13. Progress in managing the environment...1998 Caspian Environment Programme 1998 EU Cardiff...

Europe’s environment: the third assessment272

The concept of integration is well known, but thedegree to which it is incorporated into strategicpolicy-making varies. At European Union level,the Cardiff integration process has led to anincreased awareness among policy-makers of theimportance of harmonisation and integration, butthe process has lacked urgency and has yet to havea significant impact on sectoral policy-making, letalone on improvements on the ground.

Within countries, integration is generallyapproached through the concept of sustainabledevelopment, via national sustainabledevelopment strategies, but the stage ofdevelopment of these varies. Integration of theenvironment into other policy areas is far fromcomprehensive, and implementation in particularcauses problems. The 12 countries of easternEurope, the Caucasus and central Asia are awareof the requirements of integration but do notgenerally have the capacity to carry forwardinitiatives for drafting strategies and plans, or toimplement them.

The concept of integrated coastal zonemanagement has been spreading during the past10 years. However, this has not kept up withgrowing pressures, especially on the Black Sea,southeast Mediterranean and Caspian Sea coasts.

Urban planning is a major area for integration,but innovative policies including stronger linkagesto other policy areas are needed to overcome themany pressures towards unsustainable spatialdevelopment. There has therefore been a growingemphasis on integration of planning with sectoralpolicies, an ecosystems approach, and betterinstitutional support mechanisms includingprocedures to improve public and stakeholderparticipation.

Market mechanisms are increasingly seen as toolsof integration policy alongside more traditionalregulatory mechanisms. Some accession countriesand countries in transition economies have ahistory of using market mechanisms, but others donot. Overall, only very limited steps have beentaken towards ecological tax reform.

Integration cannot be achieved solely bygovernments and other public sector bodies: acommitment from industrial and commercialsectors is also needed. There was a significantincrease in interest in voluntary ‘green’ businessinitiatives in Europe in the 1990s, mostly by

13. Progress in managing the environment

companies in EU countries and multinationalorganisations. These include negotiatedagreements and self-commitments, eco-labelling,and environmental management and reporting.

Useful sector-specific strategic environmentalassessment experience has developed in somecountries, but this cannot necessarily be duplicatedfor other sectors or countries because of the differentissues, institutions, legal frameworks andstakeholders involved. Strategic environmentalassessments need to be integrated with otherrequirements, such as sustainability appraisals.

13.1. Introduction

The 1995 Environmental Programme forEurope recommended that participantsshould integrate environmentalconsiderations into all decision-makingprocesses, taking into account environmentalcosts, benefits and risks, applying theprecautionary and ‘polluter pays’ principles,and promoting partnerships betweengovernment, parliaments, businesses and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

A first step is to adopt adequate strategiesand policies both in the international arenaand at the national level to ensure thatenvironmental considerations are integratedinto all policy sectors. Progress towards thisend is described in Section 13.2, giving somesubregional examples, which often provide acontext for efforts at the national level. Thefocus, however, is on the wide array of newapproaches and tools to reachharmonisation and integration at thenational level.

But adopting integrated strategies andpolicies alone is not enough. The next step isto ensure that such integrated plans areindeed implemented, that actual results canbe seen on the ground. Considering thecomplexity of ecosystems and societies,specific approaches to integration may berequired in the management of specificsectors, regions or types of region. Section13.3 gives two examples of progress in thedevelopment of integrated planning andmanagement instruments in specific types ofarea (coastal zone management) and sector(urban development).

kiev_eea_version.pmd 03-04-2003, 12:31 PM272

273

In general, integration requires an ability todeal with complexity in a flexible way,addressing all segments of society. Hencetraditional legislative instruments are notreally sufficient to achieve integrateddevelopment. A growing pool of policymeasures is being applied, which reflects therealisation that full integration cannot beachieved by government action alone.Partnerships between governmentinstitutions, economic actors and civil societyat large are needed, as well as initiatives byspecific stakeholders. Such partnershipsoften reach across national boundaries,requiring intensive transboundarycooperation between different governmentsand institutions. Harmonised approaches,data and information will facilitate mutualunderstanding and communication, andthus cooperation, among the wide variety ofactors involved in integrated development.Section 13.3 illustrates the range of policyinstruments currently being applied in bothpublic and private sectors.

13.2. Integration of environmentalconsiderations into strategies andpolicies

Most national efforts towards integration arenot isolated actions but take place in thecontext of international processes. Theserange from the global level (such as theglobal conventions dealing with climatechange and with biodiversity, the Rioconference on environment anddevelopment and the Johannesburg summiton sustainable development) to thesubregional level (for instance for aparticular river basin). Section 13.2.1outlines the key regional or subregionalprocesses and initiatives which aim tostimulate or achieve harmonisation andintegration. Section 13.2.2 summarisesprogress in harmonisation and integration atthe national level.

13.2.1. Integration at the subregional and regional level

At European level, the ‘Environment forEurope’ process has been very important infacilitating regional cooperation bypromoting harmonisation and integration ofthe environment into other policies. Chapter6 of a recent UN publication (UNECE/UNEP, 2002) summarises the achievementsof the Environment for Europe process andprogress in the development of regionalconventions as tools for harmonisation andintegration. Box 13.1 lists key regional and

Box 13.1. Key European initiatives promoting integration

Regional conventions (excluding the many subsequent protocols)1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a TransboundaryContext (Espoo)1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercoursesand International Lakes1992 Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus)

Other regional initiatives1995 Environmental Programme for Europe (UNECE)1998 The Pan-European Biodiversity and Landscape Diversity Strategy(PEBLDS)1999 London Charter on Transport, Environment and Health

Subregional conventions1992 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR)1992 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the BalticSea Area (HELCOM)1992 Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea againstPollution1995 Revision of the Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean Seaagainst Pollution; implemented through the Mediterranean action plan (1979Barcelona convention)1995 Convention on the Protection of the Alps1998 Danube River Protection Convention2001 (adopted) New Convention for the Protection of the Rhine

Other subregional initiatives1993 Environmental Action Programme for Central and Eastern Europe (EAP)1994 Environmental Performance Review programme of UNECE for countriesin transition1994 MED 21 (Mediterranean)1995 Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC);followed by RECs for the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova,the Caucasus and central Asia1997 Vienna Programme of Joint Action on Transport and the Environment1998 Baltic 211998 Caspian Environment Programme1998 EU Cardiff process (see details below)1998 Nordic Strategy on Sustainable Development1998 Central Asian Interstate Council on Sustainable Development1999 Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe

subregional conventions and other initiativesrelevant to harmonisation and integration ofenvironmental considerations into otherpolicies, which are detailed in the UNreport.

The report states that in Europe ‘a great dealof harmonisation and integration has got itsstart through consideration oftransboundary environmental issues, such asindustrial accidents and air pollution.Significantly, there has been a shift in theregion during the last few years towardsimproving compliance with multilateralenvironmental agreements, especially withrespect to UNECE conventions. Alsoratification of significant global agreementsis high in the region, and fairly balancedamong the subregions. However, ratificationand implementation are affected by bothenvironmental and economic problemswithin states’ (UNECE/UNEP, 2002). In

Progress in managing the environment



another recent UN report on lessons learnedthrough the Environmental PerformanceReview programme, interesting details aregiven on progress in harmonisation andintegration in central and eastern Europe(CEE) and the 12 countries of easternEurope, the Caucasus and central Asia(EECCA) (UNECE, 2002). Some details aregiven below for the European Union (EU).

At the EU level, the requirement to integrateenvironmental concerns into other policyareas has been incorporated into the Treatythat forms the basis of the Union, thusmaking it one of the guiding principles ofthe EU. Article 6 of the Treaty establishingthe European Community states that:‘Environmental protection requirementsmust be integrated into the definition andimplementation of the Community policiesand activities’.

As a contribution to implementing thisrequirement, the Cardiff process wasinitiated at the European Council in Cardiffunder the UK presidency in June 1998. Thiscalled on key meetings of the Council ofMinisters (e.g. for transport, agriculture,fisheries) to develop their own strategies forintegrating environmental concerns intotheir respective policy areas. EU heads ofstate and government, to whom regularreports are made, oversees the Cardiffprocess. Nine strategies are currently inplace or under development, and these areat various stages of elaboration (presented inwaves in Table 13.1).

Evaluations of the Cardiff strategies (IEEP,2001a; 2001b) have revealed that:

• none contained all of the elements thatone might expect a ‘strategy’ to comprise(such as objectives, measures, indicators,timeframes and review mechanisms);

• some aspects of strategy formulationwere more fully developed, or at leastunder development (e.g. indicators),than others (e.g. specific targets);

• the strategies did not contain many newmeasures.

On balance, the transport strategy is themost developed strategy, and has two notableintegration mechanisms, which play animportant role in its development. A jointexpert group on transport and environment,which is chaired by the Commission andincorporates national transport andenvironment officials, oversees the transportintegration process. Additionally, the

transport and environment reportingmechanism (TERM) has been developed bythe European Environment Agency (EEA)and the Commission to monitor the impactof the strategy.

Further indicators are being developed tomonitor other sectoral strategies, with targetsand timetables for instance now elaboratedfor fisheries integration policy (CEC, 2002).In addition a set of ‘headline indicators’ tocover all aspects of sustainability is underdevelopment. These indicators are meant tobe used by heads of state and government tomonitor the EU’s progress.

The development of the Cardiff strategieshas been accompanied by a number of otherintegration mechanisms within theEuropean Commission, such as the creationof special units dedicated to environmentalmatters in several of the Commission’sdirectorates general. There is also a system ofundertaking ex ante environmentalappraisals of Commission proposals, whichwas introduced in 1993, but which theCommission itself acknowledges has not yetworked well.

Overall, the Cardiff process and otherCommunity initiatives have been useful,despite the relatively modest progress. Inparticular, the Cardiff process has raisedawareness of Article 6 and its requirementsamong a broader range of decision-makers.However, integration initiatives have as yethad a relatively minor impact on the politicalagenda, as they have not commandedsufficient political will to address some of thefundamental problems that still exist. Whereintegration has progressed, it has beenlargely as a result of more pressing politicalproblems, such as the Kyoto protocol or theMillennium Round of the World TradeOrganisation (WTO). Establishment ofminimum requirements for implementationand follow-up of integration strategies hasyet to be taken forward (Ecologic and IEEP,2002).

