/ United Nations Environment Programme /

REPORT

on

Regional workshop on the EECCA core set of indicators

and Guidelines for Methodology of their Preparation

for Central Asia

Conference-hall of “Dushanbe” Hotel

11-13 October, 2006

Dushanbe, Tajikistan

CONTENTS

DAY ONE, Wednesday October 11

Opening session

Introduction Reports

Water Indicators

day TWO, thursday October 12

Belgrade Report. Water indicators. Continuation

Transport

day three, friday october 13

Energy

BiodiversityIndicators

Waste

Atmosphere Air

Summary

Annex 1. List of Participants

Annex 2. Workshop Agenda

Annex 3. Data Available on Indicators

Annex 4. Correction of Key Messages of Waste Section of the Belgrade Report

Annex 5. Questionnaire Analysis

DAY ONE, Wednesday October 11

Opening session

Regional workshop on the EECCA core set of indicators and guidelines for methodology of their preparation forCentralAsia was opened October 11 by Mr. Neimatullo Safarov, Head of the National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center RT. Mr. Safarov welcomed all the workshop participants and expressed his gratitude for their arrival to Dushanbe. He thanked the international organizations, UNEP and GRID-Geneva in particular, for their confidence in organization of the workshop targeted at the assistance to the countries to prepare the core set of environmental indicators andto produce “Data Compendium” as a complementary product to the Belgrade Report.

Workshop hosted 2 representatives from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and 4 from Tajikistan. The participants involved the experts from Ministry/Committee on Environmental Protection and the State Statistic Committee/Agency. The workshop was conducted by Mrs.Elena Veligosh (GRID-Arendal), Mr. Alexander Shekhovtzov (UNECE) in collaboration with Mr. Asim Acikel (TACIS, EEA). The List of participants is provided in Annex 1.

After the official opening session the participants introduced themselves briefly, revealing their expertise and expectations from this workshop. All participants turned unanimous in their wish to gain broad knowledge with respect to use and preparation of indicators and to reveal the easy-to-applymethodology in the indicators identification for further prediction of the environmental state.

Mrs. Elena Veligosh briefly introduced the workshop agenda (see Annex 2) noting the key target made on the discussion of the Draft Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators. Some part of the workshop was also devoted to the discussion of some chapters of the Belgrade report. To provide the detailed discussion of these issues all the materials in Russian language had been sent to the participants, which were then disseminated in both printed and electronic versions among the participants.

Deputy Chairman of the State Committee on Environmental Protection and Forestry Mrs. Tojinisso Nosirova also introduced the participants her welcome address. She briefly revealed the activities of the working group on environmental monitoring and assessment which is operating for 6 years. She expressed the hope that the workshop will stimulate the development of the Belgrade report.

Introduction Reports

TACIS Project Coordinator Mr. Asim Acikel reported on behalf of the European Environmental Agency. He introduced the above agency, publications and prospects of information application. Mr. Asim Acikel focused on the preparation to the Belgrade report “Environment for Europe: fourth assessment”. He also introduced the participants with the web-page addressing the draft chapters of the Belgrade report, consultation process and submitting online comments.

In the course of discussion the participants emphasized the need of involvement the non-governmental organizations in similar workshops with equal participation of state agencies.

Mr. Alexander Shekhovtzov introduced the Revised Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia prepared by UNECE. He presented the Project background, selection criteria for the agreed set of indicators and noted that the relevant indicators would be approved in Donetsk, then in Geneva at the working group meeting in November, and after submitted to UNECE. Upon the approval of set of indicators by UNECE, they will be considered at the European Conference of Ministers for Environment to be held in Belgrade. He hoped that the indicators approval would be an informal procedure and would lead to their compulsory application by the countries leading to the significant changes in the reports submitted. He agreed with Mr. Safarov upon the involvement of statistic agencies in the workshop as statistic data are of high importance for the Belgrade report.

Mrs. Elena Veligosh introduced the presentation “Preparation of Compendium of Environmental Indicators in EECCA. Targets, preparation process, participants role”. Then she focused on the theory and practice of application of environmental indicators in EEA. She introduced the participants with a background, terms used and types of environmental indicators. She revealed the process of indicator development, data processing and analysis to make it more comprehensive for government officials, for decision-makers and the public at large.

Mrs. Elena Veligosh noted that Ms. Lyubov Gornaya had analyzed and identified 13 indicators for EECCA countries which might be calculated on the basis of the international statistics data to be included into the Compendium on environmental indicators. EECCAcountries need to be involved in the Compendium preparation process to ensure the indicator included in the Compendium. Mrs. Elena Veligosh noted that the indicator should have the linkage with a priority problem and the relevant reliable information sources are needed to compile the Compendium. Thus, the relevant sources were used: UNEP, World Bank, different UN Conventions and the database for the countries to apply data to the CIS Statistic Agency excluding Turkmenistan.

Then Mr. A.Shekhovtzov introduced the report “Experience of application of environmental indicators at national level (Uzbekistan and Russian Federation)”. He noted that Uzbekistan possesses quite good legislation basement. Dynamics of the pollutants emissions in Russia was showed by the experience of Kostroma for six years.

