Priority Environmental Investment Programme (PEIP)

Transcription

1 Priority Environmental Investment Programme (PEIP) Regional Meeting for Senior Officials from SEE and Donors Community Sarajevo June 2009 Minutes of Meeting Moderator: Ms. Gordana Kozuharova Session 1. Introductory session Ms. Jasna Draganić, Director REC CO BiH, opened the meeting and welcomed all on behalf of REC. She made a brief summary of the implementation of PEIP and highlighted the phasing out of ReREP. The meeting was the final meeting within the project. Ms Draganić underlined that among other things the meeting intends to provide input to future activities within environmental financing within the Regional Environmental Network for Accession (RENA). Mr. Senad Oprašić, Head, Environmental Protection Department, TF RENA, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations (MOFTER) extended his gratitude to the REC for organising the event and to the European Commission (EC) for the overall support. Mr. Oprašić emphasised that successful results have been achieved under the PEIP. Environmental investments are a great challenge for the South Eastern European (SEE) countries but the countries are ready to cooperate and increase the dialogue between. The environment is important for strengthening security and stability in the region. Mr. Oprašić stressed that there is an ongoing process of integrating environmental protection in the national legislation in line with all relevant EU policies, but that it is dependent on continuous support from the EC. Mr. Oprašić wished for fruitful discussions and hoped to extract recommendations from the countries for future activities within this field. The need for finding donors for realising investments in environmental infrastructure was underlined. Mr. Oprašić encouraged all participants to contribute to future priorities in financing environmental investments Ms. Joanna Fiedler, European Commission, DG Environment Ms. Fiedler highlighted that this is the last PEIP meeting and that the aim of the meeting is to summarise what has been achieved and to initiate the move to the future. The RENA ministerial meeting was supposed to be held in the end of June where an agreement on regional cooperation in the field of environment is sought. Since the start of the project in 2002, the developments have been significant and the reported activities have increased with every meeting. Ms. Fiedler wished the plenary a successful meeting. Ms. Gordana Kozuharova, Regional Director SEE, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) Ms. Kozuharova welcomed all participants on behalf of the REC. Ms. Kozuharova briefly presented the REC and emphasised that PEIP is one of the major activities under REREP. The project started on a small scale in 2002 and has since then widened the scope considerably. Through PEIP, the REC has, established a regional approach to environmental financing, involving a number of stakeholders, showing that each one has a responsibility for environmental protection. Ms. Kozuharova said that it is positive to see that the environment is high on the agenda in SEE and assured that the process initiated with the PEIP and the close cooperation established, will continue to get support from REC, hopefully through the RENA framework. The meeting will assist in identifying priorities for the counties. Ms. Kozuharova extended her thanks to all of the participants and to their colleagues, for all support received throughout the project. Ms. Kozuharova presented the agenda of the two day meeting and the agenda was adopted. 1