In the EU, the Cardiff and otherintegration processes have raised

awareness of environmental issues, buthave not yet had a decisive effect onsectoral policies.


275

First wave councils Second wave councils Third wave councils

Strategy content

Scientific/research basis for formulating problem - - - - - - - - -

Problem formulation • / / • • / • • •

Risk assessment and option appraisal - - • - - • - - -

Aims/objectives/guiding principles / / • / / / • • /

Targets • - / - - • - - •

Measures/actions —including beyond existing commitments / / / / / / • / /

Recognition of the extra-Community/global dimension • • / / / • / / /

Reference to other relevantEU/international policy agendas / / / / • • • / /

Resource implications - - • / / • • - -

Timetables / / / • • • • • -

Procedural characteristics

Roles and responsibilitiesfor ensuring implementation / • • / / / / / •

Monitoring and review arrangements / / • / • • • • -

Indicators — extent and nature / / • • / / / • •

Reporting mechanisms/requirements • / / / • • • - -

Future milestones • • / • • • / • •

Note: •: little attention to this aspect /: some effort to address this aspect, but incomplete •: relatively full treatment of this aspect

Source: IEEP, 2001 b

Agricult

ure

Energ

y

Tran

sport

Dev

elopm

ent

Indus

try

Inte

rnal

mar

ket

Eco

nom

ic

and fi

nanc

e

Gener

al

affa

irs Fishe

ries

Criteria for strategy analysis

Table 13.1.An evaluation of the Cardiff strategies

13.2.2. Integration at the national levelTransboundary initiatives are often put inplace as a result of the initiatives of a fewcountries with societies that are developingin an innovative way. At the same timecountries are stimulated by suchinternational action to take up the cause ofharmonisation and integration within theirown boundaries. Indeed, countries all overEurope have adopted or are in the process ofadopting specific approaches (usually amixture of different approaches) to bettercoordinate and integrate sectoral policiesand relevant governmental decisions withthe principles of sustainability. Box 13.2describes three such approaches to sectoralintegration. Neither geographic noreconomic characteristics can fully explain

the variations in approaches. For example,among western European (WE) countries,Austria, Finland, Italy, Norway andSwitzerland have established sustainabledevelopment coordination structures, butDenmark, Germany, Spain and Sweden havenot. Among EU accession countries, theCzech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Polandand Slovakia have, but Latvia, Lithuania,Romania and Slovenia have not. In EECCA,such bodies have been established in Belarusand Uzbekistan but not, for instance, inArmenia or Tajikistan. In a very fewcountries, an implementing agency has beenestablished, such as the NationalEnvironmental Centre for SustainableDevelopment in Kazakhstan.




Box 13.2. National approaches to integration

A coordination approach, based on the creation of broad inter-ministerialcommittees, commissions, working groups and task forces. For example, theUnited Kingdom has established a Cabinet committee of ‘green’ ministers,supported by civil servants in each department. Poland set up the NationalCommission for Sustainable Development in late 1994 to coordinate andfacilitate governmental activities towards integration of economic,environmental and social aspects. France has created an inter-ministerialsteering group to coordinate ‘greening of government’ activities.

A strategic approach, based on the development of a shared agenda with thegovernment through sustainable development strategies, policies andexecutive programmes. This approach is common throughout the region,particularly after the Lucerne ministerial conference ‘Environment for Europe’,and very often connected to ‘coordination’ and ‘structural’ approaches.

A structural approach, based on integration of sectoral policies into ‘mega-ministries’. Examples of this approach include, in the United Kingdom, theDepartment of the Environment, Transport and Regions; in Poland, theMinistry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry; inBelgium, the Ministry of Social Affairs, Public Health and the Environment;and, in the Netherlands, the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and theEnvironment.

Source: UNECE/UNEP, 2002

At western European national level, thestrategic framework for integratingenvironmental considerations into othersectoral policy areas has been primarilythrough national sustainable developmentstrategies (SDSs) (see also Box 13.2), whichhave either been finalised or are in draftform. These strategies seek to integratesustainable development concerns, i.e.including the environment alongsideeconomic and social considerations inpolicy-making, and often focus on sectorssuch as agriculture, industry, transport andenergy. Most are of quite a high standard, inthat they address the main requirements of apolicy strategy, i.e. objectives, measures,indicators, timetables and follow-up.

In most countries, a cross-departmentalcommittee of some description has been setup to contribute to the development of theSDS, while in others, a commission orcouncil has been established to monitorprogress towards sustainable development.

In western Europe, national SDSs areaccompanied by various sectoral policy

documents which have been developed tosteer more detailed policy action. These arealso at varying stages of development andaddress particular sectors, e.g. transport andenergy, or particular environmentalproblems, e.g. waste or water.

The Nordic countries in particular havegood experiences with the integrationapproach. Norway, for example, considersthe integration of environmental concernsinto sectoral policies as vital in order toachieve overarching environmental policygoals. To this end, the government plans to‘clarify the sector’s responsibility forachieving environmental policy goalsthrough sectoral environmental action plans’and to set up a national monitoring system(Ministry of Environment, Norway, 1997).The Netherlands and Denmark also followthis approach, but such coherent strategiesare not universal.

In the CEE countries, the integration processis still at a relatively early stage. Environmentalpolicy is set out in national environmentalstrategies that sometimes take the form ofnational environmental action plans (NEAPs)or national environmental and health actionplans (NEHAPs). Beyond this, attention inmany countries is now turning towards thedevelopment of national SDSs, which, again,may be accompanied by the formation of anational sustainable developmentcommission. In Poland, for instance, such acommission was already set up in 1994.

Integration in the CEE countries is addressedmainly in a rather fragmented way.Implementation, monitoring and follow-upare difficult to ensure. The CroatianGovernment, for example, has recognisedthat there are no legal obligations that call forthe environment to be addressed in thepreparation of sectoral policies. Nevertheless,sectoral strategies and plans are developing.These typically cover industry, energy,agriculture, transport and tourism.

Some instances of good cooperationbetween environmental and other ministriesare reported, but the practical impacts ofintegrated sectoral strategies and policies arestill not materialising. Coordination is oftenlacking, as a result of limited organisationaland administrative resources (von Homeyer,2001). Such resource constraints also weakenintegration at the regional and local levels(von Homeyer, 2002). Nevertheless,awareness of the need for integration and awillingness to pursue it is quite high

At western European national level,integrative processes have raised

awareness of environmental issues andintegrated strategies are often in place,but they have not yet had a decisiveeffect on sectoral policies, let alone onactual implementation.


277

Box 13.3. Sectoral integration in the Baltic countries

Of the EU accession countries, Estonia is among the front-runners inintegrating environmental considerations into agricultural policy. Nationalagri-environment measures were implemented in pilot areas in 2001 withstate funds. Payments to subsidise conversion to organic agriculture havebeen available since 2000, and now nearly 2 % of the agricultural area iscertified as organic. Training programmes on environmental issues for farmersand farm inspectors have been taking place since 2000.

A code of good agricultural practice for Latvia was prepared by the Ministryfor Environmental Protection and Regional Development and the Ministry ofAgriculture, following EU requirements and HELCOM recommendations. Mostof the aspects of the code will be obligatory for farmers operating inecologically sensitive zones and for farmers using assistance within theframework of special accession programmes for agriculture and ruraldevelopment (SAPARD). The law on pollution will regulate big farms, sincethey fall under integrated pollution prevention and control requirements.

The national energy strategy of Lithuania, approved in 1999, reflects therequirements and guidelines of the European Association Treaty, the EnergyCharter Treaty and other international agreements in the field of energy suchas the principles of the energy policy of the European Union and its MemberStates. One of the main priorities in the strategy is the reduction of thenegative impact of the energy sector on the environment, including nuclearsafety requirements.

Source: Laansalu, 2001; Mikk, 2001; UNECE, 2000a and 2000b

throughout CEE. The EU accession processreinforces this requirement. Accessioncountries are already adopting theenvironmental and other requirements ofthe body of EU law, and will be bound by theintegration requirements of the Treaty whenthey join the EU in 2004 (see for exampleBox 13.3).

For EECCA, the integration ofenvironmental considerations into otherpolicy areas is happening at a significantlyslower pace than elsewhere in Europe, as aresult of the difficult transition process awayfrom centrally planned economies. Prioritiesare for the time being on economicdevelopment. There has, however, beensome progress, for example in Kazakhstan(Box 13.4). Georgia has launched aprogramme on socio-economic restructuringand economic growth, which consists ofvarious pre-existing strategies, focusing forexample on industrial development. Theprogramme is geared towards theintroduction of an integrated and effectiveeconomic system, but although it includesmeasures concerning the environment, theseare not a central priority.

The regulatory and enforcement structuresin EECCA are still very weak as a result of alack of financial resources or of capacity toutilise effectively those resources that areavailable. Even where institutions have a realcommitment to achieving environmentalobjectives, as in the case of Kazakhstan’sNEAP and NEHAP, their weak positionwithin government and their resourceconstraints hinder effective integration.

13.3. Implementation of integrated development strategies and policy

As is clear from the above, the intentionsand strategic actions taken in most parts ofEurope to achieve integration ofenvironmental considerations into otherpolicy are certainly moving in the rightdirection. However, truly integrateddevelopment is only beginning to be

Box 13.4. Environment and health plan in Kazakhstan

National environment action plans (NEAP) and national environment andhealth action plans (NEHAPs) provide an opportunity for looking atenvironmental and health issues from a cross-sectoral perspective, and foridentifying priorities and areas for action on the basis of a broad consensus ofstakeholders. Some interesting experiences are evolving in Kazakhstan.

There are health risks in the country from past and present man-madeenvironmental causes, such as radiation, the Aral Sea disaster and traffic-related air pollution. However, environmental mortality and morbidity seem tobe related more to such issues as drinking-water quality, food quality andnutrition.

While the NEAP deals with environmental issues related to past and presentindustrialisation and pollution prevention, the NEHAP deals more specificallywith sanitary-hygiene environmental issues related to current human healthproblems. Taking both plans together, the most important topics inenvironmental health in Kazakhstan are drinking-water quality, sewagedisposal and personal hygiene; food quality and nutrition; radiation safety;and ambient air quality in large cities.

