The crossroads of development assistance and national development agendas in the countries of South Eastern Europe

Kostova, Neda Milevska; King, Elizabeth J.; Stojanovski, Kristefer

doi:10.4324/9781315297255-22

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the end of the Cold War, the Western Balkans region, which borders the EU, has seen a significant inflow of bilateral and multilateral development aid (including environmental finance). Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is one of the biggest recipients of foreign financial assistance in the region [27,28]. Like other LMICs, environmental finance in BiH and the region depends heavily on DPIs [29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of international public funding flows for the environment, climate change, and sustainability: the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Securing adequate financing for the environment, climate change, and sustainable development has been challenging, especially in low- and middle-income economies. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country aspiring to become a member state of the European Union. Despite undergoing a socio-economic transition, the country is more than four times as energy-intensive as the average European Union member state. Since the end of the war in the 1990s, the country has received significant amounts of bilateral and multilateral development aid, including environmental finance (e.g., climate finance, funding for biodiversity conservation, impact funding). To facilitate future sustainable finance prioritization, this study analyzes Bosnia and Herzegovina’s environmental finance. Results The study conducted a scoping literature review and detailed analysis of the environmental finance flows for Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period from 2015 to 2020. The results show that the scientific knowledge on the (effectiveness of) environmental finance for Bosnia and Herzegovina is almost non-existent. The country received US$545.6 million in environmental finance in the studied period and more than 99% of this funding was spent on water, energy, waste, and environmental management. In contrast, biodiversity, resource management, chemical safety and environmental noise received less than 1% of total funding. Bosnia and Herzegovina received 58% of the financing in grants, while 38% was provided in various types of loans. Conclusions There is a considerable difference in the received funding among different sectors. Funders prioritized a few sectors (e.g., water), whereas others (i.e., biodiversity and nature conservation, chemical safety and noise, and resource management) were neglected. Bosnia and Herzegovina can argue for more equitable funding distribution based on its minor contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. Providing almost 40% of environmental finance to Bosnia and Herzegovina in loans increases the country’s level of indebtedness. It distorts the principle of climate justice since the country has been an irrelevant greenhouse gas emitter.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%