MENTOR CRITIQUE FORM
Your thoughtful and honest appraisal will be most helpful. We appreciate your input and will try to implement as many of your ideas as possible. Continue comments on the back if necessary.
Each Fellow works with one mentor who is Soros foundations network-affiliated (usually Open Society Institute and Central European University) and one or two ‘external’ mentor(s) who are experts in the field working outside the Soros foundations network. Mentors should: 1) Work with Fellows to devise a brief policy paper in their field(s) of expertise based on a lengthy research paper written over the course of the fellowship year, 2) Maintain contact with Fellows at least once every six weeks or so by telephone, fax or e-mail to discuss the development of projects, 3) If feasible, meet with Fellows at least once during the fellowship year to discuss the project, 4) Facilitate Fellows’ contact with other relevant experts and participation in appropriate meetings (IPF has discretionary funds to support Fellow attendance at relevant events), 5) Complete brief mid-term and final critique forms supplied by IPF to provide the program with feedback regarding the Fellow’s progress.
Your name, position
Andjelka Mihajlov Professor, University of Novi Sad
Name of Fellow you have assisted
Radmilo Pesic
1. What, in your opinion, have you and your Fellow/program/project gained from your cooperation thus far?
Climate Protection Policy is still unknown to the broad circle of policy
makers and publicity in Serbia. The project “Flexible Mechanisms Under
the Kyoto Protocol in Central and Eastern Europe” created a solid basis
for putting the climate change problems and policies in the focus of public
attention. Serbia and Montenegro have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol yet.
The project output will serve as a strong leverage in the national public
policy arena, giving not only information, but also offering a strategy
for Kyoto process approximation.
My personal impression is that one of the greatest benefits of the
recent years lies in a certain kind of an expert network, crated in Serbia
in the field of environmental protection. Radmilo Pesic with the Project
contributes to the network in the best way and in the highest extent, covering
one of the most complex fields of environmental policy. In the situation
when institutions and legal basis is settled up, but not having concrete
between the boxes core network of experts is keeping continuity for processes
started. This is crucial for sustainable future of region and country.
2. Do certain areas of this Fellow’s work need improvement? Which areas?
No, not at all. It would be very useful to disseminate the output of
the Project to the broader group of experts in Serbia and Montenegro. I
would strongly recommend Radmilo Pesic to continue his efforts and to prepare
a book about the issue as soon as possible.
3. In your opinion, does your Fellow’s project make a significant contribution to the field?
YES , not only a contribution, but Fellow’s Project lies a foundation
to the Climate Protection Policy studies in Serbia
4. Would the project be important to other countries in the CEE/fSU region?
YES, particularly to the West Balkan countries, and especially to the countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol yet
5. Could the proposed policy research make an impact on the policy environment in specific countries or regions? (Policy makers, experts and policy research community)
YES. Proposed Climate Protection Policy Framework fit very well within settled up System for Environmental Protection in Serbia. The follow up have to be flexible to institutions and legal basis reality and changes – personally, I think that in the situation in the moment Climate Protection Office in Serbia should be harmonized between Ministry and newly established Agency for the Environmental Protection of Serbia.
6. Is the timetable for the project realistic?
YES
7. Could the project benefit a large number of people?
YES, undoubtedly.
8. Does the Fellow show evidence that he/she can think strategically about the relevant project and/or field?
YES. He is strategically presenting three pillars of sustainable development:
Economy – Environment (and Climate Protection as the sub area)-Social.
With political commitment approved by Government of Serbia in 2003. that
Kyoto Protocol will be signed in the Process of Approximation to EU this
work is strategically sound.
9. If the Fellow were to re-apply for continued OSI funding for follow-up work associated with the project, would you support continued funding?
YES
10. Are there other appropriate funders that may support the project?
YES
Recommendations for other potential senior contacts for this Fellow:
Additional Comments (Please comment on your Fellow’s work and all
aspects of the IPF program using the back of this sheet):
Excellent work with evident value. The value will be more vivid when
implemented in the years to come. Personally I would like to add the quality
of Radmilo Pesic in understanding interdisciplinary linkages of climate
protection and sustainable development.
It is the great pleasure to be a mentor.
Dr Andjelka N. Mihajlov
Professor at the University of Novi Sad, and
Former Minister for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment
Republic of Serbia (June 2002 to March 2004)
April 2004.
CENTER FOR POLICY STUDIES
INTERNATIONAL POLICY FELLOWSHIPS
NADOR UTCA 11, H-1051 BUDAPEST, HUNGARY (36 1) 327
3863, FAX (36 1) 327 3809
MENTOR CRITIQUE FORM
Your thoughtful and honest appraisal will be most helpful. We appreciate your input and will try to implement as many of your ideas as possible. Continue comments on the back if necessary.
