| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

The Environmental Challenge of EU Enlargement in Central and Eastern Europe

Chapter 4
The Environmental Issues at Stake in the Enlargement

In considering the environmental implications of the enlargement, it is useful to reflect on the situation in the CEE applicant countries just a decade ago, and to review some of the lessons learned in the intervening years concerning cost-effective approaches in achieving environmental improvements.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the information coming to Western Europe about the environmental situation in the CEECs emphasized the heavily polluting and inefficient industrial facilities, the lack of sound water supply systems to deliver safe drinking water, and the dearth of waste water treatment. Heavily polluted rivers from the former communist countries endangered the Baltic Sea in the north, and the Black Sea in the southeast. Cities suffered under blankets of pollutants from coalfired municipal boiler plants and household heating, and high emitting motor vehicles. Unprotected disposal of hazardous and municipal waste led to widespread contamination, in many areas threatening groundwater stores used for drinking water.

The CEE citizens' green movements that arose in the 1980s in response to these problems were a vital part of the popular tide pushing for change. But with the fall of the socialist regimes ten years ago, most Central and Eastern European countries suffered serious economic - and social - setbacks. Fortunately, most CEE applicant countries have managed to reverse economic decline and register significant gains.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that economic development has been the priority over other objectives in recent years. Even so, environmental concerns have managed to maintain momentum.

There are several explanations behind this. For one, environmental NGOs were among the earliest and strongest to establish an organised input to governments from civil society, and they continue to play a role in environmental protection matters in the region.

Another explanation is that the excessive pollution stemming from the socialist period obviously had to be corrected. The "Environment for Europe" process brought western European ministers of environment together with their counterparts from Central and Eastern Europe. They formed a task force that led to the Environmental Action Plan for Central and Eastern Europe, a regional strategy aimed at clean-up of the most urgent "hotspots". International organisations and financial institutions, such as the OECD, UNECE, the World Bank and EBRD, and bilateral donors including Denmark, provided resources to support the new political regimes in mounting a response.

Throughout the "Environment for Europe" process, the OECD, international financial institutions such as the World Bank and individual think tanks⁽¹⁰⁾ have stressed the importance of costeffective implementation of environmental legislation. During socialism, inputs into industrial production were not properly priced, leading to wasteful pollution. Because the input of natural resources (primarily energy and water) into existing production processes is still very high, there is a strong risk that scarce financial resources may be wasted in unnecessary overinvestment in air emissions controls, waste water treatment plants and solid waste management capacity. Unless natural resources and environmental services are properly priced, continued over-use will continue to burden the environment as well as hinder much needed economic development in the countries in question.

Figure 4.1
Environmental protection expenditure as a percent of GDP

The argument has been made that low cost water, energy or waste treatment services are important elements of a social policy to make life easier for those who are already suffering from the impact of economic transition. However, delivering these services at a level below cost puts additional pressure on already constrained public budgets, thus constraining the means for proper social policies.

Despite international support, the process of environmental reform had little momentum until EU accession issues came to the fore. The strong message to the CEE applicant country governments that respecting the EU environmental legislation, is a pre-requisite for EU membership - and a relatively demanding one when it comes to financing - has provided an important incentive for taking environmental protection actions. A recent study from EUROSTAT⁽¹¹⁾ indicates that the CEE applicant countries spend on average two per cent of GDP on environmental protection, twice the estimated EU average (see Figure 4.1). On the other hand, CEE per capita environmental expenditure is lower than in the EU because GDP per capita is considerably lower.

Whatever the relative importance of the reasons behind the ongoing activities, it is beyond doubt that the EU insistence on approximation as a pre-condition for accession, combined with various assistance, has played a crucial role in enabling the applicant countries to make significant gains in environmental clean-up in recent years. But much remains to be done.

The following sections look at the various environmental sectors as regulated by the environmental acquis, along with some of the economic and political implications of iimplementing the EU requirements in the context of CEE accession.

4.1 Water quality and water pollution control

EU water legislation covers a wide range of issues and is expected to be among the most difficult, and expensive, of the EU requirements to implement. Most, if not all, of the applicant countries have asked for transition periods in this sector. Several countries, i.e., Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia, have 2015 for final compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, ten years later than the final compliance date for Member States laid down in the Directive⁽¹²⁾.