Then representatives from statistic agencies and ministries for environment started the detailed consideration of the indicators to find consensus on the issue of application of each indicator.

Water Indicators

Further the workshop activity was focused on the discussion, improvement of analysis and methodology of water indicators developed. The participants also discussed the process of gapfilling for the Compendium. Participants from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan expressed their willingness to receive the official letter to ensure the gap filling. This will help them to address the relevant national authorities to obtain the information required.

Mr. A.Shekhovtzov provided the review on water indicators presented in the Compendium.

Mrs. Elena Veligosh introduced the indicator “Freshwater abstraction” and asked the participants to learn the country assessment provided by Ms. Lyubov Gornaya. The participants agreed upon the assessment with a slight correction that water consumption in EECCA countries became more sustainable in recent time. The participants did not support this summary.

Mr. Shekhovtzovpresented several schedules: the schedule of water use index change since 1998-2004, the schedule of freshwater abstraction per capita, the schedule of dynamics of freshwater abstraction, and the schedule of total water use.

Where data are not available Ms. Gornaya provided interpolation to be considered by each country.

Belgrade Report

Mrs. E.Veligosh presented the Chapter “Water Regime Intensity”. The participants noted poor quality of the Chapter related to:

  • the information in the chapter is used till 2002 already mentioned by the Kiev Report.
  • outdated information from international sources. Chapter does not reflect the recent years’ trends.

The participants noted that frequent reference to historical facts is not desirable, such as “Collapse of Soviet Union”, etc., and it would better note that for 15 years the countries have been working at statehood and improvement of the environmental status.

The participants noted the lack of possibility of the detailed introduction with the Belgrade Report’ chapters and challenges in submitting comments. However, all the participants expressed their concern in further consideration of the document and submitting on-line comments.

day TWO, thursday October 12

Belgrade Report. Water indicators.

Second day commenced with further discussion of water indicators and gap fillingof earlier data.

Mrs. E.Veligosh suggested providing individual analysis for each country with respect to the indicator “Freshwater abstraction per capita”. Schedules per each country had been prepared by Ms. Gornaya. Representatives from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan analyzed the schedules for their own countries.

  • Kyrgyzstan noted that in 2000-2005 a harsh increase of freshwater abstraction was observed and this was caused by the approval of the program on mining industry development, as well as by the economic recovery. Though if comparing the economic growth and household water consumption there observed the descent of water use and this caused doubts, as there was the lack of regulation, tariffs did not increase and water meters were not installed. Double increase of water consumption in 2004 in comparison with 2003 was explained by the population migration from rural areas to the cities. Kyrgyzstan agreed upon the data on irrigation explaining the increase leap in 2001 in comparison with 2000 by the introduction of private ownership for land in that time and the unregulated irrigation. In years 2003, 2004, 2005 there was marked the water use stabilization due to the legalization, allocation and regulation of water use. Detailedanalysistobeprovidedlater.
  • Kazakhstan considered the schedule of freshwater abstraction per capita and noted it to be a satisfactory one. Kazakhstan provided all data with respect to water indicator. Descent was registered till 2000 and further there observed the increase of water use. This is explained by the economic crisis until 1998 and then its slight recovery.Currently the industrial growth is increasing 10% annually and the water is abstracted for industrial needs. However, the growth is observed not since 1998 but since 2000, and this may be specified only after the workshop.

Water use for irrigation is marked by recession until 2000, then slight recovery which is explained by the reduction of agricultural lands, mainly irrigated, and in 2000 there was observed double reduction of arable lands area. Household water consumption – the reduction is observed in 1993-1994 related to the increase of water tariffs, i.e. the population was forced to spare water. Comparing the period 1990-2004 there was observed double reduction as water meters installed.

  • Interpolation was considered by the freshwater abstraction indicator for Tajikistan provided by Ms. Gornaya. Tajikistan marked some divergence in data with respect to the freshwater abstraction:

1996 interpolation – 13200, actual – 13168

1997 interpolation - 13379, actual - 13400

1998 interpolation - 13200, actual - 13152

Transport

Mrs. Veligosh briefly introduced the Chapter “Transport” from the Guidelines for application environmental indicators, which was commented by the participants:

In terms of the data absence the indicators should not be expelled, therefore the references are much preferred. This relates to such indicators as “Composition of road motor vehicle fleet by fuel type” and “Average age of road motor vehicle”.

Terms of indicators included in the Compendium were clear to all the participants and there were no any comments for their improvement.

Further on, the participants considered the analysis of the indicator “Freight transport demand”.

