1. Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators
Vania Etropolska
UNECE Statistical Division

2. Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators
Origin
Set up by the Committee on Environmental Policy (CEP) and the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) in 2009, with strong support from the EEA
Mandate
Improve environmental data collection and reporting in EECCA and SEE
Promote comparability of environmental statistics and indicators in the UNECE region
Reviewed, to a various extent, all indicators in the Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (UNECE Guidelines)
UNECE Guidelines endorsed at the Belgrade (2007) “Environment for Europe” Ministerial Conference.
The Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators was established in 2009 by the Committee on Environmental Policy and the Conference of European Statisticians. The support of the EEA was essential in establishing the Joint Task Force.
The two main objectives of the JTF are to improve environmental data collection and reporting in the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and South-Eastern Europe and
to promote comparability of environmental statistics and indicators in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe region
Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (UNECE Guidelines)

3. Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators
JTF comprises environmental experts and statisticians from the EECCA and SEE countries
Held 6 face-to-face meetings (Aug 2009 to Jul 2012);
Next meeting 30 Oct – 1 Nov 2012:
Air temperature, Atmospheric precipitation, Drinking water quality, Final energy consumption, Total energy consumption, Average age of road motor vehicle fleet
By end of 2012: Reviewed and collected data for all 36 indicators in the Indicator Guidelines
Proposed 16 additional indicators not covered in the Indicator Guidelines
New biodiversity indicators, agri-environmental indicators, water indicators, etc.
Strong cooperation with the EEA, Eurostat, UNSD, UNEP, International Energy Agency and other international organisations

4. National reviews (questionnaire)
The national reviews include the following information
concerning the environmental indicators:
Inter-agency cooperation
Statistical publications and state-of-the-environment reports
Data quality assurance and control
Time-series data on the indicators for 1990, 1995 and 2000–2011
The indicator evaluation is supported by written communications by members of the JTF on their countries’ experiences on the production of the indicators. These we call national reviews. Through the national reviews we collect the following information:
Information on the effectiveness of the inter-agency cooperation;
Dissemination of indicators through statistical publications and state-of-the-environment reports;
Procedures applied to ensure data quality and
Time-series data on the indicators for 1990, 1995 and 2000–2010. In the beginning the data was collected only for 2003 – 2008 period but then the JTF decided to extend the period to cover the available data since 1990 to 2010

5. UNECE Guidelines - Water
C. Water
7. Renewable freshwater resources
8. Freshwater abstraction
9. Household water use per capita
10. Water losses
11. Reuse and recycling of freshwater
12. Drinking water quality
13. BOD and concentration of ammonium in rivers
14. Nutrients in freshwater
15. Nutrients in coastal seawaters
16. Polluted (non-treated) wastewaters

6. UNECE Guidelines - Water
SESSION
DATA PERIOD
XLS (1990,1995, /2011)
DOC ( )
C. Water
7. Renewable freshwater resources
1 session
DOC
May 2010
8. Freshwater abstraction
9. Household water use per capita
5 session
XLS
July 2012
10. Water losses
11. Reuse and recycling of freshwater
2 session
Sept 2010
12. Drinking water quality
6 session
NO DATA
To be reviewed in November 2012
13. BOD and concentration of ammonium in rivers
3 session
July 2011
14. Nutrients in freshwater
15. Nutrients in coastal seawaters
16. Polluted (non-treated) wastewaters

7. 11. Reuse and recycling of freshwater
Data for 2009, Georgia 2008; Source: JTF

8. 11. Reuse and recycling of freshwater
Questions:
Difference between reused and recycled ?
Reused water – is reused water is being treated or not before the reuse ?
Should households be included? (drinking water quality)
Data for 2009, Georgia 2008; Source: JTF