Other demanding water-related acts are the Drinking Water Directive, the Bathing Water Directive, the Nitrate Directive, and a number of directives addressing discharges of different dangerous substances.

The newly adopted Water Framework Directive will be particularly demanding in requiring Member States to achieve "good ecological status" and "good chemical status" for all surface and ground water, by 2010. The Directive lays down procedural requirements to be applied in the future for integrated water resources' management on the basis of river basins. River basin authorities will be required to monitor water quality and quantity, set quality standards, establish rules for water abstraction and waste water discharge permits, and develop action plans to ensure that agreed quality objectives will be met. Public participation in the process is essential. In some applicant countries, e.g. the Czech Republic, the Directive's emphasis on integrated water resources management has resulted in a reduction in the power of ministries of environment to control water quality, after the designation of ministries involved in natural resources management as the competent authorities.

Implementing the water policy legislation will be very demanding and costly for all new members, in administrative, financial and political terms. The legislation requires activation of a huge number of operators (local municipal governments, farmers, small and medium-sized industries). Experience shows that it is far from easy for many stakeholders to accept having to pay for water services that used to be free (or almost free). On the other hand, there have been positive experiences when users willingly pay more for provision of better services.

There is no generally easy option for meeting the EU urban waste water treatment requirements, unlike in many cases of industrial pollution where process modifications can often deliver cheaper solutions than end-of-pipe treatment. This is not to say that investment and operating cost is insensitive to clever planning and good management of the process. In fact, one of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive is specifically to make sure that different objectives are achieved through a costeffective and comprehensive decision-making process. This, however, requires well-staffed local and regional administrations willing to cooperate on planning and financing of water-related infrastructure as well as external expertise.

The Baltic States are relatively advanced in establishing waste water treatment facilities, partly because of assistance received from Denmark and other Nordic donors to meet commitments made in the context of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention). Proper pricing of and payment for treatment of waste water has been less easy to organise. A few waste water treatment plants built in the Baltic States the early 1990s are having problems because they were designed and built using outdated assumptions concerning the amounts of water that would need treatment. After increased prices for water supply and collection/treatment took effect, the use of water dropped significantly, leading to reduced revenues and difficulties in paying back international loans.

Table 4.1:
Estimated costs for Implementing Urban Waste Water Treatment requirements including sewerage

In other countries, the progress with respect to waste water treatment varies widely. The CEE applicant countries have developed a series of estimates of the cost of implementing the more demanding directives. The Urban Waste Water Directive is expected by all countries to be the most expensive, with a total investment cost of around 15 to 25 billion EUR. When overall national estimates are divided by population figures, the estimated per capita investment for both sewerage and sewage treatment ranges from 100 EUR (Slovakia) to 290 EUR (Latvia).

The wide variance among these estimates is remarkable. For example, Romania is a relatively poor applicant country. The low estimate of 63 EUR per capita to complete the sewage collection systems and waste water treatment plants needed for EU compliance in Romania contrasts sharply with the estimate of 457 EUR per capita for Slovenia, the most advanced applicant country and with already well-developed infrastructure.

However, a similar spread in figures can be seen in Table 4.2 below, which provides figures collected from the current Member States for the European Commission's 1998 report on status of implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This table indicates that the 14 Member States providing information foresaw a total investment of 130 billion EUR. The average cost for the 14 Member States as a whole is EUR 307 per person equivalent (p.e.), but this varied from 112 EUR per p.e. in Greece to 602 EUR per p.e. in Germany.

Table 4.2:
Forecasted investments in collecting systems and waste water treatment plants for Member States 1993-2005 (in billion EUR - value 1994-95)*

Se her!

The table indicates that the Member States planned investments totalling 130 billion EUR, 53% of which was for collecting systems.

The fact that most of the waste water discharged in the applicant countries will flow into areas sensitive to eutrophication, (e.g. the Baltic Sea) will also tend to push investment upwards, since in such cases the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires an additional level of chemical treatment to remove the phosphates and other nutrients that contribute to eutrophication.

The Drinking Water Directive is the second most investment-heavy piece of water legislation. In general, applicant countries estimate investment in drinking water upgrading to be less than in waste water treatment, albeit not dramatically less. Investment of around 10 billion EUR seems to be the most accurate overall estimate so far. As Table 2.1 shows, most applicant countries expect to be able to meet the drinking water requirements a number of years earlier than for urban waste water treatment, which is highly desirable also for reasons other than direct health protection (such as food industry export and tourism).

