Localising the green agenda in the Eastern Partnership.
Date: 2022-07-01
Institutions: Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU energy policy, EU regional policy, EU strategy, Eastern Partnership, adaptation to climate change, bilateral agreement, energy transition, geopolitics, green economy, regional and local authorities, sustainable development

Commission for
Citizenship, Governance,
Institutional and External Affairs

X
E
V

I

C

Localising the green agenda 
in the Eastern Partnership

© European Union, 2022 
Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned. 

More information on the European Union and the Committee of the Regions is available online at 
http://www.europa.eu and http://www.cor.europa.eu respectively. 

QG-05-22-175-EN-N; ISBN: 978-92-895-1238-1; doi: 10.2863/136378 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was written by Anna Maria Augustyn , Damiano Luchetti and 
Jingyuan Li (A.R.S. Progetti S.P.A.) 

It does not represent the official views of the  
European Committee of the Regions. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Content 

1.  State of Play .................................................................................................... 1 

1.1  Background............................................................................................... 1 

1.2  Greening the Policy Agenda .................................................................... 2 

1.3  The Green Deal objectives and the renewed EaP agenda ........................ 4 

1.4  Coherence between post-COP26 and SDGs' agenda and the EaP 
country-specific flagship initiatives ................................................................... 9 

2.  Analysis: Level of ambition / progress /engagement regarding the green 
plan in the renewed EaP agenda ......................................................................... 13 
2.1  Overview of the achievements of the 2020 process ............................... 13 
2.2  The Post-2020 ......................................................................................... 19 
2.3  Other partner Organizations and Initiatives ............................................ 23 

3.  Conclusions ................................................................................................... 35 

4.  Recommendations ......................................................................................... 39 

5.  Bibliography and Website Resources ........................................................... 43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Abbreviations 

AF- Adaptation Fund  
CBD- Convention on Biological Diversity 
COP-26- 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties  
CO2- Carbon dioxide 
CoM – Covent of Mayors 
CTC- Covenant Territorial Coordinators  
CS- Covenant Supporters  
CNC- Covenant National Coordinators  
EBRD- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
EU- European Union  
EU-Gaia- EU green agriculture initiative in Armenia  
EaP- Eastern Partnership 
EIB- European Investment Bank  
E5P- Eastern Europe Energy Efficiency and Environment Partnership 
FUAs- Functional urban areas  
GEF- Global Environment Facility  
GCF- Green Climate Fund  
GHG- Greenhouse gases 
GCAPs- Green City Action Plans  
GDP- Gross Domestic Product  
ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability 
KfW- Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau  
LED- Light Emitting Diode 
NDCs- Nationally Determined Contributions 
ODS- Ozone Depleting Substance 
POPs- Persistent organic pollutants 
SECAPs- Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans 
SEFFs- Sustainable Energy Financing Facilities  
SDSN- Sustainable Development Network Solution  
SDGs- sustainable Development Goals 
SME- Small and Medium Enterprises 
SWD- Joint Staff Working Document  
TEN-T- The Trans-European Transport Network 
UN- United Nations 
UNDP- United Nations Development Program 
WRI- World Resources Institute 

 
 
 
 
1.State of Play 

1.1  Background 

The Eastern Partnership (EaP) was created in 2009 with the aim of strengthening 
institutional, economic and political relations between the European Union (EU) 
and  the  six  EaP  countries,  namely  Armenia,  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  Georgia, 
Moldova and Ukraine. Since then, the geopolitical agenda has changed several 
times and recently – rather drastically.  

The partnership with the 6 EaP countries has originally focused on priorities other 
than the environment, ranging from supporting the democratisation processes and 
strengthening  the  rule  of  law  to  addressing  visa  issues,  enhancing  trade  and 
market  access.  However,  as  these  priorities  started  being  addressed,  including 
through bilateral Partnership Agreements and Association Agreements, the scope 
of cooperation broadened.  

Energy and infrastructures have often dominated the negotiation process. Most 
EaP countries have been striving towards energy efficiency, while attempting to 
loosen the ties with the Russian Federation as their main energy supplier. Unlike 
most  of  the  EaP  countries,  Azerbaijan  is  the  only  one  with  high  oil  and  gas 
extraction, which makes it fully independent from other countries when it comes 
to energy sources.  

Among the other priority areas of cooperation, EU and EaP have identified the 
need  to  support  innovation  of  obsolete  infrastructures  and,  in  specific  cases, 
reconstruction from the different conflicts that have taken place within the region. 
It  is  worth  noting  that  the  Partnership  Agreements  signed  with  the  six  EaP 
countries, in a way or another, already integrated some environmental elements. 
These  generally  included  biodiversity  protection,  agriculture  and  forest 
management,  but  did  not  fail  to  touch  upon  other  important  matters,  such  as 
pollution reduction, waste management, safe water etc. Promotion of favourable 
conditions  for  the  bilateral  trade  relations  and  investments  in  specific  areas, 
encompassing indirectly related to the environment fields such as export of food 
products,  was  also  generally  considered.  Furthermore,  energy  related  matters 
made part of the overall agenda while climate change often went unnoticed. 

With  time,  it  became  evident  that  the  Partnership  countries  are  not  as 
homogeneous as they were initially thought to be, and that their differences in 
terms of needs and aspirations, played a role. Nevertheless, cooperation between 
the EU and the Eastern Partnership has been growing and the identified priorities 
have been increasingly permeated by the growing need to address environmental 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
issues,  especially  through  integration  of  environmental  concerns  into  various 
sectors of economic and social life.  

1.2  Greening the Policy Agenda 

In  2017,  the  Eastern  Partnership  Summit  endorsed  20  deliverables  for  2020. 
These deliverables were clearly mostly oriented towards economic development, 
governance and social targets, see  Table 1. It was at this time,  though, that an 
early  integration  of  “green”  elements  into  economic  sectors  started  to  be 
explicitly mentioned in policy statements. It is important to note that back in 2017 
the EU Green Deal had not been issued yet. One of its targets specifically linked 
energy sector to the climate crisis, namely: ‘Enhance energy efficiency and the 
use of renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’ 

recommendations  and  approaches 

During those years, awareness of the key environmental issues had been steadily 
increasing among decision-makers and, coherently, international processes and 
agreements  developed 
integrate 
environmental concerns into national, regional and local policy processes. The 
EU has always been at the forefront in these negotiations and provided support to 
their development and implementation. Similarly, the EaP countries supported 
and adopted a number of global policy objectives and instruments, such  as the 
Paris Agreement on climate change and the UN 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable 
Development Goals.  

to 

Cross-cutting deliverables 

Stronger governance 

•  Higher level engagement with civil 

•  Strengthen the rule of law and anti-

Table 1: EaP’s 20 deliverables for 2020 

• 

society organisations 
Increase gender equality and non-
discrimination 
•  Strengthen strategic 

communication, support plurality 
and independence of media 

corruption mechanisms 

•  Support the implementation of key 

judicial reforms 

•  Support implementation of public 

administration reform 

•  Stronger security cooperation 

Stronger economy 

Stronger connectivity 

• 

Improve investment and business 
environment, unlock SMEs' growth 
potential 

•  Address gaps in access to finance 

and financial infrastructure 

•  Create new job opportunities at the 

local and regional level 
•  Harmonise digital markets 
•  Support intra-regional trade among 

partner countries and the EU 

•  Extend the TEN-T core networks, 

transport 
• 
Increase energy supply security 
•  Enhance energy efficiency and use 

of renewable energy, reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions 
•  Support the environment and 
adaptation to climate change 

Stronger society 

•  Progress with visa liberalisation 

dialogues and mobility partnerships 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Strengthen investment in young 
people’s skills, entrepreneurship 
and employability 

•  Establish an EaP European school 

• 

Integrate EaP and EU research, 
innovation systems and 
programmes 

Increasingly,  “green”  recommendations  have  started  to  appear  in  policy 
statements at the national level in the EaP countries, for instance, when referring 
to addressing climate change through greening the sectors of energy, including 
energy efficiency and renewable energy; or to developing sustainable transport, 
green  infrastructures  and  sustainable  cities,  etc.  This  process  has  also  been 
facilitated for the EaP countries as they have been involved in and benefitted from 
their participation in various global and regional policy mechanisms, targeting 
sustainability, green transition and investments (e.g., EBRD, Global Environment 
Facility, Green Climate Fund, UNDP, etc.).  

The  Commission’s  Communication  presenting  the  European  Green  Deal  was 
issued in December 2019. It is developed around 8 elements, see Table 2, which 
clearly  and  explicitly  highlight  critical  relations  and  positive  v/s  negative 
implications each sector has with the environment.  

Table 2: European Green Deal Elements 

1. Increasing the EU’s Climate ambition for 2030 and 2050 
2. Supplying clean, affordable and secure energy 
3. Mobilising industry for a clean and circular economy 
4. Building and renovating in an energy resource efficient way 
5. Accelerating the shift to sustainable and smart mobility 
6. From “Farm to Fork”: a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system 
7. Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity 
8. A zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment 

The adoption of the EU Green Deal for the six EaP countries could be seen as a 
turning point for policy making, as well as an indication that the Green Deal was 
to become a guide to transforming the economy and making it more sustainable. 
The Green Deal also became a new approach to design and implementation of 
cooperation  projects/initiatives  with  the  EaP,  according  to  which  environment 
components should always be integrated, notwithstanding the target sector and 
the  issues  addressed.  ‘Greening  a  sector’  becomes  officially  a  synonym  of 
reducing its impact on the environment, making it more resilient to changes and, 
at  the  same  time,  contributing  to  sustainability  and  to  improving  human  life. 
Finally, the Green Deal has the open ambition to go beyond the EU borders and 
become a driver to support neighbouring countries to address climate change and 
biodiversity loss. The Green Deal can also become the framework to mobilise the 
EU expertise and financial resources to support neighbours and partners towards 
a more sustainable path.

3 

 
 
 
 
1.3  The Green Deal objectives and the 

renewed EaP agenda 

The  Eastern  European  Partnership,  which  tends  to  mirror  EU’s  flagship 
strategies, also adopted the European Green Deal. Thanks to this Deal, the green 
transition  became  high  in  the  EU-EaP  negotiation  agenda.  The  importance  of 
greening  the  economic  sectors  is  also  visible  in  the  Agenda  of  the  Eastern 
Partnership  Post  2020  and  the  following  document  Joint  Staff  Working 
Document  (SWD),  Recovery,  resilience  and  reform:  Post  2020  Eastern 
Partnership priorities, which supplemented the March 2020 paper in the light of 
changed  circumstances  due  to the  pandemic, without  fundamentally  amending 
the priorities, however. 

