|
|
The Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern EuropeREReP Record |
| Sink or Swim “What’s the worst thing that could happen in Belgrade?” I asked the man walking next to me in the rain. “Well, the worst thing that could happen would be for the process to collapse,” he answered. “That would certainly be the worst outcome.” The man in question was Adriaan Oudeman, coordinator of the International Environmental Affairs Directorate, and the Dutch delegate for the Third Meeting of the Ad Hoc Preparatory Working Group of Senior Officials, which took place on August 29–31 in Geneva, Switzerland. The ‘process’ to which Oudeman was referring is Environment for Europe (EfE), launched in 1991 at Dobris Castle in the former Czechoslovakia, shaped and guided through subsequent ministerial conferences in Lucerne, Switzerland (1993), Sofia, Bulgaria (1995), Aarhus, Denmark (1998) and Kiev, Ukraine (2003), and which now continues—though on much less certain footing—with the Sixth Ministerial ‘Environment for Europe’ Conference, to be held on October 10–12 in Belgrade, Serbia. I travelled to Geneva in August to meet individuals planning to take part in the Belgrade proceedings—many of whom have been involved in the process for many years—and to try and gain some clearer insight into this political and bureaucratic process that has been, despite its daunting breadth of scope and complexity, hugely influential in steering pan-European environmental policy. The primary purpose of the ad hoc meeting, which took place at the Palais de Nations, was to achieve consensus on the wording of the draft ministerial declaration. My conversation with Oudeman took place on the morning of the 30th, prior to the second round of talks. The first round had proven, at best, non-productive—at worst, a disaster. Norway delegate Eldrid Nordbo had summed up the previous day’s lack of progress with a biting comment from the floor: “What we are doing now is a complete waste of time.” Walking to the second session I got caught in a downpour without an umbrella. I managed to escape the deluge by standing beneath the awning of a nearby hotel. Oudeman emerged by chance a few seconds later from the hotel lobby, and recognising him from the day before, I introduced myself. He was kind enough to grab another umbrella from the hotel; and so we set out in the rain, talking along the way. On recalling this incident, I thought about how in my quest to cover the ‘environment’ from a news perspective, I had completely neglected to pay attention to the actual ‘weather’. And I kept thinking while writing this article that perhaps the future of the Environment for Europe ‘process’ lies in its ability to move beyond words and achieve real success ‘on the ground’. Style over substance? The inherent dilemma posed by this consensus-based construct is that official wording must be vague and open-ended enough so as not to court opposition from a single party, but at the same time must contain enough actual substance to render the process meaningful. It’s relatively easy to make all parties agree on the importance of ‘moving forward’ but much more difficult to agree on just how to do that. What is taking place right now is a very general political
debate, with very few specific commitments. The ad hoc sessions I attended
in Geneva were mostly focused on attempts to agree on precise wording
of the ministerial document, to which last-minute textual changes and
amendments were being proposed and discussed—initially to little
avail. During one of the breaks I spoke with Gordana Kozuharova, head
of department for European integration at FYR Macedonia’s Ministry
of Environment and Physical Planning, who expressed some disappointment
that the current document was longer than hoped for—or at least
longer than what was envisaged at the Kiev conference—but stressed
nonetheless the vital importance of reflecting the enormous regional-level
and political changes that have occurred since 2003 (most significantly,
the accession of 10 countries to the EU in 2004, and last year’s
accession of Bulgaria and Romania). Zaal Lomtadze from Georgia’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, argued that the document is less about length than substance: “The real problem is: What does it mean? The EfE process right now is lacking a larger focus—lack of consensus on big priorities—so we need to focus on the correct way to continue. There has been some criticism [during negotiations] that has held back the process, but what’s really needed is constructive criticism.” Claude Rouam is head of the Enlargment and Neighbouring
Countries unit (within the DG Environment European Commission). He cited
1998’s Aarhus Conference and impetus given to the establishment
of EECCA REC’s and process high points, and also mentioned the instrumental
