WHICH INSTRUMENTS TO PROMOTE GREEN ECONOMY IN BELARUS
?
1) EU experience shows that promoting GE can be done by using a wide range of instruments,
(preferably once a global vision has been defined, priorities have been established and a roadmap
with an indicative timing has been finalised):
Environmental and climate related legislation
(ex: EIA & SEA, waste legislation, REACH)
Integration of environment in other policies
(ex: Energy targets for 2020)
Non legislative plans or strategies
Funding of sustainable infrastructures
(ex: Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan)
(ex: Railways infrastructure funded by Cohesion Fund) €
Funding of innovative technologies or projects
(ex: H2020, LIFE programme)
€
Diffusion of innovative technologies/ best available techniques (ex: LIFE programme) €
Tax policies (direct and indirect taxation)
(ex: differentiated VAT rates)
Pricing policies
(ex: water or energy sectors)
Emissions trading
Green public procurement
Green standardisation
(ex: climate change mitigation)
(ex: construction industry)
(ex: Information and Communication Technologies)
Ecolabelling of industrial products
(ex: paper, electronic goods, paints)
Ecolabelling of services
(ex: tourism)
Ecolabelling of food products
(ex: organic farming)
Land use planning related measures
(ex: deforestation, coastal zones)
Support to farmers for switching to sustainable practices
(ex: Common agricultural policy) €
Phasing out of subsidies/state aids harmful for the environment
(ex: coal mining, lignite)
Environmental certification or eco-management systems
(ex: ISO and EMAS)
Voluntary agreements concluded by industrial sectors
(ex: PVC industry)
Voluntary schemes involving local authorities
(ex: Leipzig or Aalborg charters)
Partnership with financial institutions and other stakeholders (ex: DABLAS, coop with EIB )
Development of indicators to measure results achieved
(ex: Shared Env. Information System)
Recognition of ecosystems services and role of natural capital (ex: Natura 2000)
Accompanying measures f.i. capacity building and communication (ex: Green Week)
Coop with NGOs and with business community (ex : Retail Forum, Framework partnership with
NGOs)
nb : € = costly measures
Even though periodic evaluation of most of these instruments has been done, no systematic
comparison has been made between them regarding their efficiency/ cost effectiveness.
2) Pros and cons of main GE instruments
Given the economic situation and budgetary constraints, costly measures (massive investments in
the water or waste sector, subsidies to promote innovation or cooperation between industry and
research centers, dismantling of polluting installations …) are considered as unrealistic and are not
discussed in this paper. They might be re-introduced at a later stage
New/ Modified legislation in the field of environment:
+ should result from a gap analysis of current legislation
+ could facilitate better implementation/enforcement
+ could contribute to convergence with EU legislation
+ should focus on a limited number of areas such as: SEA, Industrial Emissions (permitting), climate
adaptation, full ratification of international conventions
- possible ‘legislative fatigue’
- more legislation may also mean less implementation !
Probably necessary but should remain focussed and combined with implementation efforts.
New/ Modified legislation in other fields than environment:
+ considerable environmental impact of energy and transports on GE
+ considerable impact of taxation legislation
+ would confirm the entire government commitment to promote GE
+ could contribute to climate change mitigation
+ could facilitate development of new technologies
- should focus on a limited number of sectors such as: energy savings, energy efficiency, clean urban
transports
-not controlled by MNRE
- could need costly investments
- tax reforms always difficult (but less for indirect taxation)
Integration as an alternative : an easier solution than changing legislation in other sectors is to
promote their sustainability via SEA (plans and programmes) and EIA (projects), and monitoring
based on environmental indicators.
Pricing policies and phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies
+ better economic efficiency if price of utilities (water, energy) reflects market conditions
+ underpricing increases consumption in a non-rational manner
+ subsidies are costly and delay adaptation to market conditions and competitiveness
-likely resistance of stakeholders favoured by status quo (farmers, industry…)
-possible negative impact on employment in the short term
-possible negative impact on some regions (where subsidies are higher)
An inventory of non-sustainable subsidies and prices could be a useful step.
