PART II: Case Examples from Central and Eastern Europe

Gare Hazardous Waste Incinerator Case

Hungary

Sandor Fulop

Background

The problem started in the 1970s when the regulations on hazardous waste were not in force in Hungary. A hazardous waste dumping site could be opened easily with the permission of the local municipality and the public health authority. In this particular case, the interested parties made a superficial survey of the problem. Because of the inspectorate's negligence in the 1980s, the Chemical Company was allowed to delay the clean-up and implement solutions serving its own economic interests.

Problems/Effects

Neighboring citizens have not been fond of this plan because it would affect vineyards in Villany, a famous vinegrowing area, and the recreation center in Harkany would face bankruptcy due to the economic blow to its major source of income - tourism. The first part of the problem - hazardous waste - emerged in the late 1970s. The second - the plan to build an incinerator - came in 1993. This problem affected several areas of the region. Besides the immediate neighboring villages of the Villany and Harkany regions, the city of Pecs and areas within the border of Croatia would also be affected. The main activity of the affected region is tied closely to agriculture. Products coming from the nearest vicinity of the incinerator would be totally unmarketable. Villany and Harkany are close to the incinerator and even more sensitive areas, in the sense of both natural protection and economic growth.

Strategies Employed

NGOs turned to the Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA), a public advocacy NGO, for legal support. The legal aspects of this case were handled by EMLA, which was established in order to deal with these kinds of legal issues. EMLA raised the international aspects of the case by arguing that the authorities should not give a permit for the construction of the incinerator. At the public hearing and later in written communication with the Environmental Inspectorate, EMLA referred to the ESPOO Convention, which they believed should already be enforceable. The general provisions of Article 2, Section 1 state: "The parties shall, either individually or jointly, take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from proposed activities." EMLA also argued that it is a politically "unfriendly" gesture to establish a hazardous waste incinerator so close to the border with Croatia. Although the formal decision of the Inspectorate does not refer to this point, this issue may have contributed to certain favorable decisions.

EMLA contacted the authorities, sending letters to the Inspectorate and specialist authorities, such as the Nature Protection Authority, Public Health Authority and the Soil Protection Authority. In addition to the official permitting procedure, the Ministry of Environment and the Environmental Committee of Parliament were also approached for support. The mayor of Szalanta participated in some informal meetings at the Ministry, and the Environmental Committee also raised the issue in parliament.

The Hungarian Green Party also turned to the Austrian Green Party for financial and professional help, as Austria has more success and experienc in fighting against incinerators. The Austrian party also provided some foreign press publicity since the investment capital is essentially foreign, coming mainly from France.

Outcome

Lessons Learned

1. This case showed that a local coalition, an action group consisting of local community, municipality and NGOs, can be very efficient when working together in a unified, organized force.
2. International cooperation and coalition-building among NGOs and political parties can give substantial external support to local and national initiatives.
3. International agreements can be used as arguments both in legal procedures and in an informal way. Even if they are not formally taken into consideration, they might make an impact.
4. The case had a transboundary element, since the incinerator was to be built near the Croatian border without consulting the Croatian authorities, public or NGOs - either formally or informally. This indicates that the ESPOO Convention is OFTEN not applied in practice.
5. Economic issues were raised in this case, signifying that an environmental impact assessment cannot be limited strictly to damage to the environment. Economic and social damage should also be taken into consideration.
6. The case also illustrates that decisions may be appealed and/or overruled by different authorities. This reinforces the importance of seeking professional expert advisory assistance to help identify the legal options available through administrative or civil procedures in case such as this one.