UNEP and UNECE Environmental ... - Basel Conventionarchive.basel.int/centers/workshop proceedings final draft 18 03 200… · boundary Watercourses and International Lakes and its

44

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

UNEP and UNECE Environmental ConventionsWorkshop Proceedings and Recommendations

Federal Republic of YugoslaviaTable Of Contents

Introduction 6

Workshop Approach 9

2.1 Pre-Workshop Organisation 92.2 Workshop Implementation 10

UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air 13Pollution and its Protocol

3.1 Introduction 133.2 Status of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 143.3 Working Group Recommendations 15

UNEP Convention on International Trade in Endangered 17Species of Wild Flora and Fauna


UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment 20in a Transboundary Context


UNEP Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 22Pollutants


UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of 26Industrial Accidents

7.1 Introduction 267.2 Status of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5

7.3 Working Group Recommendations 27

UNEP Biodiversity Convention and CMS Agreements 29


UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans- 32boundary Watercourses and International Lakes and itsProtocol


UNEP Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of 34Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal


Panel Discussion 38

11.1 Introduction 3811.2 Joint Issues Shared by all the Conventions 3811.3 Coordination and Synergies 3911.4 Integration with Other Legislative Frameworks 39

Workshop Findings and Concluding Remarks by the 42Co-Chairs

12.1 Concluding Remarks 4212.2 Findings - Positive Driving Forces 4212.3 Findings - Potential Treats 4312.4 Road Map for Success 44

Appendixes

A Workshop Evaluation by the Participants 45

B Workshop Programme 46

C List of Participants 49

8

9

10

11

12

6

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

6

s the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FR Yugoslavia) takes steps forreintegration into the international community and begins to improve itsstructures and programmes for environmental management and protection,

the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) has becomea pressing issue.

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) play an important role in theprotection and management of the global environment. They strengthen environmentalpolicies and commitments at the national level. They provide the framework and theincentives for transboundary co-operation and burden sharing in tacklingenvironmental degradation worldwide. They raise public awareness of environmentalissues and catalyse action. Conceptually MEA’s also fit well in the ever increasingglobalised world in which we live.

To date, both the scope of issues they cover and their track record are impressive.Over twenty years of experience has demonstrated that MEA’s can be an effectivemechanism for tackling global environmental problems provided they have thefinancial means and adequate political support. The control of ozone depletingsubstances, hazardous wastes, the trade of endangered species and transboundary airand water pollution are among the success stories.

Despite the successes, new environmental threats are constantly emerging. As eachnew threat is addressed by the international community, the number of MEAs hasproliferated. This proliferation of international agreements is becoming increasinglydifficult to manage, especially by countries with pressing development needs. Callsfor more effective co-ordination between MEA’s, as well as improved compliancewith their requirements have long been paramount. Improving these aspects of MEAswill undoubtedly form an integral part of the debate on International EnvironmentalGovernance for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) inJohannesburg in September 2002.

The FR Yugoslavia has long established traditions in protecting its environment andthe political leadership of FR Yugoslavia and the republics has acknowledged theimportance of ratifying and implementing MEAs. There is a firm and shared beliefacross the country that success in these endeavours is critical for lasting progress andsustainability. In fact, environmental problems are one of the few issues that canunite divided political parties in the pursuit of a common goal.

Consequently, at the request of the Government of FR Yugoslavia, the SerbianMinistry for Health and Social Policy and its Directorate for EnvironmentalProtection together with UNEP and UNECE co-organized a workshop on Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements in Belgrade from 14-16 November 2001 for

INTRODUCTION

A

7

1Introduction

Federal, Serbian and Montenegrin authorities. The purpose of the workshop was tostrengthen the capacity of Federal, Serbian and Montenegrin environmentalauthorities and NGO’s in the ratification, implementation and enforcement of eightmultilateral environmental conventions. The content of the workshop was demanddriven and it focused on the training needs identified by the recipient country. Thetargeted conventions included:

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and its protocols(1979)

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora andFauna (1975)

Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (1992)

Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and TheirDisposal (1992)

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context(1991)

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and related CMS agreements

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001)

Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses andInternational Lakes and its protocols (1992)

This workshop was a pioneering attempt to improve coordination and strengthen thecapacities of national experts and authorities, as well as interest groups in theratification, implementation and enforcement of the selected MEAs. It was designedin an integrated and cross-disciplinary way to address the inter-linkages between theconventions, assess the common cross-cutting implementation issues, and developan action plan for next steps. The participation of both UNEP and UNECE illustratesthe growing co-operative approach that is being taken to maximise cost effectivenesswhile servicing country needs.

This workshop has been a part of UNEP’s larger post-conflict programme “Clean-upof Environmental Hot Spots in FR Yugoslavia” which aims to strengthen the capacityof the country in environmental management, revitalize international environmentalcooperation, and to remediate the worst damaged sites posing a threat to humans andthe natural environment. The Programme is based on UNEP’s assessment of theenvironmental consequences of the Kosovo Conflict that was carried out in 1999.

It is hoped that the workshop assisted in increasing and enhancing basic knowledgeand capacity for integrating the concerns captured in the MEA’s in the country’sdomestic and transboundary work and dialogue. This report contains therecommendations that were made in each of the eight working groups – a basicroadmap for action. A summary of a panel discussion and concluding remarks from

8

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

the co-chairs are also provided. International and national presentations are availablefrom the conference website. UNEP, its Convention Secretariats and the UNECEstand ready to help in the follow-up of the workshop and with the implementation ofits recommendations. The publication of this report in both English and Serbian is aclear demonstration of this commitment.

The demand-driven and integrated approach taken by the workshop is an experimentin capacity building and efficiency which has not been tried before. Experience fromthis exercise will help to shape the co-operative arrangements for international legalservices that are in the process of being established. UNEP’s Regional Office forEurope (ROE) is, together with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and theRegional Environmental Centre (REC), unified in the Joint Environmental LawService (JELS), an inter-agency consortium, which aims at providing demand drivenlegal information, training and advice. Collaboration and support of the conventionSecretariats will be a vital part of the legal service. The current workshop was a partof the pilot phase for designing the full operation of JELS.

The success of the workshop was dependent on many national and internationalpartners. The Directorate for Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbiadeserves special thanks for providing outstanding logistical, organizational andfinancial support. The work of each convention secretariat also deserves praise andrecognition. Finally, the Workshop was made possible by the generous contributionof the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

9

2W

orkshop Approach

n a post-conflict situation, FR Yugoslavia will rely on cooperation within andimplementation of MEAs, in order to increase involvement in internationalenvironmental cooperation in general, and to strengthen its performance in

environmental policy at the domestic level. Therefore, MEA implementation canalso be seen as an essential preparatory stage for increased European integration andapproximation to EU acquis. In order to ensure a coherent approach, it is of utmostimportance to pay consideration to cross-cutting issues, such as legislation,implementation, enforcement, environmental information and public participation,in order to reach maximum efficiency and synergy in MEA implementation.

Given the number of conventions that were addressed by the workshop, it was essentialto develop a core methodology that could take into account different levels ofimplementation while at the same time providing a harmonized and consistentapproach. With these goals in mind, the methodology that was developed for theworkshop included the following core elements:

2.1 Pre-Workshop Organization:

National Organizer: whereas the federal authorities are the focal point toconventions, a National Organizer, the Directorate for EnvironmentalProtection – Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection of Serbia,was appointed to provide organizational, administrative and logistical supportto the workshop.

UN Preparatory Meetings: two preparatory meetings between UNEP, theUNEP convention secretariats and UNECE were held prior to the workshopto agree on a harmonized approach for the convention working groups. Therecommendations were communicated to the national organizer. The strongcooperation between UNEP, UNECE and the Convention Secretariats, aswell as the national organizer, proved to be a key element of the successfulorganization of the workshop during all phases.

Target Audience: The target audience was well defined together with thenational organizer. Approximately 80 participants from national authoritieswere identified, including FR Yugoslavia Government, Secretariat forEnvironment, Serbian Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection,Montenegro Ministry for Urban Planning and Environment, and otherministries involved with environmental management and protection (e.g.water, forests, agriculture, industrial production, justice, emergencymanagement). NGOs, academia and media were also invited to participate.

WORKSHOP APPROACH

I

10

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

Information Kits: were jointly prepared prior to the workshop by the NationalOrganizer and each convention secretariat, in cooperation with UNEP. As faras possible, relevant materials were collected by the national organizers priorto the workshop and then developed into an information kit that was distributedduring workshop registration. Information kits included a four page summaryof the goals and objectives of each Convention, relevant COP decisions, otherdocuments such as guidance material on implementation, and a short summaryof each working group presentation. Furthermore, each of the conventiontexts was translated into Serbian and then compiled into a single bound volumeby the National Organizer. The volume was distributed during registration.

2.2 Workshop Implementation:

Parallel Working Groups: In order to address eight conventions in threedays, it was decided that the workshop would be divided into parallel workinggroups of about 40 participants. Each working group would address a singleconvention, as well as key cross-cutting issues. The working groups weredesigned so that the content did not overlap with the concurrent session (e.g.Biodiversity and Hazardous Wastes). A total of 3 hours was provided to eachworking group. The first half of the working group session was dedicated tointernational, national and best-practice presentations and the second half ofthe session was for discussions and development of recommendations. Allworking groups were provided with power-point facilities as well as simulta-neous translation in English and Serbian.

Convention Secretariat Presentations: UNEP and UNECE representativeswere asked to incorporate the following issues into their presentations: generalintroduction and key provisions of the convention; experiences at the globaland regional levels (particularly South Eastern Europe); assessment of keychallenges in FR Yugoslavia; and finally key cross-cutting issues ofimplementation including legislation, institutions, practical implementation,enforcement, public participation, information management, financing issuesand considerations with regard to possible synergies with other Conventions.Approximately 1 hour was provided for the international presentations(depending on the number of speakers in the working group).

National Presentations: Presentations by in-country national and localexperts focused on providing an update of the current situation regardingnational implementation and key challenges and requirements. Approximately20 minutes was provided for each national presentation (national presentationswill be separately published by the National Organizer in English and Serbian).

International Experience and Best Practice: Some of the working groupscontained presentations from individuals on international experience and bestpractice. Approximately 20 minutes was provided for each presentation.

Working Group Debate and Practical Recommendations: The second halfof each working group was dedicated to further exploring and debating points

11

2W

orkshop Approach

raised during the international and national presentations and developing alist of practical recommendations that could be immediately acted upon inthe months following the workshop. This included next steps, project ideasand the identification of possible funding opportunities. These recom-mendations form the majority of this report and will be widely distributed todecision-makers. A common media strategy will be used to publicise andraise awareness on identified key issues in FR Yugoslavia. Approximately 1hour and 30 minutes was provided for the debate and formulation of recom-mendations.

