1 2014

/ /

. , . , 11, -1, 212

.+7 (7172) 901-636, 901 960, e-mail: kzeep@mail.ru
www.eep.kz, www.beeca.net

26

12

38
16
18

___________________________________ 4 .
_______________________67 .

/
/


alexander.belyi@undp.org
:




:
. , . 11,
-1, 212
. + 7 (717)2 901 636, 901 960,
e-mail: kzeep@mail.ru
www.eep.kz, www.beeca.net

_____810 .
__________________________11 .
_______________________________11 .
_________________________________________ 11 .

___1213 .
________1415 .
Jones Lang LaSalle___________________________1617 .
___________________________1819 .
- _____________2021 .
___2223 .
________________2425 .
____________________ 2631 .
______________________________31 .
-__________________________3233 .
,
_________________3436 .
?__________________________ 37 .

___________________________________38 .
_________________________39 .
________________40 .

-

:

!_______________41 .
____________________________ 42 .

- __________________43 .
_____________________________ 43 .

__________________________________4447 .
Key achievements & policy impact____________________________4849 .
___5052 .
What is a green economy?________________________________53 .
Publications of UNDP / GEF and the RK Governments projects_____54 .

., ., 22, 401,
.: 8(7172) 44-51-67,
77-97-04, 47-82-84,
e-mail: vesti_s@inbox.ru




.

,

.

,
30
.

, , :
1) (, , .) ;
2) ;
3)
;
4) ,
.
:
20132020 .
, ;
20202030 .
, ,
, ;
20302050 .
,
.
:
-

. ,
48
, 2030
14 .
34 . , 2030
610 . ;
- ;

. ,
. ,
6 .

2030
7 .
, .
20 : 55% 40%
2030
. 80%
2030 . , . -

.
,

. ,
. -2050
. 50% 2050 .
10% 2015
25% 2020
2008 .





.
?

.


.


.

,

. .
, ,
- .
-
.
, .
.
, .

-2017 .

.

.
, .
, . , .
.
. , 3D-.
, .
.
.
.
. .
,
, .

.
,
.

, , . ,
, , , . , , ,
.
, , .
, ,
, .
. ,

.
, ,
, .
. ,
, .
.
, , : ?.
. ,
.
.
. , ,
, . .


.
.
, , . , ,
.
, , . .

.
,
, ,
, , .
, ,
,
.
, , ( ,
, , ),
. ,
. .
, . , , .
.
, .
,
.

, .
, .

2013

11,6
.
2006 , . .

11,6 .
, ,

10 .

95
3
95
1,3 . . 2014
39 .
, , .


.
, ..

.

15 2014
2 344
.
- 569 562
.
73% , . , 2013
-
410 , .

,
.
2008 ( )

,
, .

,
,
// ,
, ,
,
-
.
.
, ?

- .
.


.
- 800
( 400 ).
, , , .

,

.

.
13 2012
.
, . ?
2010
,
2015 .
, .

, ,
.
2010 ( - )
. 2011 2013
- , :
;
, ;
;
;
;
;
,
;
;
;
.
2014
- ,
.

, , , , , -
. - , 2015 .
, - :


;


;
;
,

, ;
.
.
,
?

, .

.
2012 20122014

, ,
.
// ( ).

-

, (5- 4 , 9 3 ).
. .. ( ).
9-
III ,
5- IV .

- .
, ,

.
-

,
.
( ) , , .
,
. , . , . 9, 3.

10

,
-2020 . , . , . , . 9, 5.

7 12 2012 (
/), ().
/
,
(

.
.. ( ).
, 30%,
10%.
29 2013 .
( 2 - 4),
.
, 2015
.

, ,
.
.

,
//

35

.

.
,

, , . , ,
Suez, , Eni, ,
,
,

. ,
.
. , .

2014
Rakuten
Ennet
,

.
-,
,
.
Greenevolution.
. . ,
, , .

.
Rakuten ,
, ,
, ,
. ,
.
,
. ,
, ,
, .

,
.

()
,
.
2014 2017 .
, ,
.
,
(), 1,2
, 27 . ,
,

, , , .
2013 AccessBank
.
4,2 , 9 840 .
30% ,
.

