1. 1 OECD Environment Directorate Regulatory Environmental Programme Implementation Network (REPIN) of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia : Progress in 2003-2004 Angela BULARGA OECD Environment Directorate www.oecd.org/env/eap EAP TASK FORCE

2. 2 OECD Environment Directorate OBJECTIVES OF NETWORKING Improving enforcement agencies and instruments, based on best international practice Re-shaping relations with the regulated community and the general public Transferring knowledge and skills, and developing guidelines and methodology papers Stimulating international co-operation, including joint actions

3. 3 OECD Environment Directorate 1.2 Environmental Quality Standards 1.2 Environmental Quality Standards 1.1 Environmental Permitting 1.1 Environmental Permitting 1.3 Economic Instruments 1.3 Economic Instruments 2.1 Economics of Enforcement and Compliance 2.1 Economics of Enforcement and Compliance 2.3. Self- Monitoring 2.3. Self- Monitoring 2.2 Information Based Instruments 2.2 Information Based Instruments 3.1 Peer Reviews 3.2 Enforcement and Compliance Indicators 3.2 Enforcement and Compliance Indicators 3.3 Capacity Building 3.3 Capacity Building 2003-2006 Work Programme 1. Environmental Policy Instruments 2. Enforcement Strategies and Instruments 3. Enforcement Institutions

4. 4 OECD Environment Directorate 1.1 PERMITTING GUIDELINES: MAIN ELEMENTS Introduction and summary of the main elements Integrated permitting procedure for a competent environmental authority Permit application form with instructions for operators of industrial installations Integrated environmental permit form with instructions for a competent authority Guidance on the combined approach in setting ELVs in permits Guidance on the strategy for transition to integrated permitting To be developed: Guidance on permitting for SMEs (Expert Meeting in January-February 2005 in Moscow)

5. 5 OECD Environment Directorate 2.1 PROJECT ON INSPECTORATE FINANCING Comprehensive questionnaire sent to members of IMPEL, BERCEN and INECE Networks Additional information used No attempt to compare absolute figures Draft report developed by the Institute for European Environmental Policy Expert meeting conducted on 4-5 May 2004, with participation of five EECCA countries Results presented to IMPEL network Plans to study the feasibility of international practice in EECCA

6. 6 OECD Environment Directorate 2.1 STRUCTURE OF THE FINANCING REPORT Background Principles of financing environmental enforcement authorities and nature of inspectorates Sources of funding Allocation of funds to various activities Budgeting and estimating the budget deficit Addressing the budget/resource deficit Conclusions and recommendations

7. 7 OECD Environment Directorate 2.2 PRIDE SCHEME Performance Rating and Information Disclosure (PRIDE) scheme: allows to rate firms’ environmental performance on the basis of carefully specified criteria rating from best to worst in five colours: green, blue, yellow, red and black.

8. 8 OECD Environment Directorate BLUE YELLOW RED BLACK No pollution control effort, serious environmental damage Clean technology, waste minimization, pollution prevention Efforts don’t meet standards Efforts meet some minimum standards Most standards met, good maintenance, housekeeping GREEN 2.2 PRIDE CRITERIA PERFORMANCE LEVELS

9. 9 OECD Environment Directorate 2.2 PRIDE PROCESS rating based on existing monitoring and inspection information after verification results disseminated to the public through the mass media. periodically reviewed and updated which allows enterprises to be re-categorised

10. 10 OECD Environment Directorate 2.2 REPIN ACTIVITIES The programme has been successfully applied in Indonesia, India, China and Vietnam, some experience from Poland. EECCA countries expressed an interest in extending the programme to their region Analysis that the performance rating which exists in Ukraine would benefit from reforming using PRIDE as reference Discussion with the Ukrainian regional authorities in the city of Lviv to implement technical assistance project

11. 11 OECD Environment Directorate 2.3 PILOT PROJECT ON SELF-MONITORING Pilot country: Kazakhstan Know-how transfer and capacity building –EU experience presented at a national meeting in November 2003 –Study visit to Finland Regulatory changes –The Chapter on Self-Monitoring was drafted for the Environmental Code –Technical Guide on Self-monitoring Stakeholder consultations –Meeting in Atyrau in July 2004 –Written comments from industry

12. 12 OECD Environment Directorate 2.3 SOURCES OF GOOD PRACTICE EU community environmental legislation and guidance documents –IPPC Directive –Monitoring BREF –IMPEL Network documents –Individual countries experience (Finland, Norway, Ireland, UK, Estonia, France) North American experience: Environment Canada and USEPA EECCA countries experience Other international experience (INECE Network)

