The man in question was Adriaan Oudeman, coordinator of the International Environmental Affairs Directorate, and the Dutch delegate for the Third Meeting of the Ad Hoc Preparatory Working Group of Senior Officials, which took place on August 29–31 in Geneva, Switzerland. The ‘process’ to which Mr Oudeman was referring is Environment for Europe (EfE), launched in 1991 at Dobris Castle in the former Czechoslovakia, shaped and guided through subsequent ministerial conferences in Lucerne, Switzerland (1993), Sofia, Bulgaria (1995), Aarhus, Denmark (1998) and Kiev, Ukraine (2003), and which now continues—though on much less certain footing—with the Sixth Ministerial ‘Environment for Europe’ Conference, to be held on October 10–12 in Belgrade, Serbia.

In with the new, stuck with the old: turbines of wind-powered energy station spin in front of a refinery in  Leuna, Germany (Reuters)

I travelled to Geneva in August to meet individuals planning to take part in the Belgrade proceedings—many of whom have been involved in the process for many years—and to try and gain some clearer insight into this political and bureaucratic process that has been, despite its daunting breadth of scope and complexity, hugely influential in steering pan-European environmental policy. The primary purpose of the ad hoc meeting, which took place at the Palais de Nations, was to achieve consensus on the wording of the draft ministerial declaration.

My conversation with Oudeman took place on the morning of the 30th, prior to the second round of talks. The first round had proven, at best, non-productive—at worst, a disaster. Norway delegate Eldrid Nordbo had summed up the previous day’s lack of progress with a biting comment from the floor: “What we are doing now is a complete waste of time.” Walking to the second session I got caught in a downpour without an umbrella. I managed to escape the deluge by standing beneath the awning of a nearby hotel. Oudeman emerged by chance a few seconds later from the hotel lobby, and recognising him from the day before, I introduced myself. He was kind enough to grab another umbrella from the hotel; and so we set out in the rain, talking along the way. On recalling this incident, I thought about how in my quest to cover the ‘environment’ from a news perspective, I had completely neglected to pay attention to the actual ‘weather’. And I kept thinking while writing this article that perhaps the future of the Environment for Europe ‘process’ lies in its ability to move beyond words and achieve real success ‘on the ground’.

Style over substance?

To begin with, Environment for Europe is a consensus-driven process, which means that the wording of each paragraph of the ministerial document to be adopted for each conference requires unanimous approval from all nations taking part in the negotiations. By contrast, participants from other groups and organisations, such as NGOs, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD, which contributes funds to the EAP Task Force and Project Preparation Committee—or, PPC) may help steer discussion, but do not have an official vote in adoption procedures.

The inherent dilemma posed by this consensus-based construct is that official wording must be vague and open-ended enough so as not to court opposition from a single party, but at the same time must contain enough actual substance to render the process meaningful. It’s relatively easy to make all parties agree on the importance of ‘moving forward’ but much more difficult to agree on just how to do that.

The last time they talked: The fifth Environment for Europe conference in Kiev (2003) resulted in the adoption of landmark environmental strategy for EECCA countries (photo: Zsolt Bauer)

What is taking place right now is a very general political debate, with very few specific commitments. The ad hoc sessions I attended in Geneva were mostly focused on attempts to agree on precise wording of the ministerial document, to which last-minute textual changes and amendments were being proposed and discussed—initially to little avail. During one of the breaks I spoke with Gordana Kozuharova, head of department for European integration at FYR Macedonia’s Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, who expressed some disappointment that the current document was longer than hoped for—or at least longer than what was envisaged at the Kiev conference—but stressed nonetheless the vital importance of reflecting the enormous regional-level and political changes that have occurred since 2003 (most significantly, the accession of 10 countries to the EU in 2004, and last year’s accession of Bulgaria and Romania). “It might help in the future to schedule a mid-term review [of the ministerial document],” said Kozuharova. “A major concern about document preparation is that it shouldn’t contain unnecessary duplication and overlap.”

Zaal Lomtadze from Georgia’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, argued that the document is less about length than substance: “The real problem is: What does it mean? The EfE process right now is lacking a larger focus—lack of consensus on big priorities—so we need to focus on the correct way to continue. There has been some criticism [during negotiations] that has held back the process, but what’s really needed is constructive criticism.”