2 A tour de table was held. Objectives of the meeting and PEIP activities in 2009, Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov, Senior Expert, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe Mr. Zhechkov presented the objectives of the meeting that was to: Provide an update on development of environmental investments in SEE since November 2008: main policy developments, reform efforts and financed projects; provide an update from the EC on environmental financing including IPA implementation and project preparation facilities; present developments in environmental infrastructure investments in the beneficiary countries during ; discuss lessons learned from PEIP; discuss the future of environmental infrastructure investments from 2009 onwards The activities within the PEIP that have been undertaken in 2009 are: 2 national workshops on environmental investments: - BiH (water) February Kosovo, UNSCR 1244 (waste) February project list and analytical reports update: - May/June 2009 Manual development - Water Utility Reform Manual published April Speeding up Investments in Waste final draft under consultation. - Final publication on environmental investments outline ready, to be published in autumn 2009 Sharing of project lists - In relation to a review of existing facilities and instruments implemented by the EC - In order to develop Operational Environmental Programme for IPA Component III. Update of analytical reports Presentation: EC update on developments on financing the environment, Ms. Joanna Fiedler, Enlargement and Neighbouring countries unit, European Commission DG Environment Ms. Fiedler gave an overview of the structure of the Instrument for Pre-accession (IPA). Projects receiving support from IPA 2008 are approved and the EC is currently in the process of approving projects under IPA Ms. Fiedler said that the IPA 2009 funds are slightly smaller due to the financial crisis. Ms. Fiedler briefly presented the RENA. Ms. Fiedler s presentation focused on IPA component III 3, Regional Development open for candidate countries (Croatia, FYROM and Turkey). Ms. Fiedler s presentation covered the first experiences by the EC and lessons learned from the implementation. The EC requirements for projects under the IPA III are: - In line with EU political framework, - Link to Operational Programme, - Link to implementation of the EU environmental acquis, - Consistency with strategic planning process. Ms. Fiedler mentioned a Commission Staff Working Document on Promoting Effective Financing for Environment that will be adopted the second half of The document will cover the regions included in the Enlargement process and the European Neighbourhood Policy. It will provide a basis for enhanced dialogue with the countries and at the same time will act as assistance for countries to develop strategies for assistance to environment. 2

3 Session II: Progress with priority environmental infrastructure projects Country progress on financing priority environmental investment projects in the SEE countries in the period Achievements of the country, and future priorities Presentation: Albania, Ms. Aspri Kapo, Specialist, Ministry of Environment Ms. Kapo gave the key highlights from Albania. The progress achieved in the legislative framework is dominated by the reform on water supply and sewage sector that completed the transfer process of water supply and sewerage companies to local government authorities. Some of the challenges highlighted were: lack of mechanism for distributing investment to financially support implementation of environment projects. gap of funding for environmental projects due to the lack of feasibility studies, environment impact assessments lack of competences of line ministries to develop sustainable project fiches. Future priorities for Albania are to: complete national legislation for the selected sectors and achieve compliance with EU acquis in the waste, water and air sectors; Increase the performance and efforts to secure more structural funds from EU programs, such as IPA and IPF; harmonise communication with local authorities on providing more efficient services and further decentralise the service sectors; improve involvement of public participation in the process of project preparation; finalisation of The Water supply and Sewerage Sector Strategy The role PEIP was highlighted as well as the potential role of the RENA. Mr. Zhechkov highlighted the Albanian water reform from 2008, based on regionalisation and corporatisation which provides for a good example for the region. Presentation: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms. Nermina Skejović-Hurić, Senior Advisor for Programmes and Project, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, Department for Environmental Protection Ms. Nermina Skejović-Hurić presented some highlights in of the progress achieved in the legislative, institutional and financial framework: BiH received the status of potential candidate country and signed the SAA in June 2008; IPA 2008 Project: Strengthening the BiH Environmental Institutions, preparation for pre accession funds will support environmental infrastructure development and bring the country closer to environmental standards; Completion of the Federal Strategy for Environment Protection. Sectoral strategies are under preparation. Ms. Skejović-Hurić gave an overview of the implementation of the solid waste management strategy and the first phase of construction of regional landfills in several municipalities, including financing activities. An overview of the most significant challenges was outlined. Future priorities: 3

