United Nations ECE Econ omic and Social Council...GE.13-24564 Economi Committe Working G Monitorin...

GE.13-24564

Economi

Committe

Working GMonitorin

Fourteenth sGeneva, 7 anItem 5 (c) of Support to eassessment aInformationenvironmen

Summar

ic Commi

ee on Env

Group on Eng and Asse

session nd 8 Novembef the provisionestablishing aand developin

n System: prent assessment

Report oCaucasuenvironm

ry

The Assessment mechanismsenvironmenCaucasus, CSouth-Easte

In puprepared threcommendproduction o

United

Econ

ission for

vironmenta

Environmeessment

er 2013 nal agenda a regular prong the Sharedeparation of ireports

on progreus and Cement asse

terms of refefor 2012–20

s for periodintal policies aCentral Asia aern Europe (EC

ursuance of the present rations that coof state-of-the

Nations

nomic a

Europe

al Policy

ental

cess of envirod Environmendicator-bas

ess made bentral Asiessment re

erence of the 014 call for itc, regular asand decision-and the RussiCE/CEP/2012

this mandate,eport to heluld be of assi

e-environment

and So

onmental ental sed

by countra in prodeports

Working Grot to promote,

ssessments an-making in tian Federation2/6, annex, par

, the secretarlp the Workistance to count reports.

cial Co

ries of Eaducing ind

oup on Envir, inter alia, thnd evaluationthe countries n, as well as ra. 3 (d)).

riat with the king Group ntries seeking

ouncil

stern Eurdicator-ba

onmental Mohe use of ind

n of the effeof Eastern

in interested

support of ain identifyin

g to initiate or

EDistr.: G28 Augu OriginalEnglish a

rope, the ased

onitoring and dicator-based ectiveness of

Europe, the countries of

a consultant, ng a set of r improve the

ECE/CEP/A

General ust 2013

l: English and Russian o

AC.10/2013/5

only

5

ECE/CEP/AC.10/2013/5

2

Contents Paragraphs Page

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1–5 3

II. Legal and regulatory basis for production of indicator-based environment assessment reports ................................................................................................... 6–11 3

III. Institutional mechanisms for the production of indicator-based environment assessment reports ................................................................................................... 12–21 5

IV. Structure and content of indicator-based environment assessment reports ............. 22–55 8

A. Consistency of national indicator-based environment assessment reports with the Guidelines ............................................................................. 22–39 8

B. Use of environmental indicators in indicator-based environment assessment reports .......................................................................................... 40–45 10

C. Data assurance and control systems ................................................................ 46–50 12

D. Use of modern technologies for data presentation .......................................... 51–55 12

V. Publication and dissemination of indicator-based environment assessment reports 56–58 13

VI. Links with other assessment reports ........................................................................ 59–60 13

VII. Use and evaluation of indicator-based environment assessment reports ................. 61–65 14

VIII. Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................................... 66–95 15

A. Legal and regulatory basis .............................................................................. 67–70 15

B. Institutional mechanisms ................................................................................ 71–74 15

C. Structure and content ...................................................................................... 75–87 16

D. Publication and dissemination ........................................................................ 88–89 18

E. Links with other assessment reports ............................................................... 90–91 18

F. Use and evaluation .......................................................................................... 92–95 18

Annexes

I. Legislation, periodicity, responsible agencies and web pages for indicator-based environment assessment report in target countries ................................................................... 19

II. Environmental indicators used in indicator-based environment assessment reports in target countries ..................................................................................................................... 20

Boxes

1. Legislation on the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports in the target countries ...... 4

2. By-laws describing the procedures for the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports ... 4

3. Responsible Government agencies for the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports in the target countries ............................................................................................................... 5

4. Responsible Government agencies for the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports in Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................................... 6

5. Procedures for production of state-of-the-environment reports in Ukraine ............................. 7

6. Public involvement in the state-of-the-environment preparation process in Georgia .............. 7

7. National environmental targets of the Russian Federation ....................................................... 11

8. Reports produced by the Russian Federation in the field of environmental assessment .......... 13


3

I. Introduction

1. Ministers at the Sixth “Environment for Europe” Ministerial Conference (Belgrade, 2007) endorsed the Guidelines for the Preparation of Indicator-based Environment Assessment Reports for Eastern European, Caucasian and Central Asian countries1 (the Guidelines) prepared by the Working Group on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. The Guidelines provide the target countries with practical guidance on improving the analytical parts of their national and/or territorial environment reports so that they reports can support the setting of priorities and targets for environmental policy and the assessment of the efficiency of environmental measures.

2. To further help the countries in the production of these reports, also called indicator-based state-of-the-environment (SoE) reports, at its thirteenth session the Working Group decided to establish a network of national focal points in the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia responsible for preparing these reports, taking into account, in particular, the experience gained within the similar network established under the European Environment Agency (EEA). Within the network target countries will share experiences and good practices on preparing indicator-based SoE reports in order to help them to start or to improve the production of such reports.