, 2014-2020 .
, 40% ,
, ,
.
1991 2013
1,577 138 . 6,6 . 35
, 33%
, 21% , 11%
.

10

11







(0,94 .../1000$ )
.



(14,1 2,8
).

,
,
/

, -
(36,9%
), ( 30% ). 80% , 90%
- . ,
-
.

12

, ,
,
,
. 70% ,
(
1950 1980 ), -
30% , .
, .

,
,
.
, ,
.

, ,
, ( ), , .


.
, ,
, . -


.
55% 20 .
, ,
.
.
(,
.),

- ( -,
- ), .. ,
( ), ( ), .
-

,
- , ;
,
. ; : , ,
, .

, -2020, , ,
- .

,
,
,
,
.
177 ,

,

.
(),
182 ,
,



,

.
1991 ,

,

2 700 .

13



,
.
/ /

,
.

,
,
. ,
40% , 67% , 40% 14% ,
35% .
, ,
(Green Building, Green construction Sustainable
building) ,

.
:
1. ( )

, .
2. .
3.
.
4.
.
5. .
, .
,

.
,
.

, , , ,
.
, .
, , , , ,
, .
:
1. , .

14

2. .
3. .
:
1. , .
2. , ,
, , .
3.

(, , ..).
:
1. 25% , , .
2. 30% .
3.
,
.
4. (, )
(,
) .
5. 5% , 455 2008
571 2013-.
6. , , ,
.
7.
, .
8. . 4%,
.

BREEAM LEED
20
. 21

 ,

, .

BREEAM (British Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method), 1990 .
BREEAM.
1998 The
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
(LEED)

. , LEED. LEED
,
, .

.
, , ,

.
,
.
,
,
(WGBC). , , , , , , , , ,
, .
, , .

, , ,

. ,

.

, !

15

 Jones Lang LaSalle

Jones Lang LaSalle
.

.
LEED
BREEAM .

-
:


,
:
-. 2012 .
. ,
.
.
.
, , ,
, . ,
,
.

, .

.

: Jones Lang LaSalle.
: ().
: -.
: Jones Lang LaSalle
( O1 Properties).
: - .
260.
2 600 2.
2 600 2.
:
2013 (62 )
LEED Commercial Interiors v2009;
2013 (47,76
%) BREEA
MInternational 2009 Europe Commercial: Offices;
2013 Green Awards
2013 .
:
2012 .

16

-
. ,
. - .
, .

:

LEED, BREEAM
.
,
, .

.
, , ,

.

2013 ,

. , 43% ( 24 000 . ).

.


.
.

.
.

.
.
,
,
.

.

.
.

50%
.
.


.
.

, ,
. .

.
.
2,

.
.



.

4,8% ,
6 .


. ,
, (
, , ).
( )

10

17

.
.
,
,
, , .
, . , ,
.
, ,
.
- .

, .
, .
-
,
.
15 ,

18

,
,
.
, .
- , , ,
.
,
.
,
, , .

. .
,
. . ,
, .
,
,
. , , . , ,
.
-
. , ,
.
, , -


2014 18 , -

, 2013 65
14,6 . , 2 730
150 .
, 2013

. ,
1 305 .
, 700 ,
13 .

, .
-
, .
, , . ,
. - , ,
.
, .
,
. .

. ,

.
.
, 15 ,
.
. ,
. .
. , . . ,

. ,
. ,

.

-
, .
. , , ,
.

. , .
: , .
, , -
.
- , 20 .

, .
, .
1 107
2 200 , .
, 1 2014
. 1 .
8%, 8,29%. 1
11,7
/ .

19

,
, ()
- , :

-
. ,
,
, .

.
.
, ?
, . -. -
,
, , ,
.. , -
. , -
,
, .
. -
. , -
,
, . - -

20

, ,

.
- , , , , .
- , ,
, . - .
.
-,
.
2009 - .
. , ,
,
.

. . ,
. - : . .
,
, , . ,
, , ,
. ,
.
. .
, ,
, -, .
,
. ,
, .
?
- , ,
- . - ,
.
, .
.

