Lessons learned in working with
EECCA countries from the
Belgrade report preparation
WGEMA 8th session
12-13 of June 2007
1
2
Countries covered in the Belgrade
report
Main
Group
Sub-group
Countries
North
Western
Europe
(NEW)
EU 25
Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ),
Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE),
Greece (GR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV),
Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL),
Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES),
Sweden (SE), United Kingdom (GB)
EFTA 4
Iceland (IS), Liechtenstein (LI), Norway (NO), Switzerland (CH)
Other European
countries
Andorra (AD), Monaco (MC), San Marino (SM)
Caucasus
Armenia (AM), Azerbaijan (AZ), Georgia (GE)
Central Asia
Kazakhstan (KZ), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Tajikistan (TJ), Turkmenistan (TM),
Uzbekistan (UZ)
Eastern Europe
Belarus (BY), Republic of Moldova (MD), Russian Federation (RU),
Ukraine (UA)
South Eastern
Europe
Albania (AL), Bulgaria (BG), Bosnia-Herzegovina (BA), Croatia (HR),
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MK), Romania (RO),
Serbia and Montenegro (CS), Turkey (TR)
EECCA
countries
South
Eastern
Europe
(SEE)
3
Data collection
Data from the EECCA for the Belgrade report
are built on on the data for Kiev report.
Kiev
report
Belgrade report
Concept
developing
Writing
Data
collection
20022003
Indicators
EECCA
developing
2004
2005
2006
Production
and launch
Review and
finalisation
2007
Continue of working
on the indicators for the EECCA
4
Data sources
used for the EECCA region
AUTHORS
EEA data service
(contains many international statistics)
International databases
(EUROSTAT, UNECE, WHO, UNSD, FAO, IEA,
but information is not always available or reliable for a pan-European coverage,
timeliness varies also considerably )
Other sources
(for “Water” and “Waste topics” -UNSD questionnaires,
OECD/EECCA policy questionnaire, national reports and statistics)
covering limited data availability from EECCA countries in international databases
5
Data collection
for the Belgrade report
• Main principle : using international databases to build
on Kiev report data from EEA data service and to avoid
questionnaires to countries as unnecessary burden.
• But: it was possible only for certain topics because of
the diversity and complexity of issues covered in
Belgrade report. It especially concerns EECCA and partly
SEE region.
6
Air quality
•
Data sources: very little use of international databases.
Most of data are from national reports and statistics.
Most of EECCA countries provided official data within the framework
of the TACIS project.
•
Up-to-date: most of data is about 2 years old.
•
Data quality: General problem, similar with Kiev report data collection:
Difference in methodology what causes missing of data about
ambient air quality (for example, monitoring of PM particles is based
on other measuring methods).
•
Suggestion: There is a need of improved way of communication with the
countries
7
Health
•
Data sources: mostly from international databases (WHO, UNICEF, EEA dataservice), and
regional statistics from EECCA
•
Up-to-date: health data for the recent years often incomplete; therefore older data (2-3
years old) were used to ensure more comprehensive coverage
•
Data quality: is an issue; e.g. inconsistencies in national and international databases;
underreporting of health outcomes of interest; differences in definitions.
•
Main issues: assessment and messages underpinned mostly by case studies or findings
from research projects; these identified via the networks used during the Belgrade process
and via literature search; several E&H indicators, refered to in the section, were produced
in almost the same time frame as the Belgrade
•
Suggestions: further methodological work on E&H indicators; for already developed
indicators – continued efforts to improve data availability and to produce meaningful
indicators linking environmetnal and health data
8
Inland water
•
Data sources for water quantity:
- UNSD database (questionnaires)
- CISSTAT Data sources
•
Data sources for water quality:
- water monitoring is still inadequate to obtain a clear picture
of the status and trend in water resources.
- little information on drinking water quality and pollution and
water quality was sparse.
•
Up-to-date: The latest information is generally 2 years old
•
Progress since Kiev: information on water abstraction from
EECCA region is more complete then from EU countries, CIS
Stat gives a recent and complete information
9
Soil
• Data sources:
- Reports from national and international organisations (e.g.
UNECE and OECD EPRs, national SoERs, UNEP);
- international databases (e.g. EM-DAT, FAO, OECD, WB).
• Data quality:
- Partial coverage of geographical areas and soil threats
- Recent data are not available for many soil threats.
- Most of information is available only in national language
- Comparability
• Progress since Kiev:
more information available on specific issues, such as soil
contamination
• Suggestions for further work:
A data collection on contaminated sites in the EECCA countries
10
Climate change
•
•
•
Data sources: only official sources used: EEA data service,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), documents related to
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) – regular reporting of EECCA countries trough national
contact points.
The data quality and up-to-date: Data from many EECCA countries
is not always up-to-date (2003-2004) because of different
requirements to reporting, whereas NW Europe and countries that
have commitments according to the Kyoto protocol have to report
annually with detailed requirements.
Consultation: providing links to the national reports (new reports
from Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan), but it was not always possible
to process the reports due large volume in foreign language and
late delivery. All specific comments were taken on board.
11
Nature and Biodiversity
•
•
•
•
Data sources: For SEE: EEA data service use - about 10% from total. The
rest – international sources like bird monitoring data (Birdlife International),
Central Database of Designated Areas (ETC-BD), Global red lists (IUCN),
UNSD.For EECCA: European Topic Centre on Biodiversity using official
reports (Environmental reports UNEP and national country reports to CBD).
