Transcript WORK PLAN OF EaP CSF WG3 FROM KYIV TO POZNAN
Anna Golubovska-Onisimova
Panel discussion «Environmental Challenges of the Ukraine-EaP European Integration”, Brussels, 11 June 2013
• • • • • • • Effectiveness: policy cycle includes regular monitoring and assessment (no scary) Based on EPI: e-integration is a key (e-e conflict) Cross-cutting mechanisms – EIA, SEA, PP, AI(AJ) Information and statistics/ comparability with EU Consistency/ wide coverage/ limited priorities for defined time-frame to achieve defined results Indicator-based reporting Permanent communication with TG
• • • • • The process is bad, the result – is only A goal!
VS No sustainable result without right process SO Good environmental governance does both together Next step after finishing previous cycle Lip-frogging: EaP countries should catch with ca.40 years gap, but some key-steps has no skip option, from single agency’s tasks – to collective management
• • • • • • 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
• • • • • • 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)
• • • • • • Azerbaijan Armenia Belarus Georgia Moldova Ukraine 48,8% - 4 58,2% - 1 35,4% - 5 21,3% - 6 56,7% - 2 50,7% - 3
• • • • E xternal 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 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
ESPOO Aarhus Kyoto Protocol
0,61 0,76 0,53 0,56 0,61 0,53 UA
1,00 1,00 0,70 0,90 0,00 0,00 0,50
MD
0,70 0,70 0,10 0,80 1,00 1,00 1,00
BY
0,50 0,00 0,50 0,68 0,50 0,00 1,00
GE
0,00 0,80 0,50 0,60 n/a 1,00 1,00
AR AZ
0,80 0,10 0,90 0,50 0,80 0,00 0,70 0,60 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 MEAs Implementation plans and Annual Reports Yes/No 0,50 1,00 0,70 0,70 1,00 0,00
• • • • • • 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 2 nd generation of NEAP MEAs: Ukraine is leading in number, but behind in reporting and compliance (active public phenomena)
• • • • • • No NSDS, except Belarus and 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
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 AR AZ Water Exploitation Index (water withdrawal as percent of annual long-term water resources) % (EU-27: 13,2)
0,52 15,6 0,78 8,6 1,00 2,8 0,92 4,9 0,00 29,3 0,01 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
Share of municipal waste recycled: in % (EU-27: 22,6)
0,54 5-8 0,17 0,50 1,00 0,92 0,00 0,08 1 1,00 12 0,00 0 0,03 0,4 0,00 0
Pressure to/ state of environment UA MD BY GE AR AZ Ratio between GHG emission reduction during last reporting period and the reduction potential
?
0,90 1,00 0,00 0,21 0,24
Share of non-treated waste waters in annual waste waters discharge % Per capita SO2 emissions, kg
0,82 0,70 1,00 1,10 0,42 0,00 43,9 0,94 0,00 0,93 0,57 0,92 0,81 1,00
Per capita, NOx emmissions, kg Share of forest area, % (EU-27: 33%) Share of nature protected area, % Eroded soil, share of territory, % (EU-27: 17%) (EU-27: 17%)
0,00 0,69 0,11 0,80 0,89 1,00 0,25 17,6 0,24 5,7 0,00 57,5 0,00 10 0,00 4,3 0,82 26 1,00 41 0,96 0,00 0,03 0,58 0,46 1,001 19,3 0,88 9,5 1,00 10,2 0,64 0,36 0,55
Pesticides input, kg/ha (EU-27: 3)
1,00 0,5-1 0,51 2,79 0,48 4,9 0,00 0,99 0,67
• • • • • 12 indicators shown: Belarus has the best environmental situation, followed by Georgia 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 environmental 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)
• • • Law on National Environmental Policy Strategy till 2020 is adopted (12.2010), included limited number of goals and objectives (7), instruments (incl. economic), monitoring and reporting procedure, 78 indicators for annual assessments, basics for transition to Green economy (NEAP for 2011-15, environmental policy integration) NSSD is not adopted so far (even the Concept) EU SBS Financial Agreement plays important role to enhance measuring progress and reporting on 9 main indicators annually
№ Ind
1
Field of application Indicator Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
I. Environmental policy at sector and regional levels 1.
and/or and Development update approval of and sectoral regional programmes on environmental protection 1. By the end of 2011, comprehensive sectoral and regional programmes compliant fully with the Strategy and NEAP are developed and adopted at appropriate levels.
