Europes Environment Assessment of Assessments

8/4/2019 Europes Environment Assessment of Assessments

1/103

Europe's

environmentAn Assessment o Assessments


2/103


3/103

Legal noticeThe contents o this publication do not necessarilyrelect the oicial opinions o the EuropeanCommission or other institutions o the EuropeanCommunities. Neither the European EnvironmentAgency nor any person or company acting on behalo the Agency is responsible or the use t hat may bemade o the inormation contained in this report.

All rights reservedNo part o this publication may be reproduced inany orm or by any means electronic or mechanical,including photocopying, recording or by anyinormation storage retrieval system, without thepermission in writing rom the copyright holder. Fortranslation or reproduction rights please contact EEA

(address inormation below). Inormation about theEuropean Union is available on the Internet. It can beaccessed through the Europa server (www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Oce o the EuropeanUnion, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9213-217-0doi:10.2800/78360

EEA, Copenhagen, 2011

Environmental productionThis publication is printed according to highenvironmental standards.

Printed by Rosendahl-Schultz Graisk Environmental Management Certiicate:

EN ISO 14001:2004 Quality Certiicate: ISO 9001: 2000 EMAS Registration. Licence no. DK 000235 Ecolabelling with the Nordic Swan,

licence no. 541 176

PaperRePrint DeLuxe 90 gsm.Invercote Creato Matt 350 gsm.

Printed in Denmark

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 61050 Copenhagen KDenmarkTel.: +45 33 36 71 00Fax: +45 33 36 71 99Web: eea.europa.euEnquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Europe's

environmentAn Assessment o Assessments

REG.NO.DK-000244
http://www.europa.eu/http://eea.europa.eu/http://eea.europa.eu/enquirieshttp://eea.europa.eu/enquirieshttp://eea.europa.eu/http://www.europa.eu/


4/103

Europe's environment An Assessment of Assessments2 3Europe's environment An Assessment of Assessments

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

National ocal points (NFPs), national contact points (NCPs) and other nationalthematic experts

Albania Etleva Canaj, Auron Meneri, Luan Ahmetaj, Erinda MishoArmenia Julieta GhlichyanAustria Johannes Mayer, Elisabeth Freytag, Florian Wol-Ott,

Hubert Reisinger, Sabine KranzlAzerbaijan Rashad AllahverdiyevBelarus Svetlana Utochkina, Saveliy Kuzmin, Alexander StankevichBelgium Jan Voet, Line Vancraeynest, Veronique Verbeke, Hugo Van

Hooste, Nathalie Dewol, Vincent Brahy, Maene Soetkin,Caroline De Geest, Stijn Overloop, Myriam Bossuyt,Bob Peeters, Saskia Opdebeeck, Erika Van Der Putten, JohanBrouwers

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Mehmed Cero, Goran Krstovic

Bulgaria Camelia Dikova, Krasimira Avramova, Detelina PeichevaCroatia Jasna Butui, Rene VukeliCyprus Christina PantaziCzech Republic Jir Hradec, Premysl Stepanek, Lukas Pokorny,

Simona LosmanovaDenmark Esben TindEstonia Leo Saare, Marion LeppikFinland Tapani SyntkariThe ormer YugoslavRepublic oMacedonia

Svetlana Gjorgjeva

France Jacques ThoretteGeorgia Mikheil Tushishvili, Nino SharashidzeGermany Christina Pykonen, Heide JekelGreece Dimitris MeimarisHungary Gabriella PajnaIceland Gunnar JnssonIreland Micheal Lehane

Italy Claudio Maricchiolo, Maria Concetta Giunta, Rita Calicchia,Anna Luise

Kazakhstan Olga SuvorovaKyrgyzstan Baglan SalikmambetovaKosovo under UnitedNations SecurityCouncil Resolution(UNSCR) 1244/1999

Rizah Hajdari, Arim Berisha

Latvia Vita SlankeLiechtenstein Roland JehleLithuania Liutauras StokusLuxembourg Eric De BrabanterMalta Saviour Formosa, Antoine Zahra, Priscilla Scerri

Montenegro Dragan Asanovi, Milena BatakoviRepublic o Moldova Maria Nagornii, Tamara Guvir, Valentina Tapis, Tatiana

Plesco, Vasile ScorpanNetherlands Kees Schotten, Hiddo HuitzingNorway Rebekka Borsch, Kari HoldenPoland Lucyna Dygas-Ciokowska, Barbara Albiniak, Ewa Palma,

Lukasz TomaszewskiPortugal Regina Vilao, Diana Carlos, Snia Costa, Joo Varela, Carlos

Carvalho, Susana Alvarez, Cludia Pina, Francisco Vala,Teresa Larsson, David Alves, Filomena Lobo, Maria deFtima Esprito Santo Coelho, Eduardo Santos, AntnioLeito, Ana Maral, Ana Teixeira, Lusa Silvrio, Ana SoaVaz, Isabel Tom de Andrade, Maria ngela Pais da GraaLobo, Maria InsTrigo, Maria Joo Cabral, Lusa Rodrigues,Marina Sequeira, Joo Loureiro, Pedro Ivo Arriegas

Romania Gabriela Vasiliu-Isac, Camelia Vasile, Dorina MocanuRussian Federation Alexander Shekhovtsov, George A. Fomenko, Yuliy KuninSerbia Dejan Leki, Danijela Stamenkovi, Dijana voro

Slovak Republic Katarna Koskov, Peter KapustaSlovenia Jelko UrbaniSpain Marta Muoz Cuesta, Javier Cachn de MesaSweden Ninni BornSwitzerland Nicolas Perritaz, Celine GirardTajikistan Khursheda MusavirovaTurkey A. agatay Dikmen, ule AtamanTurkmenistan Bekmyrat EyeberdijevUkraine Valentyna Vasylenko, Liliia Kozak, Georgiy Veremiychyk,

Larisa Yurchak, Tatiana Gerasymenko, Alexander VasenkoUnited Kingdom James TuckerUzbekistan Lyudmila Aksyonova, Majid Khodjaev, Mukhammadi

Mamanazarov, Artur Mustan, Kamaliddin Sadikov


5/103


Partnership with international organisations

Brendan Gillespie, Ana Rita Berenguer, Irina Massovets (trainee) (OECD); AngelaBularga (OECD EAP Task Force); Jean-Christophe Bouvier, Ivonne Higuero, JacoTavenier, Rie Tsutsumi, Anil Gopal Rajbhandari, Mahir Aliyev (UNEP); RonaldG. Witt (UNEP/DEWA/GRID); Adriana Dinu, Ajin iyaz Reimov, Katy Norman(UNDP); Nicolas Jarraud, (UNDP-ACT); Marco Matuzzi (WHO Rome Oce).

Mikhail G. Kokine (United Nations Economic Commission or Europe/WorkingGroup on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (UNECE/WGEMA)); MarcoKeiner, Monika Linn, Alexander Paperny, Angela Sochirca, Alexander Kostin(UNECE).

Albena Karadjova (UNECE/Secretariat Long-range Transboundary Air PollutionConvention); Carla Villa (UNEP Secretariat/Basel Convention); Charlot DeWaal (UNECE/Secretariat Aarhus Convention); Francesca Bernardini, SonjaKoeppel, Annukka Lipponen (UNECE/Secretariat or the Protection and Use oTransboundary Watercourses and International Lakes Convention); Jonathan Barzdo(UNEP/Secretariat Cites Convention); Lukasz Wyrowski (UNECE/Secretariat orthe Transboundary Eects o Industrial Accidents Convention); Nick Bonvoisin(UNECE/Secretariat or Environmental Impact Assessment in a TransboundaryContext Convention); Suman Sharma (UNEP Secretariat/Stockholm Convention).

Regional Environmental Centres (RECs)

Talaibek Makeev, Ludmilla Kiktenko, Yekaterina Strikeleva, Akmaral Mukaeva(Regional Environmental Centre or Central Asia (CAREC)); Victor Cotruta,Elena Toan (Regional Environmental Centre Moldova (REC Moldova);Michael Kozeltsev, Andrey Terentyev (Russian Regional Environmental Centre(REC Russia)); Malak Shukurova, Vahagn Tonoyan (Regional EnvironmentalCentre Caucasus (REC Caucasus)).