Daily Plenary Sessions: Each morning, a plenary session of 1 hour was heldto report the recommendations from working groups held the previous day.All working group recommendations were summarized in power-pointpresentations which could be edited in real-time based on audience feedback.

Evaluation: An evaluation of the workshop was carried out by disseminatingan evaluation questionnaire to all participants. The results of the evaluationwill be used to improve delivery and content of future workshops. The resultsof the evaluation are contained in Annex I to this report.

Follow-up: As a follow-up, the present report will be translated and madeavailable to participants from FR Yugoslavia. Furthermore, UNEP is currentlyproviding expertise to the Republic of Serbia in drafting a new environmentallaw, in the framework of an ongoing OSCE project. Also, the recommendationswill be taken into account in all future UNEP (e.g. post-conflict activities orJELS) and UNECE (e.g. upcoming Environmental Performance Review –EPR) activities.

As mentioned, the approach that was taken in FR Yugoslavia was a pioneering attemptto deliver capacity building services to FR Yugoslavia while maximizing conventionsynergies and cost-efficiency. Overall, the benefits of the approach that was takeninclude:

Demand-Driven Content: The scope of the capacity building workshop wasdefined by the request of the authorities of the target country (in this case, FRYugoslavia authorities selected the eight MEAs addressed by the workshop).This approach ensured that the needs of the target country were fully met.This approach enabled UNEP and UNECE to deliver tailor-made trainingpackages upon request.

Strongly Interactive Approach: Debate and discussions in each workinggroup allowed for strong interaction between the participants and presenters.As a result, practical recommendations for action were produced by eachworking group and endorsed by all participants. The recommendations cannow form an agenda for action.

Effective Communication of Ideas: In order to facilitate comprehensionand effective communication of ideas, all working group and plenary session

12

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

presenters were provided with the facilities to conduct power-pointpresentations. This approach proved essential for reaching individuals in amulti-linguistic situation and overcoming the usual shortcomings ofsimultaneous translation.

Synergies and Cross-Cutting Issues: The possibility of examining eightMEAs in one single event, and having the full target audience as well as allappropriate resource persons available, allowed an in-depth discussion ofimplementation and enforcement issues as well as a full range of cross-cuttingissues, such as financing, information management and public awareness.

Networking and Cross-Fertilization of Ideas: Due to the range ofconventions that were addressed, the workshop had a broad audience from avariety of sectors and government organizations. As a result, opportunitiesfor networking and cross-fertilization of ideas were maximized.

Maximum Cost-efficiency, Visibility and Impact: All eight Conventionswere presented in one single workshop, increasing overall impact and visibilityof the whole exercise (e.g. full media coverage in newspapers and TV wasachieved). The approach facilitated capacity building for eight Conventionsin the most streamlined and cost-efficient way.

Environmental Footprint: Overall, the workshop left a significantenvironmental footprint in terms of translated convention texts, increasedpublic awareness, improved institutional collaboration, and a road map foraction.

13

3U

NEC

E Convention on Long-R

ange TransboundaryA

ir Pollution and its Protocol

3.1 Introduction

he Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution aims at controllingand reducing the damage to human health and the environment caused bytransboundary air pollution.

The history of the Convention can be traced back to the 1960s, when scientistsdemonstrated the interrelationship between sulphur emissions in continental Europeand the acidification of Scandinavian lakes. The 1972 United Nations Conferenceon the Human Environment in Stockholm signalled the start for active internationalcooperation to combat acidification. Between 1972 and 1977 several studiesconfirmed the hypothesis that air pollutants could travel several thousands ofkilometres before deposition and damage occurred. This also implied that cooperationat international level was necessary to solve problems such as acidification.

In response to these acute problems, the Convention on Long-range TransboundaryAir Pollution was established by 34 Governments and the European Community(EC) in November 1979. The Convention was the first international legally bindinginstrument to deal with problems of air pollution on a broad regional basis. Besideslaying down the general principles of international cooperation for air pollutionabatement, the Convention set up an institutional framework bringing togetherresearch, policy development and implementation.

The Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution entered into force in1983. As of 1 November 2001, 48 Parties have ratified it. The convention has beenextended by eight protocols:

1) The 1984 Geneva Protocol on Long-term Financing of the CooperativeProgramme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmissionof Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP)

2) The 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or theirTransboundary Fluxes by at least 30 per cent

3) The 1988 Sofia Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of NitrogenOxides or their Transboundary Fluxes

4) The 1991 Geneva Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of VolatileOrganic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes

UNECE CONVENTION ONLONG-RANGE

TRANSBOUNDARY AIRPOLLUTION AND ITS

PROTOCOLS

T

14

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

5) The 1994 Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions

6) The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals

7) The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

8) The 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication andGround-level Ozone

3.2 Status of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

FR Yugoslavia became a Party to the Convention and the EMEP Protocol on 12March 2001. Implementation is more advanced on this convention than on otherenvironmental conventions, but additional protocols need ratification. In particular,the four most recent Protocols, which reflect the state-of-the-art in air qualitymanagement.

There is a high level of competence in the country, both professional and institutional.However, implementation capacity and scientific competence should be distinguished.The main challenge is to strengthen the ability to implement convention obligationsand responsibilities within national and republic institutions. Hampering elementsinclude the difficult economic situation and the lack of a clear economic developmentplan for the future.

In preparing the legislation for accession to the four most recent Protocols, Yugoslaviawill also prepare its accession to the EU National and International air pollutionpolicies. As a result, it will require data on emissions, air quality measurements andsensitivity of the environment to pollution. The following sections outline the currentstatus of FR Yugoslavia regarding these three topics.

Emissions

FR Yugoslavia at present only reports on sulphur and NOx emissions. The quality ofthese data need to be examined. Also, data on VOCs, ammonia and CO are requiredand work should start on an inventory for Particulate Matter (PM). Furthermore,emission data on heavy metals and POPs is important. EMEP provides support onwork on emission inventories through the EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric EmissionInventory Guidebook, training workshops, development of software tools for reportingand training in its use (in cooperation with EEA), expert assessment of emissionsand comparative studies.

Air quality measurements

FR Yugoslavia’s EMEP stations (YU05 at Kamenicki and YU08 at Zabljak) at presentonly report on sulphur and nitrogen compounds. The quality of these data need to beexamined. It is important to also monitor tropospheric ozone, heavy metals, POPsand particulate matter. It would be useful to join the effect-related monitoringprogrammes, starting with the forest programme. Yugoslavia’s participation in thepreparation of the EMEP assessment report is very significant. EMEP supports workon monitoring through providing the EMEP Manual for Sampling and Chemical

15

3U

NEC

E Convention on Long-R

ange TransboundaryA

ir Pollution and its ProtocolAnalysis, Chemical Coordinating Centre (CCC) training workshops on specific topics,support of national assessment of trends in measurements, development of softwaretools (in cooperation with EEA) for reporting, and specific field studies and laboratoryintercomparisons.

Sensitivity of the environment to pollution damage

No critical load data have yet been provided by FR Yugoslavia. Both for nationaland international work, it is important to start to map critical loads for acidity andnutrient nitrogen. In addition it would be useful to develop land-use maps which canbe used as tools when ozone exceeds critical levels. The Convention provides mappingmanuals that describe the methodologies. The International Cooperative Programmeon Modelling and Mapping and the Coordinating Center for Effects organize trainingworkshops for experts.

3.3 Working Group Recommendations

Approximately 70 participants attended the working group. Their recommendationscan be divided into four sections:

1. Ratification of Air Pollution Protocols

Conduct a feasibility study for ratification of the 7 Protocols to the LRTAPConvention not yet ratified by FR Yugoslavia. If possible focus on ratificationof the four most recent Protocols.

Determine the minimum legislative measures necessary prior to ratificationof the Protocols as well as additional future legislative steps.

Take the following factors into account during the above steps:• The Feasibility study of 1994;• The privatisation process and relevant environmental obligations;• Situation of neighbouring countries and countries with close

commercial relationships;• Political decision to move towards EU accession.

2. Data to Support Air Pollution Policies

Establish an emission inventory and extend to cover all pollutants includingspecifically sulphur, NOx, VOCs, ammonia, heavy metals, and POPs;

Define a national monitoring strategy, taking into consideration nationalenvironmental “hot spots” and international monitoring requirements (EMEP,EU);

Determine training requirements and needs for equipment and installations.

3. Measures to Reduce Air Pollution

Determine the costs and benefits (to human health and ecosystems) of

16

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

implementing the Protocols and national targets. The study should take intoaccount:

• Sectoral developments;• Polluter-pays principle;• The importance of public participation.

Develop a strategy to reduce mobile source emissions including the problemof importation of vehicles from EU countries that do no meet pollution controlstandards.

4. Institutional Requirements

Radical change is necessary in:• Networking of relevant institutions;• Strengthening of existing institutions;• Development of new institutions.

Strengthening enforcement by increasing inspection capacity includingtraining of inspectors, and provision of necessary technical equipment isurgently required. This is especially important in view of air pollution fromdiffuse sources.

17

4U

NEP C

onvention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of W

ild Flora and Fauna

4.1 Introduction

nnually, international wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars.It includes hundreds of millions of different plant and animal specimens. Thetrade is diverse, ranging from live animals and plants to a vast array of wildlife

products derived from them, including food products, exotic leather goods, woodenmusical instruments, timber, tourist curios and medicines. Many wildlife speciesused in trade are not endangered, but the existence of an agreement to ensure thesustainability of the trade is important in order to safeguard these resources for thefuture.

Because trade in wild animals and plants crosses international borders, the effort toregulate it requires international cooperation to safeguard certain species fromoverexploitation. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Flora and Fauna (CITES) was conceived in the spirit of such cooperation. Thetreaty was drafted as a result of a resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of membersof IUCN (The World Conservation Union). The text of the Convention was finallyagreed at a meeting of representatives of 80 countries in Washington DC, on 3 March1973, and on 1 July 1975 CITES entered into force. The aim of CITES is to ensurethat international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threatentheir survival. The treaty combines wildlife and trade themes with a legally bindinginstrument for achieving conservation and sustainable use objectives.

CITES is an international agreement to which States (countries) adhere voluntarily.States that have agreed to be bound by the Convention are known as Parties. AlthoughCITES is legally binding on the Parties it does not take the place of national laws.Rather it provides a framework to be respected by each Party, which has to adopt itsown domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is implemented at the national level.

National legislation to implement CITES must adhere to the following basicrequirements:

Designate a Management Authority that is responsible for the administrativeaspects of implementation including legislation, permits and annual reportson trade.