Source: UNECE, 2000c

Integration is advancing in thecountries of central and eastern

Europe and those of eastern Europe, theCaucasus and central Asia, but moreslowly, particularly in the latter, than inwestern Europe, owing to resourcelimitations and competing priorities.

implemented, for example in integratedcoastal zone management (Section 13.3.1)and urban planning and development(Section 13.3.2). Section 13.3.3 gives otherexamples of integration policy instrumentsthat are beginning to work.

13.3.1. Integrated coastal zone managementEurope’s coastal zones are of greateconomic, environmental, social, culturaland recreational importance. For example,after tropical forests, the areas on Earth withthe highest biodiversity are coastal zones.However, a range of pressures, includingpopulation growth, and increased shipping,




industrial and tourist activity, threatensEurope’s coasts. The effects of climatechange, in particular rising sea levels andincreased storm frequency, have increasedcoastal erosion and flooding. Meanwhile, thedecline in fish stocks and fishing activity, andoil transport and spill accidents, have alsomade many fisheries-dependent areasparticularly vulnerable (see Chapters 2.7 and8).

Integrated coastal zone management(ICZM) seeks to manage such multiplepressures in a way that is environmentallysustainable, economically equitable andsensitive to local cultures. ICZM is aniterative, proactive and adaptive process toplan and manage coastal areas with a view tosustainable development. It encompasses arange of approaches, which togetherdemonstrate:

• the need for authorities at differentlevels of administration to cooperateamongst themselves and withstakeholders;

• the establishment of a participationprocess with all the actors from thebeginning of the project;

• implementation of transparentprocedures, from an environmentalaudit to the design of an action plan withlocal communities involved;

• an agreed work programme with anagenda, concrete objectives and abalanced budget.

From the mid-1980s, significant efforts havebeen made in Europe to develop and applyICZM principles. Organisations for theregional seas have played a key role in thisdevelopment. Often there is a mixture ofinternational strategies and agreements andmore local level management andimplementation. Interestingly, in suchprogrammes countries are grouped usingthe natural boundaries of shorelines (eco-zoning) rather than applying administrativeboundaries and political groupings. ForEurope this means:

Regional sea Subregional groupingsAtlantic EUNorth Sea EUBaltic EU, northern CEE,

EECCAMediterranean EU, southern CEE,

northern AfricaBlack Sea Southeastern CEE,

EECCACaspian Sea EECCA

Within the EU, a May 2002 recommendationon ICZM calls upon Member States toproduce their own national ICZM strategieson the basis of a stocktaking of the pressuresand administrative structures influencing theevolution of their coastal zones. Thisfollowed an EU ICZM demonstrationprogramme involving 35 pilot projectsaround western Europe’s coastline. Box 13.5summarises some applications of ICZM toolsin the EU.

The following are the key regional seainitiatives in Europe; Table 13.2 shows theextent to which these have used ICZM-related development tools.

The Mediterranean action plan (UNEP/MAP) was the first programme to formulateits own subregional Agenda 21, whichemphasised the need for integration andpartnerships. A key feature of theMediterranean is the large number ofbordering countries (more than 20) fromthree continents (Europe, Asia and Africa),with different cultures, religions, politicalorganisations and socio-economic situations.Since 1989 the Programme of IntegratedCoastal Area Management has developedmanagement projects on the Albanian andSyrian coasts, in Croatia (Kastela Bay),Greece (Rhode Island), Tunisia (Sfax) andTurkey (Izmir Bay), Egypt and Israel.Projects in Algeria, Lebanon, Malta,Morocco and Slovenia have followed.However, the impressive ICZM efforts havenot yet been sufficient to stop majorenvironmental problems arising from highlyconcentrated pressures such as urbanisationand tourism.

The North-East Atlantic and Baltic Seaconventions, OSPAR and HELCOM of 1992,have promoted strategic and integratedplanning, using management tools such asLocal Agenda 21, in addition to specificICZM projects. Under both conventions,strong commissions have been vested withpowers to make recommendations for theadoption of specific legislative measures tobe taken by the Party states. Both initiativeshave been successful in developing dynamicnetworks between the countries and civilsociety. In addition, HELCOM has achievedmuch in balancing the environmentaldifferences between West and East. Financialassistance from the wealthier EU statesaround the Baltic to the others is animportant key to this, and to the anticipatedfuture success of the programme. At leastpartly as a result of these efforts, there have


279

Box 13.5. Application of integrated coastal zone management tools in the EU

• Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark have developed joint, cross-bordermanagement plans to protect specific natural areas in the Wadden Sea.

• Some of Spain’s Local Agenda 21 activities focus on coastal municipalitiesand coastal regions. Examples are Costa de Janda in Andalucia, and theMaresme coast in Catalonia, where the Diputacion of Barcelona has createda municipality network for sustainable development.

• The French Conservatoire du Littoral et des Rivages Lacustres has acquiredlarge stretches of coastal natural areas, to be managed by local andregional bodies applying ICZM principles.

Atlantic North Baltic Mediterranean Black CaspianSea Sea Sea Sea Sea

National legal XXX XXX XX XXX X -and juridical instruments

Development of management XXX XXX XX XXX X -plans (dunes, beaches, estuaries,islands, denominated areas, etc.)

Protected coastal areas XXX X XX XX X X(e.g. natural parks) linked withlocal development programmes

Local Agenda 21 XX XX XXX XXX X -

Strategic/regional coastal XX XX XXX XX X -planning involving cooperationbetween stakeholders,authorities and sectors

Concerted actions with sectors XXX XX XXX XX X -and populations (to loweremissions, or pressures on land)

Coastal land acquisition managed XXX XX X XX - -by different local bodies

ICZM demonstration projects XXX XXX XX XXX X X

Integrating science XXX XXX XXX XXX XX -and information

ICZM formation and training XX XX XX XXX - -

ICZM evaluation XX XX XX XXX - -

Table 13.2.Development of tools related to integrated coastal zone management by regional seas

Note:XXX: fully implemented.XX: partially implemented.X: partially used.-: not used.

Source: EEA

been improvements in several aspects ofwater quality in North Sea coastal waters. Forthe Baltic region, it is estimated that theenvironmental quality that prevailed in 1950will be regained in 2050, if the current paceof improvements is maintained.

In the Black Sea, the Black Sea Commissionsecretariat has coordinated ICZM actions atthe subregional level. Due to well-developedlandscape research and the long tradition ofcentralised planning, ICZM development hasa strong territorial planning component. Itis, however, intended to build on experienceand results from other regional seas,including strengthening bottom-upparticipation involving local communitiesand NGOs. Unfortunately, the Black Seacountries do not have the same kind offinancial support as their counterpartsaround the Baltic. The lack of economiccapacity to manage the pressures on theBlack Sea coasts remains a major obstacle tosuccess.

In the Caspian Sea, the CaspianEnvironment Programme was launched in1998, supported by the littoral states

(Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, the RussianFederation and Turkmenistan), the GlobalEnvironment Facility, UNEP, the WorldBank, the EU and growing participation ofthe private sector. One of the tasks of theCaspian Environment Programme was toprepare the Framework Convention for theProtection of the Marine Environment of theCaspian Sea. A major stumbling block in theimplementation of the programme has beendifferences between the littoral states overownership and development rights in thesea. The potential oil and natural gas wealth,along with the associated environmentalrisks of resource development, haveheightened the stakes for each country. And,




as with the Black Sea convention, lack ofeconomic capacity will hamperimplementation even further.

13.3.2. Urban planning and developmentAt a more local level than ICZM, there havebeen interesting developments towardsharmonisation and integration in urbanplanning. Urban planning is a vital tool forintervention to shape a sustainable future,protect and enhance the environment, andimprove the quality of life. Indeed, policiesand plans for urban development commonlymake explicit commitment to the principlesof sustainable development. Implementationof environmentally sustainable spatialplanning, however, is clearly more difficult.

The reasons lie in the planning systemsthemselves and in continued pressures forunsustainable development, especiallybetween and at the peripheries of urbanareas. Substantive urban planning actions,such as innovative urban renewal andtransformation, and ecosystem approaches tothe use and management of land, remainfragmented and partial, without full politicalsupport at all levels of government. Marketforces (both corporate and individual privateinterests) are still powerful determinants ofspatial patterns. Currently, policies focus lesson the direct implementation of plans by thepublic sector, and more on spatialframeworks to ensure that the private sectordelivers sustainable outcomes. Even incountries with well-established planninginstitutions, these frameworks do notdetermine all development: nationalinterests (especially for economicdevelopment) sometimes over-ride localcontrols. Where planning institutions areweak or unsupported, unregulateddevelopment can occur. In some countries,these issues are compounded by the shiftfrom highly regulated economies to moremarket-based systems, with the consequentpressures of privatised land use, newlyprivatised mobility, and the need to attractinward investment. Despite the difficulties,examples from cities and regions all overEurope reveal many innovative policies and

The concept of integrated coastalzone management has been

spreading around European coastlinesfor 10 years, but implementation hasfailed to keep up with growingenvironmental, financial and politicalpressures.

practices, and newly designed spatialplanning systems that integrate urban land-use management and environmental issues.Distinctive national systems of planning arechanging and inter-mixing, and experiences,including the approaches discussed below,are being shared across the continent. Cityleaders talk to each other even withoutwaiting for clearance from national orregional governments. Cities like Lyon,Geneva and Turin get together to see howtheir Alpine corner of Europe can keep itswealth while protecting its commonmountain environment.

Integration of urban planningwith other sectors and policy areasA significant change in spatial planningduring the 1990s was the recognition thatisolated physical planning responses tourban problems are insufficient. Urbanplanning needs to be integrated with otherinterventions, and with social and economicpolicy. Large-scale projects and smaller-scalepublic interventions to refurbish publicspaces, open up waterfronts and reclaimroad space for pedestrians or cyclists haveacted as catalysts for wider urbanregeneration, investment and culturalrenaissance. Positive planning policies todirect development and investment todamaged or derelict urban land are alsoimportant in urban transformation,especially where they operate in tandem withother regulatory, development and financialagencies: Tallinn, for instance, is recoveringits Hanseatic glory as a Baltic trading centre.Places like Marseilles, Barcelona andLiverpool are converting their once run-down red-light port districts into new hubslinking people to the sea.

There has been a shift of focus from centralareas to the relatively marginalised orperipheral communities. Successful projectssuch as that in Vienna (Box 13.6) show thebenefits of integration with social andeconomic interventions, such as in thehousing market and in community capacity-building, with clear political commitmentand integration across different institutions.