The potential for proper public/private cooperation should be given priority in the planning of future investments in the water sector, which are often de facto government monopolies managed at central, regional or local levels. Involving the private sector in the planning, financing and eventual operation of the infrastructure may offer significant economic gains, particularly in situations where local administrations lack resources and expertise.

Investment estimates for the remainder of EU water legislation are sporadic and generally considered to be much less than for drinking water and urban waste water. Bathing water standards will normally be met via proper waste water treatment and/or proper location of discharge points and thus will be covered for the major part, once investments in sewerage and waste water treatment are made.

4.2 Air Quality

Over the past decade, air pollution problems in the CEECs have shifted from being a matter of reducing emissions from large industrial installations and coal-burning combustion plants to more complicated scenarios of handling the impacts from increased motor vehicle traffic and other smaller sources. Whereas industrial point sources of emissions are relatively easy to identify (and reduce), old, badly maintained motor vehicles are today a more significant contributor to bad urban air quality.

In any case, the actions needed to meet EU air quality standards and emission limits for precursors of acidification and ground level ozone are likely to require significant investment in the CEE applicant countries, including after accession.

The European Commission has already indicated that the applicant countries are not likely to get significant transition periods for ambient air quality legislation. The air quality framework directive and daughter directives have been adopted only recently. The applicant countries will in most cases have the same amount of time to comply as EU Member States.

In addition, a number of measures to improve air quality are Internal Market measures (car emissions, fuel quality) which new Member States will be expected to follow, at the latest from accession if they have not done so before.

A number of areas, however, remain problematic and will definitely benefit from external assistance. The most obvious of these is proper air quality monitoring. Apart from being a requirement in EU air quality legislation, proper air quality monitoring is also the key first step in identifying cost-effective strategies to improve air quality. For example, countries that have had big imports of older, used cars might benefit from assistance to establish proper motor vehicles inspection facilities. Scrapping incentives for old vehicles might also prove to be a cost-effective approach, in comparison to controls over smokestack emissions from smaller point sources.

The necessary restructuring of activities in the industrial and energy sectors that followed the transition to market economy has had a positive effect on emission of air pollution in many of the applicant countries, particularly with respect to the largest sources. This development is likely to continue in the years to come.

Nonetheless, energy consumption per GDP unit is still roughly five times as high in the CEE applicant countries than in the EU Member States⁽¹⁴⁾. This indicates a high potential for improved energy efficiency that in turn will lead to reduced emissions. This will often have the additional benefit of improved competitiveness of the industries involved.

Most of the investments in air emissions control will fall in the private or privatised sectors and be recoverable via proper pricing of the products, be it cars, fuels or electricity. However, investment in certain types of public sector infrastructure such as district heating or natural gas distribution will require financial assistance.

Solid fuel (coal, lignite) is still being used for power production and domestic heating in several applicant countries, often causing air pollution above acceptable levels. There are many possible solutions, including fuel switching, combined heat and power production, and district heating. In many cases, energy savings will provide a cost-effective contribution to the solution of the problem. Expensive end-of-pipe solutions such as flue gas desulphurisation should only be applied to existing facilities on a case by case basis when it has been proven to be the best overall solution.

The 1997 DEPA report⁽¹⁵⁾ estimated that investments of 30 billion EUR (220 billion DKK) in flue gas desulphurisation and NOx reduction from large combustion plants would be needed. But it seems unlikely today that investment in that magnitude will be necessary.

The investment estimates for implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive shown in the table below. They add up to less than 10 billion EUR for all applicant countries, and there is still reason to question whether the relatively high estimates for Bulgaria and the Czech Republic represent costeffective solutions.

Moreover, the Common Position (EC) No. 52/2000 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants allows existing plants to operate at current emission standards until 2008 with a possibility for additional operation during several years, by which time most of the older CEE power plants will need to be replaced in any case.

Table 4.2
Estimated costs for the implementation of Large Combustion Plants requirements

Consequently, even if no transition periods are granted beyond those permitted in the revised LCP directive, the CEE applicant countries will not be likely to invest in costly flue gas cleaning, as previously believed. However, investment will be required for continuous upgrading of the energy sector, probably well above the 10 billion EUR mentioned above. This investment will add to the economic performance of the countries, rather than being a burden on competitiveness. The ongoing liberalisation of gas and electricity markets will definitely assist in that process.

