The Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe REReP Record

What happened in Belgrade The Sixth Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference may not have produced breathtaking results, but at least the process remains alive and kicking By Pavel Antonov As a communicator by profession and networker by inclination, I am not particularly hard-wired to produce an unbiased critique of the ministerial summit in Belgrade, which took place on October 10–12. For one thing, I tend to be overly positive about events that offer a melting pot of ideas, projects, politics and investment—and the Belgrade conference is certainly an example of such an event. Indeed, Belgrade drew the largest crowd of decision- and policy makers, professionals, donors, activists and passers-by to talk about the environment since the previous UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) conference, held five years ago. In the end, there was a final declaration, a few thematic statements and countless side events to solidify Belgrade’s legacy; but to better understand what actually happened there, I took on board the assessments of a person who was involved with the particularities of the process, both before and during Belgrade. Tibor Farago, Hungary’s chief environmental negotiator for the past decade, suggested that I write about what didn’t happen in Belgrade. With little hope that he would take my advice on, say, how to draft a ministerial statement, I took his advice. Diagnosis and reform The European Environmental Agency announced in Belgrade its diagnosis of the state of Europe’s environment. Europe, according to the report, suffers from unsustainable consumption and production, improper disposal of hazardous waste, and air pollution by particles and gases such as ozone and nitrogen oxides. Among the listed symptoms: more than 100 million people without clean water; loss of biodiversity; growing greenhouse emissions and climate change impacts. Problems are generally more serious in Eastern Europe, where government response also appears to be the least efficient, according to Policies for a Better Environment: Progress in EECCA, a report by the Environmental Action Programme. Ministers and delegations from 51 countries, along with the EU Commission, agreed in Belgrade that reform is needed in order for the EfE process to be able to rise to these challenges. In their final declaration, delegates recommended further impact assessment: refocusing, reformatting, and a resetting of priorities. They called for stakeholders (the business community in particular) to become more active, and asked for external resources and expertise. It remains unclear what the reforms will lead to, but at least the talks have given some indications, Farago said. Still breathing One of the main themes in Belgrade was that countries lagging behind are either not recognising the environment as a top priority, or lack sufficient resources to place it higher on the agenda. Ministers pledged that EECCA will remain a focus of the process, but added that countries in the region should strengthen their own political commitments to the environment, and not just make calls for support. NGOs have also expressed dissatisfaction with the low level of European cooperation between developed and transitional countries. Biodiversity was another important theme. Nature conservation across the pan-European region was the subject of a long debate—mostly concerning whether conservation should remain part of the EfE framework, or proceed instead under the UN’s Biodiversity Convention. After all, the ministers reaffirmed their Kiev commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 and issued a special statement. Education was another focus in Belgrade. Education and environment ministers from the UNECE region met for the first time within the EfE framework and, in a joint statement, pledged a regional commitment to education for sustainable development. But behind closed doors, there was heated discussion as to whether education belongs to the process—prompting Farago to refer to the outcome as “a happy end with some headache.” The topic of energy caused even severer headaches, with the EU, Russia and Turkey eyeing renewable, nuclear energy and hydro solutions, respectively. Fireworks emerged during attempts to define renewable energy, the end result of which was a minimal compromise in the declaration text with no mention of specific low-carbon solutions. Repeated calls for energy efficiency were partial compensation. Climate change was another dividing issue on the agenda. Russia suggested ignoring the issue completely, arguing that the issue already claims too much attention. The EU insisted on stronger wording, while the US played the position of broker. “At times during negotiations you had a feeling that pan-European cooperation on every issue has turned into a triangle between the EU, Russia and the US. These are the three most important constituent stakeholders,” Farago recalled. But in the end, Farago’s Belgrade assessment was not entirely negative. “Most importantly, the process did not die!” he exclaimed. And where there is life, there is hope for improvement. On this we both agree. View the Ministerial Declaration at: <http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2007/ece/ece.belgrade.conf.2007.8.e.pdf>

REReP Record Home