3. A first meeting of the national focal points was held on 16 and 17 April 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland, at which good practice was shared in elaboration of the SoE reports. Participants also discussed progress made in the production of the SoE reports.

4. The present report analyses the progress made in the production of SoE reports by the target countries, in accordance with the Guidelines. It is based on the findings from the April meeting, the target countries’ responses to questionnaires and an open search of available data and relevant information. It covers 11 target countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

5. This report contains lessons learned and recommendations for the preparation and improvement of SoE reports by the target countries.

II. Legal and regulatory basis for the production of indicator-based environment assessment reports

6. The Guidelines recommend that SoE reports of the target countries should have the status of official documents issued on behalf of the national Governments concerned. Such a status should derive from specific articles of national law. Furthermore, it is recommended that a permanent, specially authorized State body be designated for the preparation, publication and dissemination of the reports, and that the financing of the production and distribution of the reports be ensured through the State budget.

7. National legislation provides for the regular production of SoE reports as official Government publications in all the target countries reviewed, except for Armenia and Tajikistan. Box 1 lists the relevant articles of these national laws by country.

1 See Environmental indicators and indicator-based assessment reports — Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, United Nations sales publication, Sales No. E 07.II.E.9, part two. Available from http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=30331.


4

Box 1 Legislation on the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports in the target countries

Azerbaijan: Paragraph 9 of the 2002 Law on Access to Environmental Information.

Belarus: Article 74 of the 1992 Law on Environmental Protection.

Georgia: Article 14 of the 1996 Law on Environmental Protection.

Kazakhstan: Article 161 of the 2007 Environmental Code of Kazakhstan.

Kyrgyzstan: Article 50 of the 1999 Law on Environmental Protection.

Republic of Moldova: Article 14 of the 1993 Law on Environmental Protection.

Russian Federation: Article 63.2 of the 2002 Law on Environmental Protection.

Ukraine: Article 25-1 of the 1991 Law on Environmental Protection.

Uzbekistan: Article 28 of the 1995 Law on Environmental Protection.

8. The legislation obliges the production of the reports at different intervals in different countries. The intervals vary — from annual reporting (Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine), to reporting once every three years (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan) to reporting every four years (Belarus and Uzbekistan). At the same time, some countries do not fulfil the obligation in practice: e.g., the Republic of Moldova has not produced SoE reports on an annual basis and Azerbaijan will only issue its first SoE report in 2013.

9. In a number of the target countries (Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) the legislation also specifies basic steps and procedures for the preparation of SoE reports (see box 2). In the other target countries the procedures are often regulated by the orders of the agencies responsible.

Box 2 By-laws describing the procedures for the preparation of state-of-the- environment reports

Belarus: Order of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus of 24 May 2008 No. 734 “On approval of the Regulation on the procedure for the formation and maintenance of the State Fund of data on the state of the environment and their impact on the composition and environmental information utility subject to mandatory distribution, the holders of such information who are obliged to distribute it, and the frequency of its dissemination”.

Georgia: Presidential Decree No. 389 of 25 June 1999 on the “Rules of Development of National Report on the State of Environment”.

Kyrgyzstan: Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic dated 7 August 2012 No. 553 “On approval of the National Report on the State of the Environment of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2006–2011”.

Russian Federation: Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 24 September 2012 No. 966 on “Approval of the regulations for the preparation and distribution of annual State of Environment report”.


5

Ukraine: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 7 February 1992 No. 61 “On ensuring the preparation of the National report on the state of the environment in Ukraine”.

Uzbekistan: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of 31 October 2011 No. 292 “On the approval of the State programme of environmental monitoring in the Republic of Uzbekistan for 2011–2015”.

10. Regarding the budgets to produce the SoE reports, they are considered insufficient. The practice has shown that the target countries apply for and use financial grants and technical assistance from donors and international organizations for the production of SoE reports: for example, the production of the 2011 report in Georgia was funded through a grant from the European Union and the production of 2008 report in Uzbekistan and 2011 report in the Republic of Moldova were both supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

11. While there are currently no specific requirements for the production of SoE reports in Armenia and the country has only produced one such report (in 2002) — with technical assistance from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and the United Nations Environment Programme — Armenia is currently in the process of elaborating the necessary legal basis.

III. Institutional mechanisms for the production of indicator-based environment assessment reports

12. State bodies responsible for the production and dissemination of SoE reports (see box 3) have been designated in all of the target countries. These State bodies appointed a division, department or scientific institute within their structure which have the direct obligation for the drafting of SoE reports.

13. In Belarus and the Republic of Moldova the drafting obligation lies with scientific institutes: the Institute of Nature Management of the Academy of Science under the supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection in Belarus and the Institute of Ecology and Geography under the joint supervision of the Ministry of Environment and the National Academy of Science in the Republic of Moldova.