4.3 Waste management

In Central and Eastern Europe Waste management is an area where much has to be done in order to bring the situation up to EU standards. Legislation to be complied with is partly of a general nature, such as the framework directive on waste or the directive on hazardous waste. Other directives address waste treatment or disposal (incineration, landfills), or certain categories of waste (waste oils, batteries, packaging etc.).

In general, the CEE applicant countries suffer from a lack of adequate facilities to properly treat and dispose existing waste streams. Some countries also lack proper collection systems, and illegal handling of waste of all sorts is widespread. In addition, hazardous waste is often not separated from ordinary waste, leading to serious pollution from inadequately protected landfills.

Several applicant countries are seeking transition periods for the investment-heavy directives on landfill, incineration and packaging waste. On the other hand, the European Commission has made it clear while negotiating transition periods that the framework waste and hazardous waste directives - requiring that systematic waste collection and disposal will be organised in an environmentally safe way - should be applied immediately upon accession. In any case, payment for waste collection and treatment or disposal should be introduced as quickly as possible.

Many countries have not yet prepared the national waste management plans required under EU law. Consequently, some countries' estimates of necessary investment in the waste sector are incomplete. Most countries appear to be planning major investments in controlled landfills. Overall cost estimates for the 10 CEE applicant countries are in the range of 13 billion EUR. Plans for investment in incinerators or facilities to treat hazardous waste are not as well developed, but costs are unlikely to be as significant.

In most CEE countries, construction of landfills for municipal solid waste is treated as a public sector investment problem. However, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have both had success in providing incentives for the private sector to finance investment in treatment and disposal facilities.

Hazardous waste creates a particular problem. Quantitative assessment of different types of hazardous waste, and particularly of future trends, are difficult to achieve, both because of insufficient administrative capacity to collect the data and because of the rapidly changing industrial structure in the countries. Hazardous waste still remaining from industrial productions now closed down is widespread and poses a particular problem since there is no responsible operator to pay for the removal, treatment or disposal cost. The same problem applies to many heavily polluted industrial sites which, since not covered by existing EU legislation, seem to have a somewhat lower priority for the time being, but which may interfere with meeting EU drinking water standards.

Hazardous waste treatment facilities are often highly specialised, particularly if they are to provide a high degree of material recovery, and will often require much bigger amounts of waste being treated than the smaller applicant countries will produce individually in the foreseeable future. Cooperation between the applicant countries will be highly desirable in this area, not only as a way to pursue costeffectiveness in general, but also to keep treatment costs at a level where they can be managed by local industries.

Providing the facilities is no guarantee that the waste will arrive as it should. To ensure that the system works takes a comprehensive system of legislation, infrastructure facilities and a reliable enforcement structure. Price structures are also important since too high prices for waste management or disposal will create permanent incentives to find "alternative", often illegal, solutions.

4.4 Industrial Pollution

Industrial pollution is partly covered by the IPPC Directive (Integrated Pollution Prevention Control), partly by a number of specialised directives covering a specific "sector" (large combustion plants) or specific emissions (volatile organic compounds, dangerous substances to water). Pollution from some industrial activities may not be directly covered by existing EU legislation, but will nevertheless still have to be addressed in order to achieve the required air or water quality standards.

Industrial pollution in Central and Eastern Europe is, for the time being, at a crossroads. The closure of many heavily polluting industrial activities after the fall of the communist regimes (mainly because of economic inefficiency), has delivered a much needed reduction in industrial pollution. However, many of the surviving industries are still polluting well above acceptable levels. Meeting the requirements of the IPPC Directive by the deadline for existing plant of 2007, is one of the more demanding parts of EU environmental legislation, particularly where surviving industries are still struggling with outdated equipment and a weak financial basis.

Several applicant countries have already been granted a longer transition period for the IPPC Directive, justified by relatively high estimates of investment necessary to comply with the directive. Information from those countries that have come forward with estimates points towards an overall investment around 20 billion EUR⁽¹⁷⁾ .

These numbers should, however, be considered very carefully. Firstly, there may be some overlap with costs related to waste management or large combustion plants. Secondly, the level of pollution control required in order to meet the IPPC Directive standard of best available technology is still being discussed within the Commission, and even the existing Member States find it difficult to calculate their future investments.

