: The Environmental Infrastructure Support
Programme and the Environment
Accession Programme
Final Report
sdfsdfsdf
Case No UF 2014-48460 UF 2011-16065
November 2015
This Report has been prepared by Milieu Ltd under Case No UF 2014-48460 UF 2011-16065
Milieu Ltd (Belgium), Chaussee de Charleroi 112, B-1060 Brussels, tel.: +32 2 506 1000; e-mail:
damir.petrovic@milieu.be; web address: www.milieu.be.
A Near End Review of two environmental programmes in Serbia
supported by Sweden: The Environmental Infrastructure Support
Programme and the Environment Accession Programme
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 5
ABBREVIATIONS USED .......................................................................................................... 8
1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 10
1.1
Background and Objectives ............................................................................. 10
1.2
Sweden’s cooperation with Serbia .................................................................. 10
1.2.1
Environmental Infrastructure Support Programme (EISP) ................ 12
1.2.2
Environment Accession Programme (ENVAP) .................................. 13
1.3
Recommendations from previously carried out evaluations ....................... 15
2
THE NATIONAL CONTEXT (RELEVANT ISSUES AND ACTORS)..................................... 17
2.1
EU Accession........................................................................................................ 17
2.2.
Main relevant Actors in Serbia .......................................................................... 18
2.2.1. SEIO ......................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2. MAEP ....................................................................................................... 20
2.2.3. Ministry of Finance ................................................................................ 21
2.2.4. Local authorities .................................................................................... 21
2.2.5. Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities ......................... 22
2.2.6. Other Authorities ................................................................................... 22
2.3.
Working conditions under which the programmes have operated ........... 22
3
EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 26
3.1.
relevance and performance ............................................................................ 26
3.1.1. The relevance of the programmes in a national context .............. 26
3.1.2. The achievement of project objectives and expected results ...... 27
3.1.3. The coordination and synergies between the two programs and
with other projects .............................................................................................. 40
3.1.4. The sustainability of support in a national context ........................... 43
3.2.
management and Coordination ..................................................................... 44
3.2.1. The roles, mandates and coordination between the cooperation
partners................................................................................................................. 44
3.2.2. Reporting and follow-up ...................................................................... 45
4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 47
5
ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... 52
5.1
Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 52
5.2
Methodology ....................................................................................................... 56
5.3
List of information sources .................................................................................. 64
5.4
List of parties consulted ...................................................................................... 66
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the Near End Review of two environmental programmes in Serbia supported by
the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) as part of Serbia’s preparations for EU
negotiations and subsequent accession: the Environmental Infrastructure Support Programme (EISP)
and the Environment Accession Programme (ENVAP2). The programmes are expected to end in June
2016.
The overall aim of the Near End Review is twofold: to review and document results achieved and to
identify lessons learned, and to provide advice to Sweden and partners to be considered in a possible
continuation of the cooperation. In this context, the Near End Review has the following objectives:
1. To assess the two environmental programmes within the national context and working
environment;
2. To carry out an evaluation study of the two environmental programmes as well as of its
management and coordination;
3. To provide recommendations for continued Swedish support.
The main evaluation questions that the Near End Review aims to address are related to: (i) the
performance and relevance of the two programmes, (ii) the ownership, alignment and harmonization;
and (iii) the coordination and quality of reporting and follow-up.
Evaluation of the two environmental programmes
The programmes have undertaken a challenging task of assisting Serbian competent authorities in
fulfilling the requirements of the accession process in the area of environment. Although environment
is one of the most complex areas of the acquis requiring significant environmental investments, it
seldom receives the required attention by the authorities.
The overall objective of EISP is to provide the Department of Project Management (DPM) of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (MAEP) with the capability and tools to
oversee the programming and implementation of at least € 40 million of environmental infrastructure
projects each year of accreditation and be ready for EU structural funds on accession. ENVAP2 aims
to strengthen the MAEP’s ability to efficiently take part in the upcoming EU accession negotiations.
The main focus of the programme lies on the strengthening capacity and organization of MAEP to
coordinate Serbia’s position on Chapter 27 on environmental acquis.
The interviewed stakeholders take a very positive view of the programmes. The general attitude of the
interviewed MAEP’s staff is that Serbia would face significant challenges in meeting requirements
stemming from EU accession at this stage without the support provided by the programmes. All
stakeholders consider the flexibility under which the programmes have been programmed and
implemented as important contributing factors to their success as it has allowed for addressing
unexpected developments, such as the request by the European Commission to the Serbian authorities
to prepare the so called post-screening report. Other features also received wide recognition from
stakeholders, such as financial assistance to certain projects, on-the-job training, simulations, helpdesk, etc. Although not directly, the impact of the programmes has been partially reflected in the 2012
– 2014 Progress Reports which recognise that priorities in the fields of environment have started to be
addressed.
In respect to the programmes’ achievements, EISP provided support to the Ministry by contributing to
the development of an environmental projects’ pipeline and by prioritising projects to be included in
the Single Project Pipeline. The Single Project Pipeline contains a list of strategically significant
infrastructure projects which will make the largest contributions towards achievement of Serbian
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 5
policy objectives for EU accession and socio-economic development. Furthermore, EISP is
contributing to the project preparation of some of the projects listed on the Single Project Pipeline by
financing preparation of some of the project development documents. EISP is also providing targeted
investment to unblock project proposal bottlenecks and to generate lessons learned and good practices.
The link between the project activities (the so-called ‘hard’ side, notably project preparation and
implementation) and the necessary policy work (the so-called ‘soft’ side of EISP, such as the
preparation of the DSIP for the Landfill Directive) has contributed to the overall performance of
EISP, as it has allowed for a positive feedback loop between these two types of activities. Lessons
learned in respect to the ‘hard’ side (e.g. costs of construction of waste transfer station) are fed into
activities taking place as part of the ‘soft’ side (e.g. Landfill Directive DSIP). In respect to both sides,
EISP supports capacity building both at the national and local level. The capacity methods include on
the job training, field trips, study trips, participation at conferences, and trainings. To further
contribute to capacity building, EISP developed a Capacity and Capability Development Plan in 2014
which was updated in June 2015.
ENVAP2 also produced significant results. ENVAP2’s contribution in the establishment and
functioning of negotiation group responsible for environment, as well as its working groups and
specific teams, is very significant. Although it would certainly exist without the support of ENVAP2,
ENVAP2’s activities so far were so effective that the negotiation group for environment is considered
by some of the interviewed stakeholders as one of the most well prepared groups during the entire
screening process. This was partially attained through the implementation of innovative capacity
building approaches such as bilateral screening simulations. Other activities, such as the preparation
of the EU Handbook on EU negotiation process in respect to environmental matters, also contributed
to building the necessary capacity. ENVAP2 also provided support in the preparation of the postscreening report, carried out gap assessments, supported preparation of DSIPs, and is further expected
to provide its support in the preparation of position papers. ENVAP2 established a dialogue tool
facilitating a dialogue and reinforcing partnerships with other authorities having responsibilities in the
environmental field, as well as the help desk facilitating a direct support from the relevant experts on
various issues (e.g. water, biodiversity, waste). ENVAP2 organised numerous seminars and working
group meetings with various stakeholders. The presence of ENVAP2 within the Ministry was well
appreciated by the interviewees. This has facilitated the planning and coordination of the programme
and has increased ownership.
The programmes achieved different results, only some of which are indicated in the two preceding
paragraphs, despite several encountered challenges which included:
 institutional changes within the environmental sector (e.g. transfer of environmental portfolio
from one ministry to another);
 high human turnover and reduced capacities within relevant departments of the ministries
competent for environmental protection;
 overall low capacities of the relevant authorities implementing EU environmental acquis;
 unforeseen issues impacting the programmes (e.g. the Ministry of Finance is experiencing
difficulties fulfilling its new role which causes delays in respect to IPA projects and the
requirement to prepare the post-screening report).
The programmes, due to their flexible design, were able to adequately address these encountered
challenges.
As this is an evaluation of ongoing programmes, further work remains to be done. Also, experiences
acquired during EISP and ENVAP2 implementation should be taken into consideration in design of
future programmes.
EISP’s objectives and activities are presented separately, and the link between objectives and
components (and thus with the budget) is not clear. In general, the links between ENVAP2’s expected
results and activities and outputs are clear. However, in some respect they overlap (e.g. results 1, 3,
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 6
and 7 overlap in respect to capacity building of national, regional and local authorities competent for
implementation of environmental acquis). Also, it is not clear whether result 3 is limited only to
central authorities.
So far, EISP has fully achieved two of its five objectives. Regarding the other objectives, EISP’s
activities are still ongoing and further improvements are expected in the future. EISP reporting can be
strengthened further to more clearly indicate the progress made, and explain the challenges. The
rationale for selecting projects to support financially is not always entirely clear. The decision to start
the pre-feasibility work on two large investments (in Novi Sad and Niš) at a relatively late stage of
EISP is not optimal, as EISP will not have the resources to the take the results of this technical
assistance work forward or to develop a template on the basis of this experience. However, the
foreseen PEID project should be in a good position to address these issues.
ENVAP2 has fully achieved two of its seven expected results. There is ambiguity in respect to one
result. More specifically, it is uncertain whether result 3 has been achieved since it is unclear whether
it is limited only to central level authorities. In case it is limited to central level authorities then result
3 has been attained. Some of ENVAP2’s activities are still ongoing. ENVAP2 set very challenging
results in respect to strengthening capacity of regional and local environmental authorities and
improving understanding of EU environment policy among stakeholders (results 1 and 7). It is
challenging to assess the extent to which the carried out activities have resulted in strengthening
capacity and improving understanding.
ENVAP2 did not carry out surveys among the
authorities/stakeholders which would enable an assessment of the effectiveness of the carried out
activities in attaining the results.
There are other challenges which may have an impact on the programmes for the reminder of their
duration. The Government announced a possibility of further restructuring which may again have as a
consequence transfer of the environmental portfolio from one ministry to another. Revenues collected
on the basis of polluter pays fees do not seem to be entirely allocated to environmental projects, a
situation that is not likely to change in the future. The sustainability of the overall programmes’
results will primarily depend on two connected issues, Serbia’s determination to accede the EU and
EU’s capacity and willingness to accept new member states. At the moment, both sides are
proclaiming their support to the accession process, but this may change in the future.
The conclusions of the carried out evaluations are presented in section 4. They provide a more indepth review of the report. The conclusions are structured per evaluation criteria as presented in the
report. Section 4 also contains several recommendations for continued Swedish support.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 7
ABBREVIATIONS USED
CFCU
Central Contracting and Finance Unit of the Ministry of Finance
DPM
Department for Project Management in the Field of Environment
DSIP
Directive Specific Implementation Plan
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EIB
European Investment Bank
EISP
Environmental Infrastructure Support Programme
ENVAP
Environment Accession Programme
EU
European Union
EUD
Department for European Integration and International Cooperation in the Field of
Environment of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection
FS
Feasibility Study
IFI
International Financial Institutions
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IPA
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance
KfW
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
MAEP
Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection
PEID
Priority Environmental Infrastructure for Development
PLAC
Policy and Legal Advice Centre
PPF
Project Preparation Facility
PUC
Public utility companies
RENA
Regional Environmental Network for Accession
SEPA
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
SKL
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions
SCTM
Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities
SEIO
Serbian European Integration Office
SGP
Stability and Growth Pact
Sida
Swedish International Development Agency
SOE
State-Owned Enterprises
SPP
Single Project Pipeline
SWG
Sector Working Group
TS
Transfer Station
UWWTD
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the Near End Review of two environmental programmes in Serbia supported by
the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida): the Environmental Infrastructure Support
Programme (EISP) and the Environment Accession Programme (ENVAP2).
In this introductory chapter, the objective of the Near End Review is presented, together with a short
description of the cooperation between Sweden and Serbia on EU accession and environmental issues
put in the context of other international support, followed by a short introduction of the two
programmes.
1.1
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
As part of Serbia’s preparations for EU negotiations and subsequent accession, Sweden is providing
support to Serbia through two environmental programs: EISP and ENVAP2. The programmes are
expected to end in June 2016. The Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (MAEP) is
the main beneficiary of EISP and ENVAP2.
The overall aim of the Near End Review is twofold: to review and document results achieved and to
identify lessons learned, and to provide advice to Sweden and partners to be considered in a possible
continuation of the cooperation. In this context, the Near End Review has the following objectives:
1. To assess the two environmental programmes within the national context and working
environment;
2. To carry out an evaluation study of the two environmental programmes as well as of its
management and coordination;
3. To provide recommendations for continued Swedish support.
The main evaluation questions that the Near End Review aims to address are related to: (i) the
performance and relevance of the two programmes, (ii) the ownership, alignment and harmonization;
and (iii) the coordination and quality of reporting and follow-up.
The Near End Review has been carried out by a team from Milieu Ltd: Gretta Goldenman, Gijs Nolet,
Damir Petrović and Nebojša Pokimica. Following the preparation of an evaluation framework to guide
the work of the review, the team studied earlier review/appraisal reports, progress reports and
background documentation. During the week of 5 October 2015, the team undertook a mission to
Serbia, where they met with the key stakeholders. This was a critical part of the review, as it
represented an opportunity to collect information and views from different sources that were not
available from reports. Furthermore, it provided the opportunity to collect information and views from
a broader perspective, going beyond that of the stakeholders directly involved in the management of
the programmes.
The Terms of Reference as well as the methodology, the list of the information sources and people
interviewed are annexed to the report.
1.2
SWEDEN’S COOPERATION WITH SERBIA
Sweden’s cooperation with Serbia is part of its overall cooperation with the Western Balkans and part
of Sweden’s advocacy of continued EU enlargement. A better environment is one of the expected
results of the cooperation, together with enhanced economic integration with the EU and the
development of market economy, and strengthened democracy. This result is to be achieved through
support for capacity building, which should contribute to strengthening the Western Balkan countries’
implementation of the EU environmental requirements. While most of Sweden’s support is managed
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 10
by Sida, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) also plays an important role in the
cooperation. SEPA started the environmental cooperation in 2005, financed with support from Sida.
This support also included ENVAP (1 and 2), the preparations for negotiations related to Serbia’s EU
accession process.
In addition to the two environmental programmes reviewed in this report, Sweden is also considering
the establishment of a complementary programme: the Priority Environmental Infrastructure for
Development (PEID) with the objective of enabling MAEP to further develop the pipeline of such
infrastructure projects, with technical assistance to the Ministry in the area of project preparation and
implementation. During the period of PEID implementation EISP will continue to support DPM
mainly carrying out Steps 1 and 2 of the project development process, before handing on to PEID.
According to the information obtained from the stakeholders, PEID will then undertake additional
specific technical preparations needed. DPM / EISP are defining many of the policies that will guide
PEID’s approach1.
Over the period 2007-2013, Serbia received around € 275 million of international donor assistance in
the environmental and climate sector, including around € 200 million from Instrument for Preaccession Assistance (IPA) national programmes2. Sweden is among the main donors to Serbia in the
environmental sector, together with Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. For EU funding, donor
coordination is ensured by the Serbian European Integration Office (SEIO), Serbia’s technical
secretariat of IPA funding. The Swedish Embassy in Belgrade is the co-chair of the Working Group on
Environment and Climate Change3. In 2014, Sida distributed 16 608 000 SEK in the environmental
sector, only behind cooperation on democracy and conflict (total budget was 118 361 000 SEK in
2014)4. In addition to the grant resources from bilateral donors, loans have been provided by several
International Financial Institutions (IFIs): the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD), European Investment Bank (EIB), Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), and the World
Bank.
The EBRD’s strategy for Serbia (April 2014) has as one of its main strategic orientations the
development of sustainable and efficient public utilities in order to address the slow implementation of
investment projects.5 To support the development of public utilities, the EBRD will finance new
projects in municipal infrastructure in medium-sized cities, focusing on commercialization of services,
capacity building as well as development of a more efficient project implementation structure with a
focus on public utility companies, instead of state or city levels. The EBRD has 12 Municipal
Environmental Infrastructure projects in its portfolio for a total of € 934 million. One of these projects
concerns the first regional solid waste landfill in Duboko with the involvement of nine municipalities6,
which is supported by Sweden, with funds channelled through the EBRD (9.5 million SEK). Due to
location issues, a number of landslides occurred and Sweden financed the rehabilitation and supports
the stabilization and extension of the landfill for two reasons: 1) there is a risk for a new landslide, and
2) Duboko has become a priority project for the MAEP since there is a need to extend the landfill and
the Ministry has to show the European Commission that earlier supported projects are indeed
implemented in a satisfactory way. For these reasons, the “Duboko Sustainability project” was
included in the EISP extension (July 2015-June 2016) as a way of strengthening financial
sustainability, improve efficiency of operations and improve the involvement of the 9 municipalities
(with the regional Public Utility Company Duboko).
1
Priority Environmental Infrastructure for Development (PEID). Project Concept. V3. 15 September 2015.
Page 23 at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2014/20140919-csp-serbia.pdf
3 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2014/20140919-csp-serbia.pdf, accessed on 22 October 2015.
4 http://www.sida.se/English/where-we-work/Europe/Serbia-/Cooperation-in-figures/, accessed on 22 October 2015.
5 http://www.ebrd.com/where-we-are/serbia/overview.html, accessed on 22 October 2015.
6 http://www.ebrd.com/work-with-us/projects/psd/duboko-solid-waste.html, accessed on 22 October 2015.
2
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 11
Box 1. Assessment of transition challenges in the water and wastewater sector in Serbia.
EBRD Strategy for Serbia, April 2014
Key challenges: (i) tariff reform based on a transparent and predictable methodology, without interference from
the central government; and (ii) improved contractual arrangements with clearly set service obligations,
performance targets, and investment plans.
Local infrastructure has been decentralised to municipalities, although land ownership rests with the government.
Full corporatisation is still not in place and utility managers have so far been hired as political rather than
professional appointees. At the end of 2011 several legal changes were enacted aimed at depoliticising the daily
operations of municipal utilities (adjustments to the concession law, legal regulations requiring professional
management appointment for public utilities). Financial and operational performances are fairly good in some of
the larger cities but the variation is huge both in terms of technical losses and collection rates. Meter based
billing is not the norm throughout the country. Municipalities can in principle access bank financing for
infrastructure projects, capped to 50 per cent of their previous year’s revenues and upon obtaining consent of the
Ministry of Finance. The recent Budgetary System under the IMF programme limits the overall public debt,
including municipalities, which is now capped with the country’s GDP growth.
For most utilities, tariffs mostly cover only operational costs, and rarely are high enough to make a substantial
contribution to investment. Cross subsidies are still widespread. Water tariffs are set by the municipalities, but
there are limitations set by the central government to control the country’s inflation level. Service contracts are
very rare, and the ones that have been developed mostly at the request of IFIs have had mixed success.