Box 3 Responsible Government agencies for the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports in the target countries

Armenia: Ministry of Nature Protection

Azerbaijan: Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources

Belarus: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

Georgia: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection

Kazakhstan: Ministry of Environmental Protection

Kyrgyzstan: State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry

Republic of Moldova: Ministry of Environment

Russian Federation: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment


6

Tajikistan: Committee for the Protection of Environment

Ukraine: Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources

Uzbekistan: Committee for Nature Protection

14. When there are changes in the legal basis for the SoE reports, often the bodies responsible for their production change; an example of such development in Kazakhstan is presented in box 4.

Box 4 Responsible Government agencies for the preparation of state-of-the-environment reports in Kazakhstan

The annual national SoE reports produced until 2010 in Kazakhstan were prepared by the Scientific Research Institute of Ecology and Climate within the budget programme, “Scientific research in the field of environmental protection”. With the adoption in 2011 of the new law “On Science” the preparation of the SoE report under this budget line became impossible as the SoE report is not considered to be a scientific publication. Because of this change, the responsibility for the production and dissemination of the Kazakh national SoE report has been moved to the Informational and Analytical Centre of Environmental Protection of the Ministry of Environmental Protection

15. The Guidelines prescribe the establishment of a general data management system that allow for the creation and updating of databases and ensure good data quality assessment. They also suggest procedures for the development of indicators, as well as for report evaluation. These provisions are the necessary steps for the production of good quality SoE reports.

16. The institutional arrangements should therefore provide for an effective data management system, indicator development and report evaluation. The arrangements are closely linked with the responsibilities, available budget and mandates of the State bodies designated for ensuring SoE reporting. These may include coordination mechanisms for necessary data flow and the creation of working or expert groups for elaboration of the report and its review.

17. The designated State bodies for SoE reporting coordinate the necessary data flow in the target countries. In doing so, they use the mandate giving them the right to obtain all the essential data from all the relevant State agencies, scientific institutions, environmental monitoring and inspection agencies, institutions responsible for inventories of natural resources, etc. that are in charge of collection of the primary data. Box 5 provides an example from Ukraine of procedures for producing the SoE reports.

18. In Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation the responsible bodies have established databases (State funds of environmental information), which are populated with the data obtained.

19. The designated State bodies for SoE reporting establish inter-agency working groups for the preparation of the report. These groups include representatives of other State agencies, scientific institutions, representatives of different environmental projects and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The creation of new ad hoc working groups for each report is a common practice in the target countries.


7

Box 5 Procedures for production of state-of-the-environment reports in Ukraine

Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 7 February 1992 No. 61 “On Ensuring the preparation of the National Report on the State of Environment in Ukraine” defines 16 institutions that provide data for the preparation of the individual sections of the draft report.

Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 30 March 1998 No. 391 “On approval of the State environmental monitoring system” and signed agreements regulate the exchange of information between the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources and other State bodies responsible for environmental monitoring.

Annual orders of the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources approve the structure and provide brief guidance on the development of the sections of the annual national reports.

Over the past few years, the structure of the report has been provisionally discussed with representatives of the public (mainly via the Public Council at the Ministry).

The draft report is sent for consideration to the ministries and agencies whose representatives are members of the inter-departmental commission. Revision of the report is undertaken by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources taking into consideration the comments and suggestions received.

The finalized report is sent to the Supreme Council of Ukraine for approval. Following that, the national report is issued, printed as a publication and uploaded on the website of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources.

20. In addition, some of the target counties (Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine) established procedures for public participation in the production of the SoE reports. Box 6 contains an example from Georgia.

Box 6 Public involvement in the state-of-the-environment preparation process in Georgia

To ensure transparency in the preparation process of the 2010 national SoE report, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources established for the first time a Public Council under which public hearings on the draft report were held. The Council was composed of the representatives of NGOs and social and scientific organizations. The Public Council was established without any formal procedures, at the request of Ministry; however, the Ministry is currently preparing legislative amendments to provide a legal basis for public hearings.

In addition, for the 2010 report, information on its preparation, including on the public hearings, was shared through the popular daily electronic bulletin of the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network.

The report preparation process was also communicated to the public through a web page specifically created for this purpose (www.soegeorgia.blogspot.ch).

21. The report evaluation procedure is described separately under section VII of this report.


8

IV. Structure and content of the indicator-based environment assessment reports

A. Consistency of indicator-based environment assessment reports with the Guidelines

22. The Guidelines prescribe seven chapters to be included in the SoE reports:

(a) Introduction, containing a brief description of the objective, structure and content of the report as well as its authors;

(b) General framework, providing brief information on the country’s socioeconomic situation;

(c) Environmental indicators, presenting the indicators in a recommended format;

(d) Comparisons, presenting national values vis-à-vis the values of comparable countries;

(e) System of environmental protection, describing the efficiency of environmental policy based on policy-response indicators;

(f) Conclusions and recommendations, offering the major findings and policy recommendations for solving the urgent environmental problems;

(g) Annexes, providing references to information relevant to the report.

