Transcript Document

Benefits of compliance with the acquis in the
potential candidate countries
Summary Results from benefits study:
On former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Albania, Serbia, incl. Kosovo,
Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro
(Arcadis-Ecolas, IEEP, Metroeconomica and Enviro-L)
Patrick ten Brink (IEEP), Ljupco Avramovski (Enviro-L), Stijn Vermoote (Arcadis Ecolas), Samuela Bassi
(IEEP), Karen Callebaut (Arcadis Ecolas), Arnoud Lust (Arcadis Ecolas), Alistair Hunt (Metroeconomica)
Patrick ten Brink
Senior Fellow and Head of Brussels Office
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
www.ieep.eu
Priority Environmental Investment Programme (PEIP) – CARDS Regional
Regional Meeting for Senior Officials from SEE and
Donors’ Community
26th November
Brussels, Belgium
Aim of SEE Benefits Study
 Explore and estimate the environmental, economic, and social benefits likely to
arise from the full implementation of the EU env. legislation in the SEE countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Albania, Serbia, incl. Kosovo, Bosnia &
Herzegovina and Montenegro.
 Get a full and better understanding
of the real effects of their accession to the
EU – covering benefits and not only
costs.
 And ensure that environmental
concerns are given the attention, priority
and funding that they deserve.
Aim of this presentation – give an overview as to the results
The Implementation Challenge
 Each country that wishes to join the EU needs to implement the body of EU
environmental law, known as the ‘Acquis Communautaire’,
 This comprises around 300 Environmental Directives and Regulations, including
daughter Directives and amendments + environmental aspects of legislation in other
sectors
 Transposition : Legislative compliance
 Getting administrative capacity in place
 Implementing legislation – identifying (best/appropriate new) projects;
covering investment costs; finding funding/finance,
 Operation/maintenance (possible upgrade) of environmental infrastructure
 Monitoring and enforcing legislation
SEE Benefits Studies
What can be said in what terms and what was explored?
Valuation
How much would the reduced
emissions and damages avoided by
implementing EU directives be worth?
Non-Specified
Benefits
and
Elements
Quantification
No
No
Monetary Value
and
Description
Yes
yes
yes
Quantitative Review of Effects
of
Benefits
Yes
Air
Yes
Yes
Qualitative Review
Water
Waste
Quantitative:
Level of
emissions
reduced
E.g. how many
cases of
respiratory
Type
diseases areof
avoided?
benefi
Yes
ts – eg
health
impac
Chemicals
Nature
ts,
Nuclear
cleane
r
water
Full Range of Effects
Need to be realistic about what can be said in what terms and to what audience.
Benefits of Action types
Benefit Type
Air
Water
Waste
Nature
Health
Avoided respiratory
illnesses and
premature deaths
Households access to
and confidence in
clean drinking water,
clean bathing waters
Reduced risk of
poisoning and
accidents due to
methane leakage
Access to
nature positive
for health;
nature ‘green
lungs’
Local produce +
ecosystem
services (water
purification)
Resources
Avoided damage to
buildings and crops
Cleaner groundwater
(aquifers) (less pretreatment) and surface
waters, bathing waters
Reduced input of
primary material,
energy generation
Eco-systems
Avoided global
warming from CO2
emissions
Improved river water
quality (+ biodiversity
/ eco-system stability /
health)
Avoided global
warming from
CH4 emissions
Protected areas
and species
Social
Improved access to
cultural heritage (less
damage to historic
buildings)
Angling and
recreation in rivers,
lakes and beaches
Awareness of own
responsibility and
impacts on the
environment
Wider
Economic
Cultural tourism.
Attracting
investment.
Employment from
environmental goods
Increased tourism to
recognised clean
beaches; reducing pretreatment costs and
attracting investment
Reduced primary
materials imports.
Attracting
investment given
locational quality.