The EIB has been active in Serbia since 2001, and has provided financing totalling € 4.3 billion. One
of the key projects concerns a € 75 million loan signed in 2009 for the financing of investment
schemes in municipal and regional infrastructure7.
For KfW Development Bank, one of the priorities is helping Serbia to meet the EU targets in water
supply and waste and environment. KfW mainly supports small and medium-sized cities in building
up water and waste water networks8. The need for donor coordination has been recognized for several
years9, and Sweden is playing an important role in this respect.
For the World Bank Group, the Strategy does not include a particular focus on environmental issues,
but its support has been designed in close cooperation with other development partners with the aim to
advance Serbia’s EU accession10.
1.2.1
Environmental Infrastructure Support Programme (EISP)
EISP aims to increase the capacity of MAEP and other (local) stakeholders to work with
environmental investments and for Serbia to increase its uptake of environmental funding from IPA
(and other sources of funding). EISP is carried out by the International Management Group (IMG), an
intergovernmental organisation dedicated to the facilitation and management of development efforts in
almost 20 countries11.
EISP consists of a combination of components on the one hand, and objectives and activities on the
other hand. According to the approved Programme Proposal12, there are three components: capacity
7
http://www.eib.org/attachments/country/factsheet_serbia_2014_en.pdf, accessed on 22 October 2015.
https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/International-financing/KfW-Development-Bank/Local-presence/Europe/Serbia/,
accessed on 22 October 2015.
9 http://www.sida.se/contentassets/09f43a042e3646d9b947b813a4b92fc3/serbia_830.pdf, accessed on 22 October 2015.
10
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/02/07/000350881_20120207170941/Rendered/PDF
/653790CAS0revised0Box365777B00PUBLIC0.pdf, access on 22 October 2015.
11 http://www.img-int.org/Central/Public08/About.aspx
12 Programme Proposal, July 2011 – July 2013.
8
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 12
building, facilitation, and direct environment infrastructure investments (as noted below, a senior
management component was later added). It is worth noting that the infrastructure component
required different financial procedures (e.g. no-objection) for sub-projects and that different subproject contribute to different objectives. The programme’s operational budget is allocated according
to these components. However, the programme’s objectives (see below) and activities are presented
separately, and the link between objectives and components (and thus with the budget) is not clear 13.
Moreover, the outputs are generally reported by yet another set of categories: policy, pipeline and
senior management support.
The overall objective of EISP is to provide the Department of Project Management (DPM) with the
capability and tools to oversee the programming and implementation of at least € 40 million of
environmental infrastructure projects each year of accreditation and be ready for EU structural funds
on accession.
More specifically, EISP has the following five specific objectives:
 Objective 1: To support the DPM in the development of a project pipeline and prioritisation
process of sufficient maturity and quality to start to absorb available funds from January 2012.
 Objective 2: To support the further development of the pipeline in order to improve direct
investments in environmental infrastructure in Serbia, to ensure a continuous stream of
proposals by May 2013.
 Objective 3: To provide DPM with the capability to be a full partner of the international and
national funding institutions in the planning and preparation of project proposals.
 Objective 4: The support the staff of DPM to effectively plan, direct and control the use of
consultancies and other technical assistance in the project management process.
 Objective 5: To support the technical upgrade of capability of DPM and SLAP14 system by
November 2011.
The support provided through the implementation of EISP amounted to SEK 25 million in the period
2011 - 2014. Following a six-month inception period (January – June 2011), a Programme Proposal
was approved in June 201115 and the main programme started in July 2011. EISP was implemented on
the basis of semi-annual work programmes endorsed by the Steering Committee on the basis of
Interim Reports. EISP has been extended twice. The first extension was in June 2013 for a two-year
period with SEK 10 million as the planning figure for additional financial support. A new component
(the Senior Management component) was added to EISP in December 2013 to support specific urgent
or decision-making activities including: Environmental Financing Direction, Public-PrivatePartnership & Implementation Approaches, the Investment Projects and the Duboko Sustainability
Project16. In June 2015, EISP was extended for the second time with an additional year, and with an
additional budget of €1,497,678 leading to a total budget of € 5,771,756.55. EISP’s overall objectives
have remained the same throughout the overall period. The purpose of the extensions was to conclude
EISP successfully, in particular its activities regarding policy support and sub-project implementation.
1.2.2
Environment Accession Programme (ENVAP)
ENVAP2 aims to strengthen MAEP’s ability to efficiently take part in the upcoming EU accession
negotiations. The main focus of the program lies on the strengthening capacity and organization of
MAEP to coordinate Serbia’s position on Chapter 27 on environmental acquis. This includes a gap
13
The timeline lists in chronological order the tasks that correspond to the different activities under each of the objectives.
For more information on SLAP, see Box 3 of this Report.
15
http://www.sida.se/globalassets/global/countries-and-regions/europe-incl.-central-asia/serbia/project-examples/projectdocument-environmental-infrastructure-serbia.pdf
16
EISP PSC Meeting Minutes – 5th February 2014.
14
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 13
analysis and support in development of action plans and position papers. ENVAP2 is implemented by
SEPA.
ENVAP2 consists of seven expected results, each with its activities and outputs. In general, the links
between expected results and activities and outputs are clear. However, shortcomings in respect to
clear separation of different expected results are noted. More specifically, expected results 1, 3, and 7
overlap in respect to capacity building of national, regional and local authorities competent for
implementation of environmental acquis. Also, it is not clear whether result 3 is limited only to
central authorities.
The overall objective of ENVAP2 is to strengthen Serbia's ability to efficiently take part in the
upcoming EU accession negotiations.
The expected results of ENVAP2 are:
 Result 1: To strengthen the EU negotiation function of the ministry competent for
environmental protection, including the capacity building of national, but also regional and
local level environmental authorities;
 Result 2: To strengthen Negotiation group 27 in terms of structure and working procedures;
 Result 3: To strengthening capacity of staff members from relevant authorities responsible for
transposition and implementation of the environmental acquis;
 Result 4: To increase the capacity in developing position papers and Directive Specific
Implementation plans;
 Result 5: To identify gaps and needs in specific sectors and to improve links between EU
accession negotiations and investment-related projects;
 Result 6: To develop specific documents relevant for the EU accession negotiations; and
 Result 7: To improve the understanding of the EU environmental policy among stakeholders,
including civil society.
ENVAP2 is a continuation of ENVAP1. ENVAP1 was a result of the request from the Serbian
Ministry competent for environmental protection to SEPA for assistance in preparation for EU
accession. This request was made considering SEPA’s experience in similar projects with Latvia,
Lithuania and Macedonia. The purpose of ENVAP1 was to enhance the capacity of the Ministry
competent for environmental protection in view of the forthcoming EU accession. In addition to
sharing the experience from earlier accession negotiations, SEPA also shared information on the
effects of the EU alignment on public administrations in the field of environment. The project ran
between June 2011 and March 2013 with a budget of SEK 1.9 million. ENVAP1’s main results
included: a draft template for position papers, a draft Handbook in EU matters, enhanced capacities
and experience of the Ministry’s EU accession coordination team and implementation of a few
workshops for the target groups on waste and water sectors, increasing the knowledge on specific
directives.
The Ministry expressed its wish for a continuation of the bilateral assistance with an increased level of
ambition. This proposal was endorsed by Sida who envisaged a new ENVAP2 program for the period
2013-15. ENVAP2 began in 2013. In 2014, ENVAP2 was expanded with the so called Nitrates
component. More specifically, the issue of sensitive areas was highlighted in one of ENVAP2’s
seminars. Having this in mind, SEPA prepared a project plan to include in ENVAP2’s Result 5 the
Nitrates component. The Nitrates component consists of providing support in designation of sensitive
areas and vulnerable zones according to the Nitrates Directive and Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive (UWWTD). In April 2015, SEPA requested additional funds and extension for ENVAP2.
According to SEPA, four main factors prompted the request for additional funds and extension,
namely, more intensive use of resources used for the preparation of the bilateral screening; unforeseen
post-screening engagement; additional sub-activities and outputs; support in respect to the Nitrates
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 14
component, originally not foreseen. The total support provided through the implementation of
ENVAP2 amounts to SEK 23,060,600 million in the period 2013 - 2016.
1.3
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUSLY CARRIED OUT EVALUATIONS
EISP
In accordance with Sida’s request, a mid-term/near-end review of EISP was carried out in May 2013.
The objectives of the review were to review progress achieved within EISP and to appraise the request
for extension of the project with one year with an additional € 1 million in funding.
The Review found that two of the five objectives (obj. 1 and 5) had been achieved and that good
progress had been observed in regard to the remaining three objectives (obj. 2, 3, and 4). Therefore,
the overall objective remained to be fully achieved. The Appraisal recommended that, as requested by
the Ministry, EISP is extended until the end of 2014 and the additional funding of € 1 million is
ensured, subject to specific conditions being met17.
The Review made the following recommendations:
1. Improve the measurement of the impact of capacity building/training on DPM job
performance. This is crucial for measuring overall project success.
2. Improve ownership and sustainability of the EISP through (i) the continuous and strengthened
capability support to the DPM staff, and through (ii) proactive support of the Senior
Management of the Ministry competent for environmental protection, together with SEIO (i.e.
the Environmental Sector Working Group (SWGs)), to the environmental infrastructure
sector, e.g. by calling for aid coordination meetings.
3. Strengthen the interim reporting with respect to work plans and simplifying the methodology
for progress reporting.
In response to these recommendations, EISP developed a Capacity and Capability Development Plan.
EISP also committed to support Sida in promoting an effective and efficient SWG by providing
background planning, subject-matter documentation and communication with other donors. Finally,
the EISP management team committed to improve reporting and seek an improved balance between
the detail required and the readability of the reports.
ENVAP
The earlier evaluations of ENVAP1 noted that its overall objective of ENVAP1 is considered to be
achieved. Therefore, ENVAP1 has not been the subject of this evaluation.
In accordance with a request by SEPA, an evaluation of the 1st year of ENVAP2 was carried out in
September 2014. According to the evaluation, all of the expected results were achieved to a
significant degree. The evaluation further recommends that the project be continued but that the
programme should get adequate attention and a strong commitment from the leadership of the
Ministry, and that the Serbian Government should be made aware of the negative impact of frequent
restructuring and high turnover of high level officials involved in the accession process. Further, the
evaluation recommended that the Steering Committee should meet more often (at least three times a
year) and to continue work on several issues as planned (such as the Handbook on EU accession). All
in all, the evaluation included 17 recommendations, several of which were related to activities already
17
Please note that the conditions are listed in the Review of Swedish support to the Serbian administration to prepare a
national project pipeline for environmental investments, “Environmental Infrastructure Support Project” (13 June 2013).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 15
planned, while others were more addressed to the Ministry18. In its Management Response, SEPA
addressed all the recommendations with a proposal for moving forward on all of them. In essence, the
only recommendation with which SEPA disagreed was related to the proposal for the Steering
Committee to meet three times a year. SEPA was of the opinion that two meetings per year are
sufficient19. According to SEPA, the Steering Committee meetings with the decision makers are time
and effort consuming while their effectiveness is limited. SEPA’s past experience shows that the
effectiveness of the Steering Committee meetings is increased when combined with less formal
meetings with the implementing staff.
Evaluation of The 1st Year of Preparations for Negotiations Related to Serbia’s Accession Process, Phase 2, Environment
Accession Project 2 (ENVAP2), September 2014, Professional Management
19 Management Response, Evaluation, ENVAP2. SEPA Memo. 2015-02-02. Case Number NV-02589-13.
18
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 16
2
THE NATIONAL CONTEXT (RELEVANT ISSUES AND ACTORS)
This chapter briefly describes the institutional context in which the two programmes have operated in
order to provide a better understanding of the working environment in which they operate.
2.1
EU ACCESSION
The Serbian Government is strongly committed to the EU integration process20. Serbia became an
EU candidate country on 1 March 2012 and the negotiations for formal membership in the EU
commenced on 21 January 2014.
Negotiations relate to the conditions under which a candidate country will be admitted to the EU and
focus on transposition and implementation of EU acquis. The acquis is split into different chapters,
each covering a specific policy area, which form the basis of the accession negotiations. In the case of
Serbia, there are in total 35 chapters. Chapter 27 concerns environment and climate change. Chapter
27 is one of the most challenging chapters in respect to the needed capacities and investments. To
fully comply with the EU requirements in respect to the environment and climate change, Serbia is
expected to transpose into its national legislation over 300 legal acts, to dedicate resources for their
implementation and enforcement, and to invest substantial resources in the environmental
infrastructure21.
For each chapter, the Commission carries out a screening, i.e. a detailed examination to determine how
well the country is prepared. The findings of the screening are presented in a form of screening
reports, one for each chapter. The screening reports contain recommendations to either open
negotiations directly or to require that certain conditions – opening benchmarks – should first be met22.
In the case of Serbia and Chapter 27, screening took place in November 2014. Following the
screening, the Commission gave Serbia a possibility to improve its screening performance, a
possibility that candidate countries had not been provided with previously. More specifically, the
Commission asked Serbia to provide more information on the implementation plans, timeline,
financial resources needed, and on institutional responsibilities, before the Commission prepares and
publishes Chapter 27 Screening Report23. In September 2015, Serbia prepared a report containing
requested information. The Commission has not issued Chapter 27 Screening Report at the moment of
drafting this report.
In order to support Serbia in the accession process, the EU is providing financial assistance. For the
period 2007-2013, the EU allocated under the IPA € 1.4 billion, with another € 1.5 billion earmarked
for the period 2014-202024. Over the 2007 - 2013 period, the EU IPA assistance in the field of
environment, climate change, and energy amounted to € 192 million25.
With the aim to facilitate the accession process, the Serbian Government adopted the National
Environmental Approximation Strategy on 13 October 201126. The Strategy contains plans for the
20
Stana Božović, Secretary of the State, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, ENVAP2 Steering Committee Meeting,
26 March 2015.
21 Evaluation of the 1st Year of Preparations for Negotiations Related to Serbia’s EU Accession Process, Phase 2,
Environment Accession Project 2 (ENVAP2), Professional Management, 2014.
22 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/steps-towards-joining/index_en.htm, accessed on 20 October 2015.
23 Request for additional funds:
Preparation for negotiations related to Serbia’s EU accession process, Phase 2,
Environmental Accession Project 2 (ENVAP2), NV-02589-13, 16 April 2015.
24 Serbia 2014 Progress Report SWD(2014) 302 final.
25 Special Report, EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia, European Court of Auditors, No 19, 2014.
26 (“O.G.” No. 80/11).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 17
transposition of the EU environmental acquis, strengthening of the institutional framework within
which the acquis is to be implemented, and calculation of costs and benefits of compliance with the
acquis. The Strategy notes that, whilst significant progress has been made over the last decade in
strengthening the environmental sector in Serbia, much remains to be done.
Other documents are also relevant for the accession process. Some of the most important are:




National Programme for the Adoption of the acquis for the period 2013 – 201627. The
Programme defines development and strategic goals, relevant policies, reforms and measures
required, and it establishes a detailed plan for harmonization of legislation and defines human
and budget resources, and other funds required for the implementation of envisaged tasks.
Directive Specific Implementation Plans (DSIP), containing more information on
transposition of specific directives. Usually, DSIP are prepared for heavy investment cost
directives. So far, only the DSIP for the Landfill Directive has been prepared in Serbia.
Sectorial strategies such as waste strategy28 and water strategy.
Action plans in respect to recommendations contained in the annual progress reports on the
accession process issued by the Commission. The lates available action plan was issued in
February 2014. This plan calls for adoption of the National Water Strategy29.
The annual progress reports may be used to benchmark the progress that Serbia has made over the past
few years in the environmental sector. In that respect, the reviewed reports note some progress with
the general note that further work needs to be done.
More specifically, the 201230, 201331, and 201432 Progress Reports recognise that priorities in the
fields of environment have started to be addressed. The 2015 Report notes that a pipeline of
investment priorities was developed in May 2014. From 2012 to 2015, the collection rate of
household waste increased from 60% to 80%. In the period 2013 – 2015, the number of EU complaint
regional sanitary landfills increased from six to seven. However, the reports recognise that other
forms of waste management need to be developed in order to use landfilling only as a last resort.
Also, all three reports note that further efforts are needed to strengthen the administrative capacities.
The 2015 report states that “strategic investment planning for water pollution abatement continues to
be hampered by the lack of a national water protection strategy”. The same Report also states an
“effective and permanent financing system for environment and climate action is needed”.
2.2.
MAIN RELEVANT ACTORS IN SERBIA
The Government of Serbia is competent to represent Serbia in negotiations with the EU in respect to
Serbia’s accession to the Union. The Government introduced a structure to support it in meeting the
challenges associated with the EU negotiation process.
27
The
National
Programme
is
available
on
the
following
link:
http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/nacionalna_dokumenta/npaa/npaa_eng__2014_2018.pdf, accessed on 21 October
2015.
28 (“O.G.“, No. 29/10).
29
The
2014
Action
Plan
is
available
on
the
following
link:
http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/akcioniplan/akcioni_plan_2013_feb.pdf, accessed on 21 October 2015.
30 Serbia 2012 Progress Report SWD(2012) 333 final.
31 Serbia 2013 Progress Report SWD(2013) 412 final.
32 Serbia 2014 Progress Report SWD(2014) 302 final.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 18
Picture 1: EU negotiation process structure in Serbia
Goverment of Serbia
Coordination Body of the
Goverment of Serbia
Negotiation Team
Negotiation Groups
Working Groups
Serbia’s EU negotiation process is led by the Coordination Body created by the Serbian Government33.
The Coordination body is competent to consider the most important issues and to provide guidance to
competent authorities in Serbia in respect to the process. The Coordination body consists of the Prime
Minister, various competent ministers, such as the minister competent for environmental protection, as
well as the Director of the SEIO, or head of the Negotiation Team and representatives of the other
competent authorities, if needed.
The Negotiation team is responsible for coordinating the process of negotiations (preparation of
negotiating positions, conducting negotiations in respect to all the chapters and all phases of the EU
accession process). The Negotiation team consists of the head and its members. The ministry
competent for environmental protection is represented in the Negotiation team. The Negotiation team
is responsible directly to the Government of Serbia.
A negotiation group is established for each chapter of the negotiation process. The negotiation groups
are participating in the screening, preparation of negotiation positions, drafting, revision, and
monitoring of implementation of the National Programme for the Adoption of the acquis, etc.
Coordination of the work of each negotiation group is the responsibility of a competent Serbian
authority. In the case of the Negotiation group 27, responsible for Chapter 27 on environment, the
MAEP is the responsible authority. Ms Stana Božović, State Secretary at MAEP is the head of the
Negotiation group 27. Appointed representatives of various institutions such as the ministries
competent for finance, energy, SEIO and other institutions are members of the Negotiation group 27.
