Monitoring What Matters by World Bank Russia

MONITORING HAT ATTERS W M Tailoring Millennium Targets and Indicators of Environmental Sustainability to Local Conditions in ECA

Grzegorz Peszko (Ed.) George Anjaparidze Drita Dade Darejan Kapanadze Suzette Pedroso-Galinato Katelijn Van den Berg Bobojon Yatimov

ÂŠ 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org All rights reserved. This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the report promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this report, please send a request with the complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 22 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone 978-750-8400; fax 978-750-4470; http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax 202-522-2422; email at pubrights@worldbank.org.

Cover design by Circle Graphics, Inc. Cover image: Woman walking past rusting hull of a ship in the former harbor of Muynak (Uzbekistan), which is now some 20 miles from the water. (Anatoliy Rakhimbayev/The World Bank) Photo insets from left: 1. Woman and child sunbathing by a leaking sewage pipe in Norlisk Beach, Russia. Exposure to and consumption of contaminated water cause thousands of preventable illnesses and deaths each year. (M. Shteinbock/ UNEP/ Peter Arnold, Inc.) 2. Scrap metal and other waste are dumped in the Liakhi River, Georgia. (Msia Gvilava) 3. The staircase is missing some steps and household wastes are dumped underneath. This gives a glimpse of the deteriorated housing structure and poor waste management in the slum areas, Georgia. (Msia Gvilava)

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments

vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Executive Summary Introduction and Objectives Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation Improvements in the Lives of Slum Dwellers Sustainable Use of Environmental Resources Conclusions

1 1 2 4 6 8

Background and Rationale of the Study MDG7 Targets and Indicators Global Framework Indicators of MDG7 and Local Priorities

9 10 10

Methodology of Developing Complementary Indicators Differentiated Approaches to Different Targets under MDG7 How to Choose and Use Indicators

13 13 14

Target 10: Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation Introduction and Definitions Problems with Global Framework Indicators for Water Supply and Sanitation Targets Proposed Complementary Indicators of Sustainability and Safety of Access Sustainability and Safety of Access to WSS Services in ECA Shown by Complementary Indicators Conclusions and Recommendations on Monitoring Water Supply and Sanitation in ECA Countries

17 17

Target 11: Slums and Degraded Housing What Is a Slum? Official Slum Indicators Data Availability and Quality Conclusions and Recommendations

27 27 28 28 29

17 20 21 25

iii

Contents

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources Introduction Indicators of Sustainable Use of Selected Environmental Resources Costs of Monitoring and Affordability Indicators of Institutional Dimension of Sustainable Development Conclusions

References

33 33 36 48 50 53 55

Contents

Tables 1. Targets and Global Framework Indicators of MDG7 on Environmental Sustainability 2. MDG7 Targets and Indicators Related to Water and Sanitation 3. Global Framework and Complementary Indicators of Access to Safe WSS Coverage 4. Summary of Global Framework and Complementary Indicators for Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan 5. ECA-Tailored Indicators of Sustainable Access to Safe Water in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, 2004 6. Global Framework and Complementary Indicators for “Sustainable Access to Safe Water” for Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyz Republic 7. ECA-Tailored Indicators of Sustainable Access to Adequate Centralized Sanitation in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, 2004 8. Share of Urban Population Considered to be Living in Slums by Indicator 9. Mismatch between What Is Perceived as Priority Locally and What Is Measured Globally in ECA 10. Summary of Water Quality Issues in Selected ECA Countries 11. Nationally Protected Areas 12. Ramsar Sites in Focus Countries as of November 2005 13. Share of Endangered and Extinct Vertebrate Species in Georgia 14. Staff and Total Resource Allocation per Unit Area Protected in Albania 15. Summary of Protected Area Types Based on IUCN Category 16. Estimates of Costs of Monitoring Selected Indicators of Environmental Sustainability, by Country 17. Environment-Related Public Expenditures in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan and Estimated MDG7 Target 9 Monitoring Costs, 2004 18. Total Environmentally Related Expenditures and Average Shares of Public Spending and of Expenditures by Foreign Financing, 1996–2001 19. Country Environmental Performance Indicators, 2004

11 18 21 22 23

24 29 36 37 44 45 45 46 46 48

50 51

Contents

Figures 1. OECD’s PSR Model 2. Population without Sustainable Access to Improved Water and Sanitation 1990–2015: Conceptual ECA Path to Meet MDG Target on Water and Sanitation 3. Municipal Waste Generation per Capita in Selected Countries, kg per Capita, Mid-1990s

19 41

Boxes 1. Second Guidance Note on Country Reporting on MDGs 2. OECD Criteria for Good Environmental Indicators 3. Definitions of Global Framework Indicators for Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Targets Related to Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) 4. JMP on Adequacy and Safety of Water Supply 5. OECD Environmental Action Program Task Force (EAP TF) Criticism of Adequacy of Global Framework Indicators to ECA 6. Affordability of Water and Sanitation Tariffs in Armenia 7. Global Framework Indicators for Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Target 9 8. Difficulties Faced by Hydromet

11 15

18 19

20 25 34 39

Preface and Acknowledgments

This report continues the work of the World Bank on the Millennium Development Goal number 7 (MDG7) on environmental sustainability and investigates what it means for countries in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region. Particularly, the report attempts to define targets where they remained ambiguous, develop specific complementary indicators for MDG7 that are more relevant for ECA countries, and gain lessons on how practical and useful a country-driven approach is in developing and monitoring indicators adapted to the local priorities and situation of the country. The report is an in-depth study of three countries in the ECA region: Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan. It also presents more limited information collected from five additional countries, which were the subject of an earlier study in 2004: Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro. The report is comprised of two volumes. Volume I is the main publication that discusses the key results and key messages of the study and covers the MDG7 targets related to water supply and sanitation, slums, and reversing the loss of environmental resources in the selected ECA countries. Volume II consists of the appendixes, which are references to more in-depth and more technical country studies used in Volume I, and is available as a separate publication. This document was prepared by a World Bank team from the Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit (ECSSD) led by Grzegorz Peszko and supervised and guided by Marjory-Anne Bromhead (sector manager). Task team members, in alphabetical order, include George Anjaparidze, Drita Dade, Darejan Kapanadze, Suzette Pedroso-Galinato, Katelijn Van den Berg, and Bobojon Yatimov. Valuable input from Rita Cestti, Agi Kiss, and Robert Kirmse is gratefully acknowledged. Suzette Pedroso-Galinato contributed greatly to editing and publishing of this report. Professional editing of Appendixes was carried out by Kelly Cassaday. The team received inputs from local consultants, including the Regional Environmental Center in Albania; Alexander Arobelidze, Levan Butkhuzi, and Msia Gvilava in Georgia; Anatoly Kholmatov, Neimatullo Safarov, Muhabbatov Kholnazar Mukhabbatovich, and Ivan Ustjan in Tajikistan; and the Institute of Urban Economics in Russia, which conducted most of the data collection and analytical work on water supply, sanitation, and slums. The team expresses gratitude to vii

viii

Preface and Acknowledgments

numerous government officials, experts, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives who participated in several workshops in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan. This report would not have been written without their commitment and encouragement. The team is grateful for the peer review comments provided by Jan Bojรถ, Giovanni Ruta, Lee Travers, Anthony Cholst, Andreas Rohde, and Merrell Tuck. Comments on the concept note were received from Sergio Margulis, Julia Bucknall, Rama Chandra Reddy, and Anil Markandya. We particularly thank Laura Tlaiye and the Trust Fund for Environment and Socially Sustainable Development for their continued support of this project.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BOD BOD5 CARDS CBD CEE CO2 CPIA DGFP EAP TF EC ECA ECSSD EEA EECCA EMU EU FAO GDP GIS HBS IBNET IDA IEA IFI INSTAT IUCN JMP LSMS MDG MNSRE NGO

Biological oxygen demand 5-day biological oxygen demand Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development, and Stabilization Convention on Biological Diversity Central and Eastern Europe Carbon dioxide Country Performance and Institutional Assessment Directorate General of Forests and Pastures Environmental Action Program Task Force European Commission Europe and Central Asia Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit European Environment Agency Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Economic and Monetary Union European Union Food and Agriculture Organization Gross Domestic Product Geographical Information Survey Household Budget Survey International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities International Development Association International Energy Agency International Financial Institution Institute of Statistics The World Conservation Union Joint Monitoring Program Living Standard Measurement Survey Millennium Development Goal Middle East and North Africa Rural Development, Water and Environmental Group Nongovernmental organization

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ODP OECD

Ozone depleting potential Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PA Protected area PAC Pollution abatement and control PPP Purchasing power parity PSR Pressure-State-Response SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency UN United Nations UNDG United Nations Development Group UNDP United Nations Development Program UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;World Conservation Monitoring Center UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Program UNICEF United Nations Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fund UNSD United Nations Statistics Division USAID United States Agency for International Development WHO World Health Organization WSS Water supply and sanitation WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

Executive Summary

Introduction and Objectives

The objective of this study was to demonstrate how to enhance the relevance of the MDG goal of environmental sustainability to people in Europe and Central Asia.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with associated targets and indicators, have become widely accepted as a framework for measuring broad progress in reducing poverty and improving living standards worldwide. Millennium Development Goal number 7 (MDG7)—related to environmental sustainability—reflects human aspiration worldwide to reverse the loss of critical environmental resources, improve sustainable access to safe water and adequate sanitation, and pull people out of slums. When assessed using internationally agreed indicators (so-called global framework indicators), the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region appears to be on track to meet most environmental sustainability targets. However, several of the MDG7 global framework indicators have only limited relevance for ECA, or they mislead about real progress in reaching MDG targets in this region. As a result, there is little ownership of MDG7 targets and related indicators in most ECA countries. Progress reports are being prepared by consultants with donor funding. MDGs are referred to in several government documents as generic declarations, yet they do not really drive the policy process. There is low commitment to monitoring indicators and collecting robust data. A certain fatigue with an MDG topdown process can be observed. This problem has not gone unnoticed by the ECA countries and by the international community. Armenia, for example, in its 2005 MDG report has proposed indicators that measure the state of Lake Sevan, the country’s critical water body.1 The United Nations (UN) framework paper for the MDGs encouraged the countries to develop complementary and countryspecific indicators.2 The need for a set of additional indicators for target 9 of MDG7 has also been raised by the MDG Inter-Agency Expert Group, which works to allow a more comprehensive treatment of certain environmental resources, such as biodiversity and fishery. The recent World Bank report MDGs in ECA: Progress and Prospects (World Bank 2005a) also mentioned the limitations of MDG7 global framework in-

See the national report of Armenia about the MDGs (United Nations Development Program 2005a). 2 The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) Second Guidance Note on country reporting for MDGs states that “some targets and indicators may need to be tailored and customized to the specific conditions of each country” (UNDG 2003). 1

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table ES1 MDG7 Targets and Global Framework Indicators Targets of MDG7

Target 9 Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources

Target 10 Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Target 11 Achieve significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020

Global framework indicators

25. 26. 27. 28.

Proportion of land area covered by forests Land area protected to maintain biological diversity Energy use per unit of GDP Per capita CO2 emissions and consumption of ozone depleting substances 29. Proportion of population using solid fuels 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural 31. Proportion of people with sustainable access to improved sanitation, urban and rural 32. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure

Source: UNSD (2005).

dicators in ECA, although the report used the indicators to measure access to water supply and sanitation (but not for other MDG7 targets).3 The objective of this study was to follow these efforts and facilitate a country-driven process of identifying or developing complementary indicators for MDG7 that are more relevant for the people in the ECA region. The paper focuses on three countries: Albania, Tajikistan, and Georgia. It also presents more limited information collected from five additional countries that were the subject of the 2004 study: Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro. MDG7 includes targets and global framework indicators presented in table ES1. When these indicators are taken at face value, most ECA countries are on track for meeting them. Municipal and housing infrastructure is relatively well developed, and most countries do not face the same social and economic pressures from natural resource depletion as do developing countries. However, the paper concludes that when complementary indicators better adapted to country circumstances are used, the countries in the region may all have serious difficulties in meeting the MDG7 targets by 2015. 3Another example is the Environmental Performance (and Sustainability) Index developed at Yale University measuring progress toward environmental performance goals (http://www.yale.edu/epi).

Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation Most urban areas in ECA have water supply systems piped to individual apartments and homes, and flush toilet systems and pipes to remove wastewater. Many rural areas have an “improved” source of drinking water. Thus, by the “global framework indicators” compiled under the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) established by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, the countries are well on the way to meeting the MDGs. However, this optimistic perception is not shared by the urban users of water and sanitation systems. In many ECA cities, serious problems exist with the reliability and quality of piped water and sewerage networks. A conceptual path for achieving the target of sustainable and safe access to drinking water and sanitation for population connected to centralized systems in ECA will be different than in most developing countries (see figure ES1). Since the 1990s, the centralized networks have deteriorated significantly, and mere connection does not guarantee sustainable and safe access. Targets set with 1990 as a base year are thus more challenging. For the countries under study, therefore, complementary indicators of water and sanitation safety and sustainability have been identified. Many of these indicators are actually being monitored on the utility level,

Executive Summary

Proportion of people without sustainable and safe access to WS&S

Figure ES1 Population without Sustainable Access to Improved Water and Sanitation 1990â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2015: Unique ECA Path to Meet MDG Target on Water and Sanitation

Present gap to meet MDG related to water and sanitation

Path to meet official access targets Path to meet targets of safe and sustainable access

Base year level

Target level

0% 1990

1995

2000

but outside of the JMP framework.4 Data are usually available in disaggregated form, except relevant data on affordability. Table ES2 compares access to water supply, measured using the global framework indicators, with sustainable access to safe water using the complementary indicators. The complementary indicators include average duration of scheduled water supply as the percentage of a day and a percentage of samples meeting national health standards. Table ES2 shows that compared to simple access, a sustainable access to safe water in Georgia is reduced from 56 to 37 percent, in Tajikistan from 57 to 33 percent, and in Albania from 83 to 21 percent. Table ES3 illustrates an even starker picture for sustainable access to sanitation. Additional complementary indicators included the percentage of urban sewerage network with reasonable frequency of service failures. The study concludes that less than 10 percent of the population in the countries under study has

4 See, for example, IBNET (Water and Sanitation International Benchmarking Network), a database of water and sanitation utilities performance indicators (www.ib-net.org).

2005

2010

2015

access to reliable and safe sewage disposal, even if several times more are connected to centralized sanitation networks. Complementary indicators of adequate sanitation are applicable mainly in urban areas with centralized wastewater treatment. In rural areas, the global framework indicators reported within the JMP framework are probably the best reflection of the real situation. Water and sanitation services are, on average, affordable at present. Among the countries studied, the average householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bill for these services exceeded 3 percent of its income only in Moldova and Kazakhstan. Average affordability indicators disregard income distribution, thereby concealing the affordability of water and sanitation to the poorest and most vulnerable groups. Unfortunately, data on water and sanitation service bills by income groups are not easily available. Affordability indicators are based on current, lowservice levels. People generally are locked into a vicious circle of low prices and low quality of services. Although the room for affordable tariff increase is much larger than commonly believed, the costs of investment needed to bring water and sanitation services up to the

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table ES2 ECA-Tailored Indicators of Sustainable Access to Water Supply in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, 2004 Adjusted global framework indicator

Complementary indicators

Global framework indicator Centralized water supply coverage (%)

Average duration of scheduled water supply as % of a day

Country

Tot

Urb

Rur

Tot

Urb

Rur

% of water samples meeting the national standards

Georgia Tajikistan Albania

56 57 83

89 89 93

35 46 72

67 57 25

67 75 38

50 33 13

79 85 84

% of population that can afford water and sanitation

Tot

Urb

Rur

100 100 100

37 33 21

60 67 35

18 15 9

Sustainable access to safe water supply (%)

Source: Author’s calculations on the basis of data collected by the Institute of Urban Economics.

level of sustainable access is likely to pose a burden on household incomes, especially poor households. This burden will be partly mitigated naturally by the expected rise of incomes over time. For the time being, however, there is a case to be made for the international community funding part of the investment costs of improved water and sanitation on concessional terms, so long as systems are well managed and local populations pay for the operation and maintenance costs. The most vulnerable population groups who cannot afford the services must be identified and covered by effective but cost-efficient social safety nets. These reforms require sophisticated institutions and strong fiscal systems to provide reliable social protection. They are sometimes blocked politically because some local governments are not willing to charge people even if people are willing to pay more for better services. The country studies supported jointly by Denmark and the

Environmental Action Program Task Force of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showed how smart investment planning and financing strategies can address fiscal and poverty constraints to infrastructure investments (OECD 2003a).

Improvements in the Lives of Slum Dwellers For the ECA countries reviewed in this study, slums are a relatively new concept. In the past, the governments did not want to admit the existence of slums because, as part of the socialist doctrine, housing was supposed to be a basic right provided to people by the state, with access to basic utilities at very low cost. None of the countries studied here has either an agreed-upon term or definition for a slum.

Table ES3 ECA-Tailored Indicators of Sustainable Access to Adequate Centralized Sanitation in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, 2004

Country

Georgia Tajikistan Albania

Total urban and rural population connected to centralized sewerage (%)

Percentage of sanitation network in reasonable conditions

Percentage of population that can afford water and sanitation*

Percentage of population with sustainable access to adequate sanitation

34.2 14.1 53.8

10–30 20 (practically none)

100 100 100

3–10 3 0

Source: Authors’ calculations on the basis of data collected by the Institute of Urban Economics. *For the purpose of this study, water and sanitation services are considered affordable if billed amount accounts for less than 3 percent of the household’s income.

