OFFICIAL USE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

UZBEKISTAN: KARAKALPAKSTAN AND HOREZM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

PROJECT

FEASIBILITY STUDY

1 INTRODUCTION

With its 33 million inhabitants, the Republic of Uzbekistan (the “Country”) is the most populous country in Central Asia and accounts for close to half of the region’s population.

The growing population and rapid economic development are putting pressure on the Country’s solid waste management (“SWM”) infrastructure. There are about 220 landfills in the Country, totalling 1,500 ha in area, and most meet neither national nor EU sanitary and safety standards. Currently, just over half of the Country’s population is covered by regular municipal solid waste collection and transportation services. The service area mostly includes larger towns and cities, while the population in rural areas is underserved.

In April 2017, the State Committee for Ecology and Environmental Protection (the “Committee”) was established to facilitate reforms and improve the situation in the SWM sector. The Committee is responsible for the operation of regional SWM and overall implementation of the government’s vision for the sector. The Country’s SW management strategy for 2019-28 was approved in April 2019. It focuses on further development of the sector, including improving the efficiency and reach of SW collection, transportation, recycling, treatment and disposal services.

Uzbekistan is divided into twelve oblasts (incl. Horezm Oblast (“HO”), the autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan (“RK”) and one independent city (Tashkent). The Republic of Karakalpakstan, a population of 1.8 million, and Horezm Oblast, a population of 1.7 million (together, the “Regions”) are located in the west of the Country.

The Committee approached the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“EBRD” or the “Bank”) with a request to support modernisation of SWM infrastructure in RK and HO by providing sovereign loans to the country of up to USD 120 million and 60 million, respectively (the “Project”). The Project is preliminary expected to include (i) the closure of around 33 existing dumpsites, ii) construction of seven new EU-compliant sanitary landfills and approximately 13 transfer stations, iii) other ancillary investments like sorting lines and specialised vehicles. State unitary enterprises “Karakalpakstan Toza Hudud” and “Horezm Toza Hudud” (together, the “Companies”) are expected to be final beneficiaries of the Project. According to a preliminary scoping study conducted by the Bank, the Project is expected to consist of seven sub-projects (the “Sub-Projects”), where each sub-project is understood to include the construction/renovation of a landfill and the closure of the neighbouring dumpsites. The Sub-Projects combined will fully cover the Regions.

The Bank wishes to engage a consultant (the “Consultant”) to prepare a comprehensive feasibility study (“FS”) to assess the feasibility of proposed investments in SWM

OFFICIAL USE 1

OFFICIAL USEinfrastructure in RK and HO. The Consultant should prepare a detailed feasibility study including technical, institutional, financial and environmental aspects.

2 OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the investment will be to improve service, efficiency and environmental and social compliance of the municipal solid waste management system in the Regions.

The Consultant will review the detailed requirements for the Project, verify whether a bankable project meeting these objectives can be prepared, and prepare such project. This Project will be based on best available and reliable technologies and result in an effective least-cost investment programme. The investment plan will be justified on the basis of thorough technical, financial, institutional and economic analysis. Furthermore, the Consultant will develop an efficient Project Implementation Plan, including procurement schedule, and carry out an energy saving assessment (including resource utilisation and the impact on GHG emissions) of the investment programme.

Specific objectives of the assignment shall include, inter alia:

a. Review of the Country’s solid waste management strategy for 2019-28 (the “Strategy”), benchmark it against international best practices, highlight strong parts and suggest points of improvement.

b. Review and analyse the current situation of the waste collection / separation / recycling / treatment and disposal (incl. landfilling) in the Regions in terms of capacities and condition of major equipment and facilities, recent performance, operation and maintenance (“O&M”) practices, capacity of the Committee, Regions and relevant companies to manage and address all relevant environmental and social risks and impacts, compliance with national laws and regulations and any liability issues.

c. Review the institutional and legal framework of the sector, including sector setup (assessment of policies, legislations, processes and institutional capacity), tariff-setting procedures, contractual arrangements and framework for municipal solid waste, hazardous and construction and demolition waste collection / processing / storage / recycling / treatment and disposal. Make necessary recommendations for organisational, legal and institutional changes regarding SWM in the Regions.

d. Review the Committee’s proposed investment programme for the Regions and (i) opine whether it is in line with the Strategy, including sorting, recycling and waste-to-energy requirements and (ii) elaborate how it fits into the Committee’s plans for further increase and upgrade of the waste collection infrastructure, including transfer stations, fleet and container acquisitions, which is expected to be financed by both the government and international financial institutions.

e. Propose a Priority Investment Programme (“PIP”) with reliable cost estimates based on the investment programme suggested by the Committee. The PIP should be based on the best available and reliable technologies and result in an effective least-cost investment programme. To the extent possible the Consultant shall take into account the potential impacts of climate change on the project in order to build in resilience to climate change related risks. The PIP should cover all Sub-Projects.

f. Estimate potential effects of the PIP, including reductions in Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions arising from utilisation (flaring / electricity production) of landfill gas from existing and planned waste management sites. Calculate the Bank’s standard measuring indicators and GET impact indicators (see Annex 2). Calculation should also be provided

OFFICIAL USE 2

OFFICIAL USEin MS Excel format with all inputs / assumptions easily traceable and verifiable. Calculated impacts should be linked to the PIP with a concise explanation on where any particular impact comes from.

g. Prepare financial inputs/assumptions to be used in the financial model, which will be prepared by the EBRD. The inputs/assumptions shall be fully consistent with the proposed PIP and the strategic development plan and be based on prudent assumptions. The Consultant will gather the actual figures and inputs/assumptions that will cover a period of at least 18 years and review the financial model. Prepare affordability analysis and EIRR calculation.

h. Prepare implementation arrangements, including the need of technical supervision, to be envisaged for the successful implementation of the Project. Determine an efficient implementation strategy for the Project and prepare a general timetable of the Project implementation. Identify appropriate contribution from each party towards debt service.

i. Screen the Project against the EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy (2014, “ESP”) and associated Performance Requirements (“PRs”) to propose, and agree with the EBRD, the project category (A or B) and confirm the environmental and social due diligence required.

j. According to the preliminary scoping study conducted by the Bank, all Sub-Projects are preliminary expected to be categorised as B; once this is confirmed, the Consultant should carry out an Environmental and Social Assessment (E&S Due Diligence, “ESDD”) of the proposed Project to identify its environmental and social risks, impacts and benefits and to structure the Project to comply with the ESP and PRs. In case that some of the Sub-Projects are categorised as A, this ToR will be revised by the EBRD.

3 SCOPE OF WORK

3.1: Baseline study.3.2: Project proposal and PIP.3.3: Legal and institutional set up.3.4: Operational efficiency.3.5: Financial model and audit.3.6: Project implementation plan.3.7: Environmental and Social Assessment.

3.1 Baseline study

This task involves a review of the present status of the waste management services in the Regions. This analysis shall allow the Bank to better understand the present situation in institutional, legal and financial, as well as technical and environmental terms.

3.1.1. Review of the Country’s solid waste management strategy for the period 2019-28 The Consultant shall review the Strategy, benchmark it with international best-practices and standards, and highlight strong parts and potential points for improvement and identify highest-priority areas for investment.

3.1.2. Assess demand for SWM services The Consultant shall, inter alia:

Define the catchment area and assess the number of households and customers covered by the SWM services in the Regions, and calculate the current municipal solid waste (“MSW”) collection coverage rates.

OFFICIAL USE 3

OFFICIAL USEThe consultant shall critically review the available information on the current MSW generation in the Regions, i.e.:

- Perform a reliable review of the current quantities of MSW generated (MSW that is collected by formal operators (state-owned / public, private) plus other disposal practices) by each category of waste generators. Categories of different waste generators are households (high-rise and private houses) and other generators (e.g. commercial entities, institutions, schools, small businesses etc.). The quantities of MSW generated should be presented as total (tonnes per year) and relative quantities (kg per capita per year). The quantities of MSW generated (tonnes per year) by large commercial waste generators should also be presented separately.

- Assessment of the generated quantities also shall consider a differentiation in urban and rural areas.

- Assess quantities of specific MSW types generated, such as construction and demolition waste (“C&D waste”), medical and any other hazardous waste. Any potential biodegradable waste streams such as sludge from waste water treatment, agricultural waste, market waste, food processing industry, kitchen and restaurant waste etc. should also be assessed.

- Provide a reliable and detailed composition analysis of municipal solid waste generated for each category of waste generators (households and other generators).

Where necessary, the consultant shall make necessary field investigations. As a guideline the European Commission methodology for the analysis of solid waste (SWA-tool) should be used.

3.1.3. Current SWM practicesWaste collection. Assess current quantities of MSW collected by formal operators (for all waste streams including C&D waste and other hazardous wastes). Describe the collection systems and infrastructure in place for different waste generators and waste types.Other disposal practices. Estimate other waste disposal practices for all waste streams (illegal disposal (dumping), backyard burning, home composting, animal feeding, informal sector waste picking at the level of waste generators, etc.) predominant in the Country and the Regions.Source separation. Describe existing (and/or past) experience with waste separation at the source (household and businesses/institutions/industries), relevant regulatory requirements and targets as well as enforcement standards. Describe the market for separated materials (types, quantities, achievable prices (and the associated qualities)) and potential off-takers (buyers) and their location and demands (quantities and qualities) for recyclables and key players.Recycling. Describe existing (and/or past) experience with recycling (household and businesses/institutions/industries), relevant regulatory requirements and targets as well as enforcement standards. Describe results, how it is/was organised, ownership of implementing entities, financial and payment details.Waste disposal. The Consultant will study the waste disposal practices at the existing dumpsites; compare them with international standards and best-practices and identify areas for improvement (if appropriate, including a comment on how to capture the potential for recycling). An assessment of current waste collection, recycling and disposal habits of residents, tendency to separate waste, littering and general public awareness regarding the current waste management systems will be appraised by visual inspections of collection points, site visits to the dumpsites, research carried out by local team members and information provided by the

OFFICIAL USE 4

OFFICIAL USEclient. The Consultant will devise an incentive scheme to encourage better sorting and recycling practices.

3.1.4. Organization of the SWM services

The Consultant will study the role of the Committee for investment decisions, priority investment planning and approval procedures, organisation of SWM in the Regions, the historic background for the structure of the sector, the governance structure and compare its findings with best practices in solid waste operations and identify areas for improvements. To this end the Consultant shall, inter alia:

Describe and assess how waste collection and transportation is currently organised, inter alia:

- List and describe main market participants in the waste collection sector. For each company, provide the following information: Ownership (private or public) of these companies.

Type of service provided: industrial waste and/or households and/or commercial waste collection.

Which assets does the entity have; age and state of the assets?

Who do the collection points belong to?

Who controls/manages the entity?

Which areas/waste generators does the entity serve?

What types and quantities of waste are handled per entity?

How is the entity paid – officially and unofficially? Describe flow of funds from the waste generators (or directly from the Regional budget as the case might be) to the entity.

Payments, collection rates, customer databases, billing procedures, accounts receivable.

Who supervises the performance of the entity (if any)?

Outline the entity’s key economic incentive drivers in the system.

Quality of service provided.

Any available financial statements.

- Evaluate the market size for solid waste collection and transportation (assess revenues, operational costs and profitability of this subsector).

- Assess the level and basis of competition. Give an opinion about the optimal number of market participants.

- Assess potential for private sector participation in waste collection and transportation and outline potential transaction and contractual structures for such participation.

Describe and assess how waste treatment, sorting, recycling and final disposal is currently organised, inter alia:

- List and describe main market participants and stakeholders in the waste treatment, recycling and final disposal sector. For each company and stakeholder, provide the following information: Who owns the entity?

History of the entity (organisational and structural).

Which assets does the entity have; age and state of the assets?

OFFICIAL USE 5

OFFICIAL USE Who controls/manages the entity?

How is the entity paid – officially and unofficially? Describe flow of funds from the waste generators and/or waste collectors (or directly from the Regional budget as the case might be) to the entity.

What types and quantities of waste are handled?

Payments, collection rates, customer databases, billing procedures, accounts receivable.

Who supervises the performance of the entity?

Outline the entity’s key economic incentive drivers.

Service provided / environmental compliance.

Any available financial statements.

- Estimate the market size for solid waste treatment and disposal (assess revenues and operational costs and profitability of this subsector).

- Assess the level and basis of competition. Give an opinion about the optimal number of market participants.

- Assess potential for private sector participation in waste collection and transportation and outline potential transaction and contractual structures for such participation.

3.1.5. Paying for and funding of SWM System Describe and assess how the current SWM system in the Regions is funded / financed. Describe the system in terms of, inter alia:

- Direct payments (budgeted and actual) made from the district, oblast or national budget (from where to where).

- Payments (billed and actual) made by households and the proportion this comprises of their monthly expenditures, i.e. affordability. Collection rates, the basis for billing procedures, tariff levels.

- Payments (billed and actual) made by commercial and other entities served with MSW collection. Collection rates, the basis for billing procedures, tariff levels, accounts receivable from commercial and public entities.

- Other funding sources.

Prepare a payment “flow chart” for each of the payments made by waste generators and describe the roles and responsibilities of each of the “intermediaries” which the payment passes through and describe how the funds are allocated to different functions (collection, transportation, separation, treatment, recycling, final disposal - as appropriate). Describe how the waste management financing and payment system provides financial incentives to the various stakeholders.

If information of sufficient quality is available, the Consultant shall examine payment differences at both individual and household level (i.e. women and men; single-headed households, elderly; people living with disabilities, ethnic minorities and vulnerable groups in the community, etc.).

3.1.6. Regulatory framework and contractual arrangements The Consultant shall review the regulatory framework, including national, regional and local legislation and local / national waste management strategies and plans that may have an impact on the Project and use this as basis for work concerning development of future institutional arrangements.

OFFICIAL USE 6

OFFICIAL USEAs part of the legal and regulatory review the Consultant shall, inter alia:

Identify the respective roles of central, regional, and local authorities in financing and management of solid waste sector including for example: the method and responsibilities for setting of waste tariffs and “green” energy tariff; control over the assets and SWM services (including waste collection, waste disposal, sale of separated waste (recyclables), and sale of energy produced from waste-sourced facilities (e.g. landfills gas utilisation, waste-to-energy facilities), regulatory responsibilities of various organisations that exist and the nature of their relationship with the Companies and other players in the waste management sector of the Regions.

As a part of this work the Consultant shall collect, translate (where relevant) and outline the main contents of relevant laws and regulations governing these relations. The Consultant will provide a functional map showing all the stakeholders and their roles, responsibilities and rights in respect to regulation, management, licensing and control of SWM services.

The Consultant will also assess the institutional framework in comparison to international best practices, and develop recommendations to improve the legal framework. Recommendations should aim to support the development of the sector through the introduction of commercially driven practices, decentralisation and unbundling of activities, as well as ensuring good environmental and service standards. Consultant should also identify the best contractual arrangements to accompany legal amendments.

Review the existing contractual arrangements in the Regions for waste collection, transportation, waste separation and sale of separated wastes (recyclables), waste treatment and waste disposal. The Consultant shall, inter alia:

- describe the nature of licencing, duration of contracts, award format, tendering procedures (if any) and price setting mechanism: for solid waste collection and transportation services and include contracts with the

waste generators and the Regions (if applicable);

for waste separation, recycling, treatment and disposal and include contracts with the waste generators (if any), waste collectors and the Regions.

- describe how the Regions currently manage the provision of SWM services (e.g. can the Regions impose any qualifying requirements on the companies providing SWM services, “auction” catchment areas for solid waste collection, supervise service provision, etc.).

Analyse all existing local and national strategies and planning documents related to SWM services and propose a list of main development goals and specific objectives to be achieved under the current framework approach, including the level of recovery and recycling of waste over the horizon of the Project.

Identify a room for improvements in terms of: (i) tendering process/procedures for service provision, following possible unbundling of services; (ii) licencing requirements for SWM operations (including but not limited to waste collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, treatment, composting); (iii) the contents of the legal contracts (also advise on the optimum duration of the contracts) separately for provision of each of the SWM services and; (iv) supporting private sector participation through enhanced contractual arrangements and performance based management practices.

OFFICIAL USE 7

OFFICIAL USE

3.1.7. Waste Tariff Setting The Consultant will evaluate current tariff setting policies, and recommend improvements. To this end, the Consultant will, inter alia:

- Examine the current billing and collection methodologies and prepare recommendations in accordance with the industry best practices.

- Evaluate the current tariff formulae, determine to what extent all recurrent costs are included.

- Assess if under the current tariff setting mechanism the Companies can achieve a full cost recovery as well as if the inclusion of the debt service under the proposed Bank’s loan.

- Analyse if costs and benefits are shared among the SWM market players in the Regions and customers in an equitable and transparent manner.

- Recommend changes to the tariff setting formulae that ensures that the tariff sends appropriate signals to market players to avoid waste generation and support waste separation.

- Identify cross subsidies (if any), and, if feasible, establish a plan for the gradual phasing-out of cross-subsidies, ensuring that customer tariffs remain affordable.