. -,
, ,
, . -
. . , . ,
.

. -
. , . , , .
. , ,
, ?
,
. , , . . ,

. , ,
. ,
. , ,
, . ,

. ,
.
.
.
, , -, . ,
.
. -
: ; ; ; ; ;
; .
. ?
,
. . , ,
. ,
, ,
, .

.
. ,
, , . , ,
, ,
. ,
- , , , . ,
.

. -
, ,
, .
, , .
, , . .

21





, USAID,
,
.

4 . 450
GWH . ,
, .
INOGATE ( , , ),
. 2540% 10%, 30
; 280 ,
.

. ,
.
, ,
, (GreenBuilding,

22

Greenconstruction Sustainablebuilding) ,

. ,
355 . 1/3
, ,
2/3 . -
40 .
LISI DEVELOPMENT,
, ( ), .
, , . ,
, ,
. ,
50%.
.
, , ,
.

 .
, .
, ,
,
1984 . ,
, 56
, .
,
, 40 , 25 , , ,
.
, .
,
. ,
, , .
, , , ,
10% ,
. ,
.
,
.
,

.
, . 30%
, .
.
.

. ,
,
. ,
. , .
,
, ,
. . ,
.


.
,
,
, , .
,
,
. ,
, .

,
,

.
.
, ,
.

. ,

,

. , ,
,
,
.

. ,

.

.

,

.

,
.
,


( , ).

.

23







-

,

.
,

,
.

,
,
/

,
,
, , . , , , .

, . ,
.
- .

. ,
,
,
.
.
, . ?
, .
. , , , .
. , .
, , ,
, -
, , , .
- ,
, ,
, ,
: , , ...

, .
, -

24

:
.
.
. , ,

, , , ,
.

, , . ,

: , .
, ,
. , .
, ,
.

, .
, ,
. , ,
.

 , ,

- ,
.

. , . ,
, .

. , , ,
.
, . ,
, ,
.
, .
. , ,
. ,
. ,
,
.
- . , , . ,
,
. ,
.
, -.

12 .
-
- BNews.kz


KazPV,

. 26 - . , 4 .
- , , .
, . , AREVA.
20142015 12 .

. , .


,
,
.
. , ,
. .


()
() ,
- .
,
,
.
, .
, 2020 30- .

2014
.

25



.



.
, , 2010 ,
.
- -
, - .
.

271 . 2010
, 20,2 . ( 10,24
). , ,
, 2020 69 2 .

.
, , . . , 10 , 170 ,
13 .

-2020 -

26

. ,
.
,
, ,
.

, , , (), ,
.
35%, .
4 .
, , , .
, 2550%
.
, ,
.
,
, .
,

.
.

27

 ,
, .
: , .

, , . ,
. .

. , . 30
90%. ,
.
,
,
, , ( ) ,
, , , ,
(

28

) . . ,
, , ( , , , ), ..

.
.
,
.
,
.
(50-80%),
, , , , .
:
1. .
2. ( )
.
3. ,
(, -

 ),
, .
4. ,
.
,
, . , ,
. .


,
.

, , , , ,
, .
:
;
;
;

, , .
,

:

;

;
;
;
,
;
,
.

29

. ,
( ) - . , ,
. , .
94% , .
,

30

, 2 /2 .
(), .

,

.
, .
, . , .
.
,
.
.
60% , .
(, , - ),
.
20
, . , 20%.

810% .
710 . , ,
. .
,
, . , ,
, ,
, .

(Passivhaus,
. passive house). 80-


, :

(
, ,

),


(



).
10%

.
,
2 000

.
,
1984 .,

200 /2 (

20 ).
150, 1995 .
80 /2. ,
,
EV
70 (7 3 )
1 2 .
15 /2,
,
,

.

,
. , ,
.

, , .
10- ,
.
,
,
, , , , (sustainable) .
, Viikki,
():
, ( ), ;

;
. . .
.
;
.
.
,
. . ;
. . .
;
. . .
.

31

 -


,


.


,



.


.

,


17
,
, .

, ,
-
.
1997 , , .
50
,
. , ,
, .
. .
. ,
, .
, , ..
, . ,
. , .
. .