Table 3: EaP Post 2020 priorities 

i) Together for resilient, sustainable and 

integrated economies 
Trade and economic integration 
Investment and access to finance 
Enhanced transport interconnectivity 
Investing in people and knowledge 
societies 

ii) Together for accountable institutions, 

the rule of law and security 
Judicial Reform 
Accountable, transparent and efficient 
public administration 
Tackling fraud, corruption and 
economic crime 
Combating organised crime and 
strengthening security 
Cyber resilience and cybercrime 
iii) Together towards environmental 

and climate resilience 
Benefits for people’s health and 
wellbeing 
Circular economy, climate neutrality 
and green growth 

Biodiversity and economy’s natural 
assets base 
Strengthening energy security and 
nuclear safety 
Accelerating the shift to sustainable and 
smart mobility 

iv) Together for a resilient digital 

transformation 
Digital infrastructure 
e-Governance 
Digital economy and innovation 
Cyber resilience – Cybersecurity 
v) Together for resilient, fair and 

inclusive societies. 
Civil Society and youth participation 
Independent media and fact-based 
information 
Democracy 
Protection of human rights and 
promotion of gender equality 
Mobility 
Health resilience 

The resulting Economic and Investment Plan mobilises €2.3 billion from the 
EU budget in grants, blending and guarantees, to the post-pandemic recovery and 
to sustainably transform the economies of the Eastern Partnership to make them 
more resilient and integrated. In addition, the plan could leverage up to €17 billion 
in public and private investments, which are considered essential to achieve the 
objectives set. All this highlights the great importance attached to this strategy by 
both the EU and the EaP.  

4 

 
 
 
 
The  Recovery,  resilience  and  reform:  post-2020  Eastern  Partnership 
Priorities  has  identified  five  priorities  (see  Table  3)  and  the  Economic  and 
Investment Plan for the Eastern Partnership presents top 10 targets for 2025 
(see Table 4). In addition to this, for each of the six countries, the Economic and 
Investment Plan has further identified several Flagship Initiatives (see Table 5). 

Table 4: Top Ten Targets for 2025 

1.  Investing in competitive and 

innovative economies  
500 000 SMEs supported 
2.  Investing in sustainable and 

smart connectivity  
3 000 km of priority roads and 
railways built or upgraded 

3.  Investing in people and 
knowledge societies  
70 000 individual mobility 
opportunities for students and staff, 
researchers, young people and 
youth workers 

4.  Investing in sustainable energy  
250 000 households reduce energy 
consumption by at least 20% 
5.  Investing in environment & 

climate  
Another 3 million people gain 
access to safe water services, 
quality monitored and improved in 
300 cities 

6.  Investing in the rule of law  

All high-level officials declare 
their economic assets and these 
declarations are verified 

7.  Investing in security and cyber 

resilience  
A strengthened framework in place 
for identifying and addressing 
hybrid threats; strengthened 
partners' capacities to increase 
cyber resilience and tackle cyber-
crime, including through fully 
implementing the Council of 
Europe Budapest Convention on 
cyber crime 

8.  Investing in inclusive, gender 

equal and diverse societies, and 
strategic communication  
2 500 local Civil Society 
organisations, 120 independent 
media outlets and 2 000 journalists 
supported 

9.  Investing in digital 
transformation  
80% of households have affordable 
access to high-speed internet 
10. Investing in health resilience  

850 000 health workers vaccinated 
and benefit from improved 
therapeutics, equipment and 
working conditions 

5 

 
 
Table 5: Overview of the Flagship Initiatives in the Economic and Investment Plan 

Top Ten 
Targets for 
2025 

1. Investing 
in 
competitive 
and 
innovative 
economies  

Armenia 

Azerbaijan 

Belarus 

Georgia 

Moldova 

Ukraine 

Flagship 1: 
Supporting 
an innovative 
and 
competitive 
economy: 
direct support 
to 30 000 
SMEs 

Flagship 3: 
Supporting 
an 
innovative 
and 
competitive 
economy – 
direct 
support to 
25 000 
SMEs 

Flagship 1: 
Supporting 
an 
innovative 
and 
competitive 
economy – 
direct 
support to 
20 000 
SMEs 

Flagship 3: 
Economic 
Recovery – 
Supporting 
80 000 
SMEs to 
reap the full 
benefits of 
the DCFTA 

Flagship 1: 
Supporting an 
innovative and 
competitive 
economy – 
direct support 
to 50 000 
Moldovan 
SMEs 

Flagship 1: 
Supporting 
an 
innovative 
and 
competitive 
economy – 
direct 
support to 
100 000 
SMEs 

2. Investing 
in sustainable 
and smart 
connectivity  

Flagship 2: 
Boosting 
connectivity 
& socio-
economic 
development: 
the North-
South 
Corridor 

Flagship 1: 
Green 
connectivit
y: 
supporting 
the green 
port of 
Baku; 

Flagship 2: 
Digital 
connectivit
y: 
supporting 
the digital 
transport 
corridor 

Flagship 2: 
Improving 
transport 
connectivity 
and 
facilitating 
EU-Belarus 
trade 

Flagship 1: 
Black Sea 
Connectivit
y – 
Deploying 
a submarine 
electricity 
cable and 
fibre optic 
cable; 

Flagship 2: 
Transport 
across the 
Black Sea – 
Improving 
physical 
connections 
between 
Georgia 
and the EU 

3. Investing 
in people and 
knowledge 
societies  

Flagship 3: 
Improving 
connectivity 
by upgrading 
border 
crossing 
points 

Flagship 2: 
Boosting EU-
Moldova trade 
- construction 
of an Inland 
Freight 
Terminal in 
Chisinau; 

Flagship 4: 
Improving 
connectivity – 
anchoring 
Moldova in 
the Trans-
European 
Network for 
Transport 

Flagship 5: 
Investing in 
Moldova's 
human capital 
and preventing 
“brain drain” – 
modernisation 
of school 
infrastructure 
and 
implementatio
n of the 
National 
Education 
Strategy 

6 

 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
4. Investing 
in sustainable 
energy  

Flagship 5: 
Investing in a 
green 
Yerevan: 
energy 
efficiency 
and green 
buses 

5. Investing 
in 
environment 
& climate  

Flagship 4: 
Building 
resilience of 
the Southern 
regions 

Flagship 5: 
Smarter and 
greener 
cities 

6. Investing 
in the rule of 
law  

7. Investing 
in security 
and cyber 
resilience  

8. Investing 
in inclusive, 
gender equal 
and diverse 
societies, and 
strategic 
communicati
on  

9. Investing 
in digital 
transformatio
n  

Flagship 3: 
Investing in 
digital 
transformatio
n, innovation, 
science and 
technology 

Flagship 4: 
Innovative 
Rural 
Developme
nt 

Flagship 4: 
Supporting a 
green 
Belarus – 
energy 
efficiency, 
waste 
management 
and 
infrastructur
e 

Flagship 5: 
Investing in 
a 
democratic, 
transparent 
and 
accountable 
Belarus 

Flagship 4: 
Digital 
Connectivit
y for 
Citizens – 
Developing 
high-speed 
broadband 
infrastructu
re for 1,000 
rural 
settlements 

Flagship 3: 
Boosting 
innovation 
and the 
digital 
transformati
on 

7 

Flagship 3: 
Increasing 
energy 
efficiency – 
expanding the 
refurbishment 
of district 
heating 
systems in 
residential 
buildings 
(condominium
s) in Chisinau 
and Balti 

Flagship 5: 
Increasing 
energy 
efficiency – 
and support 
for 
renewable 
hydrogen 

Flagship 2: 
Economic 
transition for 
rural areas – 
assistance to 
more than 
10 000 small 
farms 

Flagship 4: 
Boosting the 
digital 
transformati
on – 
modernising 
public IT 
infrastructur
e 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. Investing 
in health 
resilience  

Flagship 5: 
Improved 
Air Quality 
– Helping 
over 
1 million 
people in 
Tbilisi 
breathe 
cleaner air 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.4  Coherence between post-COP26 and 

SDGs' agenda and the EaP country-specific 
flagship initiatives 

Scaling the Paris Agreement and the SDGs agenda was the key objective of the 
recent COP-26 in Glasgow, which was concluded with the following four action 
points:  

1.  Secure global net zero by mid-century and limit global temperature 

rise to 1.5 degrees 

2.  Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats 
3.  Mobilise finance 
4.  Work together to deliver 

As of 2021, the EaP countries have been updating their NDCs towards improving 
their  domestic  targets  and  better  align  them  with  the  global  agendas.  Several 
countries have been working on their goals in this respect and benefitted from the 
external assistance in their elaboration (e.g., by initiatives such as EU4Climate or 
by  the  UN  agencies).  Yet,  critical  voices  (from  the  EU  Eastern  members) 
emerged  that  the  outcomes  of  COP26  did  not  sufficiently  reflect  the  real 
capacities of the EaP and Eastern European countries to address the issues. In this 
context, less wealthy countries may struggle with the need to compromise their 
industrial  growth  against  the  necessary  resource  efficiency,  imposed  by  the 
necessity  to  curb  emissions.  This  is  particularly  visible  in  the  area  of  energy, 
which is characterised by a high dependence on the supply from Russia and by a 
large  predominance  of  high-carbon  sources  such  as  coal,  oil  and  gas.  The 
transition  of  the  industry  towards  greener  energy  and  new  resource  efficiency 
management models is challenging, requires significant investments and may not 
yield  expected  benefits  immediately.  In  addition,  despite  many  efforts,  public 
awareness of climate issues in the EaP countries remains limited, therefore, the 
green transition may require intensified efforts in this area. 

Against  this  backdrop,  the  flagship  initiatives  identified  in  the  Economic  and 
Investment Plan offer investments opportunities for greening the energy sector, 
including  diversification  of  energy  sources.  Four  countries  of  the  EaP  have 
clearly  dedicated  flagship  initiatives  for  clean  energy  (Armenia,  Moldova, 
Belarus and Ukraine), while the other two did not focus on those (Azerbaijan, 
Georgia). Greening the energy sector is a key approach for the EaP countries to 
meet the climate targets, since all the NDCs identified the energy sector as the 
main responsible for GHG emissions. 

As addressed above, climate issues are very high in the EU agenda: they represent 
a key element of the Green Deal and have played a key role in the negotiations 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
with the EaP since the early 2000s. Some Partnership Agreements that preceded 
the establishment of the EaP previously mentioned climate as a key issue to be 
addressed.  With  the  recent  developments  in  the  global  climate  process,  for 
instance with the entry into force of the Paris Agreement in 2016 and the specific 
requirement  of  identifying  national  action  plans  within  the  NDC  process, 
cooperation  on  climate  change  has  become  more  streamlined,  transparent  and 
effective.  

On the one hand, the development of NDCs has forced governments to identify 
gaps and priorities to be addressed and has supported the process of streamlining 
different funds and contributions towards the real national priorities, promoting 
synergies and avoiding duplications. For instance, the priority areas defined by 
the EaP countries in their flagship initiatives largely focus on the needs to invest 
into greening diverse types of infrastructure. At the same time, the other funding 
mechanisms  (e.g.  GCF,  GEF,  AF)  seem  to  be  more  devoted  to  dealing  with 
environment and natural resource management, including such sectoral focus as 
agriculture, forestry and water management. In addition to this, the process that 
needs to be put in place at national level to develop an NDC has revealed to be 
key not only to identify and guide funding priorities but also in raising awareness 
of the different issues related to climate change. 

Some progress can also be observed in the EaP countries concerning the SDGs. 
Several  countries  integrated  national  sustainable  development  goals  into  their 
national  level  frameworks  and  strategies.  Governments  have  already  started 
working  on  improving  relevant  legislation.  For  instance,  in  Armenia  the 
government put an emphasis on the development of the comprehensive Armenia 
Transformation Strategy 2020-2050 and over 30 sectoral strategies in support of 
the implementation of SDGs. The flagship initiatives identified in the Economic 
and  Investment  Plan  for  the  EaP  countries  will  possibly  fill  in  the  gaps  and 
provide a necessary contribution to achieving the respective goals.  