3.1.8. Affordability assessmentBased on information readily available (data generated by the Committee and municipal companies), the Consultant will compile and present the demand and socio-economic data of relevance to the Project including, inter alia:

a) Population data including historical development (number of people, general spatial distribution), trends, growth rates, and any information useful for population projections;

b) Disposable household incomes, household sizes, number of household members in employment (disaggregated by gender and other relevant socio-economic and demographic characteristics), average expenditures for essential goods etc.

The Consultant shall, inter alia:

a) Assess the level of tariffs (waste collection including separate waste collection if applicable and green electricity) that would be affordable for customers, particularly mid- and low-level income households, without causing a socially or politically unacceptable financial strain. The Consultant will assess the affordability and willingness to pay of both domestic and other customers served (small businesses, institutions, schools, commercial entities etc.) taking into account the improved services and current customer perception of service quality. The Consultant will assess affordability and willingness to pay of men and women as well as people from other social and demographic groups (i.e. elderly, youth and the disabled). The Consultant will liaise with EBRD to provide an affordability assessment in line with the EBRD methodology. The consultant will document and explain the research and analyses carried out that support the opinions offered and state methodological assumptions. In addition, the consultant will examine the issues over the life of the project, making assumptions about how real income will increase, how attitudes may change, etc. and present comparisons with other countries/regions.

b) Evaluate whether non-residential users have any particular reason to object to the new tariff levels. Assess whether there could be any impact on industrial or business location decisions

OFFICIAL USE 8

OFFICIAL USEc) Assess whether there are other factors that could lead to serious objections by users,

the Committee or other politicians, or particular interest groups to the Project and SW tariff revision.

3.1.9. Analysis of the future MSW supply and demand

The consultant shall assess the future needs for SWM services in the Regions. To this end the Consultant shall, inter alia:

Prepare likely future scenarios of the MSW, hazardous and construction and demolition waste (CDW) generation (including the consideration of potential changes in the waste collection service coverage rate) in the Regions and demand for disposing of waste materials based on:

- Clearly defined boundary conditions (including perspective catchment area) and the timeline for the Project and assets life.

- Changes in the size of the population in the Regions and within the perspective catchment area.

- Potential changes in the relative waste quantities (per capita generation) due to socio-economic changes (e.g. increased per capita waste quantities due to increasing household consumption expenditures).

- Changes of other non-household waste generators (small businesses, institutions, schools, commercial entities etc.) and

- Other technical aspects.

Assess potential changes in the MSW composition (e.g. recycling targets aligned with national and/or regional waste management plans), share of recyclables that will be diverted (i.e. less waste to be landfilled) and display the expected quantities and shares of the different MSW fractions.

Assess organic (biodegradable) waste availability (incl. estimation of quantities / composition) and proposal(s) for separate organic waste collection mechanisms, including, inter alia:

- Potential bio-waste separation at household level;- Potential sources (sectors) for providing suitable input material, e.g. from markets,

supermarkets, hotels, restaurants, food processing industry etc.) and high level market sounding to gauge appetite of the private sector;

- Possibilities for financial or other incentives to stimulate separate collection of organic waste from different SW generators.

Review of local market for recyclables with respect to probable output:

- Provide an inventory of the potential recyclable waste streams and estimate potential quantities that can be collected separately for different future waste generation scenarios (paper and cardboard/glass/plastics/ferrous and non-ferrous metals/organic fraction, refuse derived fuel).

- Assess indicatively the potential users (off-takers) and demand for those materials taking into account the distance to the users, the quantity available, quality requirements and the market value (achievable prices per tonne). In particular, assess the scope for commercial utilisation of the following waste:

OFFICIAL USE 9

OFFICIAL USE Cullet for local glass industry.

Tyres which could be used as fuel input in industry.

For the production of different types of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) as a feedstock for the cement industry or other off-takers.

For the production of compost produced out of source separated organic waste.

As a feedstock of pre-treated waste in dedicated waste-to-energy plants.

- All residues generated in the respective scenarios should be considered regarding their destination (e.g. digestate out of a biogas plant, or compost-like output from Mechanical-biological treatment plants).

- Study and confirm the possibilities of off-take contractual arrangements between the Companies and existing and/or potential buyers of these materials, volumes and terms of such off-take contracts. This will include meetings with potential off-takers to discuss existing and future capacity and probable tariffs.

The Consultant will review the waste collection arrangements in the Regions and assess requirements for the collection and transportation, including MSW collection vehicles, transfer trucks and transfer stations, of MSW considering objectives (if any) for separate collection of specific waste streams.

3.2 Project proposal and PIP - general

Based on the findings of the assessment of the status quo and future forecast of waste quantities and composition, the Consultant shall carry out a comprehensive technical-economic analysis to propose the long-term investment programme (“LTIP”) and PIP based on the best available and reliable technologies resulting in an effective least-cost investment programme. It is expected that the following tasks will be completed:

3.2.1. Long-term investment programme

Based on the review of the Strategy, the Consultant shall perform a comparative multi-criteria analysis of different potential options of the SWM system in the Regions and identify the highest priority areas of investment. The Consultant shall analyse, which of these areas already have secured funding (either from the state or regional budget, from international financial institutions, from private sector, etc.).

Based on the above, the Consultant shall prepare the LTIP for each Region worth individually no less than USD 200 million.

The selection of all LTIP components shall be clearly explained and justified within the context of the outlined strategic requirements. The Consultant shall also develop a staging/phasing approach to deal with the issue of possible budget constraints, decreased affordability, as well as MSW availability and technology risks.

3.2.2. Review of the proposed investment programme

In May 2019, the Bank has procured an “Environmental and Social Scoping Study” for the Project (“ESS Report”) conducted by an international consultant (“ESS Consultant”; the report, including photologs of all sites and all underlying data, will be made available to the

OFFICIAL USE 10

OFFICIAL USEConsultant). Based on its discussions with the Committee, the ESS Consultant proposed to divide the Project into three groups and seven Sub-Projects:

Group 1 (is expected to include one least-complex Sub-Project in each Region): o “Territory 1 in the Republic of Karakalpakstan” ("RK1"), which includes a

construction of a modern landfill on a greenfield site and the closure of one operating dumpsite.

o “Territory 2 in the Horezm Oblast” ("HO2"), which includes reconstruction of the existing dumpsite and the closure of 3 more dumpsites.

Group 2 (is expected to include Sub-Projects with a medium degree of complexity):o “Territory 2 in the Republic of Karakalpakstan” ("RK2"), which includes a

reconstruction of the existing dumpsite and the closure of 2 more operating dumpsites and 2 more unexplored sites for waste accumulation.

Group 3 (is expected to include Sub-Projects with a potentially high degree of complexity):

o “Territory 3 in the Republic of Karakalpakstan” ("RK3"), where the proposed location of a new landfill needs to be revised and new location needs to be identified in the nearby area.

o “Territory 4 in the Republic of Karakalpakstan” ("RK4")"), where the proposed location of a new landfill needs to be revised and new location needs to be identified in the nearby area.

o “Territory 5 in the Republic of Karakalpakstan” ("RK5")"), where the proposed location of a new landfill needs to be revised and new location needs to be identified in the nearby area.

o “Territory 1 in the Horezm Oblast” ("HO1"), where the reconstruction of the existing dumpsite might affect the water body with unknown use, which could include drinking water supply.

Each Sub-Project is usually comprised of: i) the construction of a new sanitary landfill according to EU-standards, (ii) the closure/remediation of a specific number of dumpsites in the respective area where the Sub-Project is located, iii) investments in ancillary infrastructure like sorting lines and specialised vehicles. All Sub-Projects combined are understood to fully cover the Regions geographically. Detailed description of landfills/dumpsites for all Sub-Projects is present in Annex 3.

The Consultant shall review the proposed investment programme:

- Opine whether this programme is: A priority, according to the Strategy; Reasonable, feasible and timely; In line with the Strategy (and other waste management plans / legislation),

including separate collection / recycling, sorting, treatment and disposal (incl. waste-to-energy) requirements.

- Elaborate how it fits into the Committee’s investment plans that are understood to include, among others, further upgrade / extension of waste collection infrastructure (incl. fleet acquisitions and transfer stations) financed by both the government and international financial institutions.

- Review grouping of Sub-Projects. Group 1 is expected to consist of two Sub-Projects where due diligence, in the opinion of the ESS Consultant, could be done fastest.

3.2.3. PIP

OFFICIAL USE 11

OFFICIAL USEBased on 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, the Consultant shall prepare the priority investment programme (“PIP”) for the Regions broken down into [seven] sub-projects. The Consultant should consider at least the following: (a) up to date experience with the proposed technologies in similar countries and emerging markets in general, (b) cost-effectiveness of these technologies in the proposed context, particularly given the size and density of the served population and the waste types generated locally, (c) technical capability of local experts to oversee project implementation and maintain the facilities post-completion, (d) availability and cost of repair and maintenance contractors if required, (e) capacity of the Companies and the Committee to implement the Project in the existing regulatory framework, the (f) bankability of the suggested scenario, and (g) other urgent investment needs in the waste sector in the region and their cost efficiency relative to the proposed programme.

The Consultant shall conduct appropriate technical due diligence for each Sub-Project. The expected basic steps are outlined in Annex 1. Relevant tasks for closure of existing dumpsites are proposed in Task A1.1, site-selection component described in Task A1.2 and preparation of preliminary designs of new sanitary landfills in Task A1.3.

After an initial review, the Consultant shall agree on requirements for all drilling activities with the EBRD and sub-contract these activities to an experienced services provider. The Bank’s preliminary understanding is that the cost of drilling activities for all Sub-Projects combined should be below EUR 125,000. The Consultant should, on a best-effort basis, aim to minimise the costs of drilling so that these are kept below EUR 125,000. If this proves insufficient, the Consultant shall work with the Bank to either decrease the scope of drilling activities or adjust the budget accordingly.

For the PIP the Consultant shall summarise in appropriate maps the location, capacities, and staging of major infrastructure components and explain and justify the proposed course of action. More detail is given in the following sections.

The Consultant should estimate the initial CAPEX along with providing detailed operating costs and capital maintenance of the facilities for the whole Project period.

The Consultant should explore options for local deployment of renewable energy sources such as solar photovoltaics on landfills / closed dumpsites to augment energy supplies (where viable).

For each of the Sub-Projects the PIP selected, reasonable estimates of quantities and costs based on applicable previous bidding experience in the country and the region shall be prepared. Potential cost savings upon implementation of the Project shall be identified and estimated. An operational costs review shall be prepared and costs shall be specified as either fixed or variable for each sub-component of the PIP.

It is important that due care is shown in preparation of these cost estimates. Taxes, duties, technical and financial contingencies are to be considered and specified. Financial contingencies are to be calculated based on an investment schedule translating the Project implementation timing into investment figures during the loan maturity period.

For the suggested design of the SWM system the Consultant will address international standards applicable to solid waste management, including the EU framework legislation on waste, EU waste management policies and hierarchy, EU directive on landfills, and legislation on waste management operations and specific waste streams such as IPPC BAT/BREF.

OFFICIAL USE 12

OFFICIAL USEOnce the PIP is identified, the Consultant should for each Sub-Project estimate the Bank’s standard measuring indicators and GET impact indicators (see Annex 2), for the duration of the Project on an annual basis, including the following:

Total population in each Sub-Project’s catchment area benefiting from solid waste management services, after project implementation;

Annual reduction in tonnes of CO2 equivalents due to the disposal of solid waste in EU-compliant, sanitary landfills (including potential flaring or other landfill gas utilisation); and

Total tonnes and m3 of waste recovered and recycled; Total tonnes and m3 of waste disposed of in EU-compliant facilities.

The guidelines for assessing GET impact indicators for the Project could be found in the EBRD’s Technical Guide for Consultants: Reporting on projects performance against the Green Economy Transition Approach. The Guide can be found at: https://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/get.html and can also be provided by the Bank to Consultants at the start of the assignment.

The Consultant shall, taking into account the EBRD’s environmental, technical and procurement policies and procedures; identify those investments that fit best within the scope of the Project and within the estimated project budget. The Consultant shall prepare a report with justified recommendations of the optimal SWM option for consideration by the Bank and the Committee. The report should also contain a project map and a public description of the Project. The Consultant shall also prepare a presentation that will summarise key finding of the report.

3.2.4. Resilience to climate changeWhere appropriate and deemed necessary by EBRD following its standard screening procedure to identify projects that are sensitive to the impacts of climate change, the Project Proposal should take account of the current climatic conditions and projected climate change in so far as they have the potential to affect the Project. In particular, the Consultant shall assess the implications of climate change that are relevant to solid waste management services and infrastructure and suggest measures to reduce vulnerability.

In conducting this analysis and other climate resilience tasks set out elsewhere in these Terms of Reference, the Consultant shall use as a methodological guide the Technical Note entitled “Integrating Climate Change Information and Adaptation in Project Development”, which has been developed by EBRD and other financing institutions belonging to the European Financing Institutions Working Group on Adaptation to Climate Change (EUFIWACC). The EUFIWACC Technical Note can be found using this link. The guidance topics of this Note that are especially relevant to the Baseline Study are Assessment Scoping and Climate Information and Impacts.

The Consultant shall work closely with the EBRD in applying this technical guidance in the analysis. In case there are any affordability concerns, the Consultant shall suggest possible mitigation measures. Please also note that the time period for assessing climate change impacts is to be the lifetime of the project and not just the lifetime of the loan.

3.3 Legal and institutional set up

The Consultant will, inter alia:

Describe the legal status of the Companies and opine if the Companies have the required rights, permits and licences (if applicable) to implement the Project and describe the

OFFICIAL USE 13

OFFICIAL USEprocedure for obtaining missing permits. Prepare a list of all required licenses/permits (including environmental) with an overview of procedures and timing required for obtaining such approvals, as well a list responsible authorities (national and local).

Make necessary recommendations for institutional changes (organisation of the Companies in charge of the service, changes in law or institutional changes) regarding the solid waste management in the covered area, appropriate incentive structures, and any contractual agreements required. Applicability of EU Directives and standards should be considered, including a detailed comparison with national and regional solid waste management and environmental regulations.

Outline key principle and develop key terms for contractual agreements with the Committee, the Regions and other market players for SWM services, whereby the Companies can source and repay its debt from own resources, whether obtained from tariff revenues, regular payments from regional or national authorities, or other sources. These should be in line with national legislation.

Provide recommendations on the relationship between the Companies, the Regions and the Committee for the waste services. These recommendations shall include a specification of the rights and responsibilities of the Companies in order to operate at an “arms-length” basis from the Committee and the Regions (i.e. are the objectives of the Companies clearly defined, to what extend does it operate flexibly and freely in pursuit of those objectives, and the degree of accountability that characterises the relationship).

If applicable and not implemented yet, identify legal/political issues or problems, which would prevent the Companies from evolving into the autonomous entities. Consider specifically issues related to ownership and control of assets, the establishment of tariffs, management independence, investment and personnel decisions, etc.

The Consultant will provide a plan for institutional development, with the aim of the Companies moving towards a fully commercial entity. This plan should include intermediate options, for example, making use of performance based service contracts, and/or management contracts. The plan should take into account the abilities of the local private investors in the sector.

3.4 Operational efficiency assessment of the Companies

The Consultant will provide recommendations as to the structure of the Companies and its organisation in terms of the corporate, financial and management structure and staffing. In particular, the Consultant will evaluate the options to carry out the Project and prepare a recommendation for the optimal corporate structure for the Project implementation.

The Consultant will, inter alia:

- Assess current and propose more efficient form of organisational structure and management that will be optimal to successfully manage the Project: number, skills and attributes of employees; major departments; policies and practices relative to strategic planning, project preparation and implementation, operational planning and control, allocation of tasks, supervision of task execution, and related matters, human resources development policies and practices, including training and incentive schemes.

- The Consultant shall make an assessment of the operational efficiency of the Companies and define benchmarks of operation efficiency. Comparison should be made with best international and local practices.

- Propose financial and operational improvement plan on how to address the key financial and operational areas in which the Companies could consolidate or strengthen its performance and its underlying creditworthiness.

OFFICIAL USE 14

OFFICIAL USE

3.5 Financial model and audit

3.5.1. Financial modelThe financial viability of the Companies as well as the Project shall be demonstrated by means of financial projections for the period of the Project and beyond to be prepared by the Bank with input from the Consultant. The projections shall be fully consistent with the Project terms and be based on prudent assumptions of the Companies’ revenues and expenditures. The Bank will provide the Consultant with the template model. The Consultant will fill in the required inputs in the model and work with the Bank to adjust the model to bring it in line with the requirements of the local regulator or make other relevant changes e.g. reflect missing features of the Companies’ operations. The Consultant will then review the final output and confirm correctness of inputs, technical parameters and commercial assumptions. Financial projections and analysis will include:

Annual balance sheets, income statement and cash flow statements; Assessment of the financial impact of the Project by comparing the incremental costs

(capital and recurrent) of the Project with the incremental revenues or savings it will generate and estimating the financial internal rate of return (“IRR”), the economic rate of return on the investment (“EIRR”) of the Project and other metrics required by the decree of the President of Uzbekistan №3857 from 20 June 2018 (or other relevant legislation).