Executive Summary

Table ES4 Share of Urban Population Considered to be Living in Slums (%)

Indicator

Lack of water Lack of sanitation Lack of clean heating Overcrowding Poor housing quality No tenure security

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyz Republic

Moldova

6–18 19–35

3–21 27

14–29 30–48

24–35 27–45

47–58

22 8

5 20 N/A

N/A

Serbia and Montenegro

Albania

Georgia

Tajikistan

3 12

30 12.4

5 4–11

28–56 28–61

N/A

N/A 5

N/A 12

N/A 30

N/A 12.5

N/A 34.3

Over 50 75

20–33

N/A

Sources: Reports of local consultants; UNECE (2003).

The MDG framework indicator covers only security of tenure. This does not take into account the physical characteristics of housing. The United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT), which is responsible for monitoring the slum dweller target, points to two kinds of slums: n Slums of hope: “Progressing” settlements characterized by new, usually self-built structures and usually illegal inhabitants (i.e., squatters). These settlements are in, or have recently been through, a process of development, consolidation, and improvement. n Slums of despair: “Declining” neighborhoods, in which environmental conditions and domestic services are undergoing a process of degeneration.5 This report uses the following complementary indicators to identify slum dwellers in the ECA countries under study: n Inadequate access to safe water and infrastructure (e.g., sanitation) n Overcrowding (more than two people per room) n Poor structural quality of housing (housing in hazardous location or built of impermanent materials) n Insecurity of tenure (i.e., no documentation of tenure). Based on these indicators, a large percentage of the urban population should be considered as living in slums. There is currently no developed methodology that defines how the indicators should be used in con5

UN-HABITAT (2003), p. 9.

junction with each other. Also, there are currently no precise definitions of how severe lack of water and sanitation should be to be categorized as a slum; therefore, minimum and maximum ranges are provided (see table ES4). All countries have urbanized areas where multistory apartment buildings are deteriorating at an especially rapid rate due to the failure to resolve responsibility for maintaining common spaces. Especially in the secondary cities of Moldova, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Kazakhstan, the declining apartment buildings often meet the conditions of slums. The multistory stock constitutes the majority of urban housing in the region. In several countries, including Georgia, Armenia, and Serbia and Montenegro, citizens dislocated by civil conflicts are still living in buildings constructed for nonresidential purposes, such as former schools, hospitals, and kindergartens, mostly in very poor condition. In some countries (Serbia and Montenegro and, to some extent, Albania), slums appear in areas where ethnic minorities are concentrated. Social and housing conditions of Roma are of particular concern. The collapse of district heating, which is so important in the cold climate, and its replacement with individual heating arrangements that are often unsafe, has decreased housing stock quality. Among urban households, 22 to 58 percent use dirty fuels for heating. While most of the countries have not faced the pressures of the rapid urban growth of the developing world, there has been rural–urban migration, especially in Albania but also in several Central Asian countries, with development of informal settlements. Some of these may be characterized as “slums of

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

hope.” Their future depends on orderly, transparent legalization of these settlements and feasible opportunities to obtain legal and sustainable connections to infrastructure. The clearest case of the slums of hope can be found in Albania, where the government is beginning to address the issues of large illegal settlements that are well built but lack public amenities. Improvements in terms of connection and legalization are already visible near Tirana. However, some of the periurban settlements are in hazardous locations, so their future value and safety are at risk. The analysis illustrates that urban and periurban slums are a growing problem for some ECA countries, and are linked to the social and economic transformations that have accompanied the transition to a market economy. Policies for addressing slums in ECA countries lie with improved municipal management, including improved land-use planning and enforcement, and sustainable delivery of municipal services, but also with accelerated title registration and development of local tax bases, and improved financial management, transparency, and accountability.

Sustainable Use of Environmental Resources Defining and measuring useful indicators for MDG7 target 9 on environmental sustainability presents considerable challenges. This target refers to physical and institutional dimension of sustainable development. The physical dimension aims at “reversing the loss of environmental resources” and, in principle, can be more easily quantified and measured. The global framework indicators include two indicators of land use (percentage of land under forest cover and percentage of land protected for biodiversity) and three indicators related to energy use (energy use per capita per unit of GDP, CO2 emissions per capita, and use of solid fuel). Global framework indicators linked to target 9 do not necessarily measure what really matters to people locally. The indicators tend to focus on global environmental issues (e.g., emissions of CO2) rather than local environmental priorities. There are no global framework indicators that would measure scarcity of water resources, land degradation, quality of water bodies, quality of ambient air, or capacity of environment to absorb waste, although these are serious concerns for many ECA countries. For example, the international MDG databases consider the life of subsistence farm-

ers in Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan environmentally sustainable, because their families use very little energy. These databases do not record, however, that not long ago these farmers may have been fishermen on the Aral Sea who now are left in the middle of a desert because excessive irrigation upstream has drained the water. Other examples of indicators not telling the full story on environmental sustainability are those of forest cover, protected areas, and energy use. Over much of ECA, forest cover seems to be increasing; but many forests are still poorly managed, their quality is deteriorating, and official statistics often do not include illegal logging. The indicator of biodiversity does not capture the effects and sustainability of protection of valuable and threatened ecosystems. For energy use, the improvements in ECA countries measured by UN indicators may be misleading. For example, reductions in CO2 emissions and energy use in the 1990s could be attributed in part to economic collapse, rationing of energy supplies, and deteriorating power infrastructure, rather than to more efficient and sustainable development. During the preparation of this paper, a “countrydriven” process was facilitated that identified additional, complementary indicators to measure the loss of priority environmental resources. Table ES5 shows that environmental priorities viewed by local people are poorly matched by the global framework indicators. Country experts and policymakers proposed a number of new complementary indicators related to their country’s environmental priorities. These indicators were reviewed and evaluated by the World Bank staff during workshops and videoconferences, using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) criteria of “good” indicators of sustainable development, such as policy relevance, analytical soundness, and measurability. An attempt was also made to keep reasonable balance between indicators of pressures on environmental resources, their state, and policy responses aimed at their protection. In the end, international experts were called to help fine-tune definitions and measuring methods for the proposed indicators. For example, the complementary biodiversity indicators were proposed to capture the difference between “parks on paper” and areas effectively protected. The

Executive Summary

Table ES5 Mismatch Between What Is Perceived as Priority Locally and What Is Measured Globally in ECA

Environmental resources

Perceived as priority in more than 50% of countries studied

Measured by global framework indicators

Urban outdoor air Water quality Water availability Marine/coastal zone Biodiversity Forests Topsoil Waste absorption capacity Energy use CO2 and ODP emissions Indoor air Sources: Compilation based on National Environmental Action Programs, national environmental policy and strategy documents; MDG reports; United Nations Environment Economic Commission for Europe Environmental Performance Reviews; World Bank analytical papers; for Albania, Georgia and Tajikistan, priorities compiled by environmental staff in country units and discussed at multistakeholders’ workshops.

complementary indicators for waste management tried to capture the performance of industrial and municipal waste management systems. Indicators related to water resources management aimed at capturing both the physical water stress in different countries and the quality of water in rivers and lakes. As the last step, local consultants were asked to collect available data underlying the proposed indicators and to compile time series to show trends since 1990. When data were not available or not credible, consultants discussed these problems, including institutional issues related to information management. They estimated the costs of developing robust and cost-effective data collection and dissemination systems. These costs sometimes were found to be large compared with the overall envelope of domestic public funds available for environmental protection. Areas where donor assistance may be needed were identified. The institutional dimension of the environmental sustainability target—“integrate principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs”—is not matched at all by global framework indicators. It is the only qualitative MDG target, and the most ambiguous target to monitor. Due to resource constraints, this study does not address insti-

tutional indicators in detail. Other targeted World Bank analytical works have been launched to analyze the institutional target of integrating environment into sector policies and to develop adequate indicators to measure progress.6 Few conceptual frameworks can be used to develop indicators of institutional dimension of the environmental sustainability target. One approach is to derive indicators from the annual Country Performance and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) ratings prepared for each country by the World Bank staff. The CPIA indicators include progress on institutional benchmarks as well as on management of the physical environment. Institutional benchmarks include the adequacy with which governments set environmental priorities, the quality of environmental assessment, and the effectiveness of cross-sectoral coordination and public information. An alternative approach, based on more objective measures of institutional performance, may 6There are ongoing analytical works at the Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit (ECSSD) that will address the institutional dimension of integrating the environment into sector policies focusing on energy, mining, agriculture, and forestry sectors. These studies also aim to develop appropriate indicators.

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

include the OECD rating of environmental institutions (OECD 2005a).

Conclusions The paper shows that a country-driven process of developing complementary indicators of environmental sustainability can add important value to the standard framework for measuring progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. When the UN framework indicators are used “at face value” to measure sustainable access to water and sanitation, and the number of people living in slums, most ECA countries, including some of the poorer ones, rate well against countries with similar GDP in other regions. However, when complementary indicators more appropriate to ECA are applied, it appears that the ECA countries face considerable challenges in providing sustainable access to safe water and adequate sanitation and to eliminate slums. Investments in rehabilitation of water and sanitation infrastructure seem to be affordable to a majority of households if implemented in a cost-effective way, but the effort may require international support and effective and efficient social safety nets to alleviate the excessive burden on the poorest groups of customers. For slums, a greater focus is needed on programs that combine improved urban land use management with completing the work on clarifying property rights, thereby enhancing local revenues and forming the financial base for improved municipal management and delivery of urban services. The key conclusion from the analysis of indicators of the loss of environmental resources is that there is more ownership of indicators if they are tailored to country priorities rather than to environmental issues implicated by global framework indicators. The mismatch between what matters locally and what is being monitored internationally may divert scarce resources away from local policy priorities and focus on monitoring less relevant environmental resources. The Millennium Development Goals are currently not well integrated with national and local policy processes. Moreover, the institutional capacity to develop sound indicators,

to collect quality underlying data, and to use them in decision-making is often very poor. The report recommends that given limited resources and capacities, the countries would be better off focusing efforts on measuring what matters most and what is easy to measure. In some cases, the report proposes practical steps to monitor certain key indicators and estimate the costs of monitoring. This study follows the efforts of others to enhance ownership and relevance of MDG7 by the people in the ECA region. The study demonstrated how these efforts can be structured and facilitated through a country-driven process. It also demonstrates that these efforts are challenging to the countries in the region and that they require targeted support from the international community to be successful. MDG7 (especially target 9 on sustainable use of environmental resources) is still poorly conceptualized even internationally; thus, ECA countries face significant dilemmas on “what” to measure and “how to” measure it. During the course of this study, the debates between local and international experts about the “right” definition and formulas of complementary indicators proved to be long, heated, and not always conclusive. Consensus could not be achieved everywhere with the limited time frame and resource availability. Robust data have turned out to be much more difficult to get than local experts initially thought. The authors of this study join the United Nations in encouraging the ECA countries to measure what matters to them in the context of the MDG7 targets on environmental sustainability. A country-driven process potentially can generate local engagement in and policy impact of an otherwise alienated and abstract MDG process. However, the capacity to develop robust indicators and conduct convincing institutional and financial analyses of indicator-monitoring systems is uneven across countries. This study is also an encouragement for the international community (donors, the United Nations, international financial institutions, nongovernmental organizations) to be more responsive to the local perspectives and priorities in supporting technical assistance and capacity-building activities.

CHAPTER

Based on global framework indicators, the ECA region appears to be on track to meet most environmental sustainability targets. However, when complementary indicators better adapted to country circumstances are used, the countries in the region may all have serious difficulties in meeting the MDG7 targets.

Background and Rationale of the Study

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with associated targets and indicators, have become widely accepted as a framework for measuring broad progress in reducing poverty and improving living standards worldwide. Millennium Development Goal number 7 (MDG7)— related to environmental sustainability— reflects human aspiration worldwide to reverse the loss of critical environmental resources, improve sustainable access to safe water and adequate sanitation, and pull people out of slums. When assessed using internationally agreed indicators (so-called global framework indicators), the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region appears to be on track to meet most environmental sustainability targets. However, because the region has unique features, several MDG7 global framework indicators have only limited relevance for ECA or mislead about real progress in reaching targets. As a result, there is little ownership of MDG7 targets and related indicators in most ECA countries. Progress reports are being prepared by consultants with donor funding. MDGs are referred to in several government documents as generic declarations, yet they do not really drive the policy process. There is low commitment to monitoring indicators and collecting robust data. A certain fatigue with an MDG top-down process can be observed. ECA countries and the international community have noticed the problem. Armenia, for example, has made an effort to promote within the MDG framework the environmental sustainability indicators that measure the state of Lake Sevan, the country’s critical environmental resource.1 The United Nations (UN) framework paper for the MDGs recommended and encouraged countries to develop complementary and country-specific indicators.2 The need for a set of additional indicators that improves upon those currently measured under target 9 of the MDGs has also been raised by the MDG Inter-Agency Expert Group. While no schedule for updating the list of indicators has been set, work is under way to recommend changes that would allow the inclusion of issues not currently measured (e.g., fisheries). The Environmental Performance Index (and previous environmental sustainability index) developed by Yale 1

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

University also aims at measuring how close countries come to different environmental performance goals.3 The objective of this study was to build on these efforts and facilitate a country-driven process of identifying or developing complementary indicators for MDG7 that are more relevant for the people in the ECA region. The paper focuses on three countries: Albania, Tajikistan, and Georgia. It also presents more limited information collected from five additional countries that were the subject of the 2004 study: Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro. The 2004 analyses focused on collecting and analyzing data on the “official” global framework indicators within the UN framework such as the Joint Monitoring Program, which collects global framework indicators of access to water supply and sanitation. The key lesson learned in the first phase was that the global framework indicators are not always perceived by ECA stakeholders as relevant to their countries. This lesson triggered a different approach in the second phase. The second phase focused on tailoring the targets and indicators of MDG7 to specific ECA realities in an effort to make them more relevant to people and to local policy processes. The issues of their applicability in ECA have been already raised in some previous World Bank publications (World Bank 2003, 2005a). Customizing MDGs by countries follows the emerging trend in the UN to increase ownership. According to a United Nations Development Group (UNDG) survey, 86 percent of countries are reported to have undertaken some ad hoc adaptations of one or more of the goals themselves, their targets, or associated indicators (UNDG 2005). The literature, however, does not elaborate on the more systematic methods of customizing MDG7 targets and indicators to countryspecific situations. This study is an effort to fill this gap and demonstrate how a number of countries in ECA region have tried to apply this approach.

MDG7 Targets and Indicators The 8 development goals and 18 numerical targets— as derived from the Millennium Declaration—are part of the political consensus reached by the international community in the 1990s. 3

http://www.yale.edu/epi/.

To monitor progress toward the goals and targets, the UN system, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), came together under the Office of the Secretary General and agreed on 48 quantitative indicators from a much larger set prepared through the intergovernmental process. The Millennium Development Goal on environmental sustainability (MDG7) consists of three distinct targets (numbers 9, 10, and 11). Each target is associated with an internationally agreed list of global framework indicators reported through the UN system. The three targets and the associated global framework indicators are summarized in table 1.

Global Framework Indicators of MDG7 and Local Priorities Some targets can have different content in different countries. For example, in their efforts to achieve target 9 (to reverse the loss of environmental resources), different countries may want to focus on different environmental resources—forests, water, topsoil, and the like—depending on what is crucial for sustainable development in a country context. Global framework indicators are not equally relevant for all countries (see examples in chapter 5). This mismatch between what matters locally and what is being monitored internationally may divert scarce resources away from local policy priorities and focus on monitoring less relevant environmental resources. The mismatch may also alienate the MDGs from the national and local policy processes. The UN global framework indicators of progress towards achieving target 10 on access to safe water supply and basic sanitation do not reflect the perception of the users of these services. The situation with water supply and sanitation infrastructure in ECA is unique in the world. A large proportion of population (in particular urban) is connected to piped water and centralized sanitation built in Soviet times. Because the water and environmental infrastructure in the ECA region has been deteriorating since the 1990s, the indicators of access to centralized water supply and sanitation systems do not show how sustainable, safe, and improved this access is. From the point of view of global framework indicators, being connected to centralized pipes is enough to be classified as having sustainable access to safe drink-

Background and Rationale of the Study

Table 1 Targets and Global Framework Indicators of MDG7 on Environmental Sustainability Targets of MDG7

Target 9 Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources

Global framework indicators

25. Proportion of land area covered by forests (FAO) 26. Land area protected to maintain biological diversity (UNEP-WCMC) 27. Energy use per unit of GDP (PPP) (IEA, World Bank) 28. Per capita CO2 emissions (UNFCCC, UNSD) and consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODP tons) (UNEP-Ozone Secretariat) 29. Proportion of population using solid fuels (WHO) 30. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural (UNICEF-WHO) 31. Proportion of people with sustainable access to improved sanitation, urban and rural (UNICEF-WHO) 32. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure (UN-HABITAT)

Source: UNSD (2005).

ing water and basic sanitation. However, most of those connected do not consider their access to be safe and sustainable. Access to infrastructure has become divorced from access to adequate service. Inefficient design followed by low investments and poor maintenance of water infrastructure since the 1990s has significantly reduced sustainability and safety of drinking water supply as well as adequacy of sanitation. Tap

water is supplied irregularly, and it frequently does not meet biological and chemical standards, leading sometimes to outbreaks of waterborne diseases. These quality aspects of access are not duly captured by the UN official framework indicators. In ECA, the concept of slums (target 11) was not politically correct in the Soviet system, in which housing was considered a basic citizens’ right. Housing was

Box 1 Second Guidance Note on Country Reporting on MDGs Goals: The goals reflect the vision of development embraced by the Millennium Declaration and should remain unchanged, unless marginal adjustments need to be made to reflect the particular conditions in the reporting country. Lithuania, for instance, modified Goal 2 to read: “achieve universal secondary education” as universal coverage of primary education is already a reality in that country. Targets: The Millennium Development Goals Reports must take into account national development priorities, thus the targets need to be contextualized to the country-specific situation—i.e., adaptation, not mere adoption of the global MDGs. Adaptation can only be carried out through a consultative process with all

national stakeholders. (. . .) different targets will need to be set that balance ambition with realism. Some countries may set targets that are more ambitious than the global ones. Numerical targets can be set for intermediate years that correspond better with the national planning framework. Others can set targets for areas that are instrumental for reaching the MDGs— such as access to reproductive health and microcredit. (. . .) Indicators: At country level, MDG indicators should come from official data sources and be chosen to best reflect agreed targets. Source: UNDG (2003, p. 8).