Designate a Scientific Authority that is responsible for non-detriment findingsand other scientific aspects of implementation.

Prohibit trade in specimens that are in violation of the convention.

UNEP CONVENTION ONINTERNATIONAL TRADE INENDANGERED SPECIES OFWILD FLORA AND FAUNA

A

18

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

Penalize such trade.

Confiscate specimens illegally traded or possessed.

Species listed in CITES are divided between three appendices. Appendix 1 includesspecies that are threatened with extinction. International trade of items in Appendix1 is generally prohibited. Appendix 2 includes species not necessarily threatenedwith extinction, but for which trade must be controlled to avoid their becomingthreatened. Appendix 2 also includes species that resemble species threatened withextinction. International trade for species in Appendix 2 is permitted but controlled.Appendix 3 includes species for which a country is asking Parties to help with itsprotection. International trade for species in Appendix 3 is also permitted butcontrolled.

CITES regulates international trade of specimens contained in the appendices on thebasis of a system of permits and certificates that are issued only when certain conditionsare met. The certificates and permits must be presented when the traded items areentering or leaving a country.

Since the convention entered into force, not one species protected by CITES hasbecome extinct as a result of trade. Today, it accords varying degrees of protection tomore than 30,000 species of animals and plants and supports a total of 155 Parties.


FR Yugoslavia took internal steps towards convention ratification on 5th November2001. In previous periods the country took significant steps to meet CITESimplementation requirements. For example, legislation concerning the import, exportand transit of species is already well developed. In addition, the current existinghuman capacity is very good and future technical assistance will be well applied.

In anticipation of acceding to the treaty, FR Yugoslavia has already determined themanagement authority for the implementation of the CITES convention. FRYugoslavia has also identified six competent institutions on the republic level asappropriate scientific authorities.

One of the main implementation challenges will be the lack of harmonization betweenenvironmental and foreign trade regulations at the federal level, as well as a lack ofharmonization between the federal and the republic levels.


Approximately 35 participants attended the working group. Their recommendationsare as follows:

Capacity building on federal and republican level is a priority. Some mainareas of capacity building could be to support regional cooperation amongmanagement authorities (issuing permits, handling data, managing quotas,and collaborating with customs and police) and scientific authorities (ex-changing experiences on non-detrimental findings).

19

4U

NEP C

onvention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of W

ild Flora and FaunaCITES is a possible vehicle for cooperation between authorities and agenciesat all levels and across levels. Therefore, an efficient mechanism forcooperation and coordination should be further developed. It is necessary toclarify institutional arrangements with respect to the definition of specifictasks and authorities;

Existing legislation at the federal and republican levels should be harmonized,including regulations for import, export and transit of species. Attention shouldbe paid to inclusion of all CITES species into the lists;

FR Yugoslavia should make use of the legislation checklist and fill in theCITES questionnaire as soon as possible, in order to ensure that all of CITESprovisions are met;

Rules for foreign trade must be harmonized with CITES requirements;

Convention Secretariats are requested to cooperate in designing regionalcapacity building activities and technical assistance in order to ensure avail-ability of funding;

FR Yugoslavia should seek cooperative arrangements with neighbouringcountries on common challenges and opportunities in the implementation ofCITES.

20

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

5.1 Introduction

he objective of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in aTransboundary Context is to promote environmentally sound and sustainableeconomic development, through the application of environmental impact

assessment, especially as a preventative measure against transboundaryenvironmental degradation. The convention stipulates the obligations of Parties toassess the environmental impacts of certain activities at an early stage of planning.It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each otheron all major projects under consideration that are likely to have significant adversetransboundary environmental impacts. Parties to the convention are under anobligation to take policy, legal and administrative measures to control adversetransboundary impacts arising from proposed activities.

The convention also provides for research undertakings among the Parties, for thepurpose of improving methods of environmental impact assessment, and promotingsustainable economic activity. A dispute settlement process is also contained withinthe convention.


As of January 2002, FR Yugoslavia was not a party to the convention. However,Yugoslavia has, at the republican levels, approximately 10 years of experiencewith the application of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and also has alegal basis for EIA. As a result, if ratification occurs, FR Yugoslavia will alreadycontain significant expertise and implementation capacity.


Approximately 60 participants attended the working group. Their recommendationscan be divided into three sections:

1. National Aspects of Environmental Impact Assessment

Revising EIA responsibilities at the republican level e.g. to transfer someresponsibilities to the local level in accordance with the geographicalcircumstances.

Training at the political level and administration at the ministerial and locallevels. Specifically, high-level workshops should be organized for

UNECE CONVENTION ONENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT IN ATRANSBOUNDARY CONTEXT

T

21

5U

NEC

E Convention on Environm

ental Impact A

ssessment in a

Transboundary Context

parliamentarians in order to increase awareness of and support for impactassessment issues and challenges.

Developing a strategy for environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment in order to provide a framework for EIA.

2. Data Collection and Accreditation

Improve the system of data collection and its accessibility.

International support is needed to set up a coherent computerized system ofdata collection and dissemination.

A study of systems of accreditation in other countries should be conducted inorder to resize the accreditation requirements at the republican levels.

3. Public Participation

Include provisions for public participation in the EIA legislation in accordancewith the Aarhus Convention.

Develop a methodology for the identification and participation of the affectedpublic.

Train the staff responsible for undertaking public participation.

Raise the awareness of the public for environmental issues and the EIA process.

22

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

6.1 Introduction

he Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is aninternational agreement aimed at protecting human health and the environmentfrom persistent organic pollutants. POPs are carbon-based compounds that

remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributedgeographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are toxic tohumans and wildlife. Their effects on humans and wildlife include birth defects,cancer, and dysfunctional immune, development and reproductive systems. The 12POPs initially covered by the Convention are aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxins,endrin, furans, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, PCBs and toxaphene.

Since 23 May 2001, the Convention has been adopted by 127 governments. It willcome into effect when 50 countries have ratified it. In the meantime, party countrieshave agreed to voluntarily implement the provisions of the Convention on an interimbasis.

Countries that implement the Stockholm Convention will be required to stop theproduction and use of the POPs covered by it. The Convention has provisions thatallow countries to continue to use POPs for limited agreed purposes – e.g. publichealth use of DDT for vector control. The first step in implementing the Conventionis signing it. The signing of the treaty does not incur any legal obligation, but signalsto the world that the signatory country supports the treaty and its objectives. Thereare also significant financial advantages to signatory countries that are eligible forfinancial assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

There are six principle advantages associated with signing the POPs treaty.

1) Ability to assess and understand the impact of POPs on the community andthe environment. An early step in implementing the Convention is thedevelopment of national implementation plans. The development of the planinvolves assessing the sources of POPs in a country, the impact of thosePOPs, the infrastructure available to manage the issue, and what additionalcapability is required.

2) Access to technical assistance to assess and manage POPs including guidance,expertise and information through the clearing-house network.

3) Access to funding for POPs related projects. The Convention establishes aFinancial Mechanism to assist developing countries and economies intransition to implement the provisions of the Convention. In the interim, theGEF is the principal entity of the Interim Financial Mechanism. Funding

UNEP STOCKHOLMCONVENTION ON PERSISTENT

ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

T

23

6U

NEP Stockholm

Convention on Persistent O

rganic Pollutantssupport from the GEF in the interim period is limited to GEF-eligible countriesthat have signed the Convention. It is expected also that other internationalfinancial institutions, including many bilateral aid agencies, may requiresignature or eventually ratification as criteria in making their funding decisions.

4) Ability to ensure that the trade in chemicals does not compromise humanhealth and the environment. With trade in chemicals amounting to 9% of allinternational trade, it is important that countries are involved in a parallelglobal process to protect their citizens and environment from impacts due tothis trade. The Stockholm Convention and other multilateral environmentalagreements involving chemicals are important components of this parallelprocess. The Stockholm Convention only allows trade in the POPs for exemptor allowed purposes and helps Parties to establish the regulatory andorganizational infrastructure necessary for the management of any chemical,including POPs.

5) Ability to shape the Convention in the future. Only Parties to the StockholmConvention will be able to participate fully in deciding on changes to itsprovisions and in determining its future direction. A key provision is theprocess for selecting additional chemicals to be included in annex A(elimination), annex B (restriction) and/or annex C (release reduction fromunintentional production) of the Convention. Only Parties will be able to bepart of decisions to add chemicals.

6) Development that is more sustainable. Continued production and use of POPsis not consistent with sustainable development. In taking steps to implementthe Stockholm Convention, Parties will necessarily move toward POPsalternatives, both chemical and non-chemical, and will avoid the productionof POPs as by-products. This is complementary to sustainable developmentrather than an impediment to it.

In addition to the UNEP Stockholm Convention, the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution has developed a protocol to deal specificallywith POPs. The UNECE POPs protocol was adopted on 24 June 1998 in Aarhus(Denmark). It focuses on a list of 16 substances that have been singled out accordingto agreed risk criteria. The substances comprise ten pesticides (Aldrin, Chlordecone,Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, HCH/lindane, Mirex, and Toxaphene),three industrial chemicals (Hexachlorobenzene, Hexabromobiphenyl and PCBs) andthree by-products/contaminants (Dioxins, Furans, and PAHs). The ultimate objectiveis to eliminate any discharges, emissions and losses of POPs. The Protocol bans theproduction and use of some products outright (aldrin, chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin,endrin, hexabromobiphenyl, mirex and toxaphene). Others are scheduled forelimination at a later stage (DDT, heptachlor, hexaclorobenzene, PCBs). Finally, theProtocol severely restricts the use of DDT, HCH (including lindane) and PCBs. TheProtocol includes provisions for dealing with the waste of products that will bebanned. It also obliges Parties to reduce their emissions of dioxins, furans, PAHsand HCB below their levels in 1990 (or an alternative year between 1985 and 1995).For the incineration of municipal, hazardous and medical waste, it lays down specificlimit values.

24

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions


As of January 2002, FR Yugoslavia was not a party to the UNEP POPs convention orthe UNECE POPs protocol. The country has limited experience in the control andmanagement of POPs and will require significant assistance in building institutionalcapacities to support implementation if both treaties are ratified.



Consensus was reached that the Stockholm Convention on POPs should besigned as soon as possible. This will enable the Federal Republic of Yugoslaviato become eligible for application for the GEF funds available for thepreparation of the National Implementation Plan. It was stressed that thesigning of the Convention would not involve any legal or financial obligationsfor the country.

The process of ratification of both the UNEP POPs Convention and theUNECE POPs Protocol should be conducted in a parallel way, to the extentpossible.