Members o the Steering Group on Environmental Assessments

Jacqueline McGlade co-chair (EEA); Anatoliy G. Dernovoy/Ruslan Bultrikov co-chair, Bulat Yessekin (Kazakhstan); Massimo Cozzone (Italy); Kari Holden(Norway); Andrzej Jagusiewicz (Poland); Alexander Shekhovtsov (RussianFederation); Dejan Lekic (Serbia); Javier Cachn de Mesa (Spain/EU Presidency);Gabriella Pajna (Hungary/EU Presidency); Martine Rohn-Brossard (Switzerland);Valentyna Vasylenko (Ukraine); John Michael Matuszak (USA); LyudmilaAksyonova (Uzbekistan); Svetlana Utochkina (Chairman WGEMA); Lea Kauppi(Chairman WGMA under Water Convention); Adriana Dinu (UNDP),Jean-Christophe Bouvier (UNEP); Brendan Gillespie (OECD); Talaibek Makeev(CAREC); Mara Silina (Chair o CB o the European Eco Forum).

Contributors by chapter

Special thanks are given to the Members o the UNECE Committee o EnvironmentalPolicy, UNECE/WGEMA members as well as to all who made contributions to theknowledge base on the AoA portal and commented on the EE-AoA drat report,including the EEA country desk ocers or their support to the country participationand input into the process.

Particular thanks are extended to the donor countries: Czech Republic, Italy, Republico Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland which made possible thepreparation o the EE-AoA report in particular by providing support to the countriesrom Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.


Introduction

Author(s) Jock Martin, Adriana Gheorghe, Thomas Henrichs, David Stanners(European Environment Agency (EEA)).

Chapter 1 Setting the scene

Author(s) David Stanners (EEA); Rossella Soldi (Progress ConsultingSrl under contract with Agreco E.E.I.G.); Adriana Gheorghe,Jock Martin (EEA).

Chapter 2 Water and related ecosystems

Author(s) Jos Timmerman (under contract with Zo environment network);Peter Kristensen (EEA).

Contributors Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl); Adriana Gheorghe,Ronan Uhel (EEA).

Chapter 3 Green economy

Author(s) Bruce Horton (under contract with Zo environment network);Stean Ulrich Speck (EEA).

Contributors Adriana Gheorghe (EEA); Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl);Jock Martin, Thomas Henrichs (EEA).

Chapter 4 Cross-thematic analysis

Author(s) David Stanners (EEA); Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl).

Contributors Jock Martin, Jacqueline McGlade, Thomas Henrichs, Ronan Uhel,Adriana Gheorghe (EEA).


6/103


Chapter 5 Recommendations

Author(s) David Stanners (EEA).

Contributors Jacqueline McGlade, Jock Martin (EEA); Mikhail Kokine (UNECE);members o the Steering Group on Environmental Assessment.

Annexes:

Annex 1.1 Comparing the main elements o the EE-AoA with the Marine AoA

Author(s) Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl).

Annex 2.1 Overview o the dierent organisations responsible or environmental

assessments

Author(s) Jos Timmerman (under contract with Zo environmental network);Peter Kristensen (EEA).

Annex 2.2 Overview o international organisations involved in environmentalassessments


Annex 2.3 Overview o years in which environmental perormance reviews wereconducted by OECD and UNECE


Annex 3.1 Green economy What does it mean?

Author(s) Bruce Horton (under contract with Zo environment network);

Stean Ulrich Speck (EEA).

Annex 3.2 Key aspects o assessments in priority areas

Author(s) Bruce Horton (under contract with Zo environment network);Stean Ulrich Speck (EEA).

Data support and quality control

Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl); Ljubov Gornaja (under contract with Zoenvironment network); Jana Ta (under contract with Eau de Web); Mona MandrupPoulsen, Carsten Iversen (Atkins).

AoA portal development and IT support

Miruna Badescu, Valentin Dumitru, Alexandru Morega, Andrei Laza (Eau deWeb); Jana Ta (under contract with Eau de Web); Paolo Meozzi, Franz Daner,Marie Jaegly (EEA); Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl); Ljubov Gornaja(under contract with Zo environment network).

AoA portal population and country support

Aleksandra Silijic, Alessia Israilava, Tamara Mitroanenko (Zo environment network);Jana Ta (under contract with Eau de Web); Ljubov Gornaja (under contract withZo environment network); Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl); Cigdem Adem,Svetlana Maenchen, Tarja Porkka Knudsen, Elisabetta Scialanca (EEA).

Editing and support assistance

Bart Ullstein, Peter Saunders (under contract with Stockholm Environment Institute);Svetlana Maenchen, Saila Kumputie, Nataliya Vorobyova Jrgensen (EEA).

Production support

Dave Jans, Marc Georis (Page in Extremis); Henriette Nilsson Pedersen,Pia Schmidt (EEA).

Translation and quality-checking o Russian version:

Vadim Vinichenko, Ljubov Gornaja, Nickolai Denisov (Zo environment network).

Report coordination

Adriana Gheorghe and David Stanners (EEA).

Contributors:Elisabetta Scialanca, Thomas Henrichs, Peter Kristiansen, Stean Ulrich Speck(EEA); Rossella Soldi (Progress Consulting Srl).

Internal coordination group (EEA):David Stanners (chair), Gordon McInnes, Jock Martin, Ronan Uhel,Chris Steenmans, Sigs Bjarnason, Peder Jensen, Katja Rosenbohm.



7/103

9Europe's environment An Assessment of Assessments

Contents

Introduction 10

1 Setting the scene 12

2 Water and related ecosystems 36

3 Green economy 92

4 Cross-thematic analysis 138

5 Recommendations 150

Glossary 160

Annexes 164Reerences 186


8/103


Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

(1) In 1995, 1998, 2003 and 2007.(2) In 1995, 1999, 2005 and 2010.(3) Building on the methodology developed and applied in the context o the recent UN Marine Assessment o

Assessments.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has produced our pan-European 'stateo Europe's environment' reports in support o the United Nations EconomicCommission or Europe (UNECE) 'Environment or Europe' process (1). Over time, and

in conjunction with a host o other reports (including the additional our ve-yearlystate and outlook reports produced by the EEA or its geographical area (2)), this hasprovided a comprehensive overview o environmental challenges across the region.

To complement this, and in support o the 2011 'Environment or Europe' MinisterialConerence in Astana, EEA has prepared Europe's environment An Assessment oAssessments (EE-AoA). This assessment o assessments ocuses on the two themes othe Astana Conerence: water and related ecosystems, and green economy.

An assessment o assessments process reviews and critically analyses the existingassessment landscape across the pan-European region. It thus provides a basisto identiy strengths o and gaps in existing assessments and their ndings, theirregional specicities, and the ways in which they can be improved to make them morepolicy-relevant.

The methodological basis or an assessment o assessments was developed duringthe United Nations Marine Assessment o Assessments commissioned by the UnitedNations General Assembly in 2009. The present report demonstrates the robustnessand viability o extending an assessment o assessments process to a broader set o

thematic and geographic perspectives.

For the assessment o assessments presented here, almost 1 000 environmentalassessment reports were identied and recorded in a dedicated virtual library, with thesupport o experts across 53 UNECE countries and international organisations. Morethan hal o these publications have been reviewed in detail ocusing on water andrelated ecosystems, and green economy (3).

Overall, this exercise highlights that the assessment landscape is crowded, ragmentedand diverse across the region. More reports, more statistics and more indicators arebeing produced today than ve years ago. However, the evidence that more o what isproduced is used or policy, awareness or action-driven purposes, is oten missing.

This assessment o assessments exercise has resulted in a report, which is structured asollows:

Chapter 1 describes the overall setting or the EE-AoA, including the landscapeo environmental assessments and their context. Furthermore, it explains themethodology that underpins the assessment o assessments exercise.

Chapter 2 ocuses on water and related ecosystems. This chapter highlights that

the number o publications recorded over the past years is impressive. H owever,description o the status remains predominant, while topics such as water scarcity,extreme events, water ecosystems or water management are addressed only in alimited ashion.

Chapter 3 ocuses on green economy. As green economy is a relatively new topic andconceptual aspects are still to be claried, there are only very ew dedicated greeneconomy assessments. Nevertheless, a host o sectoral and/or thematic assessmentsdo address issues directly or indirectly related to green economy.

Chapter 4 presents a cross-cutting overview across and beyond the two themesaddressed in the previous chapters. It highlights a number o key observationsand questions about environmental assessments across the region coveringcommonalities, institutional responsibilities, processes and content, and scope orimproved environmental governance, as well as applicability and transerability othe results.