13. 13 OECD Environment Directorate 2.3 OUTLINE OF THE GUIDE Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: General considerations Chapter 3: Designing self-monitoring programmes Chapter 4: Data production chain Chapter 5: Reporting and record keeping Chapter 6: Medium-specific particularities Chapter 7: Self-inspection, compliance assessment and enforcement

14. 14 OECD Environment Directorate 3.1 PEER REVIEW SCHEME Establish a mechanism that would: –examine current instruments, strategies and institutions in light of good international practice and –exercise international peer pressure and generate support to strengthen compliance assurance systems in reviewed countries Performance is assessed against the recommendations of the “Guiding Principles for Reform of Environmental Enforcement Authorities in Transition Economies of EECCA”

15. 15 OECD Environment Directorate 3.1 KYRGYZ PEER REVIEW: BASELINE IN A NUTSHELL Development of a extensive legal framework over the last decade –The legal basis for environment protection is provided by the Constitution and more than 150 primary and secondary legal acts Serious problems in the design and operation of the environmental compliance assurance system in Kyrgyzstan

16. 16 OECD Environment Directorate 3.1 KEY PROBLEMS IN KYRGYZSTAN Focus on revenue raising rather than on the environment Frequent reforms of the environmental authority without a clear vision of strategic objectives Regulatory framework that is favourable for short- term interests of companies but may lead to environmental degradation (e.g. suppression of air permit system, restrictions to conduct on-site visits) Working methods that allow for inefficient use of resources Confrontational relations with the regulatees Limited human, financial and material resources of compliance assurance authorities

17. 17 OECD Environment Directorate 3.1 CHANGE THAT IS CRUCIAL Inspectors need to focus on the core mission which is carrying out targeted actions to ensure regulatory compliance that leads to environmental improvements It is not the number of enforcement actions and cases handled, not the amount of fines collected but the environmental results that should matter Substantially improved enforcement strategy and institutional capacity are needed to fulfil this mission in a fair and consistent manner

18. 18 OECD Environment Directorate 3.1 FIVE OBJECTIVES OF INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Seek improvement of the environmental regulatory framework in Kyrgyzstan Acquire adequate powers and raise the institutional status Adopt risk-based and performance-oriented working methods Embrace higher professional standards and foster international co-operation Interact with stakeholders openly and constructively

19. 19 OECD Environment Directorate 3.2 INDICATORS PROJECT Analysis of current experience with applying enforcement/compliance indicators and developing the methodological framework and good practices for designing and applying output and outcome indicators Conducting an international expert workshop on enforcement and compliance indicators; Implementation of two pilot projects in selected EECCA to assist enforcement agencies to design and apply performance indicators; Dissemination of the results of the analysis to relevant stakeholders.

20. 20 OECD Environment Directorate 3.2 PILOT PROJECT IN RUSSIA Communication with officials from the Ministry of Natural Resources In-depth analysis of the current system of ECE indicators Development of the Terms of Reference Assessment of the current indicators system Expert Meeting in November 2004 Slow progress with project implementation due to institutional reforms in March- September 2004

21. 21 OECD Environment Directorate 3.2 INTERNATIONAL INECE/OECD WORKSHOP Held in Paris, France, on 3 ‑ 4 November 2003 Convened over 50 senior practitioners, including 5 people representing EECCA countries Confirmed the growing importance of ECE indicators worldwide Discussed the use of indicators in performance assessment, in decision making and communicating with diverse stakeholders Resulted in the commitment of many officials and experts to continue and/or initiate indicator pilot projects in their home countries

22. 22 OECD Environment Directorate 3.2 FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES In co-operation with other networks - development of world-wide guiding principles for implementing enforcement and compliance indicators Further work will be carried out in the Russian Federation Other demonstration projects (Armenia, Kazakhstan) Proposal to establish a REPIN Working Group on ECE indicators

23. 23 OECD Environment Directorate EVENTS IN EARLY 2005 Last week of January: Regional Expert Meeting on SMEs regulation (Moscow, Russia) First week of February: National Conference on Self-Monitoring in Kazakhstan (Astana) Second week of February: Meeting in Kyrgyzstan on Peer Review and training for inspectors Mid March: National workshop on ECE indicators in Armenia End April: Conference on Environmental Policy Instruments in Russia Late May – early June: Peer Review of Armenia BERCEN MEMBERS ARE WELCOME!