Climate Change and Energy Policy

Climate Change and Energy Policy 8 29 , 2010 Year 8 Number 29 March Skopje, 2010 Godina 8 Br. 29 mart Skopje, 2010 ISSN 1409-9853 Year 8 Nº 29 March Skopje, 2010 ISSN 1409-9853 Spisanie za politi~ko-op{testveni temi Izdava~: Anri Bone Osnova~i: d-r \orge Ivanov m-r Andreas Klajn Urednici: m-r Vladimir Misev m-r Sandra Koqa~kova Emilija Tuxarovska \or|ievska m-r Nenad Markovi} m-r Ivan Damjanovski Daniela Bojaxieva Goce Drtkovski Adresa: Fondacija "Konrad Adenauer# ul. Maksim Gorki 16, kat 3 MK - 1000 Skopje Tel.: 02 32 31 122 Faks: 02 31 35 290 E-mail: kas@kas.com.mk Internet: www.kas.de Institut za demokratija "Societas Civilis# Skopje ul. Kragueva~ka br. 2 MK - 1000 Skopje Tel./Faks: 02 30 94 760 E-mail: contact@idscs.org.mk Internet: www.idscs.org.mk Makedonska asocijacija na politikolozi E-mail: map@yahoogroups.com Pe~at: Vinsent grafika Dizajn: Natali Nikolovska Organizacija: Daniela Trajkovi} Tehni~ka podgotovka: Pepi Damjanovski Prevod: Marija Micevska - Kokalanova Jazi~na redakcija na angliski: Rajna Ko{ka Magazine for Political and Societal Issues Publisher: Henri Bohnet Founders: Dr. Gjorge Ivanov Andreas Klein M.A. Editors: Vladimir Misev M.A. Sandra Koljackova M.A. Emilija Tudžarovska Gjorgjievska B.A. Nenad Markovic M.A. Ivan Damjanovski M.A. Daniela Bojadzieva Goce Drtkovski B.A. Address: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung ul. Maksim Gorki 16/3 MK - 1000 Skopje Phone: 02 32 31 122 Fax: 02 31 35 290 E-mail: kas@kas.com.mk Internet: www.kas.de Institute for Democracy "Societas Civilis" Skopje ul. Kraguevacka 2 MK - 1000 Skopje Phone/fax: 02 30 94 760 E-mail: contact@idscs.org.mk Internet: www.idscs.org.mk Macedonian Political Science Association E-mail: map@yahoogroups.com Printing: Vinsent Grafika Design: Natali Nikolovska Organization: Daniela Trajkovic Technical preparation: Pepi Damjanovski Translation: Marija Micevska - Kokalanova English language editor: Rajna Koska Stavovite izneseni vo spisanieto ne se stavovi na Fondacijata "Konrad Adenauer# i Institutot za demokratija "Societas Civilis# Skopje, tuku se li~ni gledawa na avtorite. Izdava~ite ne odgovaraat za gre{ki napraveni pri prevodot. The views expressed in the magazine are not the views of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Institute for Democracy "Societas Civilis" Skopje. They are personal views of the authors. The publishers are not liable for any translation errors. Spisanieto se izdava 4 pati godi{no i im se dostavuva na politi~kite subjekti, dr`avnite institucii, univerzitetite, stranskite pretstavni{tva vo Republika Makedonija. The magazine is published 4 times a year and it is distributed to political subjects, state institutions, universities and foreign representatives in the Republic of Macedonia. SODR@INA / Voved / CONTENTS Introduction ......................... 9 џ Ѓ ѓ Climate change and energy policy Emilija Tudžarovska Gjorgjievska Aktuelno / Current ............................................................. 15 ѓ The UN perspective on climate change and nergy polices Srgjan Kerim Climate change governance and Macedonia ................................. 19 Georg Schoen Ш ( ) ................................................. 27 Climate change at the crossroads: A look at the Copenhagen Accord Marjan Dodovski ѝ ? .................... 33 Ш Why is the country threatened by a blackout? Stefan Deges 8, . 29, 2010, str. 5 – ........................................................... 41 Climate change and the current policies in Macedonia: NGO perspective Iskra Stojkovska Energy poverty in transition: Macedonia and the Czech Republic in comparative perspective .... 51 Stefan Bouzarovski : ѓ Waste-to-energy policies in the European Union .......................... 57 Saška Petrova ќ ................................. 61 Energy efficiency in households Klimentina TrpЦevska Me|unarodni organizacii / International Organizations : ................................................................ 67 џ Greenpeace: From a spontaneous hippy movement to a modern ecological brand Daniela Bojadžieva International Renewable Energy Agency: The new global voice for renewable energy.................................. 71 Nataša Hroneska ѓ str. 6 : Predizvici i perspektivi / Challenges and perspectives – ........................................................... 79 Climate change: A challenge and new possibility for the Republic of Macedonia Sonja Lepitkova Teodora O. GrnЦarovska ................................. 87 Flooded by money On the future of energy supply Silke Linneweber Makedonija i EU / Macedonia and EU .. 95 Climate change and energy policies Climate change as a result of global warming Nadica Andonovska ............... 105 Ј Approximation of legistlation in the Republic of Macedonia to the EU laws on the environment Elena Jankova 8, . 29, 2010, str. 7 Teorija / Theory ............................................... 113 The right to a healthy environment is on of basic human rights Bojan Bogevski Portret / Portrait „ „ “ : “ ....................................... 121 Albert Arnold (Al) Gore: The voice of an "inconvenient truth" Bojan Georgievski Dokument / Documents M ............................................................. 127 Resolution on the influence of climate change in the Republic of Macedonia Za avtorite / About the Authors ................................................................................................... 131 str. 8 Voved Introduction џ ѓ -Ѓ Emilija Tudžarovska-Gjorgjievska Climate change and energy policy ѓ , ќ , ќ , . , - . , , , ѓ „ ,“ . - , ќ . ѓ ќ . , : , - ѓ , - Climate change is not only a fashionable term we should use in order to go with a political trend, or to show awareness of international news, or a topic that we should consider in the future when our society will be more stable in political or economic terms. Climate change is a reality, a fact which needs to be thoroughly understood today. It does not only concern the citizens of EU member states, the U.S.A or China, the Maldives or Chile, or only countries which are “somewhere out there”, far away from our immediate neighborhood and our daily lives. Climate change is already a reality in Macedonia, too. Our contribution as citizens is to take responsibility for our actions and for future generations living in this country. Then awareness has to turn into action: political decision-makers, local and regional governmental institutions and representatives of civil society, they all must take concrete action and plan long-term strat- . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 9 џ ѓ -Ѓ Emilija Tudžarovska-Gjorgjievska , - . - ќ . , 1997 ( , I - ), 2004. ѓ 2012 . , 2009 ќ . ќ „ “ , - ѓ . ќ 2 . , - str. 10 egies for dealing with climate change in our daily lives. Climate change has become a global political and environmental concern for humanity over the past decades. The Republic of Macedonia and its Ministry for Environment and Physical Planning as the national coordinator for climate change have already taken several steps addressing climate change. According to the Macedonian national climate change policy, the Republic of Macedonia has ratified the UN Framework Convention on climate change in 1997 (as a non-Annex I Party to the Convention), and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in July 2004. The Kyoto Protocol is the current legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of the main six greenhouse gases to internationally agreed levels by 2012. At present, the world’s attention is focused on the failure to reach a new agreement at the Copenhagen Summit in December 2009, and the period after the Kyoto Protocol has ended. The hopes for a Copenhagen deal dashed when it became clear that the “Accord” was falling far short of the common goals of emission reduction that many EU countries were – ambitiously - seeking. The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2 centigrade. However, it does not contain detailed commitments to Introduction . - ќ , - - ќ ќ - , .1 ѓ . . ќ ќ 2015 , , - .2 . - - . , . 1 2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject, 19 Dec. 2009 http://unfccc.int/Copenhagen Accord 2009/Draft decision-CP 15, 18 Dec.2009 emission reductions to achieve that goal. It will be up to national parliaments now to adopt the accord, after which the signatories will be obliged to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and start preparing to help poor countries adapt to climate change.1 A comprehensive international agreement with binding force and detailed emissions reductions is thus still up in the air. Months of tough negotiations lie ahead to reach this goal before Kyoto ends. Developed and developing countries will have to agree to commit themselves to the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord till 2015, by providing adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building.2 This means that many countries still have to formulate new national strategies and implement them according to the Accord. What is clear from the events at Copenhagen and the developments leading up to the summit is that the need for cooperation - domestically and globally – has intensified. National strategies for providing environmen tally sustainable growth are gains to the global political and economic well-being, and put the responsibility with each individual country. The implementation of the national strategies should be a reflection of each government’s political and economic 1 2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject, 19 Dec. 2009 http://unfccc.int/Copenhagen Accord 2009/Draft decision-CP 15, 18 Dec.2009 8, . 29, 2010, str. 11 џ џ -Ѓ ѓ Emilija Tudžarovska-Gjorgjievska ќ , - ѓ , ѓ , ѓ . , . ѓ , ѓ - - , . , , - . ќ - , . џ , , . . , . str. 12 - management abilities and capacities, including measures for regional cooperation and cooperation domestically between the state administration and civil society, especially NGOs involvement and the personal role of the citizens. The targets for dealing with climate change on the national level should cut across practically all government institutions. Being involved in the safeguarding of its citizens’ future, these institutions have to take the lead – in coordination with relevant actors from civil society – to plan, organize and implement measures for combating and alleviating the effects of climate change. There is an additional need for transparent and effective policy-making and implementation: the high standards of EU-membership, a goal for all countries of the Western Balkans. Due to the fact that climate change is more than only an environmental issue and affects all aspects of the society, longterm strategies are necessary. These strategies include proper budget planning, fi nances, private and state investments and relevant political coordination. The Ministry for Environment and Physical Planning as the national coordinator for climate change in the Republic of Macedonia has the crucial role in implementing this. In this context, energy policy is an additional indicator for successful sustainable policies. Natural resources which are careful- Introduction , . , , . . ќ , - „ “ ѓ . ќ - ly and responsibly exploited can contribute to long-term economic growth, making full use of existing and potential energy capacities. Following the strategic planning, new steps in saving the natural environment are being made in Macedonia as well. The scope of technology investment made by the public and the private sector for improved exploitation of natural resources and energy capacities can indicate the national growth potential of the country. In light of these arguments our new issue of Political Thought offers our readers the current situation in climate change policy-making and the adherence to international standards in the Republic of Macedonia. We hope to contribute with this publication to a lively public debate on what needs to be done to boost Macedonia’s growth potential by adapting to unavoidable changes and averting the negative impacts of this global challenge. . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 13 Aktuelno ѓ - ѓ 1970 ј ѓ 2004 ( - 145%). . - : , 65% , - 120%, . ј, - , . ќ (LULUCF) 40%. , - , , - . , ѓ . - - . : - њ , (GHG) – њ , . - - , - – . . ѓ 2,6 , , - , 1,6 - . ѓ , (IPCC), - . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 15 ѓ - ќ 2030 50% ѓ 2004 . - - .Ј ѓ , , - , CO2. - , , , , . - , , , 1 . , . - ѓ - , ќ , , . - , 60% 2030. , . - ќ - , . . - - , . . . . - 350 - , ; - , , ), str. 16 100 - . ( - 1 : Joel Kurtzman, The Low-Carbon Diet, Foreign Affairs, Sep - Oct 2009. , - - . . , , , , - , - . , , :„ , - , , , - . ќ .2 ќ 2009 (WEO 2009) : .“. - - , ќ - . , - 2009 , . - . , - ќ - CO2 2 450 , : Morgan Bazilian, ibidem, p. 3. џ : Ш - . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 17 ѓ Abstract The development of a sustainable, long-term solution to meeting the world’s energy needs is one of the defining issues of our time. Energy is directly linked with the key global challenges - poverty alleviation, food security and climate change. Energy is part of the problem, but at the same time it is also part of the solution. According to the IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the largest growth in GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector (an increase of 145%). Current investment in energy is in the order of 350 billion dollars per annum; over 100 billion dollars of this investment is in renewable energy. Whilst investment has been steadily increasing, the reality is that a threefold increase is needed. Despite recent investments in alternative fuels, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear power still only account for a small share of the world’s energy supply. str. 18 Aktuelno Climate change governance and Macedonia Georg Schoen The Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in 2007 reinforces the direct link between the increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century and the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (IPCC 2007). This mirrors the overhelming consensus in the scientific community on the impact of human activity on our climate. The message is clear: through the current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. The Stern Review calculates that the costs for failing to act will cut the global domestic product (GDP) each year by between 5% and 20% (Stern 2006). According to the European Commission, the investment needed to achieve a low-carbon economy would cost only around 0.5% of the world GDP between 2013 and 2030 (EC 2009). In this context, the governments of the world launched in Bali three years ago (2007) a rigorous negotiation process under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to determine a new global framework to address climate change. The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last December represents a step closer to- wards this direction. Much remains to be done. The embedding of a nation in global governance structures refers also to a phenomenon commonly described in political science as the internationalisation of the state. Climate change politics in Macedonia is interlinked with the European integration process, as well as with the wider political horizon. At the same time, and as the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC emphasises, there is a wide variety of policies and instruments available to governments to create incentives for mitigation action (depending on national circumstances and the sectoral context). This is where national and sub-national climate change governance comes into play. Climate change policies cannot be developed in isolation from the overall development context. A coherent cross-sectorial climate change policy planning process at national and sub-national levels is required to transform the challenge into an opportunity because at the same time, climate change is an opportunity to move towards a more sustainable development paradigm. Climate change is inherently intertwined with human development. Neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts (IPCC 2007). While slow but gradual changes in climate patterns are inevi8, . 