Thirdly, and probably most important, many of the industrial plants in question will not have a residual, economically efficient lifetime to justify a major investment only in environmental control, such as end-of-pipe solutions. Several industrial sectors, e.g. oil refining and energy production in general, are already undergoing a major restructuring in order to be competitive in a liberalised market and in order to deliver fuels according to EU specifications. Such technological restructuring can in itself often lead to reductions in polluting emissions. When measures aimed at upgrading environmental performance are carried out at the same time, it can be difficult to separate the different measures. In such cases, measures to upgrade environmental performance are considered an integrated part of such a technological restructuring and financed as such.

Table 4.3
Investments needed to comply with the IPPC Directive (FN: Ibid.)

Investment in financial and technological restructuring of the existing industry in Central and Eastern Europe will primarily be a task for private industries. Certainly, pollution from industrial sources should be addressed where action is needed and the investment justified. However, in some areas where closing one or a few big industrial enterprises will have unacceptable impacts on local employment, the ultimate decision may have to include social considerations.

In accordance with this, the position in the European Commission so far has been that no transition period will be granted for the IPPC Directive as such, but requirements for individual existing plants might be considered on an ad hoc basis where sufficient justification is provided.

Relatively little is known at this stage about the scale of implementation problems linked to the specific directives on VOC emissions or on discharge of dangerous substances into water. In principle, the technological problems are similar to those facing the large industrial facilities subject to the IPPC Directive, but on a much smaller economic scale. Though investment needs will be modest compared to those required under the IPPC Directive, the overall number of enterprises affected will be significant (all professional users of paints and organic solvents, e.g. dry cleaners, auto paint shop). The administrative capacity necessary to deal with these directives should not be underestimated.

In the rush to implement EU legislation on industrial pollution, it will be important to promote cleaner technology. Cleaner technology will often be both environmentally and economically attractive to end-of-pipe solutions, for big, medium-sized and small industries alike.

4.5 Nuclear Safety

A number of applicant countries have been developing nuclear energy programmes not always in alignment with the necessary EU standards. In Agenda 2000⁽¹⁸⁾ , the Commission expressed its concern about nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe. In order to deal with unsafe reactors in the region, Agenda 2000 sets out the implementation of a number of nuclear safety programmes for some, and calls for the early closure of others, as outlined below:

	Where western-designed nuclear plants are in use (in Romania and Slovenia), developments should be monitored to ensure that operations comply with the appropriate safety standards. Technical assistance can be provided if necessary;
	where the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power stations, which are in operation or under construction, can be upgraded to meet international safety standards, modernisation programmes should be fully implemented over a period of 7-10 years. (This applies to Dukovany and Temelin in the Czech Republic, Paks in Hungary, and certain units at Bohunice and Mochovce in Slovakia, and at Kozloduy in Bulgaria);
	the timetables agreed by the governments concerned, subject to certain conditions, for the closure of non-upgradeable units must be respected. (This applies to Bohunice in Slovakia, Ignalina in Lithuania and certain units at Kozloduy in Bulgaria).

In addition, the 1999 Cologne and Helsinki European Councils stressed the importance of high standards of nuclear safety in the context of the Union's enlargement and requested the Commission to examine carefully this sensitive area.

The EU position on nuclear safety in the applicant countries is that nuclear plants that, because of their basic design, cannot be brought up to western standards will have to be closed down as soon as possible. This position has strong Danish support, particularly as far as Ignalina in Lithuania is concerned, but also with respect to nuclear power plants in Slovakia (Bohunice) and Bulgaria (Kozloduy). The combined costs of safety upgrading for those reactors⁽¹⁹⁾ that can be upgrated is assessed to be in the order of EUR 2 billion. The costs for support to adequate storage of spent fuel, radioactive waste management, decontamination of uranium mining sites, and the decommissioning of retired or soon to be retired reactors, e.g., Ignalina is assessed to be an additional 1 billion EUR, and possibly more.⁽²⁰⁾

The absence of detailed EU legislation on safety of nuclear energy installations means that these questions fall outside the traditional approximation process. The EU Commission is, however, currently developing generic and specific accession requirements for the accession countries with unsafe nuclear power plants. The current EU countries are expected to require - as a strict precondition in the final accession negotiations - that firm decisions have been taken on the fate of the unsafe plants.

A key to the solution of this important question will be to establish alternative power supply at a recoverable cost.

