The Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe REReP Record

The road to Belgrade Given the past successes of Environment for Europe, can October’s conference also deliver? By Nathan Johnson In order to understand where the Environment for Europe process is going, it’s helpful to have at least a minimal understanding of where it has been. One must also bear in mind how much Europe itself has changed politically and economically during EfE’s lifetime. It was in Dobris 16 years ago that the call was first made for a comprehensive assessment of Europe’s environment, and to develop long-term strategies toward creating an environmental programme for the entire continent. Among the many basic guidelines agreed to at the conference, one was to provide assistance for improving environment-related health issues, while another was that each country would bear responsibility for global environmental problems. Dobris attracted environment ministers from 34 European countries, Brazil, Japan and the US, in addition to representatives from UN bodies and both governmental and non-governmental institutions. Two years later, in Lucerne, 45 European countries were represented, along with officials from Canada, Israel, Japan and the US. Ministers adopted the ‘Ministerial Declaration’ during the 1993 gathering, which was critical in establishing EfE’s political dimension. Efforts at this time were focused primarily on Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and Lucerne participants established what is now known as the EAP Task Force to implement the Environmental Action Programme for CEE. The core activities of the EAP Task Force are to help countries develop their own national environmental action plans, run training programmes, involve the private sector, and to improve management of priority conservation areas. The agenda for the 1995 EfE conference in Sofia had already been decided at Lucerne. Ministers from 49 countries in Europe, North America and Central Asia (the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe, or UN/ECE region) attended the third conference, while Australia, Japan and Mexico were also represented. The ministerial declaration adopted in Sofia, in addition to representing a reaffirmation of commitment to European environmental protection, placed new and special emphasis on assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, especially in terms of environmental financing and private sector involvement. In addition, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy was adopted at Sofia. Fifty-two member ECE member states took part at 1998’s EfE conference in Aarhus, the tone for which was set by Europe’s Environment: the Second Assessment, a report that identified main achievements of the process. As a result of these findings, conference ministers agreed to boost the level of support for the Newly Independent States (or, NIS—countries formerly part of the Soviet Union) and for CEE countries not yet part of the European Union accession process. There were a number of important resolutions and adoptions that took place at Aarhus, not least of which was the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Also gaining significant support were two new convention protocols pertaining to long-range transboundary air pollution and persistent organic pollutants. Ministers also endorsed a pan-European strategy to phase out leaded petrol. Finally, given the generally eastward shift of EfE focus, it was agreed to host the fifth conference of ministers in one of the NIS countries. Five years had passed by the time the fifth EfE conference kicked off in Kiev. Ten CEE countries were just one year away from EU accession, and the terror attacks in New York City in 2001 meant that environmental cooperation had taken on heightened importance in terms of promoting wider peace and security. It was in Kiev that all Carpathian countries adopted a convention to promote environmental protection and sustainable development in that region. The conference also succeeded in adopting a landmark environmental strategy for the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucuses and Central Asia (EECCA). In addition, Central Asian countries were congratulated for their efforts in helping to develop the Central Asian Initiative on Environment, Water and Security. With the results of Kiev ensuring continuance of the EfE process, the stage is now set for a sixth ministerial conference; but several factors and developments during the intervening four years have resulted in great changes that are challenging EfE’s future—even its survival. But what are these changes exactly? And what are the related challenges? And does everyone agree on the problems and solutions? These are a few of the questions I wanted to ask various experts in the few weeks preceding the October conference in Belgrade. To learn more about the Environment for Europe process’s history, structure and the Belgrade conference, go to <www.unece.org/efe/welcome.html>.

REReP Record Home