Assessing Implementation of the EECCA Environmental Partnership Strategy – A Baseline Report PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The EECCA Environment Partnerships Strategy In May of 2003, the Ministers of Environment of the UNECE region met in Kiev to discuss progress and next steps of the ‘Environment for Europe’ process. One of the main outcomes of the Kiev Conference was the adoption of the EECCA Environment Partnership Strategy.The overall objective of the EECCA Strategy is to contribute to improving environmental conditions and to implementing WSSD Plan of Implementation in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia. The Strategy provides a strategic framework for strengthening efforts of EECCA countries in environmental protection and facilitating partnership and cooperation between EECCA countries and other countries of the UNECE region, including all stakeholders. The vision put forward by the EECCA Strategy is one of capable institutions that, in collaboration with partners, address priority problems of environmental health and natural resources management by promoting integration in key sectors, investing in environmental protection, and involving the public in environmental management, and where transboundary issues are dealt with in the framework of multilateral environmental agreements.^ The Baseline Report The aim of this report is to provide an initial assessment of the current state of affairs in relation to the seven objectives of the EECCA Environment Partnership Strategy. The intention is that, in so doing, the report will provide succinct but helpful background information to allow the different Strategy partners to agree on a baseline – an indispensable first step to be able to assess progress in implementation of the Strategy. It is expected that this Baseline Report will be followed by a Progress Assessment report in 2007, in time for the Belgrade “Environment for Europe”Ministerial. The Strategy itself does not contain targets, but progress can be measured by comparison with the baseline and in relation to internationally-agreed targets.The approach of this report is not to generate new data – as extensive data was generated in the run-up to Kiev – but rather to mobilize existing information. The report presents information from widely circulated reports, such as EEA’s Third Assessment, but also information coming form reports with limited circulation, buried in databases, or that has never been written down but is nevertheless known to the experts consulted. The value added of this report is also expected to reside in its scope and brevity. This is the first report dealing with the seven objectives of the EECCA Strategy in a comprehensive manner. Brevity means that, while attempting to be an indicator-based report, only a limited set of headline indicators has been put forward. The structure of this report follows essentially that of the EECCA Environment Partnership Strategy itself. Part I introduces the report and offers an overview of the information presented in part II. Part II of the report is divided in seven different sections, as to provide a summarized analysis of the state of the region as pertains to the seven objectives put forward in the strategy. A reduced number of headline indicators is presented to illustrate numerically the state of the different areas of work under each Strategy objective. A brief reference is made to the organizations designated by the Ministers as facilitators of the implementation of the different objectives, as well as to the main sources consulted.The report has several limitations. Treatment of the different sections is uneven – all the topics are not equally well covered in the sources consulted. Availability of data in EECCA countries to construct a good set of headline indicators is limited – this is further detailed in the different sections and in the section on information management. A note of caution on analysing the information provided by the indicators is warranted. The intention is not to compare countries, but rather to establish a baseline so progress for each country can be assessed in 2007. EECCA countries are far from homogeneous and each country needs to develop its own targets for the different areas of work covered under the Strategy.The report has been prepared by the Secretariat of the EAP Task Force at OECD. Several organizations have produced specific inputs or made their experts available for consultation – those include EEA, UNECE, UNEP, WHO, REC-Russia, CAREC and ECO-Forum. The participants at the Workshop on Environmental Priorities in EECCA, held in June 2004 in Almaty, provided also useful comments to an early outline. ^ Environment and environmental management in EECCA: the context So where is EECCA? In a nutshell, the Soviet legacy is still very present in the region. The transition – both the 1990s crisis and recent growth – has complicated the environmental agenda, environment is low on the political agenda, and weak institutions fail to have much implementation impact. The next section will highlight what is the current environmental situation in the EECCA countries under each Strategy objective. Before that, we present the broader context on which the EECCA countries find themselves at the outset of implementation of the EECCA Strategy.^ EECCA’S DIVERSITYIt is important to recognize that the region is far from homogeneous. EECCA countries differ in their natural capital endowments, economic structure and associated pressures on the environment, and degree of urbanization. In the more urbanized countries of western EECCA pollution issues tend to be more important, while in the poorer Central Asian countries natural resources management linked to the productivity of agriculture tend to be more prominent. The Caucasus is richer in biodiversity than Moldova. Some Central Asian republics have plenty of water, while others have more sub-soil resources. But they also differ in their response capacity – Kazakhstan and Belarus have better developed environmental institutions and policies than Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, for example. In a broader perspective, the diversity of EECCA countries is also given by their different stages in the transition market economies and democracies. These processes have a number of consequences for environmental management. For example, as the economic transition consolidates in EECCA countries, pricing of energy, water and other resources will likely have beneficial effects. Opportunities for introducing effective market-based (economic) instruments will expand. Although EECCA countries are at different stages in the process of transition to democracies based in the rule of law, the average level is low and the process is stalled or reversing in some countries. These current developments make more difficult promoting public participation in environmental decision-making, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations, or introducing property-rights based environmental management instruments – all necessary measures to put EECCA countries on a more sustainable path. ^ THE LEGACY FROM THE SOVIET SYSTEM AND THE TRANSITIONCurrent conditions of environment and environmental management in EECCA are closely linked to the Soviet legacy. Several features of the Soviet system that are still present include pressures on natural resources and the environment from an uneconomic productive structure; extensive but expensive to operate environmental infrastructure; a ‘scientific’ approach to environmental management, with unenforceable standards and monitoring that fails to be policy-oriented; a culture of top-down environmental management, with risk-aversion by mid-level officials and little say for communities and the