Transcript Towards good environmental governance in eap

Anna Golubovska-Onisimova,
UNENGO MAMA-86
European Integration Index presentation
Chisinau, 21 November 2012
• 2001 EaP SCF WG3 Report of 14 expert of 6 EaP countries
• Assessed 7 areas: 1) Strenghtening cooperation with EU 2)
Strengthening administrative structures and procedures 3)
Developing strategies, plans and programmes 4) Ensuring
environmental policy integration (promoting SD) 5)
Strenghtening structure and procedures to conduct EIA 6)
Improving access to info and PP 7) Cooperation on SEIS
• Based on WWF IPO methodology for ENP Action Plans
assessment(2008-2009)
• Discussed by expert groups and WG3 during 2 meetings
• Presented in March 2012 in Kyiv using skype technology
• Sent to all EaP countries EU delegations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
48,8% - 4
58,2% - 1
35,4% - 5
21,3% - 6
56,7% - 2
50,7% - 3
External incentives continue to be the major drive for reforms
where the EU is the number one. Complimentary information
is provided by EII.
• 2011-2012, 8 experts of 6 EaP countries
• Sector specific assessment. Questions covered 1)
environmental policy (incl MEAs) 2) sustainable
development policy 3) resource efficiency 4) Climate
change 5) pressure to/ state of environment 6) sustainable
development and trade
• Helped to make a link between policy and state of
environment/ resource efficiency
• Good exercise to integrate environment and sustainable
development into multitopic CSO research
•
•
•
•
Priorities of ENP SD&environmental objectives
Basic requirements of SD Summits
Key prerequisite of obligatory EPI
Eastern Partnership Flagship initiative on good
governance (admin. str., SEIS, MEAs –AC, Espoo)
• Key elements of AA (FTA, SBS in Environment)
• The data should be available in each of 6
country
• Major environmental performance indicators
TOTAL
Environmental policy
0,61 0,76 0,53 0,56 0,61 0,53
UA
MD
BY
GE
1,00
0,70
0,50
0,00
0,80 0,10
1,00
0,70
0,00
0,80
0,90 0,50
0,70
0,10
0,50
0,50
0,80 0,00
0,90
0,80
0,68
0,60
0,70 0,60
ESPOO
Aarhus
Kyoto Protocol
0,00
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,50
0,00
1,00
n/a
1,00
1,00
0,00
0,00
1,00
MEAs Implementation plans and Annual Reports Yes/No
0,50
1,00
0,70
0,70
1,00 0,00
Strategy and Action plan on National environmental policy. Is
it adopted by the Parliament/ Government? Yes/ No
Environmental policy integration. Is it demanded by National
legislation? Yes/ No
Action Plan on joining Shared Environmental Information
System (EEA). Is it adopted by the Government?
Yes/No/Under preparation
Which regional and global Environmental Conventions and
Protocols your country signed, ratified and accessed?
Established facts of non-compliance with main conventions
and protocols with compliance mechanism
AR
AZ
1,00
1,00
1,00
• Moldova is leading on EPI, thus on topic
• Ukraine recently adopted new Env Strategy and
NEAP as required by Association Agenda
• But – 3 non-compliance in 2011, one withdrawn
• Armenia is the only country ratified SEA
• Georgia adopted 2nd generation of NEAP
• MEAs: Ukraine is leading in number, but behind in
reporting and compliance (active public
phenomena)
Sustainable development policy
UA
MD
BY
GE
AR
AZ
Has a National Strategy of Sustainable Development been
adopted and implemented? Yes/No/Under preparation
0,00 0,70 0,00
0,00 0,50 0,50
Is there an institutional mechanism for sustainable
development policy coordination? Yes/No/Under
preparation
0,30 0,70 0,00
0,50 0,70 0,50
Has a policy of sustainable consumption and production
(under 10 Year Framework of Programmes) been adopted? 0,50 0,70 0,30
Yes/No/Under preparation
0,30 0,50 0,00
SD and Trade
UA
MD
BY
GE
AR
AZ
Membership in ILO conventions Number
1,00 0,50 0,60
0,20 0,30 0,80
Is there an EU-compatible mechanism for prevention of
illegal unreported and unofficial fishery? Yes/ No
0,50 1,00 0,00
0,00 0,00 0,00
Control of legality of trade in forestry Yes/ No
1,00
0,00 1,00 0,50
1,00
• No NSDS, except Armenia (recently ratified
programme)
• NSDC are not functional (except Armenia),
though are established in majority
• 10-years SCP policy framework is planned
• Ukraine ratified 69 ILO Conventions, 60 are in
force, Moldova – 42 and 40
• Only Moldova adopted law against illegal fishery
• Control of legal trade in forestry is a bit better
Climate change
UA
MD
BY
GE
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,00 0,00
0,00
0,50
0,30
1,00
1,00 0,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00 1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00 1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00 1,00
Development of policy framework: National framework
policy (Strategy, Doctrine) on Climate change is
0,30
adopted? Yes/No
0,10
0,50
0,10
0,00 1,00
Compliance with international commitments in the
context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change and Kyoto Protocol
National Actions Plan on climate change mitigation:
Yes/No
National Actions Plan on climate change adaptation:
Yes/No
Are National Communications being sent regularly?
