Fact-sheet 30 - Regional - 8071-00/2005 2579-00/2009 8071-01/2012
9.2.2
… ʺraising awareness in politics and societyʺ
3 (xi) p. 17 and 30 and
interviews
9.2.3
… ʺcontributing to cleaner production in agriculture, trade and
industryʺ
4 (xi) p. 16 and
interviews
9.2.4
… ʺsupporting sustainable waste managementʺ
9.2.5
… ʺrisks and potentialsʺ
9.3
Climate protection
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.3.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes regarding the key
criteria ʺcontributing to improved energy efficiency and
dissemination renewable energyʺ? Which external factors
contributed to these changes?
9.3.2
… ʺreducing emissions from land use, land use changes and
forest managementʺ
9.3.3
… ʺproviding assistance in adapting to the impacts of climate
changeʺ
4 (viii) p. 88 and (xi) p.
22
9.3.4
… ʺhelping to improve the basis for informed planning,
institutional frameworks and capacitiesʺ
9.3.5
… ʺrisks and potentialsʺ
Although the stakeholders have recognized as trans‐boundary environmental risks the problems arising from hazardous pollution and hotspots, in particular
from abandoned mines, unfortunately ‐ according to the evaluation of 2013 ‐ mining sector issues hadn’t been treated with enough importance in national
policies and strategies, and hadn’t been treated within the scope of many international development aid efforts. The influence of ENVSEC on the
governmental bodies of the respective countries seems to be limited. The linkage to national institutions working on environmental issues‐ at least in Kosovo
and Macedonia ‐ is not very well developed. Contrary to Themis, ENVSEC is designed to influence on the highest political level, but in some of the countries
the interest of the Ministries is not up to the level needed for successful implementation of concrete projects, which should ultimately lead to the overall goal
of ʺincreased co‐operation around environment and security issues in the region of SEEʺ.
According to the evaluation of 2013 one of the strengths of ENVSEC is that, thanks to the exchanges, workshops, seminars etc. a ʺstrong and coherent
network of local and regional stakeholders, professionals and policy makersʺ could be developed. The evaluation teams from Kosovo, Macedonia and
Albania have expressed objections to this statement: Although the network on the regional level might be strong, and there are indeed local networks in some
countries, there is no evidence that ENVSEC can claim credit for this achievement. The Focal Point representative position in the Environmental Ministry of
Macedonia has not been occupied for several months, and the other Focal Point representative has only a formal C114role. It was a challenge to find resource
persons for interviews regarding ENVSEC outside of the REC. This also held true for Kosovo. Even in the environmental scene or among the people working
in the respective ministries, ENVSEC is not well known, if at all. The objective of ʺan increased civil society involvement in addressing environment and
security challenges ... and the development of effective consultation and cooperation mechanisms between governments, civil society organizations and
private sector on environmentʺ due to ENVSEC activities could not be applied at all, at least to the two countries mentioned. But in fact, interview partners
desire a stronger strategic commitment on the grassroots level within the framework of ENVSEC. Events every once in a while without proper follow up
don’t seem to be enough for them.
Due to the support of the ENVSEC initiative, stakeholders acquired the capacity to analyse environmental and security risks, to develop proposals about how
to deal with these risks and to monitor the potential cleanup process.
Explanation_Capacity_building_is_a_long_process_and_it_is_difficult_to_measure_changes_in_the_institutions_involved._Explanation'>Explanation
Through regional dialogue, cooperation, numerous consultations and workshops and comprehensive stocktaking of available information, ENVSEC has
extensively assessed climate change. In the process, they have considered all aspects in different sectors and pointed out vulnerabilities and potential priority
actions, all of which has resulted in different publications. The prioritized activities have been raising awareness and creating information to facilitate best
practices for making climate change adaptation possible in the SEE region, mostly in the mountainous and trans‐boundary areas. Even though the project
design foresaw great potential for joint action and creation of synergies, the various activities in climate change adaptation have not managed to demonstrate
such cooperation clearly. Based on the evaluation evidence, it appears that the three most relevant climate change activities have been implemented
independently from each other. This could have negatively influenced any visibility of ENVSEC in this concrete aspect of cooperation.