Another incentive for integrated planning isthe need to address closely related urbanproblems (such as traffic volumes, communityseverance and air pollution), which togetherdiminish urban quality of life and endangerhealth. Members of the World HealthOrganization (WHO) Healthy Cities Networkadopt a combination of key objectives andplanning actions as a solution. Examples


281

Box 13.6. Urban renewal scheme in Vienna, Austria

In Vienna, an urban renewal scheme was aimed at social renewal. It did sothrough the use of criteria such as avoiding segregation or forced change ofownership, renewal of occupied stock with the tenants’ participation, the useof targeted subsidies (to avoid displacement of local occupants), and using acity block approach to ensure cohesiveness and participation. This hasenabled the scheme to combine improvements to the flats and otherbuildings with improvements to the wider living environment, throughprovision of green space, traffic calming, preservation of small businesses andthe provision of social services.

Source: Dubai awards, 2000

include urban planning for safe andconvenient environments that encouragewalking and cycling to work, shops, schooland other facilities to promote health andexercise, and that ensure provision for marketgardens, allotments, local markets and diverseretail facilities to meet the objectives of local,low-input food production.

There is some evidence that such policieshave been successful in revitalising cities,generating increased investment, andstemming urban decline. However, theproblems of displacement of certain groupsby higher land values, and of unequal accessto the benefits of new investment, remainserious.

Ecosystems approachesSpatial planning decisions also need torespect biophysical and environmentalresources essential to sustain human qualityof life. There are many indications that theurban planning system is adopting a broader,more holistic view, and is paying regard toresource flows (such as energy, materials andwater). But there are very few examples of afully eco-centric plan, using concepts ofcritical natural capital or carrying capacity,being implemented. However, many urbanplans do now require that developmentsmeet standards for biodiversity protectionand enhancement, flood risk avoidance, andwater, energy and materials efficiency (see,for example, Box 13.7 on Hanover).

Another example is of a more holisticapproach that pursues a greater degree offood self-reliance by producing more foodlocally, especially fruits and vegetables.Traditional horticultural food production inurban areas has largely disappeared in WE,apart from some recreational gardening, butin CEE and EECCA subsistence foodproduction in and around cities hasincreased as the output from the large oldcollective farms has decreased. Such urbanvegetable and fruit production has positiveimpacts on local employment and localeconomic growth, and results in lower costof local foods, enhanced access to healthierfood, closer links between consumers andproducers, and greener, healthier cities.

There are similar developments in WE. InSweden, for example, new buildings areplanned with composting facilities, andmunicipally owned city farms use thiscompost, so contributing both to a reductionof the environmental impact of waste and tosocial cohesion and local economic growth.

Box 13.7. The integrated urban water policy of Hanover, Germany

In Hanover, water policy is guided by the principles of sustainabledevelopment, and the aims of a secure water supply, permanent protection ofgroundwater and surface water reserves, and water conservation. This is donethrough:

• rainwater absorption: since 1994, every development plan submitted forapproval must address the feasibility of absorbing rainwater on site ratherthan channelling it into the drains;

• rainwater exploitation: the use of rainwater rather than the municipal watersupply, and therefore the installation of rainwater collection systems, isencouraged through financial incentives;

• ecological restoration of waterways;• tertiary water treatment.

Source: ICLEI

Institutional planning frameworksLocal Agenda 21 has emphasised theimportance of community participation(such as two-way community and stakeholderparticipation and active involvement)leading to new approaches in thosecountries where planning lacked such atradition, and new techniques elsewhere(such as visioning exercises). Most of theexamples given above rely heavily oncommunity participation in one form oranother. In the 10 years since the Riosummit, many urban planning initiativeshave drawn on the Local Agenda 21 visionsor strategies adopted by local communities,which have generated greater politicalsupport. This is especially the case in WEand the accession countries. In Majorca, forexample, these principles are being used tochange the whole direction of spatial policy(Box 13.8).

In many EECCA countries, the responsibilityfor preparing and adopting plans for urbandevelopment, within the framework of anational plan, falls to federal authorities.However, there are overlapping jurisdictions,and vertical and horizontal integration isdifficult. Municipalities are often small andnumerous (in the Russian Federation, forexample, there are more than 13 000municipalities), with little planningexpertise. And these countries in transition




Box 13.8. Local Agenda 21 and spatial planning in Calvia, Spain

In the early 1990s, the town council of Majorca began a series of programmeswhich resulted in 1995 in a decision to promote a new, long-term strategyaimed at retargeting tourist and local development in accordance withsustainability principles, with the environment seen as a key for the future.

This process initiated Calvia’s Local Agenda 21, which in turn has led to theadoption of its new general plan, which breaks with the previous model in:

• reducing the expected population and hence the amount of buildingland allowed;

• fostering the protection of rural areas and promoting urban regeneration;• adopting new eco-responsibility regulations (on bio-climatic adaptation,

separation of waste and building materials, etc.).

Implementation is through clearing of buildings and rationalising land use andinfrastructures, and linking the tourist eco-tax at regional level to local andregional funding to support land purchase.

Source: Ajuntament de Calvia, 2000

Box 13.9. The national plan of spatial development in Belarus

In Belarus, a national plan of spatial development was approved by theCouncil of Ministers in February 2000, and work on regional level plans isprogressing. Master plans for half the urban settlements have been approvedsince 1990 (with a plan date of 2010). However, many problems remain:

• lack of legal and normative bases for public participation in plan making ordevelopment control;

• poor integration of planning programmes with mechanisms for providingcompensation or amelioration arising from planning decisions;

• shortage of funds for urban planning documentation, causing delays andpoor implementation.

Source: VASAB, 2000

from centrally planned economic andpolitical systems have little history ofcommunity autonomy or public participationin the physical planning process. In theRussian Federation, these problems arecompounded by the pressures of internalmigration from the east to the western citiesof the country (Traynor, 2002; Artobolevskiy,2000).

Nevertheless, there is enthusiasm for change,recognising the importance of integratingenvironmental protection intodemocratically approved plans, and forsharing of experiences with other countriesof WE and countries in transition. Forexample, VASAB 2010 (Vision and strategiesaround the Baltic) is a project to promoteurban systems and urban networking in theBaltic Sea region, ultimately to promote ajoint spatial development perspective.Working with other international initiativessuch as Baltic 21 (a Regional Agenda 21),and the EU’s Interreg II, Phare and Tacisprogrammes, VASAB links spatial (urbansettlements, infrastructure and non-urbanareas) and institutional elements (planning

systems and procedures). Box 13.9 describessuch a development in Belarus.

Experience shows clearly that urbanplanning polices that do not have thesupport or approval of local communitiesrisk ineffective implementation and loss oftrust in planning decisions. However,bottom-up involvement is not likely to besufficient to achieve sustainable development(Naess, 2001). All stakeholders need to beinvolved, ranging from various governmentlevels to the business community and thelocal public. Ecologically defensible land useand resource consumption require a realbreak with business-as-usual lifestyles. A goodexample of urban development where thethree approaches singled out above arecombined (integration of different sectors,an eco-system approach and Local Agenda21 with strong local level partnerships) isdescribed in Box 13.10 for the city of Malmö.

In the EU, many of the good practicesidentified above are being networked andshared among planning authorities atvarious levels and in many countries.

Although there have been substantialobstacles in the EU accession countries tomoving towards more integrated andenvironmentally sound urban planningsystems, a number of towns and cities arepursuing good practice. Many arenetworking and adopting measures tointegrate physical, social and economicplanning, to take on board ecologicalprinciples, and to make use of appraisal toolsand participative processes. A survey of 12towns in the Slovak Republic, for example,revealed that a variety of differentapproaches to planning were being applied(author’s data).

In EECCA, it has proved difficult to shiftfrom a physical planning tradition to a moreholistic spatial planning approach,integrated with other economic sectors andpolicy regimes, and working withinenvironmental constraints. However,countries such as Belarus, Ukraine and theRussian Federation are setting up new legalframeworks and systems for urban planpreparation and adoption, and for landprivatisation and reform. The strengths ofthese new systems lie in their familiarity withsetting strategic aims, a firm policyframework, technical expertise, a highdegree of education and a learning culture.The weaknesses remain a static approach toplan documentation, with little attention to


283

Box 13.10. Sustainable urban development in the city of Malmö, Sweden

The municipality of Malmö launched two integrated projects to transform thewestern harbour of Malmö from a polluted wasteland to an ecologicallyleading-edge example of sustainable urban development. In doing so, it tookinto account its Local Agenda 21 action plan, the comprehensive plan forMalmö 2000, its environmental programme and its 2001 gender equality plan.Key characteristics of the projects were:

• partnerships between local authorities, local housing companies and thelocal community;

• new and rehabilitated housing, including for people with special needs(such as the elderly and students);

• cleaning polluted soil and better maintaining green spaces;• better infrastructure for traffic, energy, waste and water (affordable shared

transport through an electric car pool, locally produced renewable energy,recycling projects, local treatment of surface water runoff so decreasing therisk of flooded basements during heavy rain).

As a result of these projects, the city of Malmö has noted a change in people’sattitudes and behaviour with increased recycling of household waste andincreased popularity of the bicycle as a means of transport. A wide range ofinnovative ‘green’ products and services has resulted from the projects e.g.green roofs, low energy villas and renewable energy solutions. This concertedeffort and commitment of the local authorities and its partners demonstratesthat Local Agenda 21 is a viable concept for sustainable urban development.The projects meet the basic criteria of impact, partnership and sustainabilityas well as additional considerations of leadership and communityempowerment, gender equality and social inclusion, innovation within a localcontext and transferability.

Source: Dubai awards, 2002

implementation, and a tradition ofmonitoring without evaluation (Wernstedt,2002).

13.3.3. Other integration policy instrumentsSince the early 1970s, when environmentalissues began to appear on political agendas,many regulatory instruments have been put inplace, mainly following command-and-controlrules (polluters have to pay and governmentshave to monitor enforcement and impacts).Technological progress played a major role inthe development of such instruments. It hasfacilitated reduced consumption of energy,water and minerals, and the increasedapplication of recycling, material substitutionand use of renewable resources. This section,however, focuses on newer policy instrumentsthat have been introduced in more recentyears in the fight against environmentaldegradation: economic instruments andeconomic integration, voluntary approachesand environmental assessments.

