| Country | Type | Goal / function | Subject: who pays | Basis and # of pollutants chargeable | Factors determining charge rates | Level / rate, end 97' (USD/t) | Indexed for inflation? | Revenue leaders | Yearly revenue (mln USD) | Yearly revenue / capita (USD) | Collection efficiency (%) | Revenue distribution | Effectiveness / comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulgaria | NCF | Compl RR | Stationary industrial sources & energy prod. | 16 air pollutants | Quan, ExceedS, Time, MinS, Tox, Regio | n.a. (accord. to a formula) | No but to national minimum salary | SO2, NO2, CO, dust, Cu, Pb, phenols | 1994: 0.04 1995: 0.34 1996: 0.18 1997: n.a. |
1994: 0.00 1995: 0.04 1996: 0.02 1997: n.a. |
1994: 25.4 1995: 27.3 1996: 30.0 1997: n.a |
70% NEF 30% SEF |
80% waiver if environm. investments accepted by MoE are done. Enforcement problems esp. with state-owned industry. Inability to pay. Low fine rates. |
| Czech Republic | EC (a) | RR Incent | medium & large indust. sources & energy prod | ca. 90 air pollutants | Quan, Tox | SO2: 29 Part.: 88 NOx: 24 CO: 18 |
No | SO2 | 1994: 46.61 1995: 45.61 1996: 48.01 1997: n.a.1 |
1994: 4.51 1995: 4.41 1996: 4.71 1997: n.a.1 |
n.a. | 100% NEF (earmark. for air poll. programs) | Introduction of higher charge rates planned. Plans to reduce # of chargeable pollutants. Plans to decentralize certain charges. |
| EC (b) | Incent | small busin. heat. syst. | heating syst. performance | Fuel type, Tox | No | 100% SB | |||||||
| NCF | Compl | like EC (a) | like EC (a) | like EC (a) | 1.5 x EC | No | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | like EC (a) | |||
| Estonia | EC | Incent RR | Stationary industrial sources | 6 standard pollutants + 134 other pollutants | Quan, Tox, ExceedS, Regio | SO2: 2.3 NOx: 5.3 CO: 0.3 |
No, but revised each year. | Dust, SO2, NOx | 1994: 0.52 1995: 0.62 1996: 0.82 1997: 0.82 |
1994: 0.3 1995: 0.4 1996: 0.5 1997: 0.5 |
> 90% | 100% NEF (earmark. for air poll. programs) | Low efficiency due to weakness in emission permit system. Evaluation study on the effectiveness of this charge is underway. Revenue has risen in past years due to gradually increased charge rates. |
| NCF | Compl | SO2: 116 NOx: 265 CO: 1.7 |
|||||||||||
| Hungary4 | NCF | Compl RR | Stationary and diffuse industrial and building sources | ca. 200 air pollutants (self reporting) or violation of law. | Quan, ExceedS, Time, Tox, Regio, Height | n.a. (complicated formula) | No | SO2, NOx, CO, Dust | 1994: 6.4 1995: 3.6 1996: 5.7 1997: 3.23 |
1994: 0.6 1995: 0.4 1996: 0.6 1997: 0.33 |
n.a. | 70% NEF 30% SB |
Part of the fine can be waived if environm. investments accepted by MoE are done. For violating reporting duties the fines can be doubled. New air EC proposed. |
| Latvia | EC | Incent RR | All legal and natural persons discharging chargeable air pollution | 4 classes with > 160 air pollutants (self report.) | Quan, Tox | Dust: 5 CO: 8 SO2: 17 NOx: 17 |
No | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 40% NEF 60% SEF |
There is a charge waiver available to subsidize the financing of air pollution related investment projects which are accepted by the MoE. |
| NCF | Compl | 3 x EC for emissions above the limit; 12 x EC for illegal or no reporting | 100% NEF | ||||||||||
| Lithuania | EC | Incent RR | Stationary and mobile industrial sources | more than 100 pollutants | Quan, Tox | SO2: 52 NOx: 97 CO: 2.3 |
Quarterly indexation. | n.a. | n.a.6 | n.a.6 | n.a. | 30% NB 70% SEF |
