Improving Environmental Self-supervision by Industry: Experience from a Pilot Project in Kazakhstan

1. Improving Environmental Self-supervision by Industry: Experience from a Pilot Project in Kazakhstan Angela BULARGA EAP Task Force Secretariat 2 June 2005, Geneva

2. PILOT PROJECT IN KAZAKHSTAN • Proposed by the enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment at the 2002 Meeting of the Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network • Project objective: Facilitate the reform of self-supervision in Kazakhstan • Main elements of the project: • Review of the existing system • Know-how transfer and capacity building • Industry consultations • Regulatory changes • A learning process for all project participants angela.bularga@oecd.org

3. REVIEW OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM • Review of the regulatory framework • Industry survey (100 facilities addressed) and review of self-supervision (self-monitoring) programmes • Interviews with staff from the Ministry of Environment • Report developed by November 2003 angela.bularga@oecd.org

4. CURRENT DESIGN OF SELF-SUPERVISION • In general lines, close to models used in OECD countries • Weaknesses prevent harnessing benefits: • Contradictory legislation • Self-supervision requirements isolated from permit requirements • Content and quality of programmes extremely variable due to absent guidance • Resource-intensive programmes: in theory, everything should be monitored • Integrity of data questionable • Poor analysis and use of data by authorities • Results are not available to the general public angela.bularga@oecd.org

5. KNOW-HOW TRANSFER AND CAPACITY BUILDING • Case study on reform of self-supervision in Estonia (October 2003) • National workshop in Almaty (Nov. 2003) • Study visit to Finland (June 2004) • Guide on Self-supervision based on good international practice • August 2005 (planned): Final workshop angela.bularga@oecd.org

6. INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS • Meeting with industry representatives in Atyrau in July 2004 • Overall conclusion: Reform is needed • More clarity in terminology and the current legislation • Better description of procedures • Reference methodologies • Prioritisation of parameters to optimise costs for industry, including clear criteria to use impact monitoring • Better use of data by competent authorities • Improved infrastructure angela.bularga@oecd.org

7. REGULATORY CHANGES • Amendments to the Law on Environment Protection • Chapter on Self-supervision for the Environmental Code (foreseen for 2007) • Regulation on Self-supervision angela.bularga@oecd.org

8. KEY LESSONS LEARNED • Co-ordination between different departments is required • Dialogue with industry is very important • Other government authorities need to be consulted • Current legislation should not be a barrier • Challenges ahead, to be solved as part of regional cooperation • Approaches to define the monitored parameters and frequency of monitoring • Quality assurance and quality control angela.bularga@oecd.org

9. PROJECT FOLLOW UP • Enacting new requirements • Monitoring the results of implementation and addressing problems, if needed • Replication of experience: independent or with external support • Development of regional guidelines • Measures to better understand and improve the incentive framework for industry to conduct self-supervision, in particular the cost component angela.bularga@oecd.org