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

provided to people by the state, together with access to basic utilities at very low cost. Access was regulated not by price, but by long waiting lines, and poor quality of construction matched low costs. All ECA countries have vast urbanized areas dominated by multistory apartment buildings that are deteriorating rapidly due to the failure to resolve responsibility for maintaining common areas. The multistory housing stock constitutes the majority of urban housing in the region. Furthermore, many people live for years in barracks and dormitories intended only for the short-term accommodation of workers. The worst example of slums is placement of internally displaced people in buildings constructed for nonresidential purposes, such as former schools, hospitals, and kindergartens where families may live for years. Deteriorated heating systems pose an important problem in the region, given

the prevailing cold climate. Unsustainable and unsafe access to deteriorated utilities also lowers the quality of housing and raises the issue of a good definition of slums in the ECA context. The UN and other international agencies often recognize the limitations of the global framework approach to monitoring MDGs. A UNDG survey conducted recently found that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Neither the Declaration nor the Goals have become a factor in parliament or in the political process. They are also mostly a pre-occupation of national rather than local governments. More broadly, not much headway has been made in either case with civil society or the mediaâ&#x20AC;? (UNDG 2005). The recent UNDG Guidance Note includes recommendations to customize MDG goals, targets, and indicators (box 1) but falls short of providing more specific technical guidelines for complementary, customized indicators.

CHAPTER

Methodology of Developing Complementary Indicators Differentiated Approaches to Different Targets under MDG7

Emphasis is placed on the analysis of “complementary” indicators, the choice of which depends on the country priorities and on the availability of robust data and methodologies.

The targets themselves, rather than UN global framework indicators, have been entry points of analysis in this study. In particular, for the second phase covering Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, local consultants were mobilized under the management of the World Bank staff from local offices to organize in-country dialogues on what these targets actually meant to national constituencies. World Bank headquarters provided methodological support and overall supervision of the process.

Target 9: Country environmental priorities first, indicators next Target 9 (“reversing the loss of environmental resources”) has been contextualized in this study through locally driven processes that identified which environmental resources were essential for environmental sustainability in a given country. The UN global framework indicators have been screened against country relevance. Emphasis was placed on the analysis of “complementary” indicators, the choice of which depends on the country priorities and on the availability of robust data and methodologies.

Target 10: Sustainability and quality of access to water supply and sanitation (WSS) With regard to water supply and sanitation (WSS), the objective of this study was to identify or develop a set of complementary indicators for monitoring the safety and sustainability of access to water and sanitation. These complementary indicators are needed for population connected to centralized piped systems in urban areas. For rural and suburban areas that use decentralized water and sanitation infrastructure, global framework indicators are a good approximation of reality. Consultants collected and analyzed available data, from which complementary indicators were derived. Consultants conducted analyses of national statistical capacity to monitor progress using both global framework and 13

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Figure 1 OECD’s PSR Model Societal Responses (Actions – e.g., protection, restoration)

Pressures Human activities that affect the environment, e.g., production, consumption, traderelated

State

Pollution/ Depletion

Response

Stocks and quality of environmental resources

Information

Actions taken by governments and economic agents

Societal Responses (Actions – e.g., incentives, prevention, control) Source: Author’s drawing and details on the basis of OECD (2003b).

complementary indicators in the pilot countries of Georgia, Tajikistan, and Albania.

How to Choose and Use Indicators

Target 11: Defining slums in Europe and Central Asia

Indicators should not only monitor the state of environmental resources at a given point of time, but also monitor processes that threaten to deplete or degrade these resources. Good indicators should also inform whether societies adequately respond to these threats. A commonly adopted framework for determining what to measure and how to interpret the findings of measurement is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) PressureState-Response (PSR) model shown in figure 1. This approach helps increase policy relevance of indicators by defining them separately for pressures, state of environmental resources, and societal responsive actions. It helps tailor policy responses to priority environmental issues and pressures. The PSR framework is adopted in the consideration of complementary indicators (OECD 2003b).2 Pressure indicators refer to human activities exerted on the environment and are closely related to production and

None of the countries studied here has either an agreed-upon term or definition for a slum. In this study, the five indicators that address the physical and legal characteristics of settlements were used to identify slum dwellers in the studied Europe and Central Asia (ECA) countries: n n n n

Inadequate access to safe water Inadequate access to infrastructure1 Overcrowding (more than two people per room) Poor structural quality of housing (housing in hazardous locations or built of impermanent materials) n Insecurity of tenure (i.e., no documentation of tenure). 1 Although infrastructure is referred to in one definition of the indicator, most commonly the indicator refers only to sanitation. See, for example, United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT) (2003), pp. 9, 243.

Pressure, state, and response indicators

2 Developed by the OECD to structure its work on environmental policies and reporting.

Methodology of Developing Complementary Indicators

Box 2 OECD Criteria for Good Environmental Indicators Policy relevance—Environmental indicators should: • Provide a representative picture of environmental conditions, pressures on the environment, or society’s responses • Be simple, easy to interpret, and able to show trends over time • Be responsive to changes in the environment and related human activities • Provide a basis for international comparisons • Be either national in scope or applicable to regional environmental issues of national significance • Have a threshold or reference value against which to compare it, so that users can assess the significance of the values associated with it.

consumption patterns. These indicators can show emissions, resource use intensities, or trends in resourceintensive and polluting activities. State indicators, on the other hand, give an overview of the environmental condition. Response indicators show how the society takes action with regard to mitigating and preventing environmental degradation, and protecting and conserving natural resources. The global framework indicators of CO2 emissions per capita, the use of energy per unit of gross domestic product (GDP), and solid fuels belong to category of “pressures” indicators. The other three global framework indicators (forests, biodiversity) are typical “state” indicators. Any possible indicators of integration of principle of sustainable development into policies and programs would be typical “response” indicators. There can be instances where the pressure and state indicators are highly correlated; for example, emis-

Analytical soundness—Environmental indicators should: • Be theoretically well founded in technical and scientific terms • Be based on international standards and international consensus about its validity • Lend itself to being linked to economic models, forecasting, and information systems. Measurability—Data required to support the indicator should be: • Readily available or made available at a reasonable cost-benefit ratio • Adequately documented and of known quality • Updated at regular intervals in accordance with reliable procedures. Usefulness to users

sions and ambient concentration of air pollutants. In this case, one of them may be selected as sufficient proxy for the purpose of national and international monitoring and reporting.

How to recognize a good indicator An internationally acknowledged logical framework for measuring environmental sustainability has been used in this study. Complementary indicators proposed were screened against the OECD’s criteria for “good indicators of sustainable development” as shown in box 2 (OECD 2003b): n n n n

Policy relevance Analytical soundness Measurability Usefulness to users.

CHAPTER

Target 10: Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation Introduction and Definitions

Most apartments in urban areas are connected to centralized water supply and sewerage systems but mere connection does not guarantee sustainable and safe access to water and sanitation.

Goal 7, “ensure environmental sustainability,” of the Millennium Declaration includes target 10, which envisions halving, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (table 2). Two framework indicators designed to measure progress toward target 10 under the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) are defined in box 3. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF have established a JMP for water supply and sanitation. The goals of the JMP are to report on the status of water supply and sanitation, and to support countries in their efforts to monitor this sector, which will enable better planning and management. JMP assessments were made in 1991, 1993, 1996, and 2000. In 2004, a midterm assessment was produced that measured progress toward the MDG drinking-water and sanitation targets. This JMP report focused on global framework indicators of water supply and sanitation coverage described above, including in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) (JMP 2000).1

Problems with Global Framework Indicators for Water Supply and Sanitation Targets The interpretation of target 10 and its related indicators, as well as the methodology currently used to monitor progress under the JMP, has raised a number of issues in ECA countries. In ECA countries, global framework indicators are not fully adequate measures of progress to achieve target 10. There is a discrepancy between the picture painted by the global framework indicators published under the JMP, and the perception of the users of water and sanitation infrastructure facilities. By measuring indicators 30 and 31, JMP reports on formal access to “improved” water supply sources and “improved” sanitation facilities, implicitly assuming that those technologies identified as “improved” provide access to safe water and adequate sanitation. Users who are connected to centralized water supply and sanitation systems, however, often do not enjoy access to “sustainable,” reliable, and “safe”

1 The JMP assessments use methodology adopted for the global water supply and sanitation. See http://www.wssinfo.org/pdf/GWSSA_2000_report.pdf.

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table 2 MDG7 Targets and Indicators Related to Water and Sanitation Target 10

Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water (with 1990 as base year) Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic/improved sanitation (with 1990 as base year)

Global framework indicators

Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural Proportion of people with sustainable access to improved sanitation, urban and rural

Source: UN (2001).

water and sanitation services. Water and sanitation infrastructure has deteriorated significantly since the 1990s, instead of gradually improving as in developing countries. A conceptual path for achieving the target of sustainable and safe access to drinking water and sanitation for population connected to centralized systems in ECA will be different than in developing countries (see figure 2). Targets set with 1990 as a base year are thus more challenging. The concept of safety and reliability of water sources and of adequacy of sanitation facilities from a user’s

point of view have until now been overlooked in the monitoring process. For sanitation, data collected under the JMP do not fully reflect, for example, how correctly constructed and properly maintained the facilities are. Sustainability of access, present in the target 10 definition, is not defined to be measured by indicators 30 and 31. Finally, affordability is implicitly embedded, but not clearly defined, in the concept of access. WHO and UNICEF recognize that the quality of access to water is not well captured in the JMP (box 4),

Box 3 Definitions of Global Framework Indicators for Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Targets Related to Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Indicator 30 (water supply): Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural. This indicator is defined by the UN as the percentage of the population using “improved” water sources. “Improved” sources include the following types of water supply for drinking: piped water, public tap, borehole or pump, protected well, protected spring, or rainwater. Improved water sources do not include vendor-provided water, bottled water, tanker trucks, or unprotected wells and springs. These “improved” sources are assumed to provide “safe” water. “Reasonable access” to water-supply services is broadly defined as the availability of at least 20 liters per person per day from an “improved” source within 1 kilometer of the user’s dwelling.

rural. This indicator is defined by the UN as: “The percentage of the population with access to facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human, animal, and insect contact. Facilities such as sewers or septic tanks, poor-flush latrines, and simple pit or ventilated improved pit latrines are assumed to be adequate, provided that they are not public (. . .). To be effective, facilities must be correctly constructed and properly maintained.” Access to adequate sanitation facilities is the percentage of the population using “improved” sanitation. Excreta disposal systems are considered adequate if they are private and if they separate human excreta from human contact. A “household connection” in the sanitation context is understood as “connection to a public sewer.”

Indicator 31 (sanitation): Proportion of people with sustainable access to improved sanitation, urban and

Sources: United Nations Development Group (UNDP) (2003); JMP (2005).

Target 10: Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation

Proportion of people without sustainable and safe access to WS&S

Figure 2 Population without Sustainable Access to Improved Water and Sanitation 1990–2015: Conceptual ECA Path to Meet MDG Target on Water and Sanitation

Present gap to meet MDG related to water and sanitation

Path to meet official access targets Path to meet targets of safe and sustainable access

Base year level

Target level

0% 1990

1995

2000

however these concerns are not taken into account when presenting national data on coverage by water supply and sanitation services. Concerning the quality of access to sanitation, sewer connection is unequivocally considered a sufficient condition In its June 2003 report to the Kyiv conference of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) ministers of environment, the World Bank already underlined the difficulty of estimating the

2005

2010

2015

amount of funds needed to reach target 10 in the ECA region related, among other things, to the issues of base year, data reliability and data gaps, and inadequacy of indicators 30 and 31 regarding the region. In particular, the report stated that “there are serious water quality problems for many consumers of water that, by the MDG definition, would be regarded as an improved source.” Therefore, the report concludes there is a need for a different water target “focusing on quality

Box 4 JMP on Adequacy and Safety of Water Supply Access to water and sanitation, as reported, does not imply that the level of service or quality of water is “adequate” or “safe.” The assessment questionnaire did not include any methodology for discounting coverage figures to allow for intermittence or poor quality of the water supplies. However, the instructions stated that piped systems should not be considered “functioning” unless they were operating at over 50 percent capacity on a daily basis, and that hand pumps should not be considered “functioning” unless

they were operating for at least 70 percent of the time with a lag between breakdown and repair not exceeding two weeks. These aspects were taken into consideration when estimating coverage for countries for which national surveys had not been conducted. However, they were not taken into consideration when estimating national coverage using survey data, on which the report is primarily based. Source: JMP (2000).

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

as well as delivery,” which should be monitored and the value of which should be established. A similar observation is made on sanitation. The need of complementary indicators to measure progress towards MDG targets 9 and 10 was also stressed in the Environment Department paper by Bojö and Reddy (2003). Also, the conclusions of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Background Paper about MDG prepared for the Yerevan Ministerial Conference (OECD 2005b) were similar (see box 5). Therefore, complementary indicators are needed to measure the extent to which people who are connected to improved water sources and sanitation facilities, can actually enjoy sustainable access to safe water and adequate sanitation. The need for complementary indicators has become apparent especially for urban areas and for settlements using centralized water supply and sanitation systems. Without complementary indicators of regularity of supply, water quality, and adequacy of sanitation, the global framework indicators are overly optimistic and may decrease the sense of urgency of actions to improve service quality that may have significant health and environmental benefits.

Proposed Complementary Indicators of Sustainability and Safety of Access This study attempted to identify a core set of additional indicators that could complement the JMP indicators of access to water and sanitation services. The proposed indicators are not meant to substitute for the “official”

indicators, but to be used together with them to paint a more realistic and comprehensive picture of safety and sustainability of WSS services in ECA. These indicators were developed by consultants (Institute of Urban Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation) through local data collection, desk studies of available literature, and through a consultative process involving the World Bank and local stakeholders in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan. Table 3 contains a summary of proposed complementary indicators. These proposed complementary indicators provide measures of sustainability of access to water supply and water quality. For sanitation services, the complementary indicators characterize functionality, availability, and maintenance of sanitation facilities. Moreover, complementary indicators capture explicitly the affordability of water supply and sanitation services, which may be a constraint to access. The detailed technical analysis of these indicators is provided in appendix III (see Volume II of this study). The next section will show the summary of numerical values of these indicators for the selected ECA countries. The detailed case studies for Albania, Georgia, Tajikistan, and other ECA countries are included in appendix IV (see Volume II). It is important to emphasize, that the composite complementary indicators for water supply and sanitation proposed here should not be compared directly with indicators included in the JMP and defined by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) for the entire population (UNDP 2003). Applicability of the complementary indicators is limited to people

Box 5 OECD Environmental Action Program Task Force (EAP TF) Criticism of Adequacy of Global Framework Indicators to ECA Through indicators 30 and 31, the JMP reports on access to “improved” water supply sources and “improved” sanitation facilities, the assumption being that those technologies identified as “improved” are most likely to provide access to safe water and adequate sanitation. However, there is no evidence that the so-called “improved” technologies do provide safe water or adequate sanitation. Moreover, the concept of safety and reliability of water sources and of adequacy of sanitation facilities from a user’s point of view, key to any analysis of the status of the water supply and sanitation sector, have until now been

overlooked in the monitoring process. In some locations, for example, an unprotected household well may provide a better supply of water, both in terms of quantity and quality of water, than a household connection that may be subject to intermittence and poor water quality. The concept of sustainability (both in terms of service and environment), present in the target 10 definition, is not addressed by indicators 30 and 31. Finally, affordability is only implied, but not clearly stated. Source: OECD (2005b).

Target 10: Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation

Table 3 Global Framework and Complementary Indicators of Access to Safe WSS Coverage Indicator

Urban

Rural

Global framework indicators Centralized water supply coverage

Centralized sanitation services coverage

Urban population provided with access to centralized water supply divided by total urban population Urban population with access to centralized sanitation services divided by total urban population

Rural population provided with access to centralized water supply divided by total rural population Rural population with access to centralized sanitation services divided by total rural population

Complementary indicators Weighted average duration of scheduled water supply (hrs/day)

Number of waterborne diseases per unit of population (diarrhea, hepatitis A, typhoid fever, cholera) Proportion of untreated wastewater (percentage) Number of urban/rural sanitation service failures per 1 km of sanitation network Proportion of urban/rural population who pay for water more than 3% of total disposable income (second best alternative: average water and sanitation bill as a % of average disposable income or expenditures)

Daily hours of water supply foreseen by schedule “i”a multiplied by the proportion of urban population served by schedule “i” Incidence of diseases officially registered in urban areas divided by total urban population Volume of untreated wastewater discharged divided by total volume of wastewater discharged Number of sanitation pipe breaks plus blockages in sanitation network divided by total length of urban sanitation network Number of connected households where share of water bill in households’ average expenses exceeds 3% divided by the total number of connected urban households

Daily hours of water supply foreseen by schedule “i”a multiplied by the proportion of rural population served by schedule “i” Incidence of diseases officially registered in rural areas divided by total rural population Volume of untreated wastewater discharged divided by total volume of wastewater discharged Number of sanitation pipe breaks plus blockages in sanitation network divided by total length of rural sanitation network Number of connected households where share of water bill in households’ average expenses exceeds 3% divided by the total number of connected rural households

Sources: Reports of consultants (Institute of Urban Economics). a “i” refers to different possible schedules in different cities. For example, in one city water can be scheduled for 6 hours a day, and in another 10 hours a day.

using centralized water supply and sewerage. These indicators are not relevant for people using decentralized water and sanitation systems, which may or may not be “safe,” “sustainable,” or “improved” by JMP standards. The conclusions of this study are not relevant for a portion of suburban population and almost all rural population using wells, standpipes, septic tanks, or other decentralized sewerage systems.