4 Preparation of Draft Environmental Law at the state level and establishment of Environmental Agency; Capacity building of the responsible institutions and improved coordination and communication; Developed capacities of BiH authorities in project preparation, appraisal and investment planning in order to facilitate the access to IPA funds for candidate countries and to facilitate co-financing and coordination of other donor/ifi activities Ms. Skejović-Hurić gave an overview of how RENA can contribute to the developments in BiH. Presentation: Conditions for developing and financing environmental projects in waste sector in Croatia , Mr. Mladen Glavočević, Head of Section for Control of Project Implementation, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction Mr. Glavočević gave an overview of the institutional organization in the waste management sector. Mr. Glavočević presented the Environmental Protection Operational Programme (EPOP) , its priorities and the indicative financial table. One project has received funding from IPA The legislative framework in the waste sector was presented including current developments and future priories. A introduction to the role of the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF) in Croatia was given. RENA may include: exchange of information (transfer of positive experience like the role of EPEEF in waste sector in Croatia, and negative experience e.g. immaturity of projects etc.); transfer of experience (especially of new member states) with cohesion and structural funds; awareness raising regarding the preparation and implementation of environmental projectsactive role of local and regional stakeholders. Ms. Kozuharova commented that it is important to work on the local level with municipalities. Even though the level of financial support in the countries is different it is possible to draw conclusions from the experiences. Presentation: Challenges in Water Management Sector , Mr. Davor Hađim, Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management, Directorate for Water Policy and International Projects Mr. Hađim gave an overview of the legal and institutional framework in the water sector in Croatia. Mr. Hađim said that the estimated financial needs for alignment with the Drinking Water Directive are EUR 2 billion. The alignment with Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) is estimated at EUR 3 billion. Future needs in the water sector include: Further approximation of Water Management legislation with the EU Acquis; Implementation of projects under IPA component III b; Preparation for Structural Funds (NSRF, OP for Environment and Energy and project preparation); Drating of an investment strategy in water management sector (PHARE 2006); Updating the OP Environment

5 Presentation: FYR of Macedonia, Mr. Kiril Kalkašliev, Department for Sustainable Development and Investments, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning Mr. Kalkašliev gave a summary of the most important developments in the legislative regulations. Law on Water is adopted (2008). A challenge is to establish an integrated water management approach, overcoming barriers resulting from inherited institutional disparities; Adoption of ordinance on the landfill of waste, the sub-laws for Hazardous Waste Management (HZWM) and secondary legislation on handling of Health Care Waste; National Environmental Approximation Strategy (2008); National Environmental Investments Strategy (2009). Main challenges outlined are the administrative maturity of project beneficiaries and streamlining IPA funds. Future priorities are mainly related to: strengthening the capacities for enforcing the EU compliant laws; strengthening the capacities of the stakeholders capacities for inspection over the laws enforcement; MEPP s management of the structural and cohesion funds via the establishment of an Agency for Environmental Investments, proposed in NEIS; establishing new institutions for the forthcoming investment cycles through funds to be provided from the IPA, Mr. Kalkašliev discussed the Programme-based Approach concept for management for coordination and delivery of external assistance that is being discussed among foreign donors in FYROM. He also mentioned the process of regionalization in the waste sector. Ms. Kozuharova added that a positive input from PEIP was given to the preparation for the OP for IPA III. PEIP provided a clear picture of the investment needs in the region and gave an understanding of the importance of having a clear pipeline. Consequently, in the OP for next year it is decided that there will be a separate OP for the Environment. A general problem in FYROM is the lack of institutional capacity both on utility level and on national level and lack the general awareness. Mr. Zhechkov emphasised the importance on having an investment strategy, such as the NEIS. Presentation: Montenegro, Ms. Ana Krunić, Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment Ms. Krunić gave an introduction to the newly changed structure of the ministries in Montenegro. After the new government came to power the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environmental Protection has been established. Ms. Krunić gave an overview of the legal and institutional structures in the environmental sector in Montenegro. Ms. Krunić stressed that the Municipal Windows has provided assistance to several Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP), such as Cetinje and Bieljo Polje. List of priorities (not financed): 1. Reconstruction of the existing Waste Water System in Podgorica and construction of New Plant for Waste Water Treatment outside the city area 2. Construction of Waste Water System Tivat and expansion and reconstruction of Waste Water System Kotor 3. New Installations for Waste Water Treatment construction and reconstruction of existing system in Nikšić Suggested potential countribution of RENA to Montenegro: Preparation of environmental investment projects; 5

