1

Lessons learned in working with EECCA countries from the

Belgrade report preparation

WGEMA 8th session12-13 of June 2007

2

3

Countries covered in the Belgrade report

Main Group

Sub-group Countries

North Western Europe (NEW)

EU 25 Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE), United Kingdom (GB)

EFTA 4 Iceland (IS), Liechtenstein (LI), Norway (NO), Switzerland (CH)

Other European countries

Andorra (AD), Monaco (MC), San Marino (SM)

EECCA countries

Caucasus Armenia (AM), Azerbaijan (AZ), Georgia (GE)

Central Asia Kazakhstan (KZ), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Tajikistan (TJ), Turkmenistan (TM), Uzbekistan (UZ)

Eastern Europe Belarus (BY), Republic of Moldova (MD), Russian Federation (RU), Ukraine (UA)

South Eastern Europe

(SEE)

South Eastern Europe

Albania (AL), Bulgaria (BG), Bosnia-Herzegovina (BA), Croatia (HR), The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MK), Romania (RO), Serbia and Montenegro (CS), Turkey (TR)

4

Data collection

Data from the EECCA for the Belgrade report

are built on on the data for Kiev report.

Kievreport Belgrade report

2002-2003

2004 2005 2006 2007

Concept developing

Datacollection

Writing

Review andfinalisation

Productionand launch

IndicatorsEECCA

developing

Continue of working on the indicators for the EECCA

5

Data sourcesused for the EECCA region

AUTHORS

EEA data service(contains many international statistics)

International databases (EUROSTAT, UNECE, WHO, UNSD, FAO, IEA,

but information is not always available or reliable for a pan-European coverage, timeliness varies also considerably )

Other sources (for “Water” and “Waste topics” -UNSD questionnaires,

OECD/EECCA policy questionnaire, national reports and statistics)

covering limited data availability from EECCA countries in international databases

6

Data collection for the Belgrade report

• Main principle : using international databases to build on Kiev report data from EEA data service and to avoid questionnaires to countries as unnecessary burden.

• But: it was possible only for certain topics because of the diversity and complexity of issues covered in Belgrade report. It especially concerns EECCA and partly SEE region.

7

Air quality• Data sources: very little use of international databases.

Most of data are from national reports and statistics.Most of EECCA countries provided official data within the framework of the TACIS project.

• Up-to-date: most of data is about 2 years old.

• Data quality: General problem, similar with Kiev report data collection: Difference in methodology what causes missing of data about ambient air quality (for example, monitoring of PM particles is based on other measuring methods).

• Suggestion: There is a need of improved way of communication with the countries

8

Health• Data sources: mostly from international databases (WHO, UNICEF, EEA dataservice), and

regional statistics from EECCA

• Up-to-date: health data for the recent years often incomplete; therefore older data (2-3

years old) were used to ensure more comprehensive coverage

• Data quality: is an issue; e.g. inconsistencies in national and international databases;

underreporting of health outcomes of interest; differences in definitions.

• Main issues: assessment and messages underpinned mostly by case studies or findings

from research projects; these identified via the networks used during the Belgrade process

and via literature search; several E&H indicators, refered to in the section, were produced

in almost the same time frame as the Belgrade

• Suggestions: further methodological work on E&H indicators; for already developed

indicators – continued efforts to improve data availability and to produce meaningful

indicators linking environmetnal and health data

9

Inland water

• Data sources for water quantity: - UNSD database (questionnaires) - CISSTAT Data sources

• Data sources for water quality: - water monitoring is still inadequate to obtain a clear picture

of the status and trend in water resources. - little information on drinking water quality and pollution

and water quality was sparse.

• Up-to-date: The latest information is generally 2 years old

• Progress since Kiev: information on water abstraction from EECCA region is more complete then from EU countries, CIS Stat gives a recent and complete information

10

Soil• Data sources:

- Reports from national and international organisations (e.g. UNECE and OECD EPRs, national SoERs, UNEP); - international databases (e.g. EM-DAT, FAO, OECD, WB).

• Data quality: - Partial coverage of geographical areas and soil threats- Recent data are not available for many soil threats.- Most of information is available only in national language- Comparability

• Progress since Kiev: more information available on specific issues, such as soil contamination

• Suggestions for further work: A data collection on contaminated sites in the EECCA countries

11

Climate change• Data sources: only official sources used: EEA data service,

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), documents related to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – regular reporting of EECCA countries trough national contact points.

• The data quality and up-to-date: Data from many EECCA countries is not always up-to-date (2003-2004) because of different requirements to reporting, whereas NW Europe and countries that have commitments according to the Kyoto protocol have to report annually with detailed requirements.

• Consultation: providing links to the national reports (new reports

from Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan), but it was not always possible to process the reports due large volume in foreign language and late delivery. All specific comments were taken on board.

12

Nature and Biodiversity• Data sources: For SEE: EEA data service use - about 10% from total. The rest

– international sources like bird monitoring data (Birdlife International), Central Database of Designated Areas (ETC-BD), Global red lists (IUCN), UNSD.For EECCA: European Topic Centre on Biodiversity using official reports (Environmental reports UNEP and national country reports to CBD).