It is important that future power supply structures provide for the introduction of environmentally friendly energy technologies. However, combined heat and power production, as well as renewable energy supply (biomass, geothermal, wind) are, for the time being, facing an uphill struggle in several countries because of overcapacity in the existing electricity supply systems and uncertainty concerning how the liberalised electricity market will influence the construction of new, environmentally friendly capacity.

4.6 Chemical Control

Chemical control is a cross-cutting area with links to the regulatory frameworks for water quality (release of dangerous substances into water), air quality, industrial pollution control and other sectors. The EU framework law on classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances dating back to 1967, is aimed at harmonisation of national laws so that the estimated 100,000 chemicals in use can circulate within the Internal Market, but with control over those posing particular hazards. The CEE countries lacked similar marketplace control during the socialist years. Today, several years into the task of approximation, there is still little information available on how many of the chemicals now in use in the CEE countries are "new" chemicals, e.g. not yet notified within the EU system and therefore in need of testing and assessment.

Approximation with the EU chemical requirements will require the CEE countries to develop new regulatory skills and tools, including the capacity to test chemicals according to EU methodologies and to assess risks posed by certain chemicals so as to determine whether additional controls are needed. If the proposed EU Strategy for a future Chemical Policy goes into effect, thousands of additional chemicals will undergo review and assessment, a burden which the CEE chemical authorities will be expected to share.

A particular problem is obsolete pesticides, abandoned after the breakup of communal farms and now gathered into stores, many of which are leaking and vulnerable to fires and other disasters leading to dispersion. Donor assistance for safeguarding and destroying these stores is still important.

Several international environmental conventions are significant for controlling adverse impacts from chemicals. The EU requirements on substances that deplete the ozone layer (ODS) implement the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention by laying down rules for recovery, destruction and recycling of controlled substances. Implementation requires introduction of various mechanisms, including licensing of essential uses and measures to support the replacement of existing substances by non-OCS substances.

The POPs Convention aims to prevent and reduce and as far as possible eliminate emissions of 10 identified POP substances as well as of two identified POP by-products (12 in total). Transfer of know-how and capacity-building of central and local administrations will be needed, along with some investment to ensure environmentally sound management, disposal and destruction of POPs waste.

The so-called PIC (or Rotterdam) Convention requires exchange of information on certain banned or severely restricted pesticides and industrial chemicals in international trade. In the EU, the voluntary PIC procedure is implemented through a regulation concerning the export and import of certain dangerous chemicals, which covers all banned or severely restricted substances and hence has a broader reach. Costs for implementing this regulation will mainly derive from the establishment of the notification and information system supporting the import and export of dangerous chemicals.

4.7 Agriculture and Environment

The relevant EU legislation on environmental impact from agriculture is first and foremost the Nitrates Directive. Apart from requiring codes of good agricultural practices to be developed and applied nationwide, the important requirements in the directive are the monitoring of nitrate pollution, the identification of zones vulnerable to nitrate pollution, and the implementation of special action programmes in these zones.

At this time, nitrate pollution is less of a problem in Central and Eastern Europe than in the intensely farmed parts of the EU. Rates of fertiliser use are often on the low side because the agricultural sector has not yet recovered from the shocks of the economic transition including break-up of communal farms. But some intensive animal husbandry (pigs, cows) does exist throughout the region, which poses by and large the same problems known to many Member States.

The necessary remedies will be to ensure sufficient manure storage capacity to prevent manure spreading during the winter periods and to make sure that available manure is applied in sufficiently low quantities per hectare to allow proper uptake by crops.

Improving manure storage facilities is the investment-intensive part of the nitrates directive. Required capacity may depend on whether the farm is in a nitrate-sensitive area or not, but particularly for the areas with "northern" winter conditions (by far the largest part of Central and Eastern Europe) storage capacity of at least 6 months seems necessary to meet "good agricultural practices".

Early estimates of investment needs for improved manure storage are around 4 billion EUR overall. As long as countries have not proceeded further on their identification of nitrate vulnerable areas, more accurate estimates will be difficult to provide.

It is urgent that the applicant countries make progress on the transposition and implementation of the Nitrates Directive since current experience proves that the EU is not likely to agree to transition periods in that respect. The EU already has funding available for structural improvement in the agricultural sector before accession through the SAPARD Programme (see next section).