6 Prioritisation of projects; Co-operation with IFIs; Private Public Partnership. Ms. Kozuharova emphasised the remark on the importance of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and the need addressed it within RENA. Presentation: Serbia, Ms. Tanja Petrović, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning Ms. Petrović said that progress in the legislative framework has been significant and that several new laws have been adopted in 2009 such as the Law on Environmental Protection, the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, the Law on Waste Management and the Law on Air Protection. Ms. Petrović presented the status of waste infrastructure in the country. Currently, only one sanitary landfill exists. The future needs, outlined by the Waste Management Strategy (2003), were presented. Ms. Petrović recommends visiting for more information. The role of RENA was defined as to: facilitate the communication with EU structures and agencies to support improving national legislation; Share communication in the Region level and National level; Support national structures for accessing the EU funds. Presentation: Experiences on financing priority environmental investment projects in Turkey, sectoral strategies development; experience with IPA. Future priorities, Ms. Şermin Bozan, IPA Coordination and Implementation Center, Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Turkey) Ms. Bozan presented the prioritisation study that was first carried out in 2006 in order to create a national list of priority projects. It consisted of three stages: (1) the identification and updating of criteria for project prioritisation (in line with the Priority Environmental Projects for Accession-PEPA criteria), (2) the preparation, updating, and circulation of questionnaires to municipalities, and (3) evaluation of data received from municipalities and prioritisation of projects by applying criteria using a database management system. The screening led to a national prioritised pipeline of a total of 131 projects. The exercise will be repeated again in 2009, with a new methodology. Ms. Bozan presented the EOP for IPA III which includes two main priorities: improvement of water supply, sewerage system and wastewater treatment and development of integrated solid waste management. The progress on developing and financing environmental investments projects was presented including the projects that are in the pipeline. Main challenges outlined in the IPA III process: Delay in accreditation process; Poor quality of solid waste projects; Tariff legislation; Slow progress in tendering procedure; Borrowing capacity of end recipients; Quality of data gathered from beneficiaries; Land availability and expropriation; EIA Process (Willingness of public); Inexperienced consultants on preparation of IPA Applications 6

7 Discussion: Ms. Amna Redzepagic: For big infrastructure projects under IPA it is obligatory to have Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) but is the same conditions valid for countries that are not candidate countries? Ms. Fiedler: Component III is open for candidate countries. If the project qualifies for an EIA it has to be carried out. Same conditions apply to potential candidate countries once they become candidates. According to the directive, certain projects have to undertake an EIA. Mr. Glavočević added that it also depends on the national regulation and most of the SEE countries have implemented the EIA regulation. Ms. Kozuharova: Problems experienced in FYROM regarding EIA relate e.g. to difficulties of getting enough people present at the public hearings, making documentation available. FYROM has ratified the ESPOO Convention which also needs to be complied with. Ms. Fiedler: EIA is the most powerful tool available which has to be use with care. Usually problems are associated with assessing the impacts and allowing sufficient time should be given for the public consulting. Ms. Fiedler said that countries are now asking for shift of budget due to financial crisis. Do you see the same thing happening in the national budgets? Ms. Kozuharova: Revisions of national budgets have been made in FYROM. The budget of the Ministry of Environment has been cut and transferred to other units, or used for investments. Mr. Hassan asked Ms. Fiedler to give a briefing about the RENA. Ms. Fiedler said that four working groups (WG) are foreseen. In relation to PEIP, the first WG strategic planning and investments is relevant. Under the scope it is foreseen that lessons learnt from PEIP will be included when defining the scope and priorities. The exact structure is yet to be defined. The shape of the project will depend on the Ministerial meeting and on how the winning consultants respond to the ToR. Mr. Hassan asked if any financial mechanism will be included. Ms. Fiedler said that it will only be available for the secretariat, for specific projects. Ms. Jahic asked the FYROM representative about the way of co financing IPA projects and the carbon financing mechanism that was mentioned. Mr. Kalkašliev said that it is still in assessment/preparation phase. Ms. Kozuharova said that it was difficult to do the planning in FYROM because the Waste Management Strategy was not ready and the regional division was not available. Another problem was the lack of convergence for the financial factors. Ms. Kozuharova asked about the Serbian National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) and whether the amount indicated is for all sectors and what the allocations for environment are. Ms. Petrovic said that it is for the whole sector. The allocation from NSDS will be similar to that of the fund which has EUR 7 million available for environment. 7