The EaP countries score “high” and “very high” in the UN Human Development 
Index; however, many areas still show room for improvement. This particularly 
concerns democratic governance, rule of law, socio-economic development and 
post-conflict  recovery.  The  analysis of  the  flagship initiatives identified  in the 
Post-2020  EaP  Agenda  shows  the  attempts  to  fulfil  those  gaps.  Notably,  the 
Economic  and  Investment  Plan  promotes  investments  in  socio-economic 
development in all the EaP countries, especially through support to SMEs and 
creation  of  green  jobs.  The  direct  emphasis  on  democracy  and  rule  of  law  is 
clearly  put  and  pursued  with  a  dedicated  flagship  initiative  in  Belarus.  When 
everything  is  considered,  little  seems  to  be  devoted  directly  to  address 
environmental issues. 

10 

 
 
 
 
The Eastern Partnership Index monitors EaP countries’ approximation to the EU 
legal  system  (Acquis  Communautaire).1 The  Index  focuses  on  democracy  and 
good governance, policy convergence and sustainable development, and includes 
data on environment, climate, energy and other themes of relevance to the green 
agenda.  This  Index  provides  an  interesting  indication  of  thematic  policy 
development  at  national  and  regional  level.  This  general  indication,  however, 
cannot be considered sufficient to draw a comprehensive picture of the level of 
implementation  of  the  green  agenda  at national  and local  level  nor  to  identify 
existing  gaps.  To  do  so,  a  deeper  analysis  of  specific  cases,  recognizing  the 
specificity of each territory and their social dimensions, and the identification of 
failures and success stories, could be helpful. 

As previously discussed, areas related to social issues and democracy have been 
central to the EU-EaP negotiations since the beginning. It is noteworthy that while 
the Green Deal does not directly address social issues, one could argue that its 
implementation would contribute to achieving social targets, even if indirectly. 
For instance, improving transport infrastructure and broadband connectivity will 
enable a greater mobility of citizens and bring benefits to businesses including by 
facilitating a wider access to larger markets (at a national or transnational scale). 
In turn, such development helps to secure opportunities for people living in the 
EaP  countries  and  their  access  to  information,  and  by  doing  so,  indirectly 
contribute to improving democracy, generating incomes and accessing services 
that were previously beyond their reach. 

Unfortunately, only in two countries (Azerbaijan and Ukraine) some attention is 
paid to supporting development of their respective rural areas. As for a significant 
effort dedicated to the environment and biodiversity, it still remains somewhat 
missing in the flagship initiatives in all countries. 

1 See https://eap-csf.eu/eastern-partnership-index/ 

11 

 
 
 
 
12 

 
 
 
 
2.Analysis: Level of ambition / progress 
/engagement regarding the green plan 
in the renewed EaP agenda 

2.1  Overview of the achievements of the 

2020 process 

In assessing the level of implementation of the 20 Deliverables for 2020 (see Tab 
1),  the  Joint  Staff  Working  Document2 showed  good  progress,  specifically  in 
areas relating to “stronger economy”, such as support for SMEs and creation of 
sustaining  jobs.  Progress  on  social  issues  relates  mostly  to  people-to-people 
contacts, supporting academic and youth mobility through Erasmus+ and Horizon 
2020.  Important  achievements  are  also  reported  in  the  field  of  connectivity, 
energy efficiency and nature protection, as well as in the governance sector, for 
instance,  increased  access  to  public  services.  The  document  also  states  that 
challenges  remain  in  some  fields  and  that  climate  mitigation  and  environment 
need to be addressed further. 

Some of the greener achievements corresponding to the 20 Deliverables for 2020, 
worth mentioning are the following:  

●  The EU4Business, the EU initiative supporting SMEs in the EaP countries 
to  realise  their  full  potential  and  boost  economic  growth,  has  been 
instrumental to finance some “green” success stories  including  reducing 
the  barriers  in  access  to  markets;  for  example,  supporting  eco-friendly 
production or sustainability integration with production, support of training 
in planning, brand development, legal standards for online sales, packaging 
distribution etc. The Green Deal recognises the importance of supporting 
SMEs to facilitate the achievement of the deal itself. 

●  The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) for the implementation 
and development of a Europe-wide network of railway lines, roads, inland 
waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals, 
offers  a  great  deal  of  opportunities  to  be  “greener”.  The  achievements 
within this theme also contribute to the Accelerating the shift to sustainable 
and smart mobility element of the Green Deal. Green achievements have 
been mentioned in respect to three countries, namely Belarus, Ukraine and 

2 SWD 2021 Annex 3, available at 
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/swd_2021_186_f1_joint_staff_working_paper_en_v2_p1_1356457_0.pdf  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Moldova, that support a process to develop multimodal transport and low-
carbon transport systems in the border regions. 

●  A field where several achievements have been recorded is climate change 
mitigation:  energy  efficiency,  renewable  and  GHG  reduction.  Here,  the 
support  provided  by  the  EU4Climate  helped  countries  develop  clear 
strategies  and  commit  to  ambitious  reduction  targets  within  their 
Nationally  Determined  Contributions  (NDCs).  Moldova  and  Georgia, 
especially,  submitted  more  ambitious  updated  NDCs.  Belarus  through 
EU4Climate  is  being  supported  by  the  UNDP  to  facilitate  access  to  the 
Green Climate Fund. 

●  The Covenant of Mayors was also key to involving a large number of local 
authorities (almost 450) to cutting CO2 emissions. Moreover, the Covenant 
of  Mayors  East  (CoM  East)  has  been  dedicated  to  introducing  the  EU 
climate  and  energy  initiative  to  the  EaP  countries.  It  supports  local 
authorities  in  the  green  transition  of  energy  policies,  improving  supply 
security  and  contributions  to  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation.  The 
signatory municipalities committed to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 
30%  until  2030.  The  achievement  of  those  goals  is  supported  with  key 
strategic instruments such as the Sustainable Energy and Climate Action 
Plans (SECAPs), networking, capacity building and monitoring activities. 

Greening the energy sector is now one of the key priorities globally, EU and EaP 
including.  Energy  is  normally  considered  the  prime  responsible  for  GHG 
emissions,  hence  greening  this  sector  has  positive  implications  on  national 
mitigation strategies. In line with this, the energy sector is often highly relevant 
for achieving countries’ NDCs targets. 

The  key  initiative  in  support  of  this  sector  is  the  Eastern  Europe  Energy 
Efficiency  and  Environment  Partnership  (E5P),  which  provided  over  €164 
million throughout 40 projects from various donors, and leveraging almost €1.2 
billion investments. Project distribution varies widely from 1 (Azerbaijan) to 26 
(Ukraine).  Themes  are  also  several,  including  energy  efficiency  in  public 
buildings, heating rehabilitation, solid waste and city transports.   

Other initiatives for energy efficiency include the High-Level Energy Efficiency 
Initiative (Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine), supported by the Energy Efficiency 
Fund  for  residential  buildings.  A  success  story  is  recorded  in  Ukraine  where 
heating of residential buildings was estimated to account for around 50% of all 
energy losses. The Energy Efficiency Fund, launched in 2019 by the Ukrainian 
government  and  the  EU,  facilitated  energy  efficiency  renovations  and 
modernisation  of  the  housing  sector,  leading  to  a  cleaner  environment  and 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
reduced emissions. The fund subsidised about 70% of the costs of the building 
renovations and installation of individual improved heating systems. 
Among worthwhile EaP countries’ achievements in this direction, the following 
legal  acts  may  be  brought  to  light:  Ukraine’s  Law  “On  the  principles  of 
monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions”, adopted in 
2019,  and  Georgia’s laws  on  energy  efficiency  and  on  energy performance  of 
buildings. 

Developing green cities is also a key theme of the Green Deal and of the EaP as 
a whole. A success story is that of energy efficient and smart street lighting in 
Moldova,  where  modernisation  with  LED  lamps  and  smart  monitoring  in  the 
cities of Cantemir and Ocnița improved the lives of about 12,000 citizens. The 
new system  allowed for reduced running costs and CO2 emissions, as well as 
contributed to safer streets. 

Increasing  energy  supply  security,  which  focuses  on  reducing  the  dependency 
from  foreign  oil,  considers  the  use  of  gas  as  an  intermediary  step  to  de-
carbonisation.  Some  achievements  have  been  recorded  in  this  area  through 
infrastructural developments, e.g. the Southern Gas Corridor and the Ungheni-
Chisinau pipeline. While this area of work can be contributing to greening the 
economy,  it  should  be  noted  that  formally  energy  security  is  not  so  highly 
recognised in the Green Deal. 

Direct  support  to  the  environment  and  adaptation  to  climate  change  is  also  a 
theme where progress has been made. 

Proven development is achieved with water related issues, in enabling modern 
water policy to be applicable at a river basin level over 500,000 km2. During this 
period, Armenia, Belarus and Moldova adopted four river basin plans, reaching 
over  30  million  people.  In  addition,  water  data  portals  are  now  introduced  in 
Armenia  and  Azerbaijan.  In  Georgia  notably,  the  National  Environmental 
Agency can now conduct state-of-the-art water analysis to advance water quality 
and protection of river basins. 

The  Black  Sea,  a  key  environmental  hotspot  in  the  region,  received  funds  for 
large-scale field surveys and litter mapping. Georgia and Ukraine also designed 
their national marine strategies in line with EU law.  

A  significant  step  forward  has  been  taken  apropos  environmental  assessments 
almost everywhere throughout the EaP: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova 
and Ukraine updated their laws on environmental assessment of strategies, plans 
and investment projects while Armenia is in the process of doing so. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In this very field, support to SMEs has been an important part of the assistance 
provided. An assessment of the status of resource efficiency and clean production 
has been carried out on the basis of approximately 80 pilot enterprises, with the 
double objective of achieving savings and grasping green opportunities. Armenia, 
Georgia,  Moldova  and  Ukraine  integrated  its  outcomes  into  their  SME 
development strategies; the latter two went further and introduced the assessment 
findings into their respective public procurement policies and action plans. 

Through collaboration with the European Environment Agency, environmental 
data from all the six countries are available online via an Internet-Based Tracking 
Tool.3 

Finally, the EaP countries identified their Emerald Network sites and approved 
80% of them. 

The  overview  of  the  achievements  recorded  for  the  20  Deliverables  for  2020 
demonstrates significant efforts being devoted to greening the policy agenda, in 
line with the elements of the green deal. A large  emphasis has been placed on 
addressing  the  elements  of  climate  change  and  energy,  harnessing  synergies 
between  these  sectors.  An  efficient  approach  to  developing  synergies  and 
effectiveness of funds, is that of streamlining priorities and interventions through 
the NDC process. In this case, donors can develop initiatives and cooperation on 
the basis of needs and pledges that a recipient country has made as part of the 
Paris Agreement. Clearly, a strategic approach to supporting this process would 
be to provide technical assistance in the development of NDCs. 