4.8 Nature Conservation and Forests

Central and Eastern Europe has long been known for its extensive and highly valued natural areas and biodiversity resources. The importance of securing these for future generations has been recognised for a long time, even though the necessity to restore economic development has meant that nature conservation is considered a less urgent priority in most of the countries.

The Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive are not usually regarded as investment-heavy EU environment legislation. However, the measures needed to properly implement these requirements, including identification of areas to be protected and establishment of necessary restrictions in the use of these areas, will place a heavy administrative and financial burden on the authorities. Financial compensation to private owners who have regained title to land having environmental significance, is often necessary if restrictions need to be imposed in order to ensure the necessary protection. But at a time of heavy demand for public funds for investment in other areas, nature protection authorities are fighting to preserve already shrinking budgets for nature protection.

On the other hand, there is need for an accelerated implementation of the EC legislation in this field because regulations covering the ISPA and PHARE instruments requires examination of infrastructure projects in relation to sites of nature conservation importance, e.g. potential future Natura 2000 sites. The European Commission has notified the applicant countries that they cannot expect transition periods for the nature conservation legislation, in view of the fact that nature conservation measures are a process as much as an end result. This process must be given priority, primarily to prevent irreversible damage to valuable nature areas, but also in order to have relevant areas identified before expectations of increased land value will make it more difficult (or at least more expensive) to ensure the protective status.

In the biotechnology field, the EC legislation governing the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) puts forward a more efficient and transparent procedure for authorising the placing on the market of GMOs. Compulsory monitoring after GMOs have been placed on the market will require investment in human resources and in training as well as transfer of know-how to users and the public authorities, but in general, implementation consists mainly of indirect and overhead costs. The risk assessment associated with the release of GMOs will need to be based on a common methodology and a system of accredited laboratories to analyse data. The system of exchange of information contained in notifications, the establishment of registers for the purpose of recording information on genetic modifications in GMOs and on the location of GMOs will be the only direct costs.

4.9 Horizontal Legislation

The horizontal requirements among the EU environmental acquis cover access to environmental information as well as environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects and strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes (SEA). Although transposition of the EIA Directive is well advanced in most of the CEE accession countries implementation remains a challenge and is particularly important for the CEE accession countries, since EIA is a prerequisite for environmental infrastructure projects where EU financing is sought. Implementation of the EIA requirements will require extensive capacity- and institutional building along with training of the respective public authorities and experience in public consultation procedures. In the same direction, communication and awareness strategies will be needed, targeting public officials and the public in general.

The 1998 Aarhus Convention (The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters), which came into effect on 30 October 2001, goes beyond the EU legislation on access to environmental information and public participation. The Aarhus Convention aims to ensure that everyone has access to environmental information and gives ordinary citizens a voice in decision-making that affects the environment. It also provides for judicial mechanisms for redress in the case of infringement of rights and for enforcement of the law to the public (individuals and non-governmental organisations).

Although not considered an investment-heavy instrument, it will require changes in the approach taken by the public authorities in diffusing information about the environment as well as institutional reforms, including the strengthening of regional and local authorities as implementing authorities, effective judicial mechanisms and enforcement procedures along with the setting up of data base systems.

Table 4.4
Multilateral Conventions ratified by the EU

Multilateral Conventions ratified by the EU

International Conventions

Air Quality

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer & Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Waste Management

Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste

Nature Protection

Convention on Biological Diversity

Bonn Convention on Migratory Species

Soil Erosion

United Nations Framework Convention to Combat Desertification

Regional Conventions

Air Quality

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution + Protocols & amendments

Water Quality

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts, as amended

Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, as revised

Convention on Cooperation for the Protection of the Danube

Convention on the International Commission for the Protection of the Oder

Nature Protection

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Industrial Pollution Control

Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents

4.10 International Environmental Conventions

The CEE applicant countries are all parties to the global conventions on ozone layer protection (Montreal Protocol), transboundary movements of hazardous waste (Basel Convention), climate change and biodiversity. They are generally meeting their commitments under these agreements without major difficulties, and since the EU is also a party to the conventions, remaining bits and pieces will be covered when implementing the relevant pieces of EU legislation.

The applicant countries have been less successful in ratifying amendments to the different agreements (reinforcement of Montreal Protocol commitments, Basel Convention Ban Amendment). This delay appears to be due to overstretched administrations rather than to actual difficulties on the ground. Unfortunately, several industrialised countries that would be expected to be at the forefront to protect the environment globally are also delaying making commitments, which has led to a loss of momentum towards ratification of some important instruments. It is important that the Member States make a strong commitment to these international environmental instruments, in order to give a solid and united example to the applicant countries as well as to the countries in Southeast and Eastern Europe and in Central Asia.