Introduction

23. The SoE reports produced by the target countries contain introductions with a brief description of the objectives, structure and content of the report. These further mention the names of the institutions and authors involved in the preparation process, including those institutions providing data.

24. Furthermore, in the reports of four countries (Belarus, the Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine) the introduction mentions that the reports are based on or take into account the Guidelines.

General framework

25. A general framework chapter exists in all of the SoE reports produced by the target countries except for the Russian report, in which the prescribed content of the chapter is presented throughout the subchapters on the different regions of the Russian Federation.

26. The reports of Belarus, Georgia and Kazakhstan contain indicators on population density, basic social and demographic indicators and gross domestic product (GDP) and its sectoral composition. GDP is expressed only in local currencies.

27. The reports of Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova contain the above-mentioned indicators, but there is no sectoral or territorial composition of GDP.

Environmental indicators

28. The Guidelines suggest presenting the core set of environmental indicators under the following subchapters: Air Pollution and Ozone Depletion; Climate Change; Water; Biodiversity; Land and Soil; Agriculture; Energy; Transport; and Waste. Optionally, country-specific additional indicators could be added.


9

29. The target countries produce separate chapters rather than subchapters with environmental indicators. These describe the state of environmental media (air, water, land) or economic sectors (agriculture, transport). They thus cover in most of the cases the topics of the subchapters as prescribed by the Guidelines.

30. Most of the target countries included additional country-specific chapters (or subchapters) in their SoE reports: Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine on radiation pollution; Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova on natural disasters and emergency situations; and the Russian Federation on its regions and federal districts.

31. The information regarding the use of the recommended indicators and their format for presentation is provided under section IV.B

Comparisons

32. The SoE reports of the target countries provide some information showing their national values in comparison with the values of other countries.

33. The SoE report of the Republic of Moldova compares the number of endangered species with Romania and Ukraine according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red list. Belarus compares the indicator of water availability per capita with Poland and Ukraine. Georgia compares the indicators of freshwater renewable resources per capita and of density of the main roads and railway networks with the European countries and with some other countries of similar size.

34. Nevertheless, the comparisons are not commonly applied by the target countries in their SoE reports.

System of environmental protection

35. All SoE reports of the target countries have a system of environmental protection chapter (mainly under the name of “Environmental management”). Nonetheless, not all the recommended indicators are referred to (e.g., number of ISO 14000-certified companies).

36. In most cases this chapter describes issues such as: the legislative basis of environmental protection; economic instruments for environmental protection; environmental planning; environmental monitoring; licensing of natural resources; environmental control; international cooperation; environmental science and education; and environmental financing. For example, in Belarus there are three indicators that describe environmental financing: environmental expenditures, environmental investments and State budget share in environmental expenditures.

Conclusions and recommendations

37. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are the only countries that include both conclusions and recommendations in their SoE report. The SoE reports of some other target countries (Belarus, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan) contain a conclusions chapter but do not provide any recommendations. Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation have no specific chapters with conclusions and recommendations nor are these included in other chapters describing the SoE components

Annexes

38. Annexes with the prescribed information on core indicators of the state of the environment of territorial units are included in the SoE reports of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. Other target countries do not have the annexes in their SoE reports.


10

39. The table below contains examples of typical chapters of SoE reports of three target countries.

Chapters in SoE reports of three selected countries

Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan

Introduction Foreword List of authors

Overview Introduction References

Air pollution Summary Introduction

Climate change Impacts of socioeconomic factors on environment

General overview of territory

Water resources Air protection Socioeconomic changes in Kazakhstan

Biodiversity Protection of water resources Climatic features of the year

Land Protection of land resources Quality of environment and human health

Agriculture Protection of wildlife Water resources

Transport Waste and other issues Land resources

Waste Impact of economic sectors Agriculture

Radiation situation Environmental management Energy

Environmental management Transport

Conclusions Waste and industry

Protected areas, forest and biodiversity

Environmental management

Conclusions

Recommendations

Annexes

B. Use of environmental indicators in indicator-based environment assessment reports

40. In accordance with the Guidelines, the core set of environmental indicators as presented in the ECE Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia2 (the Indicator Guidelines) represents the main message

2 Ibid, part one.


11

of the SoE report. The description of the indicators should follow a suggested format including, where relevant, a brief description and purpose, the latest values, time-series data, national projections, international targets and the relevance for environmental policy. Furthermore, the presentation of each indicator should be accompanied by a description of policy goals and targets and an abridged Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis.

41. The target countries use the majority of the indicators from the Indicator Guidelines, which is clearly a positive development. For example, the SoE reports of the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation lack only the agricultural indicators, and the Belarusian report is missing the energy indicators. In addition, most of the target countries face problems with using the indicator on the composition of the road motor vehicle fleet by fuel type (for more details, see annex II).