Organisational matters related to designation of the Focal Point, includinghorizontal and vertical coordination, should be solved internally as soon aspossible to fulfil the recommendation of the previous point.

There was a solid basis of data available in the country for the implementationof the provisions of the UNECE POP’s Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and its Protocols. However, the needwas expressed for careful comparison of the data available from EMEP ofUNECE and the data generated within the country.

Preparation of a review of the country’s status concerning the nationalchemicals management (National Profile) is an urgent priority. To this end, acoordinating group involving all government authorities concerned withchemicals management should be organized and the responsibilities of eachparticular sector, e.g. agriculture, health, environment, should be defined.

The first task for the coordinating group should be the development of theNational Implementation Plan (NIP) for the Stockholm Convention with clearpriorities for immediate action to be implemented in harmony with the existingand ongoing implementation of the Basel Convention. This immediate actionshould include preparation of inventories of POPs, taking into account thethree major tracks of the Convention (PCBs, obsolete pesticides, sources ofreleases of dioxins and furans), case studies and pilot/demonstration projects.UNEP should be selected as the GEF Implementing Agency for NIP.

Ongoing efforts of data collection at the Republican level should be furtherpursued and supported.

25

6U

NEP Stockholm

Convention on Persistent O

rganic PollutantsUNEP and UNECE offered technical assistance, including a capacity buildingworkshop on the POPs, PIC, Basel Conventions, and the POPs Protocol,with contribution by the Joint Environmental Law Service (UNEP/ROE,REC).

26

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

7.1 Introduction

he Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents aims atprotecting human beings and the environment against industrial accidents bypreventing such accidents as far as possible, by reducing their frequency and

severity and by mitigating their effects. It promotes active international cooperationbetween the contracting Parties, before, during and after an industrial accident. TheConvention also encourages its Parties to help each other in the event of such anaccident, to cooperate on research and development, and to share information andtechnology. The convention was signed by 26 UNECE member countries and theEuropean Community and entered into force on 19 April 2000.

The convention has five key requirements for members:

Prevention: The Convention spells out what member Parties have to do toreduce risks and prevent industrial accidents to the extent possible.

Preparedness: No matter how stringent the safety standards, accidents willoccur and countries must be prepared to deal with their consequences.Therefore, the Convention outlines how Parties can maintain a high level ofpreparedness to respond to an industrial accident, especially if its effects spillover into another country. Public awareness and participation is regarded as akey component of successful preparedness.

Response: If an industrial accident does occur, the Convention expects theParties to take effective steps to minimize its effects, including those of atransboundary nature. If several countries are affected by the accident, theyshould work together to ease its effects.

Notification: To respond effectively and in a coordinated way to an industrialaccident, Parties must be informed as soon as possible. The Conventionconsequently calls on Parties to set up special notification systems. TheUNECE Industrial Accident Notification System has been developed withthis in mind and accepted by the Conference of the Parties. It includes formsfor giving early warning, providing information and requesting assistance.

Competent authorities and points of contact: Each Party must designateor set up authorities specifically to deal with industrial accidents. Partiesmust also designate points of contact to whom industrial accident notificationsand requests for assistance must be addressed. The network of points of contactnow comprises 35 countries and the European Community.

UNECE CONVENTION ON THETRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTSOF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS

T

27

7U

NEC

E Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial A

ccidentsOne of the key challenges for the convention to address is the issue of civil liabilityfor transboundary damage. In this regard, an open-ended intergovernmental WorkingGroup has been established to develop a protocol on civil liability for the convention.


As of January 2002, FR Yugoslavia was not a party to the convention. Generally,there is a high level of support to ratify the convention for two reasons. First, pastaccidents with transboundary impact have sensitised public awareness. The case of acyanide spill in Romania was instructive. As FR Yugoslavia was not a party to theconvention, it weakened its ability to take effective preventative action. Through theconvention, FR Yugoslavia would have had access to international assistance fordealing with the spill and minimizing impacts. Second, given that there may be ahigher probability of an accident when industries re-commence operations after along duration of idleness, cooperation with neighbouring countries will be essentialto minimise potential impacts in the event of an accident.

However, convention implementation is a significant challenge since it involvesnumerous industrial stakeholders. The privatisation process will make it even moredifficult to involve industry. It will be important to involve partners from the economicsectors, such as insurance companies and the tourism industry, that have a vestedinterest in the prevention of accidents.


Approximately 50 participants attended the working group. Their recommendationscan be divided into five sections:

1. Should FR Yugoslavia Ratify the Convention on the Transboundary Effectsof Industrial Accidents?

Consensus was reached that FR Yugoslavia should become a party to theconvention. In addition to contributing to the environmental protection andthe health of the population in FR Yugoslavia and its neighbours, this wouldbe an important step towards the integration of FR Yugoslavia into theEuropean and international communities. During the process, importantlessons can be learned from the experiences of Hungary.

2. Involvement of Stakeholders

Different stakeholders should be involved in the ratification process andimplementation of the convention including:

• Public administration;• Self governments;• Industry;• Public;• Other interested partners.

Mechanisms should be established for cooperation with different stakeholders.

28

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

3. Examples of Methods for Involvement of Stakeholders

Executive officers and technical officers of hazardous installations need tobe informed on safety issues.

Insurance companies can be supported in the development of risk assessments.

The public and NGOs need to be better informed regarding the hazardousinstallations.

4. Information Needs

Several studies need to be performed for planning and implementationpurposes:

• General background study;• Inventory of hazardous installations;• Cost-benefit study of joining the Convention;

5. Examples of Required Administrative and Legal Frameworks

Appointment of the National Focal Point;

Appointment of Point of Contact for notification;

Settlement of an Inter-governmental Coordination Network;

Formulation of a draft framework law.

6. Conclusion of Environmental Agreements

Environmental agreements that are currently underway with FYR ofMacedonia, Croatia and Bulgaria should address accident-related issues;

FR Yugoslavia will soon gain membership of DRPC (Danube River ProtectionConvention). This will be an important step for dealing with transboundarywater pollution from industrial accidents;

The issue of the safety of nuclear power stations in neighbouring countries,e.g. Slovenia, Bulgaria is also seen to be important. However it should bekept in mind that the UNECE Convention is not applicable for these cases,which are under the jurisdiction of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) Convention on the Safety of Nuclear Installations.

29

8U

NEP B

iodiversity Convention and C

MS A

greements

8.1 Introduction

n 1972 it was first recognized that many threatened wildlife species migrate longdistances and cross international borders many times throughout their lifetime.As a result, a process was initiated to develop an international convention to

protect and conserve these animals throughout their entire range. In 1974 the GermanGovernment, through the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry, assumedthe mandate from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to prepare adraft Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).On 23rd June 1979 the Convention text was, after prior intensive negotiation, signedin Bonn. On 1 November 1983 the Convention came into effect in international law.

Essentially the aims of the CMS Convention are the global protection and conservationof migratory species of wild animals and their sustainable use. The Conventionincludes two appendices. These appendices list migratory species that would benefitfrom conservation measures taken by the Range States. Range States are thosecountries in which the species concerned occur.

By acceding to the Convention, a contracting party undertakes to strictly protectspecies threatened with extinction, listed in Appendix I, and to improve the conditionsnecessary for their survival. The species listed in Appendix II on the other hand arenot necessarily threatened with extinction. However, it would be prudent if the RangeStates worked towards improving their conservation status by means of concludingregional agreements, and declaring the protection and sustainable use of these speciesto be the objective of their nature conservation policy. A number of such Agreementsare in effect. For example treaties have been concluded on the conservation of sealsin the Wadden Sea, bats in Europe, small cetaceans in the Baltic and North Seas andthe Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds.

The second major convention to attempt to address the loss of species and ecosystemswas conducted in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity, one of the twomain outputs of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Developmentin Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was the first global agreement on the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity. Over 150 governments signed the documentat the Rio conference, and since then more than 175 countries have ratified theagreement.

The Convention has three main goals:

• The conservation of biodiversity;• Sustainable use of the components of biodiversity; and• Sharing the benefits arising from the commercial and other uses of genetic

UNEP BIODIVERSITYCONVENTION AND CMS

AGREEMENTS

I

30

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

resources in a fair and equitable way.

The Convention is comprehensive in its goals. It recognizes - for the first time ininternational law - that the conservation of biological diversity is “a common concernof humankind” and is an integral part of the development process. The agreementcovers all ecosystems, species, and genetic resources. It links traditional conservationefforts to the economic goal of using biological resources in a sustainable manner. Itsets principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the useof genetic resources, notably those destined for commercial use. It also covers therapidly expanding field of biotechnology, addressing technology development andtransfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety. Importantly, the Convention is legally binding;countries that join it are obliged to implement its provisions.

The Convention also offers decision-makers guidance based on the precautionaryprinciple that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biologicaldiversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponingmeasures to avoid or minimize such a threat. The Convention acknowledges thatsubstantial investments are required to conserve biological diversity. It argues,however, that conservation will bring us significant environmental, economic andsocial benefits in return.


FR Yugoslavia signed the Biodiversity convention on 8 June 1992. FR Yugoslaviatook internal steps towards convention ratification on 5th November 2001. As ofJanuary 2002, neither the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals, nor any of the related sub-treaties had been signed or ratified by FRYugoslavia. In order for FR Yugoslavia to successfully address the conservation ofbiological diversity, including migratory species, the following two issues will needto be considered.

First, FR Yugoslavia is one of the few countries in the Balkans region that has notdeveloped a National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Biodiversity conservationand sustainable use should be considered as a high priority in the NEAP. As a matterof practical importance, and in order to achieve the goal of protection of biodiversity,there is a need to quantify biodiversity values, using instruments such as cadastres,inventories, assessments, etc. Such activities will help to find out where the keyassets and values are located.

Second, the ongoing process of privatisation should take into consideration the impacton biodiversity of changes in ownership. It is important to keep in force the protectionregime, and to avoid experiences of other countries where the actual protection elementwas lost. FR Yugoslavia is in a fortunate position because it can learn from 10 yearsof experience of neighbouring countries. It will be important to create a momentumfor sustainable investments, but during this process biodiversity conservation andsustainable use must be maintained.


31

8U

NEP B

iodiversity Convention and C

MS A

greements


FR Yugoslavia intends to complete the acceptance of the biodiversity-related conventions, e.g., CMS. It is therefore important to undertake ananalysis of legislation for harmonization with the whole package ofbiodiversity-related conventions. In this regards, FR Yugoslavia shouldmake a request for the CMS implementation guidelines.

FR Yugoslavia would welcome technical and financial assistance, whichcan be provided through GEF, IFIs, the Biodiversity Service or otherwise.

Improved coordination between federal and republic levels will facilitateimplementation and access to external funding.