Some interesting work has been initiated apropos transport and smart cities. We 
now know that these two themes, extremely relevant in the EaP countries, have 
grown in relevance in the post 2020. A few important umbrella networks emerged 
globally,  encompassing  the  EaP  countries’  cities  as  well,  with  an  objective  to 
channel  support  and  funding  towards  green  transition.  These  are  for  instance 
facilitated  by  the  Covenant  of  Mayors,  ICLEI,  the  World  Resources  Institute 
(WRI), and Sustainable Development Network Solution (SDSN), among others. 
Among  the  important  players  we  should  also  mention  international  financing 
institutions, such as for instance, the EBRD. Under the umbrella of the platform 
“EBRD Green Cities”, it has managed to involve several cities across the EaP and 
enabled them to connect to a global mechanism of exchange of practices. 

3 See https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  core  activities  of  the  CoM  East  include  capacity  building  to  strengthen 
several  groups  such  as  the  Covenant  National  Coordinators  (CNC),  Covenant 
Territorial  Coordinators  (CTC),  Covenant  Supporters  (CS)  and  signatories.  A 
country  helpdesk  is  also  normally  available  to  provide  technical  and 
administrative assistance. Apart from this, communication, know-how exchange, 
monitoring and networking are the key areas where EaP countries benefit from 
the  CoM  East.  By  these  means,  local  authorities  are  supported  in  developing 
SECAPs.  

An important part of the activities are also demonstration projects. Two calls were 
launched (in 2014 and 2018), for EaP countries to submit project proposals. As a 
result,  31  projects  were  granted  support:  17  in  Ukraine,  5  in  Belarus,  4  in 
Moldova, 3 in Armenia and 1 in Georgia. The projects were especially focused 
on retrofitting buildings, LED street lighting, heating systems, waste management 
and solar energy. Once and again, the same priorities are being addressed also 
through this programme. To date, in most of these projects significant progress 
has been achieved, which is well documented on the dedicated website. The CoM 
platform, in addition, offers a dedicated section where municipalities can propose 
their planned projects. 

Moreover, the Mayors Adapt (Urban Adaptation Support Tool) is available for 
the  EaP  countries.  In  2017,  the  implementation  of  the  initiative  was  fully 
integrated  into  the  CoM  and  intended  to  support  mitigation  of  climate  change 
effects.  The  main  focus  was  on  adaptation  in  the  cities  and  creation  of  new 
opportunities  to  strengthen  their  socio-economic  resilience.  The  initiative  was 
connected to the Climate Adapt, a large international platform supported by the 
European Commission and the European Environment Agency and the European 
Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation. A rich 
database, expert support and capacity-building actions are intended to facilitate 
the effective mitigation and adaptation in the EaP cities. The SECAP template, 
thematic  workshops,  benchmarks  of  excellence,  risk  and  vulnerability 
assessments,  baseline  emissions  inventory,  local  energy  days  and  thematic 
discussion  groups  are  the  key  elements  to  help  in  the  implementation  of  the 
strategies. 

Similarly,  the  support  provided  to  SMEs  is  of  particular  importance.  In  this 
regard,  synergies  with  the  need  to  tackle  pollution  and  support  cleaner 
productions seem to have been developed. Investing into SMEs is a key approach 
to  support  social  and  economic  issues  at  a  national  and  even  at  a  local  level. 
Indeed, "greening” SMEs is a relevant objective and  is totally in line with the 
Green Deal; this area of work should continue and be furthermore strengthened. 
However, it should be clear that the impact that this work can have on addressing 
the  causes  of  pollution  is  limited,  and  it  is  important  that  this  work  to  reduce 
pollution  be  further  deepened  and  mainstreamed  within  the  relevant  sectors. 

17 

 
industries,  poor  and  inefficient  waste 
Chemicals  from  agriculture  and 
management  should  be  addressed  directly  through  stronger  policies,  more 
effective interventions and a sound monitoring programme. 

On the other hand, it needs to be noted how the engagement on more ecosystem-
based  priorities  of  the  Green  Deal  such  as  biodiversity,  ecosystem  restoration, 
sustainable  agriculture,  forestry  and  food  systems,  seem  much  less  ambitious 
compared to most of the other themes. The main exceptions to this could be the 
work done on improving river basin management processes and the identification 
of the emerald network.  

Indirectly,  several  other  activities  contribute  to  the  aim  of  conserving  natural 
resources  and  habitats,  nonetheless,  a  more  balanced  approach  should  be 
developed between greening sectors and protecting the environment both as the 
two elements are interconnected and since the latter  one may become an even 
more  urgent  priority.  Looking  at  the  National  Reports  to  the  Convention  on 
Biological Diversity, the EaP countries have identified several priorities related 
to  loss  of  habitats  and  biodiversity,  including  in  relation  to  unsustainable 
agriculture, forestry and fisheries practices. In some cases, the countries have put 
in place some policy instruments to address them, including with EU support, but 
these areas seem to be less developed compared to others. Similar to the approach 
taken on climate change with the NDCs, a good approach to ensure more balanced 
support between different areas could be that of using national outcomes of the 
CBD process as a basis for cooperation on biodiversity conservation, ecosystem 
restoration and sustainable land use practices. 

The EU is also committed to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 
2015-2030,  which  highlights  the  importance  of  environmental  management  to 
prevent  and  manage  the  disasters.  Several  EaP  countries  are  highly  prone  to 
disaster occurrence, with the most notable example of the earthquake in Armenia 
(1988),  which  resulted  in  thousands  of  casualties  and  critically  affected  the 
economy. Furthermore, sustainable forest and water management are crucial to 
prevent major disasters in other countries of the EaP. 

Finally, and stressing the importance that the EU attaches to addressing climate 
change,  it  should  be  important  that  at  least  the  work  on  environment  and 
agriculture  takes  adaptation  into  consideration.  In  this  case,  the  NDCs  could 
represent a guide to support the identification of priorities but with a grain of salt 
as often adaptation is not so well represented in NDCs. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2  The Post-2020 

When looking at the Green Deal priorities and the EaP post-2020 process, there 
are different ways to estimate the level of integration between the two and the 
level of ambition shown by the commitments. One possible approach would be 
to look at how explicit the references to the Green Deal elements are and how 
high the targets have been set. 

The one “green” priority in the EaP post-2020 is ‘Together for environmental and 
climate resilience': a policy objective which explicitly aims at improving access 
to clean water, reducing air pollution, addressing matters related to the circular 
economy, focusing on climate neutrality and green growth, biodiversity and the 
economy's natural assets base, strengthening energy security and nuclear safety, 
as well as making a shift to sustainable and smart mobility. The narrative and the 
specifications within this priority highlight quite well a series of interesting goals 
and activities that should be achieved/completed.  

Work directly in support to biodiversity and economy’s natural asset base is also 
foreseen for the post 2020 in the Joint Staff Working Paper. This ranges from 
fighting  water  scarcity  to  supporting  the  Emerald  Network:  improve  forest 
management, forest law enforcement and restore ecosystems.  

An additional reference to the environment is also present in the description of 
other priorities. These include work under circular economy which will promote 
agro-ecological  practices  to  preserve  marine  and  terrestrial  ecosystems  by 
reducing  the  use  of  chemical  pesticides,  veterinary  medicines  and  fertilizers; 
improving  environmental  governance;  support  of  the  transition  towards 
sustainable  food  systems in line with  the Farm  to  Fork strategy,  using  nature-
based solutions; facilitating the gradual application of EU taxonomy and more 
systematic use of environmental assessments. 

The  “green”  references  are  explicit  and  the  list  of  themes  addressed  is  quite 
comprehensive.  The  economic  sectors  explicitly  mentioned  are  energy  and 
transport;  however,  considering  the  reference  to  circular  economy,  climate 
policies  and  air  pollution,  several  other  sectors  will  have  to  be  included.  The 
challenges  that  EaP  countries  face  in  view  of  climate  are  interconnected,  thus 
addressing them is a simultaneous effort  within  several sectors.  Moreover, the 
trade-offs  between  rapid  economic  development  and  resource  savings  may  be 
challenging the national transition trajectories. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Looking at the detailed description of this specific priority, a long list of other 
elements is available. Just to mention a few elements, it is worth mentioning that 
the work also foresees support of implementation of the Nationally Determined 
Contributions  and transition towards  sustainable  food  systems in line  with  the 
Farm to Fork strategy. One of its main intentions is to scale up climate and green 
financing targeting municipal infrastructure, sustainable urban transport, energy 
sector and SMEs including in the area of climate adaptation. The programme will 
try to strengthen the EU product and eco-innovation policies, including producer 
responsibility and measures to reduce single-use plastic; and support improved 
waste management and increase recycling. 

This makes the work within this priority extremely ambitious. The areas listed 
are all relevant and the approaches - well identified.  

The Top Ten Targets for 2025 identified in the Economic and Investment Plan 
should reflect the priority areas within which results will be tangible. Two of the 
targets  explicitly  refer  to  the  environmental  issues,  namely  investing  in 
sustainable energy which aims at reducing household’s energy consumption by 
at least 20%, and investing in environment & climate with a goal of providing 
access to safe water services to 3 million people, thus improving and monitoring 
water quality in 300 cities. 

In addition to this ambitious programme, there are several other initiatives that 
have  been  put  in  place  that  will  contribute  to  the  delivery  of  the  Green  Deal 
priorities.  Among  these  we  believe  worth  mentioning  is  the  Green  Cities 
programme  of  EBRD.  Most  of  the  EaP  cities  involved  in  this  programme,  as 
stated above, are still at the level of programming and defining their respective 
Green City Action programmes, in spite of that, the priorities identified (source 
https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/)  seem  to  be  all  in  line  with  the  Green  Deal 
elements. 

If we look at the flagship initiatives, which should represent -in a way- a sort of 
an updated pact between the EU and the six EaP countries in a form of longer-
term commitments  to  greener  and  more sustainable societies, some  reflections 
can be made. 

The Flagship Initiatives identify large areas of work and should be seen as drivers, 
they indicate directions and resources but specific objectives and activities still 
need  to  be  developed.  In  some  instances,  these  Initiatives  build  upon  some 
success stories or take advantage from projects in the pipeline; in other instances, 
they initiate new areas of cooperation. As such, they should be seen as large areas 
of intervention in which adjustments shall still be possible as the identification 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
process develops further. At present, little is known about specific projects to be 
funded in support of the specific flagship initiatives in each of the countries. 

It  should  be  also  worth  highlighting  that,  speaking  with  some  national 
stakeholders, the impression is that the present set of Flagship Initiatives is more 
the result of a policy prioritisation process than a consultative approach. Clearly, 
as the identification process develops further to identify specific objectives and 
detailed activities, some sort of participatory process should be put in place in the 
countries and locally. It is not clearly visible in what way stakeholders have been 
contributing  to  the  identification  of  the  relevant  priorities  or  if  there  has  been 
some sort of coordination with what is being funded through other instruments 
(such as for instance the GCF, GEF and AF). In addition to this, there is a clear 
lack  of  activities  in  the  areas  of  adaptation,  including  on  agriculture,  and  on 
environment and natural resource management. 