In the course of discussion of the Chapter “Transport” the following comments were proposed:

  • Consideringthe above indicator the participants marked that it could not be calculated for all countries as it depends on the industrial sector more developed in a specific country.
  • Freight transport demand indicator was not calculated in a proper way as the data available from different international statistic agencies were not agreed upon. Representative from Tajikistan explained that the CIS statistics consider all transportation types including electric one, and UNECE considers only motor vehicles.
  • Considering the indicator “Road traffic accidents” and the related mortality and injured rate, and discussing the findings made by the authors “Mortality rate in EECCA countries is twice higher than in other countries since 2000-2003; the accidents frequency rate increased to 22%”, the participants commented it by several causes: increase of number of vehicles, non-qualification of drivers (driving license is easy to purchase), increase of importing old types of vehicles with poor technical requirements.
  • There aroused a question in relation to privileges for importing new types of vehicles with lower pollution indicators. The participants marked that there is a lack of “green privileges” related to motor vehicles in Central Asia.

In the course of discussion of gap filling for the indicators provided, the relevant data were submitted by Mr.Norov representing Tajikistan. Other participants were not able to submit concrete numbers but promised to provide them in a month term.

The authors of “Transport” Chapter of the Belgrade Report were recommended to prepare the updated analysis and mark the peculiarities of each country without noting general data relating to Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia in terms of wide national differences between Russia and Kyrgyzstan, for example. The participants answered the questions placed by the authors. Mrs. E.Veligosh agreed to submit the participants’ comments to the chapter’ authors and emphasized the need of submitting the comments on-line.

day three, friday october 13

Energy

The Chapter “Energy” was presented by Mr. A.Shekhovtzov. He noted that four indicators are presented in the Compendium and explained their meaning: final energy consumption, total energy consumption, total energy intensity and renewable energy consumption. Energy is a key component of economy having a significant impact on the environment.

While discussion Mrs.E.Veligosh marked that data with respect to this indicator are available as countries submit them to the International Energy Agency, however they are quite out-dated. Countriespromisedtosubmitdatauntil 2005.

Further on, the questions provided by the authors of Chapter “Energy” were considered. Some information with respect to development of alternative energy sources to be useful for the authors is presented below:

  • Kyrgyzstanmarked that there exists the Government Decree in relation to the step-by-step conversion of health centers to alternative energy sources. Traditionalenergytypesareprohibited. The conditions are favorable to use solar energy and some specific programs in relation to solar energy use were developed. Also there exist the available data on biogas use within the specific project frames.
  • Tajikistan UNDP country office is implementing the Project on the household heating and construction of new apartment houses with energy-saving technologies.
  • All participants marked that each country nowadays implements various projects on alternative energy sources to prevent environmental pollution.

BiodiversityIndicators

Mr. N. Safarov, Head of the National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center Republic of Tajikistan, addressed the presentation concerning the biodiversity indicators introducing biodiversity indicators prepared and recommended for application. In the course of the report the participants noted:

  • Kazakhstan marked that the presentation will support their country in developing their own indicators as Tajikistan indicators are easy adaptable for Kazakhstan.
  • Mr. Shekhovtzov noted that biodiversity indicators were not envisaged by the workshop agenda, however basing on the Mr. Safarov’s presentation the participants had a possibility of the detailed consideration of the above indicators and acquire the idea of the situation in Tajikistan.
  • Mrs. E.Veligosh marked that the working group placed the biodiversity indicators as long-term ones, though judging by the presented materials these indicators are short-term as the data are available but need to be systematized.

Waste

Mr. A.Shekhovtzov and Mrs. E.Veligosh presented the Chapter “Waste”. Mrs. E.Veligosh demonstrated the need of preparation and application of such indicators in Norway. Then the participants considered definitions of four waste indicators for EECCA countries.

All the participants marked that there exist some challenges in calculation the indicator “waste generation” linked with the lack of single classifiers and different measurements. This hampers the international data comparison in preparation of the indicator.

While discussing the data available with respect to waste recycling:

  • Kyrgyzstan noted that while investigating stockpiles and waste which had been generated during the Soviet Union times, when uranium mining was initiated, it was revealed that the waste contain 45% of secondary products processed while recycling and these surveys promoted the development of the State program on industrial waste and stockpiles recycling. However due to the lack of funding it is implementing in a slow way.
  • Tajikistan marked the State Environmental Program for 1998-2008 including the activities related to waste recycling, for example for the Tajik Aluminum Plant.
  • Uzbekistan noted that the country is implementing the project on waste management.

Discussing the “Final waste disposal” indicator the countries provided the following information:

  • Kyrgyzstan does not incinerate the waste; there are data on number of waste disposed at tailing dumps, also there exist data related to legal municipal sites. Kyrgyzstan possesses one landfill and the municipal household service can provide data on number of waste disposed. However there exist illegal dumps where30-40% of solid waste is stored, though it is not possible to define the morphological composition of waste.
  • Kazakhstan possesses data on toxic waste and number of stored waste at dumps meeting the ecological requirements. Household waste are not incinerated but stored and the data on the official dumps are available.
  • Uzbekistanhasstartedtheconstructionofwasterecyclingplants
  • Tajikistan does not incinerate the waste. Relevant data are available
  • Russiancitiesdonotaccumulatewasteandittransportedoutofcity. There exist incinerating plants on recycling solid waste and relevant data are available.

Further the participants considered the Key Messages. They corrected the Chapter “Waste” of the Belgrade Report (Annex 4).