8 Mr. Glavočević commented that EUR 7 million is a small amount. Normally EUR million is necessary for building one WWTP. Croatia spent app. EUR 300 million in the process of remediation and closure of landfills. Mr. Sevic added that this fund is applicable for small projects for protected areas, including a limited number of dumpsites. In Serbia, EUR 40 million is available for infrastructure and the estimation is that EUR 20 millions will be allocated to the poorest municipalities for environmental infrastructure investments. Ms. Petrovic said that the project Clean Serbia concerns waste management centers, recycling centers and clean up of waste waster. It is covering the National Investment Programme (NIP) and local governments. Ms. Skejović-Hurić said that for closure of one dumpsite in BiH, EUR 3 million was spent. EUR 2 million was received through loans. The World Bank (WB) has given EUR 36 million of the rehabilitation of six landfills in the first phase. The second phase will include EUR 40 million. Ms. Skejović-Hurić said that this amount is not enough for the needed investments. Ms. Zumreta asked Ms. Skejović-Hurić what is the status of the regional landfills such as Bihac and Tuszla which were to be constructed through loans from WB. Ms. Skejović-Hurić said that it is a challenge to agree on the locations. Through the first phase of the loan the Sarajevo landfill, including a gas treatment facility, was completed. The second phase includes Zenica but the resources are only sufficient to solve waste issue, not the water treatment. Ms. Kozuharova emphasized that revenue from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects can be used for funding. Ms. Kozuharova asked if the countries have experienced problems in relation to preparation of documents. Mr. Glavočević said that the problem has been the immaturity of projects. If the requirements are not met there is a risk of losing some of the funds. This is something that we would like to transmit to other countries so that they do not repeat our mistake. Mr. Zhechkov asked Croatia how many projects from the EPOP will receive IPA funding. Mr. Hađim answered that four will be covered. For the remaining projects there is a possibility to wait until Croatia can receive Structural Funds. If Croatia becomes an EU member there will be new assessments made. Mr. Zhechkov added that Waste Management Plans are a useful tool for receiving TA for projects. Mr. Glavočević said that part of the funding from the Environmental Fund comes from the CO2 tax. A revision of Waste Management Centers is undertaken as there is a need for further improvement in the waste management sector. Mr. Zhechkov: Regionalization is one of the biggest challenges in the region. How did Croatia tackle that? Mr. Glavočević: Regionalisation leads to a change of the whole system. Big investments are needed to cover the additional costs, e.g. increased transport of waste. In addition, a consequent increase of tariffs is needed to collect money for these services. It is important to justify the tariff increases and to assess whether the increase is acceptable on a social level. 8

