rayon), Recea (Riscani rayon), Straseni (Straseni rayon), Sadaclia (Basarabeasca rayon), Bardar (Ialoveni rayon)
[94] Government Decision No. 1389 of 24-11-2003 on modifications and amendments to the Government Decision No. 1543 of 29-11-2002 concerning additional measures for centralized storage and neutralization of obsolete pesticides.
[95] Government Decision No. 474 of 21.05.1997 on measures for collection and centralized storage of obsolete pesticides.
[96] Government Decision No. 30 of 15.01.2001 on measures for centralized storage and neutralization of obsolete pesticides.
[97] Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developing countries. Provisional technical guidelines. UNEP, WHO, FAO. 1996.
[98] Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developing countries. Provisional technical guidelines. UNEP, WHO, FAO. 1996.
[99] National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2004.
[100] It is to be mentioned that the EA team had no formal mandate to influence the siting of warehouses. The input of EA team was to contribute to the risk assessment and identifying of the most risky/critical warehouses and to brief the PIU on the results of field assessment.
[101] Government Decision No. 672 of 28.05.2002 on the transport of dangerous goods on the territory of the Republic of Moldova.
[102] Government Decision No. 637 of 27.05.2003 on the control of transboundary movements of wastes and their disposal.
[103] Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides Stocks in Ethiopia, Programmatic Environmental Assessment, 2004.
[104] Seriously damaged warehouse in Grimancauti, high overall risks associated, close to the Ukrainian border. The repackaged pesticide stock in rayon is stored in bags, without barrels.
[105] Selected storage place in a former garage should be reconsidered and all pesticides should be evacuated accordingly. The current site presents considerable health risks. The repackaged pesticide stock in rayon is stored in bags, without barrels.
[106] Selected storage place in a former pig farm should be reconsidered and all pesticides should be evacuated accordingly. The current site presents considerable health risk. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[107] Seriously damaged warehouse in Clocusna, considerable overall risks associated, including high health risks. The repackaged pesticide stock in rayon is stored in bags, without barrels.
[108] Seriously damaged warehouse in Edinet, considerable overall risks associated, including health risks. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[109] Seriously damaged warehouse in Recea, considerable health risks and high environmental risks. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[110] Seriously damaged warehouse in Chipesca, high health risks and considerable environmental risks, The repackaged pesticide stock in rayon is stored in bags, without barrels.
[111] Zgurita is a more preferable site as compared to Suri, which was proposed by the rayon authorities. Zgurita site presents lower health and environmental risks. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[112] Vorniceni is a more preferable option, as compared to Straseni. The Straseni site presents high environmental and considerable human risks. Reparation and mitigation measures in Vorniceni will be necessary to mitigate the considerable health risks. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[113] Bardar and Milestii Mici are both privately owned and the EA team was not allowed to visit and inspect the sites. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[114] Cuhnesti site is more preferable as compared to Sturzovca. Repackaging in rayon has not started yet.
[115] High health and environmental risks associated.
[116] Considerable health and environmental risks associated; large rehabilitation of additional sections will be required in order to accumulate the total amount of pesticides from the rayon.
[117] High environmental risks and considerable health risk associated.
[118] High environmental risks associated
[119] Considerable environmental risks associated
[120] Considerable health and environmental risks associated
[121] High environmental risks associated
[122] Considerable health and environmental risks associated
[123] Considerable health risk associated
[124] Considerable health risk associated
[125] Considerable environmental risks associated
[126] Milieukontact, a Dutch NGO, is responsible for 1-2 selected rayons
[127] Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry.
-----------------------
POOR POPs STOCKS MANAGEMENT
Water supply sources
Reservoirs for
irrigation
pisciculture
recreation
Natural streams and wetlands
Pastures
Productive, fertile soils
Agricultural crops
Atmosphere
Soil
Surface water
Ground water
Leakage
Vaporization & wind dispersion
Run-off and top
soil erosion
Infiltration
Base flow
Forests and terrestrial habitats
Living, residential areas
Working space
Losses of value (wood, herbs, mushrooms)
Losses of value (crops, milk, meat, fish products)
Accumulation / toxicity wild fauna, flora
Human health losses
Biological diversity losses
Economic losses
LEGEND:
- Central pesticide warehouse
- Candidate for selection as
central pesticides warehouse
-Integrated risk
-Human health risk
-Environmental risk
-Higher integrated risk
-Considerable integrated risk
-Moderate integrated risk
-Low integrated risk
-
+
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURSES
INITIATOR (DEVELOPER) + EIA TEAM
COMMENTS
Reviewing
CHAPTER «ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION» as an integral part of design documentation
DESIGNER
TERMS OF REFERENCE for designing
Correction
INITIATOR (DEVELOPER)
Approving
Expertising
[pic][128].HIJKL¼½ùúÿ[pic] [129] |
D ^ _ a Ñ Ò "-=>?@îêáØáÐÈÐêи¨¸ê¤êœ”ŒÐáØáÐêи꜔ŒÐrfjh^±U[pic]mH sH hyD“5?OJ[130]QJ[131]mH sH h[pic]wL5?OJ[132]QJ[133]mH sH
hL[bmH sH
hhxfhxSTATE ECOLOGICAL EXPERTISE
amendment EIA DOCUMENTATION and EIA STATEMENT
COMMENTS
Reviewing
PUBLIC ECOLOGICAL EXPERTISE (voluntary)
ANNOUNCEMENT
in mass-media
MINISTRIES & STATE AGENCIES
LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY
EIA STATEMENT
EIA
DOCUMENTATION
EIA study
EIA TEAM
INITIATOR (DEVELOPER)
• SIGNIFICANT
• LONG-TERM
• COUNTRY WIDE
• SEVERE
• HARDLY REVERSIBLE
E1198
v. 2
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- career and financial management syllabus
- strategic and financial planning relationship
- account and financial management journal
- budgeting and financial management
- sample proposals for business
- accounting and financial management
- strategic and financial planning healthcare
- examples of written proposals for a project
- manager and financial management functions
- examples of proposals for projects
- examples of project proposals for funding
- difference between financial planner and financial advisor