Finally, in Chapter 5, based on the ndings across the assessment o assessments and with the contribution and endorsement o the UNECE Steering Group

on Environmental Assessments a set o recommendations is presented tohelp strengthen the overall suite o environmental assessments in support o the'Environment or Europe' process.


9/103


Setting the scene


Europe's environmentAn Assessment of Assessments

1 Setting the scene

Key ndings

At the Sixth 'Environment or Europe' Ministerial Conerence held in Belgrade in 2007,environment ministers made a new request or a urther pan-European report, askingthe EEA to consider producing a th assessment. At the same time a reorm o the

'Environment or Europe' process was called or in order to improve its ocus and makeit more policy relevant. The reorm plan was approved by the UNECE Committee onEnvironmental Policy in early 2009 and adopted by UNECE at its sixty-third session.

During the two years ollowing the Belgrade Conerence, refections about producinga th assessment pointed to the need or a reorm o the process. This was alreadycontained in the report produced by EEA or the 2007 Belgrade Ministerial Conerenceon lessons learned to be used or uture environmental assessment and reporting workin the region (4). It concluded that to improve the pan-European assessment it wasnecessary to:

Establish systematic data exchange (every year as a minimum) with countries inEastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia (European Neighbourhood Policycountries, the Russian Federation and Central Asian countries).

Strengthen the cooperation and partnerships between international organisationsin terms o working together to obtain good environmental inormation, sharing theinormation available and better coordinating their inormation demands towardscountries.

Continue activities of the UNECE Working Group on Environmental Monitoring andAssessment on a more regular basis.

Run open consultations with the countries during the different stages of the report'spreparation.

(4) 'Pan European Assessment Reports on the State o the Environment and associate activities lessons learnedin working with countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia on the preparation o theBelgrade Report' (ECE/CEP/AC.10/2008/3).


10/103


Setting the scene Setting the scene


Given the major challenges aced at a pan-European level, two recent developmentswere taken into consideration or reorming the pan-European environmentalassessment process:

i) The European Union (EU) initiative on a Shared Environmental InormationSystem (SEIS) (http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-inormation-system); and

ii) The United Nations experience in the preparation o the Marine Assessmento Assessments, launched in 2005 by United Nations General Assemblyresolution 60/30 (http://www.unga-regular-process.org).

Considering these developments an agreement was reached by the UNECE's

Committee on Environmental Policy in 2009 to carry out an assessment o existingEuropean environmental assessments, instead o developing a new th pan-Europeanenvironmental assessment. This exercise, named Europe's environment An Assessmento Assessments, was carried out by EEA under the guidance o a steering group to assistthe preparation o the report or the Astana Conerence.

The agreement on developing the EE-AoA process was recognised as an important rststep in reorming the uture o European environmental assessments. The main purposewas 'to provide a critical review and analysis o existing environmental assessmentsthat are o relevance to the region and the two selected topics or the Astana Conerence,to identiy gaps that need to be covered and priorities that should be addressed orconducting assessments to keep the pan-European environment under continuousreview' (ECE/EX/2010/L.6, annex I, para. 1).

While a rst major outcome o this was to produce a report or the Astana MinisterialConerence, the process was seen to be a longer-term activity, with the potential tocontinue ater the Conerence to cover other topics and provide the basis or developinga sustainable assessment process across all environmental topics, including inter alia theregular updating and sharing o relevant inormation.

Thus, the EE-AoA is not a new assessment o environmental issues but an analysis andassessment o the methods and underpinning inormation tied to the policy debateto support improved outcomes as refected in the recent assessments available acrossthe pan-European region. The two themes o the Astana conerence, water and relatedecosystems and green economy, served as the basis or production o the EE-AoA.

Building on the 'Assessment o Assessments' (AoA) methodology, this assessmentintroduces a number o novelties which can be summarised as ollows:

1. Enhanced ownership through a participatory process. Individual countries throughdedicated networks had a lead role in the EE-AoA process by providing theinormation input into the process and by being involved in the critical evaluation

o the inormation. Besides countries, United Nations subsidiary bodies (UNECE,the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP)), EEA and other international organisations suchas the Organisation or Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), activelycontributed to the process making it a concerted eort at the pan-European level andat the regional level, the latter especially through the concrete contribution o theRegional Environmental Centres (RECs) in the preparation o the our sub-regionalAoA reports under EEA coordination.

2.A modular and exible approach at various scales. The EE-AoA process may be appliedat the national level and upwards, through an aggregation procedure that leads to'regional assessments'. To urther this objective, our regional AoA modules having thesame thematic coverage were developed in parallel covering the countries in Eastern

Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and the Russian Federation. Similarly, the AoAprocess has the potential to be disaggregated rom the national level downwards to thesub-national/local level, an ability that may prove to be important or large countriessuch as the Russian Federation. Further, this modularity makes the approach fexibleand replicable.

3.A specifc and challenging thematic ocus. The EE-AoA dealt with two complex and totallydierent themes. The main challenge was to understand and capture their complexityat both national and regional levels through the use o common tools, necessarily keptas simple as possible to be eectively used by a wide range o contributors.

4. Consistency ensured through guidelines and capacity-building . As countries andinternational organisations were invited to nominate their representatives tocontribute to the assessment process, the production o guidelines to ensure acommon understanding o the process and o the objectives to be tackled becameimperative. Furthermore, training and assistance was provided by EEA in order toensure consistency and coherence o the process and also to develop capacities orurther assessments.

5. Interactive inormation technology platorm or production and dissemination o the results.The high number o stakeholders involved in the assessment process made it essentialto rely on a common platorm or both the uploading and sharing o inormation. TheEE-AoA portal (http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/ ) acts as a repository o the knowledge,and a processing/analytical instrument allowing the generation o summaryoverviews and statistics or the public at large.

6. Developing and enriching the AoA methodology and toolbox. All the tools used toimplement the EE-AoA process are available in the EE-AoA portal or urther useincluding their development path and description. These tools can also be consideredas outcomes and products o the process.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-systemhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-systemhttp://www.unga-regular-process.org/http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/http://www.unga-regular-process.org/http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-systemhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system


11/103



1 Setting the scene

1.1 Context, aims and objectives

1.1.1 Introduction

Environmental inormation is an essential component o the environmental policyprocess. This was recognised at the very rst 'Environment or Europe' conerence,held at Dobris Castle, near Prague, in June 1991. Since then, the types o inormationneeded and or whom at dierent stages o the policy process have been urtherclaried. For example, progress has been made on speciying the inormation whichis needed by dierent stakeholders or tracking progress and eectiveness o policiesand distinguishing this rom that needed or raming new issues. There are six mainstages in the policy process (also reerred to as the Policy Cycle), or which data andinormation are at the centre (Figure 1.1).

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has produced a series o our pan-European'state o Europe's environment' reports in support o the UNECE 'Environment orEurope' process over the past 20 years (5). Over time, and in conjunction with a hosto other reports (including the additional our ve-yearly state and outlook reportsproduced by the EEA or its geographical area), this has resulted in a comprehensiveoverview o environmental challenges across the region.

To complement this, and in support o the 2011 Ministerial Conerence, the European

Environment Agency, supported by UNECE, has prepared a Europe's environment An Assessment o Assessments (EE-AoA). This assessment o assessments ocuseson the two themes o the Astana conerence: water and related ecosystems, andgreen economy. Water issues are serious and worsening in many parts o Europe.Cross-border regional solutions are essential. The green economy raises hope o a moreequitable and sustainable development that respects all natural capital including water.

(5) 'Environment or Europe' process, see: http://www.unece.org/env/ee/welcome.html.

Figure 1.1 Main stages in the policy cycle, supported by data, inormation and knowledge.In this report, the policy process is taken to include all 6 stages o this policy cycle (Source: EEA).

Issue raming(2)

Policy measureeectiveness

(and ex-postimpactassessment)

(6)

Policy measureidentifcation

(and ex-ante impactassessment)

(3)

Policy measureimplementation

(5)

Issue identifcation

(1)

Policy measuredevelopment/

adoption

(4)

DataInormationKnowledge

But what progress is being made? Is the right inormation available to be able to

tell? And are the correct approaches to assess what is known being used to supportthe policy process? Given the volume o environmental reports, indicators anddata available a huge amount seems to be known about these issues. But is all thisinorming the policy process eectively, and is the best being done with the resourcesavailable or assessment?
http://www.unece.org/env/efe/welcome.htmlhttp://www.unece.org/env/efe/welcome.html


12/103



The aim o this AoA is to investigate these issues by assessing the assessments:cataloguing what exists, reviewing what is in them and analysing how they are puttogether. The overall objective is to improve the way in which the state o Europe'senvironment is kept under on-going review.