The Negotiation group 27 consists of nine working groups, each responsible for one of the
environmental sector, i.e. horizontal; air quality; noise; waste management; water management; nature
protection; chemicals; industrial pollution and risk management; civil protection and climate change.
Each working group consists of members of the Negotiation group 27. Furthermore, in each working
group a specific team is responsible for each of the applicable EU legal acts that make up
33
(“O.G.”, No. 84/13, 86/13, 31/14, and 79/14).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 19
environmental acquis. In carrying out their work, members of the working groups are supported by
additional representatives of the competent authorities.
2.2.1. SEIO
In 2004 Serbian Government established SEIO34. SEIO is providing support to the Coordination body
and the Negotiation team, which includes assistance in the process of legal harmonisation, monitoring
implementation of relevant obligations, analysis of economic aspects of harmonisation with the
acquis, participating in coordination of EU technical assistance, and participating in coordination of
activities for planning and use of EU funds, donations and other forms of foreign development aid. In
respect to the last point, SEIO is involved in preparation of the Single Project Pipeline (SPP).
Box 2. Single Project Pipeline
The SPP contains a list of strategically significant infrastructure projects which will make the largest
contributions towards achievement of national policy objectives for EU accession and socio-economic
development. The SPP takes into consideration project readiness including the quality and completes
of planning and technical documentation.
For a project to be included in SPP, it has to go through a three stage process. Firstly, the relevant line
Ministries are identifying relevant infrastructure projects through primarily two sources: structured
project pipelines/mechanisms (e.g. SLAP) and sector strategy/action plans (e.g. Waste Management
Strategy). Secondly, the identified projects are submitted to SEIO and their strategic significance is
assessed. Thirdly, a gap assessment, assessing the quality and completeness of the project
documentation, is carried out.
The SPP contains projects from environmental sector as well as some other sectors (e.g. energy). In
respect to the environmental sector, the SPP contained 15 waste management projects and 17
water/waste water projects, in October 2015. Two of these projects are listed in the table below:
Project
Construction of the Regional Centre for Waste Management on the
territory of Novi Sad including Rehabilitation of dumpsites and
unsanitary landfills
Niš WWTP
Estimated Project Cost
€ 12+68m
€ 74.8m
2.2.2. MAEP
The MAEP is the line ministry for environmental protection35. The Ministry consists of sectors, which
are made up of departments, which then consists of units.
The main beneficiary of EISP is DPM. DPM’s responsibilities are divided in a programming role (to
identify, prepare and select mature project, procurement planning and budgeting for national cofinancing) and an implementation role (to support Central Contracting and Finance Unit (CFCU)
within the Ministry of Finance in procurement and tendering process). Therefore, the DPM consists of
two units, i.e. Unit for Programming of Projects Financed from EU Funds and International Aid in the
Environmental Area and Unit for Implementation and Monitoring of Implementation of Projects
Financed from EU Funds and International Aid in the Environmental Area.
The main beneficiary of ENVAP2 is the Department for European Integration and International
34
35
(“O.G.”, No. 75/05, 63/06, 126/07, 117/08, 42/10, 48/10 and 106/12).
(“O.G.”, No. 44/14, 14/15 and 54/15).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 20
Cooperation in the Field of Environment (EUD). The EUD consists of two units. ENVAP2 is the
focus of the Unit for European Integrations in the Environmental Protection Area. This EUD’s unit
assists the State Secretary in his/her participation in governmental EU decision making structure,
serves as the Secretariat for Negotiation group 27, assists the Negotiation group 27 working groups,
serves as the main contact point at the MAEP for EU accession issues, provides guidance/instruction
and supports other MAEP department in performing EU work, controls quality of EU related
documents provided by MAEP.
Picture 2: MAEP’s Organigram
2.2.3. Ministry of Finance
In March, the Commission granted conferral of management powers to Serbia. Part of the IPA 2013
national programme will be implemented for the first time under decentralised management by the
Ministry of Finance36. The Department for Contracting and Financing of EU Funded Projects is the
CFCU at the Ministry of Finance.
2.2.4. Local authorities
Local authorities are competent for environmental infrastructure in Serbia. In most cases they are the
only owners of public utility companies (PUC) which manage environmental infrastructure, i.e. waste
management and (waste) water facilities and equipment.
36
Serbia 2014 Progress Report SWD(2014) 302 final
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 21
2.2.5. Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities
The Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (SCTM) existence dates back to 1953. The
SCTM articulates the opinion of the local authorities, provides services to the local authorities (e.g.
workshops), and disseminates the information. The SCTM maintains and assures quality of SLAP
database.
Box 3. SLAP database37
SLAP is an online database of public municipal investment projects. SLAP was developed in
cooperation with two EU funded programmes in Serbia38 and commenced to work in 2006.
SLAP is a platform through which the local authorities seek funds for identification, development, and
implementation of municipal projects, including environmental projects. The information on the
projects is entered in SLAP by local authorities directly. Relevant government authorities, such as
MAEP, and sources of financing, such as Sida and IFIs, have access to SLAP.
2.2.6. Other Authorities
In addition to the above listed stakeholders, a number of other stakeholders are involved in the
implementation of the environmental acquis and will contribute in the environmental approximation
process. These institutions include:
 Republic Hydro meteorological Service;
 Traffic Safety Agency;
 Public Health Institute “Batut” + 23 local Public Health Institutes;
 Nature Protection Institute;
 Water Management Institute Ĵaroslav Černi;
 The Institute for biological researches “Dr Siniša Stanković”;
 Srbija vode, Vode Vojvodine and Beograd vode (public water companies);
 Srbija šume (state enterprise for forest management) and Vojvodina šume (public company for
forest management in Vojvodina);
 Relevant Secretariats of Autonomous Province Vojvodina;
 Serbian Parliament;
 civil
society
NGOs
and
business sector.
2.3.
WORKING CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PROGRAMMES HAVE OPERATED
The main actors
While the main actors are well defined, there are several issues that came up during the interviews
with the relevant stakeholders. These issues have an impact on the working conditions under which
the programmes have operated.
According to the information obtained during the interviews, the Ministry of Finance is experiencing
difficulties fulfilling its new role which causes delays in respect to IPA projects.
37
More information on SLAP database is available on the following link: http://www.slap.skgo.org/?lang=en, accessed on
22 October 2015.
38 Municipal Infrastructure Programme (information on the programme is available on the following link: http://www.mispserbia.rs/, accessed on 22 October 2015) and Exchange 3 (information the latest Exchange programme, Exchange 4 is
available on the following link: http://www.exchange.org.rs/, accessed on 22 October 2015).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 22
Performance of municipal utilities is a major concern, also for international donors, such as the World
Bank, that has called for the introduction of performance monitoring tools for local utilities to ensure
efficacy in the use of public funds and quality of service provisions39. In addition, there is a low
absorption capacity at the local level.
Shifting competences
In recent years, the competences for environmental protection shifted from one ministry to another.
Within the past three years, the environmental portfolio was part of the former Ministry of
Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning and then part of the former Ministry of Energy,
Development and Environmental Protection. Currently, it is part of MAEP. The Government
announced a possibility of further restructuring in the future which may again transfer the
environmental portfolio from one ministry to another.
Furthermore, the competences within MAEP for water issues remain unresolved and it is unclear
whether they fall under environmental or agricultural component of the MAEP. This may also have
an impact on further reorganisations of the Serbian Government.
Resource allocations (human and financial)
The declared political support for the programmes has not materialised in practice in terms of increase
in the staff and/or reorganisation of the work within the ministry competent for environmental
protection.
According to the MAEP’s staffing document, DPM consists of 11 people, five in each of the two units
and the head of the DPM. In reality, there are five people working in the Unit for Programming and
three in the Unit for Implementation. The position of the head of DPM has not been filled over six
months after the previous head left.
According to the MAEP’s staffing document, EUD’s Unit for European Integrations in the
Environmental Protection Area consists of four persons including the head of the Unit. According to
the information obtained during the interviews, the position of the head of unit, as well as another
position within the unit, are currently vacant, bringing down the number of people working for the
Unit to two. Also, according to the interviews, the support provided by the head of EUD is very
limited. According to the same source, the head of the Unit within EUD has not been replaced six
months following her resignation, nor has this position been advertised. Ms Stana Božović, State
Secretary at the MAEP, confirmed in a recent Steering Committee meeting that there are two vacant
positions at the Unit and committed herself to providing the list of people who will fill vacant
positions in the Unit by April 201540. This list has not been presented at the time of writing of this
Report (October 2015). Furthermore, Ms Božović committed herself to revealing the new structure of
EUD, strengthening the EUD and defining responsibilities41. This also has also not taken place at the
time of writing of this Report.
In general, the issue of administrative capacity was acknowledged by Ms Stana Božović, State
Secretary at the MAEP, who expressed her hopes that this issue will be dealt with after possible
reconstruction of the Government, possibly to take place in 201642. According to the information
obtained during the interviews, hiring of new staff in the future requires an approval from the Ministry
39
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/02/07/000350881_20120207170941/Rendered/PDF
/653790CAS0revised0Box365777B00PUBLIC0.pdf
40 ENVAP2 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, 26 March 2015.
41 ENVAP2 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, 26 March 2015.
42 ENVAP2 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, 26 March 2015.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 23
of Finance. According to the same source, an increase may be justified if it is linked to the EU
accession process, therefore improving the likeliness of a positive response. Also, according to the
same source, the reduction of public employees is expected to take place in 2016 as part of reforms
carried out by the Serbian Government with the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The consulted interviewees believe that the vacancies are not filled intentionally with the aim of
cutting unfilled positions in 2016.
Box 4. IMF and rightsizing general government employment43
The most recent IMF report on Serbia, issued in February 2015 under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles
of Agreement, states that Serbia is facing a weak economy, serious fiscal imbalances, and protracted
structural challenges. The new government appointed in 2014 has a window of opportunity to address
these issues, with support from a new Fund program.
Fiscal policy. Strong fiscal consolidation over the program period—largely based on curbing
mandatory spending and reducing state aid to state-owned enterprises (SOEs)—is needed to put public
debt on a downward path. These measures will be supported by strengthening public financial
management.
The authorities and staff agreed that a strong adjustment program is needed to stabilize public
debt by 2017 and put it firmly on a downward path thereafter. This requires a reduction of the
structural primary fiscal balance by about 3½ percent of GDP during 2015–17. The authorities viewed
frontloading of measures as feasible in view of the political momentum that has been built, and as
appropriate to enhance the credibility of reforms. The 2015 budget and supportive legislation approved
by the National Assembly in December 2014 reflect these efforts. Over the medium term, the
authorities considered the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) as a relevant fiscal anchor and
concurred with staff that SGP criteria should be reached by the time of EU accession.
The authorities recognized that curbing the sizeable spending on public wages and pensions is
critical for a durable fiscal adjustment. Thus, the program envisages a reduction of the wage and
pension bills to more sustainable levels of 7 and 11 percent of GDP, respectively, supported by the
following measures (among others):
Public wage reduction was the first step taken toward curbing mandatory expenditure. An across-theboard 10 percent nominal wage cut (while protecting the minimum monthly wage of 25,000 dinars)
was legislated with the 2014 supplementary budget and became effective as of November 2014. The
cut applies to the broader public sector, including SOEs, which will help reduce the reliance of some
SOEs on subsidies. In addition, legislation adopted in December 2014 suspends nominal indexation of
wages until the wage bill (excluding severance payments) reaches the target level by the end of the
program period.
Rightsizing general government employment. The authorities have committed to a two-stage process.
General government employment will be reduced by 5 percent through the continued application of
the attrition rule and targeted separations by mid-2015. Subsequently, there will be additional
rightsizing based on deeper reform of the general government employment through organizational and
functional restructuring in 2016–17.
On the basis of above, it is reasonable to believe that the existing vacancies will not be filled and that
additional staff will not be hired. However, it is possible that future restructurings within the ministry
competent for environmental protection may create better synergies between sectors, departments, and
units and may contribute to better allocation of the resources within the ministry competent for
43
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr1550.pdf, accessed on 22 October 2015.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 24
environmental protection. Representatives of EISP and ENVAP2 consider that more efficient
allocation of human resources within MAEP is possible.
In respect to the available financial resources, it is important to note that the Environmental Protection
Fund was abolished in 2012. The Fund was using revenues collected through polluter pays fees to
finance environmental investments in Serbia. Currently, the fees are channelled into the state budget.
According to the information obtained during the interviews, these fees are mostly used for nonenvironment related purposes. Nevertheless, some funding is still allocated for environmental
projects. For example, the Government earmarked € 2 million for extension of Duboko Regional
Landfill, whereas the remaining € 2.5 million needed for the extension will be provided by Sida.
Recently, MAEP has taken activities in respect to this issue. More specifically, it prepared
amendments to the Environmental Protection Act including provisions on the reestablishment of an
Environmental Fund (the Green Fund). However, the Ministry of Finance issued a negative opinion
on the amendments, stating their objections to the establishment of an independent fund. While the
Ministry of Finance supports the establishment of a budgetary fund with the MAEP, not having a
separate (likely larger) Green Fund may have negative consequences on the EU accession process as
the Serbian Government, in the so called Post-Screening Report from 201544, relies considerably on
the reestablishment of the Fund for the financing of environmental investments or, at least, ensuring
that revenues from polluter pay fees are directed towards environmental projects. This issue remains
undecided at the moment of drafting of this Report.
44
The Report was prepared as a result of the understanding reached between Serbia and the Commission in accordance with
the conclusions of the Screening (17-21 November 2014). The Report contains information on the implementation plans,
timeline, financial resources needed, and on institutional responsibilities in the environmental sector.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 25
3
EVALUATION
This chapter presents the findings and conclusions of this report in terms of the results achieved of the
two programmes. It is structured around the two main evaluation dimensions: the relevance and
performance of the two programmes, and their coordination and management.
3.1.
RELEVANCE AND PERFORMANCE
3.1.1. The relevance of the programmes in a national context
Box 5. Needs and capacities in the environmental sector45
Serbia has advanced with harmonising its legal framework with the environment acquis in recent
years, but further substantial efforts are needed, especially in the areas of waste management, water
management and wastewater treatment, nature protection, industrial pollution control and risk
management, and air quality. Moreover, Serbia needs to further align with climate legislation.
The institutional and administrative capacity to implement, enforce and comply with the EU
environmental and climate action legislation is very weak, especially at the local government level.
Investments in environmental infrastructure and environmental protection are very low, representing
only an estimated 0.3% of GNP. The capacity to develop sustainable investment projects in
environment and climate sector is also low. Waste management remains a major challenge. Serbia
lacks infrastructure for treatment, disposal and storage of hazardous waste. Only six landfills from
around 3500 waste dumpsites comply with the EU requirements. Over 140 landfills and dumpsites
have been estimated posing high risks to the environment. The level of recycling or re-use of waste is
very low with only about 4%. Serbia will need to increasingly focus on other forms of waste
management, following the waste hierarchy, and using landfilling as a last resort.
EISP
The objectives of EISP, with its focus on providing DPM with the capability and tools to oversee the
programming and implementation of environmental infrastructure projects, with a focus on EU
funding, was relevant at the start of EISP and continues to be so. Institutionally, DPM is the Serbian
government body responsible for the programming and technical implementation of EU IPA funds in
the environmental sector. As DPM is a relatively new department, established in 2007, and experience
in other new EU Member States show that the timely and comprehensive development of a project
pipeline is a condition for accessing EU funding, a programme with the objective to build DPM’s
capacity for both programming and implementation of EU funds is considered to be very relevant. In
fact, EISP directly corresponds to the EU request for providing capacities for the management of EU
funded projects, in accordance with the Framework Agreement between Serbia and the EU. EISP’s
activities, that cover both more upstream project development work, including the identification and
prioritization of investments, and the actual implementation experience of selected pilot projects, is
also relevant, not in the least because it mirrors the institutional set-up of DPM which has a unit for
programming and a unit for implementation.
ENVAP2
The overall ENVAP2’s objective was relevant at the start of the programme and continues to be so.
45
IPA Indicative Strategy Paper for Serbia (2014-2020). Adopted on 19/08/2014, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2014/20140919-csp-serbia.pdf, accessed on 23 October 2015, accessed
on 22 October 2015.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 26
The overall objective of ENVAP2 is to strengthen Serbia’s ability to efficiently take part in the EU
accession negotiations in respect to environment. Serbia became an EU candidate country in 2012 and
the negotiations commenced in 2014 with no estimate on when they may be finalised. ENVAP2
provided support on the issue that the ministry competent for environmental protection had very little
knowledge. Therefore, ENVAP2’s objective was relevant at the start of the programme.
ENVAP2 continues to be relevant in the national context. The area of ENVAP2’s focus, the
environment, is a very complex area. Coordination of the work concerning approximation with
environmental acquis is a formidable task. Environmental acquis consists of over 300 legal acts that
need to be transposed and implemented, very often by coordinated activities from several institutions
and governmental levels.
Serbia recognises the challenges concerning transposition and
implementation of the environmental acquis. For example, this is reflected in the fact that MAEP is
represented in the Coordinating Body. However, some of the non-Serbian government stakeholders
feel that the past actions of the Government, as well as the actions of the ministries competent for
environmental protection, show that the environment is not a priority, and therefore not very relevant,
for the Serbian Government. Nevertheless, EUD, tasked with coordinating the work concerning
approximation with environmental acquis very much values continues support of ENVAP2.
ENVAP2’s support is very relevant for EUD because it taps into a unique pool of experience
stemming from experience from Sweden, as one of the front runners in the environmental protection
area, Baltic states, as new EU member states, and other acceding countries from the region, i.e.
Macedonia. One of ENVAP2’s most praised features is its flexibility which allows for unexpected
requests, such as the preparation of the so called Post-screening report, to be addressed. According to
the carried out interviews, Serbian’s chief negotiator decided not to present information on dates and
other commitments during the screening for Chapter 27. The information was previously prepared,
inter alia, by ENVAP2. This prompted the European Commission to ask for additional information
from the Serbian counterparts which they did in form of the so called Post-Screening Report in 2015.
3.1.2. The achievement of project objectives and expected results
EISP
This section assesses the achievement of project objectives and expected results against the indicators
included in EISP’s Log Frame46. Each Interim Report included an overview of progress made across
all five objectives. As noted above, according to the mid-term/near-end review of EISP of May 2013,
two of EISP’s five objectives (obj. 1 and 5) had already been achieved, while good progress had been
observed in regard to the remaining three objectives (obj. 2, 3 and 4).
-
Objective 1: To support the Ministry’s Department of Project Management (DPM) in the
development of a project pipeline and prioritisation process of sufficient maturity and quality
to start to absorb available funds from January 2012.
According to the May 2013 review, this objective was fully achieved. The main output related to this
objective is the Prioritisation Manual, which started in June 2011, and which focused on criteria for
prioritization of projects included in SLAP. According to the different Interim Reports, the number of
projects identified in SLAP has increased significantly against the baseline.
