The amount of infrastructure destruction in Ukraine as a result of the Russian invasion exceeds 100 billion dollars. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The largest share of destruction is residential buildings. In addition, nearly one and a half thousand health institutions were damaged and nearly two hundred health institutions were destroyed.

Nearly three and a half thousand educational institutions were damaged and 365 of them were destroyed. Some of the destroyed and damaged institutions and buildings were restored. But the destruction is tons of construction debris. As world experience shows, it can be reused. However, this is not currently the case for us. Therefore, Ukraine faces the important task of developing effective approaches to the processing and reuse of construction waste, notes the Vox Ukraine expert.

SCALE OF THE PROBLEM

As a result of the massive destruction of infrastructure during the war, Ukraine faced a serious problem in the disposal and use of construction waste. According to experts’ estimates, about 10-12 million tons of such waste have already been accumulated in the country, and their volume is increasing day by day. Spontaneous accumulation and uncontrolled storage of hazardous substances (especially containing asbestos) in temporary storage areas create extreme environmental risks. The main threats include contamination of groundwater and soil with toxic leachate, dust pollution of atmospheric air with hazardous substances, complications of the sanitary-epidemiological situation.

Despite the unprecedented scale of the challenges, this situation opens a unique window of opportunity for a “reboot” of approaches to waste management and the deployment of a large-scale circular (circular) economy in Ukraine.

In particular, improving the system of collection, classification and processing of construction waste can give a strong impetus to the formation of the internal market for secondary materials. It also opens up opportunities to launch large-scale projects to restore destroyed infrastructure based on the principles of circularity and eco-design.

CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING NEW APPROACHES

To realize the unique chance to apply the principles of circularity, it is necessary to systematically overcome a number of deep challenges that prevent the establishment of an effective model for handling construction debris generated as a result of hostile attacks by missiles, mines and aircraft. drones:

1. Lack of infrastructure and technology. In fact, Ukraine lacks a developed private infrastructure and advanced technologies for the collection, classification, transportation, storage, processing and disposal of complex flows of construction waste. Many communities solve the problem of disposing of construction waste by taking it to landfills.
2. Weaknesses in regulation and standardization. The current legal framework contains significant gaps in comprehensive regulations regarding recycling and construction waste management. There are no quality and safety standards for building materials from secondary raw materials.
3. Weak economic incentives. Effective financial and economic mechanisms have not been established to promote the collection, classification and secondary processing of construction waste. The cost of disposal of construction waste remains low, which makes its processing unprofitable.
4. Unresolved social aspects. There is an urgent need to conduct comprehensive information and clarification campaigns for the public and businesses about waste management culture.

LEGISLATIVE REGULATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Classification and accounting of waste in Ukraine is regulated by two main legal acts: the Waste Management Law, which came into force in July 2023, and the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of Ukraine 1073 – the procedure for processing waste from disposal. The Waste Law is a framework and defines the general principles of waste management, including construction and demolition waste. The law stipulates that construction waste must be made ready for reuse and recycling. It also sets a target to recycle at least 10% of the mass of such waste by 2025. Regulation No. 1073 contains classification and accounting requirements for waste, including requirements for waste treatment, terminals, landfills and reuse of waste in construction.

Currently, the most realistic scenario in Ukraine is the local processing of construction waste for road paving and backfilling, as logistics costs override the economic feasibility of transporting and disposing of construction waste in other regions. Moreover, high-tech processing of new concrete requires input raw materials of the highest quality, free of impurities.

At the same time, during reconstruction, it is important to avoid excessive demolition of damaged buildings, except in case of emergency; because the construction of new objects will lead to higher CO2 emissions than the revitalization of old ones. Therefore, it is extremely important to encourage the reuse of existing structures.

PRICE FACTORS IN REUSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

It is necessary to pay attention not only to the cost of disposal of construction waste (end of the product life cycle), but also to the cost of using secondary materials in production, that is, at the beginning of the cycle. Unfortunately, secondary materials are currently not competitive in Ukraine due to the low cost of raw materials (crushed stone, sand, etc.).

Today, primary construction materials in Ukraine are much cheaper than secondary construction materials due to low rental rates for mineral extraction. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the pricing of natural resources and ensure the competitiveness of recycled materials in the market. Only a comprehensive approach to stimulating the circular economy will enable us to achieve green reconstruction goals.

WHAT CAN BE TAKEN FROM GLOBAL EXPERIENCE?

International experience in managing construction waste varies from country to country, but some common approaches and best practices can be identified.

