Strategic Moves - Regional Environmental Center for Central and ...
Strategic Moves - Regional Environmental Center for Central and ... Strategic Moves - Regional Environmental Center for Central and ...
FIGURE 30: Number of projects removed from priority lists due to lack of development 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Source: REC national PEIP lists Croatia FYR Macedonia and Herzegovina follow after Croatia. However, in Bosnia and Herzegovina none of the projects secured total or sufficient funds. Instead, a large number of projects (seven) saw small increases in funding. In Montenegro, there were three projects that secured sufficient funding, and a relatively high number of projects (nine) that secured minor additional funding. In Bosnia and Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, none of the priority projects received complete funds for implementation and none made sufficient progress to be removed from the list. However, these two countries secured significant funds — Bosnia and Herzegovina EUR 78.1 million, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia EUR 53 million. In terms of total secured funds, the figures for Albania and Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244) are EUR 25.8 million and EUR 18.6 million respectively. Figure 29 indicates actual progress in project maturity, which is directly reflected by the funds approved by donors and IFIs (and, to a lesser extent, by national governments). Figure 30 illustrates the number of projects excluded from the lists due to longterm lack of progress or as a result of losing their relative strategic importance from the government’s point of view. The largest number of projects removed from the priority lists as non-feasible or as no longer a priority can be observed for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Croatia. In the case of Croatia, this was due to the consolidation of the PEIP lists with the EPOP list, where the idea was C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I S AT I O N O F I N F R A S T R U C T U R E P R O J E C T S — T H E P E I P L I S T S Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) Montenegro Serbia S T R AT E G I C M O V E S 195
196 C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I S AT I O N O F I N F R A S T R U C T U R E P R O J E C T S — T H E P E I P L I S T S FIGURE 31: Relative PEIP project dynamics (percentage of total PEIP projects in each country, 2007–2009) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Setback Neutral Progress Source: REC national PEIP lists Croatia FYR Macedonia Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244) Montenegro Serbia to focus on a smaller number of top-priority projects rather than a large number of relatively important projects. While Figures 28, 29 and 30 show absolute numbers, Figure 31 shows the relative number of projects that saw some (minor or major) advancement, projects that saw no change (except occasional merges between projects) and projects that experienced setbacks, expressed in percentages. 15 Judging from the absolute numbers and relative dynamics, Croatia and Montenegro recorded the biggest net progress, while Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244) and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia made the least progress in the preparation and financing of priority environmental infrastructure projects. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also had the biggest absolute and relative number of projects with setbacks during the 2007–2009 period. Project setbacks in different countries included the removal of previously allocated national funds due to financial difficulties; the pending completion of negotiations between municipalities in the case of regional waste management centres; and unresolved location disputes, hence the need to find new locations and rework parts of project documentation. Figure 32 shows total funds only for projects that secured complete funding in the 2007–2009 period.
- Page 145 and 146: 144 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 147 and 148: 146 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 149 and 150: 148 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 151 and 152: 150 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 153 and 154: 152 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 155 and 156: 154 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 157 and 158: 156 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 159 and 160: 158 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 161 and 162: 160 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 163 and 164: 162 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 165 and 166: 164 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 167 and 168: 166 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 169 and 170: 168 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 171 and 172: 170 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 173 and 174: 172 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 175 and 176: 174 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 177 and 178: 176 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 179 and 180: 178 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 181 and 182: 180 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 183 and 184: 182 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 185 and 186: 184 C H A P T E R 7 F I N A N C I N
- Page 187 and 188: 186 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 189 and 190: 188 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 191 and 192: 190 C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I
- Page 193 and 194: 192 C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I
- Page 195: 194 C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I
- Page 199 and 200: 198 C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I
- Page 201 and 202: 200 C H A P T E R 8 P R I O R I T I
- Page 203 and 204: 202 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 205 and 206: 204 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 207 and 208: 206 C H A P T E R 9 T H E WAY F O R
- Page 209 and 210: 208 C H A P T E R 9 T H E WAY F O R
- Page 211 and 212: 210 C H A P T E R 9 T H E WAY F O R
- Page 213 and 214: 212 S T R AT E G I C M O V E S
- Page 215 and 216: 214 A N N E X E S A N N E X 1 Bosni
- Page 217 and 218: 216 A N N E X E S A N N E X 1 The f
- Page 219 and 220: 218 A N N E X E S A N N E X 2 Annex
- Page 221 and 222: 220 A N N E X E S A N N E X 3 Croat
- Page 223 and 224: 222 A N N E X E S A N N E X 4 S T R
- Page 225 and 226: 224 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Annex
- Page 227 and 228: 226 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Alban
- Page 229 and 230: 228 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Bosni
- Page 231 and 232: 230 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Croat
- Page 233 and 234: 232 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Croat
- Page 235 and 236: 234 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Kosov
- Page 237 and 238: 236 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Kosov
- Page 239 and 240: 238 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 The f
- Page 241 and 242: 240 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Monte
- Page 243 and 244: 242 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Serbi
- Page 245 and 246: 244 A N N E X E S A N N E X 5 Serbi
196<br />
C H A P T E R 8<br />
P R I O R I T I S AT I O N O F I N F R A S T R U C T U R E P R O J E C T S — T H E P E I P L I S T S<br />
FIGURE 31: Relative PEIP project dynamics (percentage of total PEIP projects in each country, 2007–2009)<br />
%<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
S T R AT E G I C M O V E S<br />
Albania Bosnia <strong>and</strong><br />
Herzegovina<br />
Setback Neutral Progress<br />
Source: REC national PEIP lists<br />
Croatia FYR<br />
Macedonia<br />
Kosovo (under<br />
UNSCR 1244)<br />
Montenegro<br />
Serbia<br />
to focus on a smaller number of top-priority projects rather than a large number of<br />
relatively important projects.<br />
While Figures 28, 29 <strong>and</strong> 30 show absolute numbers, Figure 31 shows the relative<br />
number of projects that saw some (minor or major) advancement, projects<br />
that saw no change (except occasional merges between projects) <strong>and</strong> projects that<br />
experienced setbacks, expressed in percentages. 15 Judging from the absolute numbers<br />
<strong>and</strong> relative dynamics, Croatia <strong>and</strong> Montenegro recorded the biggest net<br />
progress, while Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244) <strong>and</strong> the <strong>for</strong>mer Yugoslav<br />
Republic of Macedonia made the least progress in the preparation <strong>and</strong> financing of<br />
priority environmental infrastructure projects. The <strong>for</strong>mer Yugoslav Republic of<br />
Macedonia also had the biggest absolute <strong>and</strong> relative number of projects with setbacks<br />
during the 2007–2009 period. Project setbacks in different countries included<br />
the removal of previously allocated national funds due to financial<br />
difficulties; the pending completion of negotiations between municipalities in the<br />
case of regional waste management centres; <strong>and</strong> unresolved location disputes, hence<br />
the need to find new locations <strong>and</strong> rework parts of project documentation.<br />
Figure 32 shows total funds only <strong>for</strong> projects that secured complete funding in<br />
the 2007–2009 period.
Change language