1.1.2 The growth in the number o European environmental assessments

Since 1995, the landscape o environmental in ormation and assessments has becomeconsiderably more populated. This includes the increasing requency o national-level'state o environment' reports, indicator- and statistic-based environmental assessmentsand compendia, as well as thematic and sectoral assessments at country level, such asor transport, energy and agriculture.

Many more assessments are also now ound at trans-country regional levels coveringor example transboundary river basins, other ecological units such as mountainsranges (Carpathians or example), or lakes and inland seas including the Aral,Caspian, Baltic and Black Seas. Furthermore, at the European level, in addition tothe pan-European and EEA level assessments mentioned above, the multilateralenvironmental agreements also produce assessments, the most recent example beingthe second assessment o the UNECE transboundary rivers and international lakesconvention.

In this process, some o the ormer gaps in data have been lled and the inormation,on which the assessments have been based, has become more timely. However, thedata and inormation is still ar rom harmonised or equally accessible across theregion. Most signicantly, perhaps, the infuence o the many environmental reportsand assessments on the policy process and on improving the environment is unclear.

1.1.3 Eciency and eectiveness o European environmental assessments

The increasing number o environmental assessments is on one level welcome, asthe Aarhus Convention explicitly promotes the development o national 'state o

environment' reports and accessibility to environmental inormation (see Box 1.1).

On another level, however, the growth in the number o environmental assessments inEurope over the past 1520 years, and o environmental inormation in general, has ledto an unclear overall picture, competing claims on resources with some overlaps andredundancies, while at the same time leaving some priority gaps still to be lled.

Beore starting the AoA work, it was recognised that doing another pan-Europeanassessment would not only create a competition or resources with EEA's mandatedve-yearly assessment due in 2010, but also distract attention and resources away romthe necessary long-term task o building an improved system to ensure the continuityand eectiveness o the assessment process.

The results o past reports, such as the 2007 Belgrade assessment, were still consideredhighly relevant and valid or supporting planning and prioritisation or the Astana

conerence due to the unortunate long-term, persistent and oten chronic nature omost o the environmental issues being assessed. Furthermore, the results o moreup-to-date reports, such as the EEA's 'State and outlook 2010' report (SOER 2010)and the second trans-boundary waters report, were already considered to covermuch o the ground that a new 5th assessment should address, although restricted ingeographical or thematic coverage.

It was becoming progressively clear that when commissioning, planning andlaunching new European-level environmental assessments, it was important to takebroad stock o other related activities and past similar experiences and be clearer aboutthe specic goals o any new assessment and its l inks to other assessments. This raisesa number o issues including:

Box 1.1

The Aarhus Convention

The 1998 UNECE Convention on Access to Inormation, Public Participation inDecision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is a new kind oenvironmental agreement that:

links environmental rights and human rights;

acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations;

establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the

involvement o all stakeholders;

links government accountability and environmental protection; focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic

context.

The subject o the Convention goes to the heart o the relationship between people andgovernments. It is not only an environmental agreement, it is also a Convention aboutgovernment accountability, transparency and responsiveness.

The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on parties and publicauthorities obligations regarding access to inormation, public participation and accessto justice. The Aarhus Convention is also orging a new process or public participationin the negotiation and implementation o international agreements.

Source: From UNECE website: http://www.unece.org/env/pp.
http://www.unece.org/env/pphttp://www.unece.org/env/pp


13/103



the number of environmental assessments currently being commissionedand produced across Europe;

the way they are being commissioned and produced; and

their effectiveness in the way they are being put to use.

Overall, these concerns can be analysed under two headings:

1) Efciency o production (o an assessment): Assessments put demands on manyparties, especially countries to deliver data and review results but also onorganisations. When multiple assessments are requested without coordination andappropriate means, this can create competing demands, lead to problems with the

coherence and quality o results and strain overall resources.

2) Eectiveness o use/result (o the assessment): Assessments aim at strengthening theway that policy and action are underpinned by knowledge, but it is questionablewhether this eectiveness increases in step with the number o assessmentsproduced.

1.1.4 The process towards an EE-AoA

At the Sixth 'Environment or Europe' conerence held in Belgrade in 2007, ministersinitiated a reorm o the 'Environment or Europe' process in order to improve itsocus and make it more policy relevant. A reorm plan was approved by the UNECECommittee on Environmental Policy (UNECE/CEP) in January 2009 and adopted bythe 63rd session o the UNECE in March/April 2009.

The reorm plan envisages that the decision on themes to be prioritised at ministerialconerences should take into account 'preliminary ndings o available assessmentsand statistical reports on environment' and that the 'ocial substantive documentation'produced or the Ministerial Conerences should be limited to 'the pan-European

assessment and theme-specic reports' as key inputs to and outputs o the conerences.

Following agreement on the reorm plan, the UNECE Committee on EnvironmentalPolicy asked the EEA to host a high-level consultation with countries and organisationsinvolved and with regional and international partners to consider options or the nextassessment. Building on the recommendations in the EEA's 4th assessment reporton lessons learnt, the aim was to help bring more clarity to uture pan-Europeanenvironment assessment activities and in particular to help better speciy what toproduce or the Astana Ministerial conerence in 2011.

The high-level consultation took place on 3 July 2009 at the EEA and addressed theollowing main ve aspects:

the need and use o uture pan-European environment assessments and especially asan input to and output o the 2011 Astana Ministerial conerence;

the latest experiences and current trends in producing and using assessment resultsto support knowledge-based environmental policy development, implementationand decision-making across the region;

ways to improve the effectiveness of different environmental assessment activities atdierent levels across Europe through better linking, sharing and cooperation;

ways of engagement with stakeholders and concrete ways for streamlining theproduction, use and communication o related assessment activities with thelong-term aim o developing a streamlined and sustainable assessment processserving multiple purposes including organising the necessary relationships betweenall the dierent actors, organisations and other components involved;

key knowledge gaps for priority action to improve the information base on whichassessments are ounded and gradually extending the Shared EnvironmentalInormation System (SEIS) on the basis o its principles and component parts.

These questions were all placed in both the specic context o the 'Environment orEurope' process, including preparations or the Astana conerence, and also beyond soas to start building a long-term, sustainable and regular assessment-reporting processon the European environment. Agreement was sought on the uture place and role oan improved pan-European environment monitoring and assessment process to whichall countries and organisations o the region could be partners and contributors.

Given the major challenges aced at a pan-European level, two developmentswere underlined to be taken into consideration or reorming the pan-European

environmental assessment process:

i) the EU initiative on the Shared Environmental Inormation System (SEIS)(http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-inormation-system); and

ii) the UN experience in the preparation o the Marine Assessment o Assessments,process launched in 2005 by the UN General Assembly resolution 60/30(http://www.unga-regular-process.org).
http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-systemhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-systemhttp://www.unga-regular-process.org/http://www.unga-regular-process.org/http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-systemhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system


14/103



Ater detailed discussions, agreement was reached by the UNCEE's Committeeon Environmental Policy in its meeting in October 2009 to carry out an assessmento existing European environmental assessments, instead o developing a new5th pan-European environmental assessment. This exercise, which was named Europe'senvironment An Assessment o Assessments (EE-AoA), was requested by the UNECECommittee on Environmental Policy to be carried out by the EEA under the guidanceo a steering group to assist the preparation o the report or the Astana Conerence.This agreement was endorsed by the UNECE Executive Committee in February 2010,enabling the process to begin (6).

The agreement specied that the overall goal is 'to assess the regional needs, prioritiesand sustainable long-term mechanisms to keep the pan-European environmentunder continuous review' and to make concrete proposals to this eect including

'recommendations on how to develop a shared environmental inormation systemin the region'.

(6) Establishment o the Steering Group on Environmental Assessments and its Terms o Reerence.ECE/EX/2010/L.6. 18 December 2009. UNECE Executive Committee Thirty-ourth meeting, Geneva,26 February 2010.

Box 1.2

The UN Marine Assessment o Assessments towards a regularprocess

The UN Marine Assessment o Assessments was a major achievement involvingcountry contributions, international organisations, experts and non-governmentalorganisation participation. The idea was to appraise what had been achieved to datewith the many regional and global marine assessments regionally and globally andto make recommendations to streamline and improve such activities in the uture toimprove quality and eectiveness.