Access to
protected areas
– individuals,
communities,
work
Eco-tourism
and general
nature tourism
Air Pollution related benfits
Quantitative Assessment – Results
(fewer cases of chronic bronchitis & early mortality)
AIR -
ALBANIA
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA
FYR MACEDONIA
QUANTITATIVE
INDICATOR OF
IMPACTS ON
MORBIDITY
INDICAROT OF
IMPACTS ON
MORTALITY
395 (domestic + external)
137 (domestic)
1.271 (domestic + external) 381 (domestic + external)
164 (domestic)
50 (domestic)
250 (domestic + external)
82 (domestic)
971 (domestic + external)
103 (domestic)
KOSOVO UNDER UNSCR
1244
INDICATOR OF
IMPACTS ON
MORBIDITY
INDICAROR OF
IMPACTS ON
MORTALITY
237 (domestic + external)
30 (domestic)
MONTENEGRO
SERBIA
720 (domestic + external)
187 (domestic)
200 (domestic + external)
52 (domestic)
3.083 (domestic + external)
801 (domestic)
454 (domestic + external)
115 (domestic)
126 (domestic + external)
32 (domestic)
2.437 (domestic + external)
493 (domestic)
TOTAL SEE COUNTRIES (EXCEPT CROATIA)*
INDICATOR OF
IMPACTS ON
MORBIDITY
INDICAROT OF
IMPACTS ON
MORTALITY
6.050 (domestic + external)
1.441 (domestic)
4.475 (domestic + external)
855 (domestic)
Monetary Assessment - Results
AIR MONETARY
BENEFIT VALUE
LINKED TO
PREMATURE
ALBANIA
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA
59-105 MEUR/y: domestic
295 MEUR/y: domestic +
external
72-128 MEUR/y: domestic
1.150 MEUR/y: domestic +
external
KOSOVO UNDER UNSCR
1244
82-145 MEUR/y: domestic
543 MEUR/y: domestic +
external
MONTENEGRO
FYR MACEDONIA
22-38 MEUR/y: domestic
285 MEUR/y: domestic +
external
DEATH
BENEFIT VALUE
LINKED TO
PREMATURE
23-40 MEUR/y: domestic
191 MEUR/y: domestic +
external
SERBIA
351-621 MEUR/y: domestic
1314 MEUR/y: domestic +
external
DEATH
TOTAL SEE COUNTRIES (EXCEPT CROATIA)*
BENEFIT VALUE
LINKED TO
631-1.115 MEUR/y: domestic
PREMATURE
DEATH
Remarks:
•The gaseous pollutants (NMVOC, SO2, NOX, NH3) comprise almost 73% of the benefits;
•PM10 comprise almost 27% of the total benefits;
•Avoided early mortality is generally the largest source of benefit (ca. 64%);
•Morbidity reduced benefits account generally for ca. 32% whilst reduced damage to materials and to
crops account for 4% and 0,0001% respectively;
*: total monetary benefits (linked to premature death) for the SEE countries (except Croatia) resulting from
the summation of domestic efforts to comply with the EU acquis in the field of air.
Benefits - Water
Health benefits
Households benefiting from connection to (improved)
quality water
Resource benefits
Reduction of contaminants in surface water
Ecosystem
benefits
Likely changes in river and lake water quality
Social benefits
Confidence in drinking water
Wider economic
benefits
Employment via tourism related to water recreation
Water: Monetary assessment
Water - Monetary
Total SEE-countries (except
Croatia)
Annual benefit of drinking waters
654 MEUR/year
Annual benefit of improved surface
water (use value)
71.1-186.9 MEUR/year
Annual benefit of improved ecosystem 18.3 MEUR/year
quality of surface water (non-use value)
Total discounted benefits over 20 years 6,133-7,307 MEUR
Waste: Qualitative Assessment
In general the region faces large problems with:
• wild waste dumps and non-compliant landfills,
• the lack of a well organised waste collection system and
lack of separate collection of waste streams
• lack of regional sanitary landfills and
• lack of decent hazardous waste management
The need for the establishment of a well functioning waste
stream data system and investments in public awareness
raising events is a priority for all of the countries under
investigation.
Waste: Qualitative Assessment
Health benefits
Lower pollution to groundwater and surface water
Reduced health and explosions risks as well as lower impact on
global warming as methane emissions from landfills are captured and
made to generate energy. Reduced health risks by improved
treatment and disposal of hazardous waste
Resource
benefits
Increased efficiency in the use of material and reduced production
of primary material as a result of higher levels of recycling. The
recovery of energy is increased through the Incineration Directive.
Ecosystem
benefits
Benefits to eco-systems and other environmental resources as
emissions from waste activities into air, water and soil are reduced
(avoided leachate, methane emissions) – reduced pressure
Reduced discrimination by fewer low income households living close
to unprotected landfills, etc.
Social benefits
Wider economic
benefits
Lower costs for waste collection, treatment and disposal, as less
waste will be produced.