42. Uzbekistan started to use environmental indicators through a UNDP-supported project, “Enhancement of the Environmental Indicators Database with GIS3 Application to Monitor the State of the Environment in Uzbekistan”.

43. The prescribed format for the presentation of the indicators is used by the target countries in a limited way in their SoE reports. They present indicators by their latest values expressed in appropriate units and provide in most cases, where relevant, time-series data.

44. A brief description and the purpose of the indicators — however, without reference to the Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses (DPSIR) framework or their relevance for policy goals — are provided in the reports of Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The report of the Russian Federation is the only one that provides references to national targets. Box 7 contains some more details on those targets. The report of Kazakhstan provides information on its agreed voluntary obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The national projections are only referred to by Belarus for emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia (NH3) in the atmosphere for 2020.

Box 7 National environmental targets of the Russian Federation

In 2008 the federal Government approved a concept of long-term socioeconomic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020, with which it established the 2020 target, as follows:

(a) A fivefold reduction in the number of cities with high or very high pollution (the defined pollutants such as carbon monoxide, NH3,nitrogen dioxide, SO2 or others exceeds ten times or more the Maximum Allowable Concentration);

(b) No less than a fourfold reduction in the number of people living in adverse environmental conditions.

45. The SoE reports of the target countries do not contain abridged SWOT analyses for the presentation of the indicators.

3 Geographic information system.


12

C. Data assurance and control systems

46. The Guidelines prescribe that the data used in the SoE reports should be assessed with respect to quality, unambiguousness and development in time for time-series data.

47. The widely applied practice in the target countries is the use of official data only. These data are produced by the various agencies responsible for their primary collection. Where data are not available, certain recommended indicators are omitted. For example, Belarus did not include energy indicators in its most recent report.

48 At the same time, there is no clarity regarding the extent to which procedures have been established in the target countries to initiate collection of data that were assessed as insufficient. There is also no information about what the practice is in using data if more than one data set exists. Furthermore, there is no information whether designated bodies have procedures in place to identify the need to make significant changes in time series data, before using the data.

49. In a number of target countries, e.g., in Belarus, the bodies responsible for SoE reporting have developed and are operating software that performs a logical control of data.

50. The target countries do not seem to have a formal procedure for validation of data by the responsible bodies. As a matter of fact, the target countries are interested in clarification from the Working Group as to what a validation procedure is and of what it should consist.

D. Use of modern technologies for data presentation

51. The Guidelines recommend the target countries to initiate the use of modern information technology for the production of the SoE reports. This should make the reports easier to use, reduce the volume of material and allow information to be better presented. Tables, diagrams, graphs, sketches and maps accompanied by explanations, analysis and interpretation are examples of modern information technology.

52. The target countries produce tables, diagrams, graphs, maps and other visual material for their SoE reports. At the same time, use of satellite images is not yet a practice for the data presentation.

53. Some of the countries have adopted regulations requiring the use of modern technologies for data presentation, e.g.: (a) The Government resolution of Kazakhstan “On creation of the unified system of Government inventories of natural sites of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the basis of digital geographic information systems”; and (b) the Government resolution of the Russian Federation of 24 September 2012 No. 966 on “Approval of the regulations for the preparation and distribution of annual State of Environment report”.

54. With the support of UNDP, Uzbekistan developed a specific interface connected with the geographic information system (GIS) database. The interface helps in analysing available data and greatly enhanced the geographical presentation of data with high-quality maps describing the state of different environmental components. The 2008 Environmental Atlas of Uzbekistan, for example, is a compilation of such maps.

55. At the same time, following the mainstream thinking that modern technologies should not only be used to present a final product but also to share the environmental data, with the exception of the Russian Federation, which is working on presentation of data in an interactive mode through the Internet, the target countries do not seem to use any technologies for data sharing.


13

V. Publication and dissemination of the indicator-based environment assessment reports

56. The Guidelines suggest that the Governments of the target countries put in place procedures for publication and dissemination of SoE reports with due regard for the requirements of the target readership. Reports should especially be easily accessible in electronic form and different distribution channels should be used to disseminate the reports to the target readership.

57. All of the reviewed countries defined the target readership for their reports. They have established procedures for the distribution of SoE reports, as well as defined a limited target group — mainly Government agencies — for distribution of hard copies. The reports are distributed in electronic formats on compact discs, especially during information meetings, seminars and conferences on the topics related to environmental protection. The responsible State bodies post the reports on their web pages (see annex I), and should be available to all interested readers. However, the reports are not always visibly displayed on the web pages, which can create access problem for potential users.

58. The target countries publish their reports in the national languages. In addition, Armenia (for its 2002 report), Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan also publish Russian language versions, whereas Azerbaijan (for its upcoming report), Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan (for its 2005 report) publish English-language editions. Ukraine produces a summary of its SoE reports in English.