Economic instruments and economic integrationIn the past decade, market-based (economic)instruments such as taxes, charges andemission-permit trading systems haveincreasingly been applied to offer greaterflexibility, and sometimes more cost-effectivesolutions, than traditional instruments such asindividual environmental licences or genericrules and standards. Subsidies, sometimesfinanced from the revenues of charges, canalso be used to encourage environmentallybeneficial behaviour or reduce environmentaldamage.

Environmental taxes and chargesEnvironmental taxes and charges havebecome mature instruments in theinstrument mix available to policy-makers,and have been increasingly implementedsince the1980s. (Table 13.3.) The use ofthese instruments has been tied to thepolluter pays principle as they internalise theexternal costs (see Box 13.11) of thepollution that results from production orconsumption activities. These external costscan be significant and environmentaltaxation can help to correctly internalisethese costs in market prices of goods andservices.

Taxes and charges have historically beenapplied on a one-by-one basis — as a choicefor meeting particular objectives. However,in many countries they are increasinglybeing applied within a general strategy ofenvironmental tax reform (ETR) and morerecently of ecological fiscal reform. The

former only addresses taxes and charges,whereas the latter also includes thereduction of environmentally harmfulsubsidies. Since the first ETR in the early1990s in the Nordic countries and theNetherlands, more countries (e.g. Germanyand the United Kingdom) are looking at abroad strategy of shifting the tax base,lowering labour taxes and increasingenvironmental and natural resource-usetaxes. The aim is to improve the functioningof markets and shift the tax burden from‘goods’ (e.g. employment) to ‘bads’ (e.g.environmental damage).

Ecological taxation and ‘green’charges are now established, but

they have as yet had limited practicaleffect.

Internalisation in market prices ofexternal costs is incomplete in

many areas.

Box 13.11. Estimates of external costs

Estimates of the external costs of fossil fuel-based electricity production in the EU range fromEUR 0.1 to EUR 0.4/kWh for natural gas-basedelectricity and EUR 0.02 to EUR 0.15 for coal-based electricity (EEA, 2002b). The external costsof transport in the EU amount to around 8 % ofGDP, with road transport accounting for morethan 90 % of these costs (EEA, 2001).




While the principle of ETR has gainedfavour throughout much of Europe, inaggregate such changes are not proceedingvery quickly. Since 1995, labour taxes in theEU have decreased from 23.8 % to 23.0 % ofGDP, and environmental taxes increasedfrom 2.77 % to 2.84 % (EEA, 2002a).

Taxes relating to energy and transport remaina key indicator. In most of northwest Europe,taxes on the five main energy products arealready equal to or higher than those thatwere proposed by the European Commissionfor 2002 in the ‘Monti proposal’ (CEC, 1997).However, taxation levels are significantlylower in the cohesion countries — Spain,Portugal, Greece and Ireland — and inLuxembourg and Switzerland. Most westernEuropean states also now have a road vehicletax system which is differentiated to oneextent or another according to environmentalcriteria or to some proxy for these (e.g. fuelconsumption, engine power) (see, forexample, Box 13.12).

Road use and congestion charging is alsogaining political momentum in manywestern European countries. The EuropeanCommission is currently developing aframework proposal for infrastructurecharging which would agree a commonmethodology to enable countries to charge

Box 13.13. Levy on plastic shopping bags in Ireland

Since 4 March 2002, retailers in Ireland areobliged to charge a EUR 0.15 levy on each plasticbag they provide to their customers. Revenuesgo to an Environment Fund. In the first threemonths of its existence, the tax had achieved areduction in the provision of plastic bags of morethan 90 %. More than 1 billion plastic bags peryear are expected to be removed fromcirculation as a result of the tax.

Source: Department of the Environment and LocalGovernment, 2002

Box 13.12. Annual taxation of passenger cars in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, annual taxation ofpassenger cars was until recentlyundifferentiated, but now falls into one of fivebands directly related to carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions. It is proposed that a new energy andCO2 labelling system will reflect the same bands.The company car taxation system has also beenrestructured to encourage take-up of cars withlower CO2 emissions. These changes werewelcomed in a recent communication from theEuropean Commission (CEC, 2002b).

for the external costs of using transportinfrastructure. A number of Member States,including Germany and the UnitedKingdom, are planning to introduce theirown systems of distance charges for lorries.In Switzerland, such a system already existswhereby lorries are charged for their use ofthe entire road network. Congestioncharging for urban areas is also gainingpolitical support, with London the largestcity in Europe to implement such a system.

Taxes and charges on products are relativelyscarce, but include a few good examples ofeffective economic instruments. The recentlyintroduced levy on plastic shopping bags inIreland has had a dramatic impact (see Box13.13).

In some CEE countries (e.g. Hungary),efforts have been made to increase taxationon energy products. Some accessioncountries will need to raise duties on mineraloils further to comply with the EU’s currentminimum requirements; and all would needto make increases across the range of energyproducts to reach the levels proposed in the‘Monti proposal’. Environmentaldifferentiation of vehicle taxes is found insome states (e.g. Bosnia-Herzegovina,Hungary, Romania and the Slovak Republic)but is not the norm.

Taxes and charges on emissions toair and water and on natural

resources are quite widespread in CEEand EECCA, but their effectiveness isuncertain.

Energy, waste and product taxes stilllag behind.

An increasing number ofenvironmental taxation systems are

being introduced throughout the EUwith the aim of improving environmentalquality in an efficient way and reducingthe burden of taxation on labour andother production costs.

There are some indications of theeffectiveness of environmental

taxes, but evaluative studies are generallylacking.


285

Country Natural resources Waste Emis-sions

Selected products Other

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o pAlbania ✔Armenia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Austria ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Belarus ✔Belgium ❍ ❍ ❍ ✔ ✔ ✔Bosnia & Herzegovina

✔

Bulgaria ✔ ✔ ✔ ✛ ✛Cr oatia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✛ ✔ ✔Czech Republic

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✈ ✔

Denmark ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Estonia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Finland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔France ✔ ✔ ✔Germany ❍ ✔ ✔Gr eece ✔ ✔ ✔Hungary ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✛ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✈Iceland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Ireland ✔ ✔Italy ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✈Kazakhstan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Kyr gyzstan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Latvia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Lithuania ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Moldova, Rep. of ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Netherlands ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✈Norway ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✈Poland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Portugal ✔Romania ✔ ✛ ✔Russian Fed. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Slovak Rep. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Slovenia ✔ ✔Spain ❍ ✔Sweden ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ❍ ✔ ✔Switzerland ✔ ✈Turkey ✈ ❍ ✈United Kingdom ✔ ✔Ukraine ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Uzbekistan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Note:Charges which only cover the costs of production or public services (e.g. waste collection fees, waste water

treatment) are not included.

Key: ✛ = Non Compliance Fees (fees/penalties which only apply to emissions above limits).❍ At the regional (sub-national) level.✈ Aircraft only

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Mining, minerals, gravel, sand, etc

Ground water, surface water

Hunting, Fishing

Forest use, tree cutting

Landf lling

Incineration

Hazardous waste

To air

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

To water

Chemical substances

Packaging

Batteries

Pesticides

Plastic bags

Noise

Land use change

Table 13.3.Environmental taxes and charges in western Europe, central and eastern Europeand the 12 countries of eastern Europe, the Caucasus and central Asia

Source: EEA, 2000; OECD 2000, 2002a; REC, 1999; UNECE Environment Performance Review reports




Taxes and charges on energy productsremain quite low in EECCA, and thereappears as yet to be little attention toimproving vehicle fleet performancethrough differentiated taxation. In the1990s, many of the EECCA countriesintroduced charging systems to raiserevenues for environmental investments,create incentives for pollution control andreduction, enforce permit requirements, andimplement the polluter pays principle(UNECE, 2002). These charges havegenerally been introduced in conjunctionwith a permit system: a base charge is appliedfor permitted emissions and a penalty rateencourages compliance with the permittedstandard.

SubsidiesThere are many examples of subsidies acrossEurope. For example, most forms of publictransport are subsidised in most countries, inrecognition of the fact that public transportserves important social goals and provides analternative to (generally more damaging)private transport, particularly private cars.Some western European countries and mostCEE countries and EECCA have historicallysubsidised spending to a high level, but inmany countries, these subsidies are underpressure from national and local authoritybudgetary limits. Particularly in the countriesin transition, budgets for public transporthave been cut back severely, and servicelevels and quality have suffered as a result.

To combat carbon dioxide (CO2) emissionsand other forms of pollution from fossil-fuelled power stations, most westernEuropean countries in particular offer director indirect subsidies for renewable energyplants. Indirect subsidies tend to bemechanisms that operate within theframework of electricity supply pricing, suchas the German ‘feed-in’ law or the UnitedKingdom’s renewables obligation. TheCommunity also collectively supportsrenewables investments through the secondALTENER programme, while the parallelSAVE II programme encourages energyefficiency investments.

In recent years, there has been an increase insome countries in support forenvironmentally sensitive farming. It isincreasingly recognised that farmers, forestersand others supplying environmental or socialbenefits may need direct economic incentives.Such incentives are playing a bigger role inagriculture policy and at the same time thereis a growing emphasis on attaching

environmental conditions to supportpayments, as proposed on an increased scaleby the Commission in the mid-term review ofthe common agricultural policy (CAP).

The EU has increased the level of resourcesdevoted to agri-environment schemesdramatically since 1992. They now coveraround 20 % of the total agricultural areaand include measures to support organicfarming and reduce pollution pressures, andthe management of cultural landscapes.Several CEE countries have also adopted thisapproach.

Environmental funds (usually funded byreceipts from pollution charges) have beenimportant in securing environmentalinvestments in some CEE countries andEECCA which have undergone the mostrapid reform, as capital is otherwise in shortsupply. In many other countries, industrialoutput is at about half its pre-transitionlevels; here environmental policies rarelyprovide sufficient incentives for action, whileenvironmental funds have been morelimited and less effective (UNECE, 2002).