, ,
.

32

? ,
. , , , ,
, .
.
,
, . . ,
.
-,
. , 30%
, .
, ,
, .
,
, , , , , , ,
.

. , - . ,
, 500 .
. , .
30%.
10 . ,
100 CO2 . 14 , ,
5,7 3 2,5 3 .
, .

. ,
.
-

 .
, .
.
, .
. . , , , 2 ,
.
. 24
.

. 1,52
, 30% , . ,
.
30%.
. .
, . .

. , ,
:
, , , .
10 .

. .
,
,
(,
- ). , , .
, . . ,
,
6080 % .
24 .
?
, .
,
. . .
, -.
,
, .
, , , , ? ,
,
. , . ,

.

/
,
,

() .
10 .

,
.



,
, ,
.
:
:

(, ).
:

,
, -
.

33

 ,





.
. -,



, . -,



.

,



2009
,
, ,
. : ,
. .

.
2010 -
2020 , , -
.
2011 ! -, -, - ,
.
:
, , 32% 22% 2015 10% 2020 ;
, ;

10 ;
1,5
;
.
:
.

34

2011 . 12 000
35 . . , .
, .
, . - . , , , ,
.
,
.

, . , ,
, ,
, . .
, .
.
,
, .
. , ,
, ,
.

.
, 1 .
.
.

 . , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, .
.
.
.
, , ,
. , , .
,
. 1,5 .
18 ,
470 . 8 . 300.
.
, .

.
:
78 ,
;
1015%
, ;
, ,
;
,
.
2011
, -

.
,

.


.

- .

, : ,
, , ..

.

67 . 2 ,
. 350400 .
, . , .
,
.
26 .
6 , 20
. .
2012 .
, 37.
:
- 4060%;
- 1820%.
.
, , , ,
.
. 2/3
. , , ,
, , .
58%. . , , ,
, : , ,
.
, .
,
, .

35

 . :

;
, , , , , , - .
( ).
:
;
;
;
.
,
50 17 .

.
, , ,
, .
, -, :
, .
-, .
,
. , ,
,
-

36

,
109 . 2011
2,7 , 590 . ,
.
. .
,
() :
;
.


, , , ,
.
:
;
;
, , ;
, ;

.
,
( ) , ,
, , , .
, .

?
,

,


.
,
, 15 .
.
,
15 ,
, ,
. ,
. , - ,
, .
, - ,
,
.
- ,
, ,

(, , ), . ,
20122013 , ,
, . ,
Zakon.kz.
, , .
, , . ,
. ,
. , .
, 3040 ,
50 . ,

. 25
,
, . , , ,
,
, ,
. , , .
,
. ,
,
.
10 , ,

.

.
-. .
100% , , .
, , ,
. , -
, , .
2011 7,3
. 7
, .
2012 2013
. 2011 , 2012 2013
. , 78% , 73%
, .

37




2829 2014
. -

,

.

, , ,
.
### , , .
- ,
- .
. 10 .

.
,
/
, , .
,
, - 32%. .

, .
, .
1213 2014 . . -
.
,

38

, .

, , , ,
.
### ,
,
.
, , , .
,
. , ,
, , /
.
,
: ,
,
- . .

. /

.

,
. ,

, , , - ###.

, ,
- .






,



.


:
1) ;
2) ;
3) , ;
4)
;
5) , ,
;
6) .
, -

, , , - , .
,
, .

, (
, , , ) 50 .

, ,
.

, , .

, , :
1) , , ,
- ;
2) ,
, ;
3) , , ;
4) , , ;
5) , ;
6) , .

39



21

, , , .

,
, , , ,
.
, ,
.

,
EXPO 2017,
.
, ,
. , .
, , .
,
.
, .

, ,
,
. 72
20,4 , 16,4 . ( 84%).

. 2030

145 .. 176 . .
(20,4 2012 .)
(82%).

40

13 2014
235

,

,
.
, , :
1) () ;
2) -,
() ;
3)
100 ;
4) ;
5) ;
6) 5 , 5
100 / ,

35 , 110 - ;
7) ;
8)
;
9)

.
,

100 ( ) ,

.