Claude Rouam is head of the Enlargement and Neighbouring Countries unit (within the DG Environment European Commission). He cited 1998’s Aarhus Conference and impetus given to the establishment of EECCA REC’s and process high points, and also mentioned the instrumental role of the Kiev conference in shifting environmental focus to EECCA countries.

“As for Belgrade,” said Rouam, “I hope that wisdom will prevail over a ‘business as usual’ approach. The main danger would be to agree to a long list of topics that are dealt with in other forums and on which the EfE process would have little influence; what would follow would be a poor sense of ownership, limited action and, ultimately, poor results. By contrast, a more focused approach could be useful. Two examples I find challenging are making improvements related to water and sanitation in EECCA countries, as singled out by the EAP Task force, and the Central Asia initiative.”

EU expansion: a paradigm shift?

One of the most intriguing aspects of Environment for Europe is that the focus of the process has shifted eastward, even as many countries of Central and Eastern Europe have joined—or are preparing to join—Western Europe’s political and economic alliance, the European Union. This development should not be viewed, however, as paradoxical. Prior to joining the EU, the bloc’s 12 newest members required huge investments from the ‘West’ in order to meet the strict environmental criteria necessary for accession. It should be borne in mind, however, that each country and region faces its own unique challenges.

“The process got underway in 1991, which means that those countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2006 have now had 16 years to develop and improve, including through EfE efforts,” said Oreola Ivanova-Nacheva, deputy director of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC). “But the war in the former Yugoslavia ended in 1999, which means many of these countries have had only seven years of assistance. It is therefore unrealistic to expect from them the same level of commitment and environmental performance.”

But how much impact will EU enlargement have otherwise on consensus-building, cooperation and programme implementation efforts? “The EfE’s historical perspective has certainly been transformed by EU enlargement, although we have to recognise that the process itself contributed to the enlargement,” commented Massimo Cozzone from the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. “However, compared with the situation before enlargement, I do not foresee any particular challenges in achieving consensus on priorities and actions. Our task is to clearly identify those new priorities and actions.”

Andrey Terentyev, principal administrator of environmental protection at the Russian Regional Environmental Centre, wrote to Green Horizon that new member states and candidate countries have their own weight to pull, and that some are already doing their fair share of the work.

“Taking into consideration the numerous issues and challenges inside the EU, it is up to the EU to decide whether or not to provide further support to subregions,” said Terentyev. “But new member states are already participating in environmental cooperation, and even act as donors to other states. The Czech Republic, Poland and some others are such countries. Other states aspiring to EU entry should make the effort harmonise their standards [with those of the EU] and to correlate their approaches. I think this first of all concerns a big and important country such as Turkey.”

A somewhat more nuanced outlook comes from Talaibek Makeev, executive director of Central Asian REC (CAREC). “On one hand, EU enlargement has indeed changed the EfE process,” said Makeev. “In particular, the shift of focus to the East has caused new member states to somewhat lose interest in the process. On the other hand, the enlargement process is an example for all non-EU states of what environmental cooperation can achieve. Having said this, I am confident that member states will remain interested in Environment for Europe because the process also addresses transboundary problems that extend beyond EU borders.”

Environment ‘beyond’ Europe

The comments I’ve related above are presented in the context of EU enlargement, but there is an ever-expanding subtext that needs clarification: Much of what is at stake for the future of the Environment for Europe process lies in efforts taking place—or trying to take place—within countries of the former Soviet Union that occupy the Caucasus and Central Asia. If Makeev has cause for optimism about the EfE process, it is because ‘environment’ is now and will continue to be a key negotiating point in 21st-century geopolitics.

To cite just one example, there is the need to harmonise environmental sustainability efforts in Western Europe’s energy sector with those of countries outside the EU which are major suppliers of energy. It could also be pointed out that successful efforts to achieve cross-border environmental cooperation have led to other forms of political partnership. Furthermore, there is ample evidence from parts of the world that proves a correlation between environmental health, political stability and human well-being; but putting this assertion to the test where evidence—or political will—is lacking could now prove EfE’s greatest challenge.