Through preliminary analysis of the present set of Flagship Initiatives, it is visible 
that among the prioritized area of investment, prevalent in all the EaP countries, 
is the support to green jobs’ creation and SMEs. Each country set up ambitious 
targets in this respect - from 20 000 (Belarus) to 100 000 (Ukraine) SMEs will be 
supported. Moreover, investments will be prioritized in the energy, transport and 
digital  sectors.  Other  areas  of  the  priority  investments  vary  significantly  by 
country. It is worth mentioning that agriculture and rural areas are only covered 
by  Flagship  initiatives  in  Azerbaijan  and  Ukraine.  Armenia  and  Belarus  put  a 
special emphasis on Research and Innovation (R&I). The latter has also a more 
specific  flagship  initiative  dedicated  to  democratisation  and  transparency. 
Climate  action  is  less  a  standalone  flagship  but  embedded  into  several  other 
flagships. 

There  are  interesting  references  to  environmental  conservation  and  agriculture 
activities in the narrative part of the renewed agenda, not adequately reflected in 
the Flagship Initiatives. The exceptions are just a few: 

●  An Initiative in Armenia will support building resilience in the southern 
region,  an  area  where  chronic  underdevelopment  and  a  deteriorating 
environment  are  closely  linked  together.  The  initiative  identifies  a  few 
priority  areas  which  include  agriculture  but  does  not  include  ecosystem 
restoration and adaptation. 

●  In addition to these, a Flagship Initiatives will support rural development 
and economic transition in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine. However, the 
initiative  in  Azerbaijan  is  more  focused  on  supporting  economic 
development such as facilitating access to credit for small and medium-
sized farms, the Georgian project deals with digital connectivity of rural 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
areas,  and  the  Initiative  in  Ukraine  is  again  in  support  of  an  economic 
transition. 

These Initiatives seem to indicate a possibility to link environmental protection 
actions, adaptation, natural resources management and ecosystem restoration to 
sustainable  local  development.  It  is  crucial  that  as  the  identification  process 
develops further to identify specific objectives and detailed activities, increased 
attention  be  given  to  supporting  these  interlinkages.  In  addition,  rural 
development projects should consider supporting sustainable agriculture, forestry 
and fisheries practices, policies and practices to reduce the use of chemicals as 
well as adaptation measures. This is especially critical as agriculture sectors are 
among the major contributors to the GHG emissions. 

As the countries and the EU devise a mechanism to develop detailed proposals 
and action plans to put the Flagship Initiatives into full implementation mode, it 
would  be  good  to  find  ways  to  involve  local  stakeholders,  including  local 
governments, municipalities, rural communities, etc. to support the process. It is 
also important to involve not only the large cities that have been more active in 
the existing initiatives, but also smaller municipalities and rural regions as they 
have a potential to contribute to a more cohesive implementation of the Green 
Deal.  Furthermore,  enhancing  urban-rural  linkages  and  functional  urban  areas 
could be beneficial. 

Another possible approach to assess the integration of Green Deal elements can 
be  that  of  identifying  the  improvements  to  national  policy  that  have  been 
triggered by the Green Deal. In several cases it is difficult to identify a real cause-
effect relation between -for instance- the Green Deal and a new environmental 
law,  also  as  there  are  so  many  different  global  processes  that  influence 
governments and civil society. Even so, it can be assumed that the Green Deal 
has been one of the processes that created a momentum  which  stimulated  and 
sustained  dialogue,  increased  awareness  over  environmental  issues,  catalysed 
ideas and actions.  

It  should  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  the  Green  Deal  also  builds  on  past 
achievements in the EU-EaP relations, one of which can be seen in the energy 
sector. Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine developed new laws and action plans that 
identified  measures  to  increase  effectiveness,  improve  competitiveness,  set 
energy savings targets, reduce emission, reduce dependency from other countries, 
etc. These laws are forward looking and lay good basis for a green future. It is 
realistic to assume that the identification of these laws and of the Green Deal, 
have grown together and influenced each other. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recently energy dependency has become a pressing priority for several countries. 
Progress has been made in some case with connecting Moldova and Ukraine to 
the  EU  electricity  grid.  At  the  same  time,  the  war  in  Ukraine  dramatically 
challenged the current situation of the energy supply in the  EU and in the EaP 
regions.  With  the  exception  of  Azerbaijan,  all  other  EaP  countries  have  been 
heavily dependent on the supply from Russia and had limited capacity to purchase 
energy  from  elsewhere.  This  is  especially  important with  a  view on the  rising 
energy costs and a range of sectors that are dependent on it. The limited access to 
cheap  energy sources  may  adversely  impact the  economic development of the 
countries,  but  it  can  also  be  an  opportunity  for  investing  into  new  profitable 
avenues. 

2.3  Other partner Organizations and 

Initiatives 

In addition to EU funding, relevant investment opportunities are available from 
other  donors  and  lenders  to  fulfil  the  NDCs  commitments,  e.g.,  World  Bank, 
European  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development  (EBRD),  European 
Investment  Bank  (EIB),  Kreditanstalt  für  Wiederaufbau  (KfW),  Global 
Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund (AF) or the Green Climate Fund 
(GCF).  Most  EaP  countries  are  actively  seeking  those  and  increasingly 
participating in projects at national and transnational scales.  

The Green Cities is a programme of EBRD perfectly in line with the priorities 
of  the  European  Green  Deal.  Through  funds  from  different  donors,  the 
programme supports local governments and stakeholders developing better and 
more  sustainable  cities,  improving  citizens’  lives.  The  activities  address  local 
environmental challenges, support policy development and catalyses investments 
to facilitate transition towards sustainable infrastructure. The programme spans 
across central Europe to Central Asia, the Western Balkans and the southern and 
eastern Mediterranean region. 

The Green Cities programme is based upon three main components: Green City 
Action Plans (GCAPs) that assess and prioritise environmental challenges and 
identify  action  plans  detailing  policy 
infrastructure 
investments;  Sustainable  infrastructure  investment  that  facilitate  and  stimulate 
public and private green investments also aimed to improve the city’s adaptation 
and  resilience  to  climate  shocks  (e.g.  water  and  wastewater,  urban  transport, 
district energy, energy efficiency in buildings, solid waste, etc.); and Capacity-
building  to  support  city  administrators  and  local  stakeholders  implement  the 
programme and monitor progress. 

interventions  and 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Green Cities programme should be considered of upmost significance for the 
implementation of the European Green Deal in the EaP countries as in this region 
cities present some of the most important environmental challenges affecting the 
population  at  large.  These  countries  have  witnessed  an  important  process  of 
urbanisation,  cities  have  often  grown  rapidly  and  without  proper  planning, 
services and utilities have often not kept pace with the speed of immigration from 
the  rural  areas  and  the  quality  of  life  has  been  significantly  affected.  Old  and 
obsolete  infrastructures,  aged  and  environmentally  harmful  means  of  public 
transport, congested and unregulated traffic, are common features in many cities 
in the EaP region.  

The Green Cities programme also covers several elements of the European Green 
Deal such as making transport sustainable for all, renovating buildings for greener 
lifestyles,  contributing  to  reducing  GHG  emissions  and  to  climate  change 
adaptation. 

Table 6: Overview of EaP cities participating in the Green Cities programme (source 
https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/)  

Country 

Cities involved 
Supporting country 

GCAP Main Elements 
(*GCAP still under development) 

Armenia 

Gyumiri (2018) 

2  cities  with  at  least 
100 000 inhabitants 

Improve environmental quality 
Revitalise the urban landscape 
Improve public transport network 
Thermal  modernisation  of  residential 
buildings 
Rehabilitation of the water supply system 

Yerevan (2016) 
Government  of  Czech 
Republic 

and 

policy 

air-quality 

Improving 
monitoring 
Establishing  a  ‘Green  City  Awareness 
Centre’ 
Implementing a new bus network model 
Upgrading  electric  public  transport  and 
developing road infrastructure 
Introducing  energy  management 
municipal institutions 
Investment in renewable energy 

in 

Azerbaijan 

Ganja (2020) 

* 

5  cities  with  at  least 
100 000 inhabitants 

24 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Belarus 
3  cities  with  at  least 
100 000 inhabitants 

(2018) 
Minsk 
Government of Sweden 

* 

Pinsk (2019) 

* 

Georgia 

Batumi (2018) 

2  cities  with  at  least 
100 000 inhabitants 

*  Healthy  environment  (e.g.  transport, 
energy,  industry,  land  use,  waste  and 
water) 
Tourism 

Tbilisi (2016) 
Government  of  Czech 
Republic 

Renewing the bus fleet 
Promoting  use  of  renewable  energy  in 
buildings 
Improving solid waste collection 
Introducing new green spaces 

Moldova 

1 city with at least 100 
000 inhabitants 

Balti (2019) 
Government of Sweden 

* Clean urban electric transport 
Revitalise  environmental  and  urban 
landscape 

Chisinau (2018) 
Government of Austria 

* Energy efficiency, transport, water and 
wastewater, 
and  waste 
industry 
management 
Rejuvenate urban landscape 

Ukraine 

Dnipro (2021) 

* Public transportation system 
Improving air quality 

36  cities  with  at  least 
100 000 inhabitants 

Kharkiv (2021) 

* 

Khemelnytskyi (2019) 

* 

Kryvyi Rih (2019) 

Kyiv (2019) 

* 

* 

Lviv (2019) 
Government  of  Czech 
Republic 

and  wastewater 

 Improving  waste 
management and water supply 
Improving energy efficiency in buildings 
Improving public transport 
Improving land use 

25 

 
 
  
 
 
Mariupol (2019) 

* 

In line with the importance of the Green Cities programme for the EaP countries, 
quite a few cities are participating in the programme (see also Table 6). With the 
exception of Ukraine, which participates with as many as seven cities, most of 
the  other  countries  have  at  least  two  cities  within  the  programme.  It  is  worth 
highlighting  that  these  countries  have  very  few  cities  with  at  least  100 000 
inhabitants,  which  represents  one  of  the  eligibility  criteria  to  access  the 
programme. 

On the other hand, it should be further noted that with very few exceptions (as 
also shown in Table 6) most of the cities have adhered to the programme quite 
late in the process. According to the Green Cities website, out of the 16 cities in 
the EaP countries, only three have finalised their Green City Action Plan and have 
started implementation. All the others are at some stage of development. Once 
again,  also  for  this  programme  the  situation  in  Ukraine  is  posing  additional 
challenges to implementation (most notably, in besieged Mariupol a large part of 
the city has been destroyed by the military operations). 

A brief analysis of the state of play of the EaP countries with the Green Climate 
Fund (see also Table 7), among other matters demonstrated the following:  

•  Despite  its  GDP  is  lower  than  other  countries  receiving  funds  from  the 
GDF (e.g. Cuba, Bahrain and Botswana), Ukraine is not eligible for support 
from the GCF. The country has renewed its NDC and is searching for funds 
for 
from  different 
implementation.  Clearly the  on-going war  has put the  whole  process on 
hold and there is no information on when it will be resumed. 

from  private 

investors, 

including 

sources, 

•  Belarus has not nominated a National Designated Authority or Focal Point 
to the GCF, which is an essential step to unlock the funds. Until recently, 
Belarus  was  being  supported  by  UNDP  through  the  EU4Climate  but  in 
2021 the project was put on hold with no information on when it could be 
resumed. Belarus has also benefitted from GEF-funded projects. 