Study and confirm the financial and economic viability of the Project and spell out the economic savings to be achieved in the Project.

3.5.2. IFRS AuditThe Consultant will procure services of a qualified auditor acceptable to EBRD to audit the Companies’ accounts in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) for the financial year ending on 31 December 2018 (which would include comparable data for the financial year 2017) or other period to be agreed with the Bank. The deliverables will include a set of audited financial statements (including Statement of Financial Position, Statement of Comprehensive Income and Retained Earnings, Statement of Cash Flows, Statement of Changes in Equity, Notes to Financial Statement with comparatives) for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2018 (and comparable data for the fiscal year ended 2017) or other period to be agreed with the Bank in accordance with IFRS and supporting Excel files.

According to the Bank’s preliminary market sounding, the total cost of such audit for both Companies should not exceed EUR 25 thousand. In case the Consultant receives three or more proposals from the qualified auditors and the prices in all of them exceed EUR 25 thousand, the Bank will work with the Consultant to reduce the scope of the audit so that the final price does not exceed EUR 25 thousand.

The Bank’s practice is to accept auditing firms which satisfy the following criteria: 1. The network firm must be a full member of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) ‘Forum of Firms’, note that the affiliates or member firm proposed to be hired as auditors must also be full members of the Forum through the network; and 2. The network or firm must be one of the top 30 international Accounting Networks and Associations, ranked by annual income.https://www.accountancyage.com/aa/analysis/1776670/top-35-networks-2013-the-survey

EBRD could share the contact details of relevant firms on request.

OFFICIAL USE 15

OFFICIAL USEThe presentation currency of the audit should be UZS; audit report should be prepared in both English and Russian languages; on top of standard disclosures, the report should include the following breakdowns:

1) Revenue (broken down by source (population, legal entities, etc.) and business lines);2) Receivables and payables (ageing analysis and breakdown by credit quality, show the

flow/reconciliation by customer categories, calculation of collection ratio, top 20, gross/net with reconciliation to understand reserves and write-offs, etc.);

3) Costs (if applicable, a separate disclosure with all main cost items broken down by business line),

4) Key operating metrics and drivers of the Companies performance (revenue metrics like tariffs, MSW volumes, collection rates; average headcount; fuel and electricity used, etc.).

Expected timeline for the audit:1) Selection of the auditor starts immediately after signing of the contract with the

Consultant; The Consultant will be aiming to receive proposals from the potential auditors within two weeks;

2) Two more weeks for contract negotiations with the auditor;3) Draft audit reports are submitted to the EBRD within seven weeks of the contract with

the auditor is signed.

3.6 Project implementation plan

The Consultant shall prepare a Project implementation plan for the Project (in Excel format) broken down by Sub-Projects, which will cover all aspects of project implementation, and include, inter alia:

- In close cooperation with the local authorities and other relevant stakeholders, the Consultant will select the sites for the Project. The graphical documents (maps, drawings) of these sites will be collected.

- Project programme - a detailed Project programme (using appropriate presentation format: e.g. linked activity programmes, etc.) for completion of the whole Project - showing all activities and key events and timing (by week) for design, approvals, construction, commissioning, completion, etc.

- Project budget - a detailed cost budget for the whole Project. This should be based on existing proposals of cost estimates.

- Procurement – the Project procurement plan. The plan shall be organised so as to minimise the number of contracts. The Consultant to consider the possibility of a turnkey contracts for the facilities.

- Project risk matrix - a risk matrix outlining the key challenges and risks associated with the Project and the measures proposed to deal with them.

3.7 Environmental and Social Assessment

Prior to undertaking the Environmental and Social Assessment, the Consultant is required to screen the proposed Sub-Projects against the EBRD’s Environmental and Social1 Policy (“ESP”) (2014)2 and associated Performance Requirements (“PRs”) to determine the project category (A or B) and agree on the categorization with the Bank. New landfills are typically 1 The ESP (2014) defines social as “those issues which pertain to project-affected people and their communities and workers and related to socioeconomic status, vulnerability, gender identity, human rights, sexual orientation, cultural heritage, labour and working conditions, health and safety and participation in decision making”.2 Available at http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/policies/esp-final.pdf

OFFICIAL USE 16

OFFICIAL USEcategorised as A (see Appendix 2, para. 19 of the ESP) while upgrades to existing landfill sites and waste management systems (including transfer stations, etc. are typically categorised as B. The Project proposal and Project category will need to be discussed and agreed with the EBRD prior to proceeding with the Environmental and Social Assessment (Section 3.7.4) and Environmental and Social Audit (3.7.5) - see reference to Inception Report.

The scope of work described below is applicable to a typical brownfield category B project. Should the Project proposal involve any Category A components, the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the E&S Assessment will be revised by the EBRD to either include an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) in line with the ESP or exclude E&S Assessment out of the scope of this ToR. The revised ToR will be agreed with the Consultant together with the necessary cost implications.

For feasibility study costing purposes the Consultant should consider the following tasks:

3.7.1. Applicable requirements for the E&S Assessment

The E&S Assessment is to be carried out in accordance with:

- Applicable local, national and regional requirements, including those related with environmental and social impact assessments / EIAs and associated public disclosure and consultation requirements;

- The EBRD’s ESP (2014) (and the incorporated Performance Requirements (PRs)), and relevant European Union (EU) requirements (including, but not limited to, the EU EIA Directive (as amended), EU Waste Directive, EU Landfill Directive, etc.);

- Requirements of other potential lenders, such as other International Financing Institutions (IFIs) and commercial banks adhering to the Equator Principles3; and,

- Relevant international conventions and protocols relating to environmental and social issues, as transposed into national legislation.

3.7.2. Objectives of the E&S Assessment

The objective of the E&S Assessment is to identify and assess the potentially significant existing and future adverse environmental and social impacts associated with the Companies’ current operations and the proposed Project, assess compliance with applicable laws and the EBRD ESP and PRs, determine the measures needed to prevent or minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts, and identify potential environmental and social opportunities, including those that would improve the environmental and social sustainability of the Project and/or the associated current operations.

The assessment process will be commensurate with, and proportional to, the potential impacts and issues of the Project and the Companies’ existing operations. The assessment will cover, in an integrated way, all relevant direct and indirect environmental and social impacts and issues of the Companies’ operations, the Project and the relevant stages of the project cycle (e.g. pre-construction, construction, operation, and decommissioning or closure and reinstatement).

The Environmental and Social Assessment will also determine whether further studies are required, focusing on specific risks and impacts, such as climate change, human rights and / or gender.3 Information on the Equator Principles is available at: www.equator-principles.com

OFFICIAL USE 17

OFFICIAL USE

The Environmental and Social Audit is required to assess the Companies’ current operations in terms of compliance with national legislation, national or local permitting requirements, the relevant provisions of the EBRD Environmental and Social Policy and Performance Requirements (2014) and pertinent EU environmental standards. Further, the audit must review possible historical environmental and social issues, such as potential contamination of soil and/or groundwater or land acquisition disputes.

Specifically, for each Sub-Project the Consultant will:

- Identify existing and Project-related environmental and social impacts and risks;- Describe and characterise a relevant environmental and social baseline commensurate

with the risks posed by the current site operations and the Project;- Assess potential gender aspects and priorities among nearby communities to

understand women’s and men’s concerns (e.g., determine women’s current activity schedules/ waste management practices, attitudes towards public health and community cleanliness, etc.). Carry out E&S Assessment and Audit and develop a draft E&S Assessment report in accordance with the Bank’s requirements as defined in the ESP, including a Compliance Summary table with the Bank’s PRs;

- Prepare a draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), draft Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) and draft Non-Technical Summary (NTS);

- Identify if any additional studies will be required to cover relevant aspects in greater detail (e.g. biodiversity, resettlement, retrenchment, etc.). (Any such work will be commissioned under separate Terms of Reference); and,

- Assess the current and future traffic and road safety risks to workers and affected communities, with consideration to increase in truck movements, potential routes and general road traffic safety management.

- Finalise all documentation further to the EBRD, other lenders’ (if involved) and Companies’ comments.

This Terms of Reference for the E&S Assessment refer to various E&S guidance documents (e.g. E&S Guidance 1). These are available as a separate package of E&S guidance documents.

3.7.3. Review of Available Data and Site Visit

The Consultant will review the ESS report, the photologs and the initial information database prepared by the ESS Consultant. The ESS report and photologs are in English, the data and documentation comprising the initial information database are in Russian and Uzbek. This list is not exhaustive and the Consultant must be prepared to review, and also request, further documentation that does not appear above.

As indicated in the ESS report, the following key data critical for E&S Assessment and Audit have not been collected during the scoping study:

- Current concentrations of critical dumpsite-related pollutants in soil, surface and groundwater within the areas of influence of the operating dumpsites;

- Site-specific geological and hydrogeological characteristics for operating dumpsites and proposed locations of sanitary landfills;

- Site-specific hydrographical data (on the current status and use of natural and artificial water bodies and streams within Site’s vicinities (if they are used for collection and

OFFICIAL USE 18

OFFICIAL USEdiversion of runoff from arable lands, irrigation, or drinking and/or livestock water supply);

- Findings of dumpsites’ inspections by public health authorities and reports on corrective actions.

The Consultant should inter alia request from the Companies information on the exact locations of existing dumpsites not visited during the scoping study and their photographs of the dumpsite territory from four angles and of on-site facilities to get understanding of their current status and determine, jointly with the Companies and the Committee, their closure/remediation scenarios.

Following the review of available data, the Consultant will visit the relevant sites, including operating dumpsites and proposed locations of the sanitary landfills to obtain any supplemental information needed to complete the E&S Assessment and Audit.

The Consultant should arrange joint site visits to fulfil the needs of i) the E&S assessment and audit, ii) technical due diligence of closure/remediation of existing dumpsites (see Annex 1, Task A1.1), and iii) technical due diligence of proposed locations [of sanitary landfills] (see Annex 1, Task A1.2). The Site visits should cover all operating dumpsites and proposed locations of the sanitary landfills. The site visit team should comprise inter alia a hydrogeologist, a geologist, an environmental specialist, a social specialist, and a land surveyor.

The Site visit programme should include inter alia:- Site-specific screening study for current soil, surface and groundwater contamination

to be completed by the environmental specialist; this study should cover areas of influence of operating dumpsites and vicinities of proposed landfills locations; soil and water samples must be collected and transferred under QA/QC to a qualified laboratory for testing to include inter alia microbiological contamination indices, nitrogen compounds, and heavy metals; groundwater should be sampled from the existing wells at the Sites and/or from other suitable wells in Sites’ vicinities e.g. those located in the neighbouring settlements.

- Site reconnaissance to be completed by the geologist and the hydrogeologist to make observations on site features that will relate the shallow geology and hydrogeology at the site, specifically estimates of depth to and direction of groundwater movement that will be used to help locate future intrusive investigations to determine local hydrogeological characteristics (occurrence, movement/gradient and background quality) to estimate risks of groundwater contamination.;

- Cadastral studies to be competed by the land surveyor to verify the actual areas occupied by the operating dumpsites; Topographic studies to be completed by the land surveyor to make of 3D-maps;

- Focused consultations on the Project and its specific components with key Project stakeholders to be completed by the social specialist; the consulted stakeholders should include inter alia local authorities of communities within the areas of influence of operating dumpsites and proposed landfills locations; neighbouring land users/owners affected by land acquisition for the Project (in applicable), district-level competent authorities, and residents of housing nearby the operating dumpsites/proposed landfill locations.

For operating dumpsites comprising two sections all sites-specific studies should cover both sections.

The data review process will include a simple media search to determine whether any relevant issues regarding the Project, Companies or Committee have been reported through

OFFICIAL USE 19

OFFICIAL USEthe media and to determine the importance of these through additional verification during the due diligence work. If no relevant issues are identified through this process the Consultant will include a statement to this effect in its report.

Following completion of the data review and site visit the Consultant will deliver a summary of key findings.

3.7.4. Environmental and Social Assessment

Please note that that the environmental and social assessment should be commensurate with the Project and its associated risks and impacts. It should be a high level assessment focusing on key risks and impacts. A comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of the Project is not required. Where available the E&S assessment should refer to (and review) the local EIA done for the Project.

Project Description & Identification of Relevant Associated Activities & OperationsThe Consultant will prepare a description of the Project including details of any alternatives4

considered for the project and information on neighbouring operations and activities. In accordance with EBRD PR1, paragraph 9, the Consultant will identify:

- Any potentially significant environmental and social issues or risks associated with relevant other activities or facilities, which are not part of the Project but which may be directly or indirectly influenced by the Project, exist solely because of the Project or could present a risk to the Project;

- Cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with impacts from other relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable developments;

- Unplanned but predictable activities enabled by the Project that may occur later or at a different location; and,

- Environmental and social risks associated with the primary supply chains central to the Project’s core operational functions.

Analysis of Legal RequirementsThe Consultant will identify applicable local, regional and national environmental and social laws and regulatory requirements of the jurisdictions in which the Project operates, including those laws implementing host country obligations under international law. The Consultant will analyse local/national assessment and permitting requirements and the EBRD environmental and social requirements and compare them within a gap analysis in tabular format. If relevant, provide copies of permitting documents issued by Competent Authorities and opine whether the EIA screening process has met relevant EU/ national requirements.

As required, the Consultant will identify any issues that require legal interpretations for the Bank to raise with its legal advisors. The Consultant is not required to provide legal opinions.

The Consultant will identify, review and take into consideration any relevant strategic level assessment documentation. Baseline ConditionsThe E&S Assessment will include a review of the aspects of the physical, biological and socio-economic environment likely to be affected by the proposed Project. The Study shall also identify respective needs and concerns of different disadvantaged groups and/or those

4 Project alternatives to include: Zero (“no project”) alternative, siting and routing alternatives, infrastructure and traffic connection alternatives, design alternatives

OFFICIAL USE 20

OFFICIAL USEwith less voice, such as women, to be addressed in the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of the project (e.g., include analysis of participation of women in waste management, income generating activities and decision making). Indicative guidance on the contents of the overall assessment is provided in E&S Guidance 1 of the E&S guidance pack.

The baseline assessment will include consideration of the inter-relationship between the relevant factors, as well as the exposure, vulnerability and resilience of these factors to natural and manmade disaster risks.

Project AssessmentIn accordance with the Bank’s ESP (2014), the Consultant will analyse the potential environmental and social impacts and risks of the Project, as well as opportunities that the Project may provide, including infrastructure development (e.g. water, wastewater, a heat and electricity distribution networks, transportation access) and other associated facilities, for which the EBRD financing is being sought. Include description of women’s and men’s economic activities and health status tied to buying and selling household garbage, re-using and recycling waste materials, collecting and disposing of human and solid wastes in a safe manner, and keeping the streets clean, etc.

The E&S Assessment will include a review of the likely effects of the proposed Project on the physical, biological and socio-economic environment to provide an identification and characterisation of potential E&S impacts, including beneficial (as well as adverse) impacts.

This review will be structured to include all relevant stages of the Project’s life, e.g. construction, operation and maintenance, closure and decommissioning, and residual E&S impacts. The level of analysis and reporting will be commensurate with the risk magnitude of the identified issues. Indicative guidance on the contents of the overall assessment is provided in E&S Guidance 1 of the E&S guidance pack. Note, if the assessment determines that there are potential risks associated with waste pickers, resettlement, impacts on livelihoods and expropriation, the Consultant will need to discuss and agree with the EBRD on the specific requirements to address these risks including the potential need for a Resettlement Action Plan or Livelihood Restoration Plan.

As part of the Project Assessment, the Consultant will also carry out a GHG assessment of the project, including the pre-investment GHG emissions in CO2e and post-investment increase or decrease in emissions. EBRD’s GHG Assessment Methodology can be found at:

http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/about/sustainability/ghgguide.pdf

A GHG Assessment of the project will be conducted in line with the EBRD’s GHG Assessment Methodology or similar.

Management of Impacts and IssuesFor each identified adverse future impact, issue and/or risk, the Consultant will propose measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate or compensate for them.

EBRD PR Compliance AssessmentBased on the results of the E&S Assessment, the Consultant shall evaluate the compliance status of the Project with the EBRD PRs using the format provided in E&S Guidance 2 of the E&S guidance pack. Note that the compliance assessment should also take into consideration the findings of the E&S Audit (Section 3.7.5).