Authorities should apply to a GEF implementing agency (UNDP, UNEP,WB) for a grant for developing a national biodiversity strategy and actionplan (NBSAP).

Establish a national commission or task force on biodiversity to assessneeds and prepare a programme for national implementation including:harmonization of legislation; training programmes; public awareness.Environmental authorities must reach out to agriculture, fishery, forests,hunting, water resources sectors, whose representatives should be includedin the commission or task force. This can also be supported through theGEF grant.

FR Yugoslavia should improve monitoring, especially at the republic level.FR Yugoslavia will need assistance with methodologies for monitoringand systems of indicators.

The FR Yugoslavia regime for protected areas needs to be revised inaccordance with IUCN categories.

FR Yugoslavia has a new law on GMOs – it needs to be analysed againstthe Cartagena Protocol with an eye towards possible accession.

Authorities must make use of local knowledge bases, especially concerningagricultural biodiversity (organic, low-intensity varieties, etc) with a viewtowards sustainable use.

Better data collection, especially with respect to major biological resources(e.g., forests and waterways) is required.

Urgent action needs to be taken to protect certain species and ecosystemsof high biodiversity value, without waiting for plans, programmes andlegislation.

There was support for FR Yugoslavia to invite recommendations fromthe World Bank to complete its NEAP.

32

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

9.1 Introduction

he Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses andInternational Lakes is intended to strengthen national measures for theprotection and ecologically sound management of transboundary surface waters

and ground-waters. It obliges Parties to prevent, control and reduce water pollutionfrom point and non-point sources. It also includes provisions for monitoring, researchand development, consultations, warning and alarm systems, mutual assistance,institutional arrangements, and the exchange and protection of information, as wellas public access to information.


As of January 2002, FR Yugoslavia was not a party to the convention. However,there is interest in ratifying the convention based on past accidents with transboundarywater impacts (e.g. the case of the cyanide spill in Romania was instructive).


Approximately 30 participants attended the working group. Their recommendationscan be divided into four sections:

1. Bilateral Agreements

In the field of water management and protection, bilateral agreementsshould be made operational as soon as possible. Existing bilateralagreements should be revised and modernized, including those withAlbania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. There is also a need to establishagreements with FYR of Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.

It is recommended that the Republics be enabled to establish bilateraltransboundary cooperation arrangements where they have specificinterests. As is the case for all international agreements, ratification isneeded for this convention at the federal level. In the absence of federalaction, the republics should take initiative by sending a letter of intent to

UNECE CONVENTION ON THEPROTECTION AND USE OF

TRANSBOUNDARYWATERCOURSES AND

INTERNATIONAL LAKES ANDITS PROTOCOLS

T

33

9U

NEC

E Convention on the Protection and U

se of TransboundaryW

atercourses and International Lakes and its Protocolsthe Federal Authorities requesting action with respect to ratification.

2. Pilot Projects for Monitoring and Assessment

Pilot projects are urgently needed for monitoring and assessment. Projectscan be started without waiting for the formal establishment of bilateralagreements, commissions or the ratification of the convention. Suchprojects would likely lead to increased international assistance andcooperation. Three projects have been recommended:• Two concerning transboundary waters of Serbia. The first project

concerns the Zlatica and Begej Rivers with Romania, and the secondproject concerns the Bosut River with Croatia.

• One concerning transboundary waters of Montenegro shared withAlbania. These include the lake of Skadar and the Bojana River,including the corresponding groundwaters.

3. Pollution Reduction and Control

Pollution of water resources is occurring from both point (e.g. industrial) andnon-point (e.g. agricultural) sources of pollution. It is important to recognizethat reducing pollution is a tedious, long-term challenge and task. Experiencefrom other countries shows that it requires efforts mainly at the national level.The greatest investments will have to come from national resources.International assistance may also be provided through credits or grants.

To obtain international financing, a country must establish national prioritiesin terms of key hot spots. The identification of hot spots should be part of anoverall strategy. For water, however, the strategy should cover a broader waterbasin. In FR Yugoslavia, this should be done in the framework of the DanubeRiver Protection Convention. Similar efforts are recommended for thecatchment area of the Adriatic. Active participation in the Adriatic IonianInitiative is recommended that should stress the development of a water andenvironment protection programme.

4. Flood and Accident Prevention

Flood and accident prevention should receive important attention in thenational strategy for water protection and management.

34

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

10.1Introduction

he Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements ofHazardous Wastes and their Disposal was adopted in 1989 and entered intoforce on May 5, 1992. As of 20 April 2001, 145 countries and the European

Union are Parties to the Convention.

The Convention is the response of the international community to the problems causedby worldwide production of wastes which are hazardous to people or the environmentbecause they are toxic, poisonous, explosive, corrosive, flammable, eco-toxic, orinfectious. The Convention grew from concerns over shipments of hazardous wastesfrom industrialized countries to developing countries and was principally devoted tosetting up a control system for transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, basedon prior written notification.

Overall the Convention provides a framework for identification, notification, controland environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes. The key objectives ofthe Basel Convention are that:

hazardous wastes should be treated and disposed of as close as possible towhere they are produced;

transboundary movements of hazardous wastes should be reduced to aminimum consistent with their environmentally sound management;

hazardous waste generation should be reduced and minimized at source;

The Basel Convention rests on two pillars: the notification and control system; andhazardous wastes management. The two pillars depend on each other for fullimplementation of the Convention’s objective.

The Notification and Control System

The Basel Convention has set up a very strict control system, based on the priorwritten consent procedure to be followed before a transboundary movement ofhazardous wastes between Parties to the Convention can take place.

The procedure for the notification of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes

UNEP BASEL CONVENTIONON TRANSBOUNDARY

MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUSWASTES AND THEIR

DISPOSAL

T

35

10U

NEP B

asel Convention on Transboundary M

ovement of

Hazardous W

astes and Their Disposal

or other wastes forms the basis of the control system of the Basel Convention. Oneimportant condition under the Basel Convention is that the transboundary movementof hazardous wastes or other wastes can take place only upon prior written notificationto the competent authorities of the States of export, import and transit (if appropriate),and upon consent from these authorities permitting the transboundary movement ofwaste. Furthermore each shipment of hazardous waste or other waste must beaccompanied by a movement document from the point at which a transboundarymovement begins to the point of disposal. Hazardous waste shipments made withoutsuch documents are illegal. In addition, there are outright bans on the export of thesewastes to certain countries.

Hazardous Wastes Management

The second pillar of the Basel Convention is hazardous wastes management.Environmentally sound management is defined in the Convention as: “taking allpracticable steps to ensure that hazardous wastes and other wastes are managed in amanner which will protect human health and the environment against adverse effectswhich may result from such wastes”.

What does “taking all practicable steps mean”?

An obligation to reduce hazardous wastes generation

An obligation for self-sufficiency

An obligation for reducing transboundary movements

The criteria to assess environmentally sound management include:

the existence of a regulatory infrastructure and enforcement that ensurescompliance with applicable regulations

sites or facilities are authorized and of an adequate standard of technologyand pollution control to deal with hazardous wastes

operators of sites or facilities at which hazardous wastes are managed arerequired to monitor the effects of those activities

action is taken in cases where monitoring indicates that the management ofhazardous wastes has resulted in unacceptable emissions

persons involved in the management of hazardous wastes are capable andadequately trained.

The general provisions make it clear that the Convention is a floor, not a ceiling.Parties may thus introduce broader measures on hazardous wastes shipments andmanagement than those contained in the Convention.

36

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions


FR Yugoslavia became a party to the convention on 18 April 2000. The convention iscurrently in an advanced state of implementation, relative to other conventions, butadditional capacity building is still required. There is a high level of in-countryexpertise with regard to the provisions of the Basel Convention, and capacity buildingassistance has been provided by the Bratislava Regional Center for Training andTechnology Transfer for the Environmentally Sound Management of HazardousWastes and the Minimization of their Generation.



Need for further training at regional and national levels;

Need for clarification on the status and implications of the Ban amendmentat the national level;

Need for technical assistance/guidelines/case study/pilot projects on HWcontaminated land;

Need for pilot projects on HW management (on selected HW streams, e.g.industrial, medical, agriculture wastes and/or subjects insurance, wastecharacterization);

Assistance in building up action plan/strategy for Environmentally SoundManagement of Hazardous Wastes (ESM) in the country (legally, databasesfor inventories, technically) in the scope of BC implementation;

Need for development of new legislation, as well as harmonization of wastelegislation and regulations at the federal and the republic levels;

Cross-sector issues, such as prevention and repression of illegal traffic aswell as the strengthening of enforcement capacity, should be addressed at thenational and regional levels, and joint activities by related Conventions willbe welcome. Such activities should include training of customs, inspectors,police and enforcement personnel;

Assistance in addressing legal issues has been requested from the SBC, theRegional Training Center and the Joint Environmental Law Serviceconsortium of UNEP/ROE and REC;

Need to consider Regional HW Strategy in the Balkans Region / SEE Region,because countries could benefit from economies of scale in cooperating inthe development of environmentally sound management strategies for all HWstreams;

Need for institutional and technical assistance for strengthening

37

10U

NEP B

asel Convention on Transboundary M

ovement of

Hazardous W

astes and Their Disposal

administrations (for notification, as well as for HW management) and forwaste characterization;

The Republic level should be included as competent authorities for HWM,and cooperation in transmission and management of information with theexisting Focal Point at the federal level and competent authorities should befurther strengthened;

Assistance should be provided to facilitate the export and final disposal ofHW generated at Zastava factory/Kragujevac;

Need for the strengthening of public participation in decision-making, aswell as access to information relating to hazardous waste management;

A special study should be conducted addressing the question of financingHW management and the implementation of the polluter pays principle.

38

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

11.1 Introduction

he purpose of the panel discussion was to allow a selection of moderators andspeakers from the working groups to present information and debate a numberof key issues faced by MEAs. These issues included: characteristics shared by

the conventions, coordination and synergies, and integration with other legislativeframeworks. The following sections attempt to capture the main points that weremade.

11.2 Joint Issues Shared By All the Conventions

The eight conventions addressed during the workshop are not all of the same type orfrom the same time. Yet, despite their differences, they share the followingcharacteristics:

All share precautionary principle and principle of prevention. Each conventionis therefore an important instrument of conflict prevention.

Each convention has important implications for national environmentalmanagement and protection.

Many conventions focus on transboundary issues, making implementationand, in particular, enforcement and border control, a cross-cutting issue.

The issue of civil liability is central for all transboundary impacts but it hasnot been elaborated in all conventions. However, there is increasing pressureto address it in the future.

Mechanisms for settling disputes are also addressed by many of theconventions. These provisions are important for promoting security andregional cooperation.