•  Armenia, Georgia and Moldova have applied to the GCF for funds and at 
present the three of them share two multiple country projects: one on green 
cities and one, co-financed by EBRD and GCF, to deliver climate finance 
to the private sector at scale through Partner Financial Institutions. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Armenia  receives  support  for  a  national  project  on  forest  resilience, 
adaptation,  mitigation  and  rural  growth.  Armenia  also  participates  in 
another  Multiple  Country  project  to  promote  the  uptake  of  low-carbon 
technologies in the industrial sector. 

•  In addition to the funds for the Multiple Country projects, Georgia receives 
funds  for  two  national  projects.  One  focuses  on  adaptation  and  aims  to 
develop a robust climate information and early warning system to improve 
the  management  of  the  increasing  change-related  risks  including 
landslides,  mudflows,  erosion,  avalanches,  floods,  drought,  and  strong 
winds. The other aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by enhancing 
carbon  sequestration  through  the  introduction  of  sustainable  forest 
management  in  three  Georgian  regions.  This  includes  tackling  the 
pressures of deforestation and the high demand for fuelwood. 

•  In addition to the funds for projects, the four countries eligible for GCF 
support, also receive readiness funds. The readiness facility (see also Table 
7) aims to enhance the capacity of national institutions and stakeholders to 
efficiently engage with GCF. Dedicated readiness funding may also assist 
countries  in  undertaking  adaptation  planning  and  developing  strategic 
frameworks to build their programming with GCF. 

Table 7: Overview of the assistance received by the Green Climate Fund 

National Projects 

Multiple Country 

Number of 
Readiness 
activities 

Total 
financing 
($) 

Armenia 

- Forest resilience of 

Armenia, enhancing 
adaptation and rural green 
growth via mitigation 

- High Impact 

Programme for the 
Corporate Sector  
- Green Cities Facility 
- GCF-EBRD SEFF Co-
financing Programme 

Azerbaijan 

- 

- 

Belarus 

Georgia 

No national Designated 
Authority or Focal Point to 
the GCF nominated 

- Enabling Implementation 
of Forest Sector Reform 
in Georgia to Reduce 
GHG Emissions from 
Forest Degradation 

- Scaling-up Multi-Hazard 
Early Warning System 

- Green Cities Facility  
- GCF-EBRD SEFF Co-
financing Programme 

27 

4 

4 

5 

Projects 
116.8 M 

Readiness 
4.2 M 

Readiness 
3.8 M 

Projects 
101.9 M 

Readiness 
0.912 M 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and the Use of Climate 
Information in Georgia 

Moldova 

- 

- Green Cities Facility  
- GCF-EBRD SEFF Co-
financing Programme 

3 

Projects 
32.8 M 

Readiness 
3.3 M 

Ukraine 

Not eligible to Green 
Climate Funds 

The overview of the state of play with the GCF shows significant engagement of 
some countries in  addressing climate priorities. The Multiple Country projects 
reflect  the  needs  for  greening  cities  but  also  for  involving  the  private  sectors, 
which  are  also  priorities  reflected  in  the  EU-EaP  negotiations  and  part  of  the 
Green Deal. It is meaningful to understand how the national projects highlight the 
importance  these  countries  give  to  adaptation,  forest  management  and 
environmental protection. As per the subnational levels, it is worth noting how 
local governments have embarked on GCF projects. Most visibly, quite relevant 
number of cities have been involved in Green Cities projects, as also part of the 
EBRD programme. 

Apart  from  the  GCF,  some  of  the  countries  are  eligible  for  and  benefit  from 
participation  in  two  main  international  climate  and  environment  funding 
instruments: the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Adaptation Fund 
(AF).  

Ukraine has been a recipient of the GEF funding in several sectors. 16 projects 
have been approved and were at different implementation status (including one 
cancelled)  before  the  war  started.  Among  others,  these  projects  targeted  the 
following areas: green hydrogen support, innovative clean tech solutions for low-
carbon  economy  and  climate  action,  low  and  no-emission  electric  mobility, 
bioenergy  value  chains,  sustainable  livestock  management  and  others.  The 
country has not been a beneficiary of the AF.  

Armenia  has  been  benefitting  from  both  financial  instruments,  with  some  20 
projects  submitted to  the GEF  and 2 projects  implemented under the AF. The 
GEF projects were particularly focused on transition towards electric mobility, 
sustainable  land  management,  land  degradation  and  biodiversity.  One  of  the 
projects  has  been  implemented  in  a  collaboration  with  other  neighbouring 
countries that belong to the EaP, e.g., the “Regional Demonstration Project for 
Coordinated  Management  of  ODS  and  POPs  Disposal  in  Ukraine,  Belarus, 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kazakhstan and Armenia”. With the support from the AF, Armenia implemented 
2  projects,  with  a  local  and  land  focus:  “Strengthening  land-based  adaptation 
capacity in communities adjacent to protected areas in Armenia” and “Artik city 
closed stonepit wastes and flood management pilot project”.  

Belarus has also benefitted from the above mentioned GEF multi-country project 
as well as 11 others. The areas targeted included, amongst others, forestry, energy 
efficiency,  wind  power,  electric  mobility.  There  are  no  AF  funded  projects  in 
Belarus.  

In  Azerbaijan  12  GEF  projects  were  proposed  in  such  areas  as  climate, 
biodiversity, chemical waste management, land degradation, flood risk and forest 
resources management. No AF project was granted. 

The efforts of Georgia in acquisition of the GEF funding were concentrated on 
biodiversity,  forest  biomass,  protected  areas,  agriculture,  land degradation  and 
low carbon solutions in the city context. 2 AF projects in Georgia concerned dairy 
sector modernisation as well as flood disaster risk reduction and management. 
In  Moldova  a  significant  effort  was  devoted  to  implementing  GEF  with  18 
projects.  The  projects  targeted  a  number  of  areas,  such  as  protected  areas, 
improving energy efficiency, rural development, land degradation, green cities, 
agricultural competitiveness, and clean technology innovation for businesses and 
start-ups.  One  project  is  currently  implemented  in  collaboration  with  the  AF, 
which  is  dedicated  to  building  climate  resilience  of  the  agricultural  sector, 
ensuring its productivity, ensuring food security and reducing poverty.   

Visibly,  several  funding  instruments  in  the  EaP  countries  have  a  proven 
experience in delivering projects in areas, which overlap with the Green Deal. It 
is noteworthy that with the growing project portfolio of the key funds concerned 
(including of other donors), some overlaps are probably unavoidable, especially 
since these projects increasingly become sub-national in scope and address local 
environmental  emergencies.  This  means  that  donors,  stakeholders  and  other 
facilitating entities need to pay specific attention to the coordination mechanisms 
in  order  to  ensure  synergies  and  avoid  duplications,  which  may  become  a 
complicated task due to the fact that these projects also contribute to achieving 
national  targets  such  as  those  in  NDCs  and  SDGs.  Thematic,  or  we  can  say 
“framework”,  programmes  involving  different  actors  (e.g.,  Green  Cities, 
EU4Climate,  E5P,  etc.)  represent  a  good  option  to  ensure  local,  national  and 
regional coordination, monitoring of progress and identification of best practices. 
Here  again  the  role  of  the  NDCs  both  as  a  process  and  as  a  priority  setting 
document should be emphasized. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UNDP  plays  an  influential  role  in  guiding  and  supporting  sustainable 
development of the six EaP countries, including on environmental protection and 
the green agenda, and formulates development programs and plans according to 
the specific conditions of a concerned country. 

In  Armenia,  UNDP  supports  circular  economy  in  the  Mets  Parni  community 
using briquettes which provide low-cost fuel for households without cutting more 
trees. Moreover, in the context of climate change, UNDP Armenia launched de-
risking and scaling-up investments in energy-efficient building in agriculture; in 
addition,  the  EU  green  agriculture  initiative  in  Armenia  (EU-Gaia)  is  being 
implemented by UNDP. 

In  Azerbaijan,  UNDP  is  implementing  an  EU4Climate  funded  project 
accelerating  structural  transformation  through  more  effective  governance 
systems.  More  specifically,  the  Project  responds  to  the  Regional  Program's 
objective  of  achieving  the  integration  of  low  emissions  and  climate  resilience 
goals  into  development  policies  and  plans  through  regional  initiatives  that 
promote economic diversification and green growth. 

In  Belarus,  in  addition  to  the  EU4CLIMATE  project  to  support  policy 
development,  UNDP  has  established  the  environmental  awareness  project  on 
civic  engagement  in  environmental  monitoring  and  improving  environmental 
management  at  the  local  level. 4  The  project  aims  at  effective  and  inclusive 
environmental  management  at  local  level,  monitoring  of  environmental  risks, 
exchange  of  environmental  information,  especially  in  the  field  of  ambient  air 
quality.  The  project  prioritizes  the  development  of  environmental  monitoring, 
building  the  capacity  of  civil  society  for  environmental  decision-making  and 
developing "green schools". 

In Georgia, the awareness survey of climate change could be partially presented 
by the Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC – Caucasus) which 
conducted the project funded under the EU4Climate programme. 

That  is  the  first-ever  research  on  climate  change  perceptions,  knowledge  and 
behaviour  that  covers  all  social  groups  of  the  Georgian  society.  The  data  was 
collected by face-to-face  interviews with 1 100 respondents in urban and rural 
settlements across the country in August and September 2020.5 

4 See Civic engagement in environmental monitoring and improving environmental management at the local 
level | UNDP in Belarus at https://www.by.undp.org/content/belarus/en/home/projects/ecomonitoring.html  
5 See What Georgians know about climate change. 2020 | United Nations Development Programme (undp.org) 
at https://www.undp.org/georgia/publications/what-georgians-know-about-climate-change-
2020#:~:text=Key%20findings%3A,the%20consequences%20of%20climate%20change.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key climate change awareness findings in Georgia: 

•  97.6% of respondents have heard about climate change. 
•  91.35% think that climate change is real and poses threats to humanity. 
•  25.9% of Georgia’s population believe that international organizations 

will be able to manage the consequences of climate change. 

•  The majority of respondents think that climate change is more important 

than international terrorism and armed conflicts (57.9%). 

•  36.19%  believe  they  can  do  nothing  to  tackle  climate  change  (among 

them, women: 41.4% men: 30.1%). 

•  Global  warming  and  draughts  (96.11%),  disasters  (92.84%),  melting 
glaciers and warming ocean (91.83%) are considered as negative effects 
of climate change. 

•  86.7% of Georgia’s population are aware that energy efficiency measures 
can  reduce  their  monthly  expenses,  and  7.9%  believe  that  energy 
efficiency measures do not affect their monthly expenses.  

UNDP works with the municipalities of Tbilisi, Batumi, and others to introduce 
effective  plastic  waste  separation  practices  and  promote  sustainability. 6  A 
behavioural  experiment  proves  that  residents  of  Georgia's  two  largest  cities, 
Tbilisi and Batumi, would welcome recycling if better municipal infrastructure 
and  services  were  in  place.  The  experiment,  initiated  by  the  United  Nations 
in  Georgia,  studied 
Development  Programme’s  Accelerator  Laboratory 
household  waste  behaviour  to  see  what  measures  would  stimulate  people  to 
separate their waste and how municipalities could support the process.  

The final experiment proved that proper infrastructure and public awareness can 
have a noticeable impact on waste management practices. The experiment also 
showed that the use of transparent containers allows people to see what is in their 
garbage cans. The quality of the materials collected can be improved. 