general public; an inability to learn from developing countries in other regions, despite many countries in the region being low income countries now; and a certain mimetism of Russian practice – that although in some cases represents an efficient approach to overcome institutional weaknesses it is not always best practice or adequate to particular country conditions. The transition has had a large impact on environmental conditions and management. By drastically reducing the level of economic activity, the crisis of the 1990s reduced some environmental pressures. The reduction in industrial output reduced emissions of air and water pollutants by industry. Agricultural producers no longer could afford using agrochemicals to the same extent. Forests also experienced reduced pressures from industrial logging. At the same time several environmental problems have intensified. First, the budgetary crisis of the central governments resulted in the inability to maintain environmental infrastructure under the prevalent management model – water-related infrastructure is a major case in point. Second, the emergence of poverty has raised the importance, although not always the profile, of poverty-environment issues – such as soil productivity loss and indoor air pollution from reversion to fuelwood. Third, the break up of the Soviet union and the need to work out new arrangements for shared environmental resources – most prominently water in Central Asia – has brought in a security dimension to environmental management1. The institutions in charge of environmental management have not been able to cope with all those changes. A major characteristic of the new context was, of course, the reduction in the budgetary resources made available to the newly created environmental ministries. This radically new context saw both a failure to adapt and adaptations that have failed. An example of the first type of problems is the maintenance of unattainable standards and the resulting emergence of a culture of non-compliance. An example of the second is the use of ‘economic instruments’ for revenue-raising purposes, resulting in no environmental alterations and a fundamental alteration, in practice, of the role of public environmental officials. This must, however, be seen in a context of general crisis in the public sector in the EECCA countries. (For example in the Health sector – what has further aggravated the final impact of deteriorating environmental conditions.) In general, the environmental community has not been able to successfully bring environmental priorities to the national development agenda – as suggested by the low rating of environmental issues in PRSPs prepared in the region. Many links of environmental quality to quality of life (through income-generating opportunities and health outcomes) and economic growth (via key resources such as water and soils) remain largely unrecognised.^ CURRENT TRENDSAs the economy starts to pick up, new challenges emerge. On the environmental issues front, the economic pressures are coming back full force. Why? Because during the transition, the EECCA countries by large have not been able to reduce the resource and pollution-intensiveness of their economic growth models. At the same time the capacity of the institutions to respond seems to keep weakening. For instance, increases in the salary gap between the private and the public sector has resulted in some of the brightest officials leaving the ministries, and so reducing their capacity, and conditions favourable to corruption. In theory, economic growth should allow for additional resources to strengthen the environmental agencies. An example is Kazakhstan, where the budget of the ministry is growing at good pace. But the low level of public awareness across the region far from guarantees it. Indeed, most EECCA countries are at income levels where the environment, per se, is rarely a top priority for the average citizen. Even in the ‘good performers’, it is uncertain that environmental considerations will be given the weight that they deserve when confronting economic development projects – in the case of Kazakhstan oil and gas development.^ Overview by objective Laws, Policies and Institutions. Weak, and weakening, institutions are failing to deliver on implementation – while legislation is largely adequate and a broad range of environmental management instruments is being used, the current policy packages are neither efficient nor effective. ^ Environmental Health. The burden of environmental disease may not be shrinking yet – unaffordable water infrastructure systems are crumbling, air pollution is on the increase due to rapid motorization, and waste and chemicals management is largely deficient. Natural Resources Management. Some countries are laying down the building blocks of integrated water resources management. Efforts to conserve biodiversity are being hampered, in protected areas, by an unfinished transition from enforcement to stakeholder involvement approach, and outside them by the low integration of biodiversity concerns in natural resources management.^ Environmental Policy Integration. Integration is still at an early stage and addressed in a fragmented way. Limited organisational and administrative resources limit the scope for integration. Mobilization and Allocation of Financial Resources. A financing gap coexists with a significant effort on the part of EECCA countries – largely focused in the water sector. Management of expenditures is generally weak – resources are spent without clear programmatic frameworks and spread over too many programs that fail to be implemented. ^ Information Management, Environmental Education and Public Participation. Environmental information systems do not meet policy needs, monitoring is uneven, inter-institutional coordination generally weak, and reporting mixed. Many governments are still reluctant to allow for public participation. Environmental education has gained greater visibility.Transboundary Issues. International conventions are easily signed, but implementation is a challenge. In the area of water resources, there is a generally a positive attitude towards establishing good cooperation, but competition between upstream and downstream countries has not been solved yet in many cases. ^ PART II. BASELINE ACROSS OBJECTIVES Objective 1. Improve Environmental Legislation, Policies and Institutional Framework Over the last ten years, important steps have been taken in EECCA countries to reform environmental policies, laws, and institutions. EECCA countries have relatively well-developed legal frameworks. Policy development, however, lacks prioritization and realism. As it will be seen throughout this report, policy implementation lags well behind legislation; this is not surprising, given the weaknesses displayed by environmental institutions. Regulatory instruments are better developed than economic ones, but very weak enforcement renders them ineffective. Overall, on the basis of the assessment framework described in the ‘Monitoring Progress’ sub-section below, there seems to be a clear divide between a more advanced set of countries (Western EECCA, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan) and others (Azerbaijan and Central Asia, with the exception of Kazakhstan). It is worth noting that despite being generally perceived as a leader in environmental policy setting by the other countries, the Russian Federation seems to tail the group of advanced countries. ^ Legislation and Policy Development As part of the environmental policy reform process, framework laws on environment, media-specific laws, and some other relevant laws have been developed or updated in most countries of the region. However, the regulatory reform is far from being complete. The