Sustainability and Safety of Access to WSS Services in ECA Shown by Complementary Indicators For this study, consultants were asked to collect data underlying complementary indicators of WSS safety and sustainability and to compile the indicators for

urban and rural population in three countries: Georgia, Tajikistan, and Albania. Consultants attempted to trace their values from the base year—1990—to 2004. Table 4 presents the main findings of this research. While usually around 90 percent of the urban population in the studied ECA countries has access to water and sanitation facilities, an average duration of water supply varies from 6 hours per day in Albania to 16 hours per day in Georgia. Approximately 15–20 percent of drinking water pumped into centralized water supply systems does not meet national standards for drinking water quality, which results in high numbers of waterborne disease—as high as 1,015 registered cases per year in Tajikistan. The complementary indicators can be used to adjust global framework indicators for the reality in ECA. This is shown in table 5,

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table 4 Summary of Global Framework and Complementary Indicators for Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan Georgia Indicators

Percentage of population having access to improved water source Urban Rural Centralized water supply coverage Urban Rural Centralized sanitation services coverage Urban Rural

Average duration of scheduled water supplya Urban Rural Percentage of water samples meeting the national standards Number of waterborne diseases per 100,000 habitants per yearb Proportion of untreated wastewaterc Number of urban sanitation service failures per 1 km of sanitation network Proportion of urban/rural population who pay for water and sanitation services more than 3% of total disposable income

1990

Tajikistan

2004

1990

Albania 2004

1990

2004

Global framework indicators (percent) N/A 76 (1999)

N/A N/A 59

89.4 61.2 56

61.8 (1993)

57.4

N/A N/A 33.6

89.4 35 34.2

91.4 49.5 15.9

89.4 46 14.1

N/A N/A

60 N/A

49.1 2.1

48 2

90.7 17

13.7

16 (1998) 8 (1993) 85%

18 8 85%

9 3 84.2%

1015

11.97

Complementary indicators 16 16 16 20 99%

16 12 78.8%

82.5 100 82

93 72 53.8

58%

56%

0% (1997)

6.6%

100%

3.0

3.2

1.01

2.36

3.5

N/A

Sources: Reports of consultants (Institute of Urban Economics). a Caution is needed with this indicator because it gives utility pumping times, which may be shorter than household access times (because households apply various ad hoc flow management techniques). In Albania, for example, almost every house uses roof tanks to collect water during the service period. b Robust epidemiological studies that would link quality of water and health impact are rare, although cholera (particularly) and typhoid can be transmitted directly through low quality, which was a known problem, for example, in Tajikistan. The measurement of waterborne disease is also notoriously difficult, which is why we decided not to use it in calculating a composite adjusted indicator of safety. c Some experts argue that failure to treat wastewater is not a good indicator of sanitation outcomes, as most health risk comes from a fecal contact at home, rather than from untreated wastewater downstream. Although other experts may disagree, we have decided not to use this indicator to calculate the modified composite indicator and incorporated it instead into target 9 on environmental sustainability.

Target 10: Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation

rural areas have access to water supply that can be considered safe and sustainable. Complementary indicators are to some extent serially correlated. Interruptions of water supply are often associated with secondary contamination of water standing in the pipes, which in turn leads to less samples meeting standards at a tap. An improvement of one indicator usually is linked to improvement of the others. Only affordability indicators are not correlated or are correlated negatively with quality indicators, because higher prices are associated with higher investments and better maintenance, hence with better service quality and sustainability (i.e., “you get what you pay for”). Thus, with improved service quality and reliability, affordability can become a binding constraint to access. The proposed composite complementary indicator of sustainable access to adequate sanitation is obtained by multiplying the percentage of population connected to sewerage by the affordability indicator and the complementary indicator of percentage of sanitation network in reasonable conditions (i.e., where pipe blocks and breaks do not diverge significantly from international benchmarks). Adjusting the indicators of connection to centralized sewerage by the complementary indicators of sewerage “adequacy” yields even more dramatic conclusions (see table 7). Quality of sanitation facilities in selected countries is critical and almost nobody has sustainable access to adequate sanitation (0 percent in Albania, 3 percent in Tajikistan, and 3–10 percent in

where ECA-tailored indicators of sustainable access to safe water are derived by multiplying the global frameworks indicator by the affordability indicator and the lowest value of the complementary indicators. The logic is that if a household connected to centralized supply does not have 24 hours of scheduled water in the tap, and this water is contaminated biologically or chemically, such an access is not sustainable or safe. As can be seen in table 5, “sustainable access to safe water” is much rarer than “access to centralized water supply.” In Albania, 93 percent of urban population is connected to centralized water taps, but only 35 percent of city dwellers enjoy sustainable and safe access to water. As much as 89 percent of urban population in Georgia is connected, but only 60 percent in a sustainable and safe way. In Tajikistan, these figures are 89 percent and 67 percent, respectively. For the rural population, the differences are even more startling. In Albania, for example, 72 percent of rural households are connected to centralized water supply systems, but only 9 percent can call it sustainable and safe. This is because, on average, the water flows from the tap only three hours a day. In Tajikistan, 46 percent of rural people have water taps at home but only 15 percent enjoy clean water around the clock. In Georgia, these proportions are 35 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Table 6 shows the global framework and complementary indicators for water supply access in other countries. The figures show that global framework indicators are overly optimistic. Compared to what is reported under JMP, fewer people in the urban and

Table 5 ECA-Tailored Indicators of Sustainable Access to Safe Water in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, 2004 Adjusted global framework indicator

Complementary indicators

Global framework indicator Centralized water supply coverage (%)

Average duration of scheduled water supply as % of a day

Country

Tot

Urb

Rur

Tot

Urb

Rur

% of water samples meeting the national standards

Georgia Tajikistan Albania

56 57 83

89 89 93

35 46 72

67 57 25

67 75 38

50 33 13

79 85 84

% of population that can afford water and sanitation

Tot

Urb

Rur

100 100 100

37 33 21

60 67 35

18 15 9

Source: Author’s calculations on the basis of data collected by the Institute of Urban Economics.

Sustainable access to safe water supply (%)

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table 6 Global Framework and Complementary Indicators for “Sustainable Access to Safe Water” for Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyz Republic % of population connected to centralized water supply or standing pumps near house Country

Moldova Armeniaj Kazakhstani Kyrgyz Rep.k

Urban

Rural

% of drinking water meeting quality standards

73a 68c 93g 94

7a 32c 26g 55

70b 50d 44f 87e

% of population w/ access to safe and sustainable supply

Average duration of scheduled water supply as % of a day

Urban

Rural

75e 29e 99h 92

51 20 41 82

5 9 11 48

Notes and Sources: Data for the latest available years—usually 2001–2002; aLocal consultants, National Association Moldova ApaCanal and OECD (2002). b80 percent according to OECD (2003c). cThese are data for Yerevan and 250 villages serviced by Yerevan and Armvodokanal. Official submission by the State Committee for water management of Armenia. dAccording to the data from Yerevan and Armvodokanal, 100 and 95 percent of water respectively corresponds to sanitary norms. Sources are UNECE (2000a) and local consultants. e29 percent corresponds to 6–8 hours per day on average; OECD (2003c). f This is an average of 74 percent according to the UNECE (2000b), and 5 percent to 50 percent according to OECD (2003c). gUNECE (2000b). h OECD (2003d). i OECD (2001). jOECD (2002). k OECD (2003e).

Georgia). In Albania, for example, sewerage networks are falling apart. Pipe blocks, breaks, and leakages are so common that almost nobody in the country can be really considered to enjoy sustainable access to adequate or improved sanitation, even though 54 percent of the total population is reported to be connected to sewerage (over 90 percent of urban households). Raw sewerage is leaking into the ground, often finding its way to broken water supply pipes, causing contamination of drinking water. The relevance of the complementary indicator of sustainable access to adequate sanitation is limited mainly to urban areas or to relatively densely built set-

tlements, where centralized wastewater treatment solutions make environmental and economic sense. For this segment of population, the complementary indicators significantly alter the picture painted by global framework indicators. According to the UNDP standards, access to “improved” sanitation is guaranteed by having, for example, a flush toilet at home. For urban population connected to centralized sewerage through flush toilets, the complementary indicators tell an additional story about how adequately the sanitation system deals with excreta that are flushed away to the sewerage pipes. In rural areas and dispersed houses, it does not matter as much because small,

Table 7 ECA-Tailored Indicators of Sustainable Access to Adequate Centralized Sanitation in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, 2004

Country

Georgia Tajikistan Albania

Total Urban and Rural population connected to centralized sewerage (%)

Percentage of sanitation network in reasonable conditions

Percentage of population that can afford water and sanitationa

Percentage of population with sustainable access to adequate sanitation

34.2 14.1 53.8

10–30 20 (practically none)

100 100 100

3–10 3 0

Source: Authors’ calculations on the basis of data collected by the Institute of Urban Economics. a For the purpose of this study, water and sanitation services are considered affordable if billed amount accounts for less than 3 percent of the household’s income.

Target 10: Sustainable Access to Safe Water and Sanitation

decentralized wastewater treatment units can provide an “improved” level of sanitation. A common feature of all three countries is that water and sanitation services are on average affordable. In none of these countries were households billed, on average, more than 3 percent of their income for these services. The benchmarks for affordability (ability to pay) used by international financial institutions in low- and middle-income countries are usually 4 to 5 percent of disposable household income (OECD 2003a, chapter 2). It must be emphasized again that the average bill is a second-best indicator of affordability because it disregards income distribution, thereby concealing the information about the poorest and most vulnerable groups that pay more than the threshold. Only a few studies, such as the OECD EAP TF studies in Armenia, looked systematically at affordability in the context of income distribution and even social protection budget to compensate for water and sanitation bills in excess of affordability thresholds (box 6).

Conclusions and Recommendations on Monitoring Water Supply and Sanitation in ECA Countries For dispersed rural populations and urban populations using decentralized water supply and sanitation systems, the global framework indicators reported within the JMP framework are probably the best reflection of the real situation of access and quality of these infrastructure services in ECA countries. However, for the majority of urban populations and for rural populations connected to centralized water supply and sewerage networks in ECA, the JMP framework paints a much more optimistic picture about access to water and sanitation services than what people experience. Global framework indicators of access do not really capture the sustainability of access, safety of water, and adequacy of sanitation networks. Since the 1990s, the centralized networks have deteriorated significantly, and mere connection does not guarantee sustainable and safe access.

Box 6 Affordability of Water and Sanitation Tariffs in Armenia In 2001, households’ expenditures on WSS services amounted to approximately 2.2 percent of average per capita income, and monthly charges for WSS services were quite affordable for at least 50 percent of population. Nevertheless, the collection rate varied from as low as 10 percent (in Yerevan) to 63 percent (in Berd). There was no positive correlation between income and collection rate. The collection rate was lowest in Yerevan, where incomes were notably higher than in other areas of Armenia. An affordability check under different tariff growth scenarios was done in the framework of another OECD demonstration project, “Consumer Protection in Urban Water Sector Reforms in Armenia: Ability To Pay and Social Protection of Low Income Households” implemented in 2003 by the consulting company PADCO in cooperation with the State Committee of Water Economy and the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of Armenia. The analysis demonstrated that if the tariff is increased by 100 percent in 2004, then the water bill in Yerevan would be at 3 percent of average household income (this levy is considered as quite affordable), while only some 15 percent of households would pay more than

4 percent of their income (with 4 percent set as the affordability limit). Assuming that the collection rate is maintained at the 2003 level, this tariff would guarantee that Yerevan Vodocanal’s cash revenues would be sufficient to fully finance current expenditure needs, and the Vodocanal would no longer need public operational subsidies to bridge the cash flow gap. The savings made by Yerevan municipality would be more than enough to pay a target income support to all households for whom water and sanitation bill would become unaffordable (above 4 percent of their income). Should the tariff increase by an additional 50 percent in 2005, the households in Yerevan will spend, on average, 4.3 percent of their income for WSS services; and more than 50 percent of the population will spend more than 4 percent of their income for WSS services. With this tariff increase, however, incremental revenues of Vodocanal would not be sufficient to cover an incremental growth in social protection budget to compensate the poor, even if the collection rate remained unchanged. Sources: OECD (2004a-b).

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Complementary indicators of sustainability, safety, and adequacy of access to WSS services proposed here show that while 56 percent to 83 percent of population in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan has access to centralized water supply systems, only 21 to 37 percent can enjoy sustainable access to safe water. Adjusting the indicator of connection to centralized sewerage by the complementary indicators of sewerage â&#x20AC;&#x153;adequacyâ&#x20AC;? yields even more dramatic conclusions. Quality of sanitation facilities in selected countries is critical and almost nobody has sustainable access to adequate sanitation, although connection rates to centralized sewerage ranges from 14 percent in Tajikistan to 54 percent in Albania.

An overview of literature data for complementary indicators in other ECA countries broadly confirms the findings of the three case studies of Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan. This report proposes a relatively small set of complementary indicators that could be used with JMP global framework indicators to describe the sustainability and safety of centralized water supply and sanitation systems. The indicators have been selected through a dialogue among international experts in the WSS field, local policymakers, and WSS utility operators. All these indicators have been found by stakeholders to be policyrelevant, analytically robust, and useful in making decisions about priorities for improving service delivery.

CHAPTER

Target 11: Slums and Degraded Housing What Is a Slum?

In the past, the governments did not want to admit the existence of slums because, as part of the socialist doctrine, housing was supposed to be a basic right provided to people by the state, with access to basic utilities at very low cost. Countries do not have an agreed term or definition for a slum, but declining multistory apartment buildings often meet conditions of slums.

Slums are generally considered to be places in cities where the poor are concentrated in substandard conditions. This definition of a slum emphasizes the multidimensional nature of slums. National governments commonly rely on certain dimensions to define slums, such as lack of basic services, substandard housing or illegal and inadequate dwellings, overcrowding and high density, unhealthy living conditions and hazardous locations, insecure tenure or irregular or informal settlements, poverty and social exclusion, or settlement size (to indicate concentration).1 Slums vary from place to place and country to country. UN-HABITAT, which is responsible for monitoring the slum dweller target, points to two kinds of slums: n Slums of hope: “Progressing” settlements characterized by new, usually self-built structures and usually illegal inhabitants (i.e., squatters) and that are in, or have recently been through, a process of development, consolidation, and improvement n Slums of despair: “Declining” neighborhoods, in which environmental conditions and domestic services are undergoing a process of degeneration.2 The Europe and Central Asia (ECA) countries reviewed in this study have little awareness of the concept of slums, in part as a result of their legacy as countries where housing was a right and the state provided housing and access to basic utilities to people at little cost. None of the countries studied here has either an agreed-upon term or definition for a slum. In the former Soviet Union countries (Moldova, Armenia,3 Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, to some extent Georgia), the governments rely primarily on modified versions of the Soviet concept of degraded (vethoe) and unsafe (avariinoe) housing, which refer to only one aspect of slums, namely housing stock conditions. Serbia de-

UN-HABITAT (2003), p. 11. UN-HABITAT (2003), p. 9. 3 In Armenia, the MDG working group was supposed to develop a better definition in 2004. 2

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

fines slums as “unsanitary” settlements, or places in the city where residents are concentrated in “impoverished habitats.” In Albania, a definition of “slums” is not present in the statistics or official documents, because the criteria used under the Communist regime to classify housing conditions as degraded, unsuitable, or risky were abandoned in the early 1990s and never replaced by any official instruction, regulation, or other normative.

Official Slum Indicators The complex nature of slums made identifying indicators both complicated and controversial. The following indicators were proposed by experts and policymakers involved in this study: n Inadequate access to safe water n Inadequate access to sanitation (and other infrastructure4) n Overcrowding (more than two people per room) n Poor structural quality of housing (housing in hazardous locations or built of impermanent materials) n Insecurity of tenure (i.e., no documentation of tenure). Based on these indicators, a large percentage of the urban population should be considered as living in slums (see table 8). There is no developed methodology at this moment that would define how the indicators should be used in conjunction. Also, there are currently no precise standards of how severe a community’s lack of water and sanitation must be to be categorized as a slum. Therefore, minimum and maximum ranges are provided.

Data Availability and Quality Slum households are considered to be those urban households deficient in one or more of the five indicators shown above. To avoid double counting households, one data source is needed. UN-HABITAT has relied largely on survey data (primarily Demographic and Household Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster

4 Although infrastructure is referred to in one definition of the indicator, most commonly the indicator refers only to sanitation. See, for example, UN-HABITAT (2003), p. 9, p. 243.

Surveys). In Europe and Central Asia (ECA) countries, slum estimations were based primarily on access to water and sanitation because crowding data were not available for about half the countries; data on structural quality of housing were not available for most countries; and data on tenure security were not available for any countries.

Data quality Poor quality of data in all the countries reflects low demand from the policymakers and results in lack of a thorough understanding of how many of each country’s people live in the conditions close to a definition of “slums.” Administrative data, where they exist, are unreliable. Agencies that collect the information do not share a common understanding of what should be collected, and no quality control is exercised further at higher levels of government. Furthermore, data-collecting entities do not collect data about informal settlements and collective centers. Living standard measurement surveys and household budget surveys are potential sources of information about household and living conditions, but most exclude residents in informal settlements and collective centers from the sampling framework. Currently, the only potential source for data from within city slums is the census; however, census results are not released at a sufficient level of disaggregation (i.e., census enumeration districts). In Moldova, the last census was the 1989 Soviet census. Albania has released the 2001 census, allowing researchers to trace changes that occurred after 1989. The main issue remains lack of skills to use these data by line ministries responsible for specific sectors.

Utilities The major problem in the region is not water and sewer connection, but provision (see chapter 3). Current survey instruments mostly do not collect information about reliability and quality. Affordability is likely to be an increasing problem. Inadequate access to safe water and sanitation affects some urban groups more than others. For example, apartment dwellers who are not regularly supplied with water or working sewerage have fewer coping options than those living in single-family houses.