Green Public Procurement
+ Public proc = +/- 20% GDP in the EU, probably more in Belarus
+ success stories in the EU confirms feasibility and impact of Green PP
+ existing EU methodology (NAP, common criteria) could easily inspire Belarus
+ could be implemented at national, regional, local levels and by state owned companies
-may require technological changes (and adaptation costs on the supply side)
-should avoid protectionism and must be non-discriminatory
-may require an adaptation period for changing some production methods
Instrument highly recommended which could bring significant results at a reasonable cost.
Ecolabelling
+ implemented at EU level and in many Member States (D,NL,FR, SW, DK, ….)
+ contributes to more sustainable consumption patterns
+ can include criteria covering environment, health and safety
+more relevant for some products than others (price elasticity of demand)
-possible confusions between official ecolabels and self-claimed labels not in line with Life Cycle
Analysis
-definition of criteria quite complex (except for basic goods) and to be revised regularly
-overdose of logos on products
Could be developed but within a simplified scheme (energy for ‘white’ electronic goods? food
products? tourism?) or in combination with Green Public procurement (if there are criteria for GPP
they might in some cases also be used for the information of individual consumers).
Environmental certification and eco-management system
+internationally developed under ISO (14001)
+developed in the EU under EMAS
+continuous improvement of env performance and independent auditors with EMAS
+ symbolic and examplative value when public administration is certified
+profitable for companies (raw material and energy savings, logistics improved…)
-sometimes considered as administratively complex
-attracts companies or administrations already committed to sustainable development !
-unclear to which extent such certifications would have a significant global impact to boost GE
Certainly an interesting tool from at a micro-economic level, and could be encouraged on this basis,
but extension at a macro-economic level may be difficult in Belarus and might have an impact only
in a remote future.
Voluntary agreements (signed by industry, or local authorities)
+ some interesting examples in the EU and its Member States
+instrument easier to use for oligopolistic industries, or for big cities
+confirm pro-active attitude of stakeholders, could trigger Public/Private/Partnership
+interesting alternative to new legislation if (and only if) sufficiently ambitious
-objectives to be reached must be clear and demanding
-implementation must be controlled
-should not be a delaying tactic to avoid binding legislation or a hidden ‘business as usual attitude’
Should certainly be experimented if there is appetite from industries, the financial sector, or
municipal authorities. Could contribute to extend stakeholders’ involvement towards GE at a rather
low administrative cost.
Accompanying instruments :
GE scoreboard (indicators necessary for monitoring the GE process)
Communication policy
Capacity building / involvement of stakeholders
+ no measure of progress = no progress visible , a ‘GE scoreboard’ is necessary
+ experience of the European Environmental Agency successful beyond EU borders
+ communication pre-requisite for changing private consumption patterns
+ successful experiences of ‘training trainers’
+ promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility
-lack of relevant data may be an obstacle
-consumers often consider price before sustainability
-industry may not yet be convinced by GE benefits
3) Some conclusions
A wide range of instruments is available; once their legal feasibility has been checked, it would be
wised to check also their economic feasibility and their cost effectiveness. This cannot be done as
long as precise objectives have not been defined. An instrument is not good or bad in itself: it is
appropriate or not to reach a given objective. Promotion of Green Economy can indeed be the
frame of a variety of objectives : resource efficiency, low carbon economy, green agriculture,
creation of green jobs, sustainable forestry, reduction of air pollutants in the environment, ….Once
objectives are defined, they must be translated into a number of quantified targets ( for instance:
reduction of fossil fuel consumption of 30% by 2020, 20% share for organic food by 10 years, 10% of
electric cars by 2015, pesticides reduced by 40% within 10 years , ban of plastic bags within 5 years,
ban of landfilling by 2020 etc….).
At this stage, some instruments seem particularly promising such as
limited legislative initiatives ,
integration of environment into other policies ,
green public procurement,
identification and phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies,
voluntary agreements (for cities in particular),
improvement of environmental statistics ,
communication actions and capacity building.
The list of recommended instruments should be re-visited in the light of objectives and quantified
targets.
Claude ROUAM