Furthermore,  experiments  have  shown  that  clearly  branded  waste  collection 
trucks can help overcome the perception that collected plastic waste will end up 
in landfills. 

The  experimental  inquiry  on  awareness-raising  proved  that  more  educational 
activities are needed to strengthen citizens' recycling habits. 

6 See Are Georgian cities ready to introduce recycling? | United Nations Development Programme (undp.org) at 
https://www.undp.org/georgia/press-releases/are-georgian-cities-ready-introduce-recycling  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Moldova,  in  addition  of  EU4climate  program,  UNDP  finished  the  project 
“Promotion of climate change and disaster risk reduction solution in the water 
and civil protection sectors for enhanced rural resilience”. The project supported 
the implementation of climate-smart water management solutions for agriculture, 
flood  management  and  fire  prevention  and  expansion  of  community-based 
rescue/firefighting teams in selected rural communities of Republic of Moldova 
with the purpose of reducing the exposure and vulnerability of rural communities 
to climate change and disaster risks.7 

Awareness campaigns on disaster risk prevention measures were conducted in 5 
regions of the Republic of Moldova, reflective undershirts, leaflets, calendars and 
other  informational  materials  were  distributed  to  raise  awareness  of  the  local 
population about fire events and other climate-induced disasters. 

100,000 euros were raised from the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 3.2 
million Moldovan lei from local public authorities for the construction of 4 local 
fire stations to provide high-quality rescue and firefighting services to at least 65 
communities, covering a population of about 60,000. 

Furthermore, UNDP is currently implementing ”Advancing Moldova’s National 
Climate  Change  Adaptation  Planning  (phase  2)“  project  to  support  the 
Government of Moldova in advancing the second cycle of its iterative national 
adaptation planning process. The project’s objectives are: addressing the barriers 
to  prioritisation  of  national  investments  in  Climate  Change  Adaptation  and 
increasing the availability of human and financial capacity for the implementation 
of  the  priority  actions  identified  during  the  NAP-1,  as  well  as  those  that  will 
emerge under this NAP-2 initiative. 

The  war  in  Ukraine  is  devastating  communities  and  threatening  the  lives  of 
millions.    The  UNDP  has  announced  its  new  support  programme  to  meet  the 
needs of millions of people in Ukraine over the next two years. The new UNDP 
programme is informed by early socio-economic assessments and is built around 
three pillars: 

1.  supporting the Government-led crisis response and public service delivery, 
2.  leveraging  Ukraine’s  human  capital,  economic  capacities  and  natural 
resources  to  meet  immediate  humanitarian  needs  and  strengthen 
resilience, social and economic recovery, and 

3.  strengthening institutions and civil society to maintain the social fabric, 

7 See Promotion of climate change and disaster risk reduction solution in the water and civil protection sectors 
for enhanced rural resilience | United Nations Development Programme (undp.org) at 
https://www.undp.org/moldova/projects/closed-promotion-climate-change-and-disaster-risk-reduction-solution-
water-and-civil-protection-sectors-enhanced-rural-resilience 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
uphold human rights and ensure inclusion, protection and empowerment 
of all people. 

UNDP focuses particularly on the most vulnerable and on ensuring women and 
girls’  equitable  access  to  basic  needs  and  livelihood  support;  including  skills 
development, business support, and helping to build women’s access to finance, 
networks  and  markets.  Addressing  the  increased  vulnerability  of  women  to 
violence, including conflict-related sexual violence, is a priority. UNDP is also 
engaging local institutions and civil society in the response efforts at community 
level. It is worth highlighting that, despite the extremely hard situation and the 
pressing  humanitarian  and  reconstruction  priorities,  one  of  the  pillars  makes 
reference to the importance of natural resources. 

Another  interesting  initiative  is  the  Eastern  Europe  Energy  Efficiency  and 
Environment Partnership (E5P). Established in 2009 during the Swedish EU 
Presidency,  this  multi-million  multi-donor  fund  aims  to  encourage  municipal 
investments in energy efficiency and environmental projects in the EaP. The fund 
started  originally  in  Ukraine  (2014),  still  the  country  the  higher  number  of 
projects, and that now includes all of the six EaP countries. 

The grants support the development and implementation of municipal projects in 
different  sectors  with  the  overall  aim  to  reduce  energy  use,  pollution  and 
greenhouse  gas  emissions.  The  activities  funded  also  include  policy  dialogues 
and  regulatory  reforms.  There  is  a  list  of  eligible  sectors  which  are:  district 
heating, energy efficiency in public buildings (schools, kindergartens, hospitals), 
energy  saving  measures  in  residential  housing,  renewable  energy  (including 
biomass),  street  lighting,  water  and  wastewater  treatment,  solid  waste 
management, urban transport. It should be highlighted that, in a way or another, 
all  these  sectors  are  in  line  with  the  international  green  agenda  and  meet  the 
priorities of the EU Green Deal. 

The E5P is a co-financer and its funds are often used as an incentive for municipal 
clients to take loans provided by Implementing Agencies. The projects identified 
address the energy sector but also other extremely relevant issues such as waste 
management, water and wastewater treatment, urban transport. The E5P tends to 
achieve  CO2  savings,  electricity  savings,  energy  efficiency,  green  electricity 
production and other strictly energy-related benefits. In addition, in several cases 
the projects support other benefits such as cleaner urban air, cleaner wastewater 
effluents, pollution reduction, improved public health. 

The  several  contributors  of  the  E5P  take  part  in  the  governing  body,  which 
approves grant allocations to projects and decides on the fund’s overall strategy 
and guidelines. The recipient countries participate in the Steering Group of the 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Partnership  together  with  the  Implementing  Agencies.  The  Steering  Group 
develop projects and make project proposals for approval by the Assembly. The 
EBRD  acts  as  the  fund  manager  of  E5P  providing  administrative  support  to 
manage the fund on behalf of all the stakeholders. 

The E5P can be seen as one of the key instruments for the implementation of the 
Green Deal in the EaP countries. It has the advantages of being available to local 
administrations and being instrumental to access other funds ensuring preliminary 
investments and capacity. However, there is the impression that it is a resource 
intensive process and that procedures could be simplified. 

34 

 
 
 
3.Conclusions  

➢  Over  the  years  the  priorities  of  the  EaP  have  evolved,  with  an  attempt  to 
accommodate  the  changing  international  debates  and  local  circumstances. 
Currently,  there  is  a  visible  focus  on  accelerating  green  transition,  while 
adopting the directions promoted by the EU Green Deal, the Paris Agreement, 
and the UN SDGs agenda. The EaP countries have shown a true interest in the 
Green Deal,  which is  often  considered  as part  of the wider national  efforts 
towards  adopting  the  national  green  agendas  aligned  with  the  international 
commitments, especially through the NDCs and SDGs. 

➢  The  level  of  ambition  shown  in  the  implementation  of  initiatives  that 
contribute to achieving the objectives of the Green Deal is substantial, there is 
generally  a  strong  coherence  between  the  priorities  identified  in  official 
documents and the projects funded by different donors. This is also supported 
by  the  fact  that  partner  organizations  (e.g.  UNDP,  EBRD,  etc.)  have  been 
supporting activities in line with the green agenda. 

➢  The COVID-19 pandemic followed by Russia’s war in Ukraine have imposed 
drastic  changes  in  the  implementation  of  activities.  Not  only  projects  have 
been suspended, but also activities in support to policy development and to the 
identification of strategies and programmes are being  heavily delayed. This 
should be seen as a key issue as greening the economy of EaP countries have 
a  strong  relevance  to  the  livelihood,  resilience  and  sustainability  of  their 
citizens. 

➢  When the war ends, it is important that a post war strategy be put in place that 
foresees the green elements. The reconstruction activities to be implemented, 
both  in  terms  of  infrastructures  and  of  communities,  should  integrate  the 
appropriate environmental elements. The Green Deal should continue to be 
the  overall  inspiration  framework  to  contribute  to  building  resilient  and 
sustainable economies. Greening the approaches for restoring infrastructures 
as well as the energy and transport systems is a key element. Nevertheless, the 
importance  of  supporting  rural  communities,  promoting  resilient  and 
sustainable  agriculture,  forestry  and  fisheries,  as  well  as  protecting  the 
environment and restoring ecosystems should not be neglected. The economy 
and the cultural identity of the people of these countries go very much beyond 
their urban areas. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
➢  There are both similarities and divergences between the EaP countries in terms 
of their national strategic lines and the upcoming challenges. However, all of 
the  Green  Deal  areas  of  intervention  can  be  found  in  the  strategies  at  the 
national  level  of  the  EaP  countries,  with  energy  being  the  dominant  focus. 
Locally, cities have been working on their local strategies which - to a good 
extent – tend to mirror the Green Deal priorities.  

➢  Most EaP countries are still impacted by the former Soviet Union’s legacy. In 
many cases they are still dependent on Russia, mostly as their main energy 
supplier, but also for commercial activities. In line with the Green Deal, some 
countries  are  striving  towards  diversification  of  energy  sources  and  the 
development of greener energy. Achieving the Green Deal energy objectives 
have  become  more  relevant  and  urgent  due  to  the  ongoing  war  affecting 
energy supply present and future agreements. 

➢  Aside  from  the  energy,  strengthening  electric  connectivity,  and  greening 
transport  and  infrastructure  sectors  are  considered  to  be  crucial  areas  for 
investments,  at  national  level  by  Governments  and  the  EU.  Other  priority 
areas,  which  are  also  considered  relevant  to  these  countries,  such  as 
agriculture, biodiversity, social and economic cohesion seem to be normally 
brought forward more by local stakeholders and seem to receive secondary 
attention when it comes to new funding programmes.  

➢  The EaP countries are supported at national and local level by a variety of 
donors  and  partner  organizations,  such  as  for  instance  GCF,  GEF,  EBRD, 
UNDP  and  AF.  This  creates  some  challenges  in  ensuring  synergies  and 
avoiding  duplications  in  terms  of  the  funding  delivery  and  monitoring  the 
progress towards the objectives set. The analysis carried out, however, shows 
a general convergence of intentions and actions towards supporting a green 
transition. 

➢  Both  sectoral  and  holistic  approaches  to  implementing  the  Green  Deal 
priorities  are  visible  in  the  national  strategies.  The  flagship  initiatives  and 
projects target either individual sectors (e.g., energy, agriculture, transport) or 
act across sectors in a more holistic way (e.g. circular economy, green cities). 
This mix of modes of intervention provides good results as they reflect the 
real priorities and the structure of society. On the other hand, there has often 
been the impression that the selection of the Flagship Initiatives has somehow 
followed  a  top-down  approach.  It  would  be  important  that,  as  the  detailed 
identification process proceeds, it sees the participation of local stakeholders. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
➢  In some of the countries (e.g., Armenia, Georgia) the administrative capacities 
for green transition seem to be well in place, with public sector motivated and 
able to deliver on the expected roles. In some others (e.g., Belarus, Moldova), 
this is still troublesome, given the insufficient number of personnel, lack the 
necessary training, knowledge and skills to deal with the complexity of green 
challenges.  

➢  The challenge for uptake of the green investments, in some cases, includes the 
lack of well-established green market as local companies consider the green 
transition risky. Relevant financial instruments are needed to reduce risks and 
fulfil the existing gaps.  