OFFICIAL USE 21

OFFICIAL USE

3.7.5. Environmental and Social Audit

The E&S Audit is required to review the current and, to a limited extent, past operational performance of the Companies’ existing operations. Key issues to be covered under the E&S Audit may include, but not be limited to:

- A review of the Companies’ existing environmental and social management systems, policies and practices;

- Organisational capacity and resources, including description of the number of personnel; number and percentage of women and men in total staff count as well as across all levels/categories

- Human Resources and employment (e.g. child labour, forced labour, and non-discrimination, workers’ organisations, contractor management, retrenchment and employment) policies;

- A review of equal opportunities policies and practices in the Companies; assessment of potential employment opportunities for under-represented groups in the workplace (i.e. women or men, people with the disabilities, different age groups, ethnic groups, etc.) and recommendations on what measures need to be made or what policies need to be revised to ensure equality of opportunity in the Companies;

- Occupational health and safety (local and national requirements, applicable EU/ international requirement and standards, key health and safety issues, control and major accident hazards, current health and safety monitoring programme, summary of regulatory compliance status, use of PPE and safety equipment, summary of health and safety expenditures, emergency response etc.);

- Pollution prevention measures available at the facilities (e.g. adequacy and effectiveness of landfill linings, waste covering and compacting, leachate collection and treatment system and gas extraction systems, etc.) and overall regulatory compliance with national requirements and pertinent EU standards (EU Waste and Landfill Directives). In addition, this assessment will need to review compliance with best international practice as a benchmark against current operations and planned upgrades;

- Waste recovery and recycling (e.g. composting);- Industrial hygiene (including worker exposure, and rates of industrial diseases) and

worker health and safety;- Use and management of hazardous substances (if applicable);- Community health, safety and security as it relates to the Companies’ existing

operations (e.g. traffic management, odour; access to the site and other facilities, construction works, etc.);

- Major hazards assessment and management; environmental management plans in the event of an incident, accident or spill;

- Current company policy and practice in relation to avoidance of third party intrusion into potentially hazardous areas (fences, security, personnel, others);

- Management of potentially hazardous works;- Noise and vibrations both during construction and operation of the Companies’

facilities;- Presence of waste pickers and livelihood impacts;- Overview of current Companies’ policy and procedures regarding land acquisition

(compensation policy, consultation activities related to land acquisition including grievance management, if applicable);

OFFICIAL USE 22

OFFICIAL USE- Identification of potential past environmental liabilities which may affect the Bank

(e.g. soil and ground water contamination as a consequence of past and present operations);

- Overview of the Companies’ supply chain (e.g. suppliers of main materials and resources including energy; presence of women-owned businesses) and identification of relevant environmental, social, labour and/or reputation issues; and

- Public interaction, including historical responsiveness to public comments, complaints and questions. The audit should also identify the Companies’ main stakeholder groups and current stakeholder engagement activities in line with PR10.

The Consultant will be guided by the relevant requirements of the Bank’s E&S Performance Requirements. The findings of the E&S Audit should also be considered in the completion of the PR compliance assessment.

3.7.6. Reporting

The Consultant shall prepare the following reports of the assessment findings.

Inception Report (Summary of Key Findings ) On completion of the data review and site visit, and following the identification of the Project proposal, the Consultant will deliver an inception report. This report will include a summary of key environmental and social findings, a description of the Project proposal, an indication of the project categorisation and will highlight the need for any additional studies, e.g. in relation to resettlement, livelihood, retrenchment, biodiversity, etc.

E&S Audit and Assessment Report (for each Sub-Project) The Consultant will provide a concise but comprehensive report of the overall E&S Audit and Assessment. The guidance for the report content provided in E&S Guidance 1 of the E&S guidance pack may be used to structure the report but the Consultant is expected to use their professional experience to determine the final contents. The report must contain a properly and fully completed PR Compliance Assessment table as per E&S Guidance 2 of the E&S guidance pack.

Additionally, as part of this task, the Consultant will provide the following representations to the Bank regarding Policy and PR compliance issues:

Confirm whether this Project, including existing and future components, will be able to meet the relevant EU standards on waste management and landfill design, and whether a derogation from the EBRD’s ESP will be required;If the derogation would be required, then:

- confirm to what extent waste management will be improved/reached, and provide a quantitative risk-based assessment of associated health and environmental impacts;

- confirm how much further investment is needed to bring Companies operations into full compliance with EBRD PRs.

Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP; for each Sub-Project)The Consultant shall develop a comprehensive ESAP to address issues identified during the E&S Appraisal and the E&S Audit. The ESAP will focus on those issues that are required to bring the operations into compliance with the EBRD’s requirements and will be presented and sequenced by PRs. Actions identified must be numbered, clearly defined, indicate a time frame for completion (with specific reference to those actions that must be completed before financial close if appropriate) and a responsible party specified. Further, each item must

OFFICIAL USE 23

OFFICIAL USEcontain a description of the factors that will be used to determine when the identified action is closed/completed. The Consultant will also inform the Companies about any material budget implications of ESAP items (although this information may not be required in the public domain).

The ESAP will be compact and, if needed, details will be included in sub-plans referenced in the main ESAP. The required format the ESAP is given in E&S Guidance 3 of the E&S guidance pack.

Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP)The Consultant shall prepare a draft SEP in compliance with the PR10. The scope and level of detail of the SEP will be scaled to fit the needs of the Project and the objectives of EBRD PR10. Following review of the Project operations, the Consultant will propose a format best suited for the specific Project needs. Guidance for the contents of an SEP is provided in E&S Guidance 4 of the E&S guidance pack.

The Consultant will prepare the SEP in English, and once approved by the EBRD, translate the SEP into Russian.

Non-Technical Summary (NTS)The Consultant will prepare, in consultation with the Companies, a concise, over-arching, standalone NTS. The NTS will be written in non-technical language and the Consultant will ensure that the NTS can be used to demonstrate compliance with the EBRD requirements, and provide confirmation that the documents are ready for public disclosure.

An indicative list of issues for the NTS is given in E&S Guidance 5 of the E&S guidance pack.

The Consultant will prepare the NTS in English, and once approved by the EBRD, translate the NTS into Russian and Uzbek.

3.8 Local Feasibility Study and Designs

As an attachment to the Final Report, the Consultant should prepare a separate report that would satisfy the requirements of the decree of the President of Uzbekistan №3857 from 16 July 2018 or other relevant legislation required for the Project to be approved for financing by the government of Uzbekistan (“Local FS”). The Consultant is not responsible for the final approval of the Local FS.

The local FS for Sub-Projects will be based on the Draft Final Report prepared by the Consultant or other available information. The Consultant is expected to hire a qualified local firm acceptable to the Bank with relevant experience for this task (the “Local FS Consultant”). The following scope is envisaged:

1. Reformatting of the Final Report so that it is compliant with said requirements.2. Assisting the Ministry in approval of the Project by the relevant authorities, including

preparation of replies to comments by the said authorities.3. Completing the financial and economic part of the Local FS, including but not limited

to:a. Carry out sensitivity analysis;b. Calculate key financial and economic indicators of the Project, including

economic internal rate of return, internal rate of return and net present value, with sensitivity analysis and quantitative risk analysis.

OFFICIAL USE 24

OFFICIAL USEAccording to the Bank’s preliminary estimates, the total cost of the Local FS should not exceed EUR 40 thousand. EBRD could share the contact details of several local firms on request.

4 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND DELIVERABLES

The overall duration of the assignment is expected to be 30 weeks. The Consultant shall report to the EBRD whilst liaising with representatives of the Companies and the Committee. The Consultant shall continuously report to the Operation Leader of the Project (“OL”).

The Committee/Companies will provide the Consultant with working space, necessary furniture and local telephone connections.

The Committee/Companies will designate senior officials to be the primary contact persons with specific responsibility for assisting the Consultant and co-ordinating activities.

The Committee/Companies will make available all of their records, plans, reports, designs and other documents as appropriate, but it will be the responsibility of the Consultant to translate these documents, if necessary.

The Committee/Companies will provide access to all of their facilities and employees for questioning or assistance relative to an understanding of the functioning of system facilities.

The Committee/Companies shall be responsible for paying for office supplies, external printing. The Consultant shall pay for all local transportation required by the Consultant’s staff throughout the duration of the assignment. The Consultant will be responsible for providing suitably qualified interpreters/translator’s to work with their staff.

Once the contract with the Consultant is signed, the Consultant is expected to start his site visits within two weeks (“Mobilisation Date”).

Unless otherwise agreed with the Bank, the Consultant will produce in the course of the assignment the following:

OFFICIAL USE 25

OFFICIAL USE

Deliverable Scope Timing(from the Mobilisation Date)

Inception Report

Following the site visit, initial data review and initial opinion as to a project proposal, the Consultant will submit to the Bank an Inception Report presenting the initial findings, with an emphasis on findings having an impact on the time schedule and factors affecting these Terms of Reference. The Bank will provide comments on the inception report to the Consultant.

4 weeks

Draft IFRS Report and draft Financial Model

Draft IFRS audit report and financial models with all key inputs agreed with the EBRD.

10 weeks

Draft PIP Proposal (Group 1)

Draft PIP Proposal for Sub-Projects in Group 1 will include: description of the Consultant’s approach to selection of PIP components, justification and expected benefits of each proposed component (including GET indicators), PIP table and implementation timeline. The Consultant will distribute the proposal to the EBRD and the Committee in English and Russian.

10 weeks

PIP discussion and Procurement Workshop

A one-day workshop organised by the Consultant with relevant stakeholders will consist of the following parts:1. Presentation and discussion of the Draft PIP Proposal (Group 1);2. Training on EBRD’s procurement approach conducted by the EBRD staff.

11 weeks

Draft E&S Assessment report (Group 1)

For Sub-Projects in Group 1 including Draft Environmental and Social Audit and Assessment Report, ESAP, SEP and NTS.

12 weeks

Draft PIP Proposal (Group 2)

Draft PIP Proposal for Sub-Projects in Group 2 will include: description of the Consultant’s approach to selection of PIP components, justification and expected benefits of each proposed component (including GET indicators), PIP table and implementation timeline. The Consultant will distribute the proposal to the EBRD and the Committee in English and Russian.

13 weeks

Updated Financial Model (Group 2)

Financial models updated with Group 2 Sub-Projects. 15 weeks

Local Feasibility Study (Group 1)

16 weeks

Draft E&S Assessment report (Group 2)

For Sub-Projects in Group 2 including Draft Environmental and Social Audit and Assessment Report, ESAP, SEP and NTS.

17 weeks

OFFICIAL USE 26

OFFICIAL USEDraft PIP Proposal (Group 3)

Draft PIP Proposal for Sub-Projects in Group 3 will include: description of the Consultant’s approach to selection of PIP components, justification and expected benefits of each proposed component (including GET indicators), PIP table and implementation timeline. The Consultant will distribute the proposal to the EBRD and the Committee in English and Russian.

17 weeks

Updated Financial Model (Group 3)

Financial models updated with Group 3 Sub-Projects. 19 weeks

Draft E&S Assessment report (Group 3)

For Sub-Projects in Group 2 including Draft Environmental and Social Audit and Assessment Report, ESAP, SEP and NTS.

22 weeks

Draft Final Report

The draft Final Report will include all deliverables as described in the Scope of Work and include: (i) an assessment of the existing situation, facilities and sector overview; (ii) an outline of a long term investment strategy; (iii) proposals for components to be included in the PIP with cost estimates; (iv) an overview of cost savings to be achieved after implementation of the Project, by component; (v) financial models and IFRS reports; (vi) a procurement and implementation strategy and procurement plan; (vii) the scope of work for the project implementation team; and (viii) a climate resilience and resource efficiency assessment report and a preliminary PIP in the Excel format for resource efficiency measures and main GET indicators.

The Consultant will distribute the draft Final Report in English and Russian to the Bank and the Government for comments and will organise a joint meeting to present the draft Final Report (“Presentation”) with all parties in Tashkent within two weeks after distribution of the Report.

24 weeks

Final Report To be submitted within two weeks after the Presentation date by the Consultant, elaborating and reflecting all comments addressed during the Presentation, and including summary information on the Project.

26 weeks

Local Feasibility Study

As an attachment to the Final Report, the Consultant should prepare a separate report that would satisfy the requirements of the decree of the President of Uzbekistan №3857 from 20 June 2018 or other relevant legislation required for the Project to pass state expertise. It is expected that the information gathered for the final report will be sufficient for this document, but the format shall be adapted to comply with said requirements.

30 weeks

Additionally, the Consultant will send bi-weekly updates to the Bank: every two weeks the Consultant should send concise emails to the OL covering the previous two weeks in a bullet-point format that will: 1) describe what was accomplished since the previous report/email, what tangible milestones were achieved and what experts were involved; 2) benchmark it

OFFICIAL USE 27

OFFICIAL USEagainst what was expected to be accomplished in accordance with previous bi-weekly email, 3) outline the work plan for the next two weeks (milestones to be achieved, experts workload, etc.), 4) describe existing and new risks and issues of the Project and 5) confirm the dates of key deliverables.

Each report and each chapter of each report should contain an executive summary.

Six copies of all reports in Russian and English are required; both versions shall also be provided in electronic-readable format, in both Word and PDF. Supporting data in the Russian language in the appendices need not be translated for English versions of the documents.

Donor Visibility

Given the assignment is funded through EBRD’s donor funded technical cooperation programme; the Consultant will be required to support the client to ensure visibility of these resources. Support on these visibility aspects can be obtained from the Bank’s Communications Department. Measures could include but not be limited to: All documents produced by the Consultant should mention donor support and bear the

logo of the donor, when appropriate. Donor support to the project should be acknowledged in any public communication (press

releases, launch of facilities). Local representatives of donors should be invited to any public event organised to

promote the project (press conferences, inaugurations, possibly stakeholder participation programmes).

Please contact Lucia Sconosciuto (email: SconoscL@ebrd.com; tel: +44 207338 8155) for further information. Some donor visibility guidelines can also be provided by the Bank to Consultants at the start of an assignment.

5. CONSULTANT’S PROFILE

The Consultant should ensure that the appropriately qualified experts are available, as required, for each of the different tasks outlined above. It is expected, that the assignment will be led by an appropriately qualified team leader/solid waste engineer, accompanied by both key and supporting experts.

Solid waste experts should demonstrate experience in assessing data on waste generation (quantities) and composition of different waste types and generators in the city. In addition, the solid waste experts should have knowledge and technical understanding of different waste collection systems, recycling / treatment and disposal systems and the related infrastructure and to assess current impacts and hot spots. Qualified consultants also should proof a sound knowledge on financial and legal backgrounds related to waste management systems, for example national and international legislation that will shape the future design of waste management systems.

Based on the fields of expertise and the tasks mentioned above, it is proposed that the team of the Consultant should consist of at least of the following experts:

Project Manager/Team Leader with a university degree or equivalent qualification with a minimum of 15 years professional experience in the field of solid waste management, with comprehensive experience of similar assignments in the CIS, as well as in institutional and commercial management of solid waste companies. [S]he

OFFICIAL USE 28

OFFICIAL USEshould have ample experience working with international financial institutions (preferably, EBRD). Working knowledge of Russian or Uzbek languages is preferred.

Financial specialist(s) with excellent financial modelling skills and first-hand experience with EIRR methodology.

Technical specialists and solid waste engineers with relevant experience of similar assignments in the region. Working knowledge of Russian or Uzbek languages is preferred.

Geological expert (or similar): with experience in interpreting and assessing geological and hydrogeological situation at the new sites for sanitary landfills and having experience in assessing stability issues of landfill (dumps) bodies.

Environmental and Social experts or a specialised firm focused on ES DD matters with experience in ESIAs and ES due diligence, health and safety, stakeholder engagement, public consultation and disclosure in the local context, gender and inclusion expertise, and/or resettlement expertise, in solid waste management sector with experience of similar assignments prepared for international financial institutions and with recent track record in the region.

Resource efficiency expert with experience in waste management. Institutional expert with experience of similar assignments. Legal expert with relevant experience in the areas of natural monopolies regulation

and knowledge of Uzbekistan tariff legislation. Local experts with good communication skills and evidenced technical knowledge of

solid waste sector planning, design, implementation and operations.

The Consultant is expected to include local consultants in the team and/or cooperate with local consulting companies in order to benefit from local knowledge. The Consultant will engage local language speaking staff on their team or arrange for translation/interpreting when necessary. All experts must be independent and free from conflicts of interest in the responsibilities accorded to them.

OFFICIAL USE 29

OFFICIAL USE

Annex 1: Tasks for technical due diligence

Task A1.1 Closure/Remediation of the Existing DumpsitesBased on the ESS Report and all available information regarding the closure/remediation of dumpsites / landfills (“Sites”), the Consultant shall structure its activity according to the following proposed methodology:

1. Description /and general information on the Sites2. Detailed description of the type of intervention at Sites3. Cost estimation and work plan for the Sites

The Consultant shall, if applicable/relevant, conduct the following activities:

1. Description and general information on the Sites

For each dumpsite to be closed, the Consultant shall:

Collect technical and legal documentation on the Sites provided by the Committee or other stakeholders (at national, regional or municipal level);

Collect technical and legal documentation related to the approval of the sites (permit) or other available information on the sites;

Conduct Site visits.For operating dumpsites comprising two sections all sites-specific studies should cover both sections.