ambitious lawmaking process has been largely unsystematic and resulted in many gaps and contradictions between new laws, decrees, and regulations. The development of implementing regulations (secondary legislation) has been slower and even more inconsistent. Many Soviet regulatory documents are still in force, and it is not always clear which regulations apply in a specific case, leading to inconsistencies in implementation of environmental policies, and limits their effectiveness. {Need to add info on policy development- prioritization, realism}^ Policy Implementation EECCA country possess and operate a fairly wide range of environmental policy instruments, but nearly all of them are ineffective, leading to no significant improvement of environmental conditions. This is partly due to history. Various instruments and approaches for environmental protection developed in the former Soviet Union were conceptually sophisticated but not feasible economically or sometimes technically. Standards. The system of environmental quality (ambient) standards has remained largely unchanged since its establishment in the Soviet Union. It is comprehensive and ambitious, covering hundreds of pollutants and mandating very low concentrations of contaminants. The system does not take into account the costs and benefits of achieving the standards, and exceeds the capacity of authorities to monitor the regulated substances. This system of overly stringent environmental quality standards and discharge limits has failed to improve environmental conditions – pollution in many hotspots continues to exceed standards several times over. In fact, by inducing non-compliance and perpetuating disrespect for the law, the system may have produced the opposite effect.Environmental Assessment (EA). EECCA countries inherited a system for environmental assessment that mixed State Environmental Reviews (SER; an internal government procedure without provisions for public participation and transparency) and Assessments of Environmental Impacts (OVOS; implemented by the developer). In the 1990s, the SER/OVOS system evolved towards international practice, but with various speeds and directions. Currently, all EECCA countries have laws requiring SER and, in certain cases, OVOS or its analogues, though these vary in consistency and comprehensiveness. The EA practice is even more diverse than the EA legislation, but in most cases it is closer to the inherited Soviet SER/OVOS than to international best practice.Permitting. Permitting procedures are cumbersome and ineffective. The number of polluting substances regulated makes the scope of the permitting system too large compared to the limited resources of both industrial applicants and environmental permitting authorities. Permits are issued separately for each medium, with different environmental authorities responsible for each permit. Coordination between these permitting authorities is very limited, which results in permits being oriented towards inflexible end-of-pipe solutions rather than pollution prevention.Economic Instruments. Pollution charges (levied on a very large number of air and water pollutants, and on solid waste) are the main and most comprehensive type of economic instrument used in the region. The system is complex, not targeted at specific environmental problems, and serves primarily for revenue-rising purposes – its incentive impact on polluters’ behaviour has been close to zero due to low charge rates, underreporting of discharges, and low collection rates. Only few experiments have been made with other types of economic instruments. Examples of product levies and tax differentiation are characterized by rates too low to affect the pattern of consumption. Attempts to introduce taxes on specific waste products have been unsuccessful due to resistance by industry. The concept of environmental liability has been included in all framework environmental laws in EECCA countries, but environmental damage compensation suits are rarely used due to inadequate damage assessment regulations.^ Enforcement and Compliance Issues. Non-compliance with environmental requirements is arguably the most serious problem of environmental management in EECCA countries. Enforcement agencies have not developed programs tailored to the particular regulated communities combining both enforcement and compliance-promotion activities. Both ambient monitoring and emission self-monitoring are necessary for verifying compliance – section 6.1 deals with the shortcomings of the ambient monitoring systems in EECCA. Self-monitoring and reporting is currently done only at large industrial facilities. The use of other compliance promotion activities (such as information assistance to regulated communities, information-based instruments, and cleaner production programs) is also very limited. ^ Environmental Institutions With few exceptions, environmental institutions today are stronger, in terms of both legal mandate and of their capacity, than they were a decade ago. But they are still weak. And the process of institutional strengthening in several cases has stopped and is even being reversed. Particularly important is the high-turn over rate of environmental professionals in ministries and related agencies. Demand of environmental specialist from the private sector – in itself a welcome development – combined with low salaries is a major driver, but instability due to political changes also contributes. Decentralization of environmental management has formed part of the institutional restructuring and reform process, but it has not always been supported by the resources necessary for implementation. Nevertheless, an increasing number of local and regional governments have developed their own environmental policies to tackle their priorities.Monitoring Progress ________________The indicators presented below capture information structured by OECD staff to evaluate the current state of environmental laws, policies and institutions in the EECCA region. The ratings are based on direct knowledge as well as reports describing the situation of environmental laws, policies and institutions. To produce the ratings, OECD staff developed a rating framework analyzing 20 different dimensions (3 relating to Legislation and Policy Development, 11relating to Policy Implementation, and 6 relating to the Institutional Framework) on a 0-5 scale, where 5 represents the maximum possible rating. The ratings are not constructed on an evaluative (bad-good) basis, but they rather represent the attainment of specific goalposts. This means that the ratings cannot be straightforwardly compared across dimensions. This assessment framework, however, allows evaluating on an objective basis progress achieved in the different dimensions, while preserving the simplicity of the presentation. ^ Source: OECD staff. Year: 2004 (June)Source: OECD staff. Year: 2004 (June)Facilitating Progress ________________The organizations that have been designated as facilitators of this objective are the OECD/EAP TF and UNECE. Cooperating institutions include UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, and the RECs.Main information sources ____________OECD/EAP TF. 2003. Developing Effective Packages of Environmental Policy Instruments in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia – Experience and Directions for Reform.OECD/EAP TF. 2003. Linkages between Environmental Assessment and Environmental Permitting in the Context of the Regulatory Reform in EECCA Countries.UNECE. 