An important common element for all conventions is public participation.This is a key element of success for any convention both at the national leveland also in a transboundary context. This principle has been fully elaboratedand anchored in the most recent environmental instrument, the Aarhus con-vention (to be discussed at a separate workshop).

All Conventions share the need to establish inventories. Taking stock ofsources of pollution, and of hazardous installations that could cause accidentsshould be done in a coordinated way in order to create synergies for reducingimpacts.

PANEL DISCUSSION

T

39

11Panel D

iscussionAll Conventions include reporting requirements where future joint capacitybuilding activities could be undertaken.

11.3 Coordination and Synergies

Coordination in the implementation of all conventions is desirable in order to createsynergies and avoid duplications. This workshop has demonstrated the need forconventions, which address similar themes, to work jointly to tackle common issues.For example, conventions relating to chemicals must work together to develop anintegrated system for chemical management. Conventions with trade related themes(e.g. CITES and BASEL) must exploit synergies during the training of customs of-ficers and border guards and in the development of information management systems.Other important potential synergies identified during the workshop include:

UNECE has conventions on safe transport of dangerous materials. Thisis important both for the POPs and Basel Conventions.

The Ramsar Convention and the ECE Water Convention have importantrelationships, especially in the management and protection of estuaries.

The relationships of the POPs and Basel Conventions with the RotterdamPrior Informed Consent (PIC) Convention should lead to strongercooperation in the future, including in the field of training.

There are relationships between the POPs convention and the POPsprotocol of the LRTAP convention, as well as between POPs and BaselConvention.

The EIA Convention addresses the issues and procedures to be followedwhen new activities are proposed and is therefore related to TEIA, Waterand Air conventions. As a result there are cross references included in thetexts of the conventions.

There is a need for improved implementation of MEA legislation, meaningthat the ongoing legislative reform should take into account the provisionsof all MEAs ratified or to be ratified.

All Conventions require further institutional strengthening at all levelsand capacity building in this respect. Also, institutional strengthening isurgently required to improve enforcement of laws/policies, where furtherjoint capacity building activities would be highly beneficial.

There is an urgent need to raise awareness about the Conventions, MEAsand environmental law in general. There is a need for improved access toenvironmental justice, concerning the topics of all Conventions involved.

11.4 Integration With Other Legislative Frameworks

One of the greatest problems involving implementation of MEAs concerns the

40

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

obligations of the Parties to the conventions and the relationship to EU standards.Within this complex national and international legal framework, it is difficult to setpriorities for a country that was excluded for so long. There are many key questionsregarding the relationship between the UNEP and UNECE conventions and bothnational, republican and EU legislation that need to be addressed. What is the utilityof all the international agreements given the existence of EU environmentallegislation? How can national legislation be adopted and implemented by republicangovernments? How can successful enforcement be achieved? Who pays for it all?

Implementation of the conventions is the principal responsibility of the signatorycountry. While it can be assisted by international institutions or through bilateraldonor arrangements, 90% of the work falls on the national level. Yet on the groundimplementation is usually conducted at the levels of government that are closer tothe people.

To assist the process of MEA implementation, the Stability Pact for Southern andEastern Europe has initiated the AIMS Project (Acceptance and Implementation ofMultilateral Environmental Agreements in South Eastern Europe). The programmecovers 7 countries, is implemented by REC in cooperation with UNEP, UNECE andothers, and is funded by the Government of the Netherlands.

Under AIMS, an in-depth assessment of acceptance and implementation of MEAs inYugoslavia by a team of legal experts is under preparation and expected to be finishedby 15 February 2002. In parallel, the government of FR Yugoslavia is establishing aNational Advisory Group with multi-stakeholder participation to establish nationalpriorities for MEA development and to review the Legal Expert’s report. This processshould take place from now until end of March 2002. A regional meeting of legalexperts and senior officials will be held in Bulgaria in approximately late April/earlyMay 2002 to review the 7 country findings and plan possible regional and nationalactivities. UNEP and UNECE are invited to participate in this meeting. All of theseactivities are taking place in the context of the Joint Environmental Law Serviceconsortium established by UNEP-ROE, IUCN and REC.

Following the assessment phase (beginning in 2002), sub-regional and nationalprogrammes will be planned in collaboration with international organizations andconvention secretariats, based on the results of the national assessments. Theseactivities can be partially or fully funded through the AIMS Project. Therecommendations provided by this workshop will undoubtedly facilitate this process.

The workshop welcomed and acknowledged the potential importance of the AIMSProject and considered that the Country Report (under preparation by Legal ExpertDragoljub Todic by 15 February 2002) would be a major contribution to the assessmentof existing conditions, needs and challenges with respect to acceptance andimplementation of MEAs (including those considered in this Workshop) in FRYugoslavia.

The workshop took note of the requirement to establish a National AdvisoryCommittee with multi-stakeholder involvement under the AIMS Project to assist inthe establishment of priorities for acceptance and implementation of MEAs in FRYugoslavia, and pledged to support the National Advisory Committee in its work.

41

11Panel D

iscussionRegarding the relationship between EU legislation and the UNEP and UNECE MEAs,it is commonly accepted that these different legal instruments are actually mutuallyreinforcing. This means that on the one hand, MEA implementation is usually goodpreparation for EU approximation (taking into account that the EU has adhered tomost of the MEAs and therefore EU legal acts are in line with MEAs provisions). Onthe other hand and for the same reasons, ongoing EU-approximation is also improvingimplementation of MEAs at the national/regional levels. However, it should be notedthat sometimes EU acts have different / complementary provisions from MEAs, andthe same is true vice-versa. Nevertheless, it can be noted that so far countries in apost-conflict situation have often relied on MEA implementation as a first step toimprove environmental governance and to prepare for future EU-integration.

On the basis of all presentations from UNEP and UNECE and local experts, thepriority tasks and activities for European Integration of FR Yugoslavia may be dividedinto two areas:

Activities and tasks focussed on FR Yugoslavia:

Improvement of data collection and monitoring;

Pollution reduction and prevention methods.

Activities and tasks focussed on European integration:

Signing and ratification of conventions and protocols;

Institutional strengthening for their implementation;

Strengthening of relations between FR Yugoslavia and internationalorganisations and programmes involved in environmental protection andsustainable development.

42

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

12.1 Concluding Remarks

he Workshop has been an important step in the re-integration of FR Yugoslaviainto the international environmental community. It represents a cornerstonefor the new cooperation between FR Yugoslavia and the international

community regarding environmental management and protection. Despite someinternal challenges the country is facing, very good cooperation was achieved betweenthe Republic and Federal levels for the preparation of this workshop. 120 participantswere registered in the workshop. Participants included representatives of all keyministries of the Republic of Serbia, Ministry of the Environment of the Republic ofMontenegro, local authorities, industry, NGOs, media as well as scientific expertorganisations.

The experts in FR Yugoslavia have been working for the past decade in severeisolation. In spite of that, they have demonstrated good knowledge, motivation anda deep understanding of the problems. Thus, there is an excellent basis to moveforward at a rapid pace, with assistance from the international community. Despitevarious institutional / political differences that were mentioned throughout theworkshop, the sense of responsibility between all the professionals allowed eachworking group to quickly reach a good consensus on how to achieve goals.

The workshop has shown that international agreements are inter-linked and that thesuccessful implementation of them requires close co-operation between various sectorsand levels of authorities and stakeholders. As such, the workshop was a huge stepforward for implementing and transforming conventions into practice.

Despite the excellent first steps that have been taken, the implementation of theMEAs in FR Yugoslavia will be a challenging task. It will be essential to build on theexisting positive driving forces while at the same time minimizing the influence ofnumerous potential threats. The following section discusses these critical issues andprovides a road map for success:

12.2 Findings - Positive Driving Forces

International Assistance & Cooperation: The revitalised internationalcooperation with FR Yugoslavia is gaining momentum and a number ofinitiatives are progressing. While the focus of international assistance is noton environmental issues only, increased co-operation is benefitingenvironmental recovery, as well. This process will enable FR Yugoslaviaenvironmental authorities to address more efficiently transboundaryenvironmental issues and to seek additional resources for environmentalmanagement and environmental technology.

Workshop Findings andConcluding Remarks by the

Co-Chairs

T

43

12W

orkshop Findings and Concluding R

emarks by the C

o-Chairs

Plans to Establish the Serbian Ministry of Environment: The governmentof the Serbian Republic has committed itself to establishing a Ministry forEnvironment. The Ministry would enable bringing environmental issues backonto the national political agenda and raising the priority of sustainabledevelopment.

Political Backing for National Environmental Priorities: The currentpolitical priorities in the Republic of Serbia have wide political support.Subsequently, the implementation of the key environmental programmesincluding the drafting and issuing of the new framework law on environmentshould have a constructive political climate.

Rich Biodiversity: In terms of natural biological diversity, FR Yugoslavia isone of the most important geographic areas in Europe. It is home to a wealthof species that is matched by few other European countries. The nine nationalparks and other valuable areas cover more than 400,000 hectares. It is ofparamount importance that this type of biodiversity is protected and managedin a sustainable way.

Strong Expertise – Environmental Community: FR Yugoslavia has a verylarge environmental community starting from scientific institutions but alsoincluding a number of environmental NGOs. This resource base is certainlyproviding the capacity needed to achieve the goals of the environmentalpolicies.

12.3 Findings – Potential Threats

Heavy Industry: The industry of the country is in many cases using outdatedtechnology and the environmental management is not upgraded to meetEuropean standards. The needs for modernisation and repairs must be donein such a way that environmental concerns are taken into account. The lawon pollution standards and permits should be developed so that there will berapid improvement to the state of the industrialised areas. However, theauthorities must allow step-wise improvements and possibilities for flexiblemechanisms should be carefully considered.

Privatisation: The on-going privatisation process may overlookenvironmental liabilities while pricing and settling arrangements. It isimportant to analyse environmental responsibilities, risks and remediationneeds not only in accordance with the current law but also understanding theevident improvements in standards and pollution permits.

Consumption Patterns: During the expected phase of economic recoveryconsumption patterns tend to move in more unsustainable directions. Earlyintegration of environmental considerations into other sectors (energy,transport, agriculture etc.) policies will enable timely management of issueslike waste and water resources.

Enforcement Capacity: The environmental authorities do not have a strong

44

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

position in enforcement. The enforcement capacity must be updated to meetthe needs of the environmental policies and expected standards. If theinspectorates, public courts and other civil control mechanisms cannot controland guide the adherence to the standards, the new policies might lead todegradation of the rule of law.