The Site visit programme should include inter alia:- Site-specific screening study for current soil, surface and groundwater contamination;

this study should cover areas of influence of operating dumpsites and vicinities of proposed landfills locations; soil and water samples must be collected and transferred under QA/QC to a qualified laboratory for testing to include inter alia microbiological contamination indices, nitrogen compounds, and heavy metals; groundwater should be sampled from the existing wells at the Sites and/or from other suitable wells in Sites’ vicinities e.g. those located in the neighbouring settlements.

- Site reconnaissance to make observations on site features that will relate the shallow geology and hydrogeology at the site, specifically estimates of depth to and direction of groundwater movement that will be used to help locate future intrusive investigations to determine local hydrogeological characteristics (occurrence, movement/gradient and background quality) to estimate risks of groundwater contamination.;

- Cadastral studies to verify the actual areas occupied by the operating dumpsites; Topographic studies to be completed by the land surveyor to make 3D-maps;

For the sites being closed/remediated, the Consultant shall describe (if applicable), among others:

the location (coordinates) and responsible entity; provide information whether the Site is legal / illegal; size and operational period(s) / age of cells; estimate the disposed of volume / quantities and types of wastes disposed of; infrastructure, buildings, facilities in place etc.

30OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

2. Detailed description of the type of intervention at Sites (dumpsite closure / remediation plan)

The Consultant will prepare a detailed work plan for each site and the necessary measures.

In the following, a catalogue for measures is described. The measures include, among others:

A. Specific measures

o Waste removal to the nearest sanitary landfill

o Waste displacement, reshaping the disposal area

o Construction of a fence

o Forest and vegetation cut, as a safety measure against fire

o Etc.

B. Water management measures

o Surface water runoff management

o Surface water collection measures with peripheral drainage

o Draining and leachate collection

o Leachate treatment and potential re-circulation or other leachate treatment options

o Potential leachate pond rehabilitation

o Etc.

C. Stabilisation and protection measures

o Construction of dikes / berms for waste stability

o Construction of dumpsite protection/stabilization barriers

o Slope stabilisation measures

o Etc.

D. Landfill gas management

o Assess the necessity of the implementation of a landfill gas collection and utilisation system and the necessary equipment

E. Closure measures

o Design of a final cover and closure of the site

The dumpsite closure and remediation plan has to include potential synergies with the construction of new sanitary landfills, in case the new sanitary landfill is close to the dumpsite being closed. Such synergies cover a potential relocation of waste from the dump to the new sanitary landfill, landfill gas collection and flaring versus utilisation, leachate collection and treatment etc.

3. Cost estimation and work plan for the Sites

31OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

The Consultant shall provide a design and detailed cost estimate for the sites (according to international best practices, standards and the EU Directive on the landfill of waste). To this end the Consultant shall, inter alia and if applicable:

- Provide 3D topographical model of the sites;- Design of embankments protecting the site from erosion (if applicable);- Assess slope and general stability of the landfill body and in case necessary, provide

reshaping and slope stabilisation measurements;- Design of vertical barriers (if feasible);- Design (if feasible) of a draining system for the leachate collection, storage and

treatment;- Design (if feasible) of a network of landfill gas collection and utilisation;- Cover and capping of the sites;- Surface water runoff system; - Groundwater monitoring wells;- Design other necessary monitoring aspects and the related infrastructure;- Other important infrastructure (fences etc.);- A cost estimate for CAPEX;- Required civil & electromechanical works; - A programme for the works.

To ensure the highest possible environmental standards the rehabilitation of the existing landfills should comply with the relevant EU and Uzbekistan standards.

Task A1.2 Technical Due Diligence of the Proposed LocationBased on the ESS Report, and under consideration of all studies and documents that are available for the specific selected site for the new, sanitary landfill, the consultant shall verify existing information and, if applicable, conduct further detailed site investigations required.

The Consultant will (if applicable) assess the site taking into account the following information:

The optimal location(s) from an environmental/technical/economic and social point of view.

Technical design acceptable and appropriate from a technical/environmental point of view.

Available area access to and existing utilities, road access, potential land acquisition issues.

Ground conditions, topographic situation, geological, hydrological (surface water) and hydrogeological characteristics (occurrence, movement and quality) and distance to settlements. This will be based on available data, which might include geological and hydrogeological reports and a review of records for existing wells in the site vicinity. In addition, site-specific screening studies for current soil, surface, and groundwater contamination covering vicinities of proposed landfills locations; soil and water samples must be collected and transferred under QA/QC to a qualified laboratory for testing to include inter alia microbiological contamination indices, nitrogen

32OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

compounds, and heavy metals; groundwater should be sampled from the existing wells in Sites’ vicinities e.g. those located in the neighbouring settlements. This step will also require a site reconnaissance to be completed by a geologist and a hydrogeologist to make observations from the site features that will relate the shallow geology and hydrogeology at the site, specifically estimates of depth to and direction of groundwater movement that will be used to help locate future intrusive investigation.

Likelihood of the site to be influenced by natural hazards, including floods, landslides and active faults.

Permitting procedures which have been/need to be carried out including details of any environmental studies and public participation activities.

Which permissions have been received for the proposed site/design (include copies of permits and translations to English).

Which permissions or activities (according to national, regional and local regulations) are still required before new sanitary landfill segments can be constructed and commence operation.

Following this the Consultant will prepare a site plan / site sketch map based on information obtained as part of this task.

The Consultant shall confirm the suitability of the proposed site for the new sanitary landfill to be constructed according to EU standards and directives (e.g. the Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste).

Task A1.3 Preliminary Design of New Sanitary LandfillBased on the findings of the technical due diligence of the proposed new location, the Consultant shall carry out a preliminary design of the selected site serving as sanitary landfill according to EU standards (Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste).

The Consultant shall prepare a preliminary design of the sanitary landfill, taking into account the following issues:

A. General dataThe geological and hydrogeological characteristics of the site of the future landfill are the key-point. The Consultant shall carry out a risk assessment for the landfill.

B. TopographyThe land of the site of the new landfill and the peripheral area (defined as between the road and the crest line) must be mapped with the elevation contours at 1-meter intervals. The coordinates of the points measured during the survey must be registered in an electronic file (Excel).

C. Geology and HydrogeologyThe land of the site of the new landfill and the peripheral area (defined as between the road and the crest line) must be studied through completion of the following tasks:

Excavation and geological logging of 20-30 test pits (up to 3m depth) around the entire site. The purpose of these excavations is to allow inspection and documentation of shallow subsurface conditions that will help scope the further intrusive tasks to be

33OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

completed. A geologist must inspect and log all conditions exposed in these pits. Soils must be classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, and all observations such as moisture content, colour, soil structure, plasticity of clays, electrical conductivity, etc. must be recorded. Bulk samples of main materials encountered in the pits must be collected for future testing if required. Photographs must be obtained of all pits, and the location of each pit must be recorded for future reference.

8 boreholes (from 12 to 15 m depth). Soils and subsurface conditions encountered during drilling must be logged by a geologist, and core samples must be collected at regular intervals (based on the geology) for laboratory testing (physical testing). If groundwater is encountered during drilling, three of these boreholes must be completed as a groundwater monitoring well, with three to five meters of casing below the water surface and one to two meters of the casing extending above the water surface. In this case water samples will need to be collected from these wells and transferred to the laboratory for testing under QA/QC procedures. If groundwater is encountered, samples must be collected and transferred under QA/QC to a qualified laboratory for testing to include general minerals, BOD, COD, inorganic and volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, microbiological contamination indices, nitrogen compounds, and heavy metals.

If necessary, based on the findings of site reconnaissance (Task A.1.2), 3 deep (max. 100 m) boreholes, to be completed as permanent groundwater monitoring wells reaching the first non-perched aquifer. In the case of an unconfined aquifer being encountered, the well should be completed such that five meters of screened section is installed below the water surface and two meters of screened section is above the water surface. A cement and bentonite plug must be installed one meter above the top of the screened section. In the case of a confined aquifer, a five meter screened section must be installed immediately below the base of the upper confining zone, and the borehole must be sealed by a competent cement/bentonite seal for the thickness of the confining layer or a minimum of three meters, whichever is greater; the cores representative of all materials encountered (and all cuttings) are to be carefully logged by a geologist and cores labelled and preserved for geotechnical testing to determine hydraulic conductivity (and other parameters defined below) and suitability for loading. Lithological logs must be prepared for each borehole along with a well construction diagram. If groundwater is encountered, samples must be collected and transferred under QA/QC to a qualified laboratory for testing to include general minerals, BOD, COD, inorganic and volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, microbiological contamination indices, nitrogen compounds, and heavy metals.

D. GeotechniqueThe materials (in the core samples) of the different geological layers of the new landfill must be analysed and specifically must be checked:

Permeability; Hydraulic conductivity; Limit of plasticity (limit of Atterbergh); Tri-axial compression. Electrical conductivity; Corrosiveness;

34OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

A minimum of two samples must be analysed for the geotechnical parameters from each boring.

E. HydrologyThe waters sampled from the wells and if present, from each body of surface water on the site and within 250 meters of the site (brook, ponds etc.) and from the irrigation pond and system within 500m of the site must be collected and transferred under QA/QC to a qualified laboratory for testing to include general minerals, BOD, COD, inorganic and volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, microbiological contamination indices, nitrogen compounds, and heavy metals.

F. Weather conditionsThe beneficiary should provide the meteorological data of the location of the new landfill. These data must be presented for as long a period of time that is available for the station(s) nearest the site. As soon as possible, an automatic meteorological station should be implemented on the site of the new landfill in case it is located close to a settlement.

G. Characterization of the siteThe Consultant must prepare a detailed site characterization of the geology, hydrology and hydrogeology. This must present regional conditions based on the background literature search, and must include a detailed representation of all results of the site investigations outlined above. If any of the results of this work suggest that conditions are not reasonable for the location of the landfill, this must be communicated clearly. Further, if the work outlined above indicates that further intrusive investigations are required, these must be clearly outlined in this report along with estimated costs for completing such. The site characterization must be sufficient to allow design of the landfill to be completed.

H. Preliminary DesignFor the selected sites and according to the topographical, geological and hydrogeological data, the Consultant will conduct a preliminary design of the landfill (in line with international best practices, standards and the EU Directive on the landfilling of waste), including:

the assessment of remediation needs and preparatory works of the selected development area (if applicable) and areas of temporary storage of the different qualities of earths;

the general layout and geometry of the landfill cells including capacity and expected lifetime of cells;

the structure of the base lining system according to the landfill type (according to the EU directive on landfilling of waste);

the leachate drainage (collection) and storage system and leachate treatment system components estimated volumes of leachate and final destination of leachate; water balance to be provided if re-circulation leachate management system is proposed;

surface water runoff and collection system; the landfills gas (LFG) collection and pumping system (if required); the LFG utilisation options and necessary infrastructure; capping and closure of cells; the necessary road network and facilities (incl. permanent roads and temporary roads for the

waste trucks, the waste compactors, the employees / controllers / the visitors);

35OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

facilities for the operator (waste reception, weighbridge, tyre washing facility, sanitary facilities, buildings, garages, fences, storage etc.) and required equipment (e.g., specialised vehicles such as bulldozers, compactors, leachate spreader in case of leachate recirculation etc.);

design measures to manage nuisance; fencing and security arrangements; General landfill monitoring scheme ; other associated infrastructure as considered necessary including new external access roads;

grid connection etc.; A Level 1 programme for the works.

The design of the LFG utilisation (flaring or electricity production) is based on a LFG generation modelling that is carried out by the Consultant. Similarly, the design of the leachate collection and treatment is based on an underlying model on leachate generation prepared by the Consultant.

Note: For all above aspects a description of the system, capacity, resource needs (if any) and inherent design environmental and social mitigations should be specified. Detailed specifications such as material specification, detailed technical parameters are not needed. For example for the LFG connection and pumping system – a general description of the selected system including gas capture, indicative number of wells and type; the capacity; the energy needed and source; flare height (if needed); and a high level description of any monitoring needed.

I. EquipmentThe Consultant will prepare the list and the specifications of the technical equipment and mobile equipment (including sampling and analytical equipment needed for monitoring) required for operations of the landfill and availability of such equipment in-region and in the country.

J. CostsThe Consultant will provide a detailed cost estimate for the construction and the equipment (CAPEX) and annual operational costs. The Consultant will also assess costs of the detailed design. The Consultant will take into consideration the regulatory framework for preparing the detailed design and the formal procedure for the detailed design approval.

K. StandardsThe Consultant will prepare a list of the international standards applicable to the construction of the landfills, specifically for the geotechnical issues and for the use of geomembranes and geosynthetics.

To ensure the highest possible environmental standards and that the Project is bankable from a technical point of view, the new sanitary landfill shall comply with relevant EU and Uzbek standards, such as the EU directive on landfills, and legislation on waste management operations and IPPC BAT/BREF. The Consultant shall, taking into account the EBRD’s environmental, technical and procurement policies and procedures; identify those investments that fit best within the scope of the Project and within the estimated project budget.

36OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

The preliminary design shall consider synergies regarding technical installations in respect to the future closure and remediation of the currently used dump next to the proposed site for the new sanitary landfill.

37OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Annex 2: Standard measuring indicators and GET impact indicators

Standard measuring indicators:

Sector IndicatorData point to be collected

Baseline and Projected after implementation completion*

Solid Waste

Total population benefitting from solid waste management services.

Number of persons with improved solid waste management services.

Number of beneficiaries living below the poverty lines

Number of persons (and/or %)

Annual reduction in tonnes of CO2

equivalent due to diversion of solid waste from landfill disposal.

Tonnes and type (metals, paper, glass, plastic, organic) of waste diverted away from landfill. Avg. CH4 (CO2

equivalent) content of solid waste materials by type.

Total tonnes of waste disposed.

Tonnes of waste disposed on new and/or improved waste disposal plants.

Direct employment: construction phase Number of persons

Direct employment: operations and maintenance

Number of persons

* measured two years after projected full loan disbursement

GET impact indicators (as applicable):

SRI impact indicator

Unit Data point to be collected

Primary energy saved

GJ/yr Project energy use compared to baseline5 energy use.Primary energy includes:

1. Direct use of fossil fuels2. Direct use of biomass.3. Use of electricity, multiplied by a loss factor to take into

account country average generation efficiencies and electricity grid losses6

5 The baseline is defined as the expected conditions without the project two years after full loan disbursement. The baseline is compared to the conditions projected with implemented project two years after full loan disbursement.

38OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

CO2 emissions reduced

ton CO2e/yr

Project CO2 emissions compared to baseline CO2 emissions.CO2 emissions include:

1. Emissions as a result of direct use of fossil fuels2. Indirect emissions as a result of the use of electricity7

3. Emissions of other Greenhouse gases (in particular methane8) expressed in CO2 equivalents.

Water saved m3/yr Project water use compared to baseline water use. Water savings must be determined for the following project activities:

1. Water recycling projects that recover wastewater streams for reuse or alternative use.

2. Application of technology or management actions that lead to effluent water quality improvements in regions with water scarcity9

3. Water loss prevention and water demand management

Material savings ton/yr Material use compared to baseline material use. Material savings must be determined for project activities aimed atwaste minimisation:

1. Minimisation of waste streams by integrated measures (i.e. improvement of existing installations, processes or procedures/management)

2. Waste recycling projects that reuse waste as inputs into new products or as a resource

6 For example, with an average electricity generation efficiency of 40% and grid losses of 7%, the primary energy use (MWh) is 2.7 x the direct electricity use (MWh).7 The CO2 emissions as a result of the use of electricity are determined by multiplying the use of electricity (MWh) with the country specific grid emission factor (ton CO2/ MWh) in line with the joint MDB list of grid emission factors.

8 Tons of methane emissions (ton CH4) can be converted to tons of CO2 equivalents (ton CO2e) by applying the a factor of 25 (ton CO2e/ton CH4)9 Qualifying for ‘water saved’: treated waste water with an effluent quality at or exceeding internationally accepted effluent water quality standards.

39OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

ANNEX 3. PRELIMINARY CATEGORISATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS AND E&S RISK EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES

Below is an excerpt from the ESDD Consultant report

The categorization chart below: proposes E&S categories for the Project components, evaluates the aggregated E&S risk for existing facilities, and provides pertinent justifications for both, categorization and risk estimate.

1. Availability of design documentation for the Project components: no documentation describing conceptual project solutions for the construction of the proposed sanitary landfills and closure of existing dumpsites were available by the end of Consultant’s Mission 2 (18 March 2019).

2. Conceptual project solutions: the following potential scenarios (numbered 1 through to 4) for moving forward were identified during documentation review, and site visit discussions and interviews with the responsible staff of Toza Hudud GUPs and GosKomEcologiya: Scenario 1: An existing dumpsite (operational or non-operational) is to be closed and

its site is to be remediated; Scenario 2: A modern sanitary landfill is to be built at a new location at a considerable

distance (from the existing operational dumpsite; Scenario 3: Reconstruction of an operational dumpsite, which is to include extension of

its territory and construction of a modern sanitary landfill within the newly allocated land plot;

Scenario 4: Reconstruction of an operational dumpsite, which envisions construction of a modern sanitary landfill within the area allocated for the existing operational dumpsite.Assumption 1: Closure of the existing dumpsites and remediation of their sites as well as construction of sanitary landfills will be conducted in line with requirements of EBRD and best practice requirements on the use of practices of insulating waste from the environment. The practice of simple covering waste with soil or sand, mentioned to the Consultants during Mission 2, is unacceptable and is not considered as a workable scenario for the Project.

