14.12.2012 Views

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

There is evidence to suggest that environmental funds have been developed in-line<br />

with the St. Petersburg Guidelines, therefore they have the intention <strong>of</strong> following best<br />

practise. For example, Sita, on behalf <strong>of</strong> the LCF, include the following in their<br />

Guidance Notes:<br />

“Projects should be self-sustaining once the initial project funding has been<br />

invested. This will include ensuring that the project can be managed and<br />

maintained and that funding is available to cover these costs into the<br />

future.” 1137<br />

The problem lies in post-evaluation <strong>of</strong> the fund, where although user-friendly casestudies<br />

are frequently available to show project specific outcomes <strong>of</strong> the funding,<br />

data to analyse overall fund efficiencies is not widely released. That is not to say that<br />

detailed evaluation <strong>of</strong> the fund does not take place, because it most certainly does,<br />

but the results <strong>of</strong> which are not widely circulated.<br />

60.9 Environmental Impact <strong>of</strong> Fund<br />

The OECD’s 2006 ‘Recommendation <strong>of</strong> the Council on Good Practices for Public<br />

Environmental Expenditure <strong>Management</strong>’ provides a good practice checklist for<br />

establishing, reviewing and reforming public environmental funding programmes in<br />

terms <strong>of</strong> environmental effectiveness. It is structured using 5 principles, under which<br />

good practices are provided, a summary <strong>of</strong> which is below:<br />

Principle 1: Additionality and consistency with other environmental policy instruments<br />

Good Practices: the need for the fund should be justified through the polluter-pays<br />

/user pays principle. 1138 They should not be used to reach objectives which should<br />

have been reached via a policy mechanism, or to fund projects which could have<br />

received private investment. The fund should compliment existing policies. It should<br />

be used to finance capital costs, not operational. The fund should be regularly<br />

audited, and phased out when their role is fulfilled.<br />

Principle 2: Well-defined programming framework<br />

The fund should be distributed via a publicly-available expenditure programme which<br />

is set within a wider policy-setting, and which has been approved by the appropriate<br />

bodies.<br />

Principle 3: Clear identification <strong>of</strong> environmental outcomes<br />

Quantitative and qualitative information on projects’ environmental outcomes should<br />

be submitted in a standard format, and expressed in monetary format where possible<br />

to allow cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken. Environmental outcomes should be<br />

1137 Sita Trust, Enhancing Communities Large Grants Scheme Guidance Notes, Available:<br />

http://www.sitatrust.org.uk/resources/documents/LGS/LGS_Guidance_Notes3mile11.03.09.pdf<br />

1138 The Polluter-Pays-Principle (PPP) requires polluters to pay the full costs <strong>of</strong> any subsequent clean-up<br />

without subsidies. The User-Pays-Principle states that revenue generated by users must cover all the<br />

costs related to the use <strong>of</strong> a natural resource.<br />

923<br />

<strong>International</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Waste</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>: Annexes

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!