Page 13
Fact-sheet 30 - Regional - 8071-00/2005 2579-00/2009 8071-01/2012
9.4
Water and sanitation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
10.
Assessment of the impact on the beneficiaries and the
institutions
Sources
10.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to change the beneficiariesʹ lives?
10.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention contribute to the
beneficiaries’ change in attitude and behaviour?
10.3
What were the contributions of the beneficiaries to the main
observed changes?
10.4
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the institutions
involved?
11.
Sustainability
Sources
11.1
To what extent did the benefits of the intervention continue after
the funding had ceased?
11.2
What were the major factors which influenced the achievement
or non‐achievement of sustainability of the intervention?
(xi) p. 24
12.
Counterfactual question
Sources
12.1
What would the situation be like if there had been no
intervention?
13.
General assessment of the intervention
Sources
13.1
What is the evaluatorsʹ general assessment of the intervention?
14.
Lessons learnt
Sources
14.1
What are the three most important “lessons learnt” from this
intervention for the environmental sector in general
Interviews
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, each and every effort that is made to improve, for instance, hazardous mining hotspots is a huge step towards a healthier
environment. Thus, ENVSEC is obviously able to mobilize financial resources to undertake such efforts. On the other hand, a lot of the formulated outputs
and outcomes seem to be overly ambitious and not feasible.
The homepage http://www.envsec.org requires an update.
Explanation
The program tackled specific issues in environment and security that are neglected by most donors and agencies, and unlikely otherwise to be dealt with in
SEE countries, e.g., transboundary pollution caused by closed mines and mining facilities.
The ENVSEC approach was highly questionable to some of the interview partners. Their arguments were that (i) so far all these countries have not even been
able to coordinate action within the country itself. How could they then be able to cooperate with other countries, especially where there are still resentments
from the past? The second step shouldn’t be taken before the first step: first cooperation and coordination among the different state institutions in the
individual country have to be achieved before we can think about international cooperation. (ii) The structure of the ENVSEC initiative seems to most of the
interview partners to be too cumbersome and too costly compared to their outputs. Responsibilities are unclear, there are too many ʺbig shotsʺ travelling at
the expense of the initiative without any improvement to the environmental situation, etc.
Explanation
Capacity building is a long process and it is difficult to measure changes in the institutions involved.
Explanation
The intervention provided increased knowledge, e.g. through exposure visits on environment and security issues, thus broadening horizons and building
capacities.
One of the most important outcomes highlighted by several of the interviewees was the possibility of meeting with very experienced international experts,
e.g. on mining issues.
Difficult to assess, because the initiative is still being funded, but the 2013 evaluation reveals some factors influencing sustainability (see 11.2).
ʺThe ownership of the project by local stakeholders is well established at present based on the evaluation on the field, although it is difficult to quantify the
extent, due to lack of proxies that might indicate the level of ownership (e.g., co‐financing, level of involvement in decision making, etc.). The risk rating is
based on two principal factors. First, regardless of the relevance of the 4 priority areas to the SEE countries, they are not high on the policy agenda in most of
the countries, simply because most of the countries are faced with more immediate and pressing issues of their societies, such as economic development,
employment, education, social security, etc. Therefore, if not for support of international aid development funds, the activities covered by the project and
sustaining the results achieved would be only moderately likely. Second, there is reduced interest of bilateral donors, especially traditional donors
supporting environmental issues, such as Finland, in supporting the region, due to future availability of assistance through EU pre‐accession funds.
However, it is not certain how and when the SEE would be ready to absorb any such funds, or those for the purpose of supporting ENVSEC goals. Therefore
the financial risks to sustainability have been evaluated as moderate.ʺ (Here ADA does not agree, instead sees the risk as high, not moderate, as in the 2013
evaluation. The current evaluators agree with ADA).
Explanation
Explanation
They contributed through their participation in different events and showed ownership for the issue.