Target 11: Slums and Degraded Housing

Table 8 Share of Urban Population Considered to be Living in Slums by Indicator (%)

Indicator

Lack of water Lack of sanitation Lack of clean heating Overcrowding Poor housing quality No tenure security

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyz Republic

Moldova

Serbia and Montenegro

Albania

Georgia

Tajikistan

6–18 19–35

3–21 27

14–29 30–48

24–35 27–45

3 12

30 12.4

5 4–11

28–56 28–61

47–58

N/A

73j

22 8a

5 20b

N/A 5c

N/A 12

N/A 30d

12.5–54.4 12.5

N/A 34.3h

Over 50 75i

N/A

10e

10f

20–33g

N/A

Notes and Sources: aBased on census figure of households in temporary, institutional and other dwellings. bSum of degraded housing plus unsafe housing as share of all housing (not just urban). cShare of urban residents living in dormitories. dBased on a survey by UNDP. e Estimates of number of residents in periurban areas of Bishkek. f Estimated rate of private rentals (which lack tenure security) in Chisinau. g Estimated number of residents in informal (undocumented) housing. hUNECE (2003). i Estimated number of housing can be considered as slum according to the UN. j Population living in dwellings without gas connection or without centralized heating services.

Households in illegal dwellings, even if not poor, are deprived of access to urban infrastructure and services. Public authorities do not provide running water to illegal neighborhoods; waste disposal systems are inferior or absent; connections to electricity, if they exist, are mostly illegal and service is intermittent at best. In Tajikistan, as in other countries, the lowest utility coverage is in rural areas. However, because Tajikistan is the least urbanized country, with the majority of the population rural, urban housing issues are even less a concern to the authorities than elsewhere.

Crowding Although urban populations on average are relatively well housed, some urban households are overcrowded by national standards. Residents of dormitories and temporary shelters, including collective centers, are most likely to be overcrowded.

Structural quality of housing Although anecdotal evidence suggests that people live in unsafe locations in all the countries, no data have been collected. Only in Albania has there been an effort to identify environmental hotspots, where substantial health risks exist, thus making these areas not only unattractive but also hazardous to live in or near.

Data on the homeless, those living in temporary shelters or informal settlements, are weak or nonexistent. The multifamily housing stock is of poor quality, despite being built primarily since 1960. Stock built in the 1960s is of especially poor quality because it was not intended to last more than 25 years. The failure to resolve disputes about maintenance responsibilities means the multifamily stock continues to deteriorate.

Security of tenure People renting units from other individuals have little security of tenure because the transactions are not documented through a lease or contract. People living in illegally constructed periurban settlements lack legal protections for their dwellings, and cannot use them as collateral or assets.

Conclusions and Recommendations Countries had little understanding of the problem of slums and do not have a term for slums. They do not have systems in place for monitoring slum development. This reflects a larger problem—the lack of coherent national housing strategies in all countries except Armenia. All countries have highly urbanized areas, where multistory apartment buildings are deteriorating due

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

to the failure to resolve issues of responsibility for maintaining common areas. Especially in the secondary cities of Moldova, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Kazakhstan, the deteriorating apartment buildings often meet the conditions of “slums of despair.” The multistory stock constitutes the majority of urban housing in the region. In all countries, many people live for years in barracks and dormitories intended for short-term housing of workers. This is found particularly in former industrial areas (Moldova, Kazakhstan) now degraded due to collapse of the main enterprise. The worst example of slums formed by compact placement of people in buildings constructed for nonresidential purposes is the collective centers in Georgia, Armenia, and Serbia and Montenegro, including former schools, hospitals, and kindergartens where internally displaced families live for years. In all countries, except Serbia and Montenegro, transition has meant out-migration from the country. Transition has also meant out-migration from rural areas and small cities. Abandoned apartments present a special kind of housing problem, especially when people move in. This problem is more profound in Moldova and Kazakhstan. In some countries (Serbia and Montenegro and, to some extent, Albania), slums appear in areas where ethnic minorities are concentrated. Social and housing conditions of Roma people are particularly poor but are largely neglected by the governments. Water and sewerage are deteriorating, resulting in a growing gap between physical connections and actual provision of services. When availability of water is considered, the number of deprived urban households increases substantially (especially in Armenia, Georgia, and Serbia and Montenegro). In Tajikistan, the issue for connected households is the quality of water they receive. Even in Dushanbe, the capital city, 16 percent of water comes into the public supply system directly from the river without any treatment. Heating is an important problem in the region, given the climate, but district heating has been especially hard hit. The collapse of district heating and replacement with individual heating arrangements that are often unsafe has adversely affected the quality of the housing stock. From 22 to 58 percent of urban households use dirty fuels for heating.

Periurban settlements that can be viewed as “slums of hope” are developing in Kyrgyz, Kazakhstan, and Serbia and Montenegro. Their future depends on the government policy towards legalization of these settlements and offering them feasible opportunities to obtain legal and sustainable connections to infrastructure. The clearest case of the slums of hope can be found in Albania, where the government has already started to deal with large illegal settlements that are well built but lack public amenities. Improvements in terms of connection and legalization are already visible near Tirana. However, many of the periurban settlements in the countries are in hazardous locations, so their future value and safety are at risk. In all eight countries, nationally representative household surveys (LSMS/HBSs) provide information about housing conditions and access to basic infrastructure and services. Both the sampling framework and the questionnaire need improvement so they can be used as monitoring tools. Census results should be released at lower levels of spatial disaggregation (i.e., census enumerations districts) as is done in other countries. A digital map of census enumeration districts would allow aggregation of results into larger regions using Geographical Information Survey (GIS). The multifamily stock should be monitored, as continued deterioration due to under-maintenance results in slum conditions in this common type of housing. Administrative data associated with the multifamily stock should be improved. Such improvements are likely to require revision of housing assessment standards and techniques and large training efforts. Based on a review of available data, the following indicators might provide better identification of slum dwellers: n Inadequate access to water. See water supply and sanitation (WSS) indicators in chapter 3. n Inadequate access to sanitation. See WSS indicators in chapter 3. n Inadequate access to heating. Share of urban households using solid fuels for heating or not heating at all. n Crowding. Share of urban households living in units with more than two people per room, or share of urban households living in units providing less than

Target 11: Slums and Degraded Housing

the legally established minimum housing space per capita.5 n Structural quality of housing. Share of urban households living in hazardous locations; share of urban households living in housing units categorized as degraded (vethoe, degree 3 in Armenia) or unsafe (avariinoe, degree 4 in Armenia)6; share of urban

5The legal minimums are: 18 m2 total space per capita in Moldova, 14 m2 total space in Kyrgyz, 13 m2 total space per capita in Armenia (urban areas only), 15 m2 in Albania, 20 m2 in Georgia, 12 m2 in Tajikistan, and 6 m2 living space in Kazakhstan. 6Given the poor quality of this administrative data source, capacity building would be needed to improve this data source.

households living in units not built for long-term use (dormitories, barracks in Moldova, Kazakhstan, and the Kyrgyz Republic, domiks in Armenia, collective centers in Georgia and Serbia, shanty houses for Roma and other known vulnerable groups); and share of urban households living in structures that have not been accepted as dwellings.

CHAPTER

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources Introduction

Global framework indicators of sustainable use of environmental resources tend to focus on global environmental issues rather than on local environmental priorities. There are no global framework indicators that would measure scarcity of water resources, land degradation, quality of water bodies, quality of ambient air, or capacity of environment to absorb waste.

Target 9 of the Millennium Development Declaration calls on the countries to “integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.” Five indicators have been agreed by international organizations under the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) framework to measure progress toward achieving the environmental sustainability target. Their internationally agreed definitions are summarized in box 7.

Environmental sustainability target unveiled Target 9 refers to the institutional and physical dimensions of sustainable development. The institutional dimension—“integrate principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs”—is the only qualitative MDG target. There is no agreed-upon blueprint for integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs. Therefore, the vast majority of MDG literature simply ignores this aspect of target 9. Practices of some Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and analytical work of the World Bank, UNDP, OECD, European Union (EU), and others provide useful guidance on mainstreaming sustainability. The second dimension of sustainable development is physical. It aims at “reversing the loss of environmental resources.” In principle, this target can be expressed in quantitative and measurable terms. The achievement of this target can be monitored with the help of a set of indicators measuring the net loss of environmental resources in physical units (strong sustainability), or in economic value terms (weak sustainability). The indicators of the loss of value would be more economically sound. They would measure the welfare impact of depleting environmental resources and would consider reinvestments of resource rents. They would, however, be much more data intensive and flawed with controversies over substitution between different resources and over valuation methods. Because of these difficulties, this study focuses on the indicators of physical loss of environmental resources. Even though it is easier to measure the physical depletion of environmental resources, the countries face trade-offs between measuring different resources if monitoring capacity is scarce. Priorities have to be chosen. 33

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Box 7 Global Framework Indicators for Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Target 9 (Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources) Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per 1$ GDP (PPP) UNDP definition: “Commercial energy use measured in units of oil equivalent per $1 of gross domestic product converted from national currencies using purchasing power parity conversion factors.” Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) UNDP definition: “The total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a country as a consequence of human (production and consumption) activities, divided by the population of the country. (. . .) The calculated country emissions of carbon dioxide include emissions from consumption of solid, liquid and gas fuels; cement production; and gas flaring. National reporting (. . .) is based on national emission inventories and covers all sources of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions as well as carbon sinks (such as forests).” Proportion of land area covered by forests UNDP definition: “The forest areas as a share of total land area, where land area is the total surface area of the country less the area covered by inland waters, such as major rivers and lakes. (. . .) Forest includes both natural forests and forest plantations. It refers to land with an existing or expected tree canopy of more than 10 percent and an area of more

Moreover, each country has a unique development path shaped by different endowments in natural resources and in man-made assets. Countries differ in their environmental conditions and in socioeconomic and institutional capacities. Different environmental resources are critical to sustainable development in different countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that there will be different priorities for monitoring and reporting of progress made in MDG7 at the country level. This is in line with UNDP guidelines, which stipulates that “the results-oriented framework of the MDGs presents an opportunity for countries to set context-specific targets for environmental sustainability (. . .)” (UNDP 2005b). Environmental resources, which are crucial for sustainable development, may include land (threatened by desertification, erosion, degradation, contamination, etc.); water (can be scarce and polluted); biodiversity;

than 0.5 hectare where the trees should be able to reach a minimum height of five meters. Forests are identified by both the presence of trees and the absence of other land uses. Land from which forest has been cleared but that will be reforested in the foreseeable future is included. Excluded are stands of trees established primarily for agricultural production, such as fruit tree plantations.” Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface areas UNDP definition: “Nationally protected area as a percentage of total surface area of a country. The generally accepted World Conservation Union (IUCN) definition of a protected area is an area of land or sea dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources and managed through legal or other effective means.” Proportion of population using solid fuels UNDP definition: “The proportion of the population that relies on biomass (wood, charcoal, crop residues and dung) and coal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating.” Source: United Nations (2001).

forests; air; energy resources; landscape; or particular environmental-economic systems (coasts, mountains, steppe, etc.). In different countries, some resources will be of higher priority for sustainable development than others. In addition, there are several global environmental resources, which country policies may affect. These include climate, stratospheric ozone, international waters, and some biodiversity resources.

Need for complementary indicators of environmental sustainability In many low income countries of Europe and Central Asia (ECA), the global framework indicators are a poor measure of environmental sustainability. For example, in Georgia and Tajikistan, the drop in energy use and CO2 emissions per capita to very low levels reflects significant deterioration of energy and power in-

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

frastructure since the 1990s rather than progress toward sustainable development. Frequent power cuts or scheduled delivery for only a few hours a day in a cold climate during winter can hardly be called sustainability. Rehabilitation of energy infrastructure inevitably will cause an increase of energy use per capita, albeit from very low levels by international standards. This will not necessarily indicate less sustainable development. Moreover, the contribution that small, poor countries make to global problems such as climate change is very small. Monitoring these indicators is, not surprisingly, a low priority for governments at this stage of development. Some global framework indicators are more relevant, but their definitions do not capture what people want to know. For example, in many ECA countries the proportion of land area covered by forests does not tell the full story on the loss of forests as an environmental resource. This is because statistics on forest cover do not reflect the quality of forests, fragmentation, illegal logging, or sustainability of forest management practices. The same goes for areas protected to maintain biological diversity. This global framework indicator does not distinguish between “parks on paper” and parks, which are effectively managed according to good international practice (e.g., by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) criteria). There is little commitment in ECA countries to regularly monitor and report all global framework indicators of environmental sustainability. Data collection and reporting is conducted ad hoc, usually in the framework of internationally funded projects, which are “owned” by international consultants rather than by local policymakers. Some ECA countries try to go beyond the straitjacket of the global framework indicators and include in their national MDG reports additional measures of environmental sustainability. The recent example is Armenia, which included indicators of the state of Lake Sevan, the main fresh water reservoir of the country.1 These efforts are modest and ad hoc. The feedback received from local project partners during the first phase of this study (which covered Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Serbia and Montenegro) prompted the project team to change the approach to reporting on progress in achieving environmental sustainability in ECA. The 1See the 2005 national report of Armenia concerning the MDGs (UNDP 2005a).

study of the other three countries (Albania, Georgia, Tajikistan) focused on making the environmental sustainability target more policy relevant in a systematic way and the process of deriving indicators more driven by country priorities and owned by local experts and policymakers. It is outlined in the next section.

How can an environmental sustainability target be made more policy relevant? In Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan, local experts and World Bank staff identified priority environmental problems and environmental resources under pressure in their countries. This was done by reviewing major government documents, by analyzing actions (e.g., legislative priorities, budget allocations, sovereign borrowing, etc.), by reviewing other relevant documents and reports, and by interviewing the key relevant stakeholders. Country environmental priorities were ranked through analyzing their risks and impacts on economy, poverty, health, and sustainable development potential in general (see appendix I in Volume II for more details). A comparison between the environmental priorities in the focus countries (as viewed by local stakeholders) and those measured by the global framework indicators is presented in table 9. For the most common priority environmental problems, local consultants proposed the initial long list of complementary indicators. These indicators were discussed with local policymakers during workshops and bilateral discussions facilitated by World Bank staff in country offices. The long list of indicators was reviewed and evaluated by World Bank staff during workshops and videoconferences, using the OECD criteria of “good” indicators of sustainable development, such as policy relevance, analytical soundness and measurability. The number of proposed indicators was reduced. An attempt was also made to keep reasonable balance between pressure, state, and, response indicators (in line with the OECD PSR model). In the end, international experts were called to help fine-tune definitions and measuring methods for the proposed indicators. As the last step, local consultants were asked to collect data underlying the proposed indicators and compile time series to show trends since 1990. When data were not available or not credible, consultants discussed these problems, including analyzing institutional issues related to national statistics and infor-

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table 9 Mismatch between What Is Perceived as Priority Locally and What Is Measured Globally in ECA

Environmental resources

Perceived as priority in more than 50% of countries studied

Measured by global framework indicators

mation management. These experts have tried to describe and analyze the institutional division of roles and responsibilities for environmental data collection, management, reporting, and access to information. Wherever possible, the effort was made to identify what would be needed to improve the regular system for monitoring indicators, how much it would cost, and who would be responsible. In so far as possible, they have estimated the costs of developing robust and cost-effective data collection and dissemination systems. These costs sometimes were found large compared to the overall envelope of domestic public funds available for environmental protection. Areas where donor assistance may be needed were identified. At key milestones, country workshops and video conferences with international experts were organized to discuss the proposed indicators and conclusions from data collection.

Indicators of Sustainable Use of Selected Environmental Resources This section illustrates the development of complementary indicators of environmental sustainability for selected environmental priorities in a sample of ECA countries. It covers water quality, solid waste,

and biodiversity. Appendix II discusses, in more detail, the remaining indicators.2

Water quality (pollution) Water quality in ECA countries: state, pressures, responses Two main sources contribute most to water pollution in ECA countries: agricultural runoff and untreated wastewater discharge from urban wastewater systems and treatment plants. Pollution of surface water bodies is also caused by the discharge of dangerous substances from industrial operations, for example, heavy metals from mining, oil spills, hydrocarbons from industry or persistent and bioaccumulative substances. These sources of water pollution affect specific locations only and are relevant mainly to more industrialized ECA countries. Deforestation and poor flood irrigation practices also contribute to high sediment load and low clarity of the water bodies. The water bodies in the Kyrgyz Republic and the big rivers in Moldova are reported to have satisfactory quality in general, whereas the remaining countries 2

See Volume II of this study.

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

report a generally poor state of water quality. Table 10 shows a summary of the general status, pressures, and hot spots in the focus countries. Proposed indicators of water quality in ECA countries During the workshops in Albania and Georgia,3 local experts and policymakers identified the following set of priority complementary indicators of water pollution: n Discharges of organic matter from wastewater systems and treatment plants to water bodies (pressure indicator) 3

Tajikistan experts did not consider water pollution to be the priority issue at the moment, and hence have not identified corresponding indicators.

n Discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus (pressure indicator) n Concentration of biological oxygen demand (BOD) (state indicator). The need to monitor these indicators in the context of the indicators of sustainable and adequate access to sanitation (target 10) was often emphasized. Taken together, such indicators tell a more comprehensive story about the environmental sustainability of water quality management. Discharges of organic matters to water bodies from wastewater systems and treatment plants to water bodies (pressure indicator). In cities and industrial centers, most pollution sources are connected to extensive post-

Table 10 Summary of Water Quality Issues in Selected ECA Countries Country

General status, pressures, and hot spots

Albania

Surface waters are significantly polluted due to urban wastewater directly discharged into the water bodies and pollution by industry (which, however, has lessened during the economic crisis). Surface waters also have very high sediment content.

Armenia

The main pollution problems in rivers originate from agriculture and municipal waste. Monitoring of water pollution is not well developed and will have to be extended as water management is improved. Regions with mines have high concentrations of heavy metals.