Building the knowledge network was the most valuable part o the Marine Assessmento Assessment. The assessment demonstrated the importance o scientic credibility,political relevance and legitimacy or eective assessments. These were underpinned

by good data fows and indicators. The success o these actors relies on the set-up andmanagement o the process.

Though limited in scope to the state o the marine environment, the Marine AoA servedas the basic inspiration and starting point or the EE-AoA.

The rst such Assessment o Assessments, in the eld o the global marineenvironment (Box 1.2), was a pioneer in determining the oundations or thedevelopment o a regular process or global reporting and assessment. While a rstmajor outcome o the EE-AoA was to produce a report or the Astana MinisterialConerence ocused on the two conerence themes (water and related ecosystemsand the green economy), the process was seen to be a longer-term activity withthe potential to continue ater the conerence to provide the basis or developing asustainable assessment process across all environmental topics, including inter alia theregular updating and sharing o relevant inormation.

Nevertheless, compared with the single thematic ocus o the Marine AoA, the twoAstana ministerial conerence priorities cannot be easily dealt with as separate topicsor an Assessment o Assessments since they are both interconnected and o dierent

natures: water and related ecosystems orm part o the main 'assets' o the greeneconomy, while the Green Economy is a set o principles, aims and actions across thesocio-economic domain that not only depends on these assets to deliver increasedhuman welare, but also at the same time is expected to positively impact on them tobuild resilience or the uture. Thus it was recognised rom the start o the EE-AoAexercise that, while it may be possible to clearly reer to an Assessment o Assessmentsor water, such a reerence is not similarly clear or the Green Economy due to its widescope and uncertainties conceptually.

1.2 What is an AoA?

An AoA is essentially about reorming how environmental reporting and assessmentis carried out to support the policy process. This is entirely complementary to theissue that SEIS has been designed to tackle with respect to environmental data andinormation. The EE-AoA, ocused on assessments, is thereore eectively kicking oa new eld o SEIS activities.

This section describes the criteria and analytical rameworks on which the EE-AoA

was built and against which the assessments were evaluated. This more conceptualand idealised description is complemented in Section 1.3 by an explanation o howthe EE-AoA was implemented in practice, including comparisons to the Marine AoA.Both sections aim to provide the conceptual and methodological underpinning tounderstand the present exercise, as well as oer explanations and refections on theapproaches and methods used so that they may be taken up elsewhere as appropriate.


15/103



1.2.1 What is an assessment?

Strictly speaking, an assessment is a ormal process o appraisal against variousstandards or criteria. Environmental assessments usually reer to works that eitherbring to light the consequences o scientic ndings on environmental processes ortrack changes and progress, oten against environmental standards or targets. In thepresent context seeking improved ways o governing environmental knowledge tosupport the policy process, the aim o environmental assessments is to support theraming and implementation o environmental policy and more generally to supportthe transer o knowledge and translation and communication across the so-calledscience-policy interace.

1.2.2 Criteria and rameworks or assessing the assessments

As mentioned in Section 1.1, the two main challenges underlying the EE-AoA are thoseo efciency o assessment production and eectiveness o the assessment result. Two specicrameworks have been used to analyse these qualities.

First, the Saliency-Credibility-Legitimacy ramework (7) provides a reerence oranalysing the eectiveness o assessments. Thus, or example, by analysing how andor what reasons assessments are commissioned in the rst place, saliency can beassessed. By analysing the basis and source o inormation underlying an assessment,a measure o the assessment's credibility is ormed. Furthermore, analysing thestakeholder engagement in an assessment exercise helps provide a measure olegitimacy which aects the uptake o the results, leading in turn to real improvementsin the environment. These aspects are not mutually exclusive and an analysis usingthis ramework can reveal important insights into the implicit or intentional trade-osbeing made between them.

SEIS provides a second ramework o components which together address efciencyand eectiveness:

i) common content: a common set o indicators helps link and streamline assessments(eciency) and make them policy relevant (eectiveness);

ii) organisational matters: having agreed institutional arrangements increases accessto and transparency o inormation (eciency and eectiveness); and

iii) on inrastructure and tools: availability o reporting tools helps reduce the burdenon countries to make inormation available (eciency) and helps improves quality(eectiveness).

(7) Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., and Jger, J., 2002. 'Salience, Credibil ity, Legitimacy andBoundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making'. John F. Kennedy School o GovernmentFaculty Research Working Paper RWP02-046. John F. Kennedy School o Government, Harvard University.

In addition, the MDIAK and DPSIR conceptual rameworks developed by EEA(see Boxes 1.3 and 1.4) are useul tools to clariy in greater detail the type oinormation that underpins the assessments analysed by these two rameworks. Thus,the MDIAK reporting chain supports an analysis o the basis o the inormation used inthe assessment and whether this can be traced an aspect that underpins credibility.The DPSIR analytical ramework, meanwhile, helps clariy the scope o the assessmentand the degree to which assessments are integrated across the cause-eect chain,or narrowly-based ocusing on, or example, simple descriptions o the state o theenvironment.

Box 1.3

The MDIAK reporting chain

To help speciy and distinguishbetween the dierent types oinormation needed in particularor countries to report on to supportthe policy process, the EEA uses theMDIAK ramework speciying, inreverse order:

K What do we need to Know?A WhatAssessments are needed?I What Indicators are needed?D What Data is needed at European

level?

M What Monitoring is neededto deliver the required data?

Box 1.4

The DPSIR analyticalramework

To structure thinking about theinterplay between the environmentand socioeconomic activities,the EEA uses the driving orce,pressure, state, impact, and response(DPSIR) ramework. This is used tohelp design assessments, identiyindicators, and communicateresults and can support improvedenvironmental monitoring andinormation collection.


16/103



1.2.3 Applying the rameworks

There are two complementary dimensions o assessment that can be addressed by anAoA. The rst concerns the methodological approaches and inormation underpinningthe assessments. This gives rise to the ollowing kinds o questions:

What types o assessments exist and what is the extent and type o underpinninginormation? And how were the assessments carried out, that is how do we come to knowwhat we know?

The second dimension concerns the environmental issues themselves, which raises theollowing types o questions:

What do the assessments tell us about the issues at stake? And how are the issues understoodacross Europe, including the persistent and emerging challenges related to them and the stepsbeing taken to tackle them?

The Marine AoA ocused on the rst dimension. Taking stock o the methodologies anddata underpinning existing assessments enabled the Marine AoA to provide refectionsand insights about how to develop a regular process or keeping the world's marineareas under on-going review. Producing a global marine assessment is seen to be a ruito that new process.

This is also the case or the EE-AoA where priority has been given to an appraisalo the environmental assessment enterprise across Europe as a prerequisite to thedevelopment o a sustainable process in the uture. Thus, the EE-AoA is not a newassessment o environmental issues but an analysis and assessment o existingmethods and underpinning inormation.

1.3 The EE-AoA in practice

This section explains how the EE-AoA was implemented in practice. It overviews anumber o key elements involved, approaches taken and assumptions made. Thisincludes an overview comparison with the Marine AoA and lessons learnt romEE-AoA process.

1.3.1 Key elements o the EE-AoA

The key elements o the EE-AoA are underlined below emphasising, inter alia, thenovelties o the approach compared with the Marine AoA.

Links to SEIS

Since its launch, the EE-AoA process established a close link with the ongoingdevelopment o a SEIS in the pan-European region, seeking coherence with the mainSEIS components and adherence to its guiding principles. The conceptual rameworko the EE-AoA process is built around:

i) governance: as it is concerned with institutional arrangements and networking,scope and objectives, interaction and communication;

ii) inrastructure and services: as it deals with the support available or datamanagement, sharing and exchange, and any INSPIRE/GMES/Reportnetcompatible developments; and

iii) content: as it concerns inormation and data, indicators and assessment tools,priority concerns, needs and/or emerging issues, as well as inormation and/orknowledge gaps.

Distributed participation and ownership

Individual countries had a lead role in the EE-AoA process by providing theinormation input into the process and by being involved in the critical evaluationo the inormation. Countries were asked to coordinate at the national level theselection o relevant assessments and their uploading in the virtual library throughexisting network representatives. The EE-AoA process relied heavily on these existinggovernance structures to legitimise the process and without which the comprehensiveparticipation o the stakeholders o the European UNECE countries/territories wouldnot have been possible (see Box 1.5).