role of the Kiev conference in shifting environmental focus to “As for Belgrade,” said Rouam, “I hope that wisdom will prevail over a ‘business as usual’ approach. The main danger would be to agree to a long list of topics that are dealt with in other forums and on which the EfE process would have little influence; what would follow would be a poor sense of ownership, limited action and, ultimately, poor results. By contrast, a more focused approach could be useful. Two examples I find challenging are making improvements related to water and sanitation in EECCA countries, as singled out by the EAP Task force, and the Central Asia initiative.” EU expansion: a paradigm shift? It should be borne in mind, however, that each country
and region faces its own unique challenges. “The process got underway
in 1991, which means that those countries which joined the EU in 2004
and 2006 have now had 16 years to develop and improve, including through
EfE efforts,” said Oreola Ivanova-Nacheva, deputy director of the
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC). “But
the war in the former Yugoslavia ended in 1999, which means many of these
countries have had only seven years of assistance. It is therefore unrealistic
to expect from them the same level of commitment and environmental performance.” Andrey Terentyev, principal administrator of environmental protection at the Russian Regional Environmental Centre, wrote to Green Horizon that new member states and candidate countries have their own weight to pull, and that some are already doing their fair share of the work. “Taking into consideration the numerous issues and challenges inside the EU, it is up to the EU to decide whether or not to provide further support to subregions,” said Terentyev. “But new member states are already participating in environmental cooperation, and even act as donors to other states. The Czech Republic, Poland and some others are such countries. Other states aspiring to EU entry should make the effort harmonise their standards [with those of the EU] and to correlate their approaches. I think this first of all concerns a big and important country such as Turkey.” A somewhat more nuanced outlook comes from Talaibek Makeev, executive director of Central Asian REC (CAREC). “On one hand, EU enlargement has indeed changed the EfE process,” said Makeev. “In particular, the shift of focus to the East has caused new member states to somewhat lose interest in the process. On the other hand, the enlargement process is an example for all non-EU states of what environmental cooperation can achieve. Having said this, I am confident that member states will remain interested in Environment for Europe because the process also addresses transboundary problems that extend beyond EU borders.” Environment ‘beyond’ Europe To cite just one example, there is the need to harmonise
environmental sustainability efforts in Western Europe’s energy
sector with those of countries outside the EU which are major suppliers
of energy. It could also be pointed out that successful efforts to achieve
cross-border environmental cooperation have led to other forms of political
partnership. Furthermore, there is ample evidence from parts of the world
that proves a correlation between environmental health, political stability
and human well-being; but putting this assertion to the test where evidence—or
political will—is lacking could now prove EfE’s greatest challenge. “In spite of evident EfE successes, not all of the objectives have been reached,” said Terentyev. “The difficulties in achieving more tangible results are connected not only with the scale of the process, but to internal situations of recipient countries. There are also different approaches between CEE and EECCA countries in terms of how environmental issues are addressed. Nevertheless, cooperation between sub-regions should continue. What is really needed is for EECCA states to assume greater ownership of such initiatives as the EECCA Environment Strategy adopted at Kiev, as well as other initiatives within the EfE process. These countries also need to commit themselves to international conventions and multilateral agreements, as this will facilitate consensus and regional-level cooperation.” FYR Macedonia’s Kozuharova remarked that the EECCA countries are interesting in that a lot of funding could soon be moving their way: “Although these countries might not share a lot of the same goals—EU accession for example—the EfE process is something that gets them gathered around the table.” In terms of funding (another key issue confronting EfE) and action on the ground, Eldrid Nordbo, special advisor for international cooperation from the Ministry of Environment Norway, explained that the EBRD is getting more and more involved in the EECCA region, adding that water-supply projects are especially high on the list of regional priorities. She also pointed out that the EBRD has provided funding to support the PPC Secretariat. “One project worth mentioning is the Khujand [Tajikistan] Water Supply Improvement Project,” said Nordbo, referring to a signed, EBRD-backed agreement worth EUR 4.9 million. “Of course, funding is harder to come by these days, which means that it needs to be put to effective use. And this means that countries need to take responsibility and be actively involved [in project implementation], as the EBRD can’t be expected to put lots of people on the ground everywhere.” Brendan Gillespie, head of the Environment and Globalisation