;
- www.egov.kz .

100 .

: () . .


!
/

,







.
/ .
:

, ;
;

;
.
,

,

.
-2020 , 1
, .
.
, , , .
2020 10 . .
( , -
..), .


- .

,

, .
,
//
- (4 . , 3 . ). . .., .
.
/ ,
. .
() 2.04-21-2004

2.04-02-2004 , - .
- ,
-2020.
90% , , .

. , ,
3040%.

41




,

.
.

,

,

,
.

,

.
.
,

.
,
.
,

.

. , ,
.
-.
,
, .
, .

. .
,

. , ,
,
.

, .
, ,
.
, .

42

. .
, .


.
,
, . ,
. , ,
. , , .
: ,
.
- ,
, .



,


,

.


:
-
;
-

()
.


- .

5 2014 185.

,
,
.
:
1)


();
2) - www.egov.kz.
:
, 10 () .

.

(), , .
, :
; , ( -

); , ;
( ); ;
-
; ,
, .
: www.minregion.gov.kz. -
: 1414.

161 . .
10%.
2011 , 1956 , .
, ,
, 161
. .
. .
.
, ,
. ,
52 ,
40 . , , .
.
,

, .
, , ,
, , .

700 .

43

/
-
,
DAMU RG :,

,
, -
.

,
, , -
-, - .
- . (.
, ) - ().
,
,
(. ).
.
,
.
(, , , ..),
/ .
, ; ,
.; ,
, ( , , , , ) (
); , ; .
, .
,
. , : ,
.
,
.

, .
(4,1 ), (2,14).
3,9.

44

, . 90%

.
. ,
.

. 10%
.
. 20% , .
( ) 35%
.
, , , . 56% ,
; 26% . 12% , .
93% , 55,2%, 20,5% . ,
, .
(100% ,
), (98%) (96%).
. .
. .
(34%).
18% 11% , . ,

( 7% 4% ).

43%. 2,5% .

(29%), (2,6%), (1,6%)
33,2%. , 1/3
,
43% .
, , , , .

 - , 26,2%
, 23,7% .
9,9% . 20,6% .
10% .
:
.
. , .
29,3% , , , . ,
, 28%.
, ,
, 5,4%.

24%. 8%.
,
. ,
, , . ,
() .

; , .
: 13,5%;
13,1% , 12,4%.
, ,
. 11% .
8,5% , , . , ,

, !

45

 60% ( 20%
). ,
, - , 30%.
, 5,8%
. , , .

, , , , , .
: ,
, 50%.
27%. ,
11,5%.

(5,1% ). ,
,
.

3 . 23 ,
86%. 2,6 .
3 , 41,7% .
41% , 2 .
.

33% .
,

. 67,5%.
.
,
. ,
.

(; ;
; -).
,
, , , .

46

. , ,
, .
, - . ,
. . .
, ,
, .
.
, -
, .
- , , .
.

, ,
, . ,
,
4,6 , 3,9, 4,1 .
,
, . . 4 5 ,

. (4,5 ). ,
-. , , ,
4 ,
- 4 .
,
.
, 410 , . , ,
, .


, ,
.

, .
, ,
.
,
, . :
, ,

, .
,
,
,
. , , ,
.
, , .

. ,
- ,
, .
, (, /
/, // .)

,
, : , (), .
,
, (53%), (24%) (20%).

, .
(-, -, ), ,
,
. , .
. ,

. ,
, , .

, , .
. , : /
. .
, .
, ,
, . 62% 33% .
, .
, ,
-.
, , .
:
; , - ;

.
,
, , .
,
. , . ,
.
, , , , .
, , .

47

Key achievements & policy impact

The ultimate objective of this UNDP/GEF project
was to increase energy efficiency in
district heating and hot water supply by removing
legal and institutional, financial, capacity
and information-related barriers. The project
succeeded not only in delivering expected
results but also in substantially influencing the
countrys policies and practices in energy
efficiency.