Data quality: The biodiversity policy field is very ‘data-demanding’ and has to
rely to a considerable extent on voluntary (NGO driven) monitoring schemes.
For most countries monitoring does not seem a high priority. Data on species
and habitat distribution and trends thus tend to be rather poor. National
monitoring (if available) usually does not follow international standards. The
best and most easily accessible data are for birds (Birdlife International).
Up-to-date: ranges from 1997 to 2002. It is one of the hardest topics to find
recent information. There is a time lag in the reporting to international
organisations (e.g. WCMC, CBD) causing many readily available data to be
outdated.
Suggestion: The SEBI 2010 indicator development is a good example of an
attempt to international harmonisation and coordinated data collection. In
addition an international sample based monitoring scheme of sites or
landscapes should be considered.
12
Marine and coastal environment
•
Data sources: International databases (FAO, Eurostat, ICES) used for fisheries.
Data on other issues from international databases is poor except for the
International Tankers Organisation for oil spills in the Black Sea. Scientific papers
and international and regional reports (GIWA) have been the main source of
information. In addition, for seas covered by conventions (e.g. Black Sea
convention) there is, for some issues, reporting and analysis at the regional level.
•
Data quality: Lack of data and, when this exists, of comparable data and also
indicators at the pan-European and regional levels because of no and/or limited
accessibility to the information. The problem is worse in some areas, such as the
Northern seas. Oil and hazardous substances pollution information is generally
badly covered.
•
Up-to-date: Data from 2005-06 for a few issues, e.g. fisheries, climate change.
Other information is older, around 2002
•
In the Kiev report information was spread in different chapters (aquaculture and
fisheries, biodiversity, water), whereas this is now complied in the “Marine and
coastal environment” with more detailed and interrelated assessment of the
marine topics. So there are more issues involved in the present “Marine” chapter,
which has made it even more difficult to find comparable information.
13
Energy
•
Data sources: the same as for the other regions:
- for the energy consumption/production and all projections was
data from IEA (International Energy Agency) used
- For the emissions of greenhouse gases – data set from EEA
dataservice
•
Data completeness: For the greenhouse gases emissions – gaps
for some countries: data for some subsectors was missing, e.g.
fugitive emissions from Russia
•
Up-to-date: the most of is from 2004
•
Consultation: most of comments were relevant and were
considered. Active involving of NGOs, but some comments were
not specific enough to be inserted
14
Tourism
•
Data sources: World Tourist Organisation (UNWTO), World Travel
and Tourism Council (WTTC), national data sources
•
Up-to date: 2004-2005, some preliminary estimates available for 2006.
•
Quality of data: existing international datasets are mostly comprehensive
and comparable at national level but there are important constraints related
to geographical and temporal coverage of data. To properly assess the
impact of tourism it would be important to gather information at regional and
possibly sub-regional level and for specific periods (on a seasonal or
monthly basis). Administrative units datasets are not easily available in a
GIS format and had to be retrieved through different sources.
•
Consultation efficiency: Comments allowed to retrieve regional data on
the number of bed places for Turkey. Data at regional level related to
EECCA countries number of bed places were retrieved through the effort of
a consultant.
15
Sustainable consumption and
production
•
•
•
•
•
Data sources:
Sustainable consumption and production: mainly international databases: The
World Bank, UNECE, ETC database (COMEXT), MOSUS
Waste: UNSD questionnaire on waste CISSTAT, Eurostat, National reports (e.g.
Russian report on environment)
Data quality: General problem: irregular data flow and very little data on
sustainable production and consumption;.
Quite many EECCA countries have made progress regarding waste data but the
data are often only found in SOE reports and not in the statistical publications
Up-to-date: up to 2003 (Sustainable consumption and production), up to 2005
(Waste)
Consultation:
- Only a few comments online in the Belgrade portal
- important inputs on waste from the UNEP/EEA workshops on EECCA core set
of environmental indicators
Suggestion: Like in the EU better data co-operation is needed between the
statistical and the environment departments
16
Transport
• Data sources:
- Mainly: transport division of UNECE and UNSD
- The World Bank
- for some specific issues - European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and some
information from reports of the European Conference of
Ministers of transport (ECMT).
• Data quality: data availability it is still very limited, as for
Kiev report because of methodological problems and not
systematic data in the international databases
• Up-to-date: from 1998 to 2004 or older for some issues
• Consultation efficiency: it was more an assessment then
providing a data, but helped in gap filling for some issues
17
Conclusions
•
Positive experience of new challenges: consultation on official and
not-official levels to give up-to-date evaluation of the draft report and
information supporting (more than 3000 comments received); direct
cooperation of other institutions in writing.
•
The problem of irregular information flow from EECCA region still
remains since Kiev. Reason:
countries are not in conventions/ or information from countries
reporting related to convention is not covering complexity of report
issues
national data about many issues is still very difficult to find
available information is not always comparable (due of different
methodology)
•
Suggestion: There is a need for systematic data exchange (every
year as minimum) with EECCA countries, based on better
understanding of demands and use of the data what can solve a
methodological problem – to create a database covering all the
region in a future.
18