REGIONAL OVERVIEW * OUTCOME
It was also unnecessary to compare environmental administrations in detail. It is no wonder EU legislation simply refers to a "competent authority" and leaves it to the discretion of the member states to clarify their own position. What is essential is to understand whether the individual or shared environmental administrations are capable of managing effective enforcement or not. But the evaluation of environmental enforcement and compliance is such a complex problem that the present overview is unable to examine it.
Because most countries in the region adopted new environmental laws or other principal regulations in the last few years, the field of general environmental policy is one of the more advanced in terms of its stage of approximation. The level of compliance with existing EU environmental legislation (57 percent) is among the three best results from the seven areas; only nature conservation and water quality protection are more advanced. But in both fields historical considerations play an important role. This high compliance level may be taken as a firm basis for developing the legal systems in the 10 countries in a more "European" way.
The principles are the most advanced in Hungary, as here is the newest environmental act, passed in 1995. In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, there are also recent acts, but all are more than one year old. Countries like Estonia and Latvia have not developed their overall environmental laws. In Romania, a new environmental framework law will be shortly promulgated. In Poland, drafting work on a similar law was undertaken last year.
The regulation of environmental impact assessments has also developed rapidly in the past years, but the details and procedures of the EIA do not always follow the general adoption of this instrument. The presence of the EIA as a requirement is only missing in Latvia and it is still only in draft format in Estonia, while the content and the procedure are really well-developed in Hungary and Slovakia, due to brand-new regulations.
Access to information is very important as a precondition of public participation. Full recognition of free access is missing in most cases due to the fact that the former socialist legal systems did not adopt the rights of the public in the different areas of decision making. Also, the main philosophy of public administration was and usually still is the concept of state as a "bonus et diligens pater familias".
The development of environmental management schemes requires a well-established market economy, thus it would not be realistic to demand these countries have an advanced form of voluntary environmental management. Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia are the only examples where one may witness the beginning of the utilization of these schemes or where even a draft format is present.
CEE countries all have a relatively advanced system of environmental funds. Most of these funds were created before 1990 when they expressed the interest of the state in environmental issues. Unfortunately, these funds were usually the only method of financing environmental protection in the past. Therefore, in the case of these funds, independence from the central budget and the democratic ways of decision making involving public participation, over the utilization of the fund, are more difficult to perceive.
Finally, the concept of integrated pollution prevention and control may be detected only in its earliest stages or within the framework of environmental policy considerations. In the Baltic countries and Slovakia, even this early stage is missing.
The situation is worst concerning the setting up of plans for the improvement of air quality. Hungary is the only country that claims it is in the early stages of planning.
Point source regulations are less developed in Latvia, while the best situations are probably in Slovenia and Bulgaria, according to the country reports. Point sources usually receive satisfactory attention on behalf of legislation, and the monitoring system also looks substantial for emissions control.
With the exception of Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia, the BATNEEC as a technology requirement characterizing air emission regulations is missing in the countries of the region, though one may find some early drafts of proposals in this respect. But if we examine the possible improvement policies and strategies relating to industrial plants, the situation is even less satisfactory, as it is only Slovakia which claims to have this type of strategy.
In the case of mobile source regulations, the conditions in the three Baltic states and Romania are the least developed, while the other countries all have relatively advanced regulations for these emission sources.
The basis of air pollution regulations is to connect the operation of likely polluting industrial plants to the condition of an administrative authorizations procedure. In Bulgaria and Slovenia, this condition is now under development, while the other countries all have authorization procedures similar to that of the EU.
The situation is somewhat better in the case of dangerous substances or chemicals, where both the packaging and labeling and the specific permitting and record-keeping of these goods has received some attention. We have to admit that most of these rules are also connected with the regulations of toxins, and also of public and worker health. Dangerous industrial activities are receiving much less attention at the moment, and we should rather speak about drafts on control of these activities or on the need to develop emergency requirements. Some country reports claimed to have such regulations in domestic law, but as the references were actually connected with labor safety requirements, it was not possible to accept these arguments when editing the final overview. This is probably the situation in the case of Slovakia, where they claim to have an extensive emergency response plan, though the basis of controlling dangerous industrial activities (i.e. reporting and control) is missing.
Unfortunately, the public is not informed about dangerous industrial activities and emergency response plans. Again, Slovakia is an exception of the general neglect in this field. The lack of public information is closely related to the reasons mentioned in connection with free access to environmental information.
There are some early signs of regulating issues like Good Laboratory Practice and sometimes also GMOs or GMMOs, but both of these issues are only in draft format. Knowing the above situation, where the domestic regulations do not cover dangerous substances or activities, it is no wonder risk assessment measures are also only in an early stage of perception. The underlying requirements should be there first in order to provide a firm basis for the more general terms of risk assessment.
The concept of maintaining protected areas and designating protected species is a traditional area of nature conservation. The methods of protecting wild birds may easily be different in every country, but existing structures of protection are always present.
The new strategies of nature conservation, represented in our overview only by the adoption of habitat concepts and protection, are far less developed. One may predict that by adding biodiversity or sensitive areas to the full picture would lower the level of compliance.
We have to point out that two countries claim to fulfill all the legislative obligations in the field of nature conservation. These are Poland and Slovakia, where both the old and the new concepts are manifested in law.
Emission regulations for motor vehicles are well-developed in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, while other countries have at least some noise pollution regulations in this field. It seems that Lithuania is the only country where even motor vehicle emission control is missing, for we did not receive any information in this field.
Product regulations for emissions from household appliances are missing in all 10 countries. This is proof again of the present failure of product-oriented regulations in the given countries.
The Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovakia have the most intensive waste management regulations. In the early or draft stages are Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Waste management regulations would provide, among other things, a basic condition for the priorities of waste management activities. If the studies are now focusing on waste management plans, then it is only Slovakia which reports on some direct results in developing such preventive measures. It is also Slovakia that could report that they have an acceptable level of regulations in most of the fields of waste management except BATNEEC and packaging material.
Going more into the details of waste regulations, even in those countries that have general waste management regulations, one has to admit that it is only, or mostly, the field of hazardous waste in which the legal measures are more developed. General production and industrial wastes and household wastes are vaguely regulated without any perceivable legal requirements.
Permitting is the best way of preventing at least the most harmful effects of waste. In most of the countries, some authorization provisions are present, but they are ordinarily connected only with hazardous wastes. Going along with the questions of the tables, the lack of specific landfill or incineration requirements is adequate proof of the absence of authorization requirements.
Technological requirements such as BATNEEC, even in draft format, are found only in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovakia. As the details are not known in this respect, it is not clear whether these technology options refer to the prevention side also or only to waste handling issues.
The relative lack of consumer protection is back again in the field of packaging material regulations. Six of the countries are in the early stages of regulation development or have some draft regulations in connection with packaging, while four countries reported nothing at all.
Water discharges are usually regulated. All the countries have quite well-developed or even satisfactory regulations with respect to the relevant EU legal instruments.
The regulation of water quality in the case of different water uses generally covers drinking water and, very rarely, bathing water. One may add that in this comparison, the exact quality requirements have not been compared but only the existence of similar water quality requirements.
Estonia, Poland and Slovakia could report a more advanced level of groundwater legislation, while the other countries only have drafts, or specific information on the legal situation is missing.
The best results came from the evaluation of monitoring systems for water quality control that do not directly reflect any qualitative requirements.
General ecological quality of water is reflected in a draft format in Poland and Slovakia only, while the other countries could not touch upon this problem. More complex or integrated water protection is only under development in the 10 countries under consideration.