2010年-世界发展银行全球_Financing_Public_Environmental_Expenditures_in_Mongolia_34页_1mb

Summary of "Financing Public Environmental Expenditures in Mongolia"

Core Content

This discussion paper, authored by Professor Anil Markandya and published by the World Bank in March 2010, analyzes the financing of public environmental expenditures in Mongolia. It provides an overview of the levels and composition of environmental spending, its efficiency, and the role of public and private sectors in environmental protection. The paper also explores the revenue side and offers recommendations for improving the management of environmental expenditures.

Main Points and Key Information

1. Introduction

• Public environmental expenditure is a critical policy matter for Mongolia.
• Environmental expenditures encompass activities aimed at pollution prevention, reduction, and elimination, as well as natural resource management.
• The OECD provides guidelines for calculating environmental expenditures in transition economies, which were used in this study.
• Mongolia's environmental expenditures are relatively low compared to GDP, but per capita spending is within the range of other transition countries.

2. Levels of Environmental Expenditure

• Table 1 shows public environmental expenditures from 2000 to 2009, with 2009 figures based on projections.
• Administration and recurrent expenditures dominated spending in earlier years, but investment expenditures increased significantly in 2008.
• Environmental expenditure as a percentage of GDP rose from 0.16% in 2000 to 0.49% in 2008, and then slightly decreased to 0.39% in 2009.
• As a percentage of total government expenditure, it increased from 0.39% in 2000 to 1.04% in 2008, then slightly decreased to 1.01% in 2009.
• Key expenditure items in 2008 included vehicles for aimags, increased rangers, land restoration around water sources, air pollution monitoring, and radar equipment for cloud seeding.

3. Efficiency of Environmental Expenditure

• The effectiveness of environmental spending is measured by economic efficiency and physical indicators of improvement.
• The paper identifies eight key indicators for assessing efficiency, including:
  • The role of public and private sector spending
  • Consistency of expenditures with societal priorities
  • Ex post efficiency of funded programs
  • Budget allocation process
  • Links between environmental and related expenditures
  • Role of environmental funds
  • Division of funds between local and central spending
  • Capacity and staffing levels in environmental agencies

4. Public and Private Sector Roles

• The public sector must not bear all environmental costs, especially as the private sector expands.
• In industrialized countries, private sector responsibility is higher for pollution control and waste management.
• In Mongolia, the mining sector has not adequately taken on environmental responsibilities, leading to increased environmental burdens.
• Artisanal mining, tanning, and other small-scale activities contribute to poverty alleviation but also to environmental degradation.
• The polluter pays principle is difficult to implement in poor countries and must be pursued in stages.
• Public-private partnerships are suggested as a way to share costs and responsibilities, with the state gradually reducing its involvement.

5. Consistency with National Priorities

• The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and other forums define environmental priorities.
• A review of the NEAP shows that some priorities have been achieved, while others remain unmet.
• Component 5, focusing on investments, has seen some progress, but major gaps remain, especially in solid waste management, where US$44 million is still needed.
• The collection rate of waste in Ulaanbaatar is only 30%, with many illegal dumpsites contributing to pollution and health risks.
• Programs related to insurance and compensation for environmental damages have limited progress.

6. Public Revenues Related to the Environment

• The revenue side is examined, including taxes and charges for environmental services.
• There is a need to assess whether these revenues are appropriately allocated and used effectively.
• Earmarking of revenues for environmental purposes is a key issue that requires specific attention in the Mongolian context.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

• The paper concludes that while there have been positive trends in environmental spending, significant challenges remain.
• It recommends systematic monitoring of environmental expenditures to improve comparisons with other countries and to support better budget arguments.
• The World Bank and other international partners could play a role in developing frameworks that promote private sector responsibility for environmental management.
• Further investments are needed, particularly in solid waste management, air pollution control, and capacity building for environmental agencies.

Key Data Highlights

• Environmental expenditure in Mongolia (2009): ~0.4% of GDP, ~1% of total government spending, ~US$17 million, ~US$7 per person.
• Comparison with other countries:
  • Belarus: 37% of total environmental expenditure, 2.3% of GDP, 41% investment.
  • Georgia: 79% of total environmental expenditure, 0.4% of GDP, 35% investment.
  • Kazakhstan: 18% of total environmental expenditure, 1.3% of GDP, 41% investment.
  • Kyrgyz: 25% of total environmental expenditure, 0.5% of GDP, 11% investment.
  • Russian Federation: 79% of total environmental expenditure, 1.2% of GDP, 32% investment.
• Major gaps in environmental spending include:
  • Solid waste management (US$44 million needed).
  • Groundwater monitoring.
  • Biodiversity and forestry inventory.
  • Upgraded meteorological data collection systems.
  • Environmental auditing systems.

Conclusion

This report provides a comprehensive overview of environmental spending in Mongolia, highlighting the importance of systematic monitoring, public-private partnerships, and increased investment in key areas. It also underscores the need for better data collection, policy alignment, and institutional capacity building to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental expenditures.