-
46
Objective 2: To support the further development of the pipeline in order to improve direct
investments in environmental infrastructure in Serbia, to ensure a continuous stream of
proposals by May 2013.
As stated in the Approved Programme Proposal of 21 June 2011
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 27
At the time of the May 2013 review, it was noted that progress on this objective was limited (due to
the time dimension). According to the Log Frame, the baseline under this objective was that there was
no system or process for identifying or developing projects and that SLAP was not used as a
prioritisation tool. The number of municipalities using SLAP was 81. In July 2015 (Interim Report No.
8), the number of municipalities using SLAP is 125, with 160 appointed municipal coordinators.
SLAP now includes a significant number of environmental infrastructure projects, with 18 regional
waste management centres projects (while this number has not increased since 2013, their maturity is
said to have increased) and 160 waste water projects. At the same time, remediation projects are now
further down the priority list, reflecting the updated National Waste Management Strategy. All this
indicates that the original expected results have been achieved.
Moreover, in the meantime, project prioritisation became a more prominent issue in Serbia in general.
SEIO developed the SPP for EU funding of the next programming period (PPF5), which may overrule
the SLAP pipeline, even though that still remains the most detailed list of projects for the waste and
wastewater sub-sectors. EISP carried out a review on how the two lists relate to each other, and
concluded that the SLAP still serves its purpose of providing detailed information. During the
interviews carried out for this review, it was mentioned that indeed the two lists may overlap but are
different in terms of scope and size. The SLAP is built from the bottom-up, with municipalities
uploading their projects into the system, while SPP is driven by strategic interests. While the fact that
all EISP projects must be on SLAP reinforces its credibility, it is essential that the two lists are closely
coordinated in order to ensure a continuous stream of proposals and to avoid SLAP losing its
usefulness. The interviewed stakeholders agree that SLAP and SPP are compatible and their work
does not overlap.
Bottlenecks
EISP’s focus was on providing targeted investment to unblock project proposal bottlenecks and fill the
project pipeline. Once EISP breaks through bottlenecks, then PPF and/or international donors may
pick up the projects, while, at the same time, DPM is tasked to further facilitate the connection. In
2011, the blockages appeared to be primarily institutional, technical or financial in nature. To address
the institutional blockages, it was decided to initiate several project activities under Objectives 1 and
2. On the policy side, EISP developed Guidelines on Inter-Municipal Agreements and on Project
Implementation Units. For the technical blockages, several technical documents and expertise were
provided to improve the quality of the project proposals. EISP funding was available to address some
of the financial blockages. During the implementation of EISP, the concept of bottlenecks became
more important, and the scope was extended from unblocking project proposal bottlenecks with the
primary purpose of generating lessons learned and good practices to addressing implementation
bottlenecks with the primary purpose of enabling further accessing EU funding. This seems justified in
light of the EU Delegation decision to put a moratorium on IPA infrastructure funding for 2014 and
2015 in Serbia pending the satisfactory resolution of IPA bottleneck projects (these projects were
initiated by the EU Delegation before decentralisation and consequently have been prepared and
implemented without DPM’s involvement but have since been passed on the DPM for resolution).
According to the information obtained from the stakeholders, activities undertaken as part of EISP
directly contributed to strengthening of DPM’s project implementation role.
Additional priority projects
In May 2015, the EISP Steering Committee agreed on additional priority projects for development
within the pipeline for the remaining period of EISP (June 2016). The requested approach was to
continue to support strategically important projects and specifically address bottlenecks. The list
reviewed at the Steering Committee for relevance, effectiveness and sustainability was left open to
being adapted to circumstances on the ground but consisted of:
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 28
i. Kragujevac Regional Waste Management System: developing options analysis for the overall
concept, landfill selection and institutional set-up.
ii. Kragujevac Water: evaluation of the existing system for upgrade;
iii. Niš Waste Water: evaluation of existing documents, assessment of whether it can go straight to
Feasibility Study (FS) and development of FS ToR.
iv. Leskovac Waste Water Sludge Line Tender Documentation: complete revision of existing
documents to produce the first true Design-Build under Serbian Procurement Law;
v. Novi Sad Waste Region: Assessment of preferred landfill site and development of regional waste
project concept.
At the end, it was decided to proceed with the preparation of partial Pre-Feasibility Studies for Novi
Sad (Waste), Kragujevac (Waste) and Niš (Wastewater). It was envisioned that the study for Niš will
go a big step further to developing an international standard FS for the purposes of investment
planning as the scoping mission discovered partially prepared documentation that can be built upon.
In all cases the objective is to provide DPM with the information required to make programming and
investment pipeline decisions. It has been made clear to Niš that this will not be a FS as defined in
Serbian law, at this time, because EISP does not have the time available to wait for State Revision nor
is it necessary for DPM’s investment planning purpose to have a preliminary design as defined in the
law. DPM and Niš most urgently require a detailed assessment, acceptable to international financers,
of a ‘bankable’ project addressing all common bottlenecks to enable a decision about whether to plan
Niš Wastewater project for IPA grants within the next three years.
At the time of this review, none of these studies were available, and it remains to be seen whether they
will be completed on time. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the objective of the preparation of
technical documentation for a major project has been achieved. Moreover, there seems to be some
ambiguity on what the output of these studies will be, as the Interim Report No 8 refers to a Feasibility
Study in the case of Niš in one place, but also states that it will be a partial Pre-Feasibility Study.
Nevertheless, the ToR for these studies outlines what they must contain. Further studies will be
necessary for these different projects. The late initiation of EISP activities in respect to these studies
may leave no room for EISP to take the results of this technical assistance work forward or to develop
a template on the basis of the work carried out. There is a risk that there will be no adequate follow-up
as EISP is about to expire, and no resources are guaranteed for taking these studies to the next step.
The general presumption among the interviewed stakeholders is that PEID will pick up where EISP
left off in respect to these activities. According to the information obtained from some stakeholders,
PEID has been designed as a planned follow on to EISP.
Timeline
According to the original timeline (included in the Programme Proposal), the activities under this
objective were scheduled to start in 2012 and finish at the end of December. While indeed there have
been several external factors which have resulted in significant delays (primarily related to the changes
of government structure), the baseline situation as described in the Programme Proposal (Annex B)
also clearly indicates the amount of progress needed in order to start the activities under this objective.
Therefore, it seems the original timeline was too optimistic, and perhaps not realistic.
Local conditions
DMP supports the local communities in preparation and implementation of environmental
infrastructure projects. An example of this is DMP’s support in respect to construction of Čačak
Waste Transfer Station, as part of the wider regional project on Duboko Regional Landfill. However,
according to the information obtained during the interviews, the DMP does not always participate in
preparation and implementation of municipal environmental infrastructure projects.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 29
-
Objective 3: To provide DPM with the capability to be a full partner of the international and
national funding institutions in the planning and preparation of project proposals.
On the basis of the indicators included in the Log Frame, it can be concluded that good progress has
been made towards the achievement of this objective. The May 2013 Review stated that good progress
had been made, and several developments since have contributed to the further achievement of the
objective. This is to a certain extent the result of the role DPM has played in the DISP process, in
particular the DSIP Landfill report, which has become a model that has allowed for extending the
lessons learned from this to the further development of plans for the other directives and the
corresponding EU accession negotiations. From being side-lined for major project investment
decisions at the time EISP started (2011), DPM has increasingly become a full partner for EU funding
decisions, at least in the waste sector, but more recently also in wastewater. Interviews also confirmed
that DPM has good contacts within the Ministry with both technical departments. There has been a
significant increase in responsibilities, but as further described in the sustainability section below,
there has been no corresponding increase in the allocation of resources. Therefore, it cannot be
concluded that DPM on its own has the capability to be a full partner in the planning and preparation
of project proposals, ensuring that Serbia’s projects meet EU standards.
-
Objective 4: The support the staff of DPM to effectively plan, direct and control the use of
consultancies and other technical assistance in the project management process.
Most of EISP’s resources have been allocated to the achievement of this objective, but several of the
activities are still on-going, and it therefore cannot be concluded that this objective has been fully
reached. It was felt that the implementation responsibilities of DPM require the capability to plan for,
and oversee programmes and projects. As there require project management skills, the activities
undertaken under this objective focus on developing the practical experience of investments in
selected environmental infrastructure projects. In addition, the development of checklists and
supporting guidelines was foreseen. EISP has developed an End Recipient Agreement to improve
understanding and commitment from the end recipients (this is a requirement from the EU Delegation
for future financing).
On the basis of certain selection criteria (see above), several projects were selected from a long list.
The most important sub-projects are briefly described below, including the lessons learned, where
applicable.
Arilje Source Seperation Project: a source separation project with a supply contract (bins &
vehicles) and a communications strategy, part of Duboko Regional Waste Management System, a pilot
project financed from local resources, Sida, EU47, and EBRD credit. Source or household separation
is generally considered essential for countries to meet the Waste Framework Directive targets (see EU
Court of Auditors’ Special Report No.20, 2012) but by 2013 Serbia had no significant separation
ongoing and did not until Arilje started operations in September, 2015. The Arilje project is a pilot to
introduce comprehensive household source separation based on bins (240 litre as you would recognize
in most EU member states, 1.1m3 containers, appropriate vehicles, a plan for operational costs and
public communications campaign. As part of the project, a public campaign should increase
separation rates. Other pilots exist but operate on a bag & tractor format which does not have a very
good track record. The lessons learned from this project include experience with the procurement
process (the selected company to deliver the vehicles failed significantly to abide by the contract in
terms of delivery date, quality of equipment and specifications). The company met all procurement
requirements on paper and provided the lowest offer. Through experience, resources (a mechanical
47
http://www.misp-serbia.rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Report-on-EU-Boards-at-Project-Site-Locations.pdf, accessed on
10 November 2015.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 30
engineer) and contracts with strong inspection and late delivery penalties, the project threats can be
managed. The Arilje approach & costs have already been used in national level Ch.27 implementation
planning as well as drafting an EU IPA project to cover four regions with vehicles, bins and service
contracts.
Pančevo Landfill Project: repairs and renovation of a landfill. The gravel issue in Pančevo is a
reflection of the weakness of works supervision in Serbia in the past. In the future the DPM will rely
heavily on good supervision when the ministry will be responsible for overseeing implementation of
EU, national and bi-lateral funds. EISP, along with DPM, has produced supervision ToRs but no
outsourcing can replace constant, on-site interest in implementation activities by experienced
personnel.
Čačak TS Project: A waste Transfer Station (TS) and a recycling yard, and part of the Duboko
Regional Waste Management System. TS are an important component of regional systems to reduce
transport costs but had become a significant policy problem for the ministry because every
municipality insisted on having one. EISP undertook the Čačak TS project in order to assist policy
development, reduce Duboko regional costs/increase sustainability and give DPM the experience of
planning, designing, procuring, and implementing a works project. There were some initial problems
with the quality of the design work resulting in the actual elevation of the Čačak TS site being 0.5m
lower than that cited in the design, most likely due to the weakness of municipal solid waste
infrastructure designers in Serbia. Problems in this area stem partially from the designers’ lack the
experience of actually seeing their designs built because modern municipal solid waste infrastructure
is only just starting to be financed. The role of DPM is to ensure that implementing teams at national,
regional and local level will plan for and contract sufficient experienced Technical Control and
Supervision. The Čačak TS experience is already being used for another project (Subotica), for the
national strategy and for the DSIP.
Kruščica Waste Water Treatment Plant: According to the information obtained through the
interviews, this project was mostly financed by the Czech Government. EISP’s contribution fills the
financing gap that exists due to the lack of financial contribution from the Serbian Government as a
result of the abolition of the Green Fund.
Leskovac Sludge Line (TA): Leskovac is one of bottleneck projects, with in particular the contracting
of the sludge line construction which was the Serbian co-financing contribution to the overall project.
EISP started the development of the documentation required for contracting as well as a guide for
future technical teams faced with the same requirements.
Duboko Sustainability Project: stabilization and extension of the landfill body to support the
Duboko project.. Providing technical assistance for the financing and contracting of the works for the
landfill body, sub-projects to support an increase in source separated material (provisionally in
Čajetina), installation and training for the deployment of the shredder for bulky waste material.
Project documentation
For each sub-project, a project document has been prepared for no-objection by Sida. These project
documents describe in sufficient detail the institutional, technical and financial aspects of the project,
and provide a clear overview of the project activities and their expected results, as well as an
explanation of the project management, including budget and procurement procedures as well as
monitoring and reporting provisions. Finally, the project documents generally contain a Log Frame,
with output and outcome indicators for measuring progress towards the achievement of the results.
All supply and works sub-projects have extensive, documented outputs in the form of supervision
reports (monthly), technical acceptance of works and supply, procurement documentation and minutes
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 31
of meeting reports available. On closure the outputs will be collated into specific sub-project reports
and lessons learned to be presented to the PSC and appended to the final report.
The fact that the sub-projects’ documentation contains a Log Frame can be considered as a positive
development, also as according to the literature, (IPA) project fiches from the period 2007-2011 often
lacked (impact) indicators. However, it seems that the design of indicators can be further improved
upon, especially within the context of the sub-projects’ contribution to EU objectives as well as their
social impact. Taking the Arilje Log Frame as an example, while the project’s stated overall objective
is alignment to EU Directive standards, there are no indicators included in the Log Frame that would
allow for measuring any progress in that area. Another observation concerns the absence of any
indicators related to social issues, including the project’s impact on gender issues and job creation,
which are issues of particular interest to Sida, but also to the EU.
-
Objective 5: To support the technical upgrade of capability of DPM and SLAP system by
November 2011.
According to the May 2013 Review, this objective was already achieved at that time, and this review
therefore has not done an additional assessment of its achievement.
General considerations on EISP’s performance
The link between the necessary policy work (the so-called ‘soft’ side of EISP, such as the preparation
of the DSIP for the Landfill Directive) and the project activities (the so-called ‘hard’ side, notably
project preparation and implementation) has contributed to the overall performance of EISP, as it has
allowed for a positive feedback loop between these two types of activities.
Picture 3: Overview of EISP’s delivered, in progress, and delayed outputs
From a national perspective, there is a need for coordination of environmental investments from the
national and local level, and therefore the efforts of EISP to include municipalities, as the final
beneficiaries of the environmental investments, through particular pilot projects, is also appropriate.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 32
While EISP originally focused on the waste sector, Serbia’s need for environmental investments
clearly extend to other sectors, in particular wastewater, as well and as the responsibilities of DPM,
with the establishment of a new Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection, have shifted
towards these other sectors EISP appropriately broadened its areas of activities to cover those other
environmental sectors as well.
In light of the programme’s limited resources, there has obviously been a need to be very strategic in
deciding on its activities, in particular with regards to the different supported projects that enable DPM
to obtain direct implementation experience (those activities have accounted for most of the budget). In
general, EISP has made an effort to select projects on the basis of certain selection criteria 48. EISP
focuses on so-called bottleneck projects which evolved over time, as this was not EISP’s original
intention. While understandable from a pragmatic approach towards addressing existing problems that
allows moving forward with IPA, it may have diverted resources away from making more progress on
or learning from more strategic projects. For example, although Kruščica Waste Water Treatment
Plant project, supported by EISP, contributed to increasing DPM’s capacity, it is not a bottleneck
project that directly impacts IPA funding. The Kruščica project also does not meet the requirement of
a strategic project in the sense that Čačak Waste Transfer Station project does. The latter is taken as a
model for waste transfer stations and the information obtained from this project is fed into Landfill
Directive DSIP). The decision to start the pre-feasibility work on two large investments (in Novi Sad
and Niš) at a relatively late stage of EISP is not optimal, as EISP will not have the resources to the
take the results of this technical assistance work forward or to develop a template on the basis of this
experience. However, the foreseen PEID project should be in a good position to address these issues.
This also points to the fact that the original planned duration of two years was too short, especially as
the programme proposal itself stated that the timescales involved in environmental infrastructure
projects require planning for 5, 10 or even 20 years.
Finally, it can be noted that EISP was originally seen as the development of a model to be used by
other ministries. There is no evidence that this is the case, but this does not imply that the experience
is not relevant to these other sectors.
In light of all these considerations, it can be concluded that EISP has achieved two of its five
objectives when reviewed against the indicators included in the Log Frame and has made progress
towards meeting its objectives 2, 3, and 4. As a consequence, more progress needs to be made towards
the overall objective of providing DPM with the capability and tools to oversee the programming and
implementation of at least € 40 million of environmental infrastructure projects each year.
ENVAP2
This section assesses the achievement of ENVAP2’s expected results against the activities and outputs
included in the programme proposal. This section is also taking into account the additional
component, the so called Nitrates component, added in 2014, and the additional sub-activities and
outputs added following the approved request for additional funds from April 2015. This section
builds on the findings of the 2014 evaluation of ENVAP2’s first year. In case the 2014 evaluation
found that a specific objective was achieved, this evaluation notes it and does not, necessarily, revisit
it, with the exception of a disagreement with the previous evaluation and/or short overview of more
recent activities. Additional components, sub-activities, and outputs are evaluated.
The qualifying criteria were included in a letter from Minister Mihajlović to the Swedish Embassy dated 13 April 2012 and
are as follows: contributing to the government’s environmental strategy, maximum financial contribution of EUR 1 million,
and implementable within the EISP format.
48
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 33
Information obtained during interviews as well as the available documents were used in drafting of
this section.
1. Result 1: EU-negotiation function of MAEP is strengthened, including the capacity building
of national, but also regional and local environmental authorities
According to the 2014 evaluation, this objective was fully achieved. However, the 2014 evaluation
did not take into account the capacity building of regional and local environmental authorities. Also,
additional sub-activities were added under the 2015 project extension.
Under this expected result, ENVAP2 prepared an EU Handbook on EU negotiation process in respect
to environmental matters, as foreseen. The Handbook was adopted and distributed during SCTM
Conference in October 2014. ENVAP2 carried out a functional analysis of EU accession management
procedures in MAEP and prepared working practices between EUD and other departments of
MAEP49. The working practices are included in the EU Handbook (sections 5 and 6) and the
Ministerial Order issued in April 201450. ENVAP2 provided continuous mentoring to EUD staff
regarding preparatory screening management, planning of activities and prioritization of activities51.
The 2015 project extension included an additional sub-activity of holding national and regional
meetings regarding EU requirements and role of regional and local authorities. In June 2015,
ENVAP2, together with SCTM and Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL),
organised three seminars on the environmental acquis. The seminars were organised in three
unofficial regions and were attended by representatives of 90 local authorities. The aim of the
seminars was to raise awareness among local authorities. No concrete information on the
effectiveness of these seminars is available. ENVAP2 did not carry out surveys among the authorities
and it is not possible to assess whether their capacities have been strengthened. A small sample of
interviewed local authorities during the evaluation shows that the knowledge of the requirements and
benefits stemming from the EU accession process is very limited. In addition to lack of information
on the effect of carried out activities in respect to capacity building of regional and local authorities,
the further activities in respect to this result are planned for 2016.