The UNDP/GEF project demonstrated that apart from significant

heat saving potential (i.e. energy savings of up to 50 percent were
achieved), energy efficiency can bring sizable social and economic
benefits for Kazakhstan in the form of new jobs, alleviation of fuel poverty,
and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Specifically, the UNDP/GEF
project estimated that additional 1.5 jobs per year can be created by the
investment in EE retrofit of one multifamily apartment building.1
A monitoring protocol designed by the project sets a formal
framework for tracking effectiveness of EE measures implemented in
residential and municipal buildings, including GHG emissions reduction.
This monitoring tool was tested in pilot projects and can now be used

Kairbek Uskembaev,
First Vice-Minister of Regional Development:
The UNDP/GEF project created quite a solid foundation that the
government can build on in its ongoing efforts to reform and modernize
the housing and residential sector.

One of the projects major achievements was successful lobbying

for the new Energy Conservation and Efficiency Law, culminating in
its enactment in January 2012. The new law although not without
weaknesses sets a much better legal framework for dealing
with energy efficiency issues than its predecessor, the 1997 Law.
Thanks to the projects persistent efforts, the new law now targets
the housing and communal sector, includes a concept of thermal
upgrade, defines responsibilities of government agencies in terms
of design and implementation of EE programs and plans, etc.
Another worthy project success was the inclusion of an energy
efficiency component into the national Program on Modernization of
Housing and Municipal Infrastructure, with a total budget of US $5.8
billion, of which US $2.6 billion has already been allocated for 20112015 to retrofit residential buildings, including thermal upgrades.
Energy efficiency makes up the major component of the Program,
with about 40% (US $48 million) already spent in the first quarter
of 2013 for EE upgrades, generating about 30,000-40,000 tonnes
of CO2 savings annually. If not for the projects timely and target
interventions, the National Program would have focused solely on
reconstruction/renovation of existing residential buildings without any
energy efficiency retrofits in mind.

The International Round Table on

Energy Efficiency. Astana 2009
by the Ministry of Regional Development to monitor effectiveness of
PMMHI. As noted by many project partners and stakeholders Ministry
of Industry and New Technologies, Ministry of Environmental Protection,

Sergey Poleschuk,
Director of Ergonomika Company and first private
ESCO in Karaganda: Had the project not pushed for and tested new
approaches to energy efficiency at the building level, for example, the
government wouldnt have had a pool of locally generated experiences
and results that are relevant to the countrys legal, institutional and
policy context, and thus feasible and readily available for replication.

1
Retrofitting buildings directly increases employment because without an attempt to make the building more efficient, the work would not have
been done. The investment/job creation ration for Kazakhstan is comparable with similar estimates made for the US economy, where stimulus
package worth 100 bln US$ is projected to result in additional 1,085,300 job-years. Green jobs and energy efficiency building retrofit in Kazakhstan.
UNDP/GEF Project on Removing barriers to energy efficiency in heat and hot water supply. 2011.

48

Ministry of Regional Development, Kazakhstan Center for

Modernization and Development of Housing and Municipal
Infrastructure, and AAOs effective capacity building and
training of local state agencies, municipalities, private
companies and AAOs has been an important undertaking
and accomplishment of the project. Now, thanks to the
project team, there are already a number of dedicated
and enthusiastic local entities on the market with requisite
capacities and skills that are implementing EE projects on
the ground. The Ergonomika Company, the first private
ESCO in Karaganda, is in the lead.
Moreover, the government signed an agreement with
UNDP worth US $0.7 million on implementing a complex
EE program in a town of Prigorodnyi near Astana to be
financed largely from the state budget. UNDP, while
implementing this UNDP/GEF project, has positioned itself
as a well-recognized local entity with unique expertise
in EE project implementation, and the government sees
UNDP as a credible partner in spreading the energy
efficiency agenda to other regions of Kazakhstan. The
follow-up project will test a comprehensive approach to
municipal heating for a small urban area, thus proving
the sustainability and high replication potential of project
results.
Moreover, the Ministry of Regional Development is
currently formulating a strategy for regional development
that will fully adopt the projects approaches to energy
efficiency in district heating and hot water supply, leading
to nationwide replication of the projects results.
Given the diverse and decentralized nature of the
municipal heating sector and its stakeholders from largescale district heating companies and local municipalities
to single apartment owners and tenants the government
is recognizing that an effective outreach and education
campaign that reaches throughout this expansive range
of players is essential to the success of policies. And the
UNDP/GEF project should be fully credited for successful
promotion of a strategic and multi-tiered approach to
outreach, education and training that leverages a variety of
partners and resources, as well as to the public exposure
and media attention to energy efficiency.