2003. Report on Environmental Policy in Transition: Lessons Learned from Ten Years of UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews. ^ Objective 2. Reduce the Risks to Human Health through Pollution Prevention and Control The most important environmental risks in EECCA are unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene, certain occupational risks, urban air pollution, indoor smoke from solid fuel, and lead exposure. An accurate assessment of environmental effects on human health is impossible in EECCA, since absent or incomplete monitoring precludes assessing levels of exposure to environmental hazards, and morbidity data have become less reliable. Nevertheless, the available data show a lack of substantial progress in improving environmental health in the region. Poor and underprivileged groups are increasingly bearing the greater part of the environmental burden of disease. While during the Soviet period the society was more or less homogeneous without major differences between the social groups, the current process of social stratification is leading to uneven exposure to environmental hazardsEnvironmental health concerns are increasingly being reflected in national planning and legislation. Although NEAPs are principally focused on pollution of the natural environment and its protection, many comprise actions directly linked to reducing the exposure of the population to harmful environmental factors. In parallel, almost all EECCA countries have government approved NEHAPs – except Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. While NEHAPs provide merely a framework for actions in environmental health, good implementation progress has been made in Belarus and Uzbekistan. Legislative basis of action in the area of environmental health has been reviewed in all countries in accordance with new circumstances. The EECCA countries inherited a uniform system of health standards based on sound science but that no longer fully satisfies the new demand of a market economy (including WTO accession) or the new functions of the state in the area of environmental health. Health standards are under review and work is in progress to incorporate them in technical regulations.^ Reduction of Urban Air Pollution Over the last decade, EECCA countries have experience a trend towards reduction in the discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere as a result of economic restructuring. Emissions of all the most widely distributed pollutants have decreased, largely due to the decrease of emissions from fixed sources – particularly in the energy and metallurgical industries. But despite the trend towards reduced discharges into the atmosphere, pollution levels remain very high – particularly in urban areas. Concentrations of many air pollutants exceed more than two times the permitted levels. For instance, in the Russian Federation, up to 30 million people are exposed to elevated (by Russian standards) concentrations of pollutants, of which 15 million is exposed to elevated concentrations of particulates.In terms of health impacts, the most important pollutants across the region are particulate matter and lead, but not much is being done to tackle them. Although overall air emissions have been decreasing, PM10 concentrations seem to be on the increase in several cities. For instance, Bishkek has seen concentrations double in a few years. No national emission ceilings have been set for particulate matter. With the exception of Belarus, where leaded gasoline has been phased-out, lead concentrations represent a major concern across the region. Scattered measurements in Armenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan indicate that lead concentrations significantly exceed WHO guidelines.Rapidly increasing private transport is the major enemy of clean air in EECCA cities. The urban transport sector in the region is characterized by an aging vehicle fleet with poor maintenance, low quality and high sulphur content of fuel, and declining public transport. Industrial sources of air pollution have declined in importance, but remain relevant and difficult to address. A specific problem of Central Asia is the large quantities of salt dust from the dried up areas of the Aral Sea.Monitoring Progress ________________Good headline indicators would be ‘population exposed to concentrations of particular matter exceeding a certain standard’ or ‘population suffering from acute respiratory illnesses’, but they are not currently available in EECCA. The first indicator presented below refers to all respiratory diseases, and so it is only weakly linked to air pollution. The second indicator presented below (consumption of fuels in the road transport sector) is also linked to air pollution concentrations and associated health impacts in a weak way. For instance, the indicator does not refer only to emissions in highly polluted urban areas, and the same amount of fuel consumption can be associated to different levels of pollutant emissions (depending on fuel quality and car technology among other factors), concentrations (depending on location of emissions, geography and climate), exposure (depending on distribution of population and lifestyles) and thus to the ultimate health impacts. Nevertheless, improvements in car fuel efficiency and reduction of car trips due to increased public transport, all of which would result in improved health outcomes, would be captured by the indicator.Source: WHO Year: 2002Source: OECD/IEA. Year: 2001Facilitating Progress ________________The organizations that have been designated as facilitators of this sub-objective are WHO-Europe and UNECE. Cooperating institutions include EEA and UNEP.Main information sources ____________EEA. 2003. Europe’s Environment: the Third Assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.WHO. 2004. Health and the Environment in the WHO European Region – Situation and Policy at the Beginning of the 21st Century.^ Improving the Management of Water Supply and Sanitation Infrastructure In EECCA, the water supply and sanitation network is extensive, but increasingly deteriorating. Pollution of water bodies, poor operation of treatment facilities, and the poor condition of supply and sewerage systems, all put pressure on the quality of drinking water. Expensive to maintain systems coupled with low tariffs result in inadequate maintenance being carried out, crumbling infrastructure, poor service, low quality of drinking water, and, ultimately, high incidence of waterborne diseases. Affordability concerns constraint the potential for tariff increasing, making reduction of O&M costs and associated level of service difficult to escape. The problems are exacerbated in small and medium sized towns, where deterioration of water infrastructure is more advanced, unit operational cost higher, household incomes lower, and non-payment more common. In rural areas, coverage is still low. Sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities are often the first service items to be shut down, resulting in increased environmental impacts. Without further reform, the deterioration of water services and associated impacts on public health and the environment are likely to accelerate in the future, as infrastructure continues to crumble. ^ WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHIncidence of waterborne diseases. Waterborne diseases represent a major public health issue in the EECCA region. Infectious intestinal diseases, often caused by poor drinking water, are among the main causes of infant mortality in the southern regions of the Russian Federation and in Central Asia. In Moldova the NEAP points out that polluted drinking water leads to 950-1850 premature deaths annually, as well as to 2-4 million days of illnesses annually with an economic cost estimated at the equivalent of 5-10 percent of GDP. According to WHO, the number of outbreaks of water-related diseases and the number of people affected are on the rise. Coverage of water supply and sanitation networks. The level of connection to water