EUD should be involved in the discussion and development concerning a possible proposal for future
cooperation. More specifically, as foreseen by sub-activity 1.2.2, the 2015 request for additional funds
for ENVAP2 mentions the possibility for future cooperation and adds that options need to be
discussed, and if agreed a project proposal will be developed.
In respect to this expected result, ENVAP2’s documents foresaw an increase in the number of EUD
staff. The number of EUD staff, however, decreased effectively from five to two during the duration
of ENVAP2. The number of EUD staff is an internal issue and ENVAP2 has limited means to address
this risk to ENVAP2’s performance. However, ENVAP2 has demonstrated in the past that it is able to
alleviate the EUD from increased workload associated with the implementation of ENVAP2.
ENVAP2 ensured that one of its staff sits permanently at the MAEP and provides EUD with the
relevant support in the management of the programme, such as: organisation and follow up of
workshops and meetings, coordination of sector meetings, regular reporting, etc.52. The effectiveness
of this support in improving the programme results is confirmed by EUD.
ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report.
ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report.
51 ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report.
52 ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report.
49
50
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 34
2. Result 2: The Sub-group 27 is strengthened in terms of its structure and working procedure
According to the 2014 evaluation, this expected result was fully achieved. The main outputs related to
this expected result are: establishment of sectorial working groups within Negotiation Group 27 and
development of their working procedures.
The sectorial working groups have been established, their working procedures have been included in
the EU Handbook (section 6) and the Ministerial Order issued in April 2014.
In respect to the recent developments, ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report states that ENVAP2
organised a two day introductory workshop with the nominated representatives on Negotiation Group
27 in May 2015. The aim of the workshop was to ensure that members of the sectorial working
groups are familiar with the requirements of the position paper table.
3. Result 3: The capacity of staff members from relevant authorities responsible for
transposition and implementation of the environmental acquis is strengthened
According to the September 2014 evaluation, this expected result was fully achieved. One of the main
outputs related to this objective is establishment of a dialog tool facilitating a dialog and reinforcing
partnership with other authorities having responsibilities in the environmental field. While, according
to the information obtained during the interviews, the established dialog tool proved to be useful tool
in communication with other authorities having responsibilities in the environmental field, it is
uncertain whether the expected result has been fully achieved. More precisely, it is unclear whether
the expected result is limited only to central authorities or whether it also encompasses regional and
local authorities. In case the expected result refers only to central level authorities then the result has
been achieved. According to the information obtained from Sida/Swedish Embassy in Belgrade,
ENVAP2 partners consider that Result 3 applies only to central level authorities.
Various other methods were undertaken to attain this expected result. Over 200 participants from 30
institutions outside of MAEP participated in various trainings53. The business sector has been
involved through direct meetings with ENVAP2 representatives and through the engagement of the
Serbian Chamber of Commerce. The latter is actively involved in the work of the sectorial working
groups. The 2012, 2013, and 2014 Progress Reports note that further efforts are needed to strengthen
the general administrative capacities. These reports are, however, not detailed enough to enable
assessment of the impact that the dialog tool and other methods undertaken by ENVAP2 had in
strengthening the capacity of staff members from the relevant authorities.
Since there is a lack of capacity building at the regional and local level, as described under expected
result 1 above, the result 3 is not attained in respect to regional and local authorities. In case result 3 is
applicable only to central level authorities then this result has been achieved. According to the
information obtained from Sida/Swedish Embassy in Belgrade, ENVAP2 partners consider that Result
3 applies only to central level authorities.
4. Result 4: The capacity in developing position papers and Directive Specific Implementation
Plans is increased
According to the September 2014 evaluation, this expected result was fully achieved. The assessment
carried out during September – October 2015 shows that this expected result was fully achieved in
cooperation between ENVAP2 and other programmes/projects, including EISP.
53
ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 35
There are two aspects of this expected result, position papers and DSIPs. In order to contribute to
preparation of position papers and DSIPs, ENVAP2 developed a benchmarking matrix. The
benchmarking matrix is used to assess gaps between the requirements stemming from specific
directives and Serbian legal and institutional framework. In carrying out gap assessment, ENVAP2 is
using the results of assessment of transposition and implementation of the environmental acquis in
Serbia prepared as part of other projects such as ECRAN and PLAC.
Although the template for the position paper has not been included in the EU Handbook, it has been
discussed with SEIO and it has been adopted54.
The template for DSIP was prepared as part of EISP. More specifically, EISP prepared DSIP for the
Landfill Directive. Noting that one size fits all approach cannot be implemented, according to the
information obtained during the interviews, the Landfill Directive DSIP will be promoted as a model
for a DSIP. The DSIP for the Landfill Directive was prepared using results of ENVAP2, namely gap
assessment and ENVAP2’s contribution to raising awareness in respect to DSIPs,
5. Result 5: Gaps and needs in some specific sectors are identified and links between EU
accession negotiations and investment related projects are improved
Expected result 5 is closely related to expected result 4 in respect to preparation of position papers and
DSIPs. According to the September 2014 evaluation, this objective was fully achieved. However, the
2014 evaluation did not take into consideration recent new requirements stemming from the accession
process, i.e. the post-screening report, and additional component, i.e. the Nitrates component, which
were added to this expected result. Although the activities concerning the post-report are finalised, the
activities concerning the Nitrates component are still ongoing. Also, this expected result has not been
achieved yet in respect to the position papers.
As referred under expected result 4, the benchmarking matrix is used to assess gaps. Gap assessments
were carried out in order to assess the status of the approximation to the EU environmental legislation,
identify remaining gaps and likely obstacles and identify ways how to address those gaps. Results of
the gap assessment were used in preparation of the position papers as well as for the Landfill Directive
DSIP. Although considerable work has been carried out, according to the request for additional funds
submitted in April 2015, once screening finishes, the focus of ENVAP2 will shift from gap assessment
to preparation of the first drafts of position paper documents that will include all core EU legislative
acts. Therefore, additional work remains to attain this expected result.
Two tools used to attain this expected results are widely praised by the interviewed stakeholders. One
of them is simulations. Over 200 members of specific directive working groups participated in
bilateral screening simulation days in October and November 201455. According to the information
obtained during the interviews, the simulations contributed to Negotiation group 27 being one of the
most well prepared groups during the screening process. The other tool is the help desk. The help
desk is used to assist MAEP and the Negotiation group 27 in general policy guidance as well as
solving arising specific issues related to ENVAP2. For example, the helpdesk was used during the
preparation of the post-screening report when SEPA experts for water, biodiversity, waste and
horizontal sectors reviewed and commented on the relevant document.
The results of gap assessment, position papers, DSIP, as well as information obtained through help
desk, were all used for the preparation of the post-screening report. The post-screening report is a
response to the Commission’s request to the Serbian government, following the screening for Chapter
27 to provide additional information and a more detailed implementation plan. MAEP approached
54
55
ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report and carried out interviews.
ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 36
ENVAP2 with the request for additional support in respect to this novelty in the accession procedure.
Due to its flexible nature, ENVAP2 was able to readjust its approach and to take on board this
additional stage of the process. More specifically, ENVAP2’s experts provided additional support in
respect to the post-screening report such as: commenting on the draft post-screening report and
participating in the meetings concerning the content of the post-screening report.
Although the work concerning the post-screening report is finalised, the work concerning the Nitrates
component remains to be carried out. The Nitrates component was added to ENVAP2 in 2014. It
focuses on acquiring more information and data needed for the transposition of the Nitrates and
UWWTD. The Nitrate component activities focused on the collection of data and the preparation of a
base document for the decision on vulnerable zones and on finalising a Code of Good Agriculture
Practice and preparation for the second phase related to the UWWTD. The MAEP is very pleased
with the results produced by the Nitrates component so far. Also, the Nitrates component facilitated
for a close cooperation between MAEP and other stakeholders56.
6. Result 6: Specific documents relevant for the EU accession negotiation are developed
According to the September 2014 evaluation, this expected result was fully achieved. However,
attainment of this expected result is work in progress.
The relevant documents developed as part of ENVAP2 include EU Handbook, Methodology for Gap
Assessment with Benchmark Matrix. The list of developed documents is constantly updated and
attached as an annex to the annual and half year reports. According to the ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year
Report, further activities in this respect are planned for the second half of 2015.
7. Result 7: The understanding of EU environment policy among stakeholders, including civil
society is improved
According to the September 2014 evaluation, this expected result had not been fully achieved. This
expected result also co-relates to expected results 1 and therefore, the assessment provided therein in
respect to other stakeholders, including regional and local authorities, is also relevant for expected
result 7.
Various conferences for the stakeholders have been organised in the past. For example,
representatives of 120 local authorities, Serbian Chamber of Commerce and a small number of NGO
attended the Conference co organised with SCTM in October 201457. The EU Handbook was
presented at this Conference. Trainings organised by ENVAP2 were also attended by local authorities
and business sector. So far, the civil societies were not adequately targeted with ENVAP2’s activities.
Part of the issue should be addressed by extension of functionalities of the referred dialogue tool58.
This means that, although some information is already available to the public online59, more
information contained in the dialogue tool will be available in the future.
General considerations on ENVAP2’s performance
In Serbia, despite the declarative support for the accession process in respect to the environment, the
Government’s actions contributed to the creation of a difficult environment for ENVAP2 to operate in.
ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report.
ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report.
58 ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report.
59 http://www.pregovarackagrupa27.gov.rs/, accessed 26 October 2015.
56
57
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 37
This is most visible through constant reorganisations of the environmental sector and regular changes
of staff at the ministry competent for environmental protection.
ENVAP2’s contribution in preparing the Serbian authorities for screening and negotiation is highly
praised by all interviewed stakeholders. ENVAP2 proposed working procedures within MAEP as well
as for Negotiation group 27. It also carried out gap assessment and provided support in formulating
position papers and DSIPs, therefore further contributing to analysis of the existing situation in the
country and formulating the action plan for further steps. Moreover, ENVAP2 applied innovative
tools, such as simulation trainings and help desk which greatly contributed to Serbian authorities’
capacity to successfully engage in the screening and post-screening process.
In addition, ENVAP2 has demonstrated that it is sensible to the low absorption capacity of the Serbian
authorities. In this respect, it provided direct support to MAEP in the management of the programme.
Also, it has been able to take on additional work which is credited to its flexible design. This mostly
relates to the post-screening report and the Nitrates component.
However, additional work remains to be carried out. The work concerning the referred Nitrates
component is not yet finished (Result 5). Moreover, once screening finishes, the focus of ENVAP2
will shift from gap assessment to preparation of the first drafts of position paper documents that will
include all core EU legislative acts (Result 5). According to the ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report,
further activities in respect to specific documents relevant for the EU accession negotiation are
planned for the second half of 2015 (Result 6). ENVAP2 set very challenging results for itself in
respect to strengthening capacity of regional and local environmental authorities and improving
understanding of EU environment policy among stakeholders (Results 1 and 7). In respect to Result 3,
it is unclear whether this result encompasses regional and local authorities. In case it does not, result 3
has been attained.
ENVAP2 has carried out activities with the aim of strengthening capacity of regional and local
environmental authorities and improving understanding of EU environment policy among
stakeholders. Some of these activities are ongoing at the moment of carrying out of this evaluation. It
is challenging to assess the extent to which these activities have resulted in strengthening capacity and
improving understanding. ENVAP2 did not carry out surveys among the stakeholders which would
enable assessment of effectiveness of the carried out activities in attaining the results. From the
available information it is clear that further resources are needed to strengthen the capacities and
improve the understanding at the regional and local levels. In respect to Result 3, according to the
information obtained from Sida/Swedish Embassy in Belgrade, ENVAP2 partners consider that this
result applies only to central level authorities.
In light of all these considerations, it can be concluded that ENVAP2 has fully achieved two of its
expected results. It is uncertain whether result 3 has been achieved since it is unclear whether it is
limited only to central level authorities. If it is, then result 3 has been attained. More progress needs
to be made towards expected results 1, 5, 6, and 7, but ENVAP2 has made considerable progress in
respect to these expected results.

3.1.2.1.
The effectiveness of various methods for capacity building
Both EISP and ENVAP2 include various methods of capacity building. ENVAP2’s project objective is
to have a better prepared Ministry, and all of its expected results refer to increased capacity, one way
or another. As methods, ENVAP2 uses a combination of trainings/seminars, workshops, a dialogue
tool and simulations of negotiations. According to EISP’s Programme Proposal, the purpose of its
capacity building component is to develop DPM into a team capable of overseeing the IPA funds. The
capacity building methods include ‘soft’ inputs such as field trips, study trips, participation at
conferences, and trainings (on project management, environmental management and conflict
management) with as a particular feature the use of on-the-job training with external experts working
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 38
with DMP staff. It also includes ‘hard’ inputs, such as IT and transport (a car). EISP’s capacity
building component relates most closely to its objective 4, and as the activities under this objective
increasingly corresponded to providing DPM with direct implementation experience, the capacity
building has focused mostly on those aspects as well, although it has covered activities under other
objectives as well, including policy support.
The May 2013 Review of EISP concluded that, even though, capacity building efforts have been at the
core of EISP, the effect of these efforts has not been recorded to a sufficient degree. The review
recommended the use of informal feedback notes on progress as well as minor tests or checklists to
assess progress in order to be able to measure progress. Such progress would also enable an increasing
level of institutionalisation captured in templates, guidelines and other policy documents.60 In response
to this recommendation (see also section 1.3 above), EISP developed a Capacity and Capability
(C&C) Development Plan in 2014 which was updated in June 2015. The C&C Development Plan
makes a distinction between capacity and capability building referring to a conceptual framework used
by Sida. The referenced Sida report61, however, follows a different classification, and presents the
following scheme for understanding capacity development:
Scheme for understanding capacity development
Process dimension
Human resources development
Organisational development
Systems development
Level
Individuals and groups
Organisations
Networks and linkages; regulatory
environment; value framework
Focus
Competence, attitudes, behaviour
Structures, systems and processes
Patterns of collaboration
Policies, rules, legislation
Cultural values, norms, politics
Source: http://www.sida.se/contentassets/a91ee363c301497ea206f48500a93203/methodological-approached-cd_2014.pdf
The main recommendation of the May 2013 Review was to measure the impact of capacity building.
For this purpose, the C&C Development Plan includes a table with activity, baseline, target group,
indicators, and sources of verification, but also states that the overall performance will be assessed
against the original Log Frame. The table included in the C&C Development Plan does not seem
sufficiently well developed to measure impact. In fact, the Plan does not clearly lists the different
capacity building activities (e.g., study trip, on-the-job training) but rather refers to the area in which
capacity building activities are needed. Also, the indicators of change do not include any output or
outcome indicators, and are in fact more success criteria (or judgement criteria) than (impact)
indicators. For the plan to measure impact, it would need to have outcome indicators that capture
whether the performance of DPM has improved, at the individual and organisational level, including
that of networks and systems as a result of the capacity building. Finally, the listed sources of
verification are mostly related to the verification of impact level. To verify the output and outcomes,
the plan should have included the use of questionnaires or feedback from participants, in line with the
suggestions form the May 2013 Review.
In light of these considerations, it is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the different methods
of capacity building. During the interviews, on-the-job training was generally mentioned as a very
effective method in respect to both programmes. For example, EISP contributed to capacity building at
both national and local level using on-the-job training approach. As recommended by the evaluation
of its 1st year, ENVAP2 carried out the negotiations simulations, and these have been very effective
according to the interviewees. The Helpdesk used by ENVAP2, through which SEPA experts were
able to provide assistance, was also seen as a very effective method. While most interviewees
appreciated the programming flexibility offered by EISP and ENVAP, it was also suggested that the
Ministry might prefer to plan more concretely the different methods, in particular the site visits and
study tours, to plan accordingly, also to address the absorptive capacity constraints at the Ministry
60
61
Review Report Final, EISP, Sida, ORGUT, page 13
http://www.sida.se/contentassets/a91ee363c301497ea206f48500a93203/methodological-approached-cd_2014.pdf
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 39
with very few staff members participating in different capacity building projects from several donors.
At the moment, it seems the Ministry may not be fully aware of how much time its staff is planning to
participate in the different international projects and programmes, and there is a need for enhanced
planning and coordination with donors, as the absorption capacity of staff is very limited. There have
been several instances where Ministry staff was not allowed to travel. At the same, it should be noted
that, in general, there is increasing scrutiny of the effectiveness of so-called big-ticket items, such as
study trips, which are the traditional methods of capacity building62.


3.1.3. The coordination and synergies between the two programs and with other
projects
3.1.3.1.
EISP and ENVAP
In general, the level of coordination and synergy between EISP and ENVAP2 is good. According to
the reviewed documents and information obtained as part of the interviews, both EISP and ENVAP2
deal with DSIP. EISP is taking part in events organised by ENVAP2. Also, DPM, implementing
EISP, was given a possibility to use helpdesk function, developed as part of ENVAP2.
EISP prepared the draft DSIP for the Landfill Directive. According to the interviews, in doing so, it
also used information prepared as part of ENVAP2. Furthermore, according to the interviews, noting
that one size fits all approach cannot be fully implemented, DSIP for the Landfill Directive will be
promoted as an example model in preparation of DSIPs for other directives. In this way, EISP, while
building on the work carried out by ENVAP2, contributed to fulfilment of one of ENVAP2’s
objectives, more specifically, increasing capacity in developing Directive Specific Implementation
Plans.
Coordination of activities between the two programmes is partially ensured with the engagement of
the same expert on both programmes.
According to ENVAP2’s 2015 Half Year Report the work prepared as part of EISP was a useful
source of information in preparation of the Post-screening report whose preparation as supported by
ENVAP2. This is especially important in respect to information on dates and budget.
3.1.3.2. EISP, ENVAP and other projects
There are numerous examples of coordination and synergies between EISP and ENVAP2 with other
projects. Some projects are listed in the previously carried out reviews/evaluations and, therefore,
information on some them is a partial repetition of information contained therein. Only the projects
mentioned during the interviews and singled out in the reviewed documents are listed here.
ECRAN63
The ECRAN project is an EU funded project whose aim is to strengthen regional cooperation among
the EU candidate countries and potential candidate countries in the field of environment, as well as to
assist in the transposition and implementation of the environmental acquis in those countries. There
are several instances of correlation between EISP and ENVAP2 on one side and ECRAN on the other.
EISP and ECRAN overlap in respect to their support to improving capacities of the authorities in
investment planning and prioritisation of environmental investment projects. The interviewed
62
63
http://betterevaluation.org/themes/capacitydevelopment
http://www.ecranetwork.org/, accessed on 22 October 2015.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 40
stakeholders, as well as the reviewed documents, do not indicate/contain reasons which would imply
lack of coordination and synergies between EISP and ECRAN in this respect.