Explanation
Page 14
Fact-sheet 30 - Regional - 8071-00/2005 2579-00/2009 8071-01/2012
List of Documents
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
• EURONATUR 2012: Balkan Rivers ‐ The Blue Heart of Europe: Hydromorphological Status and Dam Projects
http://www.balkanrivers.net/sites/default/files/BalkanRiverAssessment%20Executive%20Summary29032012.pdf
• Western Balkan – Environment and Climate Change Policy Brief
http://sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/wordpress3/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/Regional‐Wester‐Balkan_EnvCC‐Policy‐Brief_Dec‐2012.pdf
• Lidia Japec: Measuring Quality of Life and Social Exclusion in Western Balkans, LSE & UNDP
http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/vulnerability/Senior%20Economist%20Web%20site/Publications/Measuring_quality_of_life_and_social_exclusion_in_the_Western_Balkans.pdf
• Gordana Matkovic: Overview of poverty and social exclusion in the Western Balkans
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0038‐982X0601007M&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#.VbgG1GC8_ww
• International Energy Agency: Energy in the Western Balkans
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/balkans2008.pdf
• Western Balkan – Environment and Climate Change Policy Brief
http://sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/wordpress3/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/Regional‐Wester‐Balkan_EnvCC‐Policy‐Brief_Dec‐2012.pdf
• European Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans: Annex 2 Energy Indicators
• Western Balkan – Environment and Climate Change Policy Brief
http://sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/wordpress3/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/Regional‐Wester‐Balkan_EnvCC‐Policy‐Brief_Dec‐2012.pdf
• EU Progress Report 2014 –Chapter 27 still “remains almost unchanged”!
http://www.env‐net.org/eu‐progress‐report‐2014‐chapter‐27‐still‐remains‐almost‐unchanged/
ADA (2012): Project Proposal, Vienna.
Annual Report 2013.
Final Evaluation Report 2013.
• Prof dr Andjelka Mihajlov: Regional environmental initiative: South‐Eastern Europe (Balkan) Regional Environmental Cohesion Initiative ‐ an‐European Conference on EU Politics, 25‐27 September, Riga, Latvia
http://www.jhubc.it/ecpr‐riga/virtualpaperroom/011.pdf
• Western Balkan – Environment and Climate Change Policy Brief
http://sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/wordpress3/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/Regional‐Wester‐Balkan_EnvCC‐Policy‐Brief_Dec‐2012.pdf
[1] assessment 1=no impact, 2=very weak impact, 3=weak impact, 4=moderate impact, 5=strong impact, 6=very strong impact, 7=extremely strong impact. 0=not relevant.
Project Proposal for the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) (2005): Environment and Security in South Eastern Europe:
Improving regional cooperation for risk management from pollution hotspots as well as the transboundary management of shared natural resources, Vienna.
Progresse Report 2006.
Progresse Report 2007.
Final Report 2009.
Project Proposal for the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) (2009): Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC)
Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation.
GAIA (2009): Project Appraisal Environmentand Security Initiative (ENVESC), Transforming risks into cooperation in South Eastern Europe.
Progress Report 2010.
Annual Report 2012.
Page 15
Fact-sheet 30 - Regional - 8071-00/2005 2579-00/2009 8071-01/2012
1.8
https://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental‐objectives‐and‐cooperation/Cooperation‐internationally‐and‐in‐the‐EU/International‐cooperation/Bilateral‐cooperation/Westerna‐Balkans
• European Environment Agency: Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans: future production and consumption patterns
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/western‐balkans
• WWF: Western Balkans Regional Environmental Development Cooperation
http://mediterranean.panda.org/about/projects/index.cfm?uProjectID=BA0006
http://mediterranean.panda.org/about/projects/index.cfm?uProjectID=BA0006#sthash.Jj1LFeCf.dpuf
• EBRD Western Balkan Sustainable Energy Financing Facility (WeBSEFF)
http://www.websedff.com
• Alan Riley: The Western Balkans and EU Energy Security: Protecting Europe’s Flank.
http://www.statecraft.org.uk/research/western‐balkans‐and‐eu‐energy‐security
Page 16
Dostları ilə paylaş: |