The incentive function of the current system is probably low. Proposed new legislation foresees: decrease of # of chargeable pollutants, revised rates which better reflect environm. policy priorities, simplification especially of the NCF system. |
| NCF | Compl, RR | like EC5, and: Regio, ExeedS | according to several formulas | 50-60% (est.)7 | 100% NEF | ||||||||
| Poland | EC | Incent RR | All legal entities with commercial and noncommercial activities | 62 air pollutants | Quan, Tox | SO2: 949 NOx: 949 |
Yes | SO2?, NOx? | 1994: 142.08 1995: 178.68 1996: 175.98 1997: n.a. |
1994: 3.78 1995: 4.68 1996: 4.68 1997: n.a. |
1994: 97%8 1995: 97%8 1996: 90%8 1997: n.a. |
36% NEF10 64% SEF10 |
A reduction of the pollutants covered by the charge system from the current 62 to around 10 has been suggested. Revenues from air charges are quite high and collection rates exceptionally positive. |
| NCF | Compl | 10 x EC | |||||||||||
| Romania | NCF | Compl | Firms for exceeding permitted emission levels | n.a. | not directly linked to actual emissions | Fixed rates. (In 1995: US$ 250-500 per firm) | n.a. | n.a. | 1994: 0.63 1995: n.a. 1996: n.a. 1997: n.a. |
1994: 0.03 1995: n.a. 1996: n.a. 1997: n.a. |
n.a. | 100% NB | The Romanian NCF are not true economic instruments as the rates are not dynamic. The NCF rates are too low to give a real incentive to comply with the regulations: In 1994, the average fine was $105 per fined enterprise. |
| Slovak Republic | EC (a) | RR Incent | medium & large indust. sources & energy prod | > 120 air pollutants | Quan, Tox | SO2: 29 Part.: 86 NOx: 23 CO: 17 |
No | n.a. | 1994: 11.211 1995: 13.111 1996: 13.411 1997: 11.711 |
1994: 2.111 1995: 2.511 1996: 2.511 1997: 2.211 |
80% | 100% NEF | A surcharge of up to 50 % of the base EC (a) may be levied if a polluter exceeds the permitted emission limit. The surcharge is not applied in practice though as there is no continuous measurement of actual emissions. Also, environmental inspectorates do not have sufficient staff to regularly monitor facilities for the EC (a). |
| NCF | Compl | who violated air prot. Act | level of violation | level of violation | fixed rates12 | 1994: 0.25 1995: 0.22 1996: 0.21 1997: 0.06 |
1994: 0.05 1995: 0.04 1996: 0.04 1997: 0.01 |
80% | 100% NEF | ||||
| EC | Incent | small sources (<0.2 MW) | heating system performance (kW) | Fuel type, Tox | flat rate: up to USD285 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 100% SB | ||||
| Slovenia | ET | Incent RR | who sells fuels or who burns flamm-able organic material (inci-nerators)13 | Carbon content of hard, liquid or gaseous fuels | Quan, fuel type, CO2 content | current tax is ca. 2% of fuels sales price | - | 1997: n.a.14 | 1997: n.a. | 1997: n.a. | 100% NB | Due to the modest price increase for fuels with the CO2 tax, only a small reduction in fuel consumption is expected and a modest incentive to use fuels with low carbon content. | |
Abbreviations:
Notes: Air pollution non-compliance fees are also in force in Croatia and FR Yugoslavia. They are not described in detail here because they have no dynamic rates (i.e., they are penalty instruments with fixed rates).
Type: NCF = non-compliance fee; EC = emission charge; ET = eco-tax. Goal/function: Compl = Compliance; RR = revenue raising; Incent = incentive function.
Factors determining charge rates: Quan = quantity of emissions; ExceedS = exceedance of standard; Time = time period of emissions; MinS = minimal salary of the country; Tox = toxicity of pollutants; Regio = regional factors; Height = height of emission source from ground. Type = type of pollution source (power plant, industrial plant, mobile source).