supply and sanitation remains high in most EECCA countries. But there are still coverage problems, particularly in rural areas, where a large part of the EECCA population still lives and the use of surface water represents a serious health risk – only 18 to 50 percent of rural households are directly connected to a piped water supply. {check reference}. ^ Quality of drinking water. Quality of drinking water is poor in most countries. In some countries, essentially in Central Asia, more than one-third of the population is using drinking water that does not meet hygiene standards, and in some sub-regions this proportion can exceed 50 percent (OECD/EAP TF, 2003). The quality of drinking water in EECCA is generally getting worse – for example, WHO reports decreasing water quality in Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, although it also reports improvements in Uzbekistan. There are particularly problems with maintaining safe microbiological standards, but nitrates contamination, affecting particularly children, is also a problem. Microbiological contamination is largely due to infrastructural deficiencies and the failure of disinfection schemes. Quality of raw water. In addition to water network operations, the quality of drinking water is also affected by pollution of water sources. In the Eastern Europe and Caucasus water pollution by toxic and chemical substances represents the more immediate problem, while in Central Asia microbiological pollution of drinking water is more important. In the Russian Federation the quality of the water extracted is deteriorating mostly due to the disposal of untreated sewage. In Belarus, pollution of water bodies is primarily due to the suboptimum operation of sewage treatment installations. In several areas, such as the Caspian and Aral Sea areas in Kazakhstan, large quantities of salinization of drinking water also posess a significant health hazard. Although many cities across the region have wastewater treatment plants, most of them are obsolete and ineffective, and because of the lack of investment capital only a limited number of new plants have been built or old ones modernized.^ MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION SERVICESLegal and institutional framework. The legal and institutional frameworks remain largely inadequate. The reform process in the EECCA region started in the late 1990s with the decentralization of the sector and the transformation of water utilities into communal enterprises. Those actions were taken without appropriate institutional and tariff reforms in place. Government phased out direct subsidies to water utilities, which became self-financed companies, but water utilities are generally not yet allowed to operate as commercial entities. Governance arrangements remain often too complex, and sometimes incoherent, hampering decision-making in the sector. Physical conditions of water and sanitation networks. Water systems in EECCA are characterized by (i) deteriorating sanitary condition of the reservoirs; (ii) problems with the purification and disinfection of water in the water supply systems (including shortage of chemicals for purification and low standard of laboratory equipment), particularly in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Armenia; and (iii) unsatisfactory state of repair of the water supply networks and their proximity to sewage pipes – leading to the penetration of water networks by sewage. Actual quality of service is deteriorating. Across many EECCA countries, pipe breaks and leakage are increasing and continuity of service is decreasing. Breaks in continuity, a major cause of water contamination, are a common feature. Water utilities provide service for only six hours in Armenia, eight in Azerbaijan, 13 in Tajikistan 13 hours and 19 in Ukraine (OECD/EAP TF database). ^ Economic and financial issues. Domestic sector investment has been insignificant for over a decade. Governments phased-out direct subsidies; water companies do not have cash to invest – as they do not fully recover costs; and – due to weak institutional frameworks and unfavourable investment climates – private finance stays away from the sector. ODA does not compensate for the gap – the gap is too large and institutional obstacles prevent ODA flowing to the sector. Water prices have increased significantly since 1990, but they do not cover yet the full investment and maintenance cost. Currently tariffs cover less than 60 percent of operational and maintenance costs in most countries (OECD/EAP TF, 2003). In the Russian Federation the gap between operational costs and the expected revenues from billed consumption reaches 30 percent, with non-payment further exacerbating the problem (OECD/EAP TF, 2003). Many countries have committed to achieve cost recovery by 2005, but implementation is progressing very slowly. Attaining full cost recovery will take both reducing O&M costs and increasing tariffs. ^ Social issues. Affordability constraints impose a limit on how much tariffs can be raised – a large portion of households already pays a significant share of their income for water services, and large tariff hikes would result in many households paying for water services more than the 4 percent of their income (an internationally accepted affordability benchmark). There exist mechanisms to protect the poor, but they are rarely targeted at those in most need. In addition, there is little public involvement in the water sector.Monitoring Progress ________________{intro text missing}^ Source: OECD/EAP TF database Source: WHO. Year: 2001Facilitating Progress ________________The organizations that have been designated as facilitators of this objective are OECD/EAP TF and WHO-Europe. Cooperating institutions include EBRD, UNECE, UNEP and the World Bank. Main information sources ____________WHO. 2004. Health and the Environment in the WHO European Region – Situation and Policy at the Beginning of the 21st Century.OECD/EAP TF. 2003. Urban Water Sector Reform in EECCA Countries – Progress Since the Almaty Ministerial Conference. ^ Improvement of Management of Waste and Chemicals Waste generation. Total waste generation remains on the increase in most countries. Of four EECCA countries for which data exists, an indication of decoupling of total waste generation is only found in Belarus and Tajikistan. After a period of decline in industrial activity, generation of industrial waste has increased in most countries – with oil industries, mineral resources extraction, and power plants as the major generators. There no clear trends on hazardous waste generation – in Ukraine, it decreased by 38 percent between 1996 and 2000, while in the Russian Federation it decreased by 32 percent between 1996 and 1999. Hazardous waste generation in EECCA is often dominated by a relatively small number of sources.Waste disposal. Disposal of both municipal and hazardous waste is a problem. The share of landfilled municipal waste is generally more than 90 percent and in many cases 100 percent. But municipal waste landfills are often overloaded, improperly operated and maintained, and do not meet environmental and human health requirements. Illegal dumping of municipal waste, in particular in rural areas, is also common. In the Caucasus, known hazardous waste disposal sites are overloaded and not isolated from the environment – thus posing risks to the environment and human health. Waste management systems. The EECCA region does not have yet sustainable waste management systems in place. Municipalities cannot afford major investments in waste management. The regulatory framework (including standards for safe final disposal) is not well developed. Use of economic instruments for waste prevention is limited and ineffective. Recycling rates are low – 