Assessing Progress in Achieving Objective 6.1 of the EECCA Environment Strategy

1. Assessing Progress in Achieving Objective 6.1 of the EECCA Environment Strategy Roberto MARTÍN-HURTADO OECD/EAP Task Force Secretariat Roberto.Martin-Hurtado@oecd.org www.oecd.org/env/eap

2. The EECCA Environment Strategy • Strategy approved in Kiev 2003; initial progress discussed in Tbilisi 2004 (Stocktaking Report); progress to be assessed in Belgrade 2007 (EECCA Report) • 15 areas of action, including objective 6.1 on information management, for which UNECE acts as facilitating organisation • EECCA Report being prepared by OECD (EAP TF Secretariat) in collaboration with relevant international organisations and in coordination with EEA • Sources of information: • Dedicated questionnaire • Relevant reports from international organisations • Information provided by countries through relevant international processes • Draft report to be ready end January for discussion/endorsement at March meeting of EAP Task Force

3. Objective 6.1 Monitoring and Information ManagementMessages from Stocktaking Report (situation in 2003) • Environmental information systems do not correspond with operational and policy needs • Monitoring is not demand driven, and capacity has suffered a drastic decline in the Caucasus and Central Asia • Weak institutional co-ordination has resulted in duplication, incompatible data collection and fee-based data exchange • Half of the EECCA countries regularly publish State-of-the-Environment Reports, but of mixed quality and with limited use of policy-linked indicators

4. Objective 6.1 Monitoring and Information ManagementMessages from Kiev Workshop (May 2006) • The state of monitoring and information management in the region remains critical • Main areas for improvement include • Identification of priorities in environmental monitoring • Modernisation of monitoring equipments • Improvement of data quality and regular reporting • Actions taken by countries include • Development of websites • Plans to establish/renovate monitoring stations (Armenia, Azerbaijan) • Inter-agency monitoring commissions created (Belarus, Ukraine) • Voluntary self-reporting introduced (Russian Federation)

5. Objective 6.1 Monitoring and Information ManagementResults from EECCA Questionnaire (situation June 2006) • Is ambient PM10 / PM2.5 monitored? Yes: BEL, RUS, TAJ, TUR, UZB • Are there reliable systems to monitor waste flows? Yes: AZE, BEL, MOL, RUS, URK, UZB • Are there inventories of soil contaminated sites? Yes: KAZ, KYR, RUS, TAJ, UZB • Are most government agencies with environmental information responsibilities are formally coordinated? Yes: 10 countries No: KYR N/A: GEO • Are there cases of fee-based exchange of data between them? No: 11 Yes: TAJ (2006) • Is exchange of data timely in most cases? Yes: 12 countries • Are environmental indicators being used by policy analysts? Yes: 11 No: GEO • Does the SoE report link indicators to policy targets? Yes: 11 No: KYR • Does the SoE report include information on policy actions? Yes: 10 No: KAZ N/A: AZE • Are there inventories for the following resources? • Land: Yes: 12 countries (UZB not in 2003) • Water: Yes: 12 countries • Biodiversity: Yes: 6 countries (UZB not in 2003) No: ARM, KAZ, KYR, RUS N/A: AZE, GEO • Minerals: Yes: 11 countries N/A: AZE • Renewable energy: Yes: ARM No: 8 countries N/A: AZE, RUS, GEO

6. Objective 6.1 Monitoring and Information ManagementResults from EECCA Questionnaire (situation June 2006) • Concerns from international experts • No PM10 / PM2.5 monitoring in TAJ, TUR, UZB • No formal coordination in Moldova and Tajikistan • Indicators exist but not used for policy analysis, not linked to policy targets • No regular SoE reports in Armenia and Tajikistan

7. Objective 6.1 Monitoring and Information ManagementMore messages (UNECE and UNEP input) • Progress not yet enough for information to support environmental and cross-sectoral policy. • Information is not always considered a management tool. Latent conflict between “monitors” (collect data for databases) and “communicators” (get information that is truly useful) is still on. • Some progress on environmental quality monitoring. Air quality stations installed, including for PM10 (Moscow, Minsk). No progress on inventories of natural resources (except Uzbekistan). • Communication efforts are taking place (public relations unit in Georgia, communication materials being produced), but they are not always well directed. Most countries have websites but their use for communicating information is still very limited. • Aarhus convention seems to be losing momentum and playing a weaker role in motivating countries

8. Objective 6.1 Monitoring and Information ManagementInput from WGEMA • Recent involvement • Concept of EECCA Report presented in the 5th Session of the WGEMA (June 2005), progress presented in 6th session of WGEMA (June 2006). • Participation of the Secretary of the WGEMA in Regional Meeting (May 2006) and provision of informal input (March-November 2006) • UNECE WGEMA reports on Air Pollution and Indicators • Today’s discussion: a) Do you have comments on messages presented regarding main trends in improving monitoring and information management in EECCA since 2003? b) What do you think are the main barriers for improving monitoring and information management in EECCA? c) What do you think should be the priorities for action in 2007-2010?