VI. Links with other assessment reports

59. The target countries — depending on their national requirements as well as their reporting obligations under multilateral environmental agreements to which they are Parties — produce a variety of reports that are interlinked with the SoE report. The reports can be assessments of a particular environmental media (e.g., water, mineral resources, forests), or on the supply of drinking water or energy supply and use, etc. Box 8 provides an example of the different reports produced in the field of environmental assessment by the Russian Federation.

Box 8 Reports produced by the Russian Federation in the field of environmental assessment

The relevant State bodies in the Russian Federation produce the following reports in the field of environmental assessment:

(a) State annual report on the status and use of water resources of the Russian Federation;

(b) State annual report on the status and use of mineral resources in the Russian Federation;

(c) State annual report on the state of Lake Baikal and the measures for its protection;

(d) Annual report on the status and use of forests of the Russian Federation;

(e) Annual overview of the state and pollution of the environment in the Russian Federation;


14

(f) Annual report on the peculiarities of climate on the territory of the Russian Federation;

(g) Annual national inventory report on anthropogenic emissions by sources not controlled by the Montreal Protocol;4

(h) Yearbook, “State of surface water ecosystems Russian Federation (including hydrobiological indicators)”;

(i) Yearbook, “State of air pollution in the cities of Russian Federation”;

(j) Yearbook, “Monitoring of pesticides in the environment of the Russian Federation”;

(k) Yearbook, “The quality of sea water by hydrochemical indicators”;

(l) Yearbook, “The quality of surface waters of the Russian Federation”;

(m) Yearbook, “Soil contamination of the Russian Federation by toxicants of industrial origin and others”.

60. The assessment reports often use environmental indicators, including those recommended by the Guidelines. They therefore can provide a good basis for the preparation of the relevant parts of SoE reports and vice versa.

VII. Use and evaluation of the indicator-based environment assessment reports

61. The indicator-based SoE reports can be an effective tool in helping to identify the causes and effects of environmental conditions. They can also make it possible to track and evaluate environmental policy implementation and indicate where corrective policy actions are necessary to improve environmental performance, comply with international obligations and targets, etc. The wide use of the information provided in the SoE reports, as well as implementation of their recommendations by relevant State authorities, is thus important.

62. The target countries — their Governmental agencies, local authorities etc. — use the SoE reports, their conclusions and recommendations, where available, to further develop the State or local policy priorities in the field of environmental protection. The reports are also used by the local NGOs, the scientific sector and international organizations. They further serve as a good source of baseline environmental information for enterprises that intend to start business operation in the country.

63. To be a reliable and relevant source of information, the SoE report should be appropriately evaluated. The Guidelines call for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation. The former — carried out by selected independent experts before finalization of the report — is aimed at quality assurance. The latter — based on the reaction of readers and users — is crucial for receiving feedback on the relevance of issues covered in the report.

64. All the target countries have established procedures for the ex-ante evaluation of their reports; nevertheless, these procedures do not conform with the Guidelines. The designated evaluators mainly come from the same State authorities and scientific institutions that participate in the report’s production. For example, in Belarus the results of

4 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.


15

the analysis of environmental indicators presented in the national report were examined and approved by experts from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, the body responsible for the production of the report.

65. The reports may also be shared (mainly via the Internet) with different stakeholders for their comments and feedback. However, the ex-post evaluation is not practiced in the countries so far.

VIII. Conclusions and recommendations

66. On the basis of the information available, the analysis shows that the target countries have not yet been able to fully implement the Guidelines. This section identifies the possible causes for this situation under the specific subsections below, and recommends actions to the countries and to the Working Group in order to take additional efforts to improve it.

A. Legal and regulatory basis

67. The majority of the target countries seem to have put in place the necessary legal basis for the production and publication of the SoE reports, including the obligation to prepare the report and the designation of the competent State body to do so. At the same time, a number of the target countries seem to face challenges in the regular preparation of their reports or in complying with the intervals set for reporting. Furthermore, several target countries rely on external assistance or funding for the production of their SoE report.

68. This situation may be owing to a lack of sufficient national resources for the elaboration of the report.

69. While funding and assistance from international donors helps in producing the SoE reports, it is not clear if the target countries would be in position to meet their national reporting requirements if this support were not available.

Recommendations to the target countries

70. If they have not done so yet:

(a) Target countries without a comprehensive legal framework for the production of the SoE reports should put one in place. In doing so, they should take into account the experience made by more advanced countries in this field;

(b) Target countries that are not able to comply with the obligation set for annual reporting should revise that obligation, taking into account the available national capacity;

(c) Target countries should adjust their internal budgets to allow regular reporting at intervals of not less than every three to four years.

