Policies for a Better Environment Progress in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Brendan Gillespie OECD / EAP TF Secretariat 14 th Session of the UNECE Committee on Environmental Policy Geneva, 19 May 2007

The EECCA Report – An inclusive process June 2003, Kiev Conference –EECCA Environment Strategy adopted October 2004, Tbilisi Conference –Stocktaking Report Feb-June 2005, Consultations with II.OO.s, Countries, NGOs –EECCA Report to be a collaborative effort May 2006, Kiev Workshop: Country Input –Report Structure, EAP TF Questionnaire March06-Feb07: Input from II.OO.s November 2006, NGO workshops: NGO Input December 2006, Profiles Workshop: Country Input

The EECCA Report – A simple structure Introduction [the EECCA context] 6 pg Progress across Objectives 65 pg - Introduction - (Current situation) - Recent progress - Main barriers - Ways forward - Further reading Conclusions/recommendations 4 pg Country Profiles 48 pg

In a still difficult context… Rapid growth, but varying across countries Increasingly a Russian-centric trade bloc FDI in oil&gas sector…only Poverty declining, but still high Governance! Weak institutions, weak policy- making capacities, endemic corruption Political diversification Security issues high on international and domestic agendas

…progress is taking place… Over 200 examples identified Basic legal and policy frameworks often in place Noticeable progress on –Enforcement (new inspectorates) –WSS (tariff setting, private sector operators) –IWRM (Water Codes, roadmaps) –Agriculture and Forestry (nutrient management, IPM, organic farming, certification)

…but (on the surface) has not accelerated. Implementation gap persists, particularly at sub-national level Lack of coherent approaches to reform Less progress on –Waste management –Biodiversity (integration) –Transport –Energy (efficiency) Examples of regression –Downsizing in Moldova –Downgrading in Kyrgyz Rep Groundwork being done, patience likely to pay off

Finance is a cross-cutting barrier… Environmental protection expenditure remains low PEE decreasing as % of total government spending Little incentive for industry to invest in pollution abatement (Air, Water) New sources of finance (CDM) not exploited Local financial markets untapped (WSS, Waste) Donor support declining

…but not always the most important one. CHALLENGING BUT ACTIONABLE WEAKNESSES - Role of political leaders - Administrations “biased” towards producing laws rather than results - Shortage of “market-related” skills - Role of information in policy development and implementation - Weak horizontal and vertical co-ordination - Low awareness of the general public and economic agents STRUCTURAL AND POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS -Lack of strong drivers -Poor governance context -Challenge of de-centralising responsibilities in a fiscally-sound way -Competitiveness and social concerns -Decreasing donor support -Top policy-makers’ perception of growth/environment trade-offs

A post-Belgrade Agenda A clear vision A step-by-step approach to reform A stronger focus on implementation An approach that focuses on providing real incentives to producers and consumers An improved institutional framework A comprehensive approach to environmental financing A strategic investment in skills A stronger engagement of stakeholders A more supportive international co-operation framework

And the EECCA Environment Strategy? A realistic evaluation from EECCA countries – Positives: useful as a framework for guiding action and support as well as for assessing progress) – Negatives: non-binding character, lack of implementation mechanisms, too many issues) A positive evaluation from donors – Useful to guide cooperation efforts – Useful to mobilise funds for cooperation Need for a more differentiated geographic approach (sub- regional, country-targeted) but also for EECCA-wide mechanisms – to exchange information and good practice – to facilitate dialogue and co-operation with donors

Thanks