In respect to ENVAP2, there are three points of correlation. The Handbook prepared as part of
ENVAP2 it is partly based on the “Manual on EU Accession Negotiation” prepared under RENA, a
predecessor of ECRAN64. Furthermore, when conducting its gap assessment, ENVAP2 is using
results of assessment of transposition and implementation of the environmental acquis in Serbia
carried out as part of ECRAN. Finally, three Serbian NGOs are participating in the work of ECRAN,
therefore regularly receive information on the challenges of accession process.
Therefore, as a general conclusion, there are synergies and coordination between EISP and ENVAP2
on one side and ECRAN on the other.
Policy and Legal Advice Centre65
The Policy and Legal Advice Centre (PLAC) project’s task is to support Serbia’s preparation for EU
accession by improving policy and legislation processes. The PLAC project provides its support in
respect to several areas of acquis, including the environment. There are instances of correlation
between ENVAP2 and PLAC.
When conducting its gap assessment, ENVAP2 is using results of assessment of transposition and
implementation of the environmental acquis in Serbia carried out as part of PLAC. According to
ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report, some PLAC experts participated in the bilateral screening simulation
enabling synergy between the projects. PLAC is also preparing draft laws and assisting relevant
institutions in drafting laws, as well as developing recommendations to improve the organisation of
relevant institutions in view of the accession process. As such, PLAC is well placed to build on the
work carried out by ENVAP2 in respect to the gap assessment and communication of the requirements
stemming from the process. A good coordination between ENVAP2 and PLAC was praised at
ENVAP2’ Steering Committee meetings.
Therefore, as a general conclusion, there are synergies and coordination between ENVAP2 and PLAC.

Project Preparation Facility66
The Project Preparation Facility (PPF) is an EU funded project whose aim is to support Serbia in the
drafting of the strategic policy framework for pre-accession assistance. The PPF builds on the work
carried out by EISP in respect to the SPP (please see Box 2).
In October 2014, the PPF prepared the Methodology for Selection and Prioritization of Infrastructure
Projects to be included in the SPP. According to the Methodology, line Ministries are identifying
relevant infrastructure projects to be included in the SPP through primarily two sources: structured
project pipelines/mechanisms (e.g. SLAP) and sector strategy/action plans (e.g. Waste Management
Strategy).
In the past, EISP provided support in prioritisation of projects included in SLAP (please see Box 3)
primarily through preparation of the Project Prioritisation Manual. A brief review of the Manual did
not identify any instances of incoherence between it and the Methodology. Also, according to the
information obtained through the interviews, EISP, although given an opportunity, did not provide any
Evaluation of the 1st Year of Preparations for Negotiations Related to Serbia’s EU Accession Process, Phase 2,
Environment Accession Project 2 (ENVAP2), Professional Management, 2014.
65 http://plac.euinfo.rs/?lang=en, accessed on 23 October 2015.
66 http://www.ppf5.rs/, accessed on 23 October 2015.
64
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 41
comments on the draft Methodology. Moreover, EISP provided support in preparation of
strategy/action plans (e.g. Waste Management Strategy, DSIP for the Landfill Directive) which are
relevant for prioritisation of environmental projects. Finally, the interviewed stakeholders pointed that
SLAP, and the work carried out by EISP, fits well with the SPP.
Therefore, as a general conclusion, there are synergies and coordination between EISP and the PPF.
Other EU funded Projects
There are numerous cases of correlation between EISP, ENVAP2 and other EU funded projects. For
example, the results of the National Environmental Approximation Strategy for Serbia, supported by
the EU, were taken into consideration by both ENVAP2 and EISP. Furthermore, according to the
information obtained during the interviews, the EU Delegation in Serbia is making efforts to
incorporate results and work of EISP and ENVAP2 in the work of other EU funded projects. For
example, ENVAP2 provided support in the preparation of the ToR for the IPA project for
development of eight DSIP in the water and waste sector, and the EU Delegation is encouraging the
use of DSIP for the Landfill Directive, developed as part of EISP, in preparation of these DSIPs.
Another example is an EU funded project titled “Improvement of Hazardous Waste Management in
the Republic of Serbia”. This twinning project and ENVAP2 cooperated on the matter of batteries and
Waste Electronic Equipment Directive.
According to ENVAP2’s 2014 Annual Report, support was provided for the planning of IPA II (2014
– 2020) taking into account the gaps identified during the benchmarking process and the List of
transitional periods, prepared as part of ENVAP2.
Therefore, as a general conclusion, there are synergies and coordination between EISP and ENVAP2
on one side and other EU funded projects on the other.
Support to Local Governments in Serbia in the EU Integration Process Program
With support of Sida and in cooperation with SKL, the SCTM implemented a programme on the
support to local governments in respect to EU integration process in the period 2011 – 2015. SKL was
primarily involved in the Program through the transfer of knowledge and the provision of technical
assistance to support SCTM and Serbian local authorities. One of the aims of the programme was to
adequately prepare local authorities to participate in the screening and negotiation process. In respect
to this, there are instances of correlation between ENVAP2 and the Program.
The EU Handbook prepared as part of ENVAP2 acknowledges the work of the Program. According
to the information obtained during the interviews, the Program tested the knowledge of the
representatives of the local authorities in respect to the environmental aspects of the accession process.
However, according to the available information, the results of the test were not taken into
consideration by ENVAP2. Moreover, according to the available information obtained through
interviews and literature review, ENVAP2 is not planning to carry out similar testing in the future.
Therefore, as a general conclusion, there is room for improvements in respect to building on the results
Program. This primarily concerns conducting testing, similar in form and content to the one
conducted under the Programme, to measure the effectiveness that ENVAP2’s activities had on local
authorities.
The KEMI Project
The Swedish Chemicals Agency has for many years been involved in building up the capacity of a
governmental sector competent for chemicals in Serbia. This includes supporting the work of the
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 42
Serbian Chemicals Agency, prior to its abolishment, and the work of the relevant sections of the
MAEP. According to ENVAP2’s 2013 Annual Report, during 2013 there has been a revival of the
KEMI Project due to an increased awareness regarding EU negotiation as result of ENVAP2. The
Swedish Chemicals Agency and ENVAP2 have jointly organised workshops for the chemical sector of
Chapter 27.
The Swedish Chemical Agency also actively supported the bilateral screening
simulations.
3.1.4. The sustainability of support in a national context
There are several identified risks that may impact the sustainability of EISP and ENVAP2 in a national
context.
EU Accession
The sustainability of support will primarily depend on two connected issues, Serbia’s determination to
accede the EU and EU’s capacity and willingness to accept new member states. At the moment, both
sides are proclaiming their support to the accession process. In addition to this overarching risk, there
are several other more specific risks for the sustainability of the programmes.
Shifting competences for environmental protection
In recent years the competences for environmental protection shifted from one ministry to another.
Within the past three years, the environmental portfolio was part of the former Ministry of
Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning and then part of the former Ministry of Energy,
Development and Environmental Protection. Currently, it is part of MAEP. Past restructuring had a
negative effect on both programmes. This was primarily visible through difficulties in establishing
communication channels with the decision-making levels of the competent ministries. Such
difficulties were noted in the previous evaluations. The announced possibility of similar restructuring
of the government will most certainly impact the sustainability of EISP and ENVAP2.
Allocation of resources
In addition to this change of competences for environmental protection, there are also constant
changes within the environmental sector. Some of the key people in both DPM and EUD left over the
course of both programmes which have had a negative impact on the institutional memory of the
ministry competent for environmental protection.
Furthermore, there is a concern that MAEP under its current allocation of resources and a number of
vacant positions may not be able to successfully address the requirements of the accession process,
including the support in execution of environmental infrastructure projects. MAEP’s strained
resources are further stretched with the need to participate in the implementation of EISP and
ENVAP2, and this may have consequence on the programmes’ sustainability.
Use of IPA funding
Similarly, MAEP and other Serbian authorities are experiencing challenges in respect to absorption of
IPA funds. This is partly due to the lack of relevant knowledge among the stakeholders, but also due
to complex permitting system in Serbia, lack of harmonisation with project implementation
requirements of IFIs (e.g. form and content of feasibility studies differs therefore possibly duplicating
the work) and lack of political commitment to implement costly environmental projects. Although the
general availability of IPA funds is not considered to be a risk due to the multiannual financial
framework, authorisation of IPA funds for environmental infrastructure projects may pose a risk.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 43
Due to on-going problems with existing IPA environmental infrastructure projects, the EU Delegation
has decided to impose a moratorium on IPA 2014 and IPA 2015 funding for such projects. More
specifically, EU Delegation encountered problems in respect to: non enforceable inter-municipal
agreements and co-financing commitments. In addition, according to the information obtained during
the interviews, the Ministry of Finance is experiencing difficulties fulfilling its new role which causes
delays in respect to IPA projects.
Moreover, lack of absorption capacities for IPA funds will most definitely impact the sustainability of
EISP’s results. Delays in commencement of implementation of SPP projects supported by EISP may
cause part of the work carried out by EISP obsolete.
Scope of the work
The Screening Report for Chapter 27 is expected to be published at the end of 2015. The content of
this report will have an impact on the scope of the programmes, especially ENVAP2. It will set the
priorities for on which the Serbian Government will have to focus on in the future.
3.2. MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
This section reviews firstly whether the roles, mandates and cooperation between the cooperation
partners are clear and beneficial to the cooperation and secondly assesses the means and quality of
reporting and follow-up (documentation, communication and indicators).
3.2.1. The roles, mandates and coordination between the cooperation partners
The main Serbian cooperation partner for EISP and ENVAP 2 is MAEP. Within MAEP, DPM is the
principle partner for EISP, while for ENVAP2 it is EUD. DPM and EUD are both horizontal
departments within the sector for international cooperation and do not have direct technical
responsibilities but work closely with the different sectoral departments within MAEP as well as with
other ministries or bodies, such as SEIO. Both departments work with other donors and are thus very
familiar with international practices regarding coordination and reporting and are able to communicate
these projects effectively within the Ministry and beyond. According to several interviewees,
environmental issues are not the top priority within MAEP and its political leadership, but this is
outside the control and influence of DPM and EUD.
EISP is carried out by the International Management Group (IMG) for which Sida and IMG signed an
Agreement where IMG commits itself to support, plan and facilitate the implementation by MAEP and
to continuously monitor and provide Sida with reporting on the project developments. ENVAP (1 and
2) has been carried out by the Swedish EPA. SEPA has experience in similar projects with Latvia,
Lithuania and Macedonia.
For both EISP and ENVAP, a Steering Committee has been established. The Steering Committees,
consisting of MAEP, IMG and Sida representatives for EISP, and of MAEP, SEPA, and Sida
representatives for ENVAP, has met twice a year to give input on the project’s activities and results
and to review and approve the
While IMG is based in Serbia, SEPA has a less continuous presence. To address this, it was decided
under ENVAP2 to provide MAEP with project support in the form of a person employed at the
Ministry.
According to the interviewees, the roles and mandates of the different partners were clearly defined.
The coordination between the two programmes and with other programmes has been closely
monitored by Sida, and within the Ministry. The interviewees confirm that the two programmes have
been implemented in close cooperation. The fact that a senior specialist worked on both EISP and
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 44
ENVAP2 assignments has reinforced this coordination. Also, ENVAP2’s project officer coming from
IMG has also contributed to the close collaboration.
The Steering Committees have played an important role in overseeing and guiding the programmes,
even though some interviewees have suggested that the political leadership of the Ministry could have
been more actively involved. The membership of the Steering Committee is rather limited, which is
understandable from a management perspective, but broadening the members, or at least disseminating
the discussions to a wider group of stakeholders, could enhance the visibility of the programmes.
Some interviewees suggested that ENVAP2 had more visibility, at least within the Ministry, than
EISP, due to its political significance, and that EISP is therefore less known. As noted above, SEPA
disagreed with the evaluation’s recommendation of the 1st year of ENVAP2 that the Steering
Committee meets three times a year, and this was supported by the interviewees. Having meetings
more frequently would have increased the risk of low attendance and participation.
The presence of ENVAP2 within the Ministry was well appreciated by the interviewees. This has
facilitated the planning and coordination of the programme and has increased ownership. Even though
IMG is based in Serbia, it was suggested that a similar continuous presence of EISP could have been
beneficial in terms of access, commitment and support.
Even though there is a general consensus that both programmes need to be well coordinated and that
close collaboration can reinforce the achievement of objectives, all interviewees mentioned that the
objectives, target groups and time horizons, as well as the type of outputs of EISP and ENVAP are
quite distinct. There was a unanimous preference for keeping the two programmes separate.

3.2.2. Reporting and follow-up
EISP and ENVAP2 have similar reporting structures. The main reporting structure of EISP has been
the semi-annual Interim Reports (8 reports) while ENVAP2 has issued both Half Year Reports and
Annual Progress Reports. Under the agreements, a completion report is to be prepared by IMG and
SEPA, which should be analytical and present overall project results. These reports are not yet
available at the time of this evaluation.
All progress reports have been distributed to the key stakeholders for comments before finalization.
The EISP reports provide a summary, context followed by an overview of progress made towards
achievement of the objectives in the respective period (with a summary of the corresponding work
plan in a box) as well as the proposed work plan for the next period. For each period, there are
indicators and comments included in the Log Frame. The ENVAP2 reports are structured similarly but
with the main difference the way progress towards achievement of objectives is reported. In the case
of ENVAP2, this is done on a rolling basis, where each report supplements the existing information
with progress made over the reporting period (including a list of outputs developed by ENVAP2 over
the whole period). So where EISP is basically reporting on the activities of the specific period, the
ENVAP2 reporting structure has the advantage of showing the reader the overall situation of the
achievement.
Overall, the reporting quality is good in case of ENVAP2. The May 2013 mid-term/near-end review of
EISP recommended strengthening the interim reporting with respect to work plans and simplifying the
methodology for progress reporting. While in response to this, the Interim Reports included a box with
the work plans of the reporting period, in essence the structure remained the same. The reports can be
strengthened further to more clearly indicate the progress made, and explain the challenges. Project
risks are identified but not rated nor are clear mitigation measures formulated and reported on.
Both programmes used the traditional logframe, but with a focus on output indicators. Even with the
changes made after the evaluation, it was challenging to assess progress towards achievement of the
objectives. It is therefore recommended to not only report on output indicators but also develop
outcome indicators, with annual targets towards the achievement of the overall target. The Log Frame
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 45
could be used more as an implementation and monitoring tool, focusing on progress made towards
achieving the objectives rather than on activities and outputs. For this purpose, we would recommend
to combine the Log Frame with a results measurement framework. Such a combination could look like
the table below.
Combining the Log Frame with a results measurement framework
Objectives
Indicators
Overall
objective
Specific
Objectives
Impact
indicators
Outcome
indicators
Outputs
Output
indicators
Process
indicators
Activities
Baseline
Target
Year 1
Actual
Level
Achieve
d Year 1
Target
Year 2
Rating
(HS, S,
PS, U)
Verification
Means
Assumptions
and Risks
Comments
It was noted several times in the project reports that the flexibility in the programmes has allowed for
adjustments of the activities and their timeline to harmonize with Serbian needs. This is also
confirmed by the interviewees. At the same time, there is a risk for the programmes to take on new
activities or shift priorities, to such an extent that while those activities as such are well justified
(Kruščica), their incorporation into the programmes may divert resources away from the achievement
of the objectives. In such a scenario, flexibility could impact the achievement of the more strategic
programmes objectives as staff and resource needs are directed to more immediate concerns.
It is important that the flexibility of the programmes relates more clearly to activities, but that it should
not impact the objectives of the programmes. To monitor this carefully, activities should be described
in sufficient detail in a rolling annual work programme, to be revised and updated semi-annually, with
the subsequent report indicating how the scheduled activities have changed in light of project needs,
but also clearly indicating how the changes relate to the achievement of the objectives.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 46
4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the conclusions of the evaluation and makes several recommendations for
continued Swedish support.
National context and working environment
In recent years, the competences for environmental protection shifted from one ministry to another.
Within the past three years, the environmental portfolio was part of the former Ministry of
Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning and then part of the former Ministry of Energy,
Development and Environmental Protection. Currently, it is part of MAEP. The Government
announced a possibility of further restructuring in the future which may again transfer the
environmental portfolio from one ministry to another. Furthermore, the competences within MAEP
for water issues remain unresolved and it is unclear whether they fall under environmental or
agricultural component of the MAEP.
The declared political support for the programmes has not materialised in practice in terms of staff
increase and/or reorganisation of the work within the ministry competent for environmental protection.
At DPM, there are currently eight people working although the staffing document refers to 11
positions. At EUD’s Unit for European Integrations in the Environmental Protection Area, there are
currently two people working instead of the four persons as foreseen by the staffing document. It is
reasonable to believe that the existing vacancies will not be filled and that additional staff will not be
hired. However, it is possible that future restructurings within the ministry competent for
environmental protection may create better synergies between sectors, departments, and units and may
contribute to better allocation of the resources within the ministry competent for environmental
protection.
In respect to the available financial resources, MAEP prepared amendments to the Environmental
Protection Act including provisions on the reestablishment of an Environmental Fund (the Green
Fund). However, the Ministry of Finance issued a negative opinion on the amendments, stating their
objections to the establishment of an independent fund. While the Ministry of Finance supports the
establishment of a budgetary fund with the MAEP, not having a separate (likely larger) Green Fund
may have negative consequences on the EU accession process as the Serbian Government. This issue
remains undecided at the moment of drafting of this Report.
Evaluation of the two environmental programmes
The objectives of EISP, with its focus on providing DPM with the capability and tools to oversee the
programming and implementation of environmental infrastructure projects, with a focus on EU
funding, was relevant at the start of EISP and continues to be so. Institutionally, DPM is the Serbian
government body responsible for the programming and technical implementation of EU IPA funds in
the environmental sector.
It can be concluded that EISP has achieved two of its five objectives when reviewed against the
original indicators in the Log Frame and has made progress towards meeting its objectives 2, 3 and 4.
As a consequence, more progress remains to be made towards the overall objective of providing DPM
with the capability and tools to oversee the programming and implementation of at least € 40 million
of environmental infrastructure projects each year.
The objective of ENVAP2 was relevant at the start of the programme and continues to be so. The
overall objective of ENVAP2 is to strengthen Serbia’s ability to efficiently take part in the EU
accession negotiations in respect to environment. Serbia became an EU candidate country in 2012 and
the negotiations commenced in 2014 with no estimate on when they may be finalised. ENVAP2
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 47
provided support on the issue that the ministry competent for environmental protection had very little
knowledge. ENVAP2 continues to be relevant in the national context. The area of ENVAP2’s focus,
the environment, is a very complex area. Coordination of the work concerning approximation with
environmental acquis is a formidable task. Environmental acquis consists of over 300 legal acts that
need to be transposed and implemented, very often by coordinated activities from several institutions
and governmental levels.