3. Categorization of Project components as per the EBRD requirement: Category A: a proposed activity is classified as Category A if it is likely to have significant

adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented, and affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works.The following locations for prospective projects suggest a Category A classification:

o (i) in or near sensitive and valuable ecosystems (e.g., protected areas, wetlands, wild lands, coral reefs, and habitats of endangered species);

o (ii) in or near areas with cultural heritage sites (e.g. archaeological, historical sites or existing cultural sites);

o (iii) densely populated areas where resettlement may be required or pollution impacts and other disturbances may be significant;

40OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

o (iv) regions subject to heavy development activities or where there are conflicts in natural resource allocation;

o (v) watercourses, aquifer recharge areas, or reservoir catchments used for potable water supply; and

o (vi) lands or waters containing valuable resources (e.g. fisheries, minerals, medicinal plants, prime agricultural soils).

Category B: a proposed activity is categorized B when its potential adverse future environmental and/or social impacts are typically site-specific, and/or readily identified and addressed through mitigation measures.

Category C: a proposed activity is categorized C when it is likely to have minimal or no potential adverse future environmental and/or social impacts, and can readily be addressed through limited environmental and social appraisal.

Note: Category is not assigned if i) the proposed scenario is considered as unfeasible and it is recommended to explore alternative solutions; ii) there is a lack of information to assign a category.

4. E&S risk evaluation – for an existing facility (based on the EBRD’s Environmental and Social Risk Categorisation List, Rev 2014): High risk – the facility operations are supposed to considerably affect the natural

environment or people and businesses, there are sensitive receptors (e.g. residential areas, watercourses, nature protected areas and endangered species, cultural heritage sites, agricultural lands used for crop raising and pastures) within a 500m buffer zone;

Medium risk – the facility operations have given rise to limited environmental and social risks and impacts that can be readily prevented or mitigated through technically and financially feasible measures; there are few (non-residential) sensitive receptors (e.g. watercourses, agricultural lands used for crop raising and pastures, and pastures) within a 500m buffer zone.

Low risk – whose operations have given rise to minor changes in environmental components, impacts occurred/occurring are limited to the facility’s site boundary.

Negligible risk – the facility has not been used for waste accumulation or disposal; minor impacts occurred have low intensity, manifested during the construction phase.

5. Mission 2 scope (colour coding):

Sites visited by Ecoline’s experts during Mission 2 in Uzbekistan

Sites, which were not visited by Ecoline International Ltd experts during Mission 2 in Uzbekistan

6. E&S risk class colour coding:

High Low Not assigned

Medium Negligible

7. Expected remediation/ reconstruction costs:

41OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

The Consultant conducted indicative cost estimation for Category B Project components based on data on estimated remediation and reconstruction costs for existing dumpsites present in the National Strategy for Solid Waste Management in the Republic of Uzbekistan for 2019-2028 provided to the EBRD by GosKomEkologiya.

The estimates for Category A and Category B Project components were received by multiplying specific remediation costs (or reconstruction costs) by areas of the facilities (see Column 5 of the table below). The costs of Category C Project component were not estimated.

The specific remediation and reconstruction costs were calculated based on data on the total dumpsite areas to be remediated/reconstructed and pertinent estimated costs.

42OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа10

Conceptual design solutions11

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

The Republic of Karakalpakstan

Provisional Territory 1

RK-1.1

Amudaryo District Dumpsite – Urta-kala-1

Amudaryo District,Urta-kala Rural Settlement

9.9

Scenario 1

Closure of an old operational dumpsite

2633.5 4389.2 B

The existing operational dumpsite is a high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone, it is located close (ca. 700 m) to the state border with Turkmenistan.

High

The existing operational 5.1-ha dumpsite is equipped with a fence and some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, truck scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The existing operational dumpsite has high volumes of accumulated waste.Waste is mixed (MSW, tires, construction waste), the waste separation is not carried out.There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no low-permeable barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are i) two irrigation canals (in 20 m and in 450 m from the site; the nearest canal is littered with waste); ii) the residential area – in ca. 450 m;iii) agricultural lands.The dumpsite is in ca. 700 m from the state border with Turkmenistan.There is no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (irrigation canals) and potentially groundwater.The facility does not have visual effects as it is not visible from the nearest motor road.

RK-1.2

Site of the proposed new sanitary landfill in the Amudaryo District–Urta-kala-2

Amudaryo District,Urta-kala Rural Settlement

15(TBC)

Scenario 2

Proposed construction of a modern sanitary landfill in the Amudaryo District.

The site for the sanitary landfill is reportedly selected but land allocation process is not completed (the decision on allocating the land plot for the

3511.3 2633.5 B

There are no irrigation canals and residential areas within the 500-m buffer zone around the proposed site; the nearest village is 1.5 km from the selected site.Land in the vicinity is pastures; no potential conflict with farmers is expected due to reduction of the land for grazing (reportedly there is no deficit for pasture lands in the site’s vicinity).Cultural heritage is unlikely be present within the site and vicinity as it is rather far from the Amu Darya River whose shores are the

High NA

10 According to information provided by GosKomEcologiya11 As identified by experts during documentation reviews and interviews with responsible staff of Toza Hudud GUPs and GosKomEcologiya before meeting at GosKomEcologiya 18 March 2019.

43OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9landfill has not been issued by local authorities); presumably the site area should be 15 ha. The distance from the existing facility to the proposed landfill site is ca. 20 km, it is located on another bank of the Amu Darya River.

area where local cultural heritage items are reportedly concentrated (according to District’s Tozа Hudud GUPs representative).The nearest protected area (Baday Tugay State Reserve) is ca. 30 km from the site.

Provisional Territory 2

RK-2.1

Nukus District Dumpsite – Kutankul

Nukus District,Kutankul Rural Settlement

5

Scenario 3

Reconstruction of an old operational 10 ha dumpsite with the construction of a 15-ha modern sanitary landfill within the extended dumpsite territory

3724.1 4256.2 B

This is a large existing operational dumpsite with significant amount of waste accumulated. This is medium-risk facility with few sensitive receptors within the buffer

The reported area of the site of 5 ha is underestimated. (in reality it is ca. 10 ha)

It is unclear what kind of area will be used for construction of the sanitary landfill.One can assume two additional cells may be used for this purpose.

Medium

This is an operational dumpsite comprising a waste reception area and four 2-ha cells for waste disposal. The total area is 10 ha (vs. 5 ha indicated in the passport).The dumpsite is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, truck scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.There are two landfill cells currently used for waste disposal; in addition, there are two more cells established. At the same time, there are no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste and no barrier between waste and soil to prevent leachate entering the environment.A rather large amount of waste has been accumulated on site.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are agricultural lands used for crop raising; the neatest irrigation canal is in 550-600 m from the dumpsite. No residential areas within the buffer were observed.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (irrigation canals and potentially groundwater).The site surroundings are littered with waste (reportedly by wind-blown waste).The facility does not have visual effects as it is not visible from the nearest motor road.

RK-2.2

Takhiatash District Dumpsite – Naymankul

Takhiatash District,Naymankul Rural Settlement

10 Scenario 1

Closure of an old operational dumpsite

2660.1 4433.5 В (remediation project should to address health risks related to animal carcasses burial)

The existing operational dumpsite is an old, high-risk facility, used for disposal of mixed waste with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including residential buildings and an irrigation canal.

The reported area of the site of 10 ha is underestimated (in reality it is ca. 14 ha). In addition, there is an old non-operational dumpsite next to the operational one with the area of 6 ha.

High The existing operational dumpsite has an area of 14 ha (4 ha more than reported in the facility passport). At a distance of ca. 30 m there is on-non-operational dumpsite with the area of ca. 6 ha.The operational dumpsite is not fenced and has no elements of the necessary infrastructure.It has accumulated large volumes of mixed waste including inter alia MSW, construction waste, containers from paints and solvents, as well as animal and animal carcasses.There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are i) residential buildings (the nearest ones are in in 175 m and in 280 m of the dumpsite); ii) an irrigation canal (in 3-5 meters from the dumped waste); and iii) Takhiatash Thermal Power Plant’s site (the power plant is being reconstructed) in ca. 300 m from the dumpsite.

44OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

The site is used for dumping animal carcasses which results in additional OHS and public health risks related to its remediation.

Illegal waste pickers were observed on site.

Malodorous leachate was observed in the site ditch close to the irrigation canal.There is no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (the irrigation canal) and potentially groundwater.The facility has visual effects as it is well-visible from the nearest motor residential buildings.People practicing unauthorized waste sorting were observed on site.

RK-2.3

Khodjeyli District Dumpsite – Zhana-zhap

Khodjeyli District, Zhana-zhap Rural Settlement

5

Scenario 1

Closure of an existing recently constructed operational dumpsite

1330.1 2216.8 B

The existing operational dumpsite is a high-risk facility with a sensitive receptor in the buffer zone (agricultural lands located close to the site boundary) and waste pickers observed on site.

High

This is a newly constructed 5-ha dumpsite site, which is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a scales with a shed, a welfare building, a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation).Mainly MSW is disposed at the dumpsite.There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.The dumpsite is littered with plastic bags.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are agricultural lands next to the site boundary. No residential areas within the buffer were observed.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The dumpsite does not have visual effects as it is not visible from the nearest motor road.At the dumpsite people practicing unauthorized waste separation were spotted packaging sorted waste in bags.Operations of crawler bulldozer XCMG TY160 were observed at the site (this was the only site where the use of machinery was observed).

RK-2.4

Nukus City dumpsite – Bestobe

Nukus City,Bestobe Rural Settlement

9.5Scenario 1

Site closure2527.1 4211.8 Not assigned

No facility-specific data information was available for review;There is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

Not assigned

The existing dumpsite was included into the list of sites to be visited during Mission 2. The dumpsite was not visited as Toza Hudud GUP’s representatives stated they do not have information on its exact location of the dumpsite.No site-specific documents were provided for review.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

RK-2.5

Nukus District dumpsite – Toktov

Nukus District, Toktov Rural Settlement

1.5 Scenario 1

Site closure399.0 665.0 Not assigned

No site-specific documents were provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.; Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.No site-specific documents were provided for review.There is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

Provisional Territory 3

RK-3.1

Beruniy District Dumpsite – Sarkop

Beruniy District,Sarkop Rural Settlement

9.9

Scenario 3

Reconstruction of an old operational dumpsite with the construction of a 15-

6144.8 7022.7

Not assigned (for sanitary landfill construction) as it is recommended

The new site is flooded (it is crossed by a stream and has stagnant water basins on its surface).According to the national legislative requirements it is

High

Both dumpsites – the new 5-ha site and the old 9.9-ha site are operational. The old 9.9-ha site is not fenced. It has accumulated large amount of waste. The surrounding territory is littered.The new 5-ha site is in operation. It is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a truck scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package

45OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

ha modern sanitary landfill within the extended dumpsite territory.The existing facility includes an old operational 9.9ha dumpsite and a new 5.1 ha site which is an extension of the existing dumpsite.Both sites are to be closed and remediated

not to proceed with this component and consider selection of another location for the sanitary landfill

B (for closure of the existing operational dumpsite)

Total: Not assigned

prohibited to site a landfill within groundwater discharge areas (p.5.1. SanPiN of the Republic of Uzbekistan N 0157-04).The construction of the sanitary landfill on this territory is considered as unfeasible and it is recommended to select another location for this activity.

The existing operational dumpsite is a high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone. There is an old 9.9 ha dumpsite fence to fence to the new one, and both sites are currently used for waste disposal.It is assumed remediation covers both old 9.9 ha and the new 5.1 ha dumpsites located fence to fence to each other.The aggregated 15 ha dumpsite is rather large with significant amount of waste accumulated.The area is flooded (a stream crossing the old and new sites and water reservoirs nearby). Additional efforts are likely required to divert surface and groundwaters from the site during remediation works.

transformer substation), and a water well.The new 5.1-ha site is used for waste disposal; small amount of waste has accumulated at the new site.The waste reception area is littered.There is a visual evidence on-site waste separation within the waste reception area (some separated waste in plastic bags are stored there). At both dumpsites there are no landfill cells and no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed. there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) an irrigation canal (50-60 m from the dumpsite); ii) agricultural lands;iii) water reservoirs in 150 m (across the motor road) and in 480-500 m from the dumpsite.No residential areas within the buffer were observed.Both the old dumpsite and the extension are flooded; there is a stream crossing both sites and stagnant water basins within the dumpsite area.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (the irrigation canal, the natural stream, and potentially groundwater).The facility has visual effects as it is visible from the nearest motor road.

RK-3.2

Turtkul District Dumpsite – Shurakhon

Turtkul District, Shurakhon Rural Settlement

14

Scenario 1

Closure of the newly constructed non-operational dumpsite AND old operational dumpsite

3724.1 6206.9

C (for 5-ha newly constructed dumpsite)

B (for both new and old dumpsites)

Total: B

The 5-ha dumpsite is not operational but the 14 ha area is supposed to include both the new and old dumpsites; while the latter does not have any infrastructure elements. It is assumed the closure activities will cover both sites; and require remediation of the existing operational dumpsite. The old operational dumpsite is assumed to be a medium to high-risk facility.

Therefore, impacts from decommissioning cannot be treated as minor ones; but they can be mitigated if appropriate technologies are applied.

Illegal waste pickers were observed on site.

Low (for 5-ha newly constructed dumpsite)

Medium to High (for both new and old dumpsites)

There is a newly constructed 5-ha dumpsite, which is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales (not operational), a welfare building (not operational) and a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well. Its construction is underway: the waste reception area is not fully completed.Waste has not been disposed at the 5-ha dumpsite.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) an irrigation canal (in 400 m from the dumpsite). No residential areas within the buffer were observed. The nearest settlement is in 650-700 m from the site boundary; and the access road to the site crosses the settlement.The dumpsite does not have visual effects as it is not visible from the nearest motor road.The 5-ha site is located close to an existing operational dumpsite (area is unknown) where unauthorized on-site waste separation by illegal workers is performed. No details on the old dumpsite are available. One can expect there are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.

46OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

RK-3.3

Ellikkala District Dumpsite –Dumankala

Ellikkala District, Sarabiy Rural Settlement, Dumankala Borough

5

Scenario 1

Closure of the newly constructed dumpsite (non- commissioned and non-operational)

TDB TBD C

The newly constructed dumpsite is not operational; no landfill remediation works are envisioned; impacts from decommissioning can be insignificant, short-term and readily mitigated

Low

This is a new 5-ha dumpsite that is currently under construction; it is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales with a shed (not operational yet), a welfare building and a WC with cesspit (under construction), electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The facility has not been used for waste disposal.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) two irrigational canals (the site is located between them): one canal is in 20 m and another one (the wider one) is in 70 m from the dumpsite; ii) agricultural lands in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsiteNo residential areas within the buffer were observed; the nearest settlement is in 1000 m from the dumpsite.The access road to the dumpsite crosses the settlements.The dumpsite does not visual effects as it is not visible from the nearest motor road.

RK-3.4

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Beruniy District – Beruniy

Beruniy District, Beryni Rural Settlement

0.5Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7 Not assigned

No site-specific documents were provided for review; there is no information on the exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.No site-specific documents were provided for review.There is no information on the exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

RK-3.5

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Beruniy District – Abay

Beruniy District, Abay Rural Settlement

0.5

Scenario 1

Site closure 133.0 221.7 Not assigned

No site-specific documents were provided for review; there is no information on the exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.No site-specific documents were provided for review.There is no information on the exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

RK-3.6

A site for temporary waste accumulation in the Turtkul District – Kukcha

Turtkul DistrictKukcha Rural Settlement

0.5Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7 Not assigned

No site-specific documents were provided for review; there is no information on the exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.No site-specific documents were provided for review.There is no information on the exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

RK- A site for the Beruniy 0.5 Not assigned Not applicable Not assigned It is unclear if we need to consider Not assigned This site was included into the list of Project facilities as a small (0.5 ha) site used/to

47OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.7

temporary accumulation of waste in the Beruniy District - Kizil-kala

District, Kizil-kala Rural Settlement

Scenario 2 for this site as this Project component is not listed among sites for construction of new sanitary landfills. It is necessary to clarify the conceptual project solutions related to this site.

be used for temporary accumulation of waste. During the site tour within Ecoline’s Mission 2 it was found out that the site was selected for construction of a 5-ha dumpsite using a typical design for such facilities. However, the initiative was not implemented.The site is located in a semi-desert area with scarce vegetation. It is not fenced.The nearest residential areas are in 1.4-1.5 km from the site.Overall, Beruniy District is rich in cultural heritage resources; the nearest recognized cultural heritage asset (Toprak-Kala ancient city) is in ca. 4 km from the site.