37 

 
 
 
 
4.Recommendations 

• 

Increase  communication  and  visibility  activities  in  the  EaP  countries  to 
raise awareness of the different elements of the “green transition” and of 
benefits they will bring. Most of the objectives set by the Green Deal can 
better be achieved with the full participation and buy-in of the population.  

•  Adopting  green  strategies  and  supporting  a  green  transition  is  of  utter 
importance in view of the forthcoming process of reconstruction. A green 
approach to rebuilding infrastructures and communities after the conflict 
will be healthier and more sustainable in the long term. It is vital that local 
Governments and stakeholders take clear and strong stands to ensure that 
the Green Deal remains a guide for reconstruction and future development 
activities. 

•  Explore  in  more  depth the overlaps  and synergies  between  the  different 
funding  mechanisms  targeting  the  green  transition  in  the  EaP  countries. 
Support those countries that presently have no access to specific funds or 
funding  in  neglected  areas  important  for  the  green  transition,  such  as 
Ukraine and Belarus for the GCF. 

•  Strengthen  thematic  or  “framework”  programmes  involving  different 
actors (e.g., Green Cities, EU4Climate, E5P, EU4Business, etc.) to ensure 
local,  national  and  regional  coordination  of  activities,  monitoring  of 
progress and effectiveness, as well as support the identification and sharing 
of  best  practices.  Procedures  and  decision-making  processes  should  be 
made  accessible  and  fast-track  procedures  for  specific  cases  should  be 
identified.  Bottlenecks  for  implementation  at  local  levels,  e.g.,  lack  of 
support  or  capacity  from  the  central  levels,  should  be  identified  and 
addressed. 

•  Ensure that, among the different initiatives and donors, a balance between 
greening the productive sectors and biodiversity activities (e.g., restoring 
ecosystems, supporting sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries, etc.) 
is maintained. Similarly, a balance between climate mitigation measures 
and  actions  to  support  adaptation  and  resilience  should  be  fostered. 
Because of their relevance to rural communities and decentralized areas, it 
is important that local governments and stakeholders take clear and strong 
stands to guarantee that such a balance is prioritised. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Make sure that, as the Flagship Initiatives are further developed, projects 
and  activities  are  identified  locally  with  the  involvement  of  local 
stakeholders. As far as possible, the implementation of the  Initiatives at 
local  level  should  also  include  sectors  such  as  agriculture,  forestry, 
ecosystem restoration, etc., support adaptation and resilience, also in line 
with the narrative of the Joint Staff Working Paper. 

•  Participatory processes to further develop the Flagship Initiatives should 
also  involve  smaller  municipalities  and  rural  regions  as  they  have  a 
potential  to  contribute  to  a  more  cohesive  implementation  of  the  Green 
Deal.  Furthermore,  enhancing  urban-rural  linkages  and  functional  urban 
areas  (FUAs)  could  be  beneficial  and  contributing  to  several  priorities. 
Measures to support rural communities should be fine-tuned to reflect local 
realities. Outcomes of awareness surveys could be instrumental to identify 
functional approaches to support local green transition. 

•  The  importance  of  identifying  national  priorities  following  global 
processes,  such  as  through  the  NDCs,  should  be  emphasized.  These 
processes  are  normally  based  on  scientific  information  and  broad 
consultations at different levels, have relevant awareness implications and 
build  common  understanding  of  issues.  Programmes  supporting  these 
processes,  such  as the  EU4Climate  and similar,  should be  strengthened. 
Moreover, the engagement of the EU targeted expertise and infrastructure 
(e.g.,  the  Joint  Research  Centres,  EU  Earth  Observation  Programme 
Copernicus)  could  be  beneficial  to  advance  the  data-informed  green 
transitions. 

• 

It is crucial that monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are put in place to 
the 
allow  for  reviewing  supporting  activities  and  progress  for 
implementation of the Green Deal in the EaP countries. As the Green Deal 
priority  areas  of  intervention  tend  to  create  synergies  and  overlaps  with 
various interventions (including non-EU donors and agencies), it would be 
helpful  to  establish  suitable  mechanisms  to  report  on  the  progress  with 
relevant bodies. This way it will be also possible to better evaluate EU’s 
and Green Deal contributions to achieving the national / global climate and 
SDGs targets.  

•  Facilitate networking between the EaP countries to support learning about 
the  Green  Deal,  financial  mechanisms  and  stimulate  exchange  of  good 
practices.  Networks  should  especially  see  the  participation  of  local 
stakeholders and actors. Specific activities can be identified to involve new 
communities and support them develop projects and funding proposals. For 
instance,  CoR  could  be  involved  into  facilitation  of  the  know-how 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
exchange  between  the  interested  cities  and  regions  through  using  its 
existing facilities such as the European Week of Regions.  

•  Support SMEs in their efforts to adopt green strategies and processes. More 
effort is needed to create  an enabling environment for the private sector 
and  facilitate  investments  in  the  areas  of  the  Green  Deal,  accelerate  the 
speed  of  digital  transformation,  and  identify  supportive  measures  to 
recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, from the challenges 
posed by the war, including in relation to energy, trade and supply chain. 

41 

 
 
 
 
5.Bibliography and Website Resources 

1.  EU Green Deal 

              https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 

2.  The post Eastern Partnership Summit EPRS Publication: 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2021/698858/EPRS_IDA(
2021)698858_EN.pdf 

3.  Joint Declaration of the Eastern Partnership Summit (Brussels, 15 December 

2021) 
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/swd_2021_186_f1_joint_staff_work
ing_paper_en_v2_p1_1356457_0.pdf 

4.   Eastern Partnership post-2020 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/53527/20211215-eap-joint-declaration-
en.pdf 

5.  Joint Communication: Eastern Partnership policy beyond 2020: Reinforcing 

Resilience – an Eastern Partnership that delivers for all 

                https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/76166 

6.  Partnership Agreements between EU and six EaP countries: Through EURlex 
7.  National Development Strategies (within the SDG process) 
8.  Flagship Initiatives: EU’s new investment plan for the Eastern partners 

               https://euneighbourseast.eu/news-and-stories/facts/eus-new-investment-plan-for-        

the-eastern-partners/ 
9.  latest results of the Eastern Partnership Index:  

https://eap-csf.eu/eastern-partnership-index/#section-fillup-1 

10.  EPRS on 01.03.2022: Russia’s war on Ukraine: Implications for EU energy 

supply 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/729282/EPRS_BRI(
2022)729282_EN.pdf 

11. Eastern Partnership summit - Consilium (europa.eu) 15 December 2021 Summit 

Conclusions 

               https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-summit/2021/12/15/ 
12. The 2021 SWD on the post 2020 EaP : Joint Staff Working Document Recovery, 

resilience and reform: post 2020 Eastern Partnership priorities 
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/swd_2021_186_f1_joint_staff_work
ing_paper_en_v2_p1_1356457_0.pdf 

13. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Discussion paper: Greening the Eastern Partnership, 

Regional Dimension of the Future Perspectives  

       https://www.rac.org.ua/en/priorities/european-green-deal/greening-the-eastern-

partnership-regional-dimension-of-the-future-perspectives-discussion-paper-
2021 

14.  Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of the Republic of Armenia under 

the UN Climate Change Framework Convention 

         https://leap.unep.org/countries/am/national-legislation/intended-nationally-

determined-contribution-republic-armenia 

15. Nationally Determined Contribution of the Republic of Belarus to the reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions until 2030 

43 

 
 
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Belarus%20First/B
elarus_NDC_English.pdf 

16. The Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of Azerbaijan 
        https://climatepolicydatabase.org/policies/intended-nationally-determined-

contribution-indc 
106#:~:text=Intended%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contribution%20-
%20INDC%20By%202030,its%20contribution%20to%20the%20global%20clima
te%20change%20efforts. 

17. Updated Nationally Determined Contribution of the Republic of Moldova 

https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Republic%20of%2
0Moldova%20First/MD_Updated_NDC_final_version_EN.pdf 

18. Georgia’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution Submission to the UNFCC 
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Georgia%20First/
INDC_of_Georgia.pdf 

19. Updated Nationally Determined Contribution of Ukraine to the Paris Agreement 
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Ukraine%20First/
Ukraine%20NDC_July%2031.pdf  

20. National Sustainable Energy Action Plan of Azerbaijan 

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/project-
monitoring/unda/16_17X/E2_A2.3/Action_Plan_of_Azerbaijan-new-
03.12.2019.pdf 

21.  National Strategy For Sustainable Development For The Period To 2020 of The 

Republic Of Belarus 

              https://www.undp.org/content/dam/belarus/docs/OON_sMall - 1.pdf 

22.  Georgia’s 2030 Climate Change Strategy 
              https://mepa.gov.ge/En/Files/ViewFile/50123 

23.  Republic of Armenia- Sustainable Development Goals Voluntary National Review 

report 
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26318Armenia_VNRFI
NAL.pdf 

24.  Стратегія сталого розвитку України до 2030 року  
     (Ukraine's strategy for sustainable development until 2030) 

       https://www.ua.undp.org/content/ukraine/en/home/library/sustainable-
development-report/Sustainable-Dev-Strategy-for-Ukraine-by-2030.html 

25.  European Environment Agency Datasets 
      https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data  
26.  EBRD Green Cities 

https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/ 

27.  UNDP  Belarus  -Civic  engagement  in  environmental  monitoring  and  improving 

environmental management at the local level 
https://www.by.undp.org/content/belarus/en/home/projects/ecomonitoring.html  
28.  UNDP Georgia Publication: What Georgian Knows about Climate Change 2020 
        https://www.undp.org/georgia/publications/what-georgians-know-about-climate-

change2020#:~:text=Key%20findings%3A,the%20consequences%20of%20climate
%20change 

29. UNDP Georgia Publication: Are Georgian cities ready to introduce recycling? 
 https://www.undp.org/georgia/press-releases/are-georgian-cities-ready-

introduce-recycling 

44 

 
30. UNDP Promotion of climate change and disaster risk reduction solution in the water 

and civil protection sectors for enhanced rural resilience 

         https://www.undp.org/moldova/projects/closed-promotion-climate-change-and-
disaster-risk-reduction-solution-water-and-civil-protection-sectors-enhanced-
rural-resilience 

31.  CoM East 
        https://www.com-east.eu/en/about/ 
32.  CoM East Demonstration projects 

https://www.com-east.eu/en/plans-and-actions/demonstration-projects/ 

33.  Climate Adapt 

https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu 
34.  Climate Adapt Cities Support Tool 

https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/urban-ast/step-0-0 

45 

 
 
      
 
 
 
EN

ISBN 978-92-895-1238-1 
doi: 10.2863/136378

QG-05-22-175-EN-N

Created in 1994, the European Committee of the Regions is the EU’s political 
assembly of 329 regional and local representatives such as regional presidents or 
city-mayors from all 27 Member States, representing over 446 million Europeans.

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101  |  1040 Bruxelles/Brussel  |  BELGIQUE/BELGIË  |  Tel. +32 22822211

www.cor.europa.eu  | 

@EU_CoR  | 

/european.committee.of.the.regions 

/european-committee-of-the-regions  | 

@EU_regions_cities