Environmentally damaging subsidiesand tax exemptionsFinancial support to industries, activities andproducts may also have significant negativeimpacts on the quality of the environment.Such subsidies, which may be either direct(visible) or indirect (invisible), arewidespread both in Europe and in the rest ofthe world. Direct subsidies include financialsupport for production, e.g. in agriculture(price and income support for farmers) andenergy (coal subsidies, or tax exemptions foraviation, commercial fishing or certainindustrial sectors). Indirect subsidies occurwhere markets are protected (e.g. at theEU’s outer borders), and where governmentsprovide products and services for prices thatdo not cover the costs, e.g. in waste andwastewater collection and treatment, and theprovision of clean water and of infrastructurefor transport. In the EU, the EuropeanCommission has the role of policingsubsidies, particularly in areas where eitherdirect or hidden subsidies could distort theSingle Market. However, the Community’sinfluence in national energy policy is verylimited; but the Commission oversees theCAP, which incorporates a large andelaborate system of subsidies, compensationpayments, tariffs and price supports, andwhich accounts for 45 % of the Community’sentire budget.


287

Country Coal Natural gas Electricity

VAT Energy tax Vat Energy tax VAT Energt tax

Austria E RL RL

Belgium R E

Bulgaria – – –

Cyprus – – –

Czech Republic R – R – R –

Denmark RL RL

Estonia – – –

Finland (R) R RL

France – – –

Germany E – RL – RL

Greece – – R –

Hungary (E) – (R) – R

Iceland – – RH –

Ireland RH – RH – RH –

Italy R (E) R RHL R RHL

Latvia – – –

Lithuania – – –

Luxembourg R – RH – R –

Netherlands RHL RHL

Norway R*

Poland – – –

Portugal – (R) – R

Romania EH – EH – EH –

Russian Fed. – – –

Slovak Rep. R – R – R –

Slovenia E E (R) E

Spain – –

Sweden RL RL EL

Switzerland – –

Turkey – R – –

United Kingdom RH EH RH EH RH EH

Notes: R denotes a taxreduction; E an exemption. Lindicates tax reductions/exemptions for large energyusers (and/or specificsectors, such as greenhousehorticulture). H indicates taxreductions/exemptions forhouseholds. Tax reductions/exemptions for renewableenergy are not considered tobe environmentally harmfulsubsidies and therefore notincluded. Brackets indicatearrangements that haverecently been abolished. —indicates the absence of anyspecific energy/CO2 taxes. *indicates only in certainregions.

Source: Oosterhuis, 2001

Table 13.4.Tax reductions and exemptions for energy use in European countries

Note: The TSE is the totalshare of GDP in agriculturalsupport (three-year averagesin %). It includes bothtransfers from consumers(through domestic marketprice support) and fromtaxpayers (throughbudgetary or taxexpenditures).

Source: OECD

Figure 13.1.Total support estimates (TSE) to agriculture in EUand selected countries

Figure 13.1. shows the development of totalsupport to agriculture in a number ofcountries during the 1990s. In mostcountries for which data are available,subsidies to agriculture show a decreasingtrend. OECD countries, like others, arecommitted to reducing support toagriculture. However, the pace of suchreductions has generally been slow and someaspects of support are excluded from thereduction commitment as they are classifiedby the WTO as ‘green box’ or ‘blue box’support. The recent proposals from theCommission for the mid-term review of theCAP would result in a very significant‘decoupling’ of support from production.

In the energy area, subsidies to coalproduction dominate in the EU. Thesesubsidies are stable or show a decreasingtrend but especially in Germany, coalsubsidies are still a substantial share of GDP.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Turk

ey

Switz

erlan

d

Poland

Norway

Icelan

d

Hungar

yEU

Czech

Repub

lic

1986 - 1988

1998 - 2000

%



Environmentally damagingsubsidies and tax exemptions

remain substantial. Subsidies aregenerally falling, but favourable taxtreatment remains common.

Emissions trading has beenlaunched in the EU as a new

regulatory instrument that promises tooffer new opportunities for further cost-effective reductions in pollution.

In many European countries, the use ofenergy is further subsidised (usually forsocial or competitiveness reasons) by meansof tax reductions (see Table 13.4).

Unlike agriculture and energy, the size ofsubsidies to transport is not currentlyestimated on an internationally comparablebasis. These subsidies mainly consist ofbelow-cost provision of infrastructure, thefailure to tax the external cost of pollution,congestion and accidents, and tax reductionsand exemptions for specific modes oftransport. Again this is often done forreasons of social inclusion or commercialcompetitiveness. Among the latter, however,the absence of taxes on aircraft fuel is themost obvious example. The EuropeanCommission recommended in 2000 that theEU Member States should intensify theirwork within the International Civil AviationOrganisation’s framework for theintroduction of taxation on aviation fuel(CEC, 2000), but relatively little progress hasbeen made. Work continues on a possibleEuropean aviation charge.

In the CEE countries and EECCA, artificialprice levels and other forms of subsidy werecommon under the former centrally plannedeconomies. Through the 1990s, however,economic dislocation and restructuringseverely reduced the funds available tonational governments. In addition,international financing institutions haveinsisted on far-reaching reforms aspreconditions of loans and grants. These twoeffects have combined to bring aboutsubstantial reductions in the level ofsubsidies in most sectors.

Emissions tradingThe newest economic regulatory instrumentin the EU is emissions trading. While therehas historically been reluctance to useemissions trading in the EU, this changedwith the incorporation of ‘flexiblemechanisms’, which include emissionstrading, in the 1997 Kyoto protocol. Eversince, there has been a rapidly growinginterest in tradable permits or emissionstrading, both at the EU and Member Statelevel. An EU-wide greenhouse gas emissionstrading programme for a list of industrialsectors is planned to be operational in 2005.

Discussions on the design andimplementation of domestic greenhousegas emissions trading schemes are takingplace in a number of Member States,including the Netherlands, Sweden,Germany, France and Switzerland. Denmarkand the United Kingdom have alreadylaunched domestic emissions tradingschemes, which became operational in 2001and 2002 respectively (OECD, 2002b).

Although major tradable permit schemesdeal with greenhouse gases, the instrumentin general seems to be attracting moreinterest. The Netherlands have beenseriously considering a nitrogen oxide (NOx)tradable permit scheme, and in the UnitedKingdom a quasi-trading scheme for sulphurdioxide (SO2) was implemented thoughcompany ‘bubbles’ for the then NationalPower and PowerGen. Several countries areintroducing tradable renewable energycertificates (e.g. Belgium, Denmark, Italyand the Netherlands) and the UnitedKingdom has developed tradable certificatesfor waste (OECD, 2002b).

Voluntary approachesIn addition to governmental action, someinitiatives have been taken, which emphasisethe private sector’s own responsibility for abetter environment. As well as regulators andfirms entering into negotiated agreements(NAs) and self-commitments that specifytargets to be achieved, companies arediscovering the value of a ‘clean’ image andof selling ‘green’ products and services.However, vested interests, ingrained habitsand institutional barriers may obstruct the‘greening’ of industry. Generally speaking,the number of voluntary actions hasincreased substantially in the past decade.Negotiated agreements are also increasinglyseen as instruments within a portfolio ofinstruments, and the approach of ‘whichinstrument is best’ has changed to one of‘which package of instruments forms anoptimal instrument mix’.

Business participation in negotiated agreementsUnder negotiated agreements, governmentsand industrial sectors or a group ofindividual companies agree to reach certainenvironmental objectives in a certaintimeframe (Box 13.14). Many negotiated


289

Box 13.14. Key areas addressed by negotiated agreements

Over the past few years the key area of growth in the use of negotiatedagreements (NAs) is climate change. NAs have also been increasingly linkedto environmental taxes (e.g. UK climate change agreements are linked to theclimate change levy). The EU also fosters the further development of NAswhere these offer particular added value (CEC, 1996; 2002b).

NAs have been launched to address a wide range of environmentalchallenges, covering pollution from process activities (e.g. SO2 and NOxemissions in the Netherlands, emissions to water in Portugal, CO2 emissions inthe United Kingdom and Switzerland), process activity efficiency (e.g. energyuse and efficiency in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands), product use (e.g.batteries in Germany and Belgium), wastes related to products (e.g.packaging waste in Sweden, transport packaging in Denmark).

The use of negotiated agreementsgrew significantly during the 1990s,

particularly in western Europe, butscepticism still remains regarding theireffectiveness.

agreements are based on civil law, i.e.bilateral agreements between contractingpartners, while others are more ‘gentlemen’sagreements’ that are not legally binding. Thechoice depends on the particular legalstructures of the country.

The number of negotiated agreementsincreased during the 1990s and spread tomost EU Member States, but they are as yetvery limited in CEE countries and EECCA(EEA, 1997; OECD, 1998 and 1999; tenBrink, 2002). Today, several hundrednegotiated agreements operate in the EU,most of them at national level, but with manylocal negotiated agreements in somecountries and only a handful of Community-wide agreements focusing on productswidely traded in the internal market. Basedon a strong tradition of consensual politics,the Netherlands leads with more than 100negotiated agreements, though there issignificant growth in the use of theseinstruments in many other Member States.

Crucial for effective NAs are credibility ofagreements, strong commitment of theparties involved, transparency of monitoringand quantitative targets. A ‘big stick’ ofregulatory threat improves effectiveness, butsometimes such a stick does not appearnecessary (de Clercq et al., 2000). It isimportant to stress that NAs can be seen as aprocess and that with due governmentinterest and pressure, sometimes facilitatedby NGO initiatives, an agreement can beimproved over time.

Certified environmental management systems (EMS)Since the 1980s, large companies havedeveloped environmental managementsystems (EMS) in response to pressure todemonstrate environmental performance. In1996, developments culminated in theintroduction of two EMS standards: ISO14001 (under the auspices of theInternational Organization forStandardization) for all types oforganisations worldwide and EMAS (eco-management and audit scheme) for industryin the EU. In 2001, a renovated EMAS-2 wasclosely dovetailed with ISO 14001 and is nowalso available for non-industrial sites.Companies can certify their EMS accordingto ISO and EMAS. EMS targets are

prescribed as legal compliance and acontinuous improvement of environmentalperformance. These wordings givebusinesses flexibility in implementation.

In five years, ISO 14001 and, to a lesserextent, EMAS have become popular withbusinesses. As Table 13.5 shows, severalthousand companies have certified theirEMS. Geographically, there is an emphasison northwest Europe. Accession EUcountries are catching up on ISO 14001.EMAS has become popular in a fewcountries, notably Germany, Austria,Denmark and Sweden. In business sectors,emphasis is on multinational corporations,with the chemicals industry as the primeexample.