“There is indeed a sub-regionalisation of the process that is taking place, which is supported by the EU,” Makeev continued. “Working from Central Asia [Kazakhstan], we see the benefits in this, but we also understand that the process is the main connection between EU and Central Asian environmental policies, and that the value of the process lies exactly in being the bridge between the two. A process that would leave the EU member states out of the picture would have much less significance for our region. In particular, the knowledge accumulated by new member states during the enlargement process is of special value for Central Asia and the whole EECCA [Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia] region. There are also environmental business opportunities for companies and other institutions of new member states that should not be lost.”

Russian REC’s Terentyev also acknowledged the EU’s commitment to the region, but noted that regional differences have been apparent from the very beginning of the process. “In spite of evident EfE successes, not all of the objectives have been reached,” said Terentyev. “The difficulties in achieving more tangible results are connected not only with the scale of the process, but to internal situations of recipient countries. There are also different approaches between CEE and EECCA countries in terms of how environmental issues are addressed. Nevertheless, cooperation between sub-regions should continue. What is really needed is for EECCA states to assume greater ownership of such initiatives as the EECCA Environment Strategy adopted at Kiev, as well as other initiatives within the EfE process. These countries also need to commit themselves to international conventions and multilateral agreements, as this will facilitate consensus and regional-level cooperation.”

FYR Macedonia’s Kozuharova remarked that the EECCA countries are interesting in that a lot of funding could soon be moving their way: “Although these countries might not share a lot of the same goals—EU accession for example—the EfE process is something that gets them gathered around the table.”

In terms of funding (another key issue confronting EfE) and action on the ground, Eldrid Nordbo, special advisor for international cooperation from the Ministry of Environment Norway, explained that the EBRD is getting more and more involved in the EECCA region, adding that water-supply projects are especially high on the list of regional priorities. She also pointed out that the EBRD has provided funding to support the PPC Secretariat.

“One project worth mentioning is the Khujand [Tajikistan] Water Supply Improvement Project,” said Nordbo, referring to a signed, EBRD-backed agreement worth EUR 4.9 million. “Of course, funding is harder to come by these days, which means that it needs to be put to effective use. And this means that countries need to take responsibility and be actively involved [in project implementation], as the EBRD can’t be expected to put lots of people on the ground everywhere.”

Brendan Gillespie, head of the Environment and Globalisation Division at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), spoke to Green Horizon in July about the EfE process, and mostly about the OECD and EBRD’s work in the Caucasus and Central Asia. He started by explaining that the OECD largely oversees policy and institutional reform, while the EBRD manages environmental investment. “There are a couple of things to bear in mind regarding the EECCA region,” said Gillespie. “First, the countries are certainly wealthy as a whole. Second, they are quite economically, politically and environmentally diverse, and this diversity has actually increased over the past 10 years. We try to design activities that are appropriate for all countries, and then adapt them according to national and sub-regional needs. We look to EU directives as models, but they’re not necessarily to be copied in every respect. EfE, as an ad hoc process, provides quite a bit of flexibility, but this also creates some uncertainty in terms of planning.” Sanitation problems and a “seriously degraded” water network are top regional priorities requiring large investments of time and money, according to Gillespie, but he also mentioned that some environmental concerns—for example, reduction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—can be carried out more comprehensively and cost-effectively than within the EU.

“Part of building trust and confidence comes from realising that neighbouring countries everywhere share various ecosystems and environmental problems,” Gillespie continued. “What we don’t want to see is EU borders becoming a new Iron Curtain, and the discussions leading up to Belgrade do show that richer countries consider cooperation with EECCA countries a priority.”

Dialling for donors

Another pressing problem facing Environment for Europe is that funds for the process are dwindling. Because of budget pressures elsewhere, the European Commission has emerged as the most important donor, Gillespie claimed. Georgia’s Lomtadze, meanwhile, stressed that “external funding can’t solve everything,” and that national governments themselves need to make the financial commitments necessary to fulfil environmental goals.

“The Georgian government has made it clear that its number-one priority is economic development, but the government is also expanding the country’s national park system with its own money,” said Lomtadze.