9 DAY 2 Moderator: Joanna Fielder Session III, Meeting the challenges of implementation of priority investment project in the SEE Presentation: Infrastructure Preparation Facility (IPF) pipeline of environmental projects progress on the selected projects, Mr. Sohail Hassan, IPF Mr. Hassan gave a background of the Infrastructure Project Facility (IPF) and made a link to PEIP which has acted as an identification mechanism, ensuring regional coherence. Mr. Hassan highlighted linkages between the Environmental Project Preparation Facility (EPPF), as a successful preparation exercise of bankability, the Municipal Window (MW) as an implementation support and the IPF TA ensuring continuity with the EPPF and carrying out preparatory work. Mr. Hassan gave an overview of the work under the EPPF and presented several projects with successful project preparation processes. The priority environmental projects approved for IPF Technical Assistance was presented, highlighting the challenges and lessons learnt. Mr. Hassan stated that it is important that the projects prepared are financially justifiable and viable and that it is necessary to have a clear financial strategy. The following projects were presented: Pristina Regional Water Supply Project - Kosovo 1244 Podgorica Water and Wastewater Project Montenegro Plava Voda Regional Water Supply Project - BiH Vranje Water Supply and Wastewater Project Serbia Uzice Water and Wastewater Project Serbia Detailed Design for Sewage Network for Lezha City and Shingjin Beach Resort -Albania Water Supply and Wastewater Project Preparation Feasibility Study for Kamza Albania Extension of Kavaja Wastewater Treatment Plant and for Golemi Sewage Network Albania Berane Water and Wastewater Project Preparation Feasibility Study Albania Mr. Fielder said that Mr. Hassan s presentation shows how well the IPF is developing. The next round of applications will be approved in the autumn of Mr. Sevic asked Mr. Hassan to provide a positive and a negative example. Mr. Hassan mentioned local politics as a negative factor in the municipalities. If there is a change of politics it is directly affecting the project. Mr. Hassan could not single out one positive experience as there are many. Ms. Kozuharova asked about the methodology of projects selection. Mr. Hassan: Countries select projects through NIPAs (national IPA coordinating units). Project description forms (PDFs) are prepared, outlining the need of the project and they are sent to the IPF secretariat. The decision is taken by the EC and approved by the secretariat (including IFIs, donors, EC). Mr Hassan said that the best way of receiving funding is to prepare a good and well justified project, all issues taken into account, gender equality, EIA, etc. The IPF has country officers in all beneficiary countries which cooperate with the NIPAs. The third round of application is ongoing. Ms. Fiedler stressed the importance of making links to other ongoing assistance projects in the PDFs. The more info is included in the form the easier approval process. The majority of the projects are given to potential candidate countries and candidate countries are not treated as a priority. It is intended that IPF will become a part of Western Balkans Investments Framework. Ms. Fiedler also emphasised the possibilities of receiving assistance from the Municipal Window. 9

10 Mr. Zhechkov: What happens if the project turns out to be less viable financially? Mr. Hassan: The IFIs do extensive preparatory work before deciding on a project. If they are willing to support a project it is highly likely that it will be a viable project. The constraints often lay in the size of the project. A normal response is to reduce the size of the investment or split it into phases. Presentation: Experiences in environmental infrastructure investments, Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov, REC Mr. Zhechkov presented some conclusions and lessons learned from the World Bank study Journey to a Cleaner Future, 2007, on institutional strengthening for the environment. Some of the main conclusions were: Before EU accession SEE countries will have a window of opportunity to strengthen institutions political will is the highest at that point. Environmental management is integral to good governance. The EU acquis embed principles of public participation, inter-government collaboration, accountability and reporting, decentralization Accession process is an opportunity to build human capacity, e.g. through TA funds. Reshuffling responsibilities among ministries may have very negative consequences and cause delays; The WB publication is available at: menupk: ~pagepk: ~pipk: ~thesitepk:258599,00.html Session IV: Implementing environmental investments project in SEE Future needs and activities Presentation: Lessons learnt from implementing PEIP. Recommendations for future activities in relation to implementing investment projects in SEE, Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov, REC Mr. Zhechkov gave an overview of the progress in the SEE countries during which is summarised as: Active law drafting through approximation; IPA implementation structures are accredited; In some countries lists of priority projects available; Waste is higher in the agenda; Private sector has access to funding through PPP laws. Mr. Zhechkov presented a table of challenges to the Environmental Investments in SEE on national level and presented the actions recommended. Round Table Discussion of the experience from PEIP Ms. Fiedler made a brief historical overview of PEIP and how it evolved during its period of implementation. Ms. Fiedler highlighted the move to the RENA. Discussions started in 2007 and the aim is to increase the political commitment and visibility of challenges. Some of the slides presented at the 6 th Regional Meeting in November 2008 were repeated. The presentation is available at: 10