B. Institutional mechanisms

71. Most of the target countries appear to have established institutional procedures for the production of SoE reports, in particular with regard to the data flow between the institutions responsible for the primary data collection and the body in charge of producing the SoE report. At the same time, there is no clarity regarding procedures for the initiation of data collection where these were insufficient or lacking, or for the validation and quality assessment of data. Lack of these procedures may hamper efficient production of the reports and make the process more resource intensive.


16

72. In addition, availability of electronic inventories can be very helpful in ensuring effective data management. Therefore possibilities for establishing electronic inventories should be considered, if this has not already been done.

Recommendations

To the target countries

73. Target countries, if they have not done so yet, should:

(a) Verify the existing institutional procedures against the Guidelines recommendations. They should identify possible procedural gaps and eliminate them in order to improve the efficiency of the report production process;

(b) Establish electronic inventories. In doing so, they may wish to take into account the experience of other countries.

To the Working Group

74. The Working Group may wish to discuss possible ways to help the target countries in verifying that their institutional procedures are in line with the Guidelines, and in establishing electronic inventories.

C. Structure and content

1. Consistency with the Guidelines

75. The target countries only partially follow the recommended structure and content for the SoE report set out in the Guidelines. Typically, the chapter on comparisons that should present national indicator values against the values of similar countries is lacking. Many of the reports do not yet include a specific chapter with the conclusions and recommendations. Also, certain environmental topics are not covered in the reports of the target countries.

76. At the same time, lack of these specific chapters may diminish the understanding of the environmental performance of a country by its decision makers.

Recommendations


77. Target countries, if they have not done so yet, should:

(a) Introduce assessment of environmental topics not yet included in their SoE reports but recommended by the Guidelines;

(b) Include comparisons and conclusions and recommendations chapters in their SoE reports.


78. The Working Group may wish to discuss ways to share information between the countries to enable the target countries to have access to the information necessary for making the cross-country comparisons.

2. Use of environmental indicators

79. The target countries use most of the recommended indicators. At the same time, the prescribed format for the presentation of the indicators is applied only in a limited way. A


17

description of the indicators’ place in the DPSIR framework and SWOT analysis are not provided. Projections, targets and the relevance for environmental policy are rarely or insufficiently explained.

80. The prescribed format of the report should make it possible to identify the causes and effects of the environmental conditions in a country and making it possible to track and evaluate the implementation of environmental policies. If this format is not followed, the report may not serve its purpose fully.

Recommendations


81. Target countries, if they have not done so yet, should undertake efforts to:

(a) Describe indicators by using the DPSIR framework, referring to national projections, international and national targets and presenting the impact of existing policies;

(b) Provide an abridged SWOT analysis.


82. The Working Group may wish to discuss ways to help the target countries to use the prescribed format.

3. Data assurance and control systems

83. In most of the target countries the data used in the national SoE reports are provided by the relevant State agencies and institutions responsible for their primary collection. At the same time, there is no information about procedures for data assurance and control. It is therefore not clear to what extent the data used is adequate (recalculated, if necessary) and of the required quality for making the necessary assessments.


84. Target countries, if they have not already done so, should develop data assurance and control systems based on the international practice available.

4. Use of modern technologies for data presentation

85. All the target countries use different kinds of visual materials, such as diagrams, maps, tables, or charts for presenting data in their SoE reports. Only a few of the countries use GIS or satellite imaging in their reports. At the same time, use of modern technologies for sharing data used in SoE reports is not a common practice.

Recommendations


86. If they have not done so yet, Target countries should:

(a) Use visual material for presenting data in their SoE reports;

(b) Explore the possibilities for electronic sharing of data that are used in their SoE reports.


18


87. The Working Group may wish to promote electronic data sharing between the target countries and with other countries, and explore ways for facilitating this process.

D. Publication and dissemination

88. In most of the target countries the SoE reports are available both in paper and electronic formats. The reports are disseminated to the relevant Government agencies and other interested stakeholders. A common practice by the responsible State bodies is to make the report available through the Internet. However, the reports are not always visibly displayed on the respective web pages, making them difficult to access for potential users.


89. Target countries, if they have not done so yet, should ensure that the SoE reports are easily accessible over the web pages of the responsible State bodies.

E. Links with other assessment reports

90. Most of the target countries publish other types of environmental assessment reports, which are interlinked and can provide a good basis, if using environmental indicators, for SoE reports and vice versa.

Recommendation to the Working Group

91. The Working Group may wish to promote the use of environmental indicators and their presentation format in other environmental assessment reports in order to support the creation of a harmonized system of environmental reporting in the target countries.

F. Use and evaluation

92. The target countries seem to use their SoE reports for environmental decision making, socioeconomic planning and for supporting the development of various policies.

93. Regarding the evaluation of reports, the target countries use only the ex-ante evaluation procedure. Nevertheless, such evaluations are not always made by independent experts.

Recommendations


94. The target countries, if they have not done so yet, should introduce ex-ante evaluation by independent experts and establish post-ante evaluation of SoE reports.