UN agencies (UNECE, UNEP, UNDP), the EEA and other international organisationssuch as OECD, actively contributed to the process thereby making it a concerted eortat the pan-European level. At the regional level, the Regional Environmental Centers

(RECs) delivered concrete contributions as writers o the regional modules.

Multiple scales

One o the key eatures and novelties o the EE-AoA is its multi-scalar approach. Withlittle or no adjustment, the rationale behind the EE-AoA process can be applied at thenational level and upwards, through an aggregation procedure that leads to 'regionalassessments'. By implementing the AoA methodology at various geographical scales,our sub-regional AoA components were developed or Central Asia, the Caucasus,Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation, each providing signicant regional input tothe main assessment. Similarly, the AoA process has the potential to be disaggregated,rom the national level downwards to the sub-national/local level, an ability that mayprove to be important or large countries such as the Russian Federation.


17/103



Box 1.5

EE-AoA: Experience rom Finland

From a country perspective, the rst major task in the EE-AoA process was to identiya set o assessments and enter some o the inormation included in these assessmentsin two platorms: the virtual library and the AoA review template. Both platorms weremade available online by the EEA. At the request o Finland, the EEA arranged or suchplatorms to migrate into a national sub-system, identical to the main one but dedicatedto the assessment process at the country level.

Relevant assessments related to water resources and the green economy are produced

by a number o experts in a number o organisations, and the existence o a nationalsub-system allowed Finland to better coordinate the process o identication o relevantassessments, their screening and the inclusion o relevant inormation on to the twoplatorms. The process could thus be considered as work in progress at the nationallevel up to the time the nal deliverables were completed by all actors concerned. Oncethe process was nalised the inormation was transerred into the EEA system.

Separate national platorms raming the process at the national level have severaladvantages:

i) national coordinators keep better control o the process in terms o expertcontribution and selection o relevant assessments, since internal evaluationand adjustments can continue until the best possible selection o assessments isobtained;

ii) countries monitor the production o deliverables and decide on amendments andadjustments o drat products as oten as needed, and in a fexible way, i.e. romwhen experts rst become involved up to when it is decided that the inormation is'good enough' to be made publicly available on the main EEA platorm;

iii) the EEA is released rom the responsibility o coordinating a very large numbero countries, leaving the Agency with a supervisory role, through the qualitycheck o the virtual library and the review template, and a 'depository' role or theknowledge produced by individual countries.

From the IT point o view, the creation o sub-systems identical and ully compatiblewith the main system ensures inter-operability and smooth transer o the inormationrom the national level to the EEA.

Diverse content

The EE-AoA dealt with two complex and totally dierent themes. The main challengewas to understand and capture their complexity at both national and regionallevels through the use o common tools, necessarily kept as simple as possible to beeectively used by a wide range o contributors. The review template was designed asthe common instrument or the extraction o inormation related to both water and thegreen economy; theme-specic questions were not included and, instead, the selectiono types o analysis addressed within each assessment under review, by theme/area/topic, was preerred.

Modular structure

The EE-AoA is based on a modular approach, where dierent parts are developedwithin an overall ramework setting common procedures, standards and tools.This modular approach was essential to adapt to the political agenda o the AstanaConerence and to the diverse geographical sub-regions which had to be covered(see Figure 1.2 or details).

Figure 1.2 Modular structure o the EE-AoA (Source: EEA ).

While the production o the EE-AoA report or Astana was a once-o exercise or the MinisterialConerence (let igure), the knowledge base created during the process will remain to supportuture regular reporting cycles at dierent scales (right igure).

Countryfches

Virtuallibrary

Reviewtemplates

Astana

2011

Knowledge base

Water

Pan-European

andregionalmodules

Green

economy

Nationalregular

reportingcycle

Pan-European

Global

Regional

Knowledgebase

Countryfches, virtuallibrary, review

templates


18/103



Capacity building

As a result o the country nomination process, a very heterogeneous and wide groupo people became directly involved in the assessment process. Consequently, theproduction o guidelines to ensure a common understanding o the process and o theobjectives to be tackled became an imperative. Training sessions were also carried outor those expected to make the largest contribution to the process.

Common IT inrastructure

The high number o stakeholders involved in the assessment process made it essentialto rely on a common platorm or both the uploading and sharing o inormation.The EE-AoA portal was established to act as a repository o the knowledge, with

an inormation window or both the contributors and or the general public, plusa processing/analytical instrument or the generation o summary overviews andstatistics. Much o the inormation hosted on the portal is designed to be kept updated,so as to play a continuous supporting role in a regular reporting process. Figure 1.3shows the sitemap o the portal.

Tools or implementation

An overview o the tools used to implement the EE-AoA process is ound in Table 1.1including their development path and description. These tools can also be consideredas outcomes and products o the process or use in ongoing work. All are characterisedby innovative eatures compared with the Marine AoA (see also Annex 1.1).

Glossary Development pathCompiled starting rom the deinitions agreed upon within the UN-led process othe Marine AoA, the EE-AoA glossary has been enriched with terms and concepts

related to UN and EU processes, institutions and organisations.DescriptionThe list o acronyms/concepts is a dynamic tool meant to expand urther asneeds arise. It includes around 130 deinitions (31 May 2011).

Criteria to prioritise

assessments

Development pathThese were built in particular on the selection protocol developed withinthe SOER 2010 AoA pilot module run by the EEA.

Description

A distinction is made between general and speciic criteria. The general criteriarecall the Marine AoA deinition o 'assessment'. The speciic criteria guideselection towards: the most recent assessment reports, possibly published withinthe last 5 years; the last published report in case o a regularly published series;assessment reports covering topics poorly addressed by other assessments inorder to tackle the most comprehensive coverage o the topics under the twomain themes; assessment reports covering emerging issues within the topics/themes; assessment reports covering geographical areas that are poorly coveredby the other assessments in order to tackle the most possible comprehensivegeographical coverage at national, regional and transboundary levels.

Virtual library Development path

Originally developed within the ramework o the EE-AoA assessment process.

DescriptionAn online web-based library (hence, the reerence to 'virtual') where registeredcontributors upload assessments considered relevant to the AoA process (seehttp://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu ). Registering in the library through the virtuallibrary uploader requires little assessment-related inormation and the provisiono the hyperlink to the report, i available on the web. The speciication o thegeographical location o the institutions conducting the assessments allows thegeneration o an assessment atlas (Figure 1.4). By mid-2011 the virtual libraryincluded over 900 assessments, evenly covering both green economy and waterthemes and with more than 70 per cent addressing national or local levels.

Table 1.1 EE-AoA: tools or implementation

Figure 1.3 EE-AoA Portal (Source: EEA).
http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/


19/103



Country iches Development pathOriginally developed within the ramework o the EE-AoA assessment process.

Description

Country iches (see: http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu ) are summaries o the mainsectoral reports, environmental statistics and indicator sets, as well as relevantperormance reviews and major institutional players involved in environmentalreporting. Developed to obtain an overview and to encourage the uploadingo relevant assessments into the virtual library, they were submitted to countrycontact points and NFPs to correct and improve and then to highlight the ivemost important products. This was to help develop a balanced sample or theexercise, ensuring that a minimum set o inormation per country was uploadedinto the EE-AoA portal and contributed to the AoA process. Country iches areintended as dynamic overviews oreseen to be kept regularly updated and goingbeyond the AoA process, since they may represent models or the development odynamic country proiles that may be supportive o uture assessment exercises.

Review template Development pathBuilding on the template used or the review o individual assessments within theMarine AoA, on the lessons learnt while developing the 'general template' withinthe SOER 2010 AoA exercise, and on the eedback and comments received duringand ater the AoA training workshop.

Description

The review template (see http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu ) is structured into elevenmain parts and around the three main components o governance, inrastructureand services, and content. The review template is required to be illed only on thebasis o the inormation explicitly stated and contained in the assessment reportsunder review. This means that 'background' inormation that may be known bythe person illing out the templates, but that cannot be ound in the assessmentreport, could not be included. This approach was taken due to the importanceo transparency or eective assessments concerning the process, methods andabout the underpinning data and inormation used. I these are not made explicitin the assessment then they are not open to scrutiny so cannot be taken intoaccount in the AoA. Each review template uploaded by contributors underwenta quality control that ensured minimum quality standards or all 'approved'templates.

1.3.2 Lessons learnt rom EE-AoA process

Some important lessons learnt during the implementation o the EE-AoA are recordedhere. These ndings may provide the basis or a refection on uture assessment needs,with a view to the way orward towards a regular assessment process.