Many countries are focusing on the reuse and recycling of construction waste. For example, in the European Union as recently as 2018, 88% of construction waste was processed in order to reduce the volume of landfills and preserve natural resources (this waste was used to equip sports fields, create walls to reduce noise, strengthen river banks, artificial stone, etc.). manufacturing). Depending on the country, the type of scrap and the location of the landfill, the cost of taking 1 ton of construction waste to landfill varies between 4 and 150 euros. The cost of disposal in Ukraine is on average 90 UAH/m3 (about 2 Euros per ton).

Developed countries often have strict rules and regulations regarding the management of construction waste, including requirements for segregation, accounting and safe disposal. For example, the export of recyclable construction waste is prohibited in the Netherlands. 22 million tons of construction waste is processed in this country every year. In some states in the USA, it becomes mandatory to dispose of at least half of the waste during the construction of buildings with an area of ​​over 500 square meters.

In some countries, there are economic incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies that encourage companies to use recycled materials and reduce waste, or additional taxes on the use of non-recycled materials. For example, in Great Britain the tax on the use of natural aggregates (sand, gravel, rock) is 1.6 pounds per tonne.

There are also examples of creative waste management. In Poland, for example, construction waste from the destruction of Warsaw in World War II was used to create artificial hills and reinforce the Vistula river near the Warsaw Gdańsk railway station.

A NEW UKRAINE EXPERIENCE

Separate pilot projects are currently being implemented in Ukraine with the participation of international partners. In particular, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provided equipment for crushing and sorting construction waste in the Kiev region. Additionally, the region plans to install a stationary construction waste processing line in Borodyanka and two mobile lines in other settlements. This type of cooperation should be further developed.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

We offer the following basic recommendations for finding a systematic solution to the stated challenges, as well as for successful use of the open “window of opportunity”:

1. Launch of pilot projects for local processing and disposal of “military” construction waste based on best European practices.
2. Development and adoption of a number of legal acts regulating the management of construction and repair waste in conditions of reconstruction. It is necessary to ensure the separation of hazardous substances such as asbestos, which requires the development of special methods and requirements for their use.
3. Establishment of national standards on the quality and safety of construction materials and structures made of secondary raw materials. There is a need for a normative document that will oblige the use of recycled building materials in reconstruction.
4. Keeping clear records and statistics on the treatment of construction waste, allowing the effectiveness of measures to be evaluated and further steps to be planned.
5. Introducing a system of tax, customs and credit incentives for the use of recycled materials in construction and industry.
6. Increasing environmental taxes and lease payments and CO2 emissions for the extraction of primary resources to stimulate demand for alternative secondary raw materials.
7. Launch of a broad information campaign for the public and businesses about the safe handling of construction waste and the benefits of renewable construction.
8. Active participation of international technical assistance and grants for the development of the latest infrastructure for the separation, processing and disposal of complex waste in Ukraine.
9. Support for new initiatives, scientific research and innovations in the field of developing recycling technologies and creating new ecological materials.

These changes will make it possible to create an effective construction waste processing system in Ukraine, which will help reduce the burden on the environment and use resources more efficiently.

In conditions of limited resources and investment opportunities, the main task of implementing such a strategy should be to attract strong international support in the form of financing, technology transfer, training of specialists and joint pilot projects with leading EU countries.

In-depth cooperation is essential, especially with Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden, which are leaders in the field of innovative recycling technologies, eco-design and circular economy. Wide-scale implementation of best practices will reduce the time and cost of transforming the construction waste management system in Ukraine to the European level.

Therefore, despite the huge volumes of accumulated construction waste, their successful disposal and use based on progressive European approaches creates unique opportunities for the rapid reform of the Ukrainian waste management model and the formation of a strong circular economy with high added value. Implementation of such an ambitious task requires international expert support and investment, balanced state policy, active participation of business and the consolidation of a new environmental culture in society.

The material is based on the speech of Iryna Kosse and Roman Puchko on the use of construction waste during the presentation Monitoring of Reconstruction and Restoration within the project “Controlling Restoration Costs”.

The column was prepared within the framework of the “Control of recovery costs” project carried out by the Center for Economic Strategy, Economic Research and Policy Advisory and the Institute of Advanced Technologies, with the support of the European Union.

Writers:

Iryna KosseOne of the leading researchers at the Institute for Economic Research and Political Consultancy

Vox Ukraine

VoxUkraine – an analytical center that studies the development of the economy, state administration, social and reform processes.

* The author’s perspective may not coincide with the agency’s position