2003年-世界发展银行全球_Financing_the_Environment___Ukraines_Road_to_Effective_Environmental_Management_72页_2mb

Summary of "Financing the Environment: Ukraine's Road to Effective Environmental Management"

Core Content

This document presents a detailed analysis of Ukraine's environmental expenditure system, with a focus on public spending. It evaluates the effectiveness of current spending in meeting national environmental objectives and outlines recommendations for improving efficiency and alignment with priorities.

Main Objectives

The study aims to:

• Analyze the pattern and efficiency of environmental expenditures in Ukraine.
• Identify the main environmental objectives and assess whether current spending aligns with them.
• Evaluate the adequacy of the overall level of environmental expenditure and the division of responsibilities between the public and private sectors.
• Examine the efficiency of financial sources for environmental protection and suggest ways to enhance their mobilization.

Key Findings

Environmental Expenditure Trends

• Environmental expenditures in Ukraine fell from about $1 billion in 1996 to approximately $600 million in 2000.
• The share of investment expenditure in total environmental spending was lower in Ukraine (22%) compared to OECD countries (27%) and Poland (59%).
• Public expenditure accounted for only 6% of total environmental spending, much lower than OECD countries (55%) and Poland (38%).

Sources of Funding

• Most environmental spending (94%) comes from non-budgetary sources, primarily private sector funds.
• The National Environmental Fund (NEF) is the main public funding source, contributing about $35 million in 2000.
• Environmental funds are funded through pollution charges, which are the largest share of environmental charges.

Regional Focus

• The Donetsk Oblast case study highlights the concentration of environmental spending on water treatment and solid waste management.
• The NEF is the only public funder for waste management and other environmental activities.

Efficiency Issues

• Environmental expenditures are not always aligned with the highest net benefits or maximum physical impact per dollar spent.
• There is a lack of transparency and accountability in how funds are allocated and used.
• The system of environmental funds is inefficient due to the large number of funds and the discretion they have in setting their own agendas.

Main Environmental Objectives

• Water Resources Protection: The largest share of environmental spending (33% of the state budget and 53% of the NEF) is directed towards this area.
• Air Protection: Delegated to the NEF and enterprises, with limited expenditure.
• Waste Management: Funded primarily by the NEF, with a significant portion of the budget allocated to this.
• Afforestation and Nature Reserves: Account for about one-fifth of environmental expenditures.

Recommendations

To Enhance Consistency with National Priorities

• Link Priorities with Goals: Establish clear links between environmental goals and outcomes, and ensure that these are used to set priorities at all administrative levels.
• Set Clear Priorities: Align public environmental expenditure with policy priorities that affect public health, safety, and natural resources.
• Improve Environmental Monitoring: Ensure that environmental expenditures are closely linked to environmental performance through monitoring and evaluation.

To Improve Efficiency of Expenditures

• Increase Transparency and Accountability: Implement systems for transparency and accountability, especially regarding decisions on pollution charge exemptions.
• Adopt International Standards: Use international classification systems such as SEEA, SERIEE, or the OECD PAC system to better manage and monitor environmental expenditures.
• Enhance Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthen accountability for spending units, particularly those outside the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR).
• Introduce Economic Appraisal Techniques: Apply economic appraisal methods to all environmental projects and programs to increase efficiency.

To Maintain and Improve the Level of Spending

• Sustain Public Environmental Expenditure: Maintain current levels of public environmental expenditure, supplemented by international sources if necessary.
• Reduce Discretion in Fund Allocation: Define broad allocation shares for different categories to improve decision-making and efficiency.
• Develop an Action Plan: Create a democratic and transparent Action Plan for Environmental Protection based on stakeholder consultations.

Conclusion

Ukraine's environmental expenditure system is underfunded and inefficient. While the country has made some progress in aligning spending with environmental priorities, there is a need for stronger accountability, transparency, and the use of international standards to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental spending. The division of responsibilities between the public and private sectors is not well defined, and public spending is insufficient for key environmental functions such as monitoring and infrastructure protection.