Waste: Quantitative Assessment
TOTAL SEE COUNTRIES (EXCEPT CROATIA)*
WASTE- QUANTITATIVE
REDUCED LEVELS OF METHANE EMISSIONS (LANDFILL DIRECTIVE)
70-690
LANDFILL DISPOSAL LEVELS (LANDFILL DIRECTIVE)
Average between 64 to 54% of non-implementation levels (depending
on further investments in waste incineration or not)
RECYCLING LEVELS (PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE
DIRECTIVE)
for paper: +519 ktonnes;
for glass: +245 ktonnes;
for plastic: +60 ktonnes; and
for metals: +56 ktonnes
Total: 883 ktonnes/year
Benefits from Nature Directives in SEE
• Environmental benefits
 Increased protected areas coverage: from 6 to 13% on average
 Increase in the level of protection: eg of relict lakes ecosystems in
Albania, FYROM and Kosovo
 Increased connectivity between protected areas: eg reduced
fragmentation in FYROM due to infrastructures, overuse of
resources etc
 Reduced threats/risks to species and habitats: eg wetlands
destruction, intensive agriculture etc threatening birds in Kosovo
 Eco-system benefits: eg reduced soil erosion from deforestation
in Albania
 Improved environmental data – especially in Kosovo and B-H
Approach: Nature benefits
Quality
Quality
1000
1900
Pollution starts
to have major
effect on quality
1950
Transformation
of Europe to
Agricultural
economy
2000
Further potential possible
With EU Acquis
Reduced threats,
improved mgt
Now
Designation of new
areas as Natura 2000
Quantity
Quantity
Qualitative benefits: environmental – social - economic
Quantitative benefits: expected increase in protected areas size
Monetary benefits: n/a
Quantification: size of protected areas
•
•
•
•
Current level of protected areas: from 0.5% (B-H) to 9% (Albania)
Planned coverage: from 10% (Kosovo/Serbia) to 16% (B-H)
Planned growth of 1.3 million ha new forests in Serbia
Potential further increase of protected areas – eg towards EU
average: 15-30%
Country
Albania
Bosnia-Herzegovina
FYROM
Kosovo
Montenegro
Serbia
Average SEE countries
Current coverage (%)
9%
0.5%
7.3%
4.3%
8%
6.5%
5.9%
Future expected coverage (%)
14.5%
16%
12%
10%
15%*
10%
12.9%
Overall conclusions of the study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Approximately 6050 equivalent cases of chronic bronchitis / 4475 fewer cases
of premature death arising from lung cancer could be avoided per year
Air benefits : annual benefit 631 to 1.115 million EUR,
55% to 94% of population benefiting from quality improvements of drinking
water / 6.3 million households
Drinking water quality benefits : around 654 million EUR/year
Benefits of an improved surface water quality : 114 to 389 million EUR/year
Total Water Benefits: 750 - 893 million EUR/year
Total benefits air and water: 1,4 - 2 billion EUR/year
Reduction of methane emissions from landfills: 70 - 191 ktonnes/year
decrease in landfill disposal levels to around 64 to 54% of the nonimplementation levels.
Level of nature protected areas increases from 0.5% - 8% of the territory to
about 10% - 16%
Level of management and protection expected to improve. The SEE countries
will add to the wealth of EU biodiversity and ecosystems.
Overall conclusions of the study
•
•
•
Implementation of the EU environmental acquis leads to very important
environmental, economic and social benefits for the SEE countries
When comparing these benefits with the associated costs, careful
interpretation is needed, taking into account qualitative, quantified and
monetised benefits and the uncertainty margins
Understanding of Benefits should help confirm priority for action.
Results hopefully useful for:






National ministries of environment
National ministries of health, labour and consumer protection
Regional authorities
For municipalities
For inspectorates/enforcement agencies
For the European commission - for a basis for dialogue
 Good for the environment – with economic and social benefits
 Supporting move to EU accession
Benefits of compliance with the acquis in the
potential candidate countries
IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an
environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and
dissemination.
Thank you
Patrick ten Brink
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
www.ieep.eu
Building on work by the team:
Arcadis-Ecolas, IEEP, Metroeconomica & Enviro-L
Priority Environmental Investment Programme (PEIP) – CARDS Regional
Regional Meeting for Senior Officials from SEE and
Donors’ Community
26th November
Brussels, Belgium