National Investment Strategy and Priorities: The current priorities of theGovernment of the Republic of Serbia do not place high priority on the needfor environmental investments. Consequently, donor funds are beingchannelled to other priority areas.

12.4 Road Map for Success

Cross-sector Co-operation – Integration: Environmental issues can neverbe implemented by the environmental sector only. In addition to theestablishment of the respected environmental authorities and equipping themwith adequate resources, successful environmental policy requires active co-operation with other sector policies.

Revitalization of international (regional) co-operation: Successful natureprotection requires co-operation with neighbouring countries. River basinmanagement initiatives as well as biodiversity strategies are in progress.Regional environmental strategies and full application of internationalenvironmental standards will also help to give better guidance to nationalpolicies on economic recovery and investments.

Greening the Investment Strategy: As a short-term priority environmentalissues must be well placed in the national investment agenda. Otherwise theresults of investments may lead to further risks for a degraded environment.In addition, the environmental hotspots of the country require urgent cleanupbefore any economic growth or healthy environment can be expected.

National Environmental Strategy including tools, targets: The FR Yugoslavia enjoys great political support of environmental issues. The nation-wideenvironmental thinking requires a strategic approach to set priorities and aimsso that the existing tools and mechanisms can be effectively used in reachinggoals within a targeted timetable. This strategy process should include activecommunication with various stakeholders in other sectors and levels ofauthorities as well as with the NGO community. In this respect, the roles andresponsibilities of different entities inside the Federation should be lookedupon to find workable long-term solutions.

45

AW

orkshop Evaluation by the Participants

n the final day of the workshop, a 2-page evaluation form was distributed toall 110 workshop participants. A total of 24 forms were received, representinga return rate of approximately 21%. The evaluation form was divided into

written comments with a section for scoring the content and quality of the workinggroups. A summary of the results from each section is included below:

Overall, responses indicated that the workshop was very well organized and of avery high quality. Specifically, it was noted that the power-point presentations werean extremely effective way of communicating complex information and facilitatingthe process of language translation. In addition, respondents highlighted the invaluablecontribution of the translated convention texts and also noted the high competenceof national and international participation and the excellent dynamics that took placeduring working group discussions. The key inadequacies sited in the responsesincluded the lack of time available for thorough discussions during the working groupsand breaks, and the poor quality of some of the audio equipment. Also, while UNECEpresentations successfully provided information on experiences and best practicesfrom other countries, UNEP presentations, in some cases, could have included moreconcrete examples in this area.

In terms of addressing key cross-cutting issues in each working group, the evaluationsindicated that implementation, enforcement and information management issues werewell covered, while information on sources of funding, and public participation wasinsufficient.

When asked how the workshop could have been improved, common suggestionsincluded distributing all information materials at least one week in advance of theworkshop, distributing copies of all power-point presentations during the workinggroups, distributing draft working group recommendations at the final plenary sessionand reducing the number of participants in the working groups in order to improvethe focus of discussions. A limited number of respondents also highlighted the needto improve information delivery on experiences and best-practices from othercountries. Some participants also recommended that the power-point presentationsshould be distributed to interested parties and also posted to a website for convenientdownloading.

Despite some of the minor issues that were noted, the majority of respondents foundthat the working group recommendations were practical and realistic, and that theworkshop either met or greatly exceeded their expectations. Almost all repliessuggested that the 3 day format of the workshop should stay the same and that theworkshop provided an excellent template from which to build on.

APPENDIX A

WORKSHOP EVALUATION BYTHE PARTICIPANTS

O

46

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

APPENDIX B

WORKSHOP PROGRAMMEDAY 1 – NOVEMBER 14

9:00 - 10:00

REGISTRATION Hotel Mladost, Belgrade, Main Entrance

10:00 – 11.30 (Open to Press)

OPENING PLENARY SESSION Co-chaired by Andjelka Mihajlov, Directorate for Environmental Protection of

Serbia (DEPS) and Pasi Rinne, UNEP Aleksanda Joksimović, FRY Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs Srdja Popović, Parliament of Serbia Kaj Barlund, UN/ECE Frits Schlingemann, UNEP

11:30 – 12:00

COFFEE BREAK

12:00 - 12:30

PROGRAMME INTRODUCTION Co-chaired by Andjelka Mihajlov, DEPS and Pasi Rinne, UNEP

Remarks from Co-chairs on goals and objectives of the workshop Introduction of work programme and working group methodology

12:30 - 14:00

LUNCH BREAK

14:00 - 15:30

TRACK 1 - WORKING GROUP 1: Convention on Long-Range

Transboundary Air Pollution and its protocols (1979)

(Note the POPs protocol of 1998 will be addressed in WG 8 on the UNEP POPs Stockholm Convention)

Speaker 1: Henning Wuester, UN/ECE Speaker 2: Richard Ballaman, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape. Air Pollution Control Division Speaker 3: Branka Andric Speaker 4: Pavle Djuraskovic

TRACK 2 - WORKING GROUP 2: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and

Fauna (1975) Speaker 1: Stephen Nash, UNEP Speaker 2: Gordana Petkovic Speaker 3: Lidija Amidzic Speaker 4: Zlatko Bulic

15:30 - 16:00

COFFEE BREAK

16:00 - 17:30

Debate and Recommendations for Working Group 1

Moderators: Branko Bosnjakovic and Dragoljub Todic Rapporteur 1: Henning Wuester Rapporteur 2: Branka Andric


Moderators: Stephen Nash and Gordana Petkovic Rapporteur 1: Steve Stec Rapporteurs 2: Lidija Amidzic and Zlatko Bulic

20:00 – 23:00

Night Event – Dinner in old town of Belgrade

Rapporteured by Branko Bosnjakovic, UNECE and Harald Egerer, UNEP

47

BW

orkshop Programm

e

DAY 2 – NOVEMBER 15 ````````````````````` 9:00 - 10:00

PLENARY SESSION Co-chaired by Andjelka Mihajlov, DEPS and Pasi Rinne, UNEP

Presentation of recommendations from working groups 1 and 2 Panel Discussion with moderators and rapporteurs from working groups 1 and 2

10:00 - 11:30

TRACK 1 - WORKING GROUP 3: Convention on Environmental Impact

Assessment in a Transboundary Context (1991)

Speaker 1: Wiecher Schrage, UN/ECE Speaker 2: Dragoljub Todic/ Gordana Petkovic Speaker 3: Aleksandar Vesic/Bratislav Krstic

TRACK 2 - WORKING GROUP 4: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001) & POPs

protocol of UN/ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

Speaker 1: Garislav Shkolenok, UNEP Speaker 2: Henning Wuester, UN/ECE Speaker 3: Richard Ballaman, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape. Air Pollution Control Division Speaker 4: Andjelka Mihajlov

11:30 - 12:00

COFFEE BREAK

12:00 - 13:30


Moderators: Branko Bosnjakovic and Gordana Petkovic Rapporteur 1: Wiecher Schrage Rapporteurs 2: Gordana Petkovic and Aleksandar Vesic


Moderator: Garislav Shkolenok Rapporteur 1: Steve Stec Rapporteur 2: Andjelka Mihajlov

13:30 - 14:30

LUNCH BREAK

14:30 - 16:00

TRACK 1 - WORKING GROUP 5: The Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (1992)

Speaker 1: Branko Bosnjakovic, UN/ECE Speaker 2: Lajos Katai-Urdan, National Directorate for Disaster Management, Hungarian Ministry of Interior Speaker 3: Slobodan Tosovic

TRACK 2 – WORKING GROUP 6: Biodiversity Convention (1992) and other

biodiversity-related agreements Speaker 1: Alla Metelitsa, UNEP Speaker 2: Andreas Streit, UNEP Speakers 3: Voislav Vasic Speaker 4: Vladimir Stevanovic

16:00 - 16:30

COFFEE BREAK

16:30 - 18:00


Moderators: Branko Bosnjakovic and Dragoljub Todic Rapporteur 1: Slobodan Tosovic


Moderators: Alla Metelitsa and Gordana Petkovic Rapporteur 1: Steve Stec Rapporteur 2: Vladimir Stevanovic


48

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

DAY 3 – NOVEMBER 16

8:30 – 9:45


Presentations of recommendations from working groups 3,4,5,6 Panel Discussion with moderators and rapporteurs from working groups 3,4,5,6

9:45 - 11:15

TRACK 1 - WORKING GROUP 7: The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses

and International Lakes and its protocols (1992)

Speaker 1: Branko Bošnjaković, UN/ECE Speaker 2: Zsuzsa Buzàs, Hungarian Ministry of Transport and Water Management Speaker 3: Slavko Bogdanovic/Dijana Markovic Bajalovic Speaker 4: Ana Misurovic

TRACK 2 - WORKING GROUP 8: Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

(1992) Speaker 1: Vincent Jugault, UNEP Speaker 2: Gordana Petkovic Speaker 3: Vladica Cudic

11:15 - 11:30

COFFEE BREAK

11:30 - 13:00


Moderators: Branko Bosnjakovic and Dragoljub Todic Rapporteur 1: Bo Libert Rapporteur 2: Dijana Markovic Bajalovic and Ana Misurovic


Moderators: Vincent Jugault and Gordana Petkovic Rapporteur 1: Juraj Silvan Rapporteur 2: Vladica Cudic

13:00 - 13:45


Presentation of recommendations from working groups 7 and 8 Panel Discussion with moderators and rapporteurs from working groups 7 and 8

13:45 - 14:30

LUNCH BREAK

14:30 - 15:45

PANEL DISCUSSION Chaired by Bo Libert, UN/ECE

The proposed purpose of the panel is assemble representatives from each of the working groups, as well as high-level government representatives in order to discuss working group recommendations, the environmental agenda of the FRY and the role international conventions will play in the implementation of the agenda.

15:45 – 16:30 (open to press)

CLOSING REMARKS Co-chaired by Andjelka Mihajlov, DEPS and Pasi Rinne, UNEP

Representatives from UNEP and UNECE. Representatives from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Republic of Serbia and Republic of Montenegro. Closing ceremony with dissemination of workshop certificates and collection of workshop evaluations.