A caveat is that a certified EMS does notautomatically improve environmentalperformance. A recent research projectfound no relation between certification andperformance (Berkhout et al., 2001).Moreover, companies have substantialfreedom to choose their own priorities inEMAS/ISO 14001. Chain management andgreen procurement are options, but are notcompulsory. Most companies focus theireffort on internal production processes, butelectronics and car manufacturers havestarted to look at procurement policies as ameans for environmental improvementsthrough chain management.

Business environmental reportingThe 1990s saw the inception of businessenvironmental reporting (Figure 13.2.).Developments run five years behind EMS,showing that a well-functioning EMS is aprerequisite for serious reporting. EMASobliges a company to publish a certifiedstatement, but ISO 14001 does not.

So far, uniform reporting formats aremissing. This brings much confusion andmakes comparisons between companies




Country ISO 14001 EMAS Country ISO 14001 EMAS

Germany 3 380 2 692 Norway 297 64

United Kingdom 2 500 78 Poland 294 –

Sweden 2 070 211 Austria 224 360

Spain 2 064 154 Ireland 200 8

Italy 1 108 68 Czech Rep. 197 6

France 1 092 35 Slovenia 138 –

Netherlands 942 25 Belgium 130 14

Denmark 919 174 Turkey 91 –

Switzerland 762 – Slovak Rep. 73 –

Finland 678 36 Greece 66 6

Hungary 300 – Portugal 47 2

Table 13.5. Number of ISO 14001 and EMAS certificates in selected European countries as of January 2002

Note: Number of certificatesin countries not listed is less

than 20. – : not applied

Sources: www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld;

www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas

difficult. In 1997 the Global ReportingInitiative (GRI), an NGO backed by UNEP,started the development of sustainabilityreporting guidelines (GRI, 2001).

Some EU countries oblige certain sectors ofindustry to publish environmental reports:Denmark (since 1996; several thousandsites), the Netherlands (since 1999; 250companies), Sweden (since 1999; paragraphin financial report) and France (to start in2002; for publicly quoted companies).

0 10 20 30 40 50

Greece

Slovenia

Hungary

Spain

Belgium

Italy

France

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Germany

Netherlands

United Kingdom

% of companies

Source: KPMG, 2002

Figure 13.2. Corporate reporting by country in 2002,top 100 companies

The number of companies that report onenvironmental performance is stillincreasing. A central register ofenvironmental reports does not exist, but ofthe biggest corporations in the Fortune Top250 list, 45 % now publish an environmentalreport (KPMG, 2002). Companies in thechemicals, gas, oil, electronics, automotiveand utilities sectors are front-runners. A 2002UNEP study lists ‘the magnificent seven’ asbest in class: Cooperative Bank (UK), NovoNordisk (pharmaceutics; Denmark), BAA(airports; UK), British Telecom (UK), RioTinto (minerals; UK), Royal Dutch/Shell(oil; UK/Netherlands) and BP (oil; UK).These companies combine good governancewith transparency (UNEP/SustainAbility,2002).

As with EMS certification, the smaller thesize of a company, the smaller is theprobability of an environmental report.

International business organisationsfor sustainable developmentSince 1995, the World Business Council forSustainable Development (WBCSD) hasbecome a leading platform for businesscooperation in the field of sustainabledevelopment. In 2002, WBCSD had about150 member companies, of which 50 % arebased in Europe. In WBCSD projects,corporate representatives develop know-howon topics such as eco-efficiency, innovationand corporate social responsibility. Onsustainability reporting, WBCSD cooperates


291

The use and coverage of eco-labelscontinues to spread across Europe,

but still for few product groups and infew countries.

closely with GRI. The 111 corporations thatuse the GRI guidelines are almost all WBCSDmembers. In January 2003 WBCSD releaseda report intended to increase the standing ofcorporate sustainability reporting as abusiness tool. It has also produced guidanceto help companies produce reports andmake the information contained morerelevant to stakeholders.

The chemical industry initiated theResponsible Care programme in 1984 aimedat improving performance, opencommunication with the public and thediffusion of best practice. Responsible Careis a voluntary programme that is continuallyupgraded and adapted to meet newdemands on environmental management.

Most trade associations, national andinternational, have developed schemes toassist member companies in environmentalmanagement. Some of these provide codesof conduct and environmental manuals fortheir members. However, they do not havesuch a demanding scheme as the chemicalindustry and, in the absence of monitoring,the likelihood of compliance to codes ofconduct is rather low.

Product eco-labellingThe oldest national eco-labelling scheme,the German Blauer Engel, started 25 yearsago. The German system emphasises a fewproduct criteria deemed most important forenvironmental performance. Later schemesuse a cradle-to-grave approach by making aproduct life cycle assessment (LCA).Developed in parallel with many nationalschemes, the EU introduced its eco-label‘flower’ in 1993. This scheme now covers 18product groups, and another eight are underdevelopment. National eco-labelling schemesoperate in Germany, Finland, Sweden,Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Spain andCatalonia, France, Austria, the Netherlands,Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary,Poland and Slovakia.

In addition to EU and national eco-labels,there are many private and specialised labels.Private labels, covering several productgroups, play a role in only a few countries.Examples are TCO (Sweden) and GoodEnvironmental Choice (United Kingdom,Sweden). Specialised labels cover oneproduct group only. They are relatively welldeveloped for products from agriculture andforestry. The EKO-label, upheld by an NGOcalled SKAL, certifies products from organicfarming in about 30 countries (Bushmovich

et al., 2001). Emphasis is on food products,but non-food products such as cotton textilesare also included.

In forestry, the Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) has become the dominant initiator ofsustainable forest management worldwide.Initiated in 1993 and based in Mexico, FSC-certified forests cover 27 million hectares. In2002, 23 European countries had FSC-certified forests, of which Poland, Sweden,United Kingdom, Estonia and Latvia are mostprominent (with over 0.5 million ha each). Inseveral transition countries, environmentallabels have been created for promoting theuse of environmentally acceptable productsand manufacturing procedures. They aremodelled on similar labels in WE. A numberof products have received these labels, but asyet there is little information on theircommercial effect. Probably the main effectof eco-labels has been to recognise theenvironmental efforts and motivate theproducers, and to establish a dialoguebetween industry and environmentalauthorities. International eco-labels have alsohad an impact in transition countries. Severalinternational networks of organic foodcertification are present in the regionthrough their local NGO counterparts, alongwith many domestic organic and quality labelsfor food products. In a few cases, forests andwood processing companies are obtainingForest Stewardship Council certification inorder to be able to sell wood and woodproducts to western markets (UNECE, 2002).

Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental impact assessment (EIA) isan important tool both for harmonisation ofpolicies and for integration of environmentalconsiderations into economic and othersectoral decisions. It combines theprecautionary principle with principles ofpublic participation and of preventingenvironmental damage.

In western Europe, the situation regardingimplementation of EIA at the project level ispositive, with only Monaco reporting a lackof legislation. In general the practice of EIAis also good. Progress has been driven, to asignificant extent, by the EU’s environmentalimpact assessment directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC) and bythe Espoo convention (EIA in a




The implementation and use ofenvironmental impact assessment is

now widespread across Europe, but itseffectiveness is limited.

transboundary context) that entered intoforce in 1997. In terms of continuing issueswith EIA, while procedural compliance withthe directive is generally very good,responses to questionnaires indicate thatthere are areas for improvement. Theseparticularly regard public participation atthe scoping stage, rather than involving thepublic too late in the process, when projectoptions have already been selected. Therehas been progress in some countries with theweight given to an EIA in decision-making,with incorrect predictions made in the EIAbeing subject to variations in permissionsgranted. However, the norm is still forincomplete implementation of mitigationmeasures to go both unmonitored andunpunished. More attention is thereforeneeded on monitoring impacts and findingways of dealing with unpredicted outcomes.

The Netherlands’ EIA system relies on anindependent EIA commission to assist inidentifying the scope of the assessment(where it includes a wider audience than justthe authorities involved) and reviewing theenvironmental impact statement. This is anaccepted way of dealing with bias and qualityissues.

The new Portuguese EIA system has novelpost-evaluation procedures. These include arequirement for an ‘impact assessmentcompliance report’ indicating howmitigation measures outlined in theenvironmental impact statement wereincorporated into the design of the project.The EIA authority may impose project ormanagement adjustments or additionalmitigation measures where unforeseenimpacts occur. Interested parties, includingthe public, can raise complaints on theenvironmental impacts of projects whichmust be dealt with by the relevantauthorities.

In CEE countries, progress withimplementing EIA and the practice of EIA isalso good. There has been a series ofcapacity-building programmes which havehelped to achieve compliance with therequirements of EU directives; however, notall countries have been through this process.Other problems cited are that, having beenthrough capacity-building programmes andhaving new legislation in place, there remainoperational problems through a lack oftraining of responsible officers, or a lack oforganisations with suitable experience to beable to carry out EIA. Other issues cited arethat the quality of environmental statements

is poor and that specific guidance needs tobe developed; that the EIAs take too longunder the administrative proceduresadopted (over a year in some cases); and lackof baseline environmental data. Somecountries need time to build experience,which could be helped with more emphasison training, ideally ensuring that long-termmeasures are in place, such as coursesavailable at universities. Other countries stillneed capacity-building in terms of changesto legislation and building the administrativeframework to allow the process to worksuccessfully.

In EECCA, EIA systems are primarily basedon the state ecological review (SER) andassessment of ecological impacts (OVOS)systems inherited from the former USSR.There are commonly cited problems in theoperation of these systems. These includecitizens being unaware of their rights andduties and so not participating properly inEIA; financial constraints preventing theoperation of the EIA framework; quality ofenvironmental impact statements beingpoor; guidance being inadequate; therebeing no consideration of transboundaryimpacts; there being no, or few, EIAspecialists; and penalties for non-compliancebeing inadequate. Another commonproblem is that the transition of legislationfrom the former SER/OVOS system to amore ‘western’ style of EIA in some countriesis leading to a situation where two systemsare operating in parallel, thus causingconfusion.

