1 OECD Environment Directorate Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network (REPIN) of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia : Progress

1

OECDEnvironmentDirectorate

Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network (REPIN) of

Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia :

Progress in 2003-2004

Angela BULARGAOECD Environment Directorate

www.oecd.org/env/eap

EAP TASK FORCE

2


OBJECTIVES OF NETWORKING

Improving enforcement agencies and instruments, based on best international practice

Re-shaping relations with the regulated community and the general public

Transferring knowledge and skills, and developing guidelines and methodology papers

Stimulating international co-operation, including joint actions

3


1.2 EnvironmentalQuality

Standards

1.2 EnvironmentalQuality

Standards

1.1 EnvironmentalPermitting

1.1 EnvironmentalPermitting

1.3 EconomicInstruments

1.3 EconomicInstruments

2.1 Economics of Enforcement and

Compliance

2.1 Economics of Enforcement and

Compliance

2.3. Self-Monitoring

2.3. Self-Monitoring

2.2 InformationBased

Instruments

2.2 InformationBased

Instruments

3.1 Peer Reviews3.1 Peer Reviews

3.2 Enforcementand Compliance

Indicators

3.2 Enforcementand Compliance

Indicators

3.3 CapacityBuilding

3.3 CapacityBuilding

2003-2006 Work Programme

1. EnvironmentalPolicy

Instruments

2. EnforcementStrategies and

Instruments

3. EnforcementInstitutions

4


1.1 PERMITTING GUIDELINES: MAIN ELEMENTS

Introduction and summary of the main elements Integrated permitting procedure for a competent environmental authority

Permit application form with instructions for operators of industrial installations

Integrated environmental permit form with instructions for a competent authority

Guidance on the combined approach in setting ELVs in permits

Guidance on the strategy for transition to integrated permitting

To be developed: Guidance on permitting for SMEs (Expert Meeting in January-February 2005 in Moscow)

5


2.1 PROJECT ON INSPECTORATE FINANCING

Comprehensive questionnaire sent to members of IMPEL, BERCEN and INECE Networks

Additional information used No attempt to compare absolute figures Draft report developed by the Institute for

European Environmental Policy Expert meeting conducted on 4-5 May 2004,

with participation of five EECCA countries Results presented to IMPEL network Plans to study the feasibility of international

practice in EECCA

6


2.1 STRUCTURE OF THE FINANCING REPORT

Background Principles of financing environmental

enforcement authorities and nature of inspectorates

Sources of funding Allocation of funds to various activities Budgeting and estimating the budget deficit Addressing the budget/resource deficit Conclusions and recommendations

7


2.2 PRIDE SCHEME

Performance Rating and Information Disclosure (PRIDE) scheme:

allows to rate firms’ environmental performance on the basis of carefully specified criteria

rating from best to worst in five colours: green, blue, yellow, red and black.

8


BLUE

YELLOW

RED

BLACK• No pollution control effort,

serious environmental damage

• Clean technology, waste minimization, pollution prevention

• Efforts don’t meet standards

• Efforts meet some minimum standards

• Most standards met, good maintenance, housekeeping

GREEN

2.2 PRIDE CRITERIAPERFORMANCE LEVELS

9


2.2 PRIDE PROCESS

rating based on existing monitoring and inspection information

after verification results disseminated to the public through the mass media.

periodically reviewed and updated which allows enterprises to be re-categorised

10


2.2 REPIN ACTIVITIES

The programme has been successfully applied in Indonesia, India, China and Vietnam, some experience from Poland. EECCA countries expressed an interest in extending the programme to their region

Analysis that the performance rating which exists in Ukraine would benefit from reforming using PRIDE as reference

Discussion with the Ukrainian regional authorities in the city of Lviv to implement technical assistance project

11


2.3 PILOT PROJECT ON SELF-MONITORING

Pilot country: Kazakhstan Know-how transfer and capacity building

– EU experience presented at a national meeting in November 2003

– Study visit to Finland Regulatory changes

– The Chapter on Self-Monitoring was drafted for the Environmental Code

– Technical Guide on Self-monitoring Stakeholder consultations

– Meeting in Atyrau in July 2004– Written comments from industry

12


2.3 SOURCES OF GOOD PRACTICE

EU community environmental legislation and guidance documents– IPPC Directive– Monitoring BREF– IMPEL Network documents– Individual countries experience (Finland, Norway, Ireland,