Revenue distribution: NEF = national environmental fund; SEF = sub-national environmental fund; NB = national budget; SB = sub-national budget.
Czech Republic: 1) Total revenue for both Czech air emission charges (i.e., large, medium and small scale sources). It should be noted that the charge rates have been gradually introduced: since 1997, the final rates are in place; in 1996, 80% of the final rates applied; in 1994-5, 60% of the final rates applied.
Estonia: 2) The data listed represent total revenue from both, emission charge and non-compliance fee.
Hungary: 3) 1997 revenue data for the Hungarian air NCF are estimates. 4) In Hungary, also a NCF on ozone depleting substances is in force. This NCF aims at controlling manufacturing or importing ODS substances in order to implement the Montreal Protocol and the Vienna Convention. Total revenue in 1996 and 1997 from this NCF was around 5'000 - 10'000 USD per annum.
Lithuania: 5) If an emission source has emissions of one pollutant above the standard, the NCF in Lithuania has to be paid for all pollutant emissions of a source not just for the one for which the standard is exceeded. Consequently, this system has the potential to create very high marginal penalty rates and therefore provides substantial incentive for a pollution source to comply with standards. 6) Revenue data are only available for all ECs and NCFs in force in Lithuania (i.e., EC and NCF on air poll., EC and NCF on water pollution, NCF on waste disposal): total revenue from pollution charges was USD 4.9 mln in 1994 and USD 17.8 mln in 1997 (i.e., yearly revenue/capita was USD 1.3 in 1994 and USD 4.8 in 1997); total revenue from pollution fines was USD 0.3 mln in 1994 and USD 1.3 mln in 1997 (i.e., yearly revenue/capita was USD 0.1 in 1994 and USD 0.4 in 1997). 7) This percentage is an estimation for the collection efficiency of all pollution charges in force in Lithuania (air and water emission charges and all non-compliance fees).
Poland: 8) Data include revenues from the SO2 and NOx emission charges (not including revenue from other pollutants and NCFs - needs clarification) only. 9) The data represents the EC level in 1996. 10) 10% of revenue goes to local (gmina) funds and 54% to regional (voivod) funds, except for NOx charges where 100% of revenue goes to NEF.
Slovak Republic: 11) It should be noted that the charge rates have been gradually introduced: in 1999, the final rates are in place; in 97-98, 80% of the final rate applied; in 95-96, 60% of the final rate applied. 12) There are fixed rates for the Slovak NCF varying from USD 140 - 30'000.
Slovenia: 13) Exempt from the ET are: wood used for heating; fuels made from biomass; use of biogas which is generated in cleaning equipment or at waste dumps. 14) The Slovenian CO2 ET was introduced in 1997. Rates will be increased gradually.
| Bulgaria | Noise pollution fines are enacted but not enforced in Bulgaria. |
| Croatia | Noise pollution fines are enacted and can be levied if noise protection legislation is violated. |
| Hungary | Pollution fines on noise and vibration are enacted. The fine is enforced in areas well-known for disturbing noise pollution and in case of complaint. The fine is calculated based on a complicated formula which takes into account exceedance of noise standards, number of rooms in buildings that are affected by the noise pollution and regional factors. The total revenue from this fine in 1996 was 0.13 mln USD. |
| Slovak Republic | Noise protection is focused on preventive measures according to the Act on Health Care (1994), where health offices may prohibit the operation or import of equipment which exceeds the allowable level of noise ( 85 dBl). Also, health offices may impose penalties for violation of the Act depending on the level of noise disturbance. Health offices may establish compensation fees for workers exposed to higher levels of noise pollution (e.g. in aviation or heavy machinery sectors). |
| FR Yugoslavia | Noise fine: according to law, an enterprise or legal entity can be fined USD 2500 max. if it puts into circulation sources of noise or uses and maintains them contrary to the prescribed standards. |