Division at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), spoke to Green Horizon in July about the EfE process, and mostly about the OECD and EBRD’s work in the Caucasus and Central Asia. He started by explaining that the OECD largely oversees policy and institutional reform, while the EBRD manages environmental investment. “There are a couple of things to bear in mind regarding the EECCA region,” said Gillespie. “First, the countries are certainly wealthy as a whole. Second, they are quite economically, politically and environmentally diverse, and this diversity has actually increased over the past 10 years. We try to design activities that are appropriate for all countries, and then adapt them according to national and sub-regional needs. We look to EU directives as models, but they’re not necessarily to be copied in every respect. EfE, as an ad hoc process, provides quite a bit of flexibility, but this also creates some uncertainty in terms of planning.” Sanitation problems and a “seriously degraded”
water network are top regional priorities requiring large investments
of time and money, according to Gillespie, but he also mentioned that
some environmental concerns—for example, reduction of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)—can be carried out more comprehensively and cost-effectively
than within the EU. Dialling for donors When asked what lies behind the problem of ‘donor
fatigue’, Italy’s Cozzone responded: “This is a difficult
question to answer. What you call ‘donor fatigue’ is the result
of a combination of different factors, including the changing economic
situation of many donor countries facing the challenge of globalization
and suffering from loss of competitiveness, and therefore bringing the
whole system to a lower level in terms of availability for cooperation.
Mechanisms such as the EfE process, however, are still of added value
in terms of financial support, although less so than before.” Kozuharova remarked that FYR Macedonia, having achieved candidate status and now in the approximation phase, is therefore eligible for big infrastructure investments, but that about 80% of this investment has been allocated to the transport sector. “Of course the lack of financial resources is a major difficulty, but so is the lack of administrative capacity,” said Kozuharova. “New ministries and environmental investments are expensive. We also need more experts, and capacity to educate experts. You also need money for public awareness programmes, which is another important priority.” The people on the ground “Things were exciting in ’91, and the mood
was really hopeful,” said Hontelez. “As attending NGOs, we
were only able to comment on drafts, but we came extremely well prepared.
Following the political and economic changes, we saw the necessity for
the West to engage the East in discussing environmental issues—and
possible support. It was quite clear from the beginning that the emerging
process would be moving in a west-to-east direction, as the biggest environmental
problems were legacies from the political system that was being done away
with. One of the keys, however, in the early years, was that some countries
really took the lead in steering the process—Netherlands, Sweden,
Norway, for example.” In terms of REC contributions to the EfE process, Hontelez particularly praised the “invaluable” work of Magdolna Toth-Nagy in making Aarhus a reality, and the organisation’s efforts to defend Aarhus in follow-up negotiations. He also credited REC Moldova for doing good work, but added that some offices and NGOs have moved farther away from the notion of participating with civil society. Victoria Elias, chairperson for the European EcoForum,
is based in Russia and works for the World Wildlife Foundation. Elias
said that there is no “special selection process” for NGOs
wishing to be part of the coalition participating in the EfE process;
the only prohibition is being affiliated with a national government. Like
Hontelez, Elias would like to see EfE move forward more effectively in
terms of achieving legally binding agreements. Elias’ comments echo those of several individuals who feel that the process lacks larger focus and unified commitment. “Maybe the process should become issue-driven—maybe something like conservation,” Elias continued. “What should be improved first? What sort of economic instruments should be used? It would really be nice to see governments commit to programmes over ten years or more—to phase out unsustainable energy practices, for example—moving toward sustainable consumption strategies.” “As far as new initiatives,” Hontelez wondered, “which is the next? Right now things are definitely more complicated and the willingness is disappearing. Sometimes the [European] Commission is wondering why they have to travel to Geneva for something that can be sorted out in Brussels. If the process continues, maybe it should ideally consist of countries who really want to be part of it. But in any case, the countries of the former Soviet Union are the countries that need the process the most; they’re the one’s that will suffer the most if it disappears.”
|
|
|
    
|
|||
|