Basic publication of the Project

Prigorodny settlement

Yekaterina Paniklova,
UNDP Deputy Resident Representative:
Pilot projects in Astana, Karaganda, Almaty and Kostanay tested new
approaches to improving energy efficiency in the residential sector that
later made their way to the national program on modernization of the
residential sector and contributed to development of important policy
and legal documents on energy efficiency including the Law on Energy
Saving and the Comprehensive Plan on Energy Efficiency.

Natalya Druz,
Social expert of the UNDP/GEF Project: There is a need for a
transformational shift in the mindset of apartment owners. They should
realize that an apartment is just a small building block of a much bigger
and complicated organism called communal property. If all systems
of this complex mechanism function well, then each apartment owner
only benefits.

49




( )

-



,

.

,


, ,
.

- :
, ,
, -,
.


.
50 60-
. 2012
,
1 423 445 , 8 .
:
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
..


,
.

.
, ,
,
,
.

, - ( )
, ,
.

-

.

50

, .
,
,
,
, .
,

, 1960- .

.
, ,
. 8 ,
, - . 2200 , 2 .
, ,
,
. 3,9 /
, 1965 ,
- .
3200 . : 8 ( 636 ), , , 36
906 .. 1,22 ,
1,02 , 0,2 . 95-70.

, .

15
.
, -
-
,
.

 -1. .
,
.
,

, - ,
. , - ,


- , .
-
- , . -
, ,
.
, 19601970 ,
. ,
.
, -
, .
, (
+10 0C) (55) ,
.
,
28-30
.
,
, -

, .
,
,
.
() .
,

. , .
,
, , , . ,
, , ,

.
-


( ) .
, , -
.

. ,
. 44
,
,
.
, ,
,
, .

,
,
,
, -
.
, ,
:125 57 -

51

 -.,
, ,
, 4
157 *. (
2.04-21
), 320,7 */..
, 233 */..
- 417 */.. .
() ,

. ,
40- 60 %- .

,
, .

, 125 .

. ,
,
, .

. -

52

- ,
-
. ,
, -
,

,
.
,

.
,

. , .
,
, -
.

, , .
-,
,-
.
2050
.
,
.
.

What is a green economy?

In Kazakhstan society an ambiguous attitude is
forming to the green economy. Firstly, it can
be understood from the fact that even in official
documents, the term is still used in quotes.
Secondly, to many people it is immediately
associated with wind turbines, solar energy,
biogas, or the actions of Greenpeace.
So what is a green economy? To what extent is
it relevant for Kazakhstan nowadays?
By Saltanat Rahimbekova, Doctor of Economics,
Chairperson of the Board of Legal Entities
Coalition For the green economy and G-Global
development.
To Kazakhstan, the concept of green economy implies three
constituent parts - resource conservation, energy efficiency and organic
agriculture. All the rest are derivatives of these constituents.
President N.A. Nazarbayev set the task of Kazakhstan joining the
ranks of thirty world advanced nations, the most competitive nations
in the world. Competitiveness of the country is composed of the
competitiveness of each item of commodity, works or services. To what
extent are we competitive in this regard in the world now?
Unfortunately, the resource intensity of our economy as a whole, and
of individual enterprises, are such that to improve the competitiveness
of the national economy, we should not talk only about the costs, but
of the reduction of specific consumption of resources per unit of output.
Resources are divided into natural, human and man-made. Natural
resources are the land, minerals. Therefore, their rational use is already
the green economy.
The second constituent part of the green economy is rise of energy
efficiency and energy saving. Strictly speaking, the energy itself is a
resource too. But it is a special kind of resource that deserves a separate
talk. In the frames of green economy, energy efficiency is not only in the
use of non-traditional renewable energy sources - solar, wind, biogas,
etc. Even in economic terms, in terms of prime cost, it is premature