10-12 percent in Ukraine, 14-15 percent in Belarus (industrial waste only) and 6-15 percent in Uzbekistan. And there are almost no facilities for alternative waste treatment2. It has been argued that the lack of sound law enforcement and monitoring systems bring the risk of the Caucasus becoming a ‘haven’ for international trading in hazardous waste. Several EECCA countries have formulated waste management plans and programmes, but the general lack of resources is a significant barrier to implementation. Although all EECCA countries (except Tajikistan) are parties to the Basel Convention, many lack the national capacity as well as finances to fulfil commitments made under the Convention. Rising generation coupled with the stabilization of quantities collected suggests lack of overall progress in waste management. ^ Chemical pollution. Chemical pollution is also a concern. Reportedly, the greatest danger is presented by soil contamination by heavy metals – primarily from sewage sludge, and municipal and industrial waste. Monitoring residual contents of pesticides shows that, in recent years, soil contamination by controlled pesticides has decreased appreciably following a reduction in their use in agriculture. But inadequately stored agrochemicals, illegally traded in many cases, remain an essential factor in soil contamination. In many countries, industrial enterprises harbour significant amounts of hazardous toxic waste and pesticides for disposal. Monitoring Progress ________________Reliable data on waste and chemicals management is not readily-available. At the same time, it is difficult to manage without supporting information. The fulfilment of reporting obligations to the Basel Convention on hazardous waste management may give an indication on management systems performance. Improvement in reporting would indicate that that either more data are being collected, that the information is better managed, or both. Although the link is tenuous, improvements in reporting would suggest improvements in management. ^ Total hazardous waste generation data reported to Basel Convention Secretariat Armenia No data in report Azerbaijan No report received Belarus 1.39 million tons Georgia Incomplete data reporting Kazakhstan No report Kyrgyzstan Incomplete data reporting Moldova Incomplete data reporting Russia No report received Tajikistan No party to the Convention Turkmenistan No report Ukraine 77.5 million tons Uzbekistan Incomplete data reporting Source: Basel Convention on-line databaseFacilitating Progress ________________The organization that has been designated as facilitator of this sub-objective is UNEP-SBC. Cooperating institutions include OECD and UNECE.Main information sources ____________EEA. 2003. Waste and Material Flows 2004 – Current Situation for Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.Basel Convention Country Fact Sheets. ^ Objective 3. Manage Natural Resources in a Sustainable Manner Integrated Management of Water Resources, Including Transboundary River Basins and Regional Seas WATER RESOURCES ISSUESWater resources are under increasing pressure in EECCA. Water scarcity grows; quality declines; environmental and social concerns mount; and the threats posed by floods and droughts are exacerbated by climate change. For various countries, there is a strong transboundary, often conflictive, dimension to water resources management – as explored in section 7. Water quality. Pollution of surface and groundwater is a serious problem in the whole region. The quality of water from surface sources is low as result of discharges of insufficiently treated and untreated sewage from populated localities and industrial plants, as well as of industrial accidents. In the EECCA, only 60 percent of the population are connected to sewers; for 18 percent of these, wastewater is discharged untreated. {reference source} Irrigation and use of fertilizers, manure and pesticides in agriculture lead to increased salinity and pollution water and groundwater by nitrates, phosphorus, and pesticides. Water scarcity. Although water abstraction seems to be decreasing, water quantity issues remain important. Restricted access to water for domestic use and agriculture is a problem in some parts of the region, particularly in Central Asia, in the southern part of Ukraine and in the South of the European part of the Russian Federation. Over-exploitation of water, especially increasing use of groundwater for public water supply, and over-use of surface water for irrigation, has serious consequences such as drying-up of spring-fed rivers, salinization of (shallow) groundwater resources, destruction of natural wetlands and salt-water intrusion in coastal aquifers. – the vanishing Aral Sea is of particular concern. At the same time, the lack of incentive for water conservation results in wastage. {look for further information on pricing and water use rates in WSS and irrigation to expand}Water regulation. Floods are also an important concern in many EECCA countries. For example, more than 150,000 km2 (including some 300 major cities and some 7 million hectares of agricultural land) in the Russian Federation alone suffer from floods with regular intervals of 20 to 100 years, with an annual average damage of some US$1.45 billion. Regional Seas. In addition to the drying up of a large part of the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea is threatened by pollution from the Volga and other rivers, pollution and accidental spills from the oil industry, uncontrolled poaching of sturgeon and concerns over the impact of the alien species Mnemiopsis leidyi. Regional agreements on management of the Caspian and the Aral Seas remain difficult. The Black Sea has experienced catastrophic decline in the past thirty years due to increased loads of nutrients from agricultural run-off and discharges of raw sewage and solid waste from cities, heavy metals and oil pollution. ^ WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENTEECCA, as in many other countries, Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) as a holistic approach to the management of river basins (and its link to coastal/marine waters) is still in its infancy. IWRM has some basis on which to build – the administrative system for river basin management was already developed in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the Russian Federation continues to use the concept, and many other countries have also recognized the advantages or the river-basin approach. The WSSD target for IWRM is for all countries to develop, by 2005, integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans. It is unlikely that all countries will be able to achieve the this target – nine countries do not have an IWRM plan yet. Institutional aspects. Beyond the preparation of plans, IWRM requires institutions with a clear mandate and access to both information and financial resources. Institutions responsible for water resource management are already in place in EECA, but there is sometimes not a clear definition of responsibilities. This, in combination with lack of communication and coordination between authorities, often lead to gaps and duplications of decision and activities. At the same time, present knowledge and information for decision-making over water and land, and related socio-economic factors, is not sufficient, not reliable, not consistent and reporting not sufficiently well organised for planning and decision-making, nor to provide information to the public.