95. The Working Group may wish to help the target countries in elaborating the ex-ante and post-ante evaluation procedures.


19

Annex I

Legislation, periodicity, responsible agencies and web pages with indicator-based environment assessment reports in the target countries

Countries Main legislative acts regulating SoE reporting

Periodicity of SoE reporting

Responsible State agencies and web pages for posting SoE reports

Armenia Ministerial orders Not defined, last

report from 2002 Ministry of Nature Protection, www.mnp.am

Azerbaijan Law on Access to Environmental Information

Three yearsa Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, www.eco.gov.az

Belarus Law on Environmental Protection

Four years Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, http://minpriroda.gov.by

Georgia Law on Environmental Protection

Three years Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection, http.moe.gov.ge

Kazakhstan Environmental Code Annual Ministry of Environmental Protection, www.eco.gov.kz

Kyrgyzstan Law on Environmental Protection

Three years State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry, www.nature.kg

Republic of Moldova

Law on Environmental Protection

Annualb Ministry of Environment, www.mediu.gov.md

Russian Federation

Law on Environmental Protection

Annual Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, www.mnr.gov.ru

Tajikistan Order of the Chair of the Environmental Committee

Not defined, last report from 2005

Committee for the Protection of Environment, www.ekh.unep.org and www.hifzitabiat.tj

Ukraine Law on Environmental Protection

Annualc Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, www.menr.gov.ua

Uzbekistan Law on Environmental Protection

Four years Committee for Nature Protection, www.uznature.uz

a First SoE report will be published in 2013. b According to the legislation, but the last report was for the period 2007–2010. c According to the legislation, but the last report was for the period 2008–2010.


20

Annex II

Environmental indicators used in indicator-based environment assessment reports in the target countries

Indicator BY GE KG KZ MD RU UA UZ a

A. Air pollution and ozone depletion

1. Emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air + + + + + + + +

2. Ambient air quality in urban areas + + + + + + + +

3.Consumption of ozone-depleting substances b + + + + + – +

Additional indicator(s) + – – – – + – –

B. Climate change

4. Air temperature + + + + + + + +

5. Atmospheric precipitation + + + + + + + +

6. Greenhouse gas emissions + + + + + + + +

Additional indicator(s) – – + – – + – –

C. Water

7. Renewable freshwater resources + + + + – + + +

8. Freshwater abstraction + + + + + + + +

9. Household water use per capita + + + + + + + +

10. Water losses + – + + + + + +

11 Reuse and recycling of freshwater + – + + + + + +

12. Drinking water quality + + + + + + + +

13. Biochemical oxygen demand and concentration of ammonium in rivers

+ + + + + + + –

14. Nutrients in freshwater + + + + + + + –

15. Nutrients in coastal seawaters a + + +

16. Polluted (non-treated) wastewaters + a + + + + + –

Additional indicator(s) – – – – + + – +

D. Biodiversity

17. Protected areas + + + + + + + +

18. Forest and other wooded land + + + + + + + +

19. Threatened and protected species + + + + + + + +

20. Trends in the number and distribution of selected species

+ – + – – + + +

Additional indicator(s) – – – – + + – +


21

Indicator BY GE KG KZ MD RU UA UZ a

E. Land and soil

21. Land uptake + + + + + + + +

22. Area affected by soil erosion + + + + + + + +

Additional indicator(s) + + + + + + – +

F. Agriculture

23. Fertilizer consumption + + + + – – + –

24. Pesticide consumption – + + + – – + +

Additional indicator(s) – + – + + – – +

G. Energy

25. Final energy consumption – + + + + + – –

26. Total energy consumption – + + + + + – –

27. Energy intensity – + + – + + + –

28. Renewable energy consumption – + + + + – + +

Additional indicator(s) + – + + – – – –

H. Transport

29. Passenger transport demand + + + + + – + –

30. Freight transport demand + + + + + – + –

31. Composition of road motor vehicle fleet by fuel type

– – + – – + – –

32. Average age of road motor vehicle fleet – + + – + – + +

Additional indicator(s) + – + + – + – –

I. Waste

33. Waste generation + + + + + + + +

34. Transboundary movements of hazardous wastes – + + – + – + –

35. Waste reuse and recycling + – + – + + + –

36. Final waste disposal + + – + + + + –

Additional indicator(s) + – + + – + – –

Abbreviations: BY = Belarus; GE = Georgia; KG = Kyrgyzstan; KZ = Kazakhstan; MD = Republic of Moldova; RU = Russian Federation; UA = Ukraine; UZ = Uzbekistan.

a No information for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan is provided due to the fact that no recent SoE reports are available from these countries.

b Data exists, but is not reflected in the SoE report.

United Nations ECE Econ omic and Social Council...GE.13-24564 Economi Committe Working G Monitorin...

Documents

Transcript of United Nations ECE Econ omic and Social Council...GE.13-24564 Economi Committe Working G Monitorin...