It can be concluded that ENVAP2 has fully achieved two of its expected results. It is uncertain
whether result 3 has been achieved since it is unclear whether it is limited only to central level
authorities. If it is, then result 3 has been attained. According to the information obtained from
Sida/Swedish Embassy in Belgrade, ENVAP2 partners consider that result 3 applies only to central
level authorities. More progress needs to be made towards expected results 1, 5, 6, and 7, but
ENVAP2 has made considerable progress in respect to these expected results.
In general, the level of coordination and synergy between EISP and ENVAP2 is good. According to
the reviewed documents and information obtained as part of the interviews, their work mostly overlaps
concerning DSIPs. EISP is taking part in events organised by ENVAP2. Also, DPM, implementing
EISP, was given a possibility to use helpdesk function, developed as part of ENVAP2.
It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the different methods of capacity building. On-the-job
training is generally considered a very effective method. While the programming flexibility offered by
EISP and ENVAP was appreciated, it was also suggested that the Ministry might prefer to plan more
concretely the different methods, in particular the site visits and study tours. At the moment, it seems
the Ministry may not be fully aware of how much time its staff is planning to participate in the
different international projects and programmes, and there is a need for enhanced planning and
coordination with donors, as the absorption capacity of staff is very limited. There have been several
instances where Ministry staff was not allowed to travel. At the same time, it should be noted that, in
general, there is increasing scrutiny of the effectiveness of so-called big-ticket items, such as study
trips, which are the traditional methods of capacity building.
There are several identified risks that may impact the sustainability of EISP and ENVAP2 in a national
context. The sustainability of support will primarily depend on two connected issues, Serbia’s
determination to accede the EU and EU’s capacity and willingness to accept new member states.
In recent years the competences for environmental protection shifted from one ministry to another.
Past restructuring had a negative effect on both programmes. This was primarily visible through
difficulties in establishing communication channels with the decision-making levels of the competent
ministries. Such difficulties were noted in the previous evaluations. The announced possibility of
similar restructuring of the government will most certainly impact the sustainability of EISP and
ENVAP2.
Some of the key people in both DPM and EUD left over the course of both programmes which have
had a negative impact on the institutional memory of the ministry competent for environmental
protection. Furthermore, there is a concern that MAEP under its current allocation of resources and a
number of vacant positions may not be able to successfully address the requirements of the accession
process, including the support in execution of environmental infrastructure projects. MAEP’s strained
resources are further stretched with the need to participate in the implementation of EISP and
ENVAP2, and this may have consequence on the programmes’ sustainability.
Similarly, MAEP and other Serbian authorities are experiencing challenges in respect to absorption of
IPA funds. Lack of absorption capacities for IPA funds will most definitely impact the sustainability
of EISP’s results. Delays in commencement of implementation of SPP projects supported by EISP
may cause part of the work carried out by EISP obsolete.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 48
Coordination and management
According to the interviewees, the roles and mandates of the different partners were clearly defined.
The coordination between the two programmes and with other programmes has been closely
monitored by Sida, and within the Ministry. The interviewees confirm that the two programmes have
been implemented in close cooperation. The fact that a senior specialist worked on both EISP and
ENVAP2 assignments has reinforced this coordination. Also, ENVAP2’s project officer coming from
IMG has also contributed to the close collaboration.
The Steering Committees have played an important role in overseeing and guiding the programmes,
even though some interviewees have suggested that the political leadership of the Ministry could have
been more actively involved. The membership of the Steering Committee is rather limited, which is
understandable from a management perspective, but broadening the members, or at least disseminating
the discussions to a wider group of stakeholders, could enhance the visibility of the programmes.
Some interviewees suggested that ENVAP2 had more visibility, at least within the Ministry, than
EISP, due to its political significance, and that EISP is therefore less known.
Even though there is a general consensus that both programmes need to be well coordinated and that
close collaboration can reinforce the achievement of objectives, all interviewees mentioned that the
objectives, target groups and time horizons, as well as the type of outputs of EISP and ENVAP are
quite distinct. There was a unanimous preference for keeping the two programmes separate.
Overall, the reporting quality is good in case of ENVAP. The May 2013 mid-term/near-end review of
EISP recommended strengthening the interim reporting with respect to work plans and simplifying the
methodology for progress reporting. While in response to this, the Interim Reports included a box with
the work plans of the reporting period, in essence the structure remained the same. The reports can be
strengthened further to more clearly indicate the progress made, and explain the challenges. Project
risks are identified but not rated nor are clear mitigation measures formulated and reported on
The flexibility in the programmes implementation has allowed for adjustments of the activities and
their timeline to harmonize with Serbian needs. While this has contributed to the overall support of the
programmes, there is a risk for the programmes to take on new activities or shift priorities, to such an
extent that while those activities as such are well justified, their incorporation into the programmes
may divert resources away from the achievement of the objectives. This risk is especially relevant for
EISP. In such a scenario, flexibility could impact the achievement of the more strategic programmes
objectives as staff and resource needs are directed to more immediate concerns.
Recommendations
1. It is recommended that Sweden continues its support to Serbia in terms of preparing and
implementing environmental investments and in the preparations for negotiations related to
Serbia’s EU accession.
2. Even though there is a general consensus that both programmes need to be well coordinated
and that close collaboration can reinforce the achievement of objectives, it is recommended to
keep the two programmes separate.
3. It is recommended to reconsider a separate programme for project preparation (PEID) in
addition to a continuation of EISP. If both were to run simultaneously, the risks of overlaps
and duplication between PEID and EISP should be clearly addressed (e.g. management of the
programme).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 49
4. To avoid risks of low absorption capacity at the central level, it is recommended that prior to
the start of future programmes Sida seeks clear commitments from the Ministry on staffing
and budgeting issues.
5. While the flexibility of the programmes has been beneficial, the programmes’ design can be
strengthened by providing a stronger link between objectives, activities and budget. It is
important that the flexibility of the programmes relates more clearly to activities, and not
impact the achievement of the objectives of the programmes.
6. Both programmes used the traditional logframe, but with a focus on output indicators. It was
challenging to assess progress towards achievement of the objectives. It is therefore
recommended to not only report on output indicators but also develop outcome indicators,
with annual targets towards the achievement of the overall target. The Log Frame could be
used more as an implementation and monitoring tool, focusing on progress made towards
achieving the objectives rather than on activities and outputs.
7. It is also recommended to further enhance the use of indicators for specific investments,
especially within the context of the contribution to EU objectives as well as their social
impact.
8. It is recommended to describe the programmes’ activities in sufficient detail in a rolling
annual work programme, to be revised and updated semi-annually, with the subsequent report
indicating how the scheduled activities have changed in light of project needs, but also clearly
indicating how the changes relate to the achievement of the objectives.
9. It is recommended to increase the focus of capacity building on on-the-job training and
documentation of good practices, guidelines and other sources of written material (e.g.
checklists).
10. Taking into consideration absorption and financial limitations, further efforts should be taken
to extend the capacity building to the local level. For instance, experience gained in
implementation of environmental infrastructure projects at the local level should be
disseminated among the local authorities. Preparation of a guidebook and a training material
presenting the project management structure is recommendable.
11. In an effort to measure the impact of capacity building, other capacity building activities (e.g.,
study trip, conferences) should be clearly indicated from the start of the programme, with
output and outcome indicators that capture whether the performance of the beneficiary has
improved, at the individual and organisational level, including that of networks and systems as
a result of the capacity building. Also, to verify the output and outcomes, the activities should
include the use of questionnaires or feedback from participants. Finally, these activities should
be planned more concretely with the Ministry.
12. DSIPs should stay open until the end of negotiations to enable the positive feedback loop
between policy and projects. Materials produced by programmes/projects should be used to
reinforce and update the content of DSIPs. This approach has been taken by EISP in respect
to DSIP for the Landfill Directive which is regularly including in the DSIP programme’s
results, as well as other developments.
13. In terms of management, ENVAP2 has a focus on transfer of experience and knowledge from
one administration to another, and it is therefore recommended that SEPA continues its role as
main cooperation partner. In the case of EISP, an alternative model in which a publicly
tendered consulting firm is responsible for the administration and management of the
programme (with a separate budget for activities that can be sub-contracted under wellMilieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 50
defined procurement rules) is certainly a feasible option, although there are no clear
indications that require a change to the IMG cooperation model.
14. It is recommended to have more presence at the Ministry itself, preferably by having a full
time technical person be staffed at the Ministry to alleviate the Department from increased
workload associated with the implementation of the programme. This issue was recognised
by ENVAP2. ENVAP2 provided a technical support to EUD in managing the programme.
Furthermore, as part of its Nitrates component, ENVAP2 engaged two Serbian consultants to
do most of the practical work and report back to the project group on a regular basis. This
approach has been successful so far and it can be concluded that it would not have been
possible to implement the project using only experts from the authorities. A similar approach
may be replicated in other programmes/projects.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 51
5
5.1
ANNEXES
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of reference – A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported
by Sweden: The Environmental Infrastructure Support Program and the Environment
Accession Program (phase 1 and 2).
1
BACKGROUND
1.1
Information about Sida
Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, is a government authority. Our
goal is to contribute to enabling poor people to improve their living conditions.
As other Swedish government agencies, Sida works independently within the framework established
by the Swedish Government and Parliament. They decide on the financial limits, the countries with
which Sweden (and thus, Sida) will cooperate, and the focus and content of that cooperation.
For additional information, please visit Sida’s website, www.sida.se
1.2
Information about the Embassy
The Embassy of Sweden in Belgrade is responsible for the planning and implementation of the
Swedish development cooperation in Serbia.
1.3
Partner country
The Republic of Serbia officially applied for EU membership on 22nd December 2009. The
Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) was signed on 29th April 2008 and ratified by the
Serbian Parliament on 9th September 2008. SAA ratification process started in 2010. The European
Council granted Serbia the status of candidate country on 1st March 2012, on the basis of the
Commission Opinion on Serbia’s membership application adopted on 12th October 2011. In
December 2013 the Council of the European Union approved opening negotiations on Serbia's
accession in January 2014. Screening meetings for all 35 chapters of the acquis have been finalized.
1.4
Cooperation partner
The Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (MAEP).
1.5
Intervention
Sweden has since 2011 provided support to the ministry responsible for environment in Serbia,
presently the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (MAEP), to two environmental
programs, the Environmental Infrastructure Support Program (EISP) and the Environment Accession
Program’s (ENVAP2), which both are closely related to Serbia’s preparations for EU negotiations and
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 52
later accession. Both programs will end in June 2016 and the initial results have been reviewed,
separately, earlier (reports are attached).
2 Objectives
The assignment has two objectives. Firstly to review and document results achieved and lessons
learned made and secondly to provide advice to Sweden and partners to be considered in a possible
continuation of the cooperation.
3
Scope of assignment
3.1
General information
The Environmental Infrastructure Support Program (EISP), aims to increase MAEP’s capacity, and
local stakeholders’ capacity to some extent, to work with environmental investments and for Serbia to
increase its uptake of environmental funding from EU IPA and other sources of funding. Development
of policy, action plans and cost estimations within EISP have fed into the work of ENVAP2.
The Environment Accession Program’s (ENVAP2) goal is to strengthen the ministry’s ability to
efficiently take part in the upcoming EU accession negotiations. The main focus of the program lies on
the strengthened capacity and organization of MAEP to coordinate Serbia’s position on Chapter 27,
Environment, of the EU acquis. This includes a gap analysis and support in development of action
plans and position papers. ENVAP 1 (or just ENVAP) was a smaller first intervention to familiarize
Serbian counterparts with the different requirements and elements of the EU accession process.
Both EISP and ENVAP1 and 2 have worked in a dynamic national context where new information and
ministry priorities have led to additional tasks being put on the two programs along the way. The
cooperation partners have lost a number of key staff during the cooperation period which also has
added to the challenges experienced.
3.2
Scope of work
1. Description of the national context and working environment:
In order for the reader of the consultant’s review report to better understand in which
institutional context the cooperation have worked the consultant shall;
a. briefly describe how the responsibility for environmental issues (chapter 27) has been
placed/organized within the government and the governments’ allocation of resources and
priority for environment during 2011-2015;
b. from interviews with stakeholders describe the working conditions under which the
programs have operated since 2011 – e g senior management’s awareness of
environmental issues and its support to the departments responsible for the cooperation
with Sweden, clarity of roles and responsibilities and work load.
2. Review of results achieved in EISP and ENVAP, 2011-2015:
a. Study of the earlier review/appraisal reports, progress reports and background
documentation.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 53
b. Meetings/interviews with key stakeholders (meetings mainly in Belgrade), including
preparation of one visit to Serbia to meet with MAEP, SEIO (Serbian EU-Integration
Office), EU Delegation, Project Preparation Facility (EU funded) Standing Conference of
Towns and Municipalities, selected municipality (supported through EISP) and if assessed
needed also other stakeholders.
c. To analyze the performance and relevance of EISP and ENVAP;
- To what extent have the project objectives and expected results been achieved?
Lessons learned?
- To assess the relevance and sustainability of the support in a national context, e g
relevance to the countries’ plans for EU accession.
- To what extent has there been coordination and synergies between the two programs
and with other projects/programs of relevance?
- To what degree has the flexibility provided in the programs been important to
achievements?
- To specifically address the conclusions/key findings from and recommendations
raised in the earlier review reports.
- To assess the effectiveness of various methods for capacity building.
d. To review ownership, alignment and harmonization;
- To briefly assess the degree of national ownership and the quality of the participatory
process in project planning and implementation.
- To what degree is the cooperation in alignment with national needs and priorities?
- To what degree is the cooperation harmonized with other support, e g through EU
support to PLAC (Policy and Legal Advice Centre) and the PPFs (Project Preparation
Facilities)?
e. To analyze the systems and routines to ensure quality in project implementation,
monitoring and reporting:
- Are the roles, mandates and coordination between the cooperation partners clear and
beneficial to the cooperation?
- Assess the means and quality of reporting and follow-up: documentation,
communication and indicators used.
f. Propose recommendations, in relation to the above or any other issue of importance, for
Sida and partners relevant for a continued Swedish support.
3.3
Budget
The budget shall be divided in fees and reimbursables. Fees shall be indicated in SEK/hour. The
maximum budget for the assignment is SEK 300 000.
3.4
Schedule
The assignment shall start latest on 14 September 2015 and is expected to be finalized by 16
November 2015.
3.5
Profile of the Supplier and requirements for personnel
3.5.1
Person principally responsible for the implementation of the service (team-leader)
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 54
The tenderer must propose a person with
I.
Academic or other vocational education
II.
Work experience
adequate for the project
The person proposed must have very good knowledge of spoken and written English.
The person proposed must have been team leader for at least three evaluation assignments during the
last five years of which at least one assignment must have been in the environmental sector (see 3.5.1
b below).
The tender must include:
a) A description in the form of a Curriculum Vitae for the person who is to be responsible for the
performance of the project. The CV must contain a full description of the person’s theoretical
qualifications and professional work experience. The CV must be signed by the person proposed.
b) A specification indicating the fulfilment of the above required number of previously performed
assignments.
3.5.2
Other personnel
Tenderers must assign personnel with adequate education for the project.
The expert(s) must each have a total of at least five years of highly relevant experience from work
related to preparations for EU negotiations in environment and/or preparation and implementation of
environmental investment projects.
The team (I e also includes the team leader) must have highly relevant experience from work related to
both preparations for EU negotiations in environment and preparations/implementation of
environmental investment projects.
At least one person in the team proposed must have very good knowledge of the environmental
situation in Serbia in relation to the specific focus of the assignment and have very good knowledge of
spoken and written Serbian.
At least one person in the team proposed must have an experience of at least two years of working
with capacity building in the environmental sector.
The person(s) proposed must have very good knowledge of spoken and written English.
The tender must include:
A description in the form of Curriculum Vitae for the personnel who are to participate in the
performance of the project. The CV must contain a full description of the person’s or persons’
theoretical qualifications and professional work experience.
3.6
Reporting and documentation
The draft final report is to be sent to the Swedish embassy in Belgrade no later than 19 October 2015.
The draft final report shall be of maximum 25 pages and include a summary of maximum 3 pages.
Comments to the report, from partners and the embassy, will be delivered to the consultant by the
embassy no later than 2 November 2015.
The final report shall be sent to the embassy by latest 16 November 2015.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 55
5.2
METHODOLOGY
We propose to structure the work indicated in the Term of reference in four main steps:




Inception: development of evaluation framework (Task 1);
Data collection (Tasks 2);
Data analysis (Task 3);
Reporting and recommendations (Task 4).
Task 1: Inception: Development of Evaluation Framework
During a short inception phase of approximately one week, we will develop the approach to be used to
carry out the study. It involves finalizing the evaluation framework and methodology and the work
plan, on the basis of this technical proposal. It is important that this is carried out closely with Sida, for
which purpose we propose to organise a phone call with the Swedish Embassy in Belgrade during the
project inception phase, to ensure a common understanding of the work to be performed, and agree on
the final list of stakeholders to be consulted.
In our experience, the inception phase is crucial for the success of an evaluation. It is the time to
clarify any preliminary questions and to ensure that a common understanding between Milieu and Sida
as to the aim and implications of the evaluation has been reached. It is also the chance to ensure that
the team has a complete understanding of the objectives and activities of the two environmental
programmes.
We have designed a methodology for this evaluation study that is based on our proven experience with
project and programme evaluations, requiring the collection and synthesis of information and
perspectives from dispersed points and the development of sound, evidence-based conclusions that can
provide input to further policy debate and development. Task 1 will include the following elements.





Developing the intervention logic and evaluation framework for the study;
Preparing ‘indicators’ for each question to develop the data collection and analysis tasks
further;
Identification of stakeholders to be consulted and interviewed;
Preparation of draft annotated outline of the final report;
Approval of the list of stakeholders, mission schedule and draft outline by Sida.
Immediately after contract signature, Milieu will initiate activities on identifying relevant individuals
in the selected stakeholders to be interviewed and their contact details. In doing this, Milieu will ask
for guidance and support from the Embassy. The identification of stakeholders for consultation will
stem from: the list of stakeholders mentioned in the Terms of reference, the team’s initial review of the
program documents as well as its previous work and contacts; input from Sida and the EU Delegation;
input from the Serbian authorities, taking into consideration whether geographical or sectoral balance
is required. The project team will track these inputs, building on the indicative list includes in the
Terms of reference and develop a final consultation list. We will send the list to Sida before it is
finalized. The target would be somewhere between six and fifteen interviews, depending upon the
method used. A key factor in determining the scope of the consultation will be resource availability of
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 56
the team to manage the work and carry out the interviews, given the resources required to complete the
other project activities and deliverables.