^ Financial aspects. Financial resources devoted to water management are lower than even minimal cost estimates. Most countries, despite the introduction of discharge and abstraction permits and pricing mechanisms for water use, do not have fully functioning systems for self-financing of provisions of services, such as drinking water supply and waste-water treatment. Moreover, due to the lack of clear priorities, the few available funds are often divided over the measures to be taken, which can result in no single measure being fully implemented.Monitoring Progress ________________For this report, two indicators on water resources management have been selected. The first one tries to cover the management dimension and is strongly linked to the WSSD target referred to in the text. The second one focuses on water abstraction. A commonly used benchmark is that a water abstraction ratio of over 10 percent indicates that the country is under water-stress. A reduction in the water abstraction ratio overtime would generally be a sign that water resources management is improving. A reference to water abstraction does not necessarily dismisses water quality, as water quality and quantity issues are inextricably linked – for instance, higher base flows would lead to a decrease in the concentrations of pollutants. Other potential indicators could include ‘population covered by wastewater treatment’ or ‘water pricing’. {look for data on population served by wastewater treatment}Source: Status and plans of EECCA countries in fulfilling the WSSD target on IWRM-plans by 2005. Report commissioned by DHI.Source: World Development Indicators, 2004Facilitating Progress ________________The organizations that have been designated as facilitator of this objective are UNECE and UNEP. Cooperating institutions include EEA, GEF, UNDP and the World Bank.Main information sources ____________GWP. 2003. Status of National Integrated Water Resources Management Progress in Central Asia and Caucasus.UNECE and GWP. 2003. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Including Transbounday River Basin Issues. World Bank. 2003. Environmental Activities in Europe and Central Asia.^ Biodiversity Conservation and Protection of Ecosystems BIODIVERSITY ISSUES Biodiversity trends and threats vary across the region. For instance, while the Russian Federation seems to be experiencing degradation processes across landscapes, Ukrainian forest conditions seem to be improving. To a large extent the structure of economic activity determines the relative importance of the different threats. In Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, extraction of sub-soil resources is reportedly having significant impacts. In the poorest countries, agriculture is a major driver of biodiversity loss. Specific threats include intensive land use, crop specialization and chemical use in Moldova; and cattle rearing and drainage of wetlands have been in both Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Poverty itself has become a significant factor – for instance, the recession has led to the illegal cutting of trees for fuelwood in Moldova.^ BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENTThe challenges in biodiversity conservation and management in the EECCA region are linked to the experience of the transition and so differ from those in many other parts of the world. EECCA countries have a strong tradition of protected area management and of public access to the countryside, but in most arable land areas there was little attention to biodiversity considerations. The first years of the transition saw deterioration in the institutions and financing mechanisms for conservation management, both in production and in the protected area landscape. Increasing poverty combined with a breakdown in law and order led to pressure on natural resources in many countries from poaching and illegal harvesting. ^ Approaches to biodiversity conservation. ‘Enforcement’ approaches to protected area management have weakened but have not yet been replaced by approaches based on stakeholder consensus. In Soviet times, the protected area regime focused on strict protection with little attention to the development of sustainable use mechanisms and the involvement of local communities. This approach did ensure biodiversity conservation, but it has not proved sustainable in the newly emerging democracies. Russia’s systems of protected areas do not include landscape approaches that combine sustainable utilization with conservation, especially in forest ecosystems – current forest management is not geared towards biodiversity conservation. In the Caucasus and Central Asia, World Bank experience suggests that community-based approaches combining improved ecosystem management with local income generating activities have the greatest chance of succeeding in enhancing biodiversity conservation. ^ Integration of biodiversity issues in NRM policies. Biodiversity concerns are not well integrated in natural resource management policies – partly due to institutional shortcomings. Hastily implemented land privatization, land fragmentation and lack of access to finance or technologies are preventing sustainable land management. In many countries, pastureland and former collective forests face a management vacuum. Deterioration of structures for water management has translated in wetland degradation, pollution of water bodies, loss of wildlife, and declines in tourism revenues. In Ukraine and Belarus there has been modest support to date to wetland and forest conservation, but in Ukraine this has not yet been ‘mainstreamed’ into broader forest and water resource management. In Moldova – densely populated, rural and with much highly degraded land – biodiversity conservation is not yet incorporated in farming practices. ^ Finance for biodiversity conservation. Much of the state support for natural resources management and biodiversity protection has declined dramatically and in some cases collapsed entirely. This affects particularly to the network of strict nature reserves and off-site collections of plant resources, but is also true for fire and pest management. But this does not affect equally to all countries. For example, in Kazakhstan – a middle income country with stronger public institutions that enjoys greater public commitment to, and finance for, environmental protection than many other EECCA countries – current challenges revolve around combining sustainable production and conservation in the steppes, and restoration of critical forests and water ecosystems.Monitoring Progress ________________Objective measurement of biodiversity trends is difficult, in part because of the multiplicity of species and ecosystems, and in part because of scientific controversies surrounding the value of measuring ecosystem health (difficult) as opposed to trends in indicators species (less difficult but also less scientifically rigorous). By 2008, a coherent European programme on biodiversity monitoring and reporting, facilitated by the European Biodiversity Monitoring and Indicator Framework, will be operational in the pan-European region, in support of nature and biodiversity policies, including by 2006 an agreed core set of biodiversity indicators developed with the active participation of the relevant stakeholders. The first indicator selected for this report refers to bird species threatened – bird species are regarded as a better indicator than other species. The second indicator refers to land area under protection – protection of at least 10 percent of land area is an international benchmark. As in many other areas, both indicators are fraught with problems. For instance, there are the problems of ‘paper parks’ (whether protected areas include active management beyond mere designation) and to what extent habitats protected are representative of national habitats.Source: World Development Indicators, 2004Source: World Development Indicators, 2004Facilitating Progress ________________The organizations that have been designated as facilitator of this objective are UNEP and Council of Europe. Cooperating institutions include EEA, the RECs, and UNDP. Main information sources ____________World Bank. 2003. Biodiversity Strategy for the Europe and Central Asia Region – Discussion Draft. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Informal country biodiversity profiles prepared by UNEP for this report. ^ Objective 4. Integrate Environmental Considerations into the Development of Key Economic Sectors Overall issues of sectoral integration Environmental policy integration (EPI) in EECCA is still at a relatively early stage and addressed in a fragmented way. During Soviet times, policy-making in EECCA countries tended to be integrated across all sectors in the central planning system, but failed to incorporate environmental concerns. Establishing the identity and authority of ministries of environment across the region – one of the first achievements of environmental policy in the transition process – has consumed a lot of energies, and less attention has been devoted to developing inter-ministerial communication, which remains low. Limited organisational and administrative resources limit the scope for integration. Strategic planning. Environmental ministries have been among the first to initiate sectoral integration. They have attempted it through the development of environmental strategies, action plans, sustainable development strategies, physical plans, and other policy initiatives. Other ministries and stakeholders have been invited to participate in those initiatives, but he level of involvement and cooperation, as well as public participation, has been limited. The result is a proliferation of sectoral strategies, often with uncoordinated and even conflicting goals. ^ Inter-institutional coordination. Mechanisms for coordination and cooperation for EPI among ministries remain weak. Some ministries have environmental departments, but those departments do no have enough power and responsibility to carry out their duties fully, and are often understaffed. There are other forms of cooperation, from the most formal, through the council of ministers, to inter-ministerial working groups, to the informal contacts between individual professionals. For example, Belarus has set up a National Commission on Sustainable Development which mandate includes the elaboration of a national sustainable development strategy and inter-ministerial policy coordination.Integration instruments. A number of tools that facilitate EPI are in place in the region, but their effectiveness is limited. For example, taxes and charges on energy products remain quite low and, although pollution charges have been widely adopted, no country has started implementing any broad Environmental Fiscal Reform. The current situation with environmental assessment and economic instruments – major tools for EPI – is further described in Section 1. For the poorest EECCA countries, the treatment of environmental issues in PRSPs may be a good indicator of overall integration of environmental concerns across sectors. Here the EECCA region lags behind the world average – itself not very encouraging. But good examples, such as that of Azerbaijan, also exist.Monitoring Progress ________________A potential indicator for tracking progress this area of work is the treatment of environmental issues in national development strategies. For PRSP countries, the World Bank’s Environment Department produces an assessment of the treatment of environmental issues. Two shortcomings of this assessment as an indicator for the EECCA Strategy are that not all EECCA countries are PRSP countries, and that it covers only the treatment in the PRSP document, not implementation. Nevertheless, the assessment represents a useful piece of information. The maximum possible rating is 3. Source: World Bank staffFacilitating Progress ________________The organizations that have been designated as facilitator of this objective are OECD and UNDP. Cooperating institutions include EEA, the RECs, UNECE, UNEP and the World Bank. Main information sources ____________European ECO-Forum. 2003. Environmental Policy Integration: Theory and Practice in the UNECE Region.UNECE. 2003. Report on Environmental Policy in Transition: Lessons Learned from Ten Years of UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews.Bojo, J. and R.C. Reddy. 2003. Status and Evolution of Environmental Priorities in the Poverty Reduction Strategies. Washington, DC: World Bank. ^ Energy Sector In EECCA countries, energy use per unit of GDP is much higher than in the rest of the world. This can be partially attributed to climatic considerations – EECCA countries sit in cold latitudes. But policy decisions are a crucial driver. Many EECCA countries are rich in energy sources including coal, oil and natural gas, and hydropower. The Soviet Union responded to the oil crisis of the 1970s by increasing domestic supply rather than energy efficiency. By the beginning of the transition, EECCA economies were characterized by a large polluting power sector and heavy energy-intensive industries that caused serious problems such as forest decline and widespread respiratory diseases. Energy policy formulation. Energy policy formulation does not include environmental considerations. During the transition process energy consumption and the pollution linked to it fell, largely due to the drop in industrial production rather than to energy policy reform. Energy policy has been determined by the conflicting considerations of increasing efficiency through market liberalization and price support for issues of social equity. Thus direct and indirect subsidies continue for social and industrial reasons.^ Energy efficiency promotion. Most countries have formulated explicit energy efficiency strategies – Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are the exceptions. Overall, there has been significant progress in progress design and implementation, although many countries are not devoting sufficient domestic resources, relying rather on the international community. Many countries that did not have information/awareness programs on energy efficiency in 1998 have started to develop them – examples include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. But in most countries, the link between energy efficiency strategies and environmental issues is not well established – partly because the less immediate concern about meeting Kyoto Protocol obligations – and thus the region is failing to realise opportunities both under the GEF umbrella and Kyoto’s flexible mechanisms. Pricing. Energy tariffs and prices in most EECCA countries are quite inferior to the actual costs of energy production and distribution, leading to a distorted economic structure, economic efficiency losses, energy wastage and excessive pollution. There is some progress in reforming pricing systems, although at a slow pace in most countries. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine and Tajikistan have recently set up pricing commissions or regulatory bodies.Monitoring Progress ________________{intro text missing}Energy intensity is only a proxy for energy efficiency improvements. Source: World Development Indicators, 2004 Source: World Development Indicators, 2004Facilitating Progress ________________The organization that has been designated as facilitator of this objective is UNECE. Cooperating institutions include OECD, UNDP and the World Bank.Main information sources ____________Energy Charter Secretariat. 2003. The Road Towards an Energy Efficient Future. European ECO-Forum. 2003. Environmental Policy Integration: Theory and Practice in the UNECE Region.^ Transport SectorIn EECCA there was a sharp decline in transport volumes after 1989 following economic recession. Data of limited quality suggests that