Georgia

There are several polluted rivers in Georgia, where concentrations of organic matter, phenols, hydrocarbons, copper, manganese, zinc, and nitrogen are considerably higher than the national and international standards. Most water treatment plants are not operating or work at a very low level of efficiency. Pollution by fertilizers and pesticides from agriculture are also important.

Kazakhstan

Most water bodies suffer from serious environmental problems. The most seriously polluted rivers are the Ural and Sarysu (phenols, oil products, heavy metals), the Irtysh (heavy metals and oil products), the Syr-Darya (nitrates, BOD, oil products, sulphates, copper), the Ili (nitrates, BOD, oil products, fluorides) and the Nura (oil products, nitrogen ammonia, nitrates, mercury). The water quality index of these rivers ranges from “moderately polluted” to “extremely dirty.” The main polluters are households, metal, food industry, mining, refineries, and farms.

Kyrgyz Republic

Although monitoring of the quality of surface waters is scarce and unreliable, in general the water bodies suffer only low levels of pollution. Water quality in the upper stretches of the country is considered pure, but the quality deteriorates near urban, agricultural, and industrial centers. Pollution from mine tailing dumps also occurs in several places; for example, contamination with radioactive materials, cadmium, and other heavy metals (copper, zinc, and lead).

Moldova

Agricultural runoff and wastewater from domestic, industrial, and other economic activities are a major source of water pollution. The water quality of the Dniester and Prut rivers, as well as of the lakes and reservoirs, is generally satisfactory. The water of most small rivers falls between “polluted” and “very polluted.”

Serbia and Montenegro

The quality of national rivers is far from satisfactory, especially those river sections downstream of settlements due to untreated municipal and industrial discharges. Nonpoint source pollution is also a major contributor to the deterioration of water quality.

Tajikistan

There is local pollution from untreated discharge, but surface waters are generally clean.

Sources: EEA (2003); UNECE (1998, 2000a-c, 2002a-b, 2003, 2004); Ministry of Nature Protection–Armenia (2003); Ministry of Ecology, Construction and Territorial Development and National Institute of Ecology–Moldova (2002).

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Soviet sewerage systems. However, these systems have usually been designed according to Soviet norms, with excess capacity, low operational efficiency, and poor materials. Some countries have few or no water treatment facilities. For example, in Albania there are no domestic wastewater treatment facilities. In Georgia, the only wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in operation is the Tbilisi-Rustavi WWTP, which provides only primary treatment (mechanical treatment). In Armenia, none of its 18 major treatment plants are in good condition—five are in average condition, another five are poor, and the remaining nine are beyond repair. The indicator of discharges of organic matter to water bodies was considered a priority by stakeholders in Georgia. It is defined as the “quantity of carbonaceous waste (originating from urban sources) from wastewater systems and treatment plants that are discharged into the aquatic environment over a year.” It is measured at the point of discharge, in tons of BOD4 per year. The indicator is especially relevant to many ECA countries, where the primary pressure to water quality comes from untreated urban wastewater and few wastewater treatment plants are operational.5 In the MDG framework, there are no quantitative targets for the reversal of environmental degradation. Given that the base year for MDGs is 1990, it is reasonable to set an environmental target to equal its level in 1990, at least. However, in Georgia, the base year is 1988, as advised by the Ministry of Environment, because the data between 1989 and 1990 are unreliable. Upon consultation with the relevant authorities regarding this indicator, a reasonable target of BOD emission level by 2015 is set to equal 50 percent of the emission level in 1988. Discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus (pressure indicator). Agricultural activities around or near surface water bodies, such as excessive use of pesticides, fertilizer and 4

BOD is a standard wastewater treatment test for the presence of organic pollutants. The most common measure for BOD is the amount of oxygen used by microorganisms to break down organic matter in a sample during a five-day period (5-day BOD or BOD5). A high BOD, therefore, can indicate that levels of dissolved oxygen are falling, with potentially dangerous implications for the quality and biodiversity of the water body (i.e., eutrophication). 5As mentioned above, the Tbilisi-Rustavi WWTP is the only treatment plant working in Georgia. Since 2000, the Ministry of Environment considers the wastewater from this WWTP as untreated due to the very low level of biological treatment it provides. It uses only a primary mechanical level of treatment.

manure, can cause organic pollution via water runoff. The impact of agriculture on water quality depends on the intensity and nature of activities. For example, in Georgia the contribution of agriculture to water pollution decreased after the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with the decrease of incomes and liberalization of agricultural input prices. Poorer farmers could no longer afford large quantities of unsubsidized fertilizers. The future environmental pressure from the sector depends on whether the expected recovery of agricultural practices will be based on the best farming practices (BFP), including organic farming, and good agronomic practices (GAP), which significantly reduce the share of organic pollution. There are several projects funded by the World Bank and USAID in Georgia’s agricultural sector. With these reforms and progress in the sector, advanced technologies such as source separation of biowaste, strategy for the management of organic matter, and programs for the prevention of pollution of the wastewaters, will be implemented. The indicator is measured as the “load of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged into water bodies in tons per year.” This indicator reflects the negative externalities from agricultural activities. BOD concentration (state indicator). This indicator, measured in mg/l, is defined as the “concentration of organic material in water.” According to current regulations for the surface water quality in Georgia, the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) of BOD5 for the first category of water quality is 3 mg/l. This means that the MAC should not exceed 3 mg/l to support marine life (salmonid) and the potable water supply to population. For other water uses such as fishery (cyprinid) and economic and recreational purposes, the MAC is 6 mg/l. As an example, the Kura River in downstream Tbilisi city is classified as “cyprinid,” whereas the Rioni River in Poti area is classified as “salmonid.” Data also show that the most polluted area is the downstream city of Rustavi. More than 20 percent of monitoring stations in Georgia registered over 5 mg/l for BOD5, which indicates a relatively high pollution. Thus, considering this state of water quality and the “3 mg/l”-threshold for BOD5 concentration in water bodies, the authorities recommended to choose 3 mg/l as a target value for this indicator to be met in 2015 at all monitoring points.

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

Analysis of problems with the indicators Data quality and availability. While the complementary indicators described in this section were identified by local experts and policymakers of Albania and Georgia, all eight countries have identified the deterioration of water quality as an environmental priority. Various sources of information have been checked to determine the availability of data for the complementary indicators in the countries studied, including World Development Indicators database, national or ministerial reports, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Environmental Performance Reviews, and the EEA’s pan-European state of the environment report (EEA 2003). Only data from Georgia were available for most indicators. Institutional capacity to regularly monitor indicators. Monitoring surface water quality parameters is conducted by the respective Departments or Institutes of Hydrometeorology (or Hydromet) of the eight countries studied. The capacity of the agencies to conduct regular monitoring and collect reliable data is weak because they are understaffed and underfunded. The quality of monitoring is low due to the use of outdated

technology and reduced number of sampling points. Box 8 presents specific challenges faced by some countries. Self-monitoring of wastewater discharges by polluters is mandatory in some countries, such as Tajikistan, Georgia, and Armenia. Organizations and enterprises collect information on their wastewater discharges and submit them directly to the Inspectorate of Nature Protection. The Inspectorate finds it difficult to check the data, however, since its laboratories do not function regularly because of financial shortages. In the Kyrgyz Republic, on the other hand, it is the responsibility of the state enterprise operating the plant to monitor municipal WWTP outflow. Actual performance of WWTPs in the country, however, is largely unknown because only one oblast (Naryn oblast) continues to report on wastewater discharge (UNECE 2000a, 2000c, 2003). Cost estimates of monitoring indicators on a regular basis According to local experts and policymakers in Georgia, their laboratory equipment as well as the institutional and technical capacities are adequate and

Box 8 Difficulties Faced by Hydromet • Albania. The monitoring stations are located far from the pollution sources. Also, the majority of stations are no longer functional because they do not have enough staff and equipment for sampling and analysis. • Armenia. Financial shortages hamper the monitoring activities. For example, in 1998, only 20 percent of Armhydromet’s minimum budgetary needs were met. There is no integrated water monitoring system. The agency’s sampling procedures are not integrated in space and time. Also, the sampling procedure does not follow good laboratory practice. For example, only 35 out of 131 sampling points were examined twice a year instead of the usual frequency of seven times per year. • Georgia. There are data limitations in water quality monitoring of rivers. Sampling and analysis of data have not been conducted on a regular basis since 1989, that is, fewer than the 12 times per year required. Therefore, the mean annual figures are not always correctly calculated. After 1991, most

monitoring tasks in Georgia were halted due to political and economic pressures. The quality of monitoring is low because of old or malfunctioning equipment, lack of reagents, and inadequate quality assessment and quality control. Hence, data for the last 10 years are often poor or absent. Water laboratories are reported to be inoperative due to financial constraints. • Kyrgyz Republic. Hydromet is able to monitor only the Chu River, and the sampling frequency is twice a year (winter and spring) instead of monthly as in the 1990s. Furthermore, Hydromet functions on a state budget that hardly covers the salaries of its 700 staff (there were 1,500 staff before 1992). • Tajikistan. There are 97 water monitoring stations, of which only 81 are operational. The frequency of sampling and the number of parameters measured have been reduced since 1991 due to budget reductions. Sources: UNECE (2000a, 2000c, 2002a, 2004); Consultant’s report.

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

available to undertake regular monitoring of the complementary indicators of water quality. The cost of the regular collection and analysis of BOD5 concentration in water depends on four factors: the unit price for sample analysis (based on laboratory prices and number of parameters); number of samples (one sample per sampling point); frequency of sampling; and cost of transportation. The unit price for BOD5 analysis at the Hydromet laboratory is US$18 per sample, and the transportation cost is about US$500 for every time the data is collected. This means that if data are collected twice a year from 26 sampling points, it will cost roughly US$2,000 per year (US$18 2 26 2 2 = US$936 + US$1,000 = US$1,936). For more informative results, it is advisable to conduct sampling events at least quarterly. This doubles the annual cost of monitoring for the state indicator, but increases the quality of monitoring results. Georgia does not have a system or methodology of aggregating BOD5 concentration data. The development of such system could be a subject of a small capacity building program that would include the selection of representative river basins, calculation of mean annual data from the representative sampling points, and selection of aggregation methods. Specialists from different agencies should participate in its implementation. The authorities estimate that such a program would cost at least US$7,000–9,000. In Albania, there is a need to enhance the technical capacities of the institutions and to employ qualified staff to conduct regular monitoring of the indicators. The CARDS6 2004 project aims to improve the monitoring system and capacity of responsible institutions in Albania up to international (EU) standards. The project covers monitoring of water quality. Accreditation is planned to be prepared for the water monitoring departments. Capacity building and procurement of up-to-date monitoring equipment will require an investment of about US$1.24 million. The annual operational and maintenance costs of water quality monitoring are estimated at about US$200,000.

Lessons learned and recommendations The three complementary indicators selected—discharge of organic matter from wastewater systems, discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus, concentration of BOD—are measurable and provide sound and relevant information for prioritizing policy interventions and investments.

Solid waste Solid waste in ECA countries: state, pressures, responses The amount and composition of waste reflects society’s production and consumption patterns, and has potential impact on human health and the environment. Both municipal and industrial waste (including hazardous) were considered environmental priorities in the countries studied. Municipal wastes are generally dumped into dumping sites or poorly designed and managed landfills. There are very low rates of recycling and recovery. Unmanaged dumping sites that have no sanitary and hydraulic protection carry a high potential of triggering outbreaks of infectious diseases. Industrial hazardous waste management is also inadequate due to the absence of appropriate landfills, treatment facilities, and incentives to reduce waste generation, reuse, or recycle. In some regions, accumulated hazardous wastes inappropriately stored at factory sites are already causing contamination of ground and surface waters that may lead to significant health hazards. Waste storage sites are usually not equipped with appropriate environmental barriers to protect against pollution of the soil and leakage into the groundwater of oil, oil products, and heavy metals. There is very little information on waste generation and transfers, on contaminated sites, pollution of soil, and abandoned landfills. Comprehensive modern strategies for waste management are also absent. Proposed indicators of solid waste in ECA countries

Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilization (CARDS) is a program supported by the European Commission, covering the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia). Through the program, 4.6 billion Euros will be provided to the region from 2004 to 2006 for investment, institution building, and other measures. CARDS 2004 for Albania includes a component that aims to strengthen environmental monitoring in the country.

Local experts in Albania and Georgia, through multistakeholder consultations, have identified three relevant complementary indicators of waste management: n Municipal waste generated per capita (pressure indicator)

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

n Share of municipal waste that is recovered, recycled, reused, and deposited in managed landfills (response indicator) n Share of hazardous (toxic) waste treated and properly disposed of as percentage of total amount of hazardous waste generated (response indicator).

Figure 3 Municipal Waste Generation per Capita in Selected Countries, kg per Capita, Mid-1990s

Serbia Moldova

These indicators were also chosen to provide a baseline data and to assist in related ex-post evaluation studies in the future (e.g., after the implementation of a waste management-related project or European Union directive). They aim at capturing the problems in industrial and municipal waste management. Municipal waste generated per capita (pressure indicator). This indicator, measured in kg/capita or ton/capita, is calculated as the “total annual amount of municipal waste generated, divided by the population.” In theory, it can measure properly the pressure imposed on the environment by the household sector through its consumption patterns and related waste generation. Figure 3 shows this indicator in some countries, where data are available. The generation of municipal waste per capita does not vary substantially across the countries during the early phase of transition. However, data are generally based on estimates only because there is no reliable and organized reporting system in place. In Albania, the figure shows the municipal waste generated is about 250 kg per capita in the mid-1990s. For meeting the MDG environmental target, a target value of “150 to 200 kg per capita” is envisioned by local experts in 2015, as the country’s National Plan for Approximation of Legislation (NPAL) foresees that EC Directives on waste will be implemented by that year. Share of municipal waste that is recovered, recycled, reused, and deposited in managed landfills (response indicator). This indicator, measured in percentage, is calculated as the “respective amounts of waste reused, recycled, recovered, and placed in managed landfills divided by the total volume of municipal waste generated at the national level.” Almost all municipal waste (i.e., more than 95 percent) in the countries is placed in landfills, but these landfills do not generally meet international sanitary and hygiene conditions and standards (UNECE 1998, 2000a-c, 2002a-b, 2003, 2004; Consultant’s report). “Managed landfills” are defined as sites authorized by the government with an organized system of waste collection, segregation, and monitoring. Unfortunately,

Kyrgztan Kazakhstan Armenia Albania 0

100 150 200 250 300 350 kg/capita

Sources: UNECE (1998, 2000a-c, 2002a-b); Consultant’s report. Note: Information on Serbia is as of year 2001.

“managed landfills” are absent in the focus countries. Monitoring is also not practiced in the landfills, hence, there are no available data for this indicator. The indicator captures the various methods of managing waste and enforcement of the laws on waste. For example, in Albania this indicator will provide the baseline data for further ex-post evaluations expected after the implementation of waste-related EC directives. However, the indicator is difficult to measure given that municipal wastes are not sorted for reuse or recycling. Recyclable materials can be somewhat recovered from disposal sites, but because neither the activity nor the disposal of waste is monitored, its precise share of the total amount of municipal waste generated is unknown.7 The value of this indicator is expected to be at a zero level in the short- and medium-term in Albania. It can, however, have positive values when the waste management system of the country, covering each of the waste management method, is established. For instance, plans have been made for urban waste landfills to be built in the country (starting from 2007 until 2015), primarily along the coast. This will gradually give a positive value to the indicator measuring the percentage of waste put in landfills. If all planned municipal landfills are built, by 2010 about 57 percent of municipal waste will be disposed of in managed landfills. This figure can 7

Other challenges in data measurement and collection are due to the absence of “managed landfills” in the focus countries and lack of monitoring in existing landfills.

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

be lower if the other specific indicators (municipal waste reused, recycled, and recovered) are practiced more than landfilling. Expectations for waste reused in 2015 is about 10 percent of the total volume of municipal waste generated; waste recycled is about 10–20 percent; and waste recovered, about 5 percent. These estimates are based on Albania’s compliance with obligations under the EC directives on waste, packaging, and recycling; but the figures are pulled down by the still anticipated difficulties arising from lack of investments, experience, and personnel in these areas. Share of accumulated and generated hazardous (toxic) waste treated and properly disposed of as percentage of total amount of hazardous waste generated (response indicator). This indicator is calculated by “dividing the volume of hazardous waste collected and deposited at the proper landfill as well as those hazardous waste isolated or encapsulated on the premises (if the technology and type of waste permits) by the total volume of hazardous waste generated in the country.” It shows the policy response towards hazardous waste, which is one of the major environmental priorities at both the national and international levels. Data are limited for this indicator, although some information were found for three of the focus countries (UNECE 2000a-b; Consultant’s report): n In 1998 Kazakhstan, about 1.74 percent of the generated hazardous waste was treated at the enterprises; 77 percent was transferred to sites of organized storage (meeting environmental requirements); and 3 percent was disposed of in landfills. n Also in 1998, Armenia reported 1.3 percent of the total hazardous waste generation was treated and stored, and 5 percent was put in landfills. n As of 2005, this indicator is estimated at about 11 percent in Albania because the arsenic project (in one of the nine hotspots in the country) was completed and the waste is about to be exported and treated abroad. These figures are not very reliable because some enterprises fail to report the required data on generation, use, and disposal of hazardous waste to the state authorities, even if they are responsible for it. It is estimated that by 2015 about 50–70 percent of total hazardous waste will be treated or properly disposed in Albania; thanks to already secured funding for the construction of the hazardous waste landfill,

and encapsulation of toxic waste at Porto-Romano and Bishti i Palles (Durres), Ballsh Oil refinery, and Patos-Marinza oilfield. Discussions are ongoing for a CARDS project concerning cleanup of the rest of the hot spots (Rubiku, Lac, Elbasan), collection, transport, and treatment at the hazardous waste landfill. Analysis of problems with the indicators Data quality and availability. Time series data are limited for the identified complementary indicators. Only point estimates for single year can be extracted from different sources.8 A common problem in the countries is the lack of a monitoring system for the generation and disposal of municipal and hazardous wastes. Therefore, official and historical data for the indicators are nonexistent. Institutional capacity to regularly monitor the indicators. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources serves as the main institution responsible for overall waste management in the focus countries. Other institutions have waste-related responsibilities, including collecting statistics and issuing licenses to export and import industrial waste. The municipalities are responsible for municipal waste collection, transport, and disposal through public utility services. The storage, recycling, and disposal of industrial hazardous wastes, on the other hand, are the responsibility of the production enterprises. However, coordination among these various levels of management is not always ensured. Also, the number of staff members in some government institutions is insufficient. For example, Georgia’s Department of Land and Resources Protection, Waste and Chemical Substances has only two employees. Another critical issue is the inadequacy or lack of monitoring infrastructures for waste pollution. In Albania, for example, such infrastructure is absent. These issues can be attributed to the lack of a comprehensive waste management strategy in the countries. Cost estimates of monitoring indicators on a regular basis The cost of a regular monitoring has been estimated by local experts in Albania and in Georgia. In Albania, cost estimates have been provided for the following indicators: 8

For example, EEA (2003); UNECE (1998, 2000a-c, 2002a-b, 2003, 2004); World Bank (2005a).