Provisional Territory 4

RK-4.1

Kungrad District Dumpsite – Konli

Kungrad District, Konli Rural Settlement

5

Scenario 3

Reconstruction of an old 5-ha operational dumpsite with the construction of a 20-ha modern sanitary landfill within the extended dumpsite territory

3103.5 3546.8

Not assigned (for sanitary landfill construction) as it is recommended not to proceed with this component and consider selection of another location for the sanitary landfill.

B (for closure of the existing operational dumpsite)

Total – Not assigned

The existing operational dumpsite is located in between irrigation canals, also there are a water main and a gas pipeline in the buffer zone. In order to access the site it is necessary to cross the irrigation canals, the bridges across the canals are in poor condition and could not sustain regular traffic of heavy waste trucks.The construction of a 20-ha sanitary landfill on this territory is considered as unfeasible and it is recommended to select another location for this activity.

The existing operational dumpsite is a rather old, high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone.

High

This is an old operational dumpsite that has accumulated a large amount of waste of mixed waste (MSW, construction waste, used tires, etc). The site is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, truck scales with cover (not operational), a welfare building, a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation).The general housekeeping on the site is inadequate: the waste reception area is heavily littered, there are spontaneous combustion spots across the waste piles in this area.There are no landfill cells and no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) three large irrigation canals (in 60, ca. 200 and ca. 400 m from the dumpsite); the site is located in between two canals crossing not far from the site;ii) a water main pipeline;iii) a main gas pipeline;No residential areas within the buffer were observed.In order to access the site it is necessary to cross the irrigation canals, the bridges across the canals are in poor condition and could not sustain regular traffic of heavy waste trucks.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (irrigation canals and potentially groundwater).The facility does not have visual effects as it is not visible from the nearest motor road.

48OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

RK-4.2

A dumpsite in the Muynak District – Medelli

Muynak District,Medeli Rural Settlement

0.5

Scenario 1

Closure of the existing operational dumpsite

133.0 221.7 В

The existing operational dumpsite is a rather old, high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone.The surroundings are an artificial landscape created by coverage of an old dumpsite.The reported area of the site of 0.5 ha is underestimated (in reality it is ca. 1.3. ha)

High

In the initial documentation the facility was defined as a 0.5-ha site designated for temporary waste accumulation.In reality this is a dumpsite without a fence and any other elements of landfill infrastructure. There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil and partly covered with soil on the top. The site surroundings look like an artificial landscape created by covering waste with soil.The actual size of the facility is ca. 1.3 ha.There are numerous spontaneous combustion and/or smouldering spots. The area is littered with plastic bags. Odour nuisance is detected in the site vicinity.The dumpsite is located in the immediate vicinity of the inter-settlement motor road and a bus stop, as well as across the road from Shege Village.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) residential houses of northern part of Shege Village – in 100 m;ii) a bus stop within 50 m from the dumpsite;iii) a main gas pipeline in 70 m from the dumpsite.No irrigation canals within the buffer were observed.The facility has considerable visual effects as it is visible from the nearest motor road, the bus stop and the nearby residential area.

RK-4.3

Shumanay District Dumpsite – Momiy-2

Shumanay District, Momiy Rural Settlement

8.6

Scenario 1

Closure of the existing operational dumpsite

2287.7 3812.8 B

The existing operational dumpsite is a rather old, large, high-risk facility, used for disposal of mixed waste with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including residential buildings, an irrigation canal, and agricultural lands.The site is in ca. 2.4 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.

High

NB: This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities reviewed within the E&S Scoping Study and be visited during Mission 2. It is necessary to clarify if this facility should be considered as part of the Project.Momiy site-2 is located in ca. 7.5 km from Momiy site-1 (see below).This is an old operational dumpsite in the suburbs of Shumanay Town. It is not fenced and have no elements of necessary infrastructure.Mixed waste is disposed at the dumpsite (MSW, construction waste, tires, etc).There are no landfill cells and no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.The waste disposal area is litteredWithin the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) residential buildings – the nearest are in 100-150 m from the site boundary); ii) agricultural lands; and iii) an irrigation canal in the immediate vicinity (ca. 40 m) of the dumpsite.The site is in ca. 2.4 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The dumpsite has visual effects as it is visible from the nearest motor road.

49OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

RK-4.4

Shumanay District Dumpsite – Momiy-1

Shumanay District, Momiy Rural Settlement

5.0

Scenario 1

Closure of the newly constructed non-operational dumpsite

1330.1 2216.8 C

The newly constructed dumpsite is not operational; no landfill remediation works are envisioned; impacts from decommissioning are insignificant, short-term and readily mitigated

Low

This dumpsite was included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.This 5-ha dumpsite is under construction; it is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales with a shed, a welfare building, a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation).The facility currently not used for waste disposal. There are no landfill cells and no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are agricultural lands used for raising rice and cotton fields.No residential areas within the buffer were observed.The site is in ca. 1 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The dumpsite has visual effects as it is visible from the nearest motor road.

RK-4.5

A dumpsite in the Muynak District - Ush soj

Muynak District, Ush soj Rural Settlement

3.5

Scenario 1

Closure of the recently constructed and not commissioned dumpsite

TBD TBD C

The newly constructed dumpsite is not operational; no landfill remediation works are envisioned; impacts from decommissioning are insignificant, short-term and readily mitigated

Low

This is a newly constructed dumpsite; its construction is not completed (equipment is not commissioned). The dumpsite is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a truck scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The facility has visual effect as it is visible from the nearest motor road.The dumpsite surroundings are featured by small (less than 50 sq.m) areas of unauthorized waste dumps of unknown origin.Within the 500-m buffer zone no residential areas, irrigation canals, and other sensitive receptors.The site has not been used for waste accumulation and/or disposal; all impacts are associated with construction works.

50OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

RK-4.6

Kanlikul District Dumpsite – Navruz

Kanlikul District Navruz Rural Settlement

5

Scenario 1

Closure of the recently constructed and not commissioned dumpsite

TBD TBD С

Only few infrastructure elements were constructed that can be easily decommissioned or left as they are and transferred to local authorities with the land plot; no landfill remediation works are required, as the site has not been used for waste disposal.

Negligible

The site is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well).Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) an irrigation canal (in 110 m from the dumpsite), and ii) agricultural lands.No residential areas within the buffer were observed.The facility has visual effects as it is located next to the motor road and well-visible from it.The site has not been used for waste disposal; there is insignificant amount of construction waste (bags from construction mixtures accumulated on site); all impacts are associated with construction works.

RK-4.7

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Muynak District – Khakim ota

Muynak District, Khakim ota Rural Settlement

0.5 Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7

Not assigned

Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite; Ppotos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2. As reported by Toza Hudud representatives, there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Provisional Territory 5

RK-5.1

Karauzyak District Dumpsite – Berdakh

Karauzyak District,Berdakh Rural Settlement

7 Scenario 3

Reconstruction of aт existing dumpsite with the construction of a 17-ha modern sanitary landfill within the extended dumpsite territory; the existing dumpsites includes an old operational 7ha dumpsite and a new 5 ha site which is an extension of the existing dumpsite; both old and new dumpsiets are to be closed and remediated

4344.8 4965.5 Not assigned (for sanitary landfill construction) as it is recommended not to proceed with this component and consider selection of another location for the sanitary landfill

B (for closure of the existing operational dumpsite (both old and new

It is unclear what new area is planned to allocate to create a 17-ha sanitary landfill: if the proposed landfill site is to include a recently developed 5-ha dumpsite or only not developed areas in the vicinity of old and new sites.The aggregated 12-ha dumpsite site is surrounded by agricultural lands; the Project component may require large-scale land allocation of agricultural lands and affect interests of local farmers.

It is assumed remediation will cover both recently developed 5-ha dumpsite and the old 7-ha dumpsite. The aggregated 12ha dumpsite is a large facility with a large volume of mixed waste accumulated.

High The old 7-ha site is not fenced.The new 5-ha site is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The new site is used for waste disposal.Mixed waste (MSW, construction waste, used tires) are disposed at the dumpsite. No waste separation practices were observed.At both the old site and the new site there are no landfill cells and no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) a canal (supposedly an irrigation canal) in 60-70 m from the dumpsite; ii) agricultural lands.No residential areas within the buffer were observed.The area next to the dumpsite is littered; cows were grazing in the site vicinity.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (the irrigation canal, and potentially groundwater).The facility has visual effects as it is located just 70-80 m from the motor road nearest motor road and well-visible from it.

51OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9sites)

Total – Not assigned

RK-5.2

An dumpsite in the Kegeyli District – Zhizumbak

Kegeyli District,Zhizumbak Rural Settlement

5

Scenario 1

Closure of the old operational dumpsite

1330.1 2216.8 B

This is an old, relatively large uncontrolled dumpsite with large amount of mixed waste accumulated.

High

This is an old dumpsite without fence and some other elements of landfill infrastructure, with large amount of mixed waste accumulated. At present, the landfill receives small amounts of waste (one truck visits the site per day).There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) an irrigation canal ii) agricultural lands.No residential areas within the buffer were observed.Due to problems with water local residents are reportedly leaving the area and environs are abandoned.

RK-5.3

Kegeyli District Dumpsite – Aktuba

Kegeyli District, Aktuba Rural Settlement

7

Scenario 1

Closure of the non-commissioned but operated dumpsite

1862.1 3103.5 B

The existing operational dumpsite is a medium-risk facility, with sensitive receptors in the buffer zone but relatively far from the site boundary, and with large amount of mixed waste accumulated.

Medium

This is an existing operational dumpsite that has recently been renovated and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales (not operational), a welfare building for staff, a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The renovated facility is not officially commissioned but is used for waste disposal.Mixed waste (MSW, construction waste, used tires) are disposed at the dumpsite. No waste separation practices were observed.There are no landfill cells and no intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) a small brick production factory (under construction)ii) agricultural lands but not ajacent to the dumpsite’s fence – in 250-300 m from the site boundary.No residential areas and irrigation canals within the buffer were observed.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The facility is not visible from the nearest motor road.

52OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

RK-5.4

Takhtakupyr District Dumpsite – Koratereng

Takhtakupyr District, Koratereng Rural Settlement

6

Scenario 1

Closure of the operational dumpsite under reconstruction

1596.1 2660.1 B

The existing operational dumpsite is a relatively new medium-risk facility with the only sensitive receptor in the buffer zone (one irrigation canal but located very close to the dumpsite).

Medium

This is a newly reconstructed 6-ha dumpsite site, which is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, scales (not operational), a welfare building (not operational), a WC with cesspit (not completed), electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The reconstruction is not completed but the facility is operational and accepts waste for disposal. Mainly MSW is disposed at the dumpsite.There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) an irrigation canal (in 40-60 m from the dumpsite). No residential areas within the buffer were observed.There is a rather large gap between the fence and the land surface. This enables windblown waste getting out of the dumpsite and littering the site vicinity. In addition, wild and domestic animals can potentially use this gap to enter the dumpsite.There are no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters (the irrigation canal, and potentially groundwater).Although the site is only in 250 m from the nearest motor road it is hardly visible from the road, and visual effects are considered as minor ones.

RK-5.5

Chimbay District Dumpsite – Kamis arik

Chimbay District, Kamis arik Rural Settlement

5.9

Scenario 1Closure of the newly constructed dumpsite (non- commissioned and non-operational)

TBD TBD C

The newly constructed dumpsite is not operational; no landfill remediation works are envisioned; impacts from decommissioning are insignificant, short-term and readily mitigated

Low

This is a newly constructed dumpsite; its construction is not completed (equipment is not commissioned). The dumpsite is fenced and equipped with some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, truck scales (not operational), a welfare building and WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation), and a water well.The facility does not have the visual effects as it is visible from the nearest motor road.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) two irrigation canals in 100m and in 50 m from the site boundaries; the site in between the two crossing canals). No residential areas within the buffer were observed.The site has not been used for waste accumulation and/or disposal; all impacts are associated with construction works. The site surroundings are not littered.

RK-5.6

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Kegeyli District – Kuskanatau (0.5 ha)

Kegeyli District, Kuskanatau Rural Settlement

0.5

Scenario 1

Closure of the small non-operational ‘dumpsite’

TBD TBD C

The dumpsite is not operational; no landfill remediation works are envisioned; impacts from decommissioning are insignificant, short-term and readily mitigated

Negligible

The site is a fenced area with no elements of landfill infrastructure. No signs of its previous and current use for waste disposal were observed.No residential areas within the buffer were observed. The surrounding area is covered with semi-desert vegetation.The facility has visual effects as it is located next to the motor road and well-visible from it.All impacts were minor and associated with construction works.

53OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

RK-5.7

A dumpsite in the Kegeyli District –Kuskanatau (4 ha)

Kegeyli District, Kuskanatau Rural Settlement

4

Scenario 1

Closure of the old operational dumpsite

1064.0 1773.4 Not assigned

Presumably, this is an old, relatively large, uncontrolled dumpsite with large amount of mixed waste accumulated. The experts did not visit it and did not make field observations to categorise this Project component as planned

Not assigned

This dumpsite was included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2. During the site tour Toza Hudud representatives stated they had no information on the exact location of this dumpsite. Instead, they suggested to visit Kuskanatau-0.5 ha site nearby with known location. On the way to Kuskanatau-0.5 ha site Ecoline’s expert noticed large piles of waste dumped not far from the motor road. A satellite map with boundaries of Kuskanatau 4-ha site was provided to experts, and it proved the noticed unknown dumpsite was Kuskanatau 4-ha site.

RK-5.8

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Chimbay District – Koksuv

Chimbay District, Koksuv Rural Settlement

0.5Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7 Not assigned

Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

RK-5.9

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Chimbay District – Kashterek

Chimbay District, Kashterek Rural Settlement

0.5Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7 Not assigned

Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

RK-5.10

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Chimbay District – Mayzhap

Chimbay District, Mayzhap Rural Settlement

0.5Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7 Not assigned

Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite.Photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

RK-5.11

A site for the temporary accumulation of waste in the Chimbay District – Pashentau

Chimbay District, Pashentau Rural Settlement

0.5Scenario 1

Site closure133.0 221.7 Not assigned

Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsite; photos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP

Not assigned

This dumpsite was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2.Only landfill passport with limited information was provided for review; there is no information on exact location of the dumpsitePhotos of the facility were not provided by Toza Hudud GUP.

The Khorezm Region

54OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

Provisional Territory 1

KhR-1.1

Kushkupir District Dumpsite – Arablar

Kushkupir District, Katagon Rural Settlement, Arablar Borough

6.5

Scenario 3

Reconstruction of an operational dumpsite with the construction of a 15-ha modern sanitary landfill within the extended dumpsite territory.

There is an old operational 6.5-ha dumpsite; and a a 5,9 -ha newly constructed not-operational dumpsite in 1.5 km from the first site

4034.5 4610.8

В(for the dumpsites’remediation)

В(for the construction of the new sanitary landfill)

Total: B

The existing operational dumpsite is a rather old, high-risk facility, with large amount of waste accumulated, with sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including a canal (type is unknown) and agricultural lands.Note: the activity should be classified as A if the canal is used for drinking water supply.

As the new dumpsite borders a barren area it is technically feasible to use the dumpsite and its extension for construct the sanitary landfill. This would help to lessen impacts on local farmers.The old dumpsite cannot be extended.

High(for the old dumpsite)

Negligible(for the newly constructed dumpsite)

Total: High

The Arablar site comprises two elements: i) an old (since 2013) operational 6.5 ha dumpsite, and ii) a new 6.5-ha dumpsite constructed as part of the state programme for renovation of dumpsites.The old dumpsite is uncontrolled (it is even not fenced); it accumulates large amounts of waste.The new dumpsite is fenced and has some other elements of the landfill infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a truck scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, welfare building, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation, a water well.At present the new dumpsite is not operational as at the entrance to the site there is a sandy area where heavy waste trucks get stuck.The old dumpsite is still used for waste disposal. There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil. 0.5 m level of waste is accumulated. The waste disposal area is littered; smells and dust emissions were detected.The distance between old and new sites - 1.3-1.5 кm.Within the 500-m buffer zone of the dumpsites there are: i) a large canal (either a large irrigation canal or a canal for drinking water supply – the status needs to be verified) in 60 m from the old dumpsite and 110 m from the new dumpsite; ii) agricultural lands (fields) in the immediate site vicinity (in 20 m).There is a brick plant within the buffer of the site,The new dumpsite borders fields and a barren area.No residential areas are observed within buffer zones of both dumpsites; the nearest settlements are in 1.5 km from the old dumpsite and in 1.6 km from the new dumpsite.NB: the local agricultural practice is rotation of rice, cotton and wheat; therefore, the same allotments are used both for cultivating technical and crops and cereals in the long run.There is no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The facility (old dumpsite) has visual effects as it is and well-seen from the nearest motor road.

KhR-1.2

Gurlen District Dumpsite – Chinabad

Gurlen District, Sholikor Rural Settlement, Chinabad Borough

3.6 Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

957.6 1596.1 B The existing operational dumpsite is a rather old, high-risk facility, with large amount of waste accumulated, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including an irrigation canal and fields.The site is in ca. 1.7 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.