When asked what lies behind the problem of ‘donor fatigue’, Italy’s Cozzone responded: “This is a difficult question to answer. What you call ‘donor fatigue’ is the result of a combination of different factors, including the changing economic situation of many donor countries facing the challenge of globalization and suffering from loss of competitiveness, and therefore bringing the whole system to a lower level in terms of availability for cooperation. Mechanisms such as the EfE process, however, are still of added value in terms of financial support, although less so than before.” Makeev, asked the same question, acknowledged that funds are indeed harder to come by these days: “It’s therefore important that recipient countries clearly demonstrate the benefits of support—and this is also important for the donor countries, themselves,” said Makeev. “Donor support should not be seen as a one-way road, but as a process through which all partners benefit. Recipient countries should now be contributing more to project implementation to demonstrate their commitment.

Kozuharova remarked that FYR Macedonia, having achieved candidate status and now in the approximation phase, is therefore eligible for big infrastructure investments, but that about 80% of this investment has been allocated to the transport sector. “Of course the lack of financial resources is a major difficulty, but so is the lack of administrative capacity,” said Kozuharova. “New ministries and environmental investments are expensive. We also need more experts, and capacity to educate experts. You also need money for public awareness programmes, which is another important priority.”

The people on the ground

John Hontelez, secretary general of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), has been involved in the EfE process from an NGO perspective since the very beginning, with his first involvement coming as a member of Friends of the Earth International. Having joined the EEB in 1996, Hontelez recalls the excitement and optimism that led to the first EfE meeting and the energy that was channeled into what is arguably the high-water mark of the process: 1998’s Aarhus Convention, EfE’s most sweeping and influential legally binding document—and a document he believes is “likely to outlive the EfE process” itself.

“Things were exciting in ’91, and the mood was really hopeful,” said Hontelez. “As attending NGOs, we were only able to comment on drafts, but we came extremely well prepared. Following the political and economic changes, we saw the necessity for the West to engage the East in discussing environmental issues—and possible support. It was quite clear from the beginning that the emerging process would be moving in a west-to-east direction, as the biggest environmental problems were legacies from the political system that was being done away with. One of the keys, however, in the early years, was that some countries really took the lead in steering the process—Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, for example.”

Hontelez claimed that NGOs over the years have, perhaps, achieved less than hoped for in terms of lasting results, but that long-term political success is not the only thing to be gained from participating in the process; EfE, for example, continues to be an important framework for NGOs in terms of getting to know each other and striking up new partnerships. He also referred to the important role that NGOs play in addressing difficult issues: Are Western Europe’s environmental problems solved? How does the EU plan to continue growing economically while shrinking consumption? What are the consequences of transport sector liberalisation?

In terms of REC contributions to the EfE process, Hontelez particularly praised the “invaluable” work of Magdolna Toth-Nagy in making Aarhus a reality, and the organisation’s efforts to defend Aarhus in follow-up negotiations. He also credited REC Moldova for doing good work, but added that some offices and NGOs have moved farther away from the notion of participating with civil society. Victoria Elias, chairperson for the European EcoForum, is based in Russia and works for the World Wildlife Foundation. Elias said that there is no “special selection process” for NGOs wishing to be part of the coalition participating in the EfE process; the only prohibition is being affiliated with a national government. Like Hontelez, Elias would like to see EfE move forward more effectively in terms of achieving legally binding agreements.

“Implementation and commitment are now really important, but to me it’s a big question of whether an ‘implementation’ conference would really attract many ministers.” said Elias. “And the big problem now is that funding is going down and down. Then it depends on donor rules and what they want to contribute to. Maybe they’re willing to put money into water and sanitation—which is important everywhere—but will there be any funds available for biodiversity?”

Elias’ comments echo those of several individuals who feel that the process lacks larger focus and unified commitment. “Maybe the process should become issue-driven—maybe something like conservation,” Elias continued. “What should be improved first? What sort of economic instruments should be used? It would really be nice to see governments commit to programmes over ten years or more—to phase out unsustainable energy practices, for example—moving toward sustainable consumption strategies.”

“As far as new initiatives,” Hontelez wondered, “which is the next? Right now things are definitely more complicated and the willingness is disappearing. Sometimes the [European] Commission is wondering why they have to travel to Geneva for something that can be sorted out in Brussels. If the process continues, maybe it should ideally consist of countries who really want to be part of it. But in any case, the countries of the former Soviet Union are the countries that need the process the most; they’re the one’s that will suffer the most if it disappears.”