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

n Municipal waste generated per capita. Technical and financial support is needed to measure the flow and composition of municipal waste. In Albania, support is obtained from a SIDA- financed project, “Solid Waste Management Project in Albania,” where the Korca region is a pilot zone. Yet further assistance is required until compiling this indicator becomes routine. It is estimated that it will require about US$2.5–3.7 million to establish a monitoring system for this indicator, and about US$0.37–0.62 million annually to monitor it on a regular basis. Annual costs cover operations, maintenance, capacity building, salaries of staff, and public information. n Share of municipal waste that is recovered, recycled, reused, and deposited in managed landfills. To monitor this indicator regularly, it is estimated that about US$2.5–3.7 million will be required to establish a monitoring network and about US$0.62 million for the annual operational costs (including salaries, capacity building, logistics, etc.). n Share of accumulated and generated hazardous (toxic) waste treated and properly disposed of. Public costs of monitoring this indicator are estimated at about US$0.37 million for the equipment and US$0.37 million annually for the operational and maintenance costs. In Georgia, the cost estimates of regular monitoring of the indicators are as follows: n Capacity building of the Ministry of Environment and chemical services, and establishment of a hazardous waste inventory database or information system (accomplished within 1 to 2 years, fixed cost)—US$500,000–800,000 n Establishment of a municipal solid waste inventory database or information system in Tbilisi (completed within 1 to 2 years, fixed cost)US$400,000–800,000. Lessons learned and recommendations At present, the reliable information in the focus countries to measure the complementary indicators of waste management is missing. Data are not available on the amounts and types of waste generated by the municipalities and industrial enterprises and on waste management methods acutally used. A reliable waste monitoring system must be established in the countries. This would allow to regularly monitor the three indicators proposed:

1. Municipal waste generated per capita (pressure indicator). It is a good indicator of environmental pressures from households. Also, it is one of the core set of indicators for waste management that is used by international organizations, such as the OECD and the European Union. Therefore, international guidelines for data collection and analysis are available for this indicator and can be adopted. It can be easily used for comparative studies across countries. 2. Share of municipal waste that is recovered, recycled, reused, and put in landfills (response indicator). Each element of the indicator, namely waste recovered, recycled, and put in landfills, has been identified as one of the environmental indicators related to waste by international organizations (e.g., OECD, EU, UN). This indicator captures all methods of waste management, especially those that are environmentally sound (recovery, reuse, and recycling). Also, its calculation allows the derivation of a quantitative measure for each element of the indicator as well as for the total; and 3. Share of accumulated and generated hazardous waste treated and properly disposed of (response indicator). It is a good indicator of response mechanism from both the industrial enterprises, which are responsible for reporting and dealing with their hazardous waste, and the government, which enforces the regulations related to hazardous waste. Similar to the above two indicators, the significance of this response indicator is also considered by the international organizations. Reliable data on the amounts and types of waste being generated are necessary prerequisites for the development of an integrated waste management strategy and waste policy. Therefore, it is important to establish an information system (e.g., using the suggested indicators) for the generation, collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of municipal and hazardous waste to obtain the full picture and plan accordingly.

Biodiversity Biological diversity is a widely used term that encompasses many different sectors and can have different meanings to different audiences. The Convention on Biological Diversity 9 (CBD) has defined “biological di-

CBD was adopted in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992.

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

versity” as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.” Proposed indicators of sustainable use of biodiversity resources in ECA countries The eight focus countries identified conserving and promoting sustainable use of biodiversity resources as a national priority. In developing their indicators, the local experts decided to focus more on conservation of biological diversity, rather than on sustainable use of biodiversity resources. In each country, local experts emphasized the importance of making stronger links between the MDG framework and the commitments by governments under the CBD. The priorities in biodiversity were developed by national consultants, when possible, with special attention given to national documents submitted to CBD (in particular, the National Reports and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans). The local experts then used the pressure-state-response model to develop six complementary indicators for biodiversity, of which half measure the physical characteristics and the other half measure the government responses: 1. Protected area as percentage of total area (global framework indicator) 2. Rate of loss of wetlands (state indicator) 3. Number of species extinct or threatened as share of total number of species (pressure indicator) 4. Proportion of critical natural habitats in protected areas (state indicator) 5. Staff and total resource allocation per unit area protected (response indicator) 6. Percentage of area protected under IUCN I-IV classification of total area of high conservation importance (response indicator). Protected area as a percentage of total land area (global framework indicator). This is a global indicator that measures in percentage the “ratio between the protected areas (land ecosystems, inland water ecosystems, and marine ecosystems) and the total surface of the country” (table 11). The World Conservation Union (IUCN 1994) defines six management categories of protected area classified in two groups: totally protected areas maintained in a natural state and closed to ex-

Table 11 Nationally Protected Areas

Country

Albania Armenia Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Moldova Serbia and Montenegro Tajikistan World Low income Middle income Europe and Central Asia Europe EMU

Thousand km2 2003a

% of total land area 2003a

7.5 2.8 2.9 78.8 7.2 0.5 3.9

2.6 10 4.3 2.9 3.6 1.4 3.7

26.2 13,750.0 2,665.5 6,073.9 1,610.2

18.3 10.7 8.4 9.1 6.8

324.9

13.5

Source: World Bank (2004). a Data may refer to earlier years.

tractive uses; and partially protected areas managed for specific uses or to provide optimum conditions for certain species or communities. Totally protected areas are necessary to protect as wide as possible a range of intact communities and the species that depend on them. For such communities to persist and evolve “naturally,” they should be buffered to the extent possible against human activities. Partially protected areas are useful when certain human activities are actually required to protect particular species or communities. The purpose of the global framework indicator is to attempt to measure the response of governments conserving the priority biological resources. The indicator can provide insights into commitments by governments in developing and promoting protected areas. Although the total economic value of natural protected areas remains disputable, a growing knowledge base supports the conclusion that the value often exceeds the benefits of conversion. Rate of loss of wetlands (state indicator). This indicator is measured as the “area of wetlands lost as percentage of the total wetlands area in a base year (e.g., 1990).” It reflects the changes incurred to the ecological character of the riparian zones and wetlands, as a result of the anthropogenic pressures. Changes are linked to drainage, changes in a water regime and water quality;

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

unsustainable exploitation of wetland products; and wetland management and restoration activities. This indicator appears relatively easy to measure (e.g., by remote sensing). But data are still difficult to compile for entire countries. According to the 2004 inventory of Albanian Wetlands, since 1990 Albania has lost 2.7 percent of its wetland area. The time trend of this indicator would show the speed of degradation of riparian zones and wetlands. It is expressed as a percentage to enable cross-country comparability that would take into account disruptions in scale. This indicator is of national importance to six of the eight focus countries. Albania, Armenia, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Serbia and Montenegro, and Tajikistan are all contracting parties to the Ramsar convention and are committed to prevent the further loss of wetlands of international significance. The identified Ramsar sites in each of the focus countries are illustrated in table 12. Some experts argue that while preventing wetland loss is important, that same concern can not be applied to riparian areas. “Riparian” just means land along a river or lake shore. It does not say anything about land use or conservation status. Even if there is a housing development on it, it is still “riparian.” Number of species extinct or threatened as share of total number of species (pressure indicator). This indicator is measured by “dividing the total number of extinct or threatened species by the total number of species, using 1990 as the baseline year.” The indicator can be specified further to meet the identified national prior-

Table 12 Ramsar Sites in Focus Countries as of November 2005 No. of Ramsar sites

Country

Albania Armenia Georgia Kyrgyz Republic Serbia and Montenegro Tajikistan World

Surface area (ha)

2 2 2 1 5

33,500 492,239 34,223 623,600 40,837

5 1,524

94,600 129,196,342

Source: www.ramsar.org.

ity groups or key species that can serve as measures of ecosystem health—as was done in the Georgian example (table 13). Vertebrates are under highest pressure from human influences in Georgia, therefore a modified version of this indicator was selected: “share of endangered and extinct vertebrate species.” This indicator also was selected because there was considerable national expertise in this field, and data were available. Because of the national experience and availability of data, this is considered to be a useful indicator. However, some experts suggest that this indicator is not practical because the total number of species in any country would be huge and generally unknown. A more practical measure would be the change in number of species identified as being vulnerable, threatened, or endangered (by IUCN definitions). Some experts have suggested focusing on amphibians as indicative of habitat changes over time.

Table 13 Share of Endangered and Extinct Vertebrate Species in Georgia Taxon/Year

Fish (freshwater) Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Total Share of endangered and extinct species Change in the number of endangered/ extinct species using 1990 as the baseline

1990

1996

1998

2003

2005

1 4 6 33 21 65 10.5% Baseline

7 2 28 34 34 105 16.9% 40

7 4 28 34 34 107 17.2% 42

1 4 6 55 26 92 14.8% 27

7 2 11 37 35 92 14.8% 27

Sources: Red Data Book of Georgia (1982–1990); UNEP (1996); NACRES Wildlife Regional Study Report (1998); Red List Annex to the Law on Wild Fauna (2003); Draft Red List Report (Group of Experts of Academy of Sciences 2005).

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Change in proportion of critical natural habitats in protected areas (state indicator). This indicator can be calculated by measuring the “area change linked to anthropogenic pressures of critical natural habitats in protected areas.” It aims to measure the effectiveness of protected areas management. Local experts considered this indicator to be robust but did not select it as a possible option because of lack of experience and data in applying this indicator in their national context. A review of existing literature and consultations with international biodiversity experts supports the use of this indicator. Training would resolve the data and implementation issues. Staff and total resource allocation per unit of area protected (response indicator). This indicator, measured in “number of personnel engaged per hectare of protected areas (PA), as well as in terms of U. S. dollars spent per hectare of PA,” provides information about the country’s quality of response provided under PA management. It reflects commitment in terms of human and financial resource allocation and development for PA management. This indicator shows the state of and the potential need for further improvement and commitment for management of protected areas and biodiversity conservation. It can be presented as a ratio of the total value of resources (including number of staff and financial allocation) and total territory under PA management in hectares. The trend of this indicator in Albania is presented in table 14. A review of existing literature has shown several arguments against the use of this indicator. For instance, it does not capture how efficiently or appropriately resources are used. Furthermore, areas, regions, and countries in different circumstances require different levels of resource allocation. However, the indicator’s relatively good measurability speaks for including the monitoring efforts. Area under IUCN I-IV classification as a percentage of total area (response indicator). This indicator provides Table 14 Staff and Total Resource Allocation per Unit Area Protected in Albania (US$/ha) 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

0.30

0.47

0.51

0.55

0.58

Source: Directorate General of Forests and Pastures.

Table 15 Summary of Protected Area Types Based on IUCN Category Type of protected area

Management types and permitted activities

IUCN category

State reserve National park Natural monument Managed reserve Protected landscape Multiple use territory

Strict protection Ecosystem conservation; recreation Conservation of natural features Preservation through active management Ecosystem conservation; recreation Sustainable use of natural ecosystems

I II III IV V VI

Source: IUCN (1994).

information about the degree of protection. IUCN categories I–IV are classified as areas of high conservation importance. To calculate this indicator, information is needed on the type of protected areas according to IUCN categories (see table 15). Analysis of problems with indicators Limitations of complementary indicators. All eight focus countries have expanded their protected areas systems substantially since 1990. However, the significance of this expansion in relation to the six complementary indicators can be difficult to evaluate for several reasons described below. Categories of protected areas. While the first indicator (protected area as percentage of total area) does not specify, many in the conservation field interpret the indicator as referring only to protected areas falling within IUCN-protected areas categories I–IV (see table 15). However, the various terms (National Park, Nature Park, Natural Reserve, etc.) are used differently in different countries’ legislation, and do not necessarily correspond directly to categories in the IUCN classification. In some cases, legally designated protected areas may be established under national laws with management objectives or regimes that place them entirely outside the IUCN system. Conservation effectiveness. Most countries inherited protected areas that were initially established for reasons other than biodiversity conservation, such as

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

hunting reserves, forest reserves for state utilization or watershed protection, and aesthetic landscapes. Many countries still lack the detailed biodiversity survey data needed to determine which are the areas of highest conservation importance that should be brought into the protected systems. There is also the issue that legal declaration does not necessarily equal effective protection. An example is the phenomenon of “paper parks,” which are legally designated as protected areas but are so under-resourced that they are not protected or managed but really exist on paper only. Thus, the global framework indicator would not really measure conservation success. Furthermore, if used to measure policy effectiveness, this indicator may actually create incentives for governments to declare more protected areas while not even providing resources to manage existing ones. Indicators 4 and 5 try to capture the difference between parks on paper and parks effectively managed, but there is no accepted standard for judging the number of staff per unit of area protected, and there is almost never adequate monitoring to measure the proportion of critical natural habitats in protected areas. A solution might be to develop more specific classification criteria based on actual management regimes rather than on broad objectives. There are no international guidelines for such indicators so far. Indicators 4 and 5 try to address the effectiveness of the PA system by looking at impacts (change in proportion of critical natural habitats within protected areas) and by using staffing levels and budgets of PA authorities as proxies for quality of PA management. Conservation outside protected areas is clearly downplayed in the list of complementary indicators, being captured to some extent only in indicators 2 and 3. These look at changes in the total area of wetlands and riparian ecosystems in the country (since degradation of these ecosystems is typically a major source of biodiversity loss) and the status of individual endangered or threatened species. However, few countries have sufficient databases or ecological monitoring systems to measure these changes reliably. Wetland and riparian ecosystems are rarely mapped in detail before they are drained or otherwise destroyed. And while all eight countries either have or are developing national Red Lists (of endangered, vulnerable, and rare species), reliable information is usually available only for a few taxa (birds, mammals, butterflies, certain families of flowering plants, etc.), which have rel-

atively small numbers of species and are likely to have been studied over a long period of time due to their visibility or economic importance. Overemphasis on protected areas. The proposed indicators 1, 3, 4, and 6 fail to capture important ecological conservation initiatives in areas that are entirely outside of protected areas. In many countries, natural habitats and biodiversity are protected effectively through various land-care and landowner incentive programs, despite the fact that they fall only under IUCN category V or VI, or may not even be declared as official protected areas. Most designated national parks in Europe are in effect IUCN category V; they have a mix of conservation, sustainable use, and tourism functions. They would have a legally designated Management Authority and legal requirement for a management plan, and explicit objectives to preserve natural ecosystems in at least a significant part of their territory. Except in Russia and in very small areas, undisturbed landscapes barely exist in Europe, and most protected areas are seminatural landscapes. In principle, indicators 2 and 3 can capture positive impacts of conservation work outside protected areas, but 2 can be hard to measure and 3 is not realistic if total number of species is to be counted (as explained before). Rather than the IUCN categories, an alternative indicator of the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation may be the quality of landscape management for significant ecosystems. For densely populated European countries, which have had human settlements for millennia, an indicator of effective management would be more meaningful than “paper park classification” according to IUCN categories. A measurement of the effectiveness of ecosystem management could be the existence of local landscape management plans (if they have economical objectives) together with evidence of their implementation. But such indicators are yet to be defined. Data quality and availability. Major data quality challenges exist in all eight focus countries. Many countries still use old approaches for measuring biodiversity that were introduced under the socialist system. The old approaches are extremely complex and labor intensive, but when done properly they successfully monitor the situation. Unfortunately, the lack of resources and intermittent monitoring has resulted in a generation of poor data. In many cases, monitoring of

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

biodiversity resources has been limited to a few key species or areas, primarily as a result of inadequate financing. Another contributing factor to low data availability can be attributed to the transition period for the region in the 1990s. Institutional capacity to monitor and costs of monitoring. There are significant capacity gaps in monitoring biodiversity in the focus countries. Although experts exist, more needs to be done in introducing new approaches to protected areas management and biodiversity monitoring. National experts in Albania and Georgia have recommended introducing new technologies such as GIS technology and satellite imagery to monitor the effectiveness and quality of protection provided through PA management systems. Through national consultations and workshops, some government officials have also expressed interest in developing new technologies for monitoring this sector, but more needs to be done in presenting the full costs and benefits in introducing such monitoring systems.

Lessons learned and recommendations Setting targets in the MDG framework must be linked closely to the commitments and targets that have been adapted by governments through the CBD. A strict interpretation of the MDG goals would make it almost impossible for the focus countries to restore the level of biodiversity present in 1990. Once a biodiversity resource is lost, it is very hard or impossible to rejuvenate. It is extremely difficult to restore natural habitats converted to agricultural land. It is recommended that targets set through the MDG framework are harmonized and relevant to the commitments taken on by governments at the CBD. New tools could include enhanced use of satellite imagery and GIS to track population levels and critical areas for species and ecosystems.