The table below provides a overview of the multilateral environmental conventions ratified by the EU to date.

As far as regional agreements are concerned, a number of treaties will become quasi-EU agreements with all 10 candidate countries joining the EU. This is the case with the Helsinki Convention on the protection of the Baltic Sea (Russia to be the only non-EU party) and the Danube Convention (Yugoslavia and Croatia being non-EU parties). Also the Long Range Transport of Air Pollution and its associated protocols on individual instances (SO₂, NOx, etc.) will have a heavy EU majority after the full enlargement, Russia and Ukraine being the only major emitters outside the EU.

Table 4.5
Stage of play of selected multilateral environmental agreements (September 2000)⁽²³⁾

Se her!

In strict legal terms, these agreements require little from the applicant countries beyond what is already required in EU legislation. However, both on water pollution and on air pollution, the requirements of the conventions are not necessarily sufficient to guarantee the aimed-for environmental quality. This became particularly evident in recent negotiations over the EU acidification strategy.

It is desirable that the international conventions are seen in their broader context: as agreements to solve or reduce certain environmental problems in a process of international solidarity rather than a continuous fight about being committed to do as little as possible. This is particularly relevant to the energy sector where a number of policy options in favour of energy savings, rational use of energy and cleaner technology will allow the individual countries to contribute more to the objectives of international agreements than what is legally required for the time being.

A particular case is the 1998 UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (The Aarhus Convention).⁽²²⁾ It is important that the convention be not only ratified, but also fully implemented since the broadest possible public participation in policy formulation is among one of the strongest instruments available to ensure a high level of environmental protection.

4.11 Sector integration

EU accession negotiations have been largely dominated by the obligations set forth in the acquis communautaire. Since there is little EU legislation in place to date requiring Member States to meet specific goals with respect to integration of environment concerns into other sectors, sector integration has not been a major issue in negotiations of the Environment Chapter.

However, the integration of environmental considerations into other policy areas, especially economically important sectors such as energy, industry and agriculture, is a legal obligation under the Treaty of Amsterdam (Article 6). This obligation comes at a time where the inadequacy of environmental policy per se for tackling the underlying causes of environmental degradation has been recognized. The Gothenburg European Council invited the EU to further develop strategies for integrating environment into all relevant Community policy areas, taking into account relevant objectives set out in the 6th Environmental Action Programme and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS).

The situation in CEE accession countries is largely the same as in the EU countries, so that the success of integrating environmental concerns into other areas will be linked to efforts in the EU countries. Priorities for transport include, inter alia, elaboration of environmental targets in the transport sector, introduction of more energy-efficient technologies, alternative fuels and renewable sources and the continuation of the Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) under the European Environmental Agency/Commission. The priorities for energy as set out in the Industry/Energy Council Resolution include the promotion of efficient use of energy and internalisation of environmental and other external costs. Agriculture's priorities focus on monitoring and evaluation of environmental integration and sustainable development within the CAP, using a set of agri-environmental indicators and framework indicators relating to the economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and rural development.

Some sectoral integration initiatives have already been taken by the accession countries - for example, the Baltic Agenda 21, which aims at promoting an environmentally sustainable development based on market economic principles in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian regions. However, though progress has been made towards integration of environmental concerns into other sectors, some weaknesses are still apparent, including failure to identify the full range of potential risks and environmental problems and lack of clear timetables for future development and implementation.

In spite of this, the accession countries still have good opportunities to pursue a higher degree of sustainability in their economic development. Support for public transport (urban and railways) - well developed in socialist times - should be sustained in order to counter the use of personal cars. New strategies in the energy sector are needed to foster the entry into the market of newcomers and to promote renewable energy sources while reexamining the future of the coal industry and coalbased power generation. Organic farming could be an option of an integrated strategy along with a scheme of assisting and recognizing the environmental stewardship role of some farmers.

It is important to figure out how to ensure that the substantial EU assistance to the CEE accession countries supports sectoral integration. The CEE accession countries should in any case focus on better policy integration, including a systematic and transparent review of the costs and effects of different options, so that different policies reinforce each other and environmental and social objectives are met at least economic cost.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |