The environmental monitoring equipment in many countries is often inadequate or outdated. This equipment is critical in measuring pollution discharges or ambient environmental conditions. Once this data is collected, it is processed and stored at the national level to assure uniformity. Environmental agencies periodically publish and distribute reports, usually as an annual report on the State of the Environment. The majority of CEE countries have the capacity for a comprehensive system of collecting and storing environmental information. However, in most cases, the accuracy and quality of data is suspect. Combined, these deficiencies produce gaps in environmental data that, in turn, affect the quality of environmental decision-making.
Because of economic hardship and instability, some have established short-term goals rather than long-term ones. This results also from the lack of reliable environmental information. These action-oriented approaches usually contribute to the separation of environmental and economic issues. Long-term goals are a declaration of a government intention rather than objectives of well-designed plans or action-oriented programs. Deciding the long-term environmental priorities is still a helpful exercise but it has limited connection with routine environmental protection activities.
Barriers to information at the national level have prompted regional and local governments to develop their own environmental priorities. Therefore adoption of the EAP principles by local and regional environmental programs is more advanced than what may generally be observed on a national level.
The NEAP process is often delayed by political interference in establishing environmental priorities. Politicians often react to environmental "hot spots" under the influence of industrial lobbies. Environmental monitoring is usually not developed enough to measure the risk to human health created by industrial pollution. As a result, investors have used perceived environmental health problems to gain access to government subsidies and soft loans for environmental purposes. Obligations listed in international and bilateral agreements also affect the priorities of national environmental policy. The resources needed to meet the requirements of these treaties are usually not adequately assessed in the CEE countries.
The advancements in developing and implementing the NEAPs are also slowed by a tendency to drain off finances to support expensive, end-of-pipe environmental investments. These investments tend to have a higher initial cost and are less efficient than investments that may prevent environmental damages. Clean production and environmental auditing techniques are seldom used by CEE companies.
An open and pragmatic approach to setting environmental priorities is characteristic of the NEAP. The government's ability to verify priorities and to communicate them to environmental interest groups is still in an early stage in the CEE countries. There has also been a lack of leadership shown by the environmental administration in initiating and conducting environmental programs focused on solving particular environmental problems (i.e. water conservation, air pollution and waste disposal issues).
As the CEE countries prepare to join the EU, they are improving their procedures of environmental priority setting. This helps to advance the NEAP's development and implementation.
The role of NGOs in monitoring environmental protection programs is different in each country. It varies from very weak involvement to having a relatively strong influence on the environmental decision-making process. In the NEAP process, their involvement has also taken the form of commenting on drafts of governmental programs. Thus public participation still has a passive role and little impact on environmental protection programs.
There has been, as with priority setting, more progress with public involvement at the county and municipal level. Public engagement has been more influential in deciding goals and objectives of environmental protection.
National environmental priorities are carried out through different types of projects that can address a number of specific issues or problems. There are pilot projects to demonstrate the best available environmental protection practices or technologies. Also, there are regional projects that affect a large geographic (ecosystem) and usually involve air quality or water basin management plans. Such projects are mostly implemented as part of a regional environmental protection action plan. Finally, there are sectoral projects focused on specific environmental issues caused by a particular branch of industry. They usually address the management, technology or waste mitigation problems characteristic of this specific industrial production.
There is a visible advancement of the CEE countries in planning and implementing environmental protection projects. The list of the 80 biggest polluters in Poland is an example of a pilot environmental project focused on reduction of pollution discharge by big industrial plants. Regional governments implemented this project. Companies were forced to develop compliance schedules and investment plans ensuring the reduction of effluents. A substantial decrease in emission of air pollution and waste water discharges was achieved. The Czech Government supported a regional project aimed at the reduction of air pollution by local boiler rooms. The fund facilitated the shift from coal to gas in heating systems resulting in a substantial reduction of air pollution. Based on its national environmental priorities, the Latvian government successfully implemented a project to improve of water management in Liepaja City. The project managers developed a set of realistic targets and followed their own implementation schedule. They also demonstrated the technical and financial feasibility of the project.
Progress in planning and implementing pilot, regional or sectoral projects marks the advancement made by the CEE countries in this respect. Countries in the region are reasonably prepared to carry on projects developed within the NEAP.
There is a considerable need for the CEE countries to improve the process of assessing project costs (both investment costs and operating costs) and comparing the benefits of different environmental investments. In addition, many government agencies have not accepted the importance of operating budgets. As the countries address these issues, they will be able to better prioritise the many small and local projects identified in the NEAPs.
Most countries in the region have also enacted more environmental legislation to include framework acts (i.e. National Environmental Policy Acts) and media-specific acts (for example water, air, and nature conservation). The remaining countries have placed a high priority on revising old legislation or enacting new legislation.
Despite these achievements, the governments have placed little emphasis on enforcing environmental regulations. The same applies to how they enforce compliance schedules and the use of natural resources (for example, forests, mineral resources, ground water, national parks, and coastal zones). Although this differs from country to country, it is one of the weakest features of the NEAPs. Major improvements in environmental enforcement are especially important to the CEE countries wishing to join the European Union.
The environment is commonly ranked low on the list of priorities of national governments when compared with economic and social goals. The lack of concern shown by both the government and the public is a result of low environmental awareness and other immediate problems such as unemployment and decline in real income. Also, public interest has shifted towards market opportunities and to material goods. This has created new consumption patterns, more waste and less environmentally friendly habits (i.e. transportation). Although the majority of citizens support a sound environment, their lifestyle works towards the opposite end.
Environmental NGOs alone are not strong enough to steer a country's economic and social development towards a sustainable development path. The main problem facing NGOs in all CEE countries is the lack of funding, coordination and cooperation. This makes a green movement weaker, less influential and sometimes even unacceptable to the general public. The NGOs influence on public environmental awareness is undermined by the general decline of interest in environmental protection issues.
The lack of an integrated approach to environmental protection programs is a common deficiency of environmental policy in the CEE countries. The environment is often separated from economic programs supported by the government. Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Audits are the only techniques that encourage keeping environmental considerations on the economic agenda.
Inadequate funding of environmental protection is a common deficiency in CEE countries. It reduces the impact of the NEAP on the economy and the environment. In addition, allocation of financial resources among priority environmental areas are sometimes inadequate to their relative importance. A tendency to complete projects that have already begun draws off financial resources from new or relatively small environmental protection projects. Advanced and costly end-of-pipe investments consume most of the country's funding for the environment.
Pollution prevention techniques are not encouraged strongly enough because of the low incentives provided by charges and fines imposed on polluters. The role of these instruments is rather to raise funds than to induce improvement in production practices. Moreover, inflation is rarely incorporated into calculations of charges and fines. Thus enterprises have little incentive to invest in clean technology or to adopt other pollution prevention measures.
Establishment of numerous new small and medium size businesses is a typical phenomenon in CEE countries. They are profit-driven and sometimes hostile to the environment. More control and monitoring of commercial activities performed by small and medium businesses are required in order to prevent clean areas from being polluted.
Privatisation of state properties may be combined with the restoration of contaminated sites if appropriate capital can be invested. Foreign investors are usually needed to transfer modern, environmentally friendly technology and to install advanced pollution control equipment in acquired plants. Transferred equipment and technology may not always be in compliance with western environmental standards but may meet the country's own environmental regulations. There is a need to address this issue in environmental protection programs in order to avoid future problems in trade and in waste reduction.
A general climate of economic decline has brought about a reduction in industrial pollution. This positive outcome of economic recession is counterbalanced by the reduction of funds for environmental protection activities. Moreover, enterprises are also reducing expenditures for repair and maintenance of environmental protection equipment. Decreases in environmental pollution caused by economic recession will only be temporary if not captured by a special environmental action program. The NEAP should address this issue while analysing both economic problems and opportunities that may allow for achieving progress in the quality of the environment.