Costs of Monitoring and Affordability Table 16 shows cost estimates of developing regular monitoring systems for the identified complementary

Table 16 Estimates of Costs of Monitoring Selected Indicators of Environmental Sustainability, by Country, in U.S. Dollars a Country and environmental issue

Albania Water quality Waste management Municipal waste Hazardous waste Soil degradation and depletion Air quality Forestry Georgia Water quality Waste management Municipal waste Hazardous waste Soil degradation and depletion Air quality Ambient air quality Lead content of gasoline Forestry and biodiversity Tajikistan Soil degradation and depletion Forestry

Fixed cost

Annual cost

1.24 million

200,000

2.5 million to 3.7 million 370,000 No data 994,000 No data

370,000 to 620,000 370,000 1.44 million to 2.68 millionb 497,000 0.25 millionc

7,000 to 9,000

4,000

400,000 to 800,000 500,000 to 800,000 No data

No data No data 400,000 to 600,000 d

1.1 million to 1.2 million No data 750,000

No data 9,000 No data

No data 300,000

300,000 e No data

Sources: Country reports of this studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s local consultants (2005). aMore details can be found in appendix II (see Volume II). b Covers the collection of data through aerial imagery or satellite imagery of built-up areas and the monitoring of 12 experimental plots to measure annual soil loss in agricultural land. cCovers satellite imagery, data interpretation, and field work. dData collection is envisaged to be conducted twiceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in 2005 or 2006, and in 2012 or 2013 by remote sensing or GIS technology. eIncludes, among others, soil evaluation and mapping.

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

Table 17 Environment-Related Public Expenditures in Albania, Georgia, and Tajikistan and Estimated MDG7 Target 9 Monitoring Costs (million 2000 US$), 2004 Estimated cost of monitoring selected complementary indicatorsb Capital cost

Country

Albaniac Georgiad Tajikistan

Annual O&M cost

Environmental budget envelopea

Mln 2000 US$b

Percent share in public expenditure

Mln 2000 US$b

Percent share in public expenditure

0.562 38.046 0.681

3.09 to 3.82 2.744 to 3.542 0.208e

550 to 679 7 to 9 31

1.9 to 2.53 0.413 to 0.613 0.208f

338 to 450 1.1 to 1.6 31

Sources: OECD (2003f); UNECE (2002, 2004); Local consultants’ reports. aFor Albania, it refers to the state budget allocations to the Ministry of Environment. In 2000, it is only 0.04 percent of the total state budget. These resources only covered salaries, social insurance, administration, and maintenance. For Georgia, it refers to the public expenditures at all levels of the government. For Tajikistan, it refers to the planned budgetary expenditures of the former Ministry of Nature Protection (now the State Committee for Environmental Protection and Forestry) and is only 0.31 percent of the state budget. Also note that it does not include the forestry expenditures of the new state committee. b From local consultants’ reports (see table 16). The figures were adjusted to the base year 2000 using the GDP implicit deflator. c The original budget data of Albania’s Ministry of Environment are from the year 2000 but they were adjusted based on the assumption that the growth of public expenditure is parallel to the real growth of GDP per capita between 2000 and 2004 (i.e., 22%). d From the OECD (2003f). The original public expenditure data are from the year 2001 but they were adjusted based on the assumption that the growth of public expenditure is parallel to the real growth of GDP per capita between 2001 and 2004 (i.e., 29%). e Fixed monitoring cost estimates only include those associated with forestry. f Annual monitoring cost estimates are only for soil degradation and depletion.

indicators of priority environmental resources. The capital cost estimates generally cover the procurement and installation of modern laboratory and monitoring equipments, establishment of an inventory or information database, establishment of a monitoring network, and capacity building. The annual cost estimates, on the other hand, cover the operational and maintenance costs of regular monitoring, which include data collection and processing, staff salaries, and public information sharing. The estimated costs take into account the current condition of the monitoring systems in the countries studied. The assessment of affordability of these monitoring system shows that in some countries the claims on public budgets would likely be excessive. In Albania, for example, the investment costs of envisioned monitoring systems would exceed the state budget allocated to the Ministry of Environment five to seven times. Part of these monitoring costs will be covered by the European Union in the framework of the CARDS10 program, which intends to improve the monitoring system and capacity of responsible institutions to meet international (EU) standards. Particularly, the program covers water

See note 6.

quality and air quality monitoring. For waste management, a large sum is needed to establish a monitoring infrastructure for municipal and hazardous waste, now absent in the country. Financial aid is obtained from a SIDA-financed project, “Solid Waste Management Project in Albania,” but it is only a pilot project in which the Korca region is a pilot zone, and only addresses municipal waste. The rest of capital costs remain unfunded, and could not be easily borne within the state environmental budget envelope. Table 17 shows, however, that even if these capital costs were fully covered by the donors, the country would find it very difficult to pay for operating and maintaining these monitoring systems. In particular, Albania would need to increase the whole budget allocated to its Ministry of Environment 3 to 4.5 times to cover these costs from public sources. This looks unrealistic in the near future. It implies that either Albania would need to slow down investment in environmental monitoring or find a way to share the operational and maintenance costs with private-sector entities, which are the sources of pollution. As shown in table 17, the needed cost of the countries cannot be funded solely through the State budget. Financial assistance from external sources will be needed as the countries aim to upgrade their monitoring systems and follow the international guidelines.

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Table 18 Total Environmentally Related Expenditures (in 2000 US$ Million) and Average Shares of Public Spending and of Expenditures by Foreign Financing, 1996–2001 Environmentally related expenditures (2000 US$ million)

Average share of public spending (%)

Average share of foreign financing (%)

Country

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

1996–2001

Armenia Georgia Kazakhstana Kyrgyz Republic Moldova

5 — 152 4 40

6 — 147 5 39

6 — 249 5 38

11 — 300 8 39

11 — 419 6 30

4 31 336 — 46

59 95 6 92 78

67 62 11 72 11

Source: OECD (2003f ). Notes: Figures are rounded off to the nearest whole number. In 2000, the exchange rate is US$1=1.085 Euros. ——, means no data available. “Environmentally related expenditures” include environmental expenditures as defined in OECD PAC methodology, water resource management (mainly drinking water supply and treatment), and some natural resources management expenditures; cover current and investment expenditures, and public and private expenditures. a For capital investments only.

In Albania and Tajikistan, environment-related activities are primarily financed by international donors (UNECE 2002, 2004). Further assistance is required until the development and monitoring of complementary indicators in various environmental priorities become a normal national routine. To illustrate the fiscal space for financing environmental monitoring costs, table 18 shows the trend of environmentally related expenditures of some countries under study, as well as the respective shares of public spending and of foreign-financed expenditures (OECD 2003f). Specific expenditures concerning environmental monitoring were not detailed in the OECD report, but they are embedded within the figures, particularly on the public sector side. The numbers show that, from 1996 to 2001, the general trend of total expenditure levels rose in all countries except Moldova. Most of the expenditures are associated with the public provision of environment-related services. Furthermore, Armenia, Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic appear to depend mostly on foreign financial support.

Indicators of Institutional Dimension of Sustainable Development The institutional dimension of environmental sustainability target—“integrate principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs”— is not matched by global framework indicators. It is the only qualitative MDG target and the most ambiguous to monitor. Due to resource constraints, this

study does not address institutional indicators in detail. Other World Bank analytical works have been launched to analyze the institutional target of integrating environment into sector policies and to develop adequate indicators to measure progress.11 Few conceptual frameworks can be used to develop indicators of the institutional dimension of an environmental sustainability target. One approach is to derive an indicator from the annual Country Performance and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) ratings prepared for each country by World Bank staff. The CPIA indicators include progress on institutional benchmarks and on management of the physical environment. Institutional benchmarks include the adequacy with which governments set environmental priorities, the quality of environmental assessment, and the effectiveness of cross-sectoral coordination and public information. These indicators establish benchmarks for cross-country comparison. The CPIA ratings can only be published, however, for IDA countries. In general, the countries studied score much worse than their counterparts that have joined EU or are on their joining. More specifically, Albania scores relatively well on environmental prioritization and public information and worse on quality of environmental impact

11There are ongoing analytical works at the Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit (ECSSD) that will address the institutional dimension of integrating the environment into sector policies focusing on energy, mining, agriculture, and forestry sectors. These studies also aim to develop appropriate indicators.

Target 9: Sustainable Development and Environmental Resources

Table 19 Country Environmental Performance Indicators, 2004 Indicator

Adequacy of prioritization Quality of environmental assessment Cross-sectoral coordination Public information & participation

Albania

Armenia

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kosovo

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova

SAM

Tajikistan

4.0

4.3

3.7

3.3

3.0

3.3

4.7

3.0

2.6

3.4

3.8

2.6

3.2

3.0

4.0

2.8

2.5

3.5

2.5

3.5

3.0

2.5

3.5

3.0

1.5

3.3

3.7

3.3

3.0

2.3

3.0

2.7

3.3

1.7

Source: World Bank (2005b). Note: Ratings are on a scale of one (at the bottom) and six (for top performers). SAM stands for Serbia and Montenegro.

assessment and cross-sectoral coordination (table 19). Georgia scores better (4.3) on priority setting, but poorly on cross-sectoral coordination. For Tajikistan, the major challenges include cross-sector coordination and public information. All three countries have far to go in meeting the MDG for strengthening environmental management and integrating sustainability into government policies and programs. Recent progress is uneven. The CPIA exercise shows that it has far to go in improving the quality of management of natural resources. Cross-sectoral coordination usually scores worse than other indicators of institutional performance (except in Moldova).

An alternative approach, based on more objective measures of institutional performance, may include the OECD rating of environmental institutions.12 The approach was developed by the OECD environment directorate staff and local experts for 12 countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia (former New Independent States). It is used to monitor progress in implementation of the EECCA Environment Strategy endorsed by the Environmental Ministers of the UNECE region at the Environment for Europe conference held in Kyiv in 2003. 12

See Annex B of OECD (2005a).

CHAPTER

There is more ownership of indicators if they measure what matters to people and if they are tailored to country priorities rather than to environmental issues implicated by global framework indicators.

Conclusions

The paper shows that a country-driven process of developing complementary indicators of environmental sustainability can add important value to the standard framework for measuring progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). When the UN framework indicators are used â&#x20AC;&#x153;at face valueâ&#x20AC;? to measure sustainable access to water and sanitation, and the number of people living in slums, most Europe and Central Asia (ECA) countries, including some of the poorer ones, rate well against countries with similar gross domestic product (GDP) in other regions. However, when complementary indicators, more appropriate to ECA, are used, it appears that ECA countries face considerable challenges in providing sustainable access to safe water and adequate sanitation, and to eliminating slums. For water and sanitation, investments in rehabilitation of infrastructure must continue to improve service levels while countries move toward tariffs that pay for service and are affordable. For slums, a greater focus is needed on programs that combine improved urban land use management with completing the work on clarifying property rights, thereby enhancing local revenues and forming the financial base for improved municipal management and delivery of urban services. The key conclusion from the analysis of indicators of the loss of environmental resources is that there is more ownership of indicators if they are tailored to country priorities rather than to environmental issues implicated by global framework indicators. The mismatch between what matters locally and what is being monitored internationally may divert scarce resources away from policy priorities and focus on monitoring less relevant environmental resources. It alienates the MDGs from the national and local policy processes. Institutional capacity to develop sound indicators, and to collect quality underlying data and use them in decision-making is often poor. The report recommends that given limited resources and capacities, the countries would be better off by focusing efforts on measuring what matters most and what is easy to measure. The report proposes practical steps to monitor certain key indicators and estimate the costs of monitoring, which in some cases seems unaffordable in the present budget envelopesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;both to build and to maintain. For the institutional target of integrating environmental sustainability in country policies and programs, the World Bank Country Performance and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) benchmarks or Organization for 53

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) rating of environmental institutions can be used, but more conceptual work would be needed in the MDG framework. This study follows the efforts of others to enhance ownership and relevance of MDG7 to people in the ECA region. The study demonstrates how these efforts can be structured and facilitated through a countrydriven process. It also demonstrates that these efforts are challenging to the countries in the region and that they require targeted support from the international community to be successful. MDG7 (especially target 9 on sustainable use of environmental resources) is still poorly conceptualized even internationally; thus ECA countries face significant dilemmas of “what” to measure and “how to” measure it. During the course of this study, the disputes among local and international experts about the “right” definition and formulas of complementary indicators proved to be long, heated, and not always conclusive. Consensus could not be

achieved everywhere within the limited time frame and resource availability. Robust data have turned out to be much more difficult to get than local experts initially thought. The authors of this study join the United Nations in encouraging the ECA countries to measure what matters to them in the context of the MDG7 targets on environmental sustainability. During this study, lessons were learned that a country-driven process can potentially generate local engagement in and policy impact of an otherwise alienated and abstract MDG process. However, the capacity to develop robust indicators and conduct convincing institutional and financial analyses of indicator-monitoring systems is uneven in different countries. This study is also an encouragement for the international community (donors, the United Nations, international financial institutions, nongovernmental organizations) to be more responsive to the local perspectives and priorities in supporting technical assistance and capacity-building activities.

References

Bojö, J., and R. C. Reddy. 2003. “Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development Goal on Environmental Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment.” Environmental Economics Series Paper 92. Washington, DC: World Bank. European Environment Agency (EEA). 2003 Europe’s Environments: The Third Assessment. Copenhagen: EEA. Joint Monitoring Program (JMP). 2000. Methodology for the Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment. See: http:// www.wssinfo.org/pdf/GWSSA_2000_report.pdf. __________. 2005. Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation. See: http://www.wssinfo.org. Ministry of Ecology, Construction and Territorial Development. 2003. Republic of Moldova State of the Environment Report 2002. Chisinau. Ministry of Nature Protection. 2003. Ministerial Report: From Aarhus to Kyiv. Yerevan. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2001. “Municipal Water Services, Kazakhstan: Background Analysis for the Financing Strategy.” Final Report prepared by the Ministry of Environment and Energy/DANCEE and OECD EAP Task Force Secretariat. Paris: OECD. __________. 2002. “Guidelines for Consumer Protection and Public Participation in Urban Water Sector Reform in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.” Paris: OECD. __________. 2003a. “Financing Strategies for Water and Environmental Infrastructure.” Paris: OECD. __________. 2003b. “OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use.” A Reference Paper. Paris: OECD. __________. 2003c. “Key Issues and Recommendations for Consumer Protection: Affordability, Social Protection, and Public Participation in Urban Water Sector Reform in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.” Paris: OECD. __________. 2003d. “Calculation of Operational and Financial Indicators for Water and Sewerage Utilities in Kazakhstan.” Final Analytical Report on Kazakh water and sewerage utility performance, prepared by the State Designing Institute (Kazvodokanalproekt), and submitted to the Third Meeting of the Group of Senior Officials on the Reforms of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Paris: OECD.

__________. 2003e. “Water and Sewerage Utilities in the Kyrgyz Republic: Performance Indicators.” Paper prepared by the Kyrgyzzhilkommunsoyuz and submitted to the Third Meeting of the Group of Senior Officials on the Reforms of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Paris: OECD. __________. 2003f. “Trends in Environmental Expenditure and International Commitments for the Environment in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, 1996–2001.” A Report submitted by the OECD/EAP Task Force to the Environment for Europe: Fifth Ministerial Conference, May 21–23, 2003, Kyiv, Ukraine. __________. 2004a. “Consumer Protection in Urban Water Sector Reforms in Armenia: Ability to Pay and Social Protection of Low Income Households.” Final Report prepared by PADCO. Paris: OECD. __________. 2004b. “Financing Strategy for Urban Wastewater Collection and Treatment Infrastructure in Armenia.” Report prepared by OECD, EAP Task Force and State Committee of Water Economy and Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Armenia. Paris: OECD. __________. 2005a. “Environmental Management in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.” Paris: OECD. __________. 2005b. “Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target in the EECCA Region: A Goal Within Reach?” A Paper submitted to the Joint Meeting of the EU Water Initiative’s EECCA Working Group and the EAP Task Force Environmental Finance and Water Networks on November 17–18, 2005, Yerevan, Armenia. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET). 2005. Database for Water and Sanitation Facilities. See: http://www.ib-net.org. United Nations (UN). 2001. Road Map towards Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: UN. United Nations Development Group (UNDG). 2003. Country Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals: Second Guidance Note (Draft). New York: UNDG. __________. 2005. Making the MDGs Matter: A Country Perspective, Report of a UNDG Survey. New York: UNDG. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2003. Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts and Sources. New York: UNDP. 55

Monitoring What Matters, Vol. I

__________. 2005a. Millennium Development Goals: Nationalization and Progress. 2005 National Report Armenia. Yerevan, Armenia: UNDP. __________. 2005b. “Monitoring Country Progress towards MDG7: Ensuring Environmental Sustainability.” Practice Note. New York: UNDP. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 1998. “Environmental Performance Review: Republic of Moldova.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2000a. “Environmental Performance Review: Armenia.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2000b. “Environmental Performance Review: Kazakhstan.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2000c. “Environmental Performance Review: Kyrgyztan.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2002a. “Environmental Performance Review: Albania.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2002b. “Environmental Performance Review: Serbia and Montenegro.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2003. “Environmental Performance Review: Georgia.” Geneva: UNECE. __________. 2004. “Environmental Performance Review: Tajikistan.” Geneva: UNECE. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1996. “Biodiversity Country Study Report: Georgia.”

United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT). 2003. The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd. United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). 2005. Millennium Development Goal Indicators Database. See: http://unstats. un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp. World Bank. 2003. Meeting the Environment Millennium Development Goal in Europe and Central Asia. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Department (ECSSD), Washington, DC __________. 2004. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. __________. 2005a. Millennium Development Goals: Progress and Prospects in Europe and Central Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. __________. 2005b. Country Policy and Institutional Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. Cambridge and Gland: IUCN. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale University. __________. 2006b. The Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale University.