Each Fellow works with one mentor who is Soros foundations network-affiliated (usually Open Society Institute and Central European University) and one or two ‘external’ mentor(s) who are experts in the field working outside the Soros foundations network. Mentors should: 1) Work with Fellows to devise a brief policy paper in their field(s) of expertise based on a lengthy research paper written over the course of the fellowship year, 2) Maintain contact with Fellows at least once every six weeks or so by telephone, fax or e-mail to discuss the development of projects, 3) If feasible, meet with Fellows at least once during the fellowship year to discuss the project, 4) Facilitate Fellows’ contact with other relevant experts and participation in appropriate meetings (IPF has discretionary funds to support Fellow attendance at relevant events), 5) Complete brief mid-term and final critique forms supplied by IPF to provide the program with feedback regarding the Fellow’s progress.
Your name, position
Marija S. Todoroviæ, Professor, University of Belgrade
Name of Fellow you have assisted
Radmilo Pesic
1. What, in your opinion, have you and your Fellow/program/project gained from your cooperation thus far?
Very distinct and important gains of this program are:
§ The control mechanisms elucidation and search of the socio-economic
transition impact on the climate change issues and energy sector reforms.
§ Analysis of the experience of the more developed and fast reforming
CEE countries with an aim to determine possible ways of its most effective
use as guideposts for the other countries in the region.
§ The drawn attention to the potential of Flexible Mechanisms
and climate protection opportunities and the emphasized options and explained
consequences - the non-Kyoto protocol countries may have.
§ A proposal for Climate Protection Policy Framework for Serbia
that has been made.
2. Do certain areas of this Fellow’s work need improvement? Which areas?
No, it is excellent work and there is no need for improvement. However,
a certain more in depth elaboration will help the results of this work
to be easier and sooner implemented, as follows:
§ Table 11, on page 32, should be more elaborated in the sense
that Command and Control instruments are to be defined in a more precise
manner, with some practical examples of policy application.
§ Also, recommendation is that certain sectors, as areas of policy
intervention ( eg. agriculture, industry, transportation, building and
construction), should be treated differently to the energy production sector,
because input control and technical standards applications are much easier
to be monitored in the primary energy production than in the energy use
sectors.
§ In further studies of the Fellow, and in the course of a book
preparation (that would be of very importance for the program results dissemination),
I would like to advice him to try to present carbon intensities (CO2/TEPS
and CO2/GDP) in the Kyoto Protocol and the Non-Kyoto Protocol countries
jointly, in a single diagram, in order to show how different is carbon
landscape across the Region.
3. In your opinion, does your Fellow’s project make a significant
contribution to the field?
Yes: Very significant and with the relevance to the both of following
aspects:
§ from the point of the study’s relevant criteria’s and indicators
characterisation/specification and
§ methodology development.
4. Would the project be important to other countries in the CEE/fSU
region?
Yes: for the both type of countries, to the West Balkan countries that
have, and those which have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol yet, and in
addition to those developed - but interested to enter this new “trade”
zone.
5. Could the proposed policy research make an impact on the policy
environment in specific countries or regions? (Policy makers, experts and
policy research community)
Yes: from the point of mobilization and establishment of the organised
system of study and of reliable approach to the Climate Protection Policy
and legislation development, as well as the measures and the enforcement
means definition in Serbia.
6. Is the timetable for the project realistic?
Yes.
7. Could the project benefit a large number of people?
Yes.
8. Does the Fellow show evidence that he/she can think strategically
about the relevant project and/or field?
Yes: The Fellow shows and demonstrates strategic thinking and clear
scientific vision. For his further studies recommended could be - that
when the First National Communication the UNFCCC is to be completed
(including baselines, and GHG inventories), all of the mentioned
policy options (A,B, C, and D) are to be re-examined, in the light of cost-benefit
analysis. Final conclusion about the optimal climate policy mix for Serbia
and Montenegro should relay more on economic analysis, than on the political
intention to be part of the EU integration process.
9. If the Fellow were to re-apply for continued OSI funding for
follow-up work associated with the project, would you support continued
funding?
Yes.
10. Are there other appropriate funders that may support the project?
Yes: at the national, regional and broader international level.
Recommendations for other potential senior contacts for this Fellow:
Additional Comments (Please comment on your Fellow’s work and all
aspects of the IPF program using the back of this sheet):
This is an excellent and very valuable work, and it would be of the
very special benefit, if there will be an opportunity to be continued with
the first goal to make the analysis as described under the item 8.
With the personal pleasure and new knowledge gained,
Dr Marija S. Todoroviæ
Professor at the University of Belgrade, and
Director of the National Programme for Alternative and Renewable
Energy Sources within the National Programme of Energy Efficiency at the
Serbian Ministry for Science and Environment Protection.
August 2004.