High The existing operational dumpsite is equipped with a fence and some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, car wash, a truck scales, a welfare building, WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation.Another OHL crosses the dumpsite; the onsite fire may damage the wooden pillars and result in power cut-offs.MSW is disposed at the dumpsite. There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil. However, waste is periodically moved and compacted by bulldozer (present on site), and, in the process partly covered with soil. The waste disposal area is littered.There is an evidence of on-site waste separation (plastic bags with sorted waste were observed on site).Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) an irrigation canal (in 8-10 m from the dumpsite); ii) agricultural lands (fields) in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite; iii) residential areas in 450 m from the dumpsite.NB: the local agricultural practice is rotation of rice, cotton and wheat; therefore, the same allotments are used both for cultivating technical and crops and cereals in the long run.

55OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9There is no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The facility has no visual effects in the absence of receptors nearby.The site is in ca. 1.7 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.

KhR-1.3

Shavat District Dumpsite – Khurriyat

Shavat District, Khurriyat Rural Settlement

7.1

Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

1888.7 3147.8 B

The existing operational dumpsite is relatively new, small, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including an irrigation canal and agricultural lands in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite.

High

This is relatively new (in operation since 2016) 7.1-ha dumpsite comprising three cells. In total, ca. 50% of its design capacity is available for waste disposal; Cell 1 is fully filled with waste, Cell 2 and Cell 3 are used for waste disposal. The dumpsite is supposed to be full in 2-3 years.The site is fenced and equipped with elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a welfare building and a WC. At the time of the site visit it was not connected to power grid.Another OHL crosses the dumpsite; the onsite fire may damage the wooden pillars and result in power cut-offs.The average height of waste piles within the waste disposal area is up to 3 m. MSW and manure is disposed.The practice of creating intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste is not in place. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil.Reportedly only MSW is disposed at the site but other types of waste were also observed e.g. pharmaceuticals.There are no signs of spontaneous combustion and smouldering within the waste disposal area.Evidence of on -site waste separation was not observed.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) agricultural lands (fields) in 10 m from the dumpsite; ii) an irrigation canal in 5 m from the dumpsite. No residential buildings are within the buffer, the nearest settlement is in 800 m from the dumpsite.

KhR-1.4

Yangibazar District Dumpsite – Zhaikhun

Yangibazar District, Bashkirshikh Rural Settlement. Zhaikhun Borough

5 Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

1330.1 2216.8 B The existing operational dumpsite is an old, high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including an irrigation canal and agricultural lands in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite.

High Note: The site was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2 but it was visited during the site tour.This is relatively old (in operation since 2013) 5-ha dumpsite comprising 1 cell.The facility includes an old 1.3-ha dumpsite filled with waste and currently not operational, and a new 5-ha dumpsite (that has been used for the last three months).The dumpsite is partly fenced; it is equipped with some elements of the necessary infrastructure such as a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a welfare building, and WC with cesspit. The site is connected to the power grid. Another OHL crosses the dumpsite; the onsite fire may damage the wooden pillars and result in power cut-offs.The average height of waste piles within the waste disposal area is 2 m.Reportedly MSW is disposed at the site but other types of waste were also observed e.g. pharmaceuticals, waste tires, scrap metal.The dumpsite surroundings are littered with waste – small unauthorized damps were observed.The practice of creating intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste is not in place. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil.There are no signs of spontaneous combustion and smoldering within the waste disposal area.Odour nuisance was detected by it was not treated as significant.Large number of birds were observed on site.Evidence of on -site waste separation was not observed.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) agricultural lands (fields) in 10-15 m from the dumpsite; ii) an irrigation canal fed by the Amu Darya River (in 250 m from the

56OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9dumpsite); iii) a pond in 15-20 m from the dumpsite. No residential buildings are within the buffer, the nearest housing is in 850 m from the dumpsite. In addition, there is a farmhouse in ca. 500 m from the dumpsite (reportedly, this is an authorized construction).When fencing of the new dumpsite a stripe of saksaul, a protected plant species and valuable biological resource in the area was affected.

KhR-1.5

Khiva District Dumpsite - Dashek-Karakum

Khiva District, Dashek-Karakum Rural Settlement

14.9

Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

3963.5 6605.9 B

The existing operational dumpsite is an old, medium to high-risk facility, with large amount of waste accumulated, with a number of sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including an irrigation canal and agricultural lands.

Medium to High

This is an old (in operation since 2008), large (15-ha) dumpsite with large amount of waste accumulated.The site is fenced (which is partly damaged); there is a welfare building and a WC with cesspit. The dumpsite is connected to power grid. It is serviced by a dump truck.The average height of waste piles within the waste disposal area is 1-2 meters. There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil and partly compacted and covered with soil on the top.The general housekeeping is satisfactory: spontaneous combustion spots and smouldering were not observed, odour nuisance is not detected; intermale roads are present and kept.On-site waste separation is practiced.The dumpsite vicinity is littered with waste. There are a lot of birds (rooks) present om site.The site is featured by very shallow groundwater table; there is an on-site ditch filled with groundwater.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) agricultural lands (fields) in 300-350 m from the dumpsite;ii) an irrigation canal – in 15-20 m from the dumpsite.No residential buildings are within the buffer; the nearest residential housing is in 750 m from the dumpsite.

Provisional Territory 2

KhR-2.1

Bagat District Dumpsite – Besharyk

Bagat District, Besharyk Rural Settlement

1.0 Scenario 3There is an old operational 1ha dumpsite; it is planned to construct a sanitary landfill with a total area of 15 ha at the extension of the existing dumpsite..

[Note: there is an alternative which envisions construction of the sanitary landfill at a new location (ca. 20 km from the operational dumpsite; the site selection process is ongoing).According to Deputy Head of the District

620.7 709.4 B The existing operational dumpsite is a rather old, high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including residential housing, water reservoirs and streams, an irrigation canal, rice fields.

The site is supposed to be used for dumping animal carcasses which results in additional OHS, public health risks related to its remediation.

Transboundary issues (the dumpsite is in 6 km from the state border with Turkmenistan; watercourses within the buffer zone flow towards the border)

High The existing operational dumpsite is equipped with a fence and some elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a truck scales (not operational), a WC with cesspit, electricity supply equipment (an OHL and a package transformer substation.Waste separation is not carried out, mixed waste is disposed on site.There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.In 25 m from the dumpsite there is an incinerator for animal carcasses; this is considered as an indirect evidence that unburnt animal carcasses could potentially be brought to the site. This gives rise to a risk of contaminating soil and surface waters with corpse matter and resulting epidemiological risks.The capacity of the dumpsite is almost expired; the height of waste piles is ca. 5 m. The immediate site vicinity is littered (there are unauthorized waste dumps outside the fence).Piles of burnt waste were observed at the dumpsite; it is not clear if this waste self-ignited or was burnt by dumpsite workers).Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) ponds that are planned to be used for fishery (in 250 m); ii) a natural watercourse flowing into another watercourse (there is a system of water courses and lakes; the direction of surface water flow is towards the state border with Turkmenistan; iii) agricultural lands (rice fields) with a network of irrigation canals in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite; iv) collection drains (in 5 and 70 m from the dumpsite), v) a farmer’s summerhouse (unauthorized construction) in 300 m from the dumpsite; the nearest residential areas are in 1.5 km from the site.

57OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

Administration both scenarios are under consideration]

NB: the local agricultural practice is rotation of rice, cotton and wheat; therefore, the same allotments are used both for cultivating technical and crops and cereals in the long run.The dumpsite is in ca. 6 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.There is no data on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater.The facility has visual effects as it is located just 60-80 from a motor road and well-seen from it.

KhR-2.2

Khanka District Dumpsite – Amudarya

Khanka District, Amudarya Rural Settlement

5

Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

1330.1 2216.8 B

The existing operational dumpsite is an old, high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including an irrigation canal, natural watercourse. and agricultural lands.

High

This is an old (in operation since 1990) 5-ha dumpsite with medium amount of waste accumulate. The site is fenced and equipped with elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, wastewater collection and diversion facilities, a welfare building and a WC, a water well (for technical needs). The site is connected to power grid.Another OHL crosses the dumpsite; the on-site fire may damage the wooden pillars and result in power cutoffs.The average height of waste piles within the waste deposal area is 3-6 meters. There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil.Reportedly only MSW is disposed at the site but other types of waste were also observed e.g. pharmaceuticals.The waste disposal area is littered; there are signs of spontaneous combustion, and disposal of manure and cesspit sludge; odour nuisance related to these types of waste is detected.On-site waste separation is practiced.There were a lot of birds and animals (stray dogs) present on site during the visit.Within the 500-m buffer zone (the 300 m sanitary protection zone is established for this particular facility site is defined in the passport) buffer zone there are: i) agricultural lands (fields) in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite (in 10 m); ii) an irrigation canal – in 8-10 m from the dumpsite; iii) a watercourse reportedly used for fishing (in 15-20 m). No residential buildings are within the buffer; the nearest settlement is in 2.3 km from the dumpsite.The waste is dumped outside the dumpsite territory as well, along the irrigation canal. The spots of burnt waste were observed in the surrounding area.

2.3 Yangiaryk District Dumpsite – Ostona

Yangiaryk District, Ostona Rural Settlement

2 Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

532.0 886.7 В The existing operational dumpsite is an old, high-risk facility, with many sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including an irrigation canal and agricultural lands in the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite.

Medium Note: The site was not included into the list of facilities to be visited during Mission 2 but it was visited during the site tour.This is relatively old (in operation since 2014) 2-ha dumpsite comprising 1 cell. In total, 10-15% of waste disposal area is filled with waste.The site is fenced and equipped with elements of necessary infrastructure such as a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, a water well, a welfare building.The dumpsite is currently not connected to the power grid although OHL is present in the vicinity, and an electrical substation is installed.The average height of waste piles within the waste disposal area is up to 3 m.Reportedly only MSW is disposed at the site but other types of waste were also observed e.g. pharmaceuticals.The practice of creating intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste is not in place. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil.There are no signs of spontaneous combustion and smouldering within the waste disposal area.Odour nuisance was detected by it was not treated as significant.Large number of birds were observed on site.

58OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.1. Categorisation of Project Components and E&S Risk Evaluation of Existing Facilities

# Facility name Facility location

Area, hа

Conceptual design solutions

Expected costs, thous. EUR

Categorization of a Project component as per the EBRD requirements E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

from to Category Justification Risk class Justification

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9Evidence of on -site waste separations was not observed.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) agricultural lands (fields) in 50 m from the dumpsite; ii) a collection drain in 15-20 m from the dumpsite. No residential buildings are within the buffer, the nearest housing (a farmer’s house) is in 550 m from the dumpsite.Distance to the state border with Turkmenistan is 8.5 km.

KhR-2.4

Khazarasp District Dumpsite – Chorvador

Khazarasp District, Chorvador Rural Settlement

2.1

Scenario 1

closure of the existing operational dumpsite

558.6 931.0 B

The existing operational dumpsite is a relatively new medium-risk facility, with few sensitive receptors in the buffer zone including agricultural lands and natural watercourses.The site is in ca. 5 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.There is an old 1.2-ha dumpsite at a 100-m distance from the operational one..

Medium

This is a new (in operation since 2017) 2.1-ha dumpsite with relatively small amount of waste accumulated. The site is fenced and equipped with elements of necessary infrastructure: a pit for disinfection of truck wheels, an welfare building and a WC, a water well (for technical needs). The site is connected to power grid.Another OHL crosses the dumpsite; the onsite fire may damage the wooden pillars and result in power cut-offs.The average height of waste piles within the waste deposal area is 3-5 meters. The waste disposal area is divided into four cells; that are filled consequently.The practice of creating intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste is not in place. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil.There are no signs of spontaneous combustion and smouldering within the waste disposal area; odour nuisance is not detected.On-site waste separation is practiced.There were a lot of birds present on site during the visit; human visitors were not observed.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are: i) agricultural lands (fields) in 180 m from the dumpsite; ii) a natural watercourse (in 120 m). No residential buildings are within the buffer; the nearest settlement is in ca. 6 km from the dumpsite.The site is in ca. 5 km from the state border with Turkmenistan.There is an old 1.2-ha dumpsite at a 100m distance from the operational site with 0.5-1m height piles of waste partly covered with soil.

59OFFICIAL USE

OFFICIAL USE

Table A3.2. E&S Risk Evaluation of Facilities Managed by Private Companies Visited During Mission 2

# Facility name Facility operator Facility location Area, hа12

E&S risk evaluation of an existing facility

Risk class Justification

1 2 3 4 5 9

1 Roodell Recovery Ltd’s old dumpsite

Roodell Recovery Ltd

Nukus City,Bestobe Rural Settlement

50

High (due to large amount of waste accumulated at the dumpsites and no appropriate remediation)

Note: the dumpsite is part of a MSW treatment cluster managed by Roodell Recovery Ltd. Ecoline experts did not visit the production site of the cluster and the Roodell Recovery Ltd.’s operational dumpsite for disposal of waste residues; only the old non-operational dumpsite was visited. In addition, they interviewed director of the enterprise.The MSW treatment cluster operations include waste separation into three streams (plastic waste, organic waste, and mixed waste) and treatment of sorted paper waste, organic waste including wool, and construction waste. Non-recyclable waste residues are disposed at their own dumpsite.The plant is equipped with modern technologies for waste sorting, recycling, production of finished goods. During site visit the production facilities did not operate due to reconstruction of sorting equipment.The total area of the existing facility (a cluster for waste sorting and treatment) is 75.3 ha, including 5.3 ha production site with waste sorting and treatment lines, a 50 ha old non-operational dumpsite; a 10 ha dumpsite specially allocated for disposal of cluster’s waste residues. The enterprise is seeking to acquire another 10ha site for disposal of waste residues (the site selection is ongoing; a site in 10-15 km east from the airport is under consideration).The 10-ha cluster’s dumpsite lies close the production site (information on its exact location was not provided).Ecoline experts visited the 50-ha non-operational landfill located in 15 km from the Roodell Recovery’s production site.The area is not fenced. Disposed waste is covered with soil and left at it was; no appropriate dumpsite remediation measures were undertaken. Reportedly there were no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there was no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.There are no sensitive receptors (residential areas, irrigation canals, agricultural lands) within the 500-m buffer zone of the old dumpsite.There is no documented information on local geological conditions, chemical composition of groundwater and surface waters in the site’s vicinity; in the absence of low-permeable barriers leachate is assumed to contaminate surface waters and potentially groundwater. As reported by Roodell Recovery’s representative groundwater table is at a depth of 10-15 m.The 50-ha dumpsite is ca. 1 km from the motor road.

2A dumpsite operated by Nokis Tazalik Trans Ltd

Nokis Tazalik Trans Ltd

Nukus City,Bestobe Rural Settlement

10High (extremely high)

On the way to Roodell Recovery Ltd.’s cluster Ecoline’s experts noticed a dumpsite next to the motor road in extremely poor condition. They visited the site and defined its geo-location.This is a 10-ha dumpsite, not fenced (there is only an auto barrier blocking the access road) and not equipped with any of the elements of infrastructure.There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed; there is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil.Mixed waste is disposed on site: the incoming waste includes inter alia medical waste (spent pharmaceuticals), used mercury lamps, and asbestos-containing materials (slates).Within the 500-m buffer zone there are no sensitive receptors: residential houses, irrigation canals, and agricultural lands.This facility was the most hazardous among those visited during the site tour across the Republic of Karakalpakstan.

3Urganch Avto Eko Trans Ltd’s dumpsitesite

Urganch Avto Eko Trans Ltd

Urgench District, Goyby Rural Settlement

15High (extremely high!)

The dumpsite currently serves Urgench City and the Urgench District. This is a very old (in operation since 1982!), large (15-ha) dumpsite whose capacity is almost expired. There is a fence and few other elements of landfill infrastructure (truck scales, electrical substation and OHL).There are no landfill cells and intermediate layers of soil covering layers of waste disposed. There is no barrier between accumulated waste and soil: waste is disposed on soil and partly covered with soil on the top.Two spontaneous combustion spots and numerous smouldering spots were observed. Odour nuisance is detected in the site vicinity.The dumpsite is located in the Urgench City outskirts (850 m from the nearest urban area). The nearest residential buildings are in 750 m from the dumpsite. Local residents reportedly complained about smoke from the dumpsite.Within the 500-m buffer zone there are:i) ponds (next to the site boundary and in 70 m from the dumpsite;ii) agricultural lands used crop raising and irrigation channels – in 100 m from the dumpsite.The facility does not have visual effects as it is not visible by sensitive recipients.Unauthorized waste separation is practiced on site; people involved in waste sorting live on the dumpsite and in the city. Children are also involved in these activities. There are high child-and forced labour concerns related to facility operationsThis facility was the most hazardous among those visited during the site tour across the Khorezm Region.

12 According to information provided by GosKomEcologiya.60

OFFICIAL USE