| |
| |
 |
A
tool for environmental protection and sustainable development that will
promote peace and security in the region.This is the hope for the Environment
for Europe process. Pavel Antonov, editor of the Bulletin
presents this special section on Kiev.
The conference in Kiev happened at a key moment for Europe's environment. After a decade of work on several aspects of the environment, Europeans remained stymied by an age-old dilemma. In its report "Europe's Environment: The Third Assessment," the European Environmental Agency (EEA) concluded that governments have yet to make significant strides towards decoupling environmental pres- sures from economic activity. Less then a year after the Johannesburg summit, Kiev was expected to connect its outcomes to the pan-European environmental process. Some of the linkages were obvious, with biodiversity being one. In this area, the delegates at Kiev set a target to halt the degradation of biological and landscape diversity throughout the continent and they signed a convention to protect one of Europe's most significant wilderness areas -- the Carpathian Mountains. In response to the chemicals chapter of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, 34 countries in Kiev signed a Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR). Thirty-three signed the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment under the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. Kiev participants also endorsed the Johannesburg call for wide application of environmental impact assessments. The ministerial statement on Education for Sustainable Development made everyone happy. Governments and civil groups seemed to agree on the Johannesburg conclusion that education is key to the social changes required for sustainable development. Thus Kiev spurred work on a strategy for European sustainability education. Industrial accidents A third protocol was signed -- on Civil Liability for Damage Caused by the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents and on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Waters and International Lakes. It received 22 signatures. The ministers and delegation heads also endorsed the Guidelines for Strengthening Compliance with and Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in the UNECE region. Kiev praised the Central Asian Initiative on Environment, Water and Security. Called an "Invitation to Partnership," the document was a carbon copy of the EU Water Initiative launched in Johannesburg. But not everyone agreed that Kiev was a step in the right direction. The European ECO-forum, a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), insisted that the governments begin work on a pan-European strategy to phase out unsustainable production and consumption. "Johannesburg reaffirmed that the biggest challenge is to change the unsustainable patterns of consumption and production in Western societies," said John Hontelez from the European Environmental Bureau. As a basis for the strategy, EcoForum proposed systematic promotion of environmental policy integration, stricter environmental regulations on advertising, the integration of environmental performance indicators into economic accounting, alleviation of poverty and guarantees for equitable access to resources. However, none of this was mentioned in the ministerial declaration. In his opening remarks Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma appealed to the international community for further help to overcome the consequences from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1996. The very fact that the conference took place in Kiev raised hopes that nuclear safety would rank high on the agenda. However, this, too, failed to win a place in the conference declaration. In the field of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Kiev conference called for ratification of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. With Romania's ratification in June, the number of parties to the protocol had reached 52 -- two more than the required 50. That means the protocol should take effect on September 11. In Kiev, just after the US had filed its grievance at the World Trade Organisation against the EU's restrictive policies on GMOs, NGOs proposed a five-year moratorium on such goods. But as the US and Canada had delegates at Kiev, the proposal had little chance of passage and tension over GMOs was thick (see the interview with EU's Environment Commissioner). EcoForum vehemently protested another American initiative -- a stipulation in the draft declaration affirming the rights of individual countries to take their own approaches toward environmental problems. NGOs voiced suspicion that the US intended this as a justification for opting out of major international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol on climate change. The US struck back on the eve of the conference by trying to exclude NGOs from discussions. This gambit failed, but the controversial text concerning singular approaches remained in the final declaration. Public participation has been a key part of the Environment for Europe process since the Aarhus convention was signed in 1998. It rated high in Kiev as well;in contrast to Johannesburg, Kiev organisers gave NGOs unlimited access to the official talks and to the media. Governments and NGOs had a joint session on "Environmental Policy Integration." Three important issues were jointly addressed:letting the market work for the environment; agriculture as an example of sectoral policy integration; and overcoming institutional weaknesses that prevent integration. Apart from the fireworks with the US, governments and NGOs worked together well in Kiev. Despite all criticism, ECO-forum leaders fully supported the Environment for Europe process and declared Kiev a step forward. "We are simply unable to achieve anything without the support of civil society," said Bulgaria's deputy minister Fatme Iliaz. The sense of harmony between activists and officials was strong, too much so for some. "Not only do we share their event and eat their food, but we now look like them and talk like them," a young German environmentalist sneered after the NGO representatives' speech at the plenary. Kiev clearly established the direction of Europe's environmental policy-making. The conference adopted a groundbreaking Environment Strategy for Countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (ECCA). The conference reaffirmed the Environmental Performance Review Programme of UNECE. Countries called upon the European Environment Agency to prepare a fourth assessment report for the next ministerial conference, building on new partnerships, especially with UNECE and the United Nations Environment Programme. "The decision on the purpose and organisation of the Environment for Europe conference is possibly the most important issue of the Kiev Conference," said ECO-forum's chairwoman Victoria Elias. Her NGO colleagues later criticised the ministerial conferences for being too infrequent and too overloaded with important matters. High officials like Swedish Minister of Environment Liina Soomestad and EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom also expressed concern with the effectiveness of the process. A proposal by the Netherlands to switch to annual meetings won enthusiastic support from the NGOs, but in the end delegates decided such meetings should be held just once every four or five years, preferably in alternating countries. The UNECE was asked to monitor the outcomes of the Kiev Declaration in its work programme through its Committee on Environmental Policy and in cooperation with other relevant organisations and institutions. |
 |
|||||||||
      |
|||
|