Considerations relevant to the initiators o the process:

the conceptual part of the assessment of assessments process needs to provide clear

instructions to participating countries and organisations on the type o literature,reports and documents to be included in the process. The broad denition o'assessment' used by the Marine AoA and adopted within the EE-AoA should betailored to needs, especially with regard to the environmental policy prioritiesguiding the assessment process. For example, the selection o literature within theEE-AoA was perceived by some to be insuciently ocused on the two prioritythemes and analysis, and not always coherent across countries. The distinctionbetween descriptive reports and assessments proved to be dicult to dene;

the review template needs to be developed further in terms of the clarity of thequeries and o its ability to extract content-related inormation rom the assessment.

Figure 1.4 Assessment atlas (Source: EEA, EE-AoA portal, http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/portal_map).
http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/portal_maphttp://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/portal_maphttp://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/


20/103



Considerations relevant to countries:

a better standardisation of the selection of literature by countries would increase thereliability o the process, ensuring more balanced contributions. Notwithstandingthe outlining o common prioritisation criteria, each country was given the reedomto decide on the literature to be screened, leading to an unsystematic coverage othemes and topics across countries and regions.

On the other hand, the process revealed some important eatures and approaches thatare worthy o consideration in maintaining or strengthening in a uture exercise:

inclusiveness of the process, engaging all players not only in the process itself butalso in the conceptualising phase and in the shaping o the methodological approach;

exibility of the modular approach, allowing for aggregation and disaggregation ofassessment processes at dierent scales as well as adaptation to dierent themes;

transparency of the process, with high visibility achieved along all steps throughcontinuous interaction, by virtual means (portal, internet-based conerences, etc.)and physical consultation (meetings) with major players;

continuous process, initially intended to deliver to one major event (theAstana Conerence) but laying down the oundations (conceptual ramework,methodologies, main players, capacities, IT inrastructure and implementation tools)to serve multiple needs in an ongoing process and uture events;

building on existing networks and institutions/bodies, thus strengthening existinggovernance structures and, at the same time, acilitating uture exercises since themain institutions and players have been already identied;

enhancing the capacities of relevant stakeholders in contributing to the process in anobjective and disciplined manner, thus adding to the sustainability o the process by

empowering major players to actively participate to the process. Capacity buildingwas specically addressed to the Regional Environmental Centres (responsible orthe sub-regional components), to all main players through the dissemination o theguidelines, and to all those uploading review templates into the portal, through theapproval procedure o the templates (quality control);

being closely linked to the establishment of SEIS a win-win situation is set up sinceSEIS will contribute in any uture exercise to content development, networking andanalysis development through a more ecient use o the inormation, more readilyavailable and comparable inormation, and a virtual environment or sharing andprocessing.


21/103


Water and related ecosystems


Setting the scene

Europe's environmentAn Assessment of Assessments

2 Water and relatedecosystems

Key ndings

The rst key theme o the Astana Ministerial Conerence is 'Sustainable management owater and water-related ecosystems'.

Water issues are serious and worsening in many parts o Europe, making watermanagement complex. While water is abundant in much o Europe, large areas areaected by water scarcity and droughts particularly in Southern Europe and CentralAsia with their severe lack o, and high demand or, water. Europe is also sueringrom foods, with an increasing number o deaths, displacement o people andeconomic losses. Climate change is projected to exacerbate this, with more requentand severe droughts or foods projected or many parts o Europe.

An estimated 120 million people in the pan-European region do not have access tosae drinking water or adequate sanitation, making them more vulnerable to seriouswater-related diseases. Despite progress over the past 15 years, especially those livingin rural and remote areas in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia remainat risk. Water quality has improved in many parts o Europe over the past 20 years, theresult o better regulation and enorcement together with investment in wastewatertreatment plants.

At both the global and European scale a multitude o inland water assessmentsis available, with, in many ways, Europe leading the way in producing waterassessments. This is partly driven by the production o EEA water assessments over

15 years as part o the 'state o the environment' (SoE) reports, supplemented by waterassessment activities by OECD, UNECE and the World Health Organization andwater statistics produced by Eurostat and OECD. The EU water policies, includingtheir reporting obligations, also add relevant assessments on the status and pressuresaecting EU waters. Finally, the establishment o Transboundary Water Commissionsthat produce assessments or the waters under their mandate have helped indeveloping a solid knowledge base on water assessments.

The inormation on water produced by European countries has markedly increasedover the past 20 years, well documented by the inormation presented in the nationalreshwater assessments. For instance, the AoA review template contains 319 SoE and


22/103


Water and related ecosystems Water and related ecosystems


water reports rom 48 countries covering the period 20052010. The increase in theproduction and dissemination o such reports is due to an increased understandingthat environmental monitoring and inormation systems are crucial or developingenvironmental policy.

In many countries, a variety o national assessments that, inter alia, relate to waterand water-related ecosystems are produced in the orm o SoE reports, environmentalstatistics, environmental perormance reviews, 'state o water' assessments, indicators,yearbooks and a range o thematic water reports.

Much attention has been paid to making the presentation o inormation inviting tothe reader; the use o diagrams, graphs, charts and maps within the reports has muchimproved over the years. Moreover, the increased use o indicators has resulted in

more targeted and compact inormation.

Nevertheless, producing actual, timely and easy-to-understand SoE assessmentsremains a challenge or several countries. In many cases the assessments are largelydescriptive, being a compilation o dierent water issues with a strong ocus on statusand pressures. Some improvements over the years are visible. The inormation presentedin assessments has changed rom presenting the status o a ew basic parameters on alimited number o locations to presenting status, sources, eects and policy measureson a much wider range o parameters, making them much more integrated. However,in most cases only limited inormation on policy perormance, water management,implementation o measures, new challenges, etc., is provided, although this inormationis imperative to make the inormation useul or decision-makers.

The timeliness o relevant water inormation has also improved over the last ten years;oten the data and inormation in the water assessments are only a ew years old.However, or some countries part o the assessments are based on old data, in somecases more than ten years old. Regional and international assessments oten havediculty in collecting timely inormation.

Depending on the country, some reshwater environmental issues are more importantthan others and thereore the ocus o the assessment varies between the countries.While all countries report about general water quantity and water quality issues, littlereporting was ound about newer issues including hazardous substances, impacts owater scarcity and drought, or water management.

Many water and water management issues that are important at the national levelare related to similar issues that are important at the European level. Although the

country inormation would be valuable or European water assessments to supportand better document the analysis, the current data and inormation fows romcountry to European level are not optimal and not always based on the inormationand knowledge available nationally. To improve this situation, a consistent commonapproach and close cooperation between international organisations and countries isneeded.

Main ndings o the water assessments

The analysis o SoE and water assessments has revealed a multitude and variety oproducts, containing a wealth o inormation. At the same time, the analysis alsorevealed that much inormation is lacking and the policy relevance o the inormationremains weak. This is not only true o national assessments but also o regional ones.

In general, the regular assessments help to improve the quality o the data andinormation. An important faw in many o the reports analysed is that they aregenerally rich in statistical data but are o limited use in the state-o-water assessmentand in the policymaking process. To improve this situation, the analytic part o theassessments has to be improved, making the assessments more relevantin the policymaking process.

Assessments are currently too restricted to environmental status and trends andhave to ocus more on measures and management. Indicators help in simpliyingthe communication o various environmental issues to policymakers and the generalpublic. Frameworks (e.g. the Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses(DPSIR) ramework) help in making assessments comparable between issues andcountries. To improve uture assessments it is recommended to work towards moreintegrated assessments. These provide inormation about the status and trends but alsoprovide uture outlooks based on policy directions.

More and more, countries are opening up their databases to public access and makewater inormation readily available on the Web or reasons o accountability and

trustworthiness. Where countries are providing inormation through web-baseddatabases, the procedure o the international programmes collecting inormationthrough questionnaires becomes obsolete. The SEIS principles enable a situationin which national and regional assessments can be developed with up-to-dateinormation. This exchange should be based on the SEIS principle that the data andinormation is managed as close as possible to its source.


23/103



2Water and related ecosystems

The rst key theme o the Astana Ministerial Conerence is Sustainable management owater and water-related ecosystems. This chapter assesses the current state o the manyassessments o water and water-related ecosystems that are currently produced. This

chapter aims to identiy options or a more ocused pan-European reporting andassessment process to support decision-making, and in particular examines how agradual extension o the Shared Environmental Inormation System (SEIS) across theregion can contribute to this.