• Data quality: The biodiversity policy field is very ‘data-demanding’ and has to rely to a considerable extent on voluntary (NGO driven) monitoring schemes. For most countries monitoring does not seem a high priority. Data on species and habitat distribution and trends thus tend to be rather poor. National monitoring (if available) usually does not follow international standards. The best and most easily accessible data are for birds (Birdlife International).

• Up-to-date: ranges from 1997 to 2002. It is one of the hardest topics to find recent information. There is a time lag in the reporting to international organisations (e.g. WCMC, CBD) causing many readily available data to be outdated.

• Suggestion: The SEBI 2010 indicator development is a good example of an attempt to international harmonisation and coordinated data collection. In addition an international sample based monitoring scheme of sites or landscapes should be considered.

13

Marine and coastal environment • Data sources: International databases (FAO, Eurostat, ICES) used for fisheries.

Data on other issues from international databases is poor except for the International Tankers Organisation for oil spills in the Black Sea. Scientific papers and international and regional reports (GIWA) have been the main source of information. In addition, for seas covered by conventions (e.g. Black Sea convention) there is, for some issues, reporting and analysis at the regional level.

• Data quality: Lack of data and, when this exists, of comparable data and also indicators at the pan-European and regional levels because of no and/or limited accessibility to the information. The problem is worse in some areas, such as the Northern seas. Oil and hazardous substances pollution information is generally badly covered.

• Up-to-date: Data from 2005-06 for a few issues, e.g. fisheries, climate change. Other information is older, around 2002

• In the Kiev report information was spread in different chapters (aquaculture and fisheries, biodiversity, water), whereas this is now complied in the “Marine and coastal environment” with more detailed and interrelated assessment of the marine topics. So there are more issues involved in the present “Marine” chapter, which has made it even more difficult to find comparable information.

14

Energy• Data sources: the same as for the other regions: - for the energy consumption/production and all projections was

data from IEA (International Energy Agency) used - For the emissions of greenhouse gases – data set from EEA

dataservice

• Data completeness: For the greenhouse gases emissions – gaps for some countries: data for some subsectors was missing, e.g. fugitive emissions from Russia

• Up-to-date: the most of is from 2004

• Consultation: most of comments were relevant and were considered. Active involving of NGOs, but some comments were not specific enough to be inserted

15

Tourism• Data sources: World Tourist Organisation (UNWTO), World Travel

and Tourism Council (WTTC), national data sources

• Up-to date: 2004-2005, some preliminary estimates available for 2006.

• Quality of data: existing international datasets are mostly comprehensive and comparable at national level but there are important constraints related to geographical and temporal coverage of data. To properly assess the impact of tourism it would be important to gather information at regional and possibly sub-regional level and for specific periods (on a seasonal or monthly basis). Administrative units datasets are not easily available in a GIS format and had to be retrieved through different sources.

• Consultation efficiency: Comments allowed to retrieve regional data on the number of bed places for Turkey. Data at regional level related to EECCA countries number of bed places were retrieved through the effort of a consultant.

16

Sustainable consumption and production

• Data sources: Sustainable consumption and production: mainly international databases: The World Bank, UNECE, ETC database (COMEXT), MOSUS

Waste: UNSD questionnaire on waste CISSTAT, Eurostat, National reports (e.g. Russian report on environment)

• Data quality: General problem: irregular data flow and very little data on sustainable production and consumption;.

Quite many EECCA countries have made progress regarding waste data but the data are often only found in SOE reports and not in the statistical publications

• Up-to-date: up to 2003 (Sustainable consumption and production), up to 2005 (Waste)

• Consultation: - Only a few comments online in the Belgrade portal- important inputs on waste from the UNEP/EEA workshops on EECCA core set of environmental indicators

• Suggestion: Like in the EU better data co-operation is needed between the statistical and the environment departments

17

Transport• Data sources:

- Mainly: transport division of UNECE and UNSD- The World Bank- for some specific issues - European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and some information from reports of the European Conference of Ministers of transport (ECMT).

• Data quality: data availability it is still very limited, as for Kiev report because of methodological problems and not systematic data in the international databases

• Up-to-date: from 1998 to 2004 or older for some issues• Consultation efficiency: it was more an assessment then

providing a data, but helped in gap filling for some issues

18

Conclusions • Positive experience of new challenges: consultation on official and

not-official levels to give up-to-date evaluation of the draft report and information supporting (more than 3000 comments received); direct cooperation of other institutions in writing.

• The problem of irregular information flow from EECCA region still remains since Kiev. Reason:

- countries are not in conventions/ or information from countries reporting related to convention is not covering complexity of report issues

- national data about many issues is still very difficult to find- available information is not always comparable (due of different

methodology)

• Suggestion: There is a need for systematic data exchange (every year as minimum) with EECCA countries, based on better understanding of demands and use of the data what can solve a methodological problem – to create a database covering all the region in a future.