to talk about their widespread use. To Kazakhstan at present, energy

efficiency is primarily the enhancement of the efficiency of production
and consumption of traditional energy sources - oil, coal, gas, etc. In
other words answers to two questions need be sought:
1) How rationally are they used in industrial and energy productions?
2) How efficiently do we, as consumers, use the thermal and electric
power?
Suffice it to mention that according to the international experts
estimations 30% of the incoming thermal power in our homes is irrationally
used. To put it simply, we heat the street. Domestic and international
experience shows that with proper thermo-upgrading of the buildings, we
could reduce the heat consumption in them by 40-60%. It should be noted
in it that the Housing and Public Utilities account for about 40% share of
the overall thermal power produced in the country and more than 22% of
the electric power. It is in household use. Energy intensity of industries also
leaves much to be desired. This in turn tells on our competitiveness, and it
is a huge reserve for the development of a green economy.
Organic farming, the third constituent part of the green economy,
has a promising outlook in Kazakhstan. As a matter of fact the climatic
conditions of our country and large areas of farmland encourage the
application of resource-saving technologies. Furthermore, minimal use
in previous years of chemicals, pesticides and herbicides enable now the
production of organic food, which can be said to be the main national
competitive advantage of this industry in our country. Such products are
much more expensive in the international market. And this circumstance
may help cope with a main challenge in enhancing competitiveness of
domestic agricultural production - lack of access to seaports. Organic
agriculture is a strategic, promising and rapidly developing world
innovative direction. Currently, information about certified products of
organic agriculture and trade are available in more than 160 countries.
Certified organic land areas are the size of about 40 million hectares.
Demand for organic food, fiber, health and beauty products persists in
the world, with sales rising by more than five billion US dollars a year. In
2011 the volume of international sales of organic products reached 59
billion U.S. dollars, and by 2015 it is projected to be 88.9 billion dollars.
As we see, to Kazakhstan the green economy has a strictly practical
significance and plays an important role in achieving the strategic goal of
enhancing the countrys competitiveness.

53

Publications of UNDP / GEF

and the RK Governments projects
1. The 10 most common misconceptions regarding the installation and
maintenance of the automated control system of heat consumption. (This
publication considers expediency of using the automated control systems
of heat consumption in existing and currently constructed new buildings.)
2. The concept of creating energy efficiency center in Kazakhstan.
(This publication gives an overview of international experience in the
creation of energy efficiency centers, and offers a concept for Energy
Efficiency Center in Kazakhstan.)
3. Opportunities of achieving social effect through energy
efficiency of residential buildings. (The publication is addressed to
those, concerned with energy efficiency of apartment blocks.)
4. Green building. (The booklet contains general information
on green building record and the most well-known and generally
accepted standards in this area.)
5. Teaching Materials. Refresher course in energy efficiency
of communal heating sector and of buildings. (The publication is
addressed to trainers (teachers). It contains basic materials needed
for successful teaching of this course.)
6. Review. Foreign experience in utilities upgrade in small
communities.
7. Protocol account on energy efficiency projects in residential
and public buildings. (The publication is addressed to decisionmakers in the field of energy efficiency and conservation; it will be
useful to cooperatives of apartment owners, managers of service
companies and ordinary consumers of thermal power.)

54

8. Energy saving at a reasonable price! Presentation of pilot

energy-efficient residential building in the city of Karaganda. Booklet.
9. Pilot demonstration projects on improving energy efficiency in
the buildings of Astana, infographics.
10. Upgrading of the heat supply unit of the building of state
economic lyceum 9 in Astana, infographics.
11. RK Law On energy saving and energy efficiency,
infographics.
12. Regulatory and technical documents, infographics.
13. Evaluation of the energy efficiency and a class of residential
buildings in Kazakhstan, infographics.
14. Pilot project for the construction of energy-efficient residential
buildings in the city of Karaganda, infographics.
15. Influence of residential construction sector on greenhouse
gas emissions in Kazakhstan, infographics.
16. Methodology of energy audit of civil buildings, infographics.
17. Housing development in the Republic of Kazakhstan,
infographics.
18. The system of ventilation with heat recuperation, infographics.

55