№ Ind Field of application Indicator
2 II. Approximation of the Ukrainian environmental legislation to that of the EU 2. Design and adoption of a harmonization plan towards the EU Acquis ("Basic Approximation Plan" or BAP)
Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
1. Approval a BAP by the Ministry before 31/12/2011; 2. Adoption by Ukraine in 2011 of the EU Directives 85/337/EU; 97/11/EU; 2003/35/EU; 2001/42/EU and 2003/4/EU.
№ Ind
3
Field of application Indicator Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
III. Institutional capacity building to implement the new environmental policy 3. Simplification of the environme ntal authorization system 1. An Action Plan for the simplification of the environmental authorization system and introduction of a "one window system" is designed and adopted.
2. At least 60% of the measures foreseen in this Action Plan for 2011 are implemented.
№ Ind Field of application
4 III. Institutional capacity building to implement the new environmental policy
Indicator
4. Strengthening of the Ministry's capacity to carry out environmental monitoring on a yearly basis
Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
1. An Action Plan for the modernization of Environmental Monitoring in Ukraine is prepared and adopted by the Ministry of Environment.
№ Ind
5
Field of application Indicator Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
III. Institutional capacity building to implement the new environmental policy 5. Improvement of access to the environmental information, ensuring citizens’ participation in the decision making and enhancing the environmental education/awareness 1. Publication of a report on the citizens’ opinion on the implementation of the environmental policy in 2011.
2. Annual Forum “Environment for Ukraine” held in a participatory manner
№ Ind
6
Field of application Indicator Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
IV. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy in Various Environmental Sub sectors І - AIR 6. Stabilization of emissions of pollutants and greenhouse emissions in the air produced by the stationary pollution sources in the power plants 1. At least 5 investment projects aiming at the reduction of emissions by the Power plants are prepared and presented to potential investors and/or Donors.
№ Ind
7
Field of application
IV. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy in Various Environmental Sub sectors ІІ – WATER RESOURCES
Indicator Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
7. Improvement of the quality of surface water bodies due to better performance and modernization of the waste water treatment facilities 1. The chemical status of water bodies downstream outlets of waste water discharge from the water treatment facilities in the oblast centers of Ukraine and in the capital of the AR Crimea and in Kyiv and Sevastopol is not deteriorated comparing with 2010 levels
№ Ind
8
Field of application
IV. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy in Various Environmental Sub sectors
Indicator
8. Modernization of waste management infrastructure in Ukraine
Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
1. The volume of class I III wastes retreated or recycled in 2011 should increase by 5% compared to 2010 levels ІІІ – WASTE MANAGEMENT
№ Ind
9
Field of application
IV. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy in Various Environmental Sub sectors ІV – Protection of flora and fauna
Indicator
9. Expanding natural habitats of flora and fauna representatives
Target for 2011/ assessment in 2012
1. The total area under conservation districts reaches 6,9% of the total area of the country.
• • • • • Start a High-level tree-partite dialogue with EaP CSF NP involvement on Environmental Governance reform in 6 countries; Extend the Road-map with more concrete actions to ensure legally binding environmental policy integration into sectoral and regional programmes and plans; Review the Environmental Governance Flagship Initiative and support more concrete and measurable targets for cross-cutting environmental legislation adoption (on Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice on environmental matters); Link the SEIS initiative with modernising environmental monitoring system programmes and involve NGOs in complex discussion on reliable information provision for effective environmental decision-making.
Trainings, trainings, trainings…/ analytics