No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Transition and governance: The case of post-communist states
Abstract
Introduction: Taken as a whole, the experience of European countries in transition (CITs) represents a unique contribution to the sustainable development discourse, globally and regionally. At one historical moment, transition redefined the context for sustainable development discourse in Europe. Yet, surprisingly, the lessons learned in human, technical, and governance terms are rarely expressed or applied by CIT governments in international forums. The opportunity for doing so with one voice rapidly gave way to divergent perspectives as the forces unleashed following the fall of Communism took sway. CIT governments set differing social, economic, and environmental priorities on the basis of reemergent national consciousness, local conflicts, urgent restructuring, and regional integration into new blocs. Nevertheless, a common ecological consciousness of transition has persisted. It emerges occasionally on the political level but more significantly is embodied in special regional institutions and the new civil society. Simultaneously, the relevant international forums have undergone a perceptible shift towards more inclusive mechanisms in international law- and policy-making. It is through this shift from government to governance that some voice has been given to the lessons learned from transition in the sustainable development discourse. Convergence and divergence Convergence Shared ecological consciousness: The late 1980s and early 1990s was a time when ecological consciousness erupted throughout Europe to such an extent that borders no longer mattered and those systems reliant upon strong artificial borders disintegrated. The role of environmentalism in the politics of transformation, revolution, and transition in Eastern Europe is well established.
There is no definitive approach to assessing the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. In order to explore the regime established by the 1979 Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution this article broadly integrates the approach to effectiveness taken by Peter H. Sand in
The Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements,
and Daniel Bodansky in
The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law
. The article finds that compliance, institutional, and normative effectiveness can be evaluated relatively confidently. An effectiveness assessment of the long-range transboundary air pollution (LRTAP) regime indicates that, on the whole, it has helped states to reach agreement on contentious issues and achieve results in air pollution reduction. However, it faces significant challenges with regard to participation, implementation procedures, empowerment of domestic stakeholders, and funding. The article provides an in-depth and up-to-date look at the LRTAP regime, including the most recent amendments and its relationship with European Union and international law.
Experience in the countries in transition
and in the mature environmental
regimes suggests a number of ways that
public trust and a level of accountability
might be rebuilt where it has been eroded.
They fall into four general categories
of activities: building public trust
through greater openness and access;
developing more realistic laws; articulating
more flexible and realistic enforcement
techniques; and identifying alternative
sources of financial support for
environmental initiatives. Some of these
suggestions are simply ways to improve
the process for creating operational laws. Others are activities that could be
taken before formal law drafting, as
exercises that demonstrate the utility of
laws. All of them are suggested as antidotes
to the pervasive lack of environmental
progress demonstrated to date in
most of the countries in transition.
The Russian Federation environmental assessment (EA) system comprises state environmental review (SER) undertaken by state authorities and assessment of environmental impacts (OVOS) undertaken by the developers. Despite significant progress in the 1990s, integration between SER and OVOS, screening and scoping provisions and alignment with international approaches were often seen as problematic. These issues were addressed in the EIA Regulations issued in 2000. However, the system immediately came under a major threat resulting from the closure of the Ministry of Environment. Supported by capacity-building efforts and strong networking, the Russian EA community has largely deflected this threat and enrolled various stakeholders into supporting EA, which now encompasses SER and OVOS components. Activities at regional level and critical evaluation of the existing system were key elements in these efforts.
Environmental managers in Russia face severe problems, both from Soviet-era and continuing environmental degradation and due to the weakness of current institutions with responsibilities for environmental protection. This paper draws on surveys, a case study of water pollution and workshops on Russian environmental decision making to explore prospects for environmental improvements. Using concepts from the regulatory reform literature, it focuses on the use of market incentives, the construction of a civil society and community involvement, and emphasizes that Russian non-governmental organizations may have a particularly important role to play in improving environmental management. Solidifying their legal base, coalition-building skills and the capability to conduct independent, pragmatic policy analyses would enhance their contribution.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) process has been used in a number of countries since the early 1970s as an instrument of environmental regulation at the planning stage of economic activity. Since the mid-1980s, some of the principle of EIA have been introduced in the USSR's environmental legislation and regulations which has resulted in the development of two distinctive regulatory concepts. The concepts are: State Environmental Review (SER) which indicates that the review is conducted through an expert system; and the Assessment of Environmental Impacts. The roots and subsequent evolution of these two concepts, their distinctive characteristics and recommendations for the future improvement of the Russian EIA system is also presented.