49

CList of Participants

UNEP REPRESENTATIVES

Frits Schlingemann, Director, Regional Office for EuropePasi Rinne, Senior Advisor, Post-Conflict Assessment UnitAlla Metelitsa, Biodiversity Specialist, Regional Office for EuropeHarald Egerer, Legal Advisor, Regional Office for EuropeDavid Jensen, Information and Research Officer, Post-Conflict Assessment UnitAndreas Streit, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of WildAnimals and the AgreementGarislav Shkolenok, Senior Scientific Affairs Officer, Stockholm POPs Conven-tion on the Conservation of Bats in EuropeJuraj Silvan, Basel Convention Regional Center for Central and Eastern Europe,BratislavaStephen V. Nash, Chief, Capacity Building Unit, CITES SecretariatVincent Jugault, Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of HazardousWastes and Their Disposal

UNECE REPRESENTATIVES

Kaj Barlund, Director, Environment and Human Settlements DivisionBo Libert, Regional Advisor, Environment and Human Settlements DivisionBranko Bosnjakovic, Former Regional Advisor, Environment and HumanSettlements DivisionHenning Wuester, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and itsProtocolsWiecher Schrage, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in aTransboundary Context

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTICIPANTS

Richard Ballaman, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape, AirPollution Control DivisionLajos Katai-Urban, National Directorate for Disaster Management, HungarianMinistry of InteriorZsuzsa Buzàs, Hungarian Ministry of Transport and Water ManagementSusan Legro, UNDPRadomir Buric, UNDP BelgradeArcadie Capcelea, World BankMira Mileva, RECSteve Stec, RECDusan Vasiljevic, OSCE BelgradeMelisa Mujezinovic Katana, BiH - Federal Ministry for Urban Planning andEnvironment - Sarajevo

APPENDIX C

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

50

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

Radoje Lauševic, REC – Belgrade OfficeSrdjan Sušic, REC – Belgrade OfficeMiloš Katic, REC – Belgrade OfficeBranka Stojadinovic, NEAP Directorate – Banja Luka, Republika Srpska – BiHSnezana Dragojevic, REC - Podgorica

FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS

Ljiljana Tabas, Federal Ministry of Foreign AffairsJovan Milic, Federal Ministry for Economy and TradeGordana Knezevic, Federal Ministry for Economy and TradeVelizar Nikolic, Federal Ministry for Economy and TradeMiroslav Kukobat, Federal Ministry for Economy and TradeMira Mazibrada, Federal Ministry for DefenceProda Secerov, Federal Ministry for DefenceJasmina Dicic, Federal Custom OrganizationMileva Stefanovic, Federal Custom OrganizationAleksandra Baltic, Federal Minister for InteriorVerica Vukovic, Federal Secretariat for InformationSnezana Govedarica, Federal Secretariat for LawDragan Tripkovic, Federal Hydrometeorolorgical InstituteIvana Dercek, Federal Hydrometeorolorgical InstituteSteva Sekulic, Federal Institute for StandardizationMaja Jecmenica, Federal Institute for Genetic ResourcesDarko Lojen, Federal Institute for Genetic Resources

REPUBLIC OF SERBIA INSTITUTIONS

Siniša Mitrovic, Parliament of SerbiaSrdja Popovic, Parliament of SerbiaRadoje Cerovic, Parliament of SerbiaZivko Selakovic, Parliament of SerbiaLjiljana Sundac, Ministry for Agriculture, Waterworks and Forestry of SerbiaMilica Dobricic, Ministry for Urban Planning and Civil Engineering of SerbiaNebojša Stefanovic, Ministry for Urban Planning and Civil Engineering of SerbiaDragan Šikanja, Ministry for Interior of SerbiaAndjelka Mihajlov, Directorate for Environmental Protection of Serbia - Ministryfor Health and Environmental ProtectionAleksandar Vesic, Directorate for Environmental Protection of Serbia- Ministry forHealth and Environmental ProtectionBratislav Krstic, Directorate for Environmental Protection of Serbia - Ministry forHealth and Environmental ProtectionAnka Gopic, Secretariat for Law of SerbiaRadomir Mandic, Institute for Nature Protection of SerbiaSvetlana Nojkovic, Institute for Nature Protection of SerbiaJasminka Miloševic, Institute for Nature Protection of SerbiaLidija Amidzic, Institute for Nature Protection of SerbiaMihajlo Gavric, Hydrometeorological Institute of SerbiaNenad Matic, Hydrometeorological Institute of SerbiaRade Šarcevic, Agency for Recycling of Serbia

51


Stana Bijelovic, Agency for Recycling of SerbiaGordana Perovic, Agency for Recycling of SerbiaDejan Trifunovic, Serbian Chamber of CommerceMladen Vucinic, “Srbijavode”Dušan Jovic, “Srbijašume”

REPUBLIC OF MONTENEGRO INSTITUTIONS

Vasilije Buskovic, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning –PodgoricaIlija Radovic, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning – PodgoricaZlatko Bulic, Institute for Nature Protection of MontenegroPavle Djuraskovic, Institute for Hydrometeorology of MontenegroAna Misurovic, Center for Ecotoxicology of Montenegro

PROVINCE AND MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS

Ljiljana Conkic, Council of Province of VojvodinaBranislav Bozovic, Secretariat for Environment - City of BelgradeMirjana Gucic, Secretariat for Environment - City of BelgradeValentina Sterdjevic, Secretariat for Environment - City of BelgradeMirjana Popovic, Secretariat for Environment - City of BelgradeDejan Jovanov, Municipality ZrenjaninIvan Zafirovic, Municipality PancevoAndrija Tasic, Municipality of Niš

INSTITUTES, ACADEMIA AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Slobodan Tošovic, City Public Health Institute of BelgradeVladica Cudic, City Public Health Institute of BelgradeDragoslav Radukic, City Public Health Institute of BelgradeDragana Nikic, City Public Health Institute of NišRadmila Marjanov Panjevic, City Public Health Institute of SuboticaJelena Eiculic, City Bublich Health Institute ŠabacMirjana Kristiforovic Ilic, City Public Health Institute of Novi SadPredrag Simonovic, Faculty of Biology – BelgradeVladimir Stevanovic, Faculty of Biology – BelgradeIvica Radovic, Faculty of Biology – BelgradeSlavoljub Mijovic, Faculty for Natural Sciences - PodgoricaZoran Matovic, Faculty for Natural Sciences- KragujevacGoran Vujic, Faculty for Technical Sciences – Novi SadDejan Filipovic, Faculty for Geography – BelgradeVelimir Šecerov, Faculty for Geography – BelgradeBozidar Stojanovic, Institute for Urbanism and Architecture – BelgradeMiodrag Vujoševic, Institute for Urbanism and Architecture – BelgradeVid Vukasovic, Institute for International Policy and EconomyMina Zirojevic, Institute for International Policy and EconomyLjubiša Dabic, Institute for Comparative LawMila Korugic, Institute for Economy - BelgradeMilica Sovrlic, Institute “Kirilo Savic” – Belgrade

52

UN

EP and UN

ECE Environm

ental Conventions

Milena Jovacevic Stojanovic, Institute for Nuclear Sciences “Vinca” – BelgradeSlavica Raicevic, Institute for Nuclear Sciences “Vinca” – BelgradeMirjana Grbavcic, Institute for Nuclear and other Mineral Raw Materials BelgradePredrag Micic, Institute for Quality of Occupational and Environmental Protection May1st , NišStojadin Stajic, Institute for Quality of Occupational and Environmental ProtectionMay 1st , NišSnezana Belanovic, Faculty for Forestry, BelgradeRade Cvjeticanin, Faculty for Forestry, BelgradeMiodrag Zlatic, Faculty for Forestry, BelgradeVoislav Vasic, Nature Museum BelgradeMila Karas, Nature Museum BelgradeAleksandar Hegediš, Cener for Multidiscliplinary Studies BelgradeHristina Stevanovic Carapina “ENERGOPROJEKT – Industrija” BelgradeSlavko Bogdanovic, Yugoslav Association for Water LawGordana Petkovic, Yugoslav Association for Water LawDragoljub Todic, Yugoslav Association for Water LawSlovenko Grgurevic, Institute for Economical Science BelgradeMilijana Cvejic, Institute for Forestry BelgradeMilutin Drazic, Institute for Forestry BelgradeMeri Kuzmanovic, Institute for Forestry Belgrade

INDUSTRY

Zrinka Zbogar, EPS – “Elektroprivreda Srbije”Emilija Boti Raicevic, EPS – “Elektroprivreda Srbije”Rajko Tomanovic, “NIS” Novi SadLjubomir Mirkov, NIS Rafinery PancevoKosovka Macuzic,”Zastava- Center for Occupation and Environmental Safety”-KragujevacDragan Stankovic. “NIS-Refinery Belgrade”Vukoman Sekulic, Belgrade Waterworks

NGO REPRESENTATIVES

Mira Milijic, NGOTanja Nikolic, NGOSreten Djordjevic, NGOMilica Kacarevic, Association for Clean Air

MEDIA

Biljana Popovic-Milic, RTS – Radio and TV of SerbiaMilena Babic – RTS - Radio and TV of SerbiaSvetlana Beara - “Politika”

INDEPENDENT EXPERTS

Dragan IgrutinovicVida CohBranka Andric

53


OBSERVERS

Dragoslava Jakovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - BelgradeSnezana Prokic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - BelgradeLjiljana Pekovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - BelgradeRadoslava Jovanovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - BelgradeBlagica Budimir, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia –BelgradeSlavica Lekic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia –BelgradeDušanka Stanojevic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeMarko Šimurina, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeValentina Mileusnic-Vucic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia –BelgradeAngelina Milosavljevic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – KruševacLjiljana Marjanovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – KruševacLjilja Marinkovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – KruševacSlaviša Bankovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – NišAleksandar Cvetkovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - NišDragana Šelmic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - NišJadranka Stankovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - NišVinka Aleksic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – ŠabacDragan Nenadovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – ŠabacLjiljana Stanojevic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – ŠabacMirjana Kastratovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – Novi SadIgor Vavic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – Novi SadStevan Sekulic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – SuboticaSlavica Konotarevic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeSrbislava Lazin-Ilic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeGordana Brun, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeIgor Marjanovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeDušan Cvijovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeLjubomir Malezanovic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia – BelgradeVelibor Gerzic, Directorate of Environmental Protection of Serbia - BelgradeDijana Spasojevic, Office of High Representative, Banja Luka, Bosnia

SUPPORTING STAFF AND ORGANIZATION

Marija Kovacevic Stevan StarcevicVerica Curcic Nikola PajcinSvetlana Djurica Vesna PanicZeljko Pantelic Association for Water Technology and SanitaryTereza Brajovic Engineering BelgradeSladjana Musulin Milica Risojevic

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

Andjelka Mihajlov, SMHEP Coordination of national contributionsHarald Egerer, UNEP Coordination of UNEP contributionsBranko Bosnjakovic, UNECE Coordination of UNECE contributionsDavid Jensen, UNEP Report organization and layoutCaitlin Brannan, UNEP Editing and proofing

Documents

UNEP and UNECE Environmental ... - Basel Conventionarchive.basel.int/centers/workshop proceedings final draft 18 03 200… · boundary Watercourses and International Lakes and its