9. 11. Reuse and recycling of freshwater

10. 10. Water losses No data on: Data on leakages (in % of water losses):
- evaporation / - испарение
- burst mains / - аварии в сетях
- meter errors / - погрешности измерений
Definition in the questionnaire:
Water losses: The volume of freshwater lost during transport between a point of abstraction and a point of use, and between points of use and reuse; includes leakages, burst mains, evaporation and meter errors, excludes losses due to illegal tapping.
Armenia (100%), Azerbaijan (5%) and Kazakhstan (11%).
Data for 2011; Russia, Uzbekistan for 2010; Source: JTF

11. Validate the data
This is an exercise where I have taken data for water abstraction and water use from data we collected at two different meetings:
Freshwater abstracted is from data collected for the indicator “Water losses” (Data collected during the July 2012 meeting)
Freshwater use is from the data collected for the indicator “Reuse and recycling of freshwater” (Data collected during the Sep 2010 meeting)
I have made the per capita in order to be easier to compare also across countries.
Data is for 2009 and for Georgia for 2008.
In Armenia and Georgia more is used than abstracted (!). In Azerbaijan everything that is abstracted is used and there are no water losses (contrary to what data shows in the previous slide). By the way, same for Uzbekistan – no water losses – the two are equal when adding up reused and recycled water.
Data for Ukraine and Uzbekistan show that in Uzbekistan water abstraction and use per capita is much higher than in Ukraine, which is strange.
Should be careful to take into account also data on water imports and exports with this validation.
Data for 2009, Georgia 2008; Source: JTF

12. 7. Renewable Freshwater Resources, mln m3/y Возобновляемые ресурсы пресной воды, млн. м3/год
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kyrgystan
Moldova
Ukraine
1. Precipitation / Осадки
13,200
38,373
143,036
72,602
18,996
400,800
2. Actual evapotranspiration / Фактическое суммарное испарение
29,402
83,253
29,690
4,006
24,674
343,000
3. Internal flow / Внутренний приток (=1-2)
8,970
59,783
42,912
489
57,800
4. Inflow of surface and groundwaters / Приток поверхностных и грунтовых вод
24,606
23,400
1,419
15,060
145,700
5. Renewable freshwater resources / Возобновляемые пресноводные ресурсы (=3+4)
33,576
83,183
15,549
203,500
6. Outflow of surface and groundwaters / Отток поверхностных и грунтовых вод
58,900
16,440
65,560
7. Regular freshwater resources 95% of the time / Постоянные пресноводные ресурсы, доступные 95% времени
37,200
122,100
Data is very limited, only a few countries and only a few countries reported details
The numbers for Ukraine are times bigger than the other countries.
The numbers for Moldova (in red) do not sum up.
The ones in green are show on the graph on the next slide.
Data for 2008, Source: JTF

13. 7. Renewable Freshwater Resources mln m3/y Возобновляемые ресурсы пресной воды, млн. м3/год
Renewable freshwater resources is the sum of
3/ precipitation – evaporation
4/ Inflow of surface and underground water
Data shows that in Azerbaijan and Ukraine the inflow of surface and groundwater is the main source for the renewable freshwater while in Belarus it is precipitation – evaporation the main source of renewable freshwater.
Question is how do you remove the effect of rain (which is in 3/) for example when you measure the 4/ Inflow of surface and underground water ???
Data for 2008, Source: JTF

14. 8. Water abstraction
Self abstraction for own use (surface water&groundwater):
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Russia
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
The graph includes also self abstraction for own use. For Armenia however there were no data on self abstraction – so should be careful when comparing data across the countries (what is included what not).
Data for 2008, Source: JTF

15. 9. Household water use per capita
Armenia:
Important indicator !
Unlike other countries, data for Armenia was very complete. In Armenia for the last 20 years the water use dropped 10 times, while the population connected to water supply increased. Both good trends.
Data for 2011, Source: JTF