UK, Estonia, France) North American experience: Environment

Canada and USEPA EECCA countries experience Other international experience (INECE Network)

13


2.3 OUTLINE OF THE GUIDE

Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: General considerations Chapter 3: Designing self-monitoring

programmes Chapter 4: Data production chain Chapter 5: Reporting and record keeping Chapter 6: Medium-specific particularities Chapter 7: Self-inspection, compliance

assessment and enforcement

14


3.1 PEER REVIEW SCHEME

Establish a mechanism that would:– examine current instruments, strategies and

institutions in light of good international practice and

– exercise international peer pressure and generate support to strengthen compliance assurance systemsin reviewed countries

Performance is assessed against the recommendations of the “Guiding Principles for Reform of Environmental Enforcement Authorities in Transition Economies of EECCA”

15


3.1 KYRGYZ PEER REVIEW: BASELINE IN A NUTSHELL

Development of a extensive legal framework over the last decade – The legal basis for environment protection is provided by

the Constitution and more than 150 primary and secondary legal acts

Serious problems in the design and operation of the environmental compliance assurance system in Kyrgyzstan

16


3.1 KEY PROBLEMS IN KYRGYZSTAN

Focus on revenue raising rather than on the environment

Frequent reforms of the environmental authority without a clear vision of strategic objectives

Regulatory framework that is favourable for short-term interests of companies but may lead to environmental degradation (e.g. suppression of air permit system, restrictions to conduct on-site visits)

Working methods that allow for inefficient use of resources

Confrontational relations with the regulatees Limited human, financial and material resources of compliance assurance authorities

17


3.1 CHANGE THAT IS CRUCIAL

Inspectors need to focus on the core mission which is carrying out targeted actions to ensure regulatory compliance that leads to environmental improvements

It is not the number of enforcement actions and cases handled, not the amount of fines collected but the environmental results that should matter

Substantially improved enforcement strategy and institutional capacity are needed to fulfil this mission in a fair and consistent manner

18


3.1 FIVE OBJECTIVES OF INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Seek improvement of the environmental regulatory framework in Kyrgyzstan

Acquire adequate powers and raise the institutional status

Adopt risk-based and performance-oriented working methods

Embrace higher professional standards and foster international co-operation

Interact with stakeholders openly and constructively

19


3.2 INDICATORS PROJECT

Analysis of current experience with applying enforcement/compliance indicators and developing the methodological framework and good practices for designing and applying output and outcome indicators

Conducting an international expert workshop on enforcement and compliance indicators;

Implementation of two pilot projects in selected EECCA to assist enforcement agencies to design and apply performance indicators;

Dissemination of the results of the analysis to relevant stakeholders.

20


3.2 PILOT PROJECT IN RUSSIA

Communication with officials from the Ministry of Natural Resources

In-depth analysis of the current system of ECE indicators

Development of the Terms of Reference Assessment of the current indicators system Expert Meeting in November 2004

Slow progress with project implementation due to institutional reforms in March-September 2004

21


3.2 INTERNATIONAL INECE/OECD WORKSHOP

Held in Paris, France, on 3‑4 November 2003 Convened over 50 senior practitioners,

including 5 people representing EECCA countries

Confirmed the growing importance of ECE indicators worldwide

Discussed the use of indicators in performance assessment, in decision making and communicating with diverse stakeholders

Resulted in the commitment of many officials and experts to continue and/or initiate indicator pilot projects in their home countries

22


3.2 FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES

In co-operation with other networks - development of world-wide guiding principles for implementing enforcement and compliance indicators

Further work will be carried out in the Russian Federation

Other demonstration projects (Armenia, Kazakhstan)

Proposal to establish a REPIN Working Group on ECE indicators

23


EVENTS IN EARLY 2005

Last week of January: Regional Expert Meeting on SMEs regulation (Moscow, Russia)

First week of February: National Conference on Self-Monitoring in Kazakhstan (Astana)

Second week of February: Meeting in Kyrgyzstan on Peer Review and training for inspectors

Mid March: National workshop on ECE indicators in Armenia

End April: Conference on Environmental Policy Instruments in Russia

Late May – early June: Peer Review of Armenia BERCEN MEMBERS ARE WELCOME!

Documents

1 OECD Environment Directorate Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network (REPIN) of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia : Progress