11 One important challenge is to make the best links between RENA and other relevant initiatives and facilities, such as the DABLAS, IPF, Union for the Mediterranean, the Horizon 2020 initiative and the Neighbourhood Investments Facility. Mr. Sevic asked about the focus of Working Group 3 and whether the ESPOO Convention is covered by the cross-border cooperation (CBC) component. Ms. Fiedler said that CBC is the main topic and SEA will be discussed in that framework. The ESPOO convention is included. Mr. Hassan commented that ministries are not always the right institutions for financing environmental investments and rather come from the commercial sector such as IFIs. Mr. Hassan gave the example of Turkey that has a private institution that is supported by the national budget. Mr. Zhechkov said that the functionality of the body is crucial and that there are different solutions possible in different countries. Mr. Sevic said that a combination is usually fruitful. The private sector is usually reluctant of taking decisions of projects that are not profitable. Mr. Sevic stressed the importance of bigger involvement by the Ministry of Finance. Ms. Jahic suggested that public-private partnerships can be a solution. Mr. Fiedler said that we have to ensure mobilisation of financial resources. After revenue is generated, we need to find the best way of managing and allocating funds. The public system can collect the money but the disbursement is a challenge. Mr. Hassan commented that project preparation is usually outsourced and not done by the utilities. This is would be a good example of cost efficiency. Usually the utilities do not lack technical capacity, they lack funds. Mr. Hassan highlighted the need for national independent water and waste water regulators that diminish the influence of politics in the sector. The example of Kosovo Water and Waste Regulatory Office (WWRO) was given. Ms. Krunic gave the example of VODACOM, a regional water supply regulator has been established on the coast of Montenegro. Ms. Fiedler said that this is a very valid point and should be taken into account in the RENA. Ms. Iksic highlighted the role of a Fund for Environment. Clear procedures are needed for the allocation of funds and we would like to have directions on how to select projects. Ms. Fiedler: The operation of the fund is an important issue. Work was done in the European Network for Environmental Funds managed by the REC. A possibility is to establish subgroup in RENA. Ms. Skejović-Hurić underlined the importance of having strategic documents that can guide the operations of the fund, in order to create an efficient pipeline of projects. Mr. Hassan said that training and capacity building can be included in investments program. Ms. Fielder summarised the main points from the round table. 11

12 The role of PPP The role of the independent regulator and how it can be developed further. How to select projects Further work on strategies Need for pipeline of projects Need for strengthening capacities. Need to define the best way/method/tool to strengthen capacities on various levels. Presentation: Progress in financing environmental projects , Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov. REC Mr. Zhechkov presented the project dynamics and the progress achieved since the beginning of the PEIP in November 2007, including the developments since the last Regional Meeting. The value added of the project was presented as follows: In some countries - only driver for drafting lists of priority projects, assistance in strategic investment planning Facilitation of regional exchange and regional perspective to investment planning Targeted sectoral trainings and manuals: capacity building for project proponents Interface with IFIs and the EC. Provides background information The Water Utility Reform Manual, April 2009 was distributed. Mr. Zhechkov presented the contents of the PEIP Final Publication and the draft of the Manual: Speeding up the investments in the waste sector. The draft Manual was distributed to the participants and they were encouraged to provide comments and feedback. The manual is tailored to the countries and the needs of the utilities. Ms. Fielder suggested including successful stories from implemented projects with a description on why they were successfully. Mr. Glavočević: mentioned a project running in Croatia that is developing instruction to efficient implementation of infrastructure projects. The instructions will be distributed to different donors. Closing words by Ms. Fiedler Ms. Fiedler thanked BiH for hosting, REC for organising and participants for friendly and interesting discussions. Ms. Fiedler said that several good recommendations have been made during the meeting that will be taken to the RENA preparation. Mr. Zhechkov expressed gratitude to Ms. Fiedler for her support and cooperation during the PEIP. The presentations are available at: * * * Minutes prepared by the PEIP team, July