Section 2.1 contains an introduction and background on water assessments anda description o the methodology used. In Section 2.2 there is an overview o globaland European water assessments, while Section 2.3 provides an overview o the wealtho national water assessments. In Section 2.4 there is a discussion o the type o analysiscovered by water assessments, including water issues covered, data and inormationcoverage, the inormation chain or policymaking and the linking o national waterinormation to European level. Finally, in Section 2.5 there is a description o how thesendings can be used to improve the pan-European reporting and assessment process.

2.1 Introduction and background

2.1.1 Setting the scene

Water issues are serious and worsening in many parts o Europe making watermanagement even more complex (EEA, 2010a, b, c; Dalcanale et al., 2011). At the sametime water is abundant in much o Europe, large areas are also being aected by waterscarcity and droughts, particularly in Southern Europe and Central Asia where thereis both a severe lack o, and a high demand or, water. Climate change will simplyexacerbate this situation. The increase in requency o water scarcity will have severeconsequences on most sectors, particularly irrigated agriculture, tourism, energyproduction and the provision o drinking water (EEA, 2009). The unusually coldwinter o 2008, or instance, let hydropower-dependent Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistanwithout electricity. In many locations, water demand oten exceeds availability andover-abstraction is causing low river fows, lowered groundwater levels and thedrying-up o wetlands, with detrimental impacts on reshwater ecosystems.

Europe is also suering rom fooding, with an increasing number o deaths,displacement o people and economic losses. Again climate change is projected toexacerbate this through an increase in the intensity and requency o foods (EEA, 2008;2011; Kundzewicz et al., 2010). Most o the observed upward trend in cost o fooddamage can be attributed to socio-economic actors such as increases in population,more assets (buildings, industry, inrastructures etc.) and urbanisation in food-proneareas, and to land use changes, such as deorestation and loss o wetlands and naturalfoodplain storage.

An estimated 120 million people in the pan-European region do not have access tosae drinking water and adequate sanitation, making them more vulnerable to seriouswater-related diseases. Despite progress over the past 15 years, those living mainlyin rural and remote areas in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia (WHO/

UNICEF, 2010) remain vulnerable, making the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)o reducing by hal the proportion o people without sustainable access to sae drinking waterand basic sanitation a challenge.

Water quality has improved in many parts o Europe over the past 20 years, the resulto better regulation and enorcement together with investment in wastewater treatmentplants, mainly in Western Europe (EEA, 2010c). In Eastern Europe, economic transitionsince the early 1990's has helped as production has become cleaner, resulting ina decrease o pollution rom industrial acilities.

To meet the needs o a resource ecient uture, sustain human and economicdevelopment and maintain the essential unctions o our water ecosystems, anintegrated and knowledge-based approach to water resource management is required.Adequate inormation is imperative to enable the identication o water managementproblems and to be able to monitor and evaluate the changes brought about bymanagement measures.

Figure 2.1 shows that the number o measurements o the status and quality oEurope's rivers, lakes and groundwater bodies as reported to the EEA over the period

19652008 has increased markedly. It should be noted that this gure only shows theincrease in water quality inormation as reported to EEA many countries have muchmore data available than they report to the EEA, while the EEA has generally onlyasked or inormation ater 1990.

The core objective o any water-related SoE assessment is to identiy and quantiy thecurrent state o, and impacts on, the water environment, how these are changing overtime and whether the measures taken at dierent administration levels are proving tobe eective. To ull this objective, the inormation collected and disseminated needs torefect the ollowing issues:

water management: what are the ecological, social and economic aims and goals owater management;


24/103



Figure 2.1 Total number o measurements on the status and quality o Europe's rivers, lakes and groundwaterbodies as reported by countries to the EEA over the period 19652008 (Source: EEA Waterbase,2011).

state o water: how is it polluted (nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, ecological quality,etc.) and how much is there (availability, runo, water stress, etc.);

time trends: is the state getting better or worse, within or outside agreed limits, andresponding to measures or to other actors;

pressures: what is causing the problem, issues relating to water abstraction and use,water pollution, threats by sectors (household, industrial, agricultural), climatechange and natural actors, etc.;

state o action on policies: what measures have been taken on national/regional leveland are they working towards targets?

To build a comprehensive picture that addresses these issues on a national, regional, orinternational level, a wide range o inormation needs to be compiled and aggregated.The inormation or the assessment o the environmental state o European watersis collected/produced by numerous regional and national authorities. The EEA andother international organisations (8) have the mandate to produce global, European,and regional overviews o the state o water, pressures aecting the state andrecommendations to manage water better.

(9) As endorsed by the Steering Group o the AoA.

Box 2.1

Theme priorities to be covered (9)

Water resources

Water quantity and vulnerability (including extreme natural events)

Desertication

Water quantity (including glaciers and extreme events)

Water consumption

Vulnerability

Structural measures

Infrastructure (including nancial aspects, energy production, wastewater,

desalinisation, pipes/channels/reservoirs)

Water quality and pollution

Water quality and vulnerability

Water pollution control

Socio-economic aspects (e.g. access to drinking water)

Ecological state

Living resources (sheries) Habitat characterisation

Ecosystems and biodiversity

Protected and migratory species and protected areas

Invasive species

Ecosystem services and restoration

Water management

Water management (including efciency and adaptation measures)

Governance (including transboundary issues)

(8) UN-Water, UNEP, World Water Assessment Program, UNESCO, IPCC, OECD, UNECE, etc.

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Total number

2.1.2 Methodology

This chapter provides an overview o the available water assessments in the Europeanregion. To this end, the virtual library, the review template, and country ches as describedin Chapter 1, covering the time period 20052011, were used. Selections rom the virtuallibrary and the review template were made ltering on water related issues. The countryches were used to develop an assessment o reporting by country and to assess individualreports. Box 2.1 lists the theme priorities covered by the review. These priorities were


25/103



endorsed by the rst Steering Group o the AoA in order to serve as the basis or organisingthe available literature to be assessed by the countries in the ramework o the AoAmethodology. Assessments by international organisations were also analysed. Inormationrom the recently published EEA SOER (2010) in particular was used.

Additionally, a more in-depth analysis was made o a random selection o individualreports as a ull assessment o all the available reports was in practice impossible. Theanalysis entailed a detailed overview o the issues addressed in the selected reports, theorganisations involved and the use o indicator rameworks. The overviews o waterassessments were documented in a simple template that provides a rst overview or eachinternational organisation and country o the availability o water assessments. The ocuswas on the 'state o water' reports, environmental water-related indicator sets, statisticalreports, and water chapters within 'state o the environment' reports and environmental

perormance reviews (EPRs).

2.2 Global and European water assessments

2.2.1 Global water assessments

Global water assessments generally included an extensive compilation o inormation,drawn rom multiple sources, documenting the state o water, the resource and its uses.Reports may be a cooperation between dierent agencies/organisations such as theUN World Water Development Report or reports produced by one organisation.

Box 2.2

Water activities and assessments at the global level

UNEPs Global Environmental Outlook (e.g. GEO-4) has a chapter assessing the state owater.

The World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) has produced the WorldWater Development Report (WWDR) every three years since 2003. These provide acomprehensive assessment o the state o the world's reshwater resources. The ourthWorld Water Development Report will be published at the sixth World Water Forum(Marseilles, 22 March 2012).

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme on Water Supply and Sanitation Reports.The JMP reports assess the progress being made toward reaching the MDG water andsanitation targets.

The Global Annual Assessment o Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) is a UN-Waterinitiative implemented by WHO. The objective o UN-Water GLAAS is to providepolicymakers at all levels with a reliable, easily accessible, comprehensive and globalanalysis o the evidence to make inormed decisions in sanitation and drinking-water.WHO produces several assessments related to water and health including sanitationaspects and access to sae drinking water.

UNESCO water family i ncludes the International Hydrological Programme (IHE);UNESCO-IHE Institute or Water Education (UNESCO-IHE) World Water AssessmentProgramme (WWAP); and Water Centres. UNESCO is hosting a water portal andproducing a series o thematic assessment reports. In UNESCO's publication databasethere are 119 water publications.

Freshwater is one of the main areas covered by UNEP with more than 70 waterpublications being produced over the last ten years.

The United Nations GEMS/Water Programme provides data and i n

Europes Environment Assessment of Assessments

Documents

Transcript of Europes Environment Assessment of Assessments