Based on this work, the approach for the next three steps will be developed. Our approach builds on a
stringent application of judgment criteria and indicators to each evaluation question67. This helps to
structure the answers to the evaluation questions, since the judgment criteria will determine the
indicators and, more generally, the nature of the data collected and the type of analysis. The
advantages of this approach are that it assists in avoiding subjectivity and in formulating judgments on
accepted terms and improves transparency of the evaluation by making the judgments explicit.
The Near End Review of the two environmental programs should correspond directly to the
objectives, activities and outputs of these programmes. It is therefore useful to set forth this
‘intervention logic’ in order to structure and guide the evaluation methodology and process.
The overall need of EISP and ENVAP2 (including problems) which the programmes aim to address is
to increase Serbia’s uptake of environmental funding from EU IPA and other sources and to
strengthen MAEP’s ability to efficiently take part in the upcoming EU accession negotiation. To
address this need, the programmes operate under a hierarchy of objectives, starting with the general
objective.. This leads to a more specific objective: to develop policy, actions plans and cost
estimations of environmental investments. Both of these are in turn reflected in operational
objectives. These can also be referred to as measures.
In pursuit of these objectives, financial and human resources or inputs, are allocated to a range of
activities designed to achieve the objectives. The results of these activities can be assessed at
different levels, corresponding to the three tiers of objectives. Outputs are the products and services
that immediately result from the activities undertaken. The use of these outputs should achieve certain
outcomes. These outcomes should contribute to longer-term impacts. Outcomes and impacts will
also most likely include unforeseen effects, such as overall improvements to planning culture and
procedures, which should also be considered in evaluation.
The figure below sets out a model of the intervention logic for EISP and ENVAP.
Initial model of intervention logic for the two environmental programmes
67
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/methods/mth_qci_chx_en.htm
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 57
The intervention logic provides a reference for understanding the commonly used evaluation criteria:
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and value added.
Once the contract is signed, the team will request from Sida the different programmes documentation
and develop the intervention logic (described above) and the evaluation framework (described below)
for the study. The intervention logic will be completed to fully describe the various objectives, inputs,
outputs, outcomes and impacts that can be expected through implementation of the two environmental
programmes, such that it can properly serve as the baseline picture for the assessment, against which
data and information about the actual situation can be assessed.
The evaluation framework guides the development of the overall methodology and summarises it in a
table. The framework reviews each of the evaluation questions proposed and breaks them down as
follows:




Sub-questions: They reformulate the questions in an operational way;
Judgement criteria: These clearly define the actual issues that need to be assessed in an
objective way, in order to effectively answer the evaluation question;
Indicators: These specify the (quantitative and qualitative) data that needs to be collected in
order to assess the judgement criteria;
Required information and analysis: This sets out what information must be gathered, both
quantitative (e.g. data) and qualitative (e.g. legal provisions, programme results, experience
and perspectives) and the analysis of that information required to answer the question. It will
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 58

guide the content of the data collection and analysis tasks;
Data collection tools and analysis methods: This sets out the exact method that will be used
to collect and analyse the data. It guides the identification of the type and scope of data
collection and analysis tasks to be carried out while the analysis methods defines the method
that will be used to synthesise, triangulate and interpret data and information coming from
various sources in order to develop sound, evidence-based conclusions.
Based on our review of different evaluation questions of the Terms of reference, we have prepared an
outline of the evaluation framework table. This will enable us to apply a methodology for the
evaluation study that includes the data collection tools and analysis methods required to
comprehensively address each of the questions, and develop a work plan for its execution. The
evaluation framework table provides a summary of the approach that can be easily referenced during
project implementation, particularly for ensuring coherence across the evaluation questions
themselves.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 59
Outline evaluation framework
EVALUATION QUESTION
SUBQUESTION
S
JUDGEMENT
CRITERIA
INDICATOR
REQUIRED
INFORMATION &
ANALYSIS
DATA
COLLECTION/
ANALYSIS
METHOD
Performance and relevance
To what extent have the project
objectives and expected results been
achieved? Lessons learned?
To assess the relevance and
sustainability of the support in a
national context, e.g. relevance to
the countries plan for EU accession
To what extent has there been
coordination and synergies between
the two programs and with other
projects/programs of relevance
To what degree has the flexibility
provided in the programs been
important to achievements
To specifically address the
conclusions/key findings from and
recommendations raised in the
earlier review reports
To assess the effectiveness of
various methods for capacity
building
Ownership, alignment and
harmonization
Milieu Ltd
Brussels, July 2015
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia
EVALUATION QUESTION
SUBQUESTION
S
JUDGEMENT
CRITERIA
INDICATOR
REQUIRED
INFORMATION &
ANALYSIS
DATA
COLLECTION/
ANALYSIS
METHOD
To briefly assess the degree of
national ownership and the quality
of the participatory process in
project planning and implementation
To what degree is the cooperation in
alignment with national needs and
priorities?
To what degree is the cooperation
harmonized with other support, e.g.,
through EU support to PLAC and
the PPFs
Coordination and quality
Are the roles, mandates and
coordination between the
cooperation partners clear and
beneficial to the cooperation?
Assess the means and quality of
reporting and follow-up:
documentation, communication and
indicators used.
Task 1 will be completed with the approval of list of stakeholders, mission schedule, intervention logic and completed evaluation framework as well as draft
outline at approximately the end of the first week after contract signature (14 – 20 September).
Milieu Ltd
Brussels, July 2015
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia
Task 2: Data collection
Task 2 constitutes the data collection phase of the assignment. It will be carried out by the Team
Leader and Expert, with an emphasis to collect as many different sources of information as possible,
as together they should constitute the evidence base for the study. Task 2 will focus on documentary
evidence, as well as on the consultations with the different stakeholders identified as part of Task 1.
Task 2 will consist of the following:
1. Study of the earlier review/appraisal reports, progress reports and background documentation;
2. Preparation of questionnaires for the different interviews;
3. Meetings/interviews with key stakeholders (meetings mainly in Belgrade), including
preparation of a visit to Serbia to meet with MAEP, SEIO (Serbian EU-Integration Office),
EU Delegation, Project Preparation Facility (EU funded) Standing Conference of Towns and
Municipalities, selected municipality (supported through EISPP) and other selected
stakeholders.
Much of the information to support the evaluations is expected to come from existing reports and
background documentation. The team will therefore review a range of documents (e.g. studies,
appraisal reports, guidance documents, journal articles) from which they can gather evidence to
support the answers to the evaluation questions. This will begin immediately in the first week (the
inception phase) and continue through the subsequent two weeks. These documents will provide
guiding directions for the work – giving the team a clear idea of where subsequent interviews and
stakeholder consultations will need to focus on to either fill information gaps or validate initial
findings for each of the issues under investigation. It will enable further development of the evaluation
framework and initial hypothesis about results. In some cases it will provide concrete data and case
evidence to support the analysis.
The meetings and interviews with stakeholders is a critical part as it represents the opportunity to
collect information and views from different sources that is not available from reports. Furthermore it
provides the opportunity to collect evidence from a broader perspective, going beyond that of the
stakeholders more directly involved in the management of the programmes. As such the content and
timing of the interviews must be carefully designed, also bearing in mind the limited time and
resources for the meetings.
The meetings, incorporating interviews, will take part during the mission to Serbia. The meetings will
be organized from Brussels. Milieu has considerable experience organizing meetings off location. In
the case of Serbia, Milieu has practical experience in successfully organizing meetings with various
stakeholders including, relevant government authorities, national associations and international
organisations.
Following contract signature, Milieu will prepare a draft letter presenting the project, introducing the
project team and asking the stakeholders to accept requests for meetings. Milieu will ask the Swedish
Embassy in Serbia, as the contracting authority, to review and comment on the letter. Once the
content of the letter has been agreed, Milieu will ask the Embassy to sign the letter.
Following the signing of the letter, Milieu will establish an email contact in Serbian with the identified
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 62
individuals. In case of lack of response, Milieu will follow up by phone in Serbian. Also, assistance
from the contracting authority in setting up meetings and interviews may be requested as a last resort.
Milieu will propose dates and timing of the meetings, but will be flexible to take into consideration
other obligations that stakeholders may have. We propose the mission to take place during week four
of the project (5 – 11 October), but the mission can also take place a week earlier or later. No public
holidays fall during this week in Serbia. Having interviews in week four will enable: sufficient
amount of time for identification of stakeholders by the Consultants; approval of the stakeholders by
the Embassy; contacting and organizing meetings and travel arrangements by the Consultants.
Milieu will provide the stakeholders in advance with a written overview of the topics to be discussed
and specific questions, if possible. The Team Leader and Expert will take part in the Mission. The
Expert, who is fluent in Serbian, may support in translation of the meetings, in case such a need arises.
We will prepare extensive interview notes of all the meetings within one week of the mission.
Task 3: Data analysis
Task 3 will bring together all of the available information and evidence in order to develop systematic
and soundly judged conclusions. To do this, we will employ a number of commonly used and proven
content analysis methods to provide a comprehensive overview and the development of conclusions.
We will apply an iterative process to the evaluation, in order to take advantage of the different types of
data, information and validation opportunities available to our team. The task will therefore run
throughout the course of the project, up until the preparation of the final report.
We will apply a specific analysis methodology for each question during the course of the assignment.
Generally, the analysis will follow basic rules of content analysis. Content analysis focuses on the
categorisation and summary of the data from dispersed sources and thereby on the identification of
important issues and linkages between different aspects of a subject. The analysis will have both
quantitative (how often was something mentioned and by whom?) and qualitative elements (in what
context was it mentioned? How is it explained?). Ultimately, the analysis of each criterion and/or
question will depend on the nature of the question and or sub-question to be answered. Some will
require straight mapping and counting, while for others the responses will need to be organized into
different layers (e.g. type of objective or part of the programme to which it corresponds) for clearer
understanding.
For the contribution of Sweden, we will use scenario development to understand the situation with and
without Sida support, primarily based on stakeholder’s views.
The data analysis will commence already during the data collection phase and will also continue
during the drafting of the draft Final Report.
Task 4: Reporting and development of recommendations
The Terms of reference lay out some general requirements for the final report, which should contain a
description of the national context and working environment, a review of results achieved in EISP and
ENVAP2, 2011- 2015 as well as recommendations for Sida and partners regarding a continued
Swedish support. To facilitate the presentation of different types of results, we suggest that the final
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 63
report has thus three main chapters: a ‘context’ part, an ‘evaluation’ part and finally ‘conclusions and
recommendations’, with as annexes the Terms of reference, the methodology (including the evaluation
framework) and the list of stakeholders interviewed and consulted.
The draft final report will be sent electronically to the Swedish embassy in Belgrade for comments of
the embassy and partners, no later than 19 October 2015, as stipulated in the Terms of reference. The
comments will be received no later than 2 November 2015. We will address all comments by latest 16
November 2015.
5.3
LIST OF INFORMATION SOURCES
1. Results strategy for Sweden’s reform cooperation with Eastern Europe, the Western Balkans
and Turkey 2014 - 2020
2. Serbia’s Post Screening Report – September 2015
A. Documents provided together with the Tender Specifications
1. Appraisal of Proposed Swedish Support to Serbia’s Preparation for Environmental Accession,
ORGUT, Consulting AB and others, December 2012
2. Review of Swedish support to the Serbian administration to prepare a national project pipeline
for environmental investments, “Environmental Infrastructure Support Project”, ORGUT
Consulting AB, 13 June 2013
3. Evaluation of the 1st Year of Preparations for Negotiations Related to Serbia’s EU Accession
Process, Phase 2, Environment Accession Project 2 (ENVAP2), Professional Management, 4
September 2014.
B. ENVAP2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Project Plan (19 June 2013)
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (16 October 2013)
2013 Annual Progress Report (12 March 2014)
2013 Financial report
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (20 March 2014)
Designation of Sensitive Areas and Vulnerable Zones According to the EU Nitrates Directive
and UWWTD – Draft Project Plan (26 May 2014)
Second Progress Report January – June 2014 (12 September 2014)
Financial report January June 2014
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (7 October 2014)
SEPA Response to ENVAP evaluation (2 February 2015)
Request for Additional Funds (16 April 2015)
Annual Report for the cooperation with Serbia (12 March 2015)
Annual Progress Report (9 June 2015)
Financial report year 2014
Steering Committee Meetings 26 March 2015
Waste Batteries Directive Benchmark Matrix (Gap assessment table)
Proposal for Plan of Activities for second half of 2015 – v.14
Calendar September – December 2015 – final version (10 September 2015)
ENVAP2, Half Year Progress Report (14 September 2015)
List of workshops and Help desk activities
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 64
21. Handbook ENG and SRB
Other Relevant Documents
22. Final Report on the SEPA’s cooperation with the Western Balkan countries 2005 – 2013 (19
June 2013)
o Financial Report and Financial Audit Report
o Fiches, short project descriptions
o Project Reports 2005 – 2009
o Project Reports 2010 – 2013
o PM Fortsatt miljösamarbete västra Balkan 24 May 2012
o PM Miljösamarbete västra Balkan 3 February 2012
o Interim report, Western Balkan, November 2012
C. EISP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Agreement Sida - IMG
Project Proposal, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (6 December 2010)
Programme Proposal - July 2011 – July 2013 – Draft V7
Inception Report – 1 January 2011 – 30 June 2011 – Final (2 August 2011)
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (18 January 2012) - Email
Interim Report No 1 – 1 July – 31 December 2011 – Final (January 2012)
Interim Report No 2 – 1 January – 30 June 2012 – Final
1 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (30 August 2012) - Final
Interim Report No 3 – 30 August 2012 – 30 January 2013 – Final
2 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (5 February 2013) - Final
Interim Report No 4 – 1 January – 30 June 2013 – Final
3 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (4 October 2013) – Final
Interim Report No 5 – 1 July – 31 December 2013 – Final
EISP Extension Period – Approach and Activities: July 2013 – June 2015 – Final
4 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (5 February 2014) – Final
Letter from the Ministry of Environment to Sida (6 February 2014)
Interim Report No 6 – 1 January – 30 June 2014 – Final
5 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (2 July 2014) – Final
Methodology for Selection and Prioritization of Infrastructure Projects (15 October 2014)
Extension to EISP – July 2015 – June 2016 – V4 (5 December 2014)
Interim Report No 7 – 1 July – 31 December 2014 – Final
6 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (5 February 2015) – Final
7 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (29 May 2015) - Final
8 Steering Committee Meeting Minutes (11 September 2015) – Final
Steering Committee Presentation (September 2015)
Interim Report No 8 – 1 January - 30 June 2015 – Final
Interim Report Steering Committee Presentation – September 2015
Budget amendments
Amendment to the Specific Agreement with Sida
30. Project Proposal – ‘Sourcing for the Planet’, Arilje – Draft V8
31. Project Proposal – Construction of a (Waste) Transfer Station in Čačak
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 65
32. Project Proposal – Kruščica Waste Water Treatment Plant Project – Final
33. Project Proposal – The New Regional Landfill in Pančevo
34. Single Project Pipeline (13 May 2015)
EISP Policy Support Documents
35. Directive Specific Implementation Plan – Landfill Directive
36. Environmental Financing Direction Executive Summary (May 2015)
37. Environnemental Project Priorisation Manual (SLAP)
EISP Institutional Development Documents
38. Report from a Workshop, Construction of New Line of Clean Water in Subotica (16 June
2011)
39. List of Attendees, Workshop, Construction of New Line of Clean Water in Subotica (16 June
2011)
40. Project Management Methodology (July 2012) – Draft V1
41. Workload Analysis for Bilateral Investment Programme - Environment (5 June 2014)
42. Capacity and Capability Development Plan (June 2015)
43. Project Long List
EISP Horizontal
44. Impact Assessment of EISP Projects on the Informal Waste Sector and Gender Equality –
Final Draft
Čačak and Arilje
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Arilje Project Proposal v8
Arilje MoU
Arilje – Notes on selection of Kerbside wheel bin option
EISP Report extract
Arilje Project Methodology (30 May 2014)
Completion Report for Duboko Regional Solid Waste Centre (2 September 2o14)
Duboko RWMS Progress Report (31 August 2015)
D. Priority Environmental Infrastructure for Development (PIED)
1. PEID Project Concept – V3 (15 September 2015)
5.4
LIST OF PARTIES CONSULTED
The stakeholders were identified based on:
 the list of stakeholders mentioned in the Terms of reference,
 the team’s initial review of the programme documents as well as its previous work and contacts;
 input from the Swedish Embassy/Sida
When selecting the stakeholders, the project team took into consideration its resource availability to
manage the work and carry out the interviews, given the resources required to complete the other
project activities and deliverables.
The list of stakeholders was approved by the Swedish Embassy/Sida.
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 66
Date
Institution
Embassy of Sweden, Belgrade
MAEP – EUD
5 October 2015
International Management Group
(IMG)
Arilje Municipality
6 October 2015
Čačak Municipality/Duboko
Regional Waste Management
Company
MAEP – DPM
EU Delegation to Serbia
7 October 2015
SEPA – ENVAP2
EBRD
8 October 2015
UNDP
MAEP
MAEP
Standing Conference of Towns and
Municipalities
SEIO
9 October 2015
Milieu Ltd
Brussels
Embassy of Sweden, Belgrade
Name (position)
Tomas Nyström (First Secretary
Programme Officer)
Vesna Kahrimanović (Adviser at EUD)
John Glazebrook (EISP Programme
Manager), Arunas Kundrotas (expert on
EISP and ENVAP2 programmes), Dejan
Anđelković
Miljanko Mitrović (Director of the PUC
Zelen), Ivan Tešović (Arilje Project
Manager)
Nenad Rebajac (MAEP - Čačak City
Project Manager) and Nedeljko
Milosavljević (Head of the Duboko
Regional Waste Management Company)
Dragana Mehandžić, Tijana đekić ,
Ljiljana Veljković (former head of DPM)
Rainer Fruend (Project Manager for
Environment)
Cecilia Stafsing (Project manager
ENVAP 2, EU and Multilateral
Environmental Agreements Unit, SEPA),
Anne Andersson (senior Advisor,
International Cooperation Unit, SEPA),
Kristina Sreder - Kovrlija (ENVAP2
project officer)
Jelena Milošević (Associate Banker),
Marina Jukić (Analyst, Municipal &
Environmental Infrastructure)
Miroslav Tadić (Portfolio Manager)
Aleksandar Vesić (Assistant Minister)
Milan Stevanović (Advisor to the State
Secretary Ms Stana Božović)
Miodrag Gluščević (Head of the
Department for Communal Issues, Urban
Planning and Environment)
Sanja Knežević
Torgny Svenungsson (Counsellor, Head
of Development Cooperation), Tomas
Nyström (First Secretary
Programme Officer)
A Near End Review of two environmental programs in Serbia supported by Sweden
November 2015 / 67