29, 2010, str. 19 Georg Schoen table, the capacity to cope with climate change impacts is connected to social and economic development. Vulnerability is also a social phenomenon. Climate change responsiveness is therefore crucial for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and “keeping the promise”. Climate change context Climate change will present a serious challenge to Macedonia’s economic development, with increased costs for adaptation and diminished natural resources in many areas. The country will become hotter and drier, with the greatest increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation occurring in the summer. The country’s precipitation is often very uneven, with periods of drought interspersed with storms and flash floods. This pattern of damaging extremes is expected to intensify with climate change: average annual precipitation levels will be lower, but periods of intense rainfall will still be interspersed with increased dry periods. Soil made dry by periods of drought is unable to absorb moisture and becomes especially vulnerable to flash floods, erosion, and mudslides. These impacts can be large enough to cause a visible drop in GDP in bad years; in 1993 drought damages reached 8% of national income. Hotter, drier conditions also lead to increased risks of wildfires, which consumed 40,000 hectares of forests in Macedonia in 2007 (MoEPP 2008). Climate change impacts According to a (soon to be published) report comissioned by UNDP on str. 20 the socio-economic impacts of climate change in Macedonia, the greatest climate change impacts will be felt in the linked areas of water supply, agriculture, and energy (UNDP 2010). The main physical consequence of climate change for Macedonia is the projected decrease in precipitation and river flows, which will affect water supplies essential to both the agriculture and energy sectors. In agriculture, temperature changes will reduce yields, while decreased rainfall will make irrigation more necessary, but also more difficult to maintain. In energy, hydropower as Macedonia’s leading clean energy resource is dependent on the level of river flows. To fully utilize the country’s potential for hydroelectric generation in the future, assessments of additional opportunities and costs for investment in hydropower, based on the projected changes in river flows and on the competing uses of water, will be required. However, power plants also require river flows for cooling water. The anticipated reductions in water availability must be considered in planning the locations, sizes, and technology choices of future power plants. It is clear that the energy system will be negatively impacted by the combination of climate change, climate policy, and economics. Besides water availability, burning coal could collide with future obligations under international climate agreements, especially when Macedonia joins the EU. This would add to the costs of using coal. In this context, the country needs to explore increased use of energy efficiency measures and renewable forms of energy. Careful planning and strategic investments will be required to adapt to the changes and mitigate their impact Climate change governance and Macedonia while pursuing a long-term sustainable growth and development path. Climate screening (i.e. screening national development planning activities for potential impacts of climate change) has prooved to be an effective tool and is often the first step in dealing strategically with the challenge. Vulnerability to climate change As a World Bank Report points out, vulnerability in Europe and Central Asia is being driven in the near future more by existing sensitivity than by the severity of climate impacts (see WB 2009). Countries in the region already suffer from a serious adaptation deficit to its current climate, deriving from a combination of socio-economic factors and the legacy of chronic environmental mismanagement. Large investments are needed to guarantee an environmental sound development pathway that reduce vulnerability and increase resilience. The National Environmental Approximation Strategy, the country’s roadmap for transposing the EU environmental acquis into national law, estimates that the costs for the transpostion, implementation and enforcement of the EU environmental acquis will amount to one-off costs of approximately 2.3 billion Euro (over 1,000 Euro per capita and about 37% of 1 year’s GDP), plus operating costs of 206,5 million Euro p.a. (about 100 Euro per capita per year). Without any doubt, these costs will pose an enormous challenge for the country. Contrasted with the 205 million Euro budgeted for environmental investments within the National Environmental Investment Strategy, covering the years 2009-2013, it becomes obvious that future Cohension and Structural Funds will play a fundamental role in filling the gap. At the same time, the improvement of absorption capacities for EU funds at the pre-accession stage through comprehensive institutional measures and economic instruments will be a necessary requirement. Following the above mentioned World Bank report, Macedonia is under the top 5 countries in Europe and Central Asia most exposed to increased climate extremes. As a midfielder in sensitivity to climate change (based on local stressors that increase the intensity of climate impacts) and at the far end when it comes to adaptive capacity (preparedness for climate change impacts), Macedonia ranks in the middle of the World Bank’s index of vulnerability to climate change in Europe and Central Asia. National set-up The country ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) on 4 December 1997 (NonAnex 1), and the Kyoto Protocol in July 2004 (Non-Anex B). The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MoEPP) is the key governmental body responsible for policy making in the field of climate change, being the National Focal Point to the UNFCCC and the Designated National Authority (DNA) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). MoEPP led successfully the preparation of two National Communications on Climate Change in compliance with the Convention, establishing an inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, developing sev- 8, . 29, 2010, str. 21 Georg Schoen eral developmental scenarios and identifying main vulnerabilities as well as adaptation needs per sector (see SNC 2008). In 2007 the National Strategy for the Clean Development Mechanism (for the first commitment period 2008-2012 according to the Kyoto Protocol) was adopted by the Government. Carbon financing is treated as an additional source of financing within the National Strategy of Environmental Investments and several National Strategies included climate change considerations, e.g. the Second National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD). Under the Article 187 of the Law on Environment, mayor legal requirements for addressing climate change are stipulated, including details on preparation of inventories of GHG emissions and removals by sinks as well as an action plan on measures and activities to abate the increase of GHG emissions and to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change. in developing and less-developed EU, and soon to be EU countries such as Macedonia (UNDP 2010). New member states, which signed the Kyoto Protocol not as part of the EU but individually, are only required to meet their own reduction targets. For that reason, a nonAnnex I country joining the EU would have no binding emissions reductions, although the European Parliament encourages such countries to reduce their emissions nonetheless (Schreurs and Tiberghien 2007; Vainio 2007). As a non-Annex I country, Macedonia currently has no emission reduction requirements under these agreements. While this will not necessarily change upon entrance to the EU, it is possible that the EU will ask Macedonia to take on full Annex I responsibilities or to at least agree to some additional obligations (Khovanskaya 2008). Requesting transitional measures aligned to nationally appropriate mitigation commitments that reflect the country’s socioeconomic circumstances will be important for the country in the near future. EU accession context The Copenhagen Accord In the forefront of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the EU committed to cut emissions at least 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. This shall be achieved by reducing energy consumption by 20% through improved energy efficiency and increasing the renewable energy’s share of the market to 20%. To implement these targets, the EC put forward a major package of legislative measures which was signed into law in April 2009. In order to meet the new EU target, Annex I and II countries will most likely need to offset their own emissions by implementing mitigation programs str. 22 The outcome of the United Nationals Climate Change Conference represents a step towards a new global framework to address climate change, aiming to enter into force in 2012 when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires. The so called Copenhagen Accord is a political declaration which is not legally binding. It requires of each nation to register and abide by its domestic climate commitments, whether those are in the form of legal regulations or multi-year (lowemission) development plans (see Copenhagen Accord 2009). The formu- Climate change governance and Macedonia lation of domestic mitigation targets, actions, and policies is at the heart of the Copenhagen outcome. Following these requirements, Macedonia associated to the Accord at the end of January 2010 and inserted its reduction targets in the Appendix II “Nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing country Parties/Non-Annex I”, based on the climate scenarios developed within the Second National Communication on Climate Change. Mitigation actions taken by non-Annex 1 parties (i.e. Macedonia) will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification, and the result will be reported through their national communications every two years. In this context, main approaches for further streamlining strategic planning processes will comprise instruments like low-emission development strategies, climate change resilient development plans, and national appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), funded by domestic sources and the international financial architecture. Low-carbon development planning Careful planning and strategic investments will be required to adapt to the changes and to continue developing in a hotter, drier, climate-constrained world. Climate screening of sectoral development policies will be essential to assess the climate impacts on planned investments. At the same time, climate change policies cannot be developed in isolation from the overall development context. Promoting increased resilience to the impacts of climate change (adaptation) and a lower GHG emission economy (mitigation) are both closely intertwined with development choices and actions that cover a variety of sectors such as energy, agriculture, water resources and infrastructure. In particular, it is essential to consider both synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation activities, including possible negative and positive side-effects (see UNDP 2009). Development policies in Macedonia are largely sectorial and do not allow for a coherent cross-sectorial climate change policy planning at national and sub-national levels. Policy formulation is strongly compartmentalized across the sectors with climate change policy treated as a strictly environmental sector agenda. Therefore, climate change policy is fractioned in isolated efforts that do not create sustainable capacity. The Law on Equal Regional Development (adopted in 2007) obliges the Regional Councils, consisting of the mayors from respective regions, to draft Regional Development Plans with a five-year timeframe. This planning framework can offer an important entry point for addressing this barrier. It offers space to depart from a strictly sectorial to a cross-sectorial planning platform that includes climate change responsive policy planning. It also represents an important gateway for advancing the green economy. Following the definition of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “greening the economy refers to the process of reconfiguring businesses and infrastructure to deliver better returns on natural, human and economic capital investments, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions, extracting and using less natural resources, creating less waste and reducing social disparities” (UNEP 2009). 8, . 29, 2010, str. 23 Georg Schoen Regional development The currently relatively weak and unknown planning regions will gradually acquire a much greater role in regional development planning. Regional development is becoming increasingly important in the country. As such, one of the stated priorities of the National Development Plan for 2008-2013 is “Regional development – reducing disparities between and intra-regions through the establishment of a framework for regional development planning, preparation of regional development plans, establishment of framework for regional information centres, one-stop shops, implementation of sectoral policies at the regional level [...].” While local and regional councils implement national policies, they also have regulatory and planning functions. They are simultaneously policy-makers and investors in a number of sectors responsible for greenhouse gas emissions or those impacted by climate change. In the field of mitigation, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sub-national authorities have a wide array of actions they can undertake. These range from inter-urban and inter-modal transport to the promotion of decentralized power production, especially through renewable resources. Sustainable energy development Sustainable energy development as an important means for improving access to clean energy services, energy security, energy generation, reducing energy poverty and moving towards a low-emission future still represents an untapped resource in the str. 24 country. The current municipal heating system does not provide for sufficient coverage, leaving most of the small urban and rural population dependent on fuel wood. Most residents rely upon wood for cooking and heating that exerts great pressures on forests. Energy security is clearly an important development challenge for a country with scarce domestic energy resources. The basic energy source is coal – lignite, which contributes with almost 70% of the total energy production, with estimated reserves only until 2025. The total annual generation of electricity mostly comes from thermal and hydroelectric sources. The generation capacities cover only 70% of the total annual consumption, which leads to high costs for electricity imports. Overall, energy costs make up a large share of the state and municipal budgets. A high level of energy intensity in industry (5 times higher than industry in England or France) and losses in the system contribute to the current gap. Moreover, Macedonia is one of the few countries in Europe where electricity is widely used for heating purposes. This is energy inefficient, economically unbeneficial, and environmentally undesirable and goes against the priorities set in the country’s Energy Efficiency Strategy adopted in 2004, currently under revision. Considering increased energy demands in recent years, there has been a mounting sense of urgency to develop indigenous energy generation and the government has put some efforts to promote Renewable Energy Sources (RES). The draft version of the Strategy for Energy Development in the Republic of Macedonia for the period 2008-2020 with a vision to 2030 offers a set of ambitious and Climate change governance and Macedonia specific numerical targets for 2020, e.g. reducing the energy intensity of the economy by 30% relative to 2006 or increasing the share of renewables (including hydropower and wood heat) to more than 20% of total final energy. Shifting financial flows from fossil fuels to green energy technologies and climate resilient practices will generate high returns in the future and secure sustainable development in a climate constraint world. “The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or their Member States.” Bibliography: Copenhagen Accord 2009. Available under: http://unfccc.int/ European Environment Agency. 2009. “Climate Change Policies.” Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/policy-context. European Commission 2009: EU Action Against Climate Change. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/brochures/post_2012_en.pdf IPPC 2007. Climate Change Synthesis Report. Available under: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf Khovanskaya, M. 2008. Reporting obligations under EU climate change framework: Energy and climate in South Eastern Europe, May 22-23, 2008. Brussels, Belgium. The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning 2009. National Environmental Investment Strategy. Skopje. Ministry of Environment and Pysical Planning 2008. The National Environmental Approximation Strategy. Skopje. Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning 2008. Second National Communication on Climate Change. Skopje. Schreurs, M. A. and Y. Tiberghien 2007. “Multi-Level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation.” Global Environmental Politics 7(4) Stern, Nicholas 2006. “The economics of climate change”. The Stern Review. Cambridge. UNDP 2009. Charting A New Low-Carbon Route to Development. New York. UNDP 2010. Socio-Economic Impacts of Climate Change (to be released). UNEP 2009. Green Jobs. Towards decent work in a sustainable, low carbon world. Available at: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hR 62Ck7RTX4%3d&tabid=1377&language=en-US Vainio, M. 2007. “EU climate change policies: mitigation and adaptation. Where to draw the subsidiarity line in climate change and sustainable energy policies? Save energy, save money, save the climate – local and regional actions”. CEMR seminar on climate change in the context of the EU Sustainable Energy Week, January 31, 2007. Brussels, Belgium. Available online at: www.ccre.org/docs/ vainio_cemr.ppt. World Bank 2009. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe and Central Asia. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/0, ,contentMDK:22196205~pagePK:146736~piPK:226340~theSitePK:258599,00. html 8, . 29, 2010, str. 25 Georg Schoen ќ è - ќ - . , . str. 26 Aktuelno ( ) ќ è , - . , , ? , , , - –Ш - , . , ќ , , ѓ ќ ? , ... ќ - , - . . , ќ ѓ , ќ . è, ? - , 2.500 , 30% . - 130 20 - ? 1,5 ќ ? 2,5 º 1990 - ќ . , .1 - - , - , ќ , - . . , , , , , 1 21/42, , . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 27 1. , , , - , è , , - . - , - . - . - . - , , . - : . , , - 1992 . 2008-2012 1997 , . „ - , ќ 5% 1990 .2 16 ќ , 90 - “, ќ 55 ќ , . 1998 Ј - Ш .3 - 55% , è , 2 . , 2004 16 , 2005 - . . , 20% - , 2 - , , str. 28 , 2002. 3 www.dwelle.de ( - , . ) ѓ 2,7 , Ш 46 , : „ . - , 56 - ѓ ќ .6 - , . , . - , ѓ . „ “. „... , , “.7 “.4 , , : „... 2100 ќ , - ќ „ - , ќ , ќ ќ , ѓ “.8 , , ќ “. ќ 2040 ќ - , ќ 43 º .5 , - , . ќ . , 2015 ќ . , , - ќ , 27 - ќ . , - . 6 4 5 Ibid. www.blic.co.yu 7 8 www.voanews.com Ibid. Ibid. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 29 џ . . - Ј “.11 , - - „ ќ , , , “.9 - , „ - . - ќ . ќ , - “ „ , “. „ ќ 2º , , - ќ . . 2. 2009 ... ѓ “. - „ , , - , - . “.10 - , ( ) - 2012 . . , , , 90% - ( , , - , . .). „ 9 10 str. 30 Ibid. Ibid. , 11 Ibid. - , - ( ) - - , , . . “.14 ќ , ќ ), ( 2 , . , 07 , 192 18 ѓ , 2009 - „ “, . 2 - è, ќ 2 º . , , ѓ 20 , 40% 2020 , , 2012 . , , ѓ , , , . , , .15 , , - , - , , - . ѓ , - . , - , . - „... ‘12 ’ ќ . HOPEhagen.13 - – (Copenhagen Accord). , ( . .). 12 13 ( .) . 14 15 . - www.BBC.com www.BBC.com 8, . 29, 2010, str. 31 2 º . , - , , ѓ ќ ѓ - - . . 2012 30 2020 ѓ , . US$, , , 100 - ќ ќ . . Copenhagen US$. - Green Climate Fund.16 ќ , - 15- , , , 16 2012 . www.moepp.gov.mk Abstract The text focuses on climate change, a problem that becomes relevant only in specific situations such as major natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, unexpected snow, drought followed by extremely high temperatures, etc.) and in specific political circumstances. This became obvious at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Scholarly research testifies to the dangers of climate change and the harm it can do to all humankind and our planet. An integral approach to global climate change is the only formula that can yield positive results in this battle. Therefore, it was expected that the Copenhagen Summit will initiate a process of finding solutions for this problem, and that a political consensus will be the basis for problem solving in this area. However, it revealed the political discord and announced the arrival of new major players on the global economic and political scene, i.e., the disagreement between the USA and China, the two major world polluters and countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Eventually, a non-binding document was drafted, the Copenhagen Accord. It can prove to be a serious hindrance in the fight against climate change and make the future of the world uncertain; in addition, it can also cause global economic, political and social imbalance. The failure of the Copenhagen Conference can be described as a rash, morally, economically and politically narrow-minded event. str. 32 Aktuelno ѝ ? Ш . .„ - , , 2020 . . - ќ . - “, , . ѓ . . , , ,ќ , ќ ќ , ќ ќ , , ѝ . , - . . - . . : ќ ? , - ? . , 20.000 , 2020 - ќ 15.800 . . - ќ . ќ , .Ш ќ . 2020 ? - ? . 40.000 . ќ ? 8, . 29, 2010, str. 33 Ш , è - - ќ , ? . . „ ѓ - .„ - ќ . “, “, .„ , , . , - ќ ? ќ ќ 2020 . ќ ќ . , - “. , ,ќ ќ : - ќ . . - , . . . , - , , , - - 2020 - , , ќ – . ќ . . ќ .„ , 2023 . “, . . - . - , è . 2000 , - , . .Ќ , , . , , 15.000 , . . str. 34 - :„ - ѝ ѕ , ? , - , , “, , . , - : . , . 1991 1999 . - . . „ , ќ “, .„ Ј . 1999 “. , . 1,2 . , - : „ - , . - :„ “, . “. , - . . , Electricité de France . ѓ , . , 2009 .„ , ќ , . - ќ , “, . - - :„ , . , . - . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 35 Ш “. - , . , . . ќ . Solarworld. ќ , , ќ ѝ , ѓ , . , , . - Ш , . ѓ џ 34 . Ш ќ . - ќ . , 350 - .Ш . ?Ш - ѝ ѓ . - ѓ . - , , - . 2007 О : 87 40 20 Ф Д 24 3 М 26 75 К ј 141 ©RM/VECTUR К str. 36 156 ч ј ч ј 145 : BDEW, 2007 ј ј ѝ . ? ќ , . , , - . , ќ , , . . ѓ Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) - . : - 750 ѓ , 1,4 (capture) (Storage). . . - , „ , “ . , . . , , , . - Trendresearch ѓ , , 2018 „ - . „ ѓ , “. . , , , CO2 . . , - “. . . . . , 2050 . , - . . ѝ 160 . . , . , . 150 ќ . - „ “ . . . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 37 Ш , 2020 . - : . ќ , . : . - „ - “. „ . - - “. . - , ќ , ѓ . - . 14 - - 2020. . . ќ , ќ . џ , 5 - . , . - . . , 2015, ќ 2020 . . - . . - . , 25 - ќ 40 ќ . . - - , - . , . str. 38 , . . - ѝ ? ѓ . ќ . ѓ . ќ ќ . . - - , , , - „ “ . ѝ , , ќ . - , ќ , 45 . . . - : „ 25 2020“. 30 . , . ќ , è , , - , - , , . , ќ . , ѝ . , - . , 2020 ѓ 1.240 : 350 , 890 ќ . : - 470 280 ( , 90 , 100 , ), 17 . . - , ќ , ѓ 300 . , (270 , 60 50 , ). , - 400 1.240 ќ 90 600 , . - . ѓ . - ѓ 19.460 8, . 29, - 2010, str. 39 Ш 22.247 630 , 2007 . . : 630 , - , . ќ ќ , . . ќ : . ѓ . ѓ . 609 , 44 ќ . - . , , , 1.000 . 2005 . 70 . 2007 10,95 , ќ 19,95 - , 190.000 . ѓ . Abstract German engineers enjoy the highest respect worldwide. They are building wind turbines known as small energy miracles; they plan coal power stations, which are treated as efficiency miracles, too. The safety norms of the nuclear power stations set high standards. The solar cells made in Germany are sold everywhere in the world. Electricity failures are nowhere rarer than in Germany. But still, the German energy state agency Dena, which contributed a lot to the making of the first steps towards green energy supply warns that Germany is under the threat of a blackout. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but probably in ten years. “To avoid the bottlenecks and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions at the same time, we must use 11% less electricity by the end of 2020”, says Andreas Troge, President of the Federal Environmental Office (UBA). str. 40 Aktuelno – - ѓ (4- ). , - , . 2 °C 50% . , ќ . ( ќ ќ , è, 1990 – “ ќ , . - – „ ќ )– . ќ - - ( , , Ш 2015. , .). , - ? ? - „ – . , “ - . – Rogelj - 2020 ќ 2 °C ( 1990), ќ - 42% 1990. ѓ ќ , ќ , џ ќ - 2 °C. 100%. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 41 ) 3 °C 2100 50%. ќ 550 ppm , . ќ (Silverman CO2 Delucchi (UC Davis , , 2009). ) 2030 ќ ќ , Mark - . ќ ќ – . 100% 1997, Samsø – - ќ 2005 . Jühnde . . , - 100% - 2050. ? . . , - : 46% – 2025; 75% , „ , - , “ 72% 2025; . - 50 ! , ., - . , - ќ - , . . – , ( str. 42 , , 100% . Mark Jacobson , , – . CO2 7 - – 21/42 - . - . , , . – , „ - “ , ? . – ( , ). ,„ “ , - , ќ - , – . . ( , ) 2 - . , ќ , . ќ , - , , ќ - „ , - “. - . „ “, , - . - , - , ѓ - 1 - ѓ ( – ) ќ , , . . , „ - “ 8, . 29, 2010, str. 43 - , : Zero Carbon Britain ( ќ , ) - . „ Ш “ ( ) 266 TWh/ 2020, 2025, 2030? 37 TWh/ – , , 2025. - , („ “ - – ) . ќ 2020 4), ќ - : ( , 8 ( ), 3 . - Ш ? ќ ,3 ќ , - , ќ . 90 MW, 180 GWh ( 100 GWh). 2030 500.000 ќ 27 . - ќ 40% , , 1 ( 1 2). - , . ( 3.200 GWh 90% str. 44 2030 - . ( 1), 1999 2019 - , ) . . - – , - , 30% 2020 . , - 2050 , ѓ ќ , . 1 , – 2 . - ќ , CO2 ќ , ќ CO2 – 7 CO2 . . - ѓ , - – - . , 1 - ќ . - : , - - ќ ќ ( ); - . ; ( , ) ќ ќ ( ќ ќ , - è - . , - ) - 1 , , – . . , ќ - - ќ . - - 1 . – , „ 8, . 29, 2010, str. 45 “( „ . , - “ ) : В ј . ј ј . - , ѓ ј , јќ , , – - ќ њ ј . - : , , - , . . - 4 ќ ( –„ “) , 6 . . , , - – , , è: . . - , ( 15) „ “, 14 ѓ ј ќ , , - , , , str. 46 , - . „ ќ „ “, , “; – - , - - ; - , :„ . “ - - , . - , . ѓ – - . - , „ , ; - „ . “ , ѓ , 1“ , ( ), ќ ѓ - ; . - 1“ , , „ , - , њ , „ .Ј - „ “ , - - ѓ - . “ ќ ј / ) ( њ ; - ј ; њ - ј њ , ј . - - ( , , .); ј - ( ). , - . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 47 , - ќ - , . - , . - њ њ ; њ : . , ; - , ј њ , .– ( , , њ .); – ( њ - њ , , , , - .) ј ј ј - ( ѓ , ); . , - - , - , . . - . ќ . ѓ ќ , , : , str. 48 – - . - . - – њ ј ј , . . . , ј ј - , : ) „ , . њ ќ ( “ ј њ ј ј ѓ ќ . . , , – - ќ ќ - , - ( , ( ). - , ( / ) , . - ), , ќ 2025 , - . - , , 46% ( , , - - . ќ 2008). - , 21/42 2 ) ( . - ( è ) - 2013. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 49 Abstract Climate change is a very serious political subject and it is a crucial economic subject. However, most of all, it is a subject related to our basic needs for survival (water, food, safe shelters, energy). The Copenhagen Conference proved all this more than anything else before. Science is very clear on this subject – if we want to avoid the most catastrophic and unmanageable catastrophes, we have to limit the mean global warming to a maximum of 2°C (compared to the levels in 1999). This can not be done unless we halve the global GHG emissions and reach the peak of the emissions by 2015. The current pledges from the countries around the world do not take us there and radical changes are needed. The energy sector is most responsible for the GHG emissions, so it is only logical that we can not win the climate change combat unless the energy policies significantly change and move from mainly fossil to renewable energy sources. With much slower pace than needed, things are nevertheless changing in the right direction: around the world concrete plans, strategies and even practical examples of 100% renewables arise more and more often. Macedonia, unfortunately, is not part of this progressive trend. Even though the Second National Climate Change Communication warns about extremely serious consequences in all sectors, at the same time it fails to suggest real mitigations measures. Mitigation is not a goal in the Energy Strategy either: according to this document the low-quality domestic lignite will remain Macedonia’s main energy source in the next two decades. The solar potential is mentioned with symbolic values and it is not even analyzed as such. Macedonia is in a very specific position: it is a Non-Annex 1 country to Kyoto and an EU candidate. This means that we do not have obligations concerning the targets and we are eligible for both CDM projects and EU pre-accession funds. However, this situation will not last forever – once we become an EU member state we will lose both opportunities for funding and have to switch to Annex1 countries (define our targets). This situation is not reflected in the related strategic documents in our country and Macedonia seems to be rather disinterested when it comes to opportunities for funding of clean energy projects. The NGO sector (more specifically, the first NGO network for action on climate “Together for the Climate” and “Front 21/42”) prepared a position paper prior to the COP15 in Copenhagen and made a comprehensive analysis of all related strategies and other plans in order to suggest mitigation measures Macedonia can report to the Copenhagen Accord. Some of the main issues from this position paper include: requirement for real administrative and other institutional support for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and their preferential treatment in comparison to the fossil fuel energy projects; support for transition to renewable energy use and energy efficiency for the citizens in Macedonia; support for domestic climate change related scientific research and innovation; inclusion of adaptation measures in all related sectorial policies - with suggestions for specific actions for each of these issues. str. 50 Aktuelno Energy poverty in transition: Macedonia and the Czech Republic in comparative perspective Stefan Bouzarovski1 Although1 it is relatively well-known in Britain and Ireland (for example see Healy, 2003), the problem of ‘energy poverty’ has rarely been investigated in the post-socialist context. Energy poverty is a condition where households are living in inadequately heated homes, which can mean that either the average daytime indoor temperature of the dwelling is below the biologically-determined limit of 21 °C necessary to maintain comfort and health (Boardman, 1991), or that the amount of warmth in the home is lower than the subjective minimum which allows an individual to perform his/her everyday life. There is a danger that energy poverty may affect millions of households in the transition states of Eastern and Central Europe (ECE) and the Former Soviet Union (FSU). Many countries in the region have recently undertaken significant energy price increases, with the aim of removing the old price structure inherited from socialism, where tariffs were set at below-costrecovery levels, and there were extensive cross-subsidies from industry to the residential sector. The problem that has emerged in the post-socialist 1 The author wishes to acknowledge the support provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under project no. MSM0021620831: ‘Geographic Systems and Risk Processes in the Context of Global Change and European Integration’. transition, however, is that most governments have been unable to develop the necessary social safety net to protect vulnerable households from energy price increases. This leaves many families with no option other than to cut back on their energy purchases. Energy poverty may create, and be perpetuated by, vicious circles between investment patterns, politics, and social deprivation. This is because the level of final useful warmth in the home is related to the energy efficiency of the built fabric, energy distribution installations, and domestic appliances. Patterns of energy poverty are thus contingent on levels of investment and maintenance of these capital stocks. In the countries where energy reforms have been slower, one of the reasons for the persistence of cross-subsidies is the fear that energy price increases may push significant numbers of households into domestic energy deprivation, thus causing social and political unrest. But the maintenance of below-cost pricing in the residential sector hampers investment in the energy efficiency of capital stocks, while encouraging wasteful energy practices. Despite their extensive socio-economic ramifications, these issues have received inadequate attention in the mainstream literature on energy re- 8, . 29, 2010, str. 51 Stefan Bouzarovski forms in transition. Although a number of cross-country studies have examined the relationships between energy pricing, efficiency and poverty (for example see Lampietti and Meyer, 2002), energy poverty has yet to be conceptualized as a distinct problem in the transition context. Moreover, its housing, social policy and governance dimensions remain virtually unexplored. In response to such discrepancies, this paper investigates the institutional, spatial and social underpinnings of energy poverty in Macedonia and the Czech Republic, with the aim of highlighting the multiple ways in which socio-economic legacies, spatial structures, policy decisions, and poverty patterns interact to produce domestic energy deprivation. The study relies on semi-structured interviews with policy-makers, professionals, and households in the two countries, as well as analyses of income and expenditure patterns, subjective perceptions of well-being, and assessments of housing quality. Macedonia: energy poverty is both a lower- and middle-class phenomenon One of the main aims of recent Macedonian economic policies was the restructuring of the Electric Power Company of Macedonia (ESM), a state-owned enterprise that managed all of the country’s electricity generation, transmission and distribution facilities. In order to prepare the stateowned electricity monopoly for unbundling and privatization, household electricity tariffs and disconnection rates were more than doubled during the 1990s. Yet the country failed to develstr. 52 op a comprehensive energy efficiency investment program in the residential sector (despite the implementation of several state-supported industrial efficiency schemes). So far Macedonia lacks an adequate legal and institutional framework for the formulation and implementation of energy efficiency policies, as well as effective mechanisms to regulate the thermal efficiency of new housing. This is despite the fact that nearly all housing in Macedonia is private and owner-occupied; the rental sector does not take up more than 10% of the entire dwelling stock (Buzar, 2007). The emergence of the energy poverty problem has transpired against the backdrop of a rapid increase in general poverty. The percentage of the population living under the relative poverty line now stands at nearly 30%, up from 4% in 1991. Yet Macedonia still lacks a targeted energy poverty-amelioration policy. The only mechanism is a relaxed disconnection policy tacitly implemented by energy utilities, who often allow residential consumers to continue using electricity or district heating despite months of non-payment. As a whole, these developments have led to a shift towards biomass (mainly wood) in the national residential energy balance, so that approximately 70% of the population currently relies on it for domestic heating, especially in rural areas. District heating networks outside of the capital, Skopje, are almost completely nonexistent. In medium-sized towns without district heating, households have been forced to rely on electricity for heating, and the number of such households has grown to approximately 30% (Buzar, 2007). Energy poverty in transition: Macedonia and the Czech Republic in comparative perspective The demographic extent of energy poverty among the population is unknown to experts or authorities, as there have been no direct surveys on the subject. However, the size of the problem can be estimated with the aid of the ‘compensating variation’, which is applicable to national household expenditure surveys. This method quantifies the percentage by which household incomes would have to change in 2004, in order for them to be able to retain the same ratio of energy expenditure relative to the national average in 1995, when energy prices were still relatively low (for a further discussion, see Buzar, 2007). It transpired that the 60% of households with lowest incomes would have to receive additional funds ranging between 27% and 1% of total equivalent-income. At the same time, income would have to be ‘taken away’ from the top 30% households in order for their energy expenditure ratios to remain the same in 2004 and 1995. This means that the relative energy expenditures of better-off households have increased in comparison to the 1995 level, while the bottom 60% have been forced to cut back on their energy purchases (see Table 1). The 60% figure is matched by surveys of subjective well-being, according to which only 38% of all households thought that they were able to keep their home adequately warm in 2003, although the share was 46% only three years earlier. Thus, energy poverty has a much wider demographic extent than statistically defined income poverty (which includes approximately 30% of the population). The results of the compensating variation analysis also indicate that residential energy efficiency improvements have yet to be felt among the wealthiest parts of the population. In normal circumstances, their energy expenditures would decrease as a result of more efficient building installations and/or fuel switching (Buzar, 2007). Based on this analysis, as well as two smaller surveys undertaken within representative urban areas, the study found that vulnerable strata to energy price increases, and thus, energy poor, include, first, the general low-income group: welfare beneficiaries, households headed by unemployed adults, households with several children, and families who depend on agriculture for all of their income. The second group is constituted by the families who are at Table 1: Values of the compensating variation between 1995 and 2004, per equivalent income decile, calculated by the author on the basis of data from the Household Expenditure Survey (Macedonia), and Family Budget Survey (Czech Republic). Decile Macedonia I 6.1% Czech Republic 26.8% II -2.7% III IV V VI VII -48.6% -44.4% -13.9% -10.4% 18.0% VIII 25.3% IX 14.8% X 2.3% 13.9% 9.3% -2.5% -0.7% -6.0% 6.4% 3.8% 1.1% -0.1% Source: Buzar, 2007. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 53 Stefan Bouzarovski risk by virtue of their housing circumstances, mainly pensioners and families with young children. In their case, the emergence of energy poverty can be attributed, in part, to the poor energy efficiency of the home, and aboveaverage daily energy needs. Its contingency on a wide set of housing and social conditions, beyond low income, makes energy poverty both a lower- and middle-class phenomenon in Macedonia. Czech Republic: concentrated patterns of deprivation In the Czech Republic, the implementation of energy reforms has resulted in the formal unbundling of the electricity monopoly. The Czech Electricity Company (ХEZ) is a state-owned company that operates 10TW of generation capacity, mainly nuclear- and coal-based. The high-voltage grid is run by a wholly owned subsidiary of ХEZ, while the distribution network is divided among eight regional electricity companies. Ownership of district heating network ranges from municipally owned to entirely private; the national gas transmission system is wholly owned and operated by a multinational energy company, which also maintains a dominant share in most gas distribution enterprises (Buzar, 2007). The country has been a leader in energy efficiency among ECE and FSU states, having established a wide range of capital investment programmes. However, relative to other policies, energy efficiency support has been underfunded and its administration fragmented across several government departments. str. 54 In the housing sector, the state has attempted to use rent control as an across-the-board social protection mechanism. This approach has created an incongruous combination of belowmarket rent levels and distorted tenant-owner relations, which has negative effects on the maintenance — and, hence, energy efficiency — of the housing stock, as well as the spatial mobility of households. Price rises in the Czech Republic have been far less dramatic in relative terms compared with Macedonia. Moreover, the country has a more diverse fuel mix in the residential sector compared to Macedonia. Gas stands for approximately 40% of total energy, with remaining 50% split almost equally between electricity and heat. The compensating variation analysis for the period 1995–2004 (see Figure 2) indicates that Czech households have responded to energy price increases in one of three ways. • The bottom decile has decreased its energy expenditure by 6% of monetary income, a sign of energy poverty. Indeed, the surveys of wellbeing have established that 8.2% of households are not satisfied with the level of heating in their homes. • Deciles 2–6 have seen a relative rise in their energy expenditure, reaching as much as 49% in the third decile. Although this increase is probably related to the rapid growth of energy prices since 1995, the households may have allocated additional income for energy. • The energy expenditures of the top four deciles have actually fallen since 1995, most likely due to the availability of cheaper and/or more Energy poverty in transition: Macedonia and the Czech Republic in comparative perspective efficient fuels, coupled with the improved technical quality of the residential stock. Clearly, the Czech Republic has a more concentrated demographic structure of energy poverty, encompassing up to 10% of the population. Single parents, households with several children, and pensioners appear to be most vulnerable to energy poverty. Based on the available evidence, it can be concluded that the income dimension of energy poverty is stronger in the Czech Republic than in Macedonia, although housing infrastructures also play a role, especially in the case of pensioners (Buzar, 2007). Conclusions A significant number of households in Macedonia and, to a lesser extent, the Czech Republic, may be living in energy poverty, a emergent form of domestic energy deprivation in postsocialism. The problem may have extensive socio-economic ramifications across the region, as transition countries, while being located in cold climates, have been subject to energy price and income shocks, inefficient energy use, lack of policy co-ordination, and decaying infrastructures. The reviewed evidence connects energy poverty to the poor co-ordination of energy, welfare, and housing policies in the relevant government de- partments. One of the main problems in this regard stems from the policymakers’ failure to perceive problems of social policy transformation, energy efficiency, poverty, and affordability in an integrated manner. The rise of domestic energy deprivation also appears to be related to the lack of a comprehensive system for domestic energy efficiency support in both countries (for a wider discussion, see Bouzarovski 2009). As for the demographic profiles of the energy-poor, these are not entirely consistent with the more general pattern of income poverty. In Macedonia, the population living in inadequately heated homes is clearly much bigger than the 30% considered ‘poor’ according to the relative poverty line, and may include up to 60% of all households in the country. In the Czech case, the rate of energy poverty can range between 4% and 11% of the population, depending on the definition and measurements. On the whole, incomepoor households are also energy-poor. However, the problem is also present among pensioners and families with young children, who may be at risk by virtue of their housing circumstances. In this case, the emergence of energy poverty can be attributed, in part, to the poor energy efficiency of residential buildings, and the high daily energy needs of such households. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 55 Stefan Bouzarovski References: Boardman, Brenda. 1991. Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth. London: Belhaven. Buzar, Stefan. 2007. Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden Geographies of Deprivation. Aldershot: Ahsgate. Bouzarovski Stefan. 2009. “East-Central Europe’s changing energy landscapes: A place for geography.” Area 41: 452-63. Healy, John. 2003. Fuel Poverty and Policy in Ireland and the European Union. Dublin: Policy Institute, Trinity College Dublin, in association with Combat Poverty Agency. Lampietti, Julian, and Anke Meyer. 2002. When Heat is a Luxury: Helping the Urban Poor of Europe and Central Asia Cope with the Cold. Washington D.C.: World Bank. , - . , - - 21 - ќ . , - ќ . - , ќ , . ќ . . - , ќ – . - , ќ , ќ str. 56 . Aktuelno Waste-to-energy policies in the European Union Saška Petrova Introduction Waste incineration involves the combustion of municipal solid waste in a controlled way in order to destroy the waste or transform it into less hazardous, less bulky or more easily manageable substances. Incineration may be used to dispose of a wide range of waste streams including municipal, commercial, clinical and certain types of industrial waste. It can also be employed in Waste to Energy (WtE) or Energy from Waste (EfW) plants, which create electricity and/or heat by burning waste. The first systematic waste incineration practice known as the “Destructor” technology consisted of prototype incineration plants that burnt mixed fuel, producing steam to generate electricity and was built in the United Kingdom in 1874. The enthusiasm for this technology was so great that 250 “destructors” were built in Britain during the next 30 years. The first waste incinerator in the USA was built in 1885, on the Governor’s Island in New York. The trend in building waste incinerators throughout the USA was pretty much following the British one, so there were about 300 incinerators in the USA in 1914. During the post-war years, economists were against incineration; hence, the domination of the business and political lobby for landfills, especially in the UK. Waste incineration technologies were again reintroduced during the 1960s and 1970s as a result of the empowerment of the incineration industry. After stricter air pollution control legislation was introduced worldwide in the 1990s, many old technology incinerators had to be modernized or shut down. This included Europe, where the new Environmental Protection Act and the EU Directive 89/429/ EEC on air pollution were introduced. However, the EU Directive 91/271/EEC, concerning urban wastewater treatment led to a prohibition on dumping sewage sludge, making incineration of this waste stream an option worthy of consideration. It is obvious that landfill disposal practices were interconnected with the waste incineration ones, struggling for dominance at the waste market. Both of these practices were considered as end of pipe technologies, which apparently changed after the introduction of the new legislation regarding waste management in the European Union, which includes the Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, the Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the incineration of waste and the Di- 8, . 29, 2010, str. 57 Saška Petrova rective 2006/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste. As a result, waste incinerators got their new image as waste to energy (WtE) or waste from energy (WfE) plants and the position of the waste incineration on the waste management pyramid of prioritized waste activities was changed (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, waste incineration and waste disposal on landfills are still considered as end of pipe technologies in the USA as well as in scholarly literature (Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh 2004). Waste to energy: Is it the best solution? It is believed that WtE/WfE plants meet the requirements of waste reduction, detoxification and energy production. The waste incineration industry claims that such plants can aid the protection of the environment by substituting fossil fuels with non-fossil ones and decreasing CO2 emissions, while reducing waste outputs by up to 70% in terms of weight and up to 90% in terms of volume. Moreover, Nilsson et al. (2005) point out that waste incinerated in WtE/WfE plants is considered a renewable fuel and is thereby exempt from both energy and CO2 tax. However, many waste fuels contain fossil carbon and the introduction of a waste incineration tax can result in environmental improvements. It is also being argued that WtE/EfW nowadays emits lower quantities of dioxins and furans, thanks to advances in emission control designs and stringent governmental regulations. Dioxins and furans are common names for hundreds of toxic chlorinated chemicals that are highly persistent in the envistr. 58 ronment. These chemicals have a similar chemical structure and a common mechanism of toxic action. Most toxic is the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin or TCDD, which is a known human carcinogen (WHO 2007). Regarding energy production, thermal efficiencies of WtE/EfW plants are lower than those of coal-fired power stations (which have a typical efficiency of 33% - 38%) and combined cycle gas turbine stations (where the efficiency exceeds 50%). In fact, the performance of incineration depends on its technological and emissions profile (Carlsson Reich 2005). However, public advocacy groups and environmental organizations dispute such claims, emphasizing the disadvantages of incineration technologies (Petts 1994). They point out that WtE/EfW plants require high capital investment, and that the equipment for the control of emissions is very expensive, typically accounting for around 60% of the capital cost of a modern plant. The large size of the initial capital investment means that incinerators are tied to long-term waste quantities with a constant flow of resources: in order for an WtE/EfW plant to function over the medium to long term, materials will constantly need to be taken from the ground, processed in factories, moved around the world, and subsequently disposed of and burned. It is also being argued that waste incineration undermines waste prevention and recycling, as it leads to a lack of flexibility in the choice of waste treatment options. Its opponents claim that target rates for recycling set by the new EU framework waste directive (2008/98/EC) are too low and those for incineration too high. Some countries in the EU have already reached the pre- Waste-to-energy policies in the European Union scribed levels, and the directive is not Conclusion stimulating them to go further. Moreover, the large start-up costs make Energy-to-waste provides a powerEfW/WtE a rather ineffective source of ful example of a situation where social energy production: for example, even and environmental considerations are though the United States had 87 EfW/ deeply entwined in the implementaWtE plants in 2007, they generated tion of energy policies at different levonly 2,720 megawatts, or about 0.4 els of governance. The level of public percent of the country’s total electricity participation, the time scales of decisupply (Michaels 2007). Health organ- sion making as well as an awareness isations are also concerned about the of the wider spatial implications of enpollution and health impacts of these ergy policies is necessary in the casplants, which might produce toxic by- es of both energy poverty and energy products like dioxins and furans with from waste in order to consider these carcinogenic effects. (WHO 2007). In questions adequately. addition to air and water emissions, inEssentially, the decision whether cinerators create toxic ash that must to orient an area towards waste-tothen be especially treated or disposed energy rather than landfilling depends of on landfills. on local economic, political, social and Environmental organizations in- environmental circumstances. But it sist that alternative technologies such should be taken into account that techas the anaerobic digestion or gasifica- nologies are end-of-pipe solutions and tion of source-separated organic waste as such should both reside at the bot(such as kitchen scraps and garden tom of the waste pyramid. waste) or residual mixed waste (which is left after the recycling and composting household waste) Prevention represent better ‘no-burn’ alternatives for waste treatment and Minimisation energy production. They point out that waste incineration lies at one Reuse of the lowest points of the ‘waste pyramid’, and that waste treatment strategies should empha- Recycling and energy recovery size more sustainable approaches such as prevention and mini- Disposal mization. The sheer range of disagreements among the proponents and opponents of waste to energy plants demonstrates that policy Figure 1: The waste pyramid in the EU (source: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk) debates over the issue will attract public interest for years to come. Key words: municipal solid waste, waste incineration, Waste to Energy (WtE), waste governance 8, . 29, 2010, str. 59 Saška Petrova Bibliography: Bouzarovski Stefan. 2009. “East-Central Europe’s changing energy landscapes: A place for geography”. Area 41: 452-63 Carlsson Reich, Marcus. 2005. “Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems: Case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)”. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 253-263 Dijkgraaf, Elbert and Herman Vollebergh. 2004. “Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods”. Ecological Economics 50: 233-247 Michaels, Ted. 2007. The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants. Integrated Waste Services Association. USA Nilsson, Mans, Bjørklund Anna, Finnveden Gøran and Johansson Jessica. 2005. “Testing a SEA methodology for the energy sector: A waste incineration tax proposal”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 1-32 Petts J (1994) “Effective Waste Management: Understanding and Dealing with Public Concerns”. Waste Management & Research 12: 207-222 World Health Organization (2007) Fact sheet Number 225. Geneva . , - , . . . , . - , . ѓ è . , - , : (WtE), str. 60 њ . , њ , ј Aktuelno ќ . , - ѓ . - 1 - - . .3 . ќ è .2 - ќ 110 2008 . . , . - . . . . , : , - ќ . ѓ ќ - 19 , , - . ќ - , , 1 , , - ќ . , „ 2 “, , MA A, 2006. 3 Ibid. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 61 . , - : 58% 42% 15 , è 65 60% ќ , 40% . , 28,90% , 4,34% , 3% - . . , 1 ќ . 10 - .5 ќ 4 37,27%. , , , 15% - .6 - : 38 ќ 60 - 120 m2 250 m2. , 27% . ,7 3,36% e - 20- . , . .8 9 : ќ . , , 71,13% 15,86% 35% 65% , 13% 1. . , , 63,76% .4 - 5 6 7 8 9 4 str. 62 http://www.blueflame.org/datasheets/natgasgrill.html http://malesh-net.com/malesh-berovo/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=426:2009-08-1016-06-22&catid=108:2009-06-23-13-35-44&Itemid=178 http://www.hometips.com/central_heating_cooling_ systems.html http://www.solarhome.org/ ,„ “, , MA A, 2006. http://www.gharexpert.com/articles/Finishing-1607/ Thermal-Insulation-Home_0.aspx ќ 7% 23% 10% 48% : 29% 83% 3. К 2. њ А 14% 16% 45% ( 1.), . , 35% ќ % 25% 4. К њ А . ( ( 2), 10% - 3), - 23% . . . 10 ќ ( 4), 14% - . ,11 : 69% . ќ - . ... . , : , , - :T , stand-by,12 : , 5% 19% - 55% 21% 5. В stand-by 10 11 http://www.pvcwindows.com.au/wers.asp?page=wers http://www.grujic.pondi.hr/SavetKupovina.html 12 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/ standby_power.aspx 8, . 29, 2010, str. 63 . ( 5), stand-by - 21% ( 7.), - 13% stand-by. . ќ stand-by, ќ , . . - - , , - - : - , : 16.000 1.000 25.51% - , 500 6.89% 67.58% 6. 4.800 . 12,72% , : • • 13% 33% , , • 54% 7. ј - ( 6), 6,89% ,13 21,51% , 67,58% . 13 str. 64 http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article/energy-saving/ - . • • • • • - ќ џ ќ ќ - ќ • ќ - . , • - . ќ , . - , Ш - , . - ќ . , . . - , - - 20. . . - , , . - . . , ќ . stand- , by. . . ќ , , ќ stand-by, - . , o , . . . - . ќ , - ќ . . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 65 , , - . : ќ , , ј : , , 2006. , : „ “. „ : “. , 1994. http://www.blueflame.org/datasheets/natgasgrill.html http://maleshnet.com/maleshberovo/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=426:2009-08-10-16-06-22&catid=108:2009-06-2313-35-44&Itemid=178 http://www.grujic.pondi.hr/SavetKupovina.html http://www.pvcwindows.com.au/wers.asp?page=wers http://www.gharexpert.com/articles/Finishing-1607/Thermal-Insulation-Home_0. aspx http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article/energy-saving/ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/standby_power.aspx http://www.solarhome.org/ http://www.hometips.com/central_heating_cooling_systems.html Abstract This paper analyses the mode of energy consumption in the households of the citizens of Tetovo in order to discover effective solutions for the improvement of energy efficiency. The research method was based on questionnaires and was completed in September 2008. It was conducted in 110 households in Tetovo and the choice of interviewees was random. From the total number of participants, 60% live in individual houses and 4% in building apartments. The results from the survey demonstrated that most of the participants, i.e. 27 % live in households built in the 1980s. 71.13 % of the participants prepare food on electrical appliances. Also, 63.76% use electricity as a heating source. Only 15 % of the household have a central heating system, whereas 3.63 % of the household use solar energy. 35 % of the homes are thermally insulated and 10% of the homes have PVC windows and external doors. Only 31% of the participants know what class-A electrical appliances are, whereas 23% of the participants use such electrical appliances in their homes. 55% of the participants have their appliances switched to stand-by. Most of the participants, 67.58 %, use regular light bulbs in their homes. In 13% of the cases the lights are left on in empty parts of the house/rooms. Electricity bills are higher in the winter than in the summer. str. 66 Me|unarodni organizacii : џ 1. – ќ 1972 . - . , Committee“, „ 1971 . , „Don’t Make A Wave “ - , (Mururoa Atoll), . , ѓ ќ , . , , - , „ ќ III“. ѓ , , ќ 3.000 . , , 1974 . - ќ , , - , , , . . 1977 , . ќ . - - - . . 1979 . „Greenpeace - , International“ . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 67 џ , 2. : „Greenpeace 40 International“ 28 ) ; ; - ) ) . , , - ; , ) , - . - . ќ , ; ) , ; ѓ) . . „Greenpeace International“ , - ќ , , , , . - , . , ѓ , „Greenpeace International“, Foundation) (Greenpeace London) „ “ (Greenpeace . . , . 3. ѓ - , str. 68 . : - 40% ( 4. 2020 1990), . 1989 , , 2015 , 2050 - . . , . - 2020. - , - WWF (World Wildlife Fund) „ “ (David Suzuki Foundation), : „ ( ) “ (The Energy [R]Evolution) EREC (The European Renewable Energy Council) . , , - . - , - , (CFCs). - 90ќ CFCs. , 1997 - „ “. . , ќ Ш , ( ), , . ќ , , - . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 69 џ . 2008 , 2007 - ., , - . „Њ “. - , , - . - , ќ . џ 200 ќ , 30.000 - . - „ - - , . , è - “. - , , . - , : . . ќ . „ “ „ “ - : . Abstract In the last two decades the term Greenpeace has developed into a brand of aggressive environmental campaign, a progressive movement with humane tendencies. It could be said that the development of the world’s environmental culture has seen a period before and after the appearance of Greenpeace. According to many sociologists, Greenpeace has probably played the crucial role in raising global environmental awareness. The work and the intentions of Greenpeace have often been criticized, mostly because of dubious and non-transparent use of the donations, as well as for extorting money from some companies. But one is for sure: not one campaign was carried out without causing public and media attention. The supporters as well as the opponents agree on one thing: today nobody can ignore Greenpeace. str. 70 Me|unarodni organizacii International Renewable Energy Agency: The new global voice for renewable energy Nataša Hroneska Introduction The system of global governance was enriched last year by yet another inter-governmental organization which aims to bring together all countries of the world to cooperate and work together in developing policies and implementing projects of renewable energy. A new organization numbering more than one hundred countries was founded in January 2009 and thus has elevated the international cooperation in renewable energy to the highest institutional level. Being an international voice and political engine for renewable energy worldwide, the International Renewable Energy Agency - IRENA is envisaged as a step forward in engaging all countries of the world in developing comprehensive solutions to the global energy challenges and recognising the political and economic benefit that the renewable energy provides. The potential of the renewable energy sources (RES) is enormous. They are abundant, free and cheap energy sources that, with the right technology, can lead to sustainable energy development and better future of the countries. Nevertheless, the share of the renewable energy sources in the world supply is still much lower than the share of traditional fuels like oil, coal and natural gas. According to the IEA statistics, in 2007 the share of combustible renewable and waste in the global total primary energy supply was only a little bit over 10% including hydro energy. 1 Even in the EU, the global leader in the use of renewable energy, the latest numbers show that renewable energy remains underused compared to other fossil fuels. The 2006 statistics for the energy consumption in EU 27 show that the renewables contribute with 7.1% in the gross inland energy consumption.2 Furthermore, the renewable energy mix in the energy consumption differs significantly in different geographic areas. While biomass in the form of fuelwood and residues has been the most commonly used RES as a traditional heating and cooking fuel in the developing countries of Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America, solar energy and wind energy have been used for electricity generation in the developed (OECD) countries only in the last couple of decades. In addition to this, the technology for exploitation of the RES is incomparable between the developed countries, which have invested a lot of money in R&D, and the developing and poor countries 1 2 Key World Energy Statistics, IEA, 2009. EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocket Book, EC 2009. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 71 Nataša Hroneska that use RES in an inefficient and in many cases unsafe manner. Renewable energy is seen as one of the key solutions to the world’s energy future. However, besides its recognised benefits and the vast potential, the current use of renewable energy remains limited and with unequal geographic distribution around the globe. Many obstacles stand on the way for boosting the use of renewable energy worldwide: the monopoly of the traditional fossil fuels in the energy supply, high costs of new technologies, lack of political support and subsidies for renewable energy, insecure financial sources for renewable energy projects, and the prevailing low level of awareness for the climate change and mitigation effect of the use of renewable energy. In order to boost the use of renewable energy sources worldwide, to enhance the cooperation between all countries in the world in the field of renewable energy, and to fill in the lack of global governance in the renewable energy area, the International Renewable Energy Agency was created building on the work of other international organizations like the UNEP, UNIDO, UNDP, IEA, The World Bank, World Energy Council, etc. History of IRENA In the global efforts for mitigation of climate change and developing of new technologies for cleaner energy production all international initiative that brings decision-makers to a common playground are more than welcome. Therefore, when in 2008 the German Federal Government promoted the idea for establishing of an str. 72 agency that will deal with the renewable energy on a global level everybody saw it as a promising and unique initiative. Nevertheless, the idea for such an agency was not new; it has been discussed over a number of years in the past and in various international forums. In the background of this initiative stand Germany, Denmark and Spain, the leaders in energy production from RES and the founders of the global market for clean technologies. With their strong leadership and dedication the proponents of this organization have managed to pave the way for the much-needed cooperation among all nations in the world in the area of renewable energy. The International Energy Agency aims to promote a sustainable and widespread use of renewable energy, addressing both developing and industrialized countries. Envisioning a future where abundant renewable energy sources make a significant contribution to the world’s growing energy demand, IRENA founding member states’ goal was to establish an international organization dedicated to facilitating the rapid development and deployment of renewable energy worldwide. In its work IRENA aims to foster all types of renewable energy and consider various renewable energy policies at the local, regional, and national levels, in order to implement successful and enduring policy solutions. According to its Statute, IRENA will promote the widespread and increased adoption and sustainable use of all forms or renewable energy. Being the global voice for renewable energies, IRENA should facilitate access to all relevant renewable energy information, in- International Renewable Energy Agency: The new global voice for renewable energy cluding technical data, economic data and renewable resource potential data, and share experiences on best practices and lessons learned regarding policy frameworks, capacity-building projects, available finance mechanisms and renewable energy related energy efficiency measures. Furthermore, IRENA’s member states also vow to advance renewables in their own national policies and programs, and to promote, both domestically and through international cooperation, the transition to a sustainable and secure energy supply. According to its Statute, IRENA will: ▪ collect renewable energy related information and knowledge, and analyse and disseminate current renewable energy practices, including policies and incentives, available technologies, and examples of best operational practice; ▪ foster international exchanges about renewable energy policy and its framework conditions; ▪ provide relevant policy advice and assistance; ▪ improve renewable energy knowledge that facilitates technology transfer and promotes the development of local capacity and competence; ▪ promote capacity building services such as training and education; ▪ provide information and advice on the financing mechanisms available for renewable energy projects; ▪ stimulate and encourage research (including socio-economic issues) by fostering research networks to undertake joint research, development and deployment of technologies; ▪ ▪ provide information about the development and deployment of national and international technical standards in relation to renewable energy, based on a sound understanding; disseminate knowledge and information and increase public awareness on the benefits and potential offered by renewable energy.3 Structure of IRENA Currently, IRENA has a Preparatory Commission as the interim institutional body of the Agency. The Preparatory Commission consists of representatives of all states that signed the IRENA Statute and has the responsibility to build up the organisation until the Statute enters into force upon its 25th ratification. Once the Statute enters into force, the statutory organs, the Assembly and the Council, will be established and will replace the Preparatory Commission. Until now, in its first year of existence, only 11 member countries have ratified the Statute of the Agency. IRENA was officially established in Bonn on 26 January 2009. The founding of IRENA is a milestone for world renewable energy supply and a clear sign that the global energy paradigm is changing due to the accelerating commitment from governments. As of today, 142 states and the European Union signed the Statute of the Agency; amongst them are 48 African, 37 European, 33 Asian, 15 American and 9 Australia/Oceania States. 3 All information about IRENA in this text is retrieved from the official website of the Preparatory Commission of IRENA available at: http://www.irena.org/ 8, . 29, 2010, str. 73 Nataša Hroneska ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Important Dates: Founding Conference – 27 January 2009, Bonne, Germany; Second Session – 29-30 June 2009, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt; Third Session – 17 January 2010, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Structure: IRENA will consist of an Assembly, a Council, and a Secretariat. Principles of work: international cooperation between Member States and related stakeholders; dedication to assisting its Members to harness their renewable energy potential; accessibility of all the Agency’s services, bearing in mind the special needs of developing countries; active participation of all its Members in IRENA’s decision making processes; striving for excellence in all the services produced by the organisation; efficiency and transparency in delivering the organisation’s services; and adding value to what is already being done by existing organisations in the field of renewable energy. Source: www.irena.org Benefits from IRENA’s membership The benefits for member states of IRENA’s work are various and encompass several aspects of the renewable energy. The most important, which add value to the existence and work of IRENA in the international system are: str. 74 Fostering cooperation between research institutions and identifying research needs and key stakeholders in this area One of the disadvantages of the renewable energy is the high technology for the exploitation of the RES, which is currently concentrated in the hands of few highly developed countries. The aim of IRENA is to help developing countries to access the knowledge and facilitate technology transfer by encouraging and supporting cooperation among different stakeholders in this area in order to intensify research and development and sharing experience on existing renewable energy technologies. Without being an R&D centre itself, IRENA will conduct a review of ongoing research and being closely connected to innovation centres around the world, it will build on their work and try to avoid duplication and to facilitate cooperation. Thus, IRENA will be able to identify ways by which countries can better access the work of other international organisations and national research institutions and receive their support. For that purpose an IRENA Centre for Innovation and Technology (IITC) will be established in Bonn, which will be supported by the task units in IRENA’s interim headquarter in Abu Dhabi. Renewable energy potentials: Stocktaking of existing studies, renewable energy roadmaps and scenarios, and awareness rising in developing countries about their potential This is seen as one of the core benefits in the work of IRENA. The reality is that developing countries often do International Renewable Energy Agency: The new global voice for renewable energy not have the expertise to access the potential of RES, which is the first step towards their harnessing. Therefore IRENA will assist developing countries in this issue by providing high quality information on the availability of RES and in raising awareness in these countries. What is more important, IRENA will combine the existing data on renewable energy potentials on a project level provided by several different institutions in order to develop and maintain a global geo-referenced renewable energy potentials database. Based on a gap analysis, IRENA will assist and enable countries to initiate resource assessment studies in their countries to minimise the risk for investors. Putting the renewable energy on the global energy agenda IRENA will be establish a global platform for dialogue and communication on issues related to different renewable energy scenarios, reflecting the rapid technology and policy development and including macroeconomic aspects among others. Besides setting energy scenarios, IRENA’s work on policy advice will include studying and reviewing existing renewable energy roadmaps that have been identified as a precondition for a sound development of renewable energy technology platforms, which will enable relevant experts (researchers, companies, policy makers, etc.) to exchange views and explore ways forward in specific technology areas where there are gaps. Advisory and capacity building programmes and financial advice Being faced with lack of research centres for renewable energy developing countries (as well as industrial- ized) will benefit a lot from different assistance programmes and capacity building activities that IRENA plans to undertake. IRENA’s target is to support its members to develop and implement such institutional and individual capabilities as needed. This set of activities is expected to support member states in the build-up of capacity building structures and the design of capacity building programmes. It will establish international capacity networks and other collaborative structures and conduct a limited set of own capacity building measures with a particular focus on multipliers and decision makers. IRENA will also help countries to overcome the financial issues by supporting the member states upon their request to identify financing mechanisms and solutions for implementation of their RE programmes. On a request, member states will be given advice on financing of renewable energy and the application of related mechanisms. IRENA will develop and maintain databases of support programmes that members can access. Communication and outreach Timely dissemination of information and knowledge on renewable energy is very important for the creation of the energy policy in the member states. Therefore IRENA’s leadership in providing reliable, well-informed, contextdriven, targeted and timely information to decision makers, stakeholders in the field and general public makes the agency the global voice for renewable energy. Its communication strategy will focus on the role of IRENA as a global service provider, centre of ex- 8, . 29, 2010, str. 75 Nataša Hroneska cellence, facilitator and catalyst for renewable energy. Possible drawbacks and barriers Regarding the effects of the climate change, there is a need for urgent action on a global level in the energy sector. Here IRENA can play a major role, being focused on and advocating renewable energy vis a vis the support for fossil fuels in the international arena. However, nowadays IRENA is in its preparatory stage and according to its Work Programme for 2010 it will be operational and fully staffed by the end of 2010. Therefore the real results of its work cannot be seen in a year’s time and thus cannot be assessed at an early stage. Besides the well established structure, the detailed work plan and the global support of its goals, at this stage a couple of issues can be identified, which can have negative implications for the work of the agency and its accountability. Firstly, as for other initiatives that deal with renewable energy, mitigation of climate change and environmental protection, it is very important that it receives the support from the major energy consuming countries. In the case of IRENA, neither China nor Russia are member states of the new Agency at the moment, even though having the USA on board is a big step forward for the global cooperation in renewable energy. Moreover, IRENA will have to compete with other well established international organizations with a strong portfolio and especially with those that are more supportive to the traditional fossil fuels (e.g. the International Energy Agency).4 Secondly, even though IRENA’s mission is to help all countries in the world in the implementation of enduring renewable energy policies, the financial aspect is very important. The current budget of IRENA of almost 14 million dollars is a contribution from its member states; therefore the influence of the major countries/donors to the institutional decision-making should not be neglected in the long run. Macedonia’s role in IRENA more benefit than contribution Macedonia is a founding member of IRENA and a signatory country of the Founding Conference in Bonn last year. Since then the Ministry of Economy, responsible for the activities in the energy sector in the country has been actively participating in the work of IRENA. Renewable energy is among the priorities of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia and the Ministry of Economy, especially with the preparation of the national energy strategies the Strategy for the Development of the Energy Sector until 2020 and the Renewable Energy Strategy, where great importance is given to the energy production from RES: hydropower plants, wind parks, solar and PV plants, efficient wood stoves, etc. However, so far little has been done in Macedonia for boosting energy production from RES. The experience of the last several years clearly shows that the country needs vast support in developing Greenfield projects for 4 str. 76 See Andrew Dewit: „Regime Change Short-Circuited: Carbon Emissions and Japan’s Feed-in Tariff System,“ The Asia-Pacific Journal, 45-4-09, November 9, 2009. International Renewable Energy Agency: The new global voice for renewable energy renewable energy. Herein, the role of IRENA will be of irreplaceable importance for the country in the following domains: collection of renewable energy related information and knowledge, analyses and dissemination of current renewable energy practices, including policies and incentives, available technologies and examples of best operational practice; providing information and advice on the financing mechanisms available for renewable energy projects; stimulating and encouraging research (including socio-economic issues) and fostering research networks to undertake joint research; development and deployment of new technologies; providing relevant policy advice and assistance. 26 Whether our government will use the momentum and the opportunity to receive support from an international agency whose member states are global leaders in renewable energy production depends on the government’s efforts, diplomacy and commitment in meeting the EU targets on renewable energy, mitigating climate change, providing energy security and sustainable development. Nevertheless, being a founding member of IRENA, the Republic of Macedonia has expressed strong commitment to “greening” its energy sector and has aligned itself towards the most recent international trends in the global energy governance. Key Words: IRENA, renewable energy, global governance 2009 ѓ , 143 - . . . . , . . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 77 Predizvici i perspektivi – , ( - , . 2008 , 2008-2012) , - ѓ , , , - , , . , . - ( I ќ B ▪ ▪ ), ѓ . - : - ▪ ѓ - , В ј - , - ( ), , , , . - , 8, . 29, 2010, - str. 79 / , . 2008 , - 3,8 0C, 13% 1961-1990 . ќ 2005 . - 1999-2002 2000 , ќ ( ). 2100 ., - - , . , : : 1990-1998 , ќ , , 1990 . - SF6, ; NMVOCs. : CO, NOx, SOx , , – CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs ќ , , . , CO2 , - 70% . , 30 2025 40 , 2100 , - ; - , - : . , - - ; ќ , : , - , 10% ( , ќ ; - ’ ; : , - , ; ). - ; a : , , , . str. 80 - ; - – , - , . , - , . - ќ . , - ќ , - ( ), - ( ), , , . 2004 . (DNA) (CDM). 12 - CDM, , - , - : , , , . ѓ ѓ 1( . ) - . 1( ) 1 ( GHG - ѓ ). CDM - . - , , ќ , , , . - CDM : ▪ 1 - , ▪ ѓ 1( , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 81 / Ј - ќ (2008-2012) . ). - : ▪ - , CDM 2012 .; 2008- ▪ CDM; , , - CDM - ▪ CDM. . , , (CER) CDM . CER. - ( . . DNA – designated national authority). , . . 2007 . (www.moepp.gov.mk). - CDM - - . . , , str. 82 , ( . Ј , ). – , . – 2011-2013. - - ќ - . . , - . ( , - , 2009), , . . - . . , ќ , - . - . ѓ , , . , - - – - 2010. . , , . ќ ., 2012 - ќ - 8, . 29, 2010, str. 83 / ќ , . , ѓ . , - , ќ - , ѓ 2025 ., ќ - - ќ - ( ќ . . ѓ ѓ ќ ,ќ - . - ѓ ,ќ ќ , - , ), - . - . , , - . , - - - ( ). - , - ( . - ) . - , 2 0C. - - . Ш ѓ ? . str. 84 ќ , - . - – - , . , - , . 1 - . 2020 1, 31 . 2010 . 10- - ѓ 30 2012 . ќ 100 2020. , - ќ . . Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. Ќ - . . ќ - , . - - . , - , ( , - ) - , : , , . . , , , - . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 85 / Abstract The Republic of Macedonia as a candidate country for full membership in the European Union has committed itself to place the climate change related issues highly on its political agenda, integrating the greenhouse gases emissions reduction and adaptation measures in the key national strategies and planning documents. Our goal is to achieve significant reduction of the annual growth rate of the emissions with the integration of climate change mitigation measures into the developmental paths of the national economy. The Republic of Macedonia will face particular challenges beyond the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, as intensified activities will have to be taken to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mitigation actions should be in line with the overall mitigation potential of the country, as well as with the level and structure of the GDP. The paper analyzes ongoing activities as well as future needs concerning the proper addressing of climate change. Key words: climate change, mitigation, adaptation str. 86 Predizvici i perspektivi - . , . . 2020, : - , 2024- - . ќ , , - è . . ќ ќ 3 џ . 2008, - . - , - , . . - ќ , - , . . - è , - . , . - . . „ “, - ќ .„ , . “, ќ џ 2024, . . , . - - , , - , , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 87 . - , ќ , . - . . , ќ . - , . , . , - raumobil.de. „ , . . . - , . ѓ Flitzundweg.de, ќ , “ - . :„ 150 ќ , , , - , ќ . , ќ ѓ . , - . - , ќ , “ - , 262, ќ . , . , 2024 str. 88 2024 . , , (Standard Assessment Procedure) Ш . „Project Better Place“ , . ќ ќ - - . , : , - - - , . . , - . , 200 . Better Place , , . CalPERS Cleantech ќ CalSTRS - ѓ , . , . - , . . - , - . , . . , ѓ , - Solarworld . Repower, . - - .„ . , , - , - “ ( ) . ќ Corporate Venture Capital ( ) . : - . , , . - . ќ . New Economy - . . ќ , , CO2, , . - , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 89 RWE. , 2005 , . . , , ќ ѓ „Energy and Enviromental Care“. , , . , : . . . , „CO2 “ „ “. , . . RWE Innogy GmbH, . . , RWE Innogy ѓ , , - . , ѓ - , ќ - , ѓ . 100 . - , . , know-how . ѓ , - . . 200 , . - REW, - .„ .„ Ш . . “, E.ON EnBW “, - „Fleischhauer, Hoyer & Partner“. „ . str. 90 - - . . - ѓ - “. . - Ш , , , . , , . - . - , . , „Fleischhauer, Hoyer & Partner“ 2008 .Ш - - , . 54,2 . , - - . , ќ ќ - . „ - FINTECH GIMF Fund L.P. , è, - “, . - . ќ .„ Ј . , , џ East Regional , - Headquarter Ltd. „ . - “, ќ 300 . - £ . . џ - - “, . ќ . . . - , Earlybird , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 91 Clean Mobile, , ќ . , - , . - , . : Venture Capital (VC), , - . 265 , . ќ , . , ќ . , . , . , ќ , . . ѓ . ќ , : - ќ . , . - ќ - , . , - , - . , . . - . . . - - , . , . . . , . - . Ќ - ќ . ќ . str. 92 - , ќ . ќ . . , , , ќ - - . . . ќ , - , . Abstract Those who want to bring new technologies on the market for energy saving or producing need money. Lots of money. Usually, this type of capital need is not provided by foreign capital, but by loans. The banks are stingy. Especially in those cases when a company barely has something more than an idea or prototype and shows red numbers. In these cases there is a high risk that the borrowed money will not be returned. A possible way out: the engagement of a VC investor who will supply the company with its own capital and, in return, become a shareholder of the company. In this context, the principle known as Venture Capital (VC) is applied. This form of corporate financing is very rare. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 93 str. 94 Makedonija i EU 2009 , - . - , 0,5 °C, њ .2 2012 , - К (Copenhagen Accord), 1 ј ј - . - , - . - , , - 2 0C , 1,2 0C , . . - ќ 10%.3 . , . , ѓ - (H2O(g)) . - ќ 2 (CO2) . , - CO2 , , - , – , – . 3 1 http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/ cop15_cph_auv.pdf , , – . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 95 4 (GHGs – greenhouse gases) - . - . - , , . . ќ , , , , ѓ ј , , .5 (CH4) (N2O), (CO2), - ,6 Кј 1997 , . 1, . ј , ќ ј , , - . , : ▪ њ ѓ (ETS); ▪ ▪ ( (JI); (CDM) - – , , ), , .7 . ќ , - , , : 4 (CH4), (CO), (HFCs), NMVOCs (CO2), (NOx), (SOx), . , 1992 6 . - - 7 , str. 96 . ќ - - . 5 18 , . - - , , , . , 150 - , - . , . - , - 1 °C, ќ , . - , 2020 ќ ; ј Кј ѓ . ј , - , 8 , ќ - . . ј - . ќ . , , - , . - . , 2008 9 (CO2), - 2012 1990 8% ., - . 10 85% . 2009/28/E 8 , , : , , , , , , - 2004 9 ., 15 . , . - 6% 8% 1990 . . 2004 10 8, . 29, ., 12 2010, . str. 97 ▪ ѓ 20% (ETS). 2020 . ( 1990); - . . ќ . 2000 ▪ 20% 2020 .; ▪ 2020 20% ., - 2008 . - , : ▪ .12 , ; 2009 ▪ : - ќ , (ETS), - ; ▪ - ; ; ▪ , - ќ , , ; - ▪ ; . 11 , ќ 2005 - ., , - .13 - . , , , , ќ , , 20-20-20 11 str. 98 , , . , . : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/second_ eccp_report.pdf 12 13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action. htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/ccs/index_ en.htm , , 82%, 2010 93%. . 2020 . ќ ., , : ј , - , њ , - , ќ 2012 - , . . - , 2010 - ,14 , . . - , .15 , ќ , , ќ , - . - , - . , è . , - , 2030 ќ 65% 85% . - 61% 2030 . , 16 ., 2100 - : 14 15 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/energy/index_en.htm - 16 . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 99 3,8 C, - 13%. - - ѓ ќ , . , , , 01 - . - , , 2010 ј ј ј ј .20 - ќ , . ј Кј 17 , 70% . , - ќ ќ I, - , - , 10% .18 , ѓ , - . , , , (CDM) - - , . , . , , ѓ ѓ А,19 - , ( 2010 . . - http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf 19 ѓ (International Renewable Energy Agency IRENA). ), , , , 17 - 18 str. 100 20 . 31/2010. , , - . ( , ) ќ , . ќ - ѓ ѓ , њ : - , , 21 .22 - , ѓ - . - Acquis Communautaire23 , Acquis. , - - Acquis , . - , ќ . Ј - , , . , - . Ј , (Energy , , , 21 Community Treaty) – , , , – 25.10.2005 ., 2006 , , , 1 2006 2015 . - - . 16/1998. 22 23 - Acquis Communautaire – , . acquis – communautaire – - , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 101 , . 2010 . 2010 - - . , , ќ , - . , - , ќ , , . . , , - .24 , , њ ј , 01.01. 31.12.2010 ј . , . : ( 10 MW), . , , - . , ; , ќ . - - Acqius ; , Acqius, ; - , . , - Acqius - , , - , . str. 102 . 63/2006; 24 36/2007 106/2008. њ . , њ , - Кј ј . њ њ . ј , , - , ј , - јќ ј . , : : – , ( , 2007) Energy Efficiency for a Sustainable World – Bernard Laponche, Bernard Jamet, Michel Colombier, Sophie Attali (Published 2007) – . ( 2008) - 2008-2012 http:// www.moepp.gov.mk/WBStorage/Files/Vtor%20nacionalen%20izvestaj%20 za%20klimatski%20promeni%20%20Glava%204%20Ublazuvanje%20na%20 klimatskite%20promeni.pdf http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf 63/2006; 36/2007 ( 106/2008) . – http://www. economy.gov.mk/WBStorage/Files/Strategija%20za%20energetska%20 efikasnost%20na%20Republika%20Makedonija.pdf , http://www.energycommunity.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/ENERGY_COMMUNITY/Legal/ Treaty An Energy Policy for Europe – Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament – COM (2007) 1 final http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber &lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=1 European Environmental Agency www.eea.europa.eu Energy Community www.energy-community.org Energy Acquis Communautaire – http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm 8, . 29, 2010, str. 103 Abstract The challenges: over the past 150 years, the average temperature has increased by almost 0.8 ºC globally and by about 1 ºC in Europe. In global terms, the impact of the climate change is the greatest environmental threat. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) must be reduced significantly and effective environmental and energy policies must be put in place in order to achieve this goal. The European Union is energy-dependent from imported energy and is therefore strongly committed to sustainable energy, security of supply and competitiveness. The main objectives of the EU climate and energy policy is to reduce the GHGs by 20% until 2020, to increase the share of the renewable energy sources for 20% in the overall energy consumption, and decrease the energy consumption for 20% until 2020 through energy efficiency measures. In this context, the Republic of Macedonia as a candidate country for European Union membership and a signatory country to the Kyoto Protocol is strongly committed to the climate change mitigation process. Also, the Republic of Macedonia is a signatory country to the Energy Community Treaty, which will support the integration of the Macedonian energy market into the region, as well as into the internal energy market of the European Community. str. 104 Makedonija i EU Ј 2002-2012 . ѓ - , . . - , , : , , è , , è ќ - , , , . - ќ . è , 2010 . . , : 6- (6th Environment Action Programme – EAP), , , . 22 2002 .1 - 1 - / . , - . ( - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/legis.htm 8, . 29, 2010, str. 105 Ј ) ќ . - , . : - , II ( ѓ ѓ 2001 , è , 2007 ( - 2004 , ѓ , - ќ - : , .2 II). - , ѝ 2005 - . . 1995 , , II), , ; ; ; ; , . , ( , - . , ) : - . , : , , , , - , ѓ , , , , , .3 .4 , - 2 , 2008. - 3 . str. 106 - 4 – 2010. - 5 ;6 ▪ (97/101/EC) . - . - ; (2004/461/ - ▪ C), - : (2008/50/EC) . ќ , - ќ ( ) , ќ - 1970- - . . 1975 PM2.5 ( ( 2006/12/ C) ќ ), . (91/689/ , . - . ќ , - : ▪ C) (84/631/EEC) (96/62/EC) - - ((EEC) 259/93). - ( ), ќ - : ( ( (1999/30/ ), (2000/69/ ), (2002/3/EC) (2004/107/EC)), 5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/strategies_ en.htm 2000/76/ C) (99/31/EC). , (75/439/EEC), : 6 - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/ existing_leg.htm 8, . 29, 2010, str. 107 Ј (86/278/EEC), (91/157/EEC, 93/86/EEC COM (2003) 723), (94/62/ EC), (96/59/ C), (2000/53/EC) 2006 , (2002/95/EC). (COM/2006/373).8 , 1991 - ’ ‘ ’ , ‘ : , - - , , , . ( ) , - 2005 - , ( ) . ј . , . 2001 , ( , , - , , , , . - (0,1 μg/L) ) . . ќ , 1991 , - . . , (2006) 231) 22 2003 (COM (COM (2006) 232) 2006 , .7 , , , ќ . 7 str. 108 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm 8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/home.htm - 25%) . 21 2005 - . ќ , . - - ќ . , .9 2009 : 2010-2013 2009) ( : , , , , . , , 2009-2030 2009). ( , 24 („ . “ . 53/2005, 81/2005, 24/2007, 159/2008, 80/09), . , - , ( ). , - , ќ ( . - , EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) 31985L0337. : , , , , . 9 Zaštita okoliša – MinivodiЦ za poslovnu zajednicu. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 109 Ј , , . è . (www. , web sea.gov.mk) 2010-2012 ќ , , . , ќ . . - - ( ќ ). , 2009.10 ) ( ќ - . - , - , , , ќ ѝ - , . 10 str. 110 http://www.sep.gov.mk/content/Dokumenti/MK/EK_izvestaj_2009_mk.pdf : њ , , ј , Abstract The EU environment policy is delivering tangible results for its citizens and has helped the European industry to become a world leader in a number of highgrowth sectors. Despite this progress the pollution is still harming public health. The European Commission is committed to fully implement the current 6th Environment Action Programme in order to make significant progress towards tackling these issues. The readiness of the Republic of Macedonia for EU accession is seen through the development of mutual relations between the state and the European Union and through setting up the EU membership as a national goal with highest priority. In order to accelerate the approximation of Macedonian environmental legislation to that of the EU, the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of the Republic of Macedonia formed an EU Sector, which is dealing with these issues. With the implementation of short and medium-term priorities, which are defined in the National Programme for the adoption of the legislation of the European Union, the approximation of Macedonian environmental legislation with that of the EU will be achieved, which leads to the achievement of its ultimate goal, and that is its becoming an EU member state. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 111 Teorija , - , , - . , „ 20- , . . “ (P. , 2700 Sands, 2008). 1681 , , ќ , : „Ш ќ “. , - , , , - , . ѓ , - 1 ќ - - . è - . ќ , - . 1972 . ) , - ( . . ѓ , ѓ - – - , ѓ - 1 ѓ . . - „ “, . , - ( , / 21 - sic utere). 8, . 29, 2010, str. 113 ѓ ,3 - 2 „ њ ѓ , “ (P. Sands, 2008). ј , - „ ј “. јќ “ - 1000 , - , „ - - „ , , ј - ... . - ѓ ѓ - “. , , ќ - , “ (K. Michelson). 109 - 26 „ Ј ѓ - “, - , . - . - – ѓ ( ) - Gabcikovo-Nagymaros !? ѓ „ . ѓ . 1940 ., - ., 1954 3 str. 114 , , 2 1900 1959 ѓ - , - „ . ... . , ѓ - , . , , , “ (J. ќ , - Cassel). . ѓ , ѓ - „ ѓ sumarum, ѓ , , . “. Suma - - . ќ ѓ , ќ , - , ѓ ѓ –„ ј , - ѓ ѓ , - ќ , , . - “. ѓ , , „ , њ – “. è , ј , ќ ќ , ќ ј , ѓ - , - . , 25 ј ј јќ :„ ќ , , - , ...“. ѓ 2007 . 29, - - . 8, ј 2010, str. 115 , , њ њ . , , - , ( - „ јќ - ј ( , ѓ ) - њ ) . - , , , њ - 8“. , , Guerra v. Italy, , - . .4 - . . , - S. v. France, „ ј К ј ј ј . - , - “. ќ . , „ Lopez Ostra v. Spain, „ њ : ј ј- 2 ( ) , , “. ќ ј “. , 4 , , - 1970 ќ . ј 2009 str. 116 - „ њ , ј њ “. - . . - 8 - Fadeyeva - . v. Russia . - “. è , , . ј „ ќ , њ њ ќ - ... њ ? - 7 ( 1974 Ј , “. - ), ѓ Onerlyildiz - . v. Turkey, , . . 2005 .8 - , . - ѓ , EIA, SEA, IPPC.9 - , 1 - 15 . , è . , Kuratos v. Greece,6 „ ј per se њ К ј “ – 8 – . . , , - , : „ . . : „ ѓ “. 8 :„ - Buckley v. United Kingdom, Johannische Kirsche v. Germany, Asselbourg v. Luxemburg… ѓ ѓ ѓ “. 6 - . 8 1, - 43 7 1, , , „ 5 - 9 : - … - ...“. EIA – environmental impact assessment directive, SEA – strategic environmental assessment, IPPC – integrated pollution prevention control. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 117 20 , . - , , . . , . ѓ - , ѓ . 1991 , - . , , ѓ - ,11 , , - ќ . . - , . , , . ѓ 21/42“,10 . 1999 ( ѓ ), „ - , . - . , - „ , , - ѓ . . , - , ќ - , ќ . ќ 43 - ќ , - . “ (A. Mannion). 11 www.front.org.mk str. 118 , 21/42, 10 . ( ) , - .Ј - , ќ ѓ , ќ , . . , . . è , ѓ - ќ - . . , , - , - , , ќ , , ќ - ѓ , - , „ “ . . - ќ , 110 . , ѓ . , , „ ,ќ ќ - ќ - ќ “. , . , ќ , , - 8, . 29, 2010, str. 119 : Ole W. Pedersen, European Environmental Human Rights and Environmental Rights: A Long Time Coming? Rory O’Connel, Social and Economic Rights in the Strasbourg Convention. Jennifer Cassel, Enforcing Environmental Human Rights: Selected Strategies of US NGOs. Phillipe Sands, International Courts and Environmental Human Rights, panel presentation. The Concept of Environmental Human Rights in Law and Practice, panel presentation by Yves Lador Jutta Brunee, The Stockholm Declaration and the Structure and Processes of International Environmental Law. International Environmental Law and Issues. A Report, by Shrestha Joeti L. Abstract The objective of this article is to provide answers to some of the crucial environmental law issues. There are two main reasons for the author’s interest in this subject. Firstly, the right to a healthy environment is becoming a more and more important subject on the global, regional and national levels, which will obviously have a deep impact over the world countries development. Secondly, the right to a healthy environment is increasingly recognized as a basic human right. As Judge Cristopher Weeramantry noted in his separate opinion in the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, “Protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself”. The purpose of this article is to underline the essential part of the healthy and adequate environment in the development of a given society and to initiate a debate in the Republic of Macedonia on the measures that should be taken in our future national and individual development. Hence, this article gives a short overview of the historical development of the environmental law and explains the interconnection between the right to a healthy environment and the basic human rights by analyzing the relevant judicial jurisprudence. In the third part, we analyze the situation and the environmental rights activism in the Republic of Macedonia. This article finishes with the conclusion that Macedonia (especially in this period when faced with the challenge of accessing NATO and EU) must choose the path of sustainable development because it is its obligation stemming from the basic human right of every Macedonian citizen to “live, work and pray” in an unpolluted and healthy environment. str. 120 Portret „ : “ „ “ 1. - , (Al Gore) 1948 31 . , , , , - . . „ , - . 1969 “, , - 1976 , , , - . . - , , ѓ ќ „The Tennessean“ . 2. 2817 . , - . ќ (1976-1984) 1993). 1976 (Joe L. Evins) (1984, ѓ , , , - , - - „ “, 1976 . 32 1974 . - , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 121 . 1987 11 3. , . , 39 , . . - , џ (Roger Revelle) . џ - . , , - . - . ѓ , ќ - , 30 , , , . - . (1993-2001) ,1 - . - , . , , џ 1997 , ѓ .2 , - - 1992 . (David Greenberg), , - „ “ „ 95 “, „ “ 0 : „ , - . . , , - „Byrd-Hagel“, 1 , 1970str. 122 “. CO2. 2 . „ “ : „ “ - ѓ , 2012. , Current TV, - ѓ . - (GIM), ѓ - , . . 4. , ќ ќ - ќ „ : - ѓ . , 1000 . - “ (An Inconvenient truth: Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and what can we do about it), 2006 . , . , , ќ - . - , . : , . , - , ќ , - . - , 2007 - . , , 8, . 29, 2010, str. 123 . - , : - - - - - , ; - - . ќ , ќ , 650.000 - ќ ; 1880 , , , - , . 5. 14 . , ќ , . , ѓ - , 2008 , - „ “. , „ “ (Earth in the balance), 1992 , , - „ . :„ . York Times) ѓ , .Ј , ќ ќ - 30 - “. , , 3 str. 124 ѓ . - Њ (New „ “ (Profiles in Courage). 2007 , ѓ ,3 . (Rajendra K. Pachauri). - “ ќ . „ “ : „ “ - - :„ ’ - ‘ , , “. . .4 2000 6. , ќ . - „GLOBE“ 1994, - - . , џ (George W. Bush). 7. . , „ “ ќ . , - : , - - - , „ “ (An Inconvenient Truth) , - : , - , - , ѓ - - - ѓ . 4 ѓ 2006 , , - - ќ ѓ 1 - . . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 125 ќ - , è . , - ѓ . è , . , , - , - . è , . , - Turque, Bill. Inventing Al Gore: A Biography, 2000. Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary emergency of Global Warming and what can we do about it, 2006. Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, 1992. Gore, Al. The Assault on Reason, 2007. Gore, Al. Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, 2009. Abstract This text is a portrait of Albert Arnold “Al” Gore (born March 31, 1948) who served as the 45th Vice-President of the United States of America under President Bill Clinton. He is also widely known and respected as an author, an environmental activist, and recipient of the Academy Award in 2007 for his documentary entitled An Inconvenient Truth. The purpose of this article is to convey the significance that Al Gore has had in the battle for the preservation of our planet, the Earth, and identify the roots of his concern for and awareness of the danger that global warming presents. Al Gore’s first encounter with topics such as climate change was at the Harvard University while attending the course of Professor Roger Revelle who was also his mentor and the person who introduced him to the issue of global warming. Professor Revelle is also one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Al Gore has been involved with the environmental activist movement for decades and due to the efforts and actions he has undertaken in order to disseminate greater knowledge about the consequences of climate change he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He is a strong believer that a healthy environment and a strong economy go hand in hand; today, he is one of the most prominent leaders in the international efforts in combating global warming. Key words: inconvenient truth, global warming, climate change, the environment. str. 126 . Dokument M , . 31 3.03.2010 2010031553 Ј 68 2 , , 2010 1 , Ј Ј Ј Ј ќ , 2009 . ќ 30 2100 ќ , . , - . ќ : ќ , , - , . ќ , . ќ , , - , ,ќ 8, . 29, 2010, str. 127 30 2100 40 ќ 2025 - . - ќ ќ . ќ - , , , , . ќ ѓ ќ , , ( - è, , ), . ќ ќ - , - . 1. ѝ . 2. Ќ . 3. . 4. , - , . 5. - , . - 6. . str. 128 M 7. , , ѓ - . 8. , ќ ѓ ( џ , , 9. Ј ѓ ). ќ , . ќ 10. - . ќ 11. „ - ". Ј 1 . 07-973/1 2010 , , . . 8, . 29, 2010, str. 129 Za avtorite , 1980 , „ – “– . . - , Acqius Communitaire, . , 1986, . „Ј – “ . , . , . e „ Nadica Andonovska (1980) holds a B.Sc. degree in Environmental Protection Engineering from the Mechanical Faculty, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. She currently works in the Secretariat for European Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia and is involved in the approximation process of the national legislation with the EU Energy Acqius Communitaire in the energy field. Bojan Bogevski, (1986). Gratuated from the Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje, where he is currently enrolled in the Master Studies programme, Department of Financial Law. In addition to financial law, he is also active in the legal sphere concerned with environmental law and basic human rights. Scholar of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. “. џ . . 1981 , 2004 . “ . ( ) . „ . 2005 Daniela Bojadžieva (1981) graduated from the Department of German Language and Literature, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, in 2004. In 2005 she participated in the internship program of the German Parliament in Berlin, which is part of its International Parliamentary Scholarship project. She has worked at the 8, . 29, 2010, str. 131 About the uthors - representative office of the Koblenz Chamber of Handicrafts in Skopje and participated in projects for developing handicrafts and small enterprises in Macedonia. She also worked for two and a half years at the Consular Section of the Swiss Embassy in Skopje. Since January 2010 she has been part of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung team. – Stefan Bouzarovski-Buzar is a UKbased academic expert on issues of trans-national energy flows, social inequality and urban transformation in post-socialism. He holds Ph.D. and M.A. degrees (with distinction) in, respectively, economic geography and environmental management from the University of Oxford, UK, and is the author of Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe (Ashgate, 2007). , Ш 2010 . „ “. . ( - ), . , . (Ashgate, 2007) . „Ј 2008 . , ѓ (1986) - , “ - ѓ „ . “, “. „Ј - . , „ . 2007 str. 132 Bojan Georgievski, (1986) graduated from the Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje in 2008. He is currently pursuing his MA degree in International Law and International Relations at the Iuistinianus Primus Faculty of Law, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. Former trainee at the Secretariat of European Affairs. He is also a scholar of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. “. (1969), . Teodora O. GrnЦarovska (1969) is State Advisor on Climate Change at the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of the Republic of Macedonia. She has been teaching courses on About the uthors „Ј , “ . 2009 . „ “. Ш (1971), , - „ energy and environment as Assistant Professor at the South East European University in Tetovo, Institute for Environment and Health, since 2007. In 2009 she began working on her doctorial thesis entitled Sustainable Implementation of Integrated Product Policy at the Faculty on Mechanical Engineering, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. Stefan Deges (1971). Economist, Business Editor at „Rheinischen Merkur“ in Bonn. . “ 1966 ., , . „ , “ . 1993 . - 1999 , 2002 - . , . ќ , – Marjan Dodovski (1966) graduated from the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje in 1993. After graduation he joined DEM, the Macedonian Ecological Movement. Between 1999 and 2002, as member of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, he served as Deputy Minister and Minister of Ecology and Physical Planning. He initiated and realized the most significant ecological project in the Republic of Macedonia and the wider region, the Project for the Salvation of Lake Dojran. During his career he has been a government official on a number of occasions; at present, he is president of VMRO-People’s Party. . Ј , „ . - “, – . - . Elena Jankova holds a BS degree in Environment Engineering obtained from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering Interdisciplinary Studies, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Skopje. She works as an environmental engineer in the DEKONS-EMA Company. 8, . 29, 2010, str. 133 About the uthors ѓ ѓ 1994 , (1948), , 2000 1995 - 2000 Ш ; - Ј - (1999-00); (2000-01); Њ 03); (2001„ “, WAZ – WAZ Ost Holding GmbH ; 62. (2007-2008); (2008); ѓ ќ 100 - . , - , . 2002 2006 , . Ш . . str. 134 Srgjan Kerim, (1948). Professor of International Economic’s; from 1994 to 2000 Ambassador Extraordianry and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Macedonia to the Federal Republic of Germany; from 1995 to 2000 nonresident Ambassador to Liechtenstein and Switzerland; Special Envoy of the Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe from 1999 to 2000; Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia from 2000 to 2001; Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Macedonia to the United Nations in New York (2001-2003); CEO of Media Print Macedonia, member of the WAZ media group and board member of the WAZ Ost Holding GmbH based in Vienna; President of the 62nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly from 2007 to 2008; Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for climate change; author of nine books studies in the field of international relations and youth and of more than 100 scholarly articles published in the Republic of Macedonia and abroad. Sonja Lepitkova holds a PhD degree in technical sciences. She is Deputy Minister of Environment and Physical Planning. From 2002 to 2006 she was an MP in the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia and President of the Parliament Commission for Education, Science and Sports. She is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Mining and Geology in Štip, Goce DelЦev University and at the State University in Tetovo where she teaches Engineering Geology. She is also the author of numerous scholarly publications in the field of geology. About the uthors (1973), - , „ . “ , . ѓ . , ѓ , - (IPEN) . , ( . 1971), - . „ Silke Linneweber (1973). Economist, Business Editor at „Rheinischen Merkur“ in Bonn. 21/42“. ѓ - 2005 ѓ 21/42. - : „ “, Saška Petrova is a doctoral candidate at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Charles University’s Faculty of Science in Prague, Czech Republic. She has published various articles on waste management and nature protection, having worked in a number of international environmental advocacy organizations dealing with these subjects. Inter alia, she has coordinated the Dioxins, PCBs and Waste Group within the International POPs Elimination Network for Central and Southeastern Europe, and the NGO Youth Action for Environment and Development. Iskra Stojkovska (1971). Environmental activist. One of the founders and president of the Front 21/42 Citizens’ Association. In 2005 she established the Front 21/42 climate change programme and has coordinated it since then. She currently works as a coordinator for Macedonia on the international project entitled Networking and Capacity Building of Environmental NGOs to Increase Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy in the Western Balkans supported by the European Commission. . 1996 „ . “, , . 1997 Klimentina TrpЦevska graduated in 1996 from the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, Department of Petrochemical Engineering. She has been teaching vocational courses in chemistry at the Goce StojЦeski Primary 8, . 29, 2010, str. 135 About the uthors . . . . „Ѓ “ . Vocational School in Tetovo since 1997 and is currently completing her MS degree in Environmental Management at the South East European University. , Emilija Tudžarovska-Gjorgjievska, project manager at the KonradAdenauer-Stiftung in Skopje. Board member of Political Thought. џ Ј . џ џ -Ѓ „ ѓ . “ . , - . , - Ј . . , . , , Ш џ , . . , . str. 136 Nataša Hroneska is Research Coordinator and Research Fellow for the Energy and Infrastructure Programme at Analytica, a think-tank from Skopje. She has an academic background in Political Sciences from the Faculty of Law in Skopje, and holds an MA degree in Southeast European Sciences from the National University of Athens. Ms. Hroneska has done extensive policy research of the energy sector in Macedonia and the region. Her research interests include, among others, energy security, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, regional cooperation in energy and energy diplomacy. Georg Schoen holds an MA degree in Political Anthropology from the University of Vienna and works as Programme Officer for UNDP in Skopje. Previously Mr. Schoen has worked for Research Institutes and Development NGOs in Austria and Mexico. He is the author of a book on political ecology, democracy and globalization in Latin America and has lectured at academies and universities on these topics.