Strategic environmental assessmentProgress with strategic environmentalassessment (SEA) in western Europe is farmore patchy. The European Union hasadopted a directive on SEA (Directive 2001/42/EC) which must be implemented inMember States by July 2004. In westernEuropean countries, there is a lot ofexperience with application of SEA, andsome countries have working systems.However, SEA is far more commonly carriedout in an ad hoc way, and is largely confinedto specific sectors (particularly land-useplans and transport plans). Many countriescite their only experience of SEA beingthrough the assessment of regional plans as


293

Box 13.15. A new EU initiative towards more integration: impact assessment

The May 2002 communication from the Commission (CEC, 2002c) formallylaunched the EU’s initiative to use ‘impact assessment’ (IA) to improve thequality and coherence of the policy development process. The intention isthat an IA will be carried out for all major initiatives, whether strategies andpolicies, programmes or legislation. There is now pressure for the applicationof IA to various policies, building on previous analysis of trade policy (calledsustainability impact assessment or SIA).

Impact assessment is intended to help analyse the impacts of such initiativesin terms of the three pillars of sustainable development — economic, socialand environmental. It should also highlight who is affected and what thetrade-offs are, both across the three pillars and between stakeholder groups.The IA tool is also intended to simplify the process of assessing majorinitiatives, by incorporating the key elements of several existing evaluationmethodologies and superseding them. These include business impactassessment (BIA), regulatory impact assessment (RIA), health impactassessment (HIA) and even SEA. However, a key question is how far theseaims can be fully translated into practice and whether key issues previouslyhighlighted under existing techniques will lose some of their prominence.

At the national level, there is as yet no requirement to use IA. Nationalapproaches using RIA, SIA, BIA, SD (sustainable development) assessment,etc., will continue, although it is likely that broader IAs will develop. CurrentlyFinland carries out SIA through the use of adapted SEAs. The Netherlandsapplies a range of coordinated tests, including inter alia the environment test(E-test) and business test (B-test), and feasibility and enforceability tests. TheUnited Kingdom is piloting its own tool — integrated policy appraisal (IPA) —as well has having adopted RIA as a standard and integrated approach topolicy-making.

The requirement to use IA should help to ensure that the sustainabilityimpacts of major initiatives and stakeholders’ concerns are noted earlyenough for the proposals to be improved in advance of being launched.Similarly, by requiring others’ interests to be taken into account at an earlystage, the use of the IA promises to facilitate a greater integration ofsustainability concerns into policies and to ensure greater policy coherenceacross policy actors and domains.

IA offers the potential to support sustainable development and encouragemore effective and efficient policy-making.

required by the European Councilregulation for structural funds (2081/93,now superseded by 1260/1999) and indicatea lack of guidance as a key barrier tosuccessful implementation of legal oradministrative requirements.

In some CEE countries, it is too early to saywhether new SEA provisions are workingwell, in others new legislation is still in theprocess of development. Yet other countriescite a number of problems with theimplementation of SEA. Principal amongthese are a lack of systematic coverage ofcontent requirements, a lack of enforcementprovisions and a lack of application of SEAto any sector other than land use. Accessioncountries will however soon be subject to therequirements of the EU’s SEA directive, andthis may have a beneficial effect.

In EECCA, the SER and OVOS systemstheoretically also cover SEA, and so theproblems for SEA are similar to those forEIA, as detailed above. It is also likely thatprogress in many EECCA countries will beslow because of the financial situation inthose countries — capacity-buildingassistance should be considered here as ithas proved successful in many accessioncountries.

Recent initiativesA recurring theme across all of Europe,especially in CEE and EECCA, is the qualityof the public involvement in the EIA andSEA processes. In this context, the firstmeeting of the Parties to the Aarhusconvention took place from 21 to 23October 2002 in Lucca, Italy and confirmeda compliance mechanism that is open tocommunications from the public and whosecommittee members may be nominated byNGOs. This approach was strongly defendedby several groups, including the EuropeanUnion. The mechanism may set a precedentfor more effective conventions in the futureand could help to foster more open decision-making through example.

There are other examples of recent efforts toimprove the integration of policies andensure realistic implementation. Theseinclude the EU initiative on impactassessment (see Box 13.15) and the draftUNECE protocol on strategic environmental

The application of strategicenvironmental assessment is patchy,

and clear guidelines for its coverage anduse are lacking.

assessment. This latter is on course forsigning at the ministerial conference‘Environment for Europe’ in Kiev in May2003, and may bring benefits in extendingSEA practice across the region.

13.4. References

Ajuntament de Calvia, 2000. Plan general deordenacion urbana de 2000 de Calvia.

Artobolevskiy, 2000. New principles forRussian regional policy. European SpatialResearch and Policy 7(2): 21–33.

Berkhout, F. et al., 2001. MEPI: Measuring theenvironmental performance of industry. SPRU,University of Sussex, Brighton.

Bushmovich, A. et. al., 2001. Towardssustainable production and consumption of textileproducts. EPCEM, Vrije Universiteit,Amsterdam.




CEC, 1996. Communication from theCommission to the Council and the EuropeanParliament on environmental agreements. COM(96) 561 final. Brussels.

CEC, 1997. Proposal for a Council directiverestructuring the Community framework for thetaxation of energy products. COM(1997)30final. Brussels.

CEC, 2000. Communication from theCommission to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, the Economic and Social Committeeand the Committee of the Regions: Taxation ofaircraft fuel. COM(2000)110 final. Brussels.

CEC, 2002a. Communication from theCommission setting out a Community Action Planto integrate environmental protection requirementsinto the Common Fisheries Policy.COM(2002)186. Brussels.

CEC, 2002b. Communication from theCommission to the Council and the EuropeanParliament: Taxation of passengers cars in theEuropean Union — options for action at nationaland Community levels. COM(2002)431.Brussels.

CEC, 2002c. Communication from theCommission on impact assessment.COM(2002)276. Brussels.

de Clercq, M. et. al., 2000. A comparative studyof environmental negotiated agreements.Universiteit van Gent, Ghent.

Department of the Environment and LocalGovernment, 2002. Press release dated 26August 2002. Ireland.

Dubai awards, 2000 and 2002. Dubaiinternational awards for best practices inimproving the living environment. http://www.sustainabledevelopment.org/blp/awards/awardsmain.html

Ecologic and IEEP, 2002. EU environmentalgovernance: A benchmark of policy instrumentswith a focus on agriculture, energy and transport.IEEP and Ecologic, London.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 1997.Environmental agreements: Environmentaleffectiveness. EEA, Copenhagen.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2000.Environmental taxes: Recent developments in toolsfor integration. Environmental Issues SeriesNo 18. EEA, Copenhagen.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2001.TERM 2001. Indicators tracking transport andenvironment integration in the European Union.EEA, Copenhagen.

EEA (European Environment Agency),2002a. Environmental signals 2002. EEA,Copenhagen.

EEA (European Environment Agency),2002b. Energy and environment in the EuropeanUnion. Environmental issues report No 31.EEA, Copenhagen.

GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), 2001.Sustainability reporting guidelines. Boston.

IEEP, 2001a. The effectiveness of EU Councilintegration strategies and options for carryingforward the Cardiff process. IEEP and Ecologic,London.

IEEP, 2001b. Review of progress made under the2001 Swedish presidency of the EU on Councilintegration strategies for carrying forward theCardiff process. IEEP, London.

KPMG (KPMG Global SustainabilityServices), 2002. International survey ofcorporate sustainability reporting 2002. DeMeern.

Laansalu, A., 2001. Agriculture and ruraldevelopment — an overview 2000/2001.Ministry of Agriculture, Tallinn.

Mikk, M., 2001. Organic agriculture in Estonia.SOEL, Duerkheim.

Ministry of Environment, Norway, 1997.Environmental policy for sustainable development.Joint efforts for the future. Report to theStorting No 58. Oslo.

Naess, P., 2001. Urban planning andsustainable development. European PlanningStudies 9(4): 503–524.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1998. The useof voluntary initiatives in the European Union:An initial survey. ENV/EPOC/GEEI (98)29/Final. OECD, Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1999.Voluntary approaches for environmental policy:An assessment. OECD, Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2000. Survey


295

on the use of economic instruments for pollutioncontrol and natural resource management in theNIS: Preliminary conclusions andrecommendations. CCNM/ENV/EAP(2000)85.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2002a. OECD/EU database on environmentally relatedtaxes.(Forthcoming on line: http://www.oecd.org/EN/home/0,,EN-home-471-nodirectorate-no-no-no-8-log127588,00.html)

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2002b.Implementing domestic tradeable permits: Recentdevelopments and future challenges. OECD,Paris.

Oosterhuis, F. H., 2001. Energy subsidies in theEuropean Union. Final report. W-01/21.Institute for Environmental Studies, VrijeUniversiteit, Amsterdam.

REC (Regional Environmental Centre forCentral and Eastern Europe), 1999.Sourcebook on economic instruments forenvironmental policy. REC, Szentendre.

ten Brink, P., 2002. Voluntary environmentalagreements: Process, practice and future use.Greenleaf Publishing, United Kingdom.

Traynor, I., 2002. For Siberia, a return towasteland. The Guardian newspaper. 12 June.London.

UNECE, 2000a. Environmental PerformanceReview of Lithuania: Report on Follow-up.UNECE, Geneva.

UNECE, 2000b. Environmental PerformanceReview of Latvia: Report on Follow-up. UNECE,Geneva.

UNECE, 2000c. Environmental PerformanceReview of Kazakhstan. UNECE. Geneva

UNECE, 2002. ‘Environmental policy intransition: Lessons learned from ten years ofUNECE environmental performancereviews’. CEP/2002/3 — Draft fordiscussion. UNECE, Geneva.

UNECE/UNEP, 2002. Sustainable developmentin Europe, North America and Central Asia:Progress since Rio. ECE/CEP/84. UN, Geneva.

UNEP/SustainAbility, 2002. Trust us: The2002 global reporters survey of corporatesustainability reporting. UNEP, Paris.

VASAB (Vision and strategies around theBaltic), 2000. Compendium of spatial planningsystems in the Baltic Sea countries.

von Homeyer, I., 2001. EU environmental policyon the eve of enlargement. EUI.

von Homeyer, I., 2002. ‘The impact ofenlargement on EU environmental policy: Ahistorical-institutionalist perspective’. Paperpresented at the conference EUEnlargement and Environmental Quality inCentral and Eastern Europe and Beyond.

Wernstedt, K., 2002. Environmentalprotection in the Russian Federation. Journalof Environmental Planning and Management45(4): 493–516.



13. Progress in managing the environment...1998 Caspian Environment Programme 1998 EU Cardiff...

Documents

Transcript of 13. Progress in managing the environment...1998 Caspian Environment Programme 1998 EU Cardiff...