Yes/No.
Was the most recent sent to FCCC Secretariat in 20092010?
Was it approved by the Convention secretariat? Yes/No
AR
AZ
Resource efficiency, pressure to/ state of
environment
Resources efficiency
0,32 0,55 0,74 0,59 0,50 0,49
UA
MD
BY
GE
Water Exploitation Index (water withdrawal as percent of 0,52
annual long-term water resources) % (EU-27: 13,2)
15,6
0,78
8,6
1,00
2,8
0,92
4,9
0,00 0,01
29,3 29
Waste intensity: generation of industrial, hazardous
waste (total per year), kg/GDP unit (mln USD)
0,00
1,00
0,68
0,92
0,95
Waste intensity: municipal waste (total per year), kg/per
capita
0,17
0,17 0,50 1,00 0,92 0,00
Share of municipal waste recycled: in %
0,54
5-8
0,08
1
(EU-27: 22,6)
1,00
12
0,00
0
AR
AZ
?
0,03 0,00
0,4
0
Pressure to/ state of environment
Ratio between GHG emission reduction during last
reporting period and the reduction potential
UA
?
MD
BY
GE
AR
AZ
0,90 1,00 0,00 0,21 0,24
Share of non-treated waste waters in annual waste waters
discharge %
0,82 0,70
Per capita SO2 emissions, kg
0,00 0,93 0,57 0,92 0,81 1,00
Per capita, NOx emmissions, kg
0,00 0,69 0,11 0,80 0,89 1,00
Share of forest area, % (EU-27: 33%)
Share of nature protected area, % (EU-27: 17%)
Eroded soil, share of territory, % (EU-27: 17%)
Pesticides input, kg/ha
(EU-27: 3)
1,00
0,00
0,42
0,94
1,10
43,9
0,25 0,00 1,00
0,96 0,00 0,03
17,6 10
41
0,24 0,00
0,88 1,00
0,58 0,46
5,7 4,3
9,5 10,2
0,00 0,82 1,001
0,64 0,36 0,55
57,5 26 19,3
1,00 0,51 0,48
0,00 0,99 0,67
0,5-1 2,79 4,9
• 12 indicators shown: Belarus has the best
environmental situation, followed by Gerogia
and Moldova, and Ukraine – the worst
• The result correlates with Yale University
Environmental Performance Index
• Total annual volume of municipal waste p. c. is
still lower than in EU-27 (< consumption)
• Soil erosion is very high, Ukraine is leading
• Natural protected areas are too small
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
UA
MD
BY
GE
AR
AZ
0,47 0,66 0,64 0,57 0,56 0,51
Despite some success in policy elaboration and international
cooperation, all EaP countries lag behind in resource efficiency, and
state of/ impact to environment (environmental performance).
Ukraine as the biggest country in Europe in territory inherited heavy
environemntal consequences from USSR (heavy industry and
conventional agriculture). One of the reason to explain the largest
gap among EaP countries between modern environemntal policy
and modest so far success in its implementation.
• The latest public administration reforms weaken
administrative structures and procedures (10218)
• Strategic planning (and reporting) was improved in
advanced AA negotiating countries (SBS indicators)
• Environmental policy integration is generally not backed
up with legislation (SEA Pr – Armenia)
• Deregulation leads to elimination of EIA procedure
(fracking)
• Mechanisms and procedures for PP are absent
• SEIS potential for improving the quality of information for
EDM could be used better (env. data collection – EaP
Roadmap)
Thank you!
ДЯКУЮ
ЗА
УВАГУ!
[email protected]