16. 9. Household water use per capita
The percentage in the columns shows the population connected to water supply of total population.
49%
98%
On the graph: Общее потребление воды (коммунальное водоснабжение и самообеспечение). Ukraine from the countries on the graph has not shown data on self supply. According to its data 100% of the population is connected to water supply. In general countries have difficulties to provide estimates for the self supply of water: data on self supply was not provided by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Uzbekistan.
Important point:
Water use per capita with self-supply is calculated divided by TOTAL population.
Water use per capital WITHOUT self-supply is calculated divided by POPULATION CONNECTED TO WATER SUPPLY.
Therefore, the size of population connected to water supply matters – if all people connected to water supply (for example in Armenia 98% of population is connected to water supply, in Belarus 85%, in Russia 91%, in Ukraine 100%) the self supply numbers do not play a big role. If there is however a large proportion of population is NOT connected to water supply, the estimation of the data on self-supply is very important – it can show a big difference in water use per capita – see an example in the next graph.
Data for 2011, Source: JTF

17. 9. Household water use per capita
Data for 2011, Source: JTF

18. New water indicators Total water use Public water supply
Population connected to public water supply
Population connected to wastewater treatment
Wastewater treatment facilities
Concentration of pollutants in coastal seawater and sediments (except nutrients)
At its 4th session, JTF accepted the proposal for the indicator “Total water use”: The proposal defines “Total water use” as the use of water from various sources (including sea water) to meet the needs of households, industrial use, irrigation, agricultural water supply, etc. Agreed on use not consumption.
JTF suggested to replace the proposal for indicator on “Water supply industry” with the indicator “Public water supply”. The indicator on “Water supply industry” includes both self-supplied water and public water supply. Estimates for self-supplied water are not easily produced, therefore at this moment only “Public water supply” was agreed to be developed as an indicator. Agreed at the 5th JTF session.
Agreed on the 5th JTF session.
Agreed on the 5th JTF session. Decided to separate the indicator “Population connected to wastewater treatment” in two indicators: “Population connected to public sewers” and “Population connected to public sewers with subsequent treatment” when preparing the questionnaire.
The UNECE Guidelines will start an update by the end of the year and will do an assessment of data problems through data collection.

19. Further work by the JTF – Core set
JTF to develop a core set of indicators to allow regular collection of data
Identify a core set of indicators among the indicators already collected
Criteria: where most countries have data and where quality is good
JTF complement the ongoing work of the EEA on developing a core set of indicators for the ENPI-SEIS countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and the Russian Federation)

20. Protocol on Water and Health
SET
TARGETS (20)
REVIEW
PROGRESS
EVALUATE
Parties:
collect and evaluate data
publish results
review progress
provide summary reports
MOP evaluate progress in implementation
Water supply and sanitation
Water management
Health protection
Summary report 2010: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan
The Protocol is the first international agreement adopted specifically to ensure, by linking water management and health issues, the adequate supply of safe drinking water and adequate sanitation for everyone. It was designed to complement the Water Convention with further measures to strengthen the protection of public health, particularly at the national level.
Each Party should establish and publish its targets and the dates for achieving them within two years of joining the agreement.
Declare targets: Water supply and sanitation (quality, Improved access, system performance, discharge of Wastewater and sludge); Water management (resource quality, recreational water, aquaculture); Health protection (Outbreaks, level of disease)
Set dates: Parties also 1) establish national coordination mechanisms, 2) develop water management plans, 3) establish framework for enforcing drinking water quality standards
Under the Protocol, Parties shall collect and evaluate data, report on steps taken to achieve the targets, and demonstrate how far that progress has contributed to preventing, controlling or reducing water-related disease. Each Party submits a report on progress achieved every three years.
The Review progress include: 1) Parties collect and evaluate data on progress towards target; 2) Parties publish results of data collection and evaluation; 3) Parties review progress; 4) Parties provide summary report through Secretariat to MOP (Meeting of the parties)

21. You can find the websites of the meetings of the Joint Task Force on Environmental Indicators at: