|
Romania’s Road to Accession - The Need for an Environmental Focus 5. Administrative Capacity for Environmental ManagementIn the negotiations between Romania and the European Union, administrative capacity has been one of the top items on the agenda. After the Commission called for a fundamental structural reform of the public administration, the Romanian Government adopted a "General Strategy Regarding the Acceleration of Public Administration Reform" in September 2001. The 2002 National Action Plan for Administrative Strengthening prepared jointly with the EU lays out an extensive list of measures to be taken as part of Romania’s pre-accession preparations, including for the Environment Chapter. This section looks more closely at Romania’s capacity to manage the task of implementing the EU environmental requirements, including the challenge of financing the necessary investments in environmental protection infrastructure. 5.1 Romania’s Environmental Management StructureRomania’s administrative challenge is generally acute, given the severe resources constraints under which all of its civil servants operate. Though all ministries were re-structured in 2001, including the Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection (MWEP), at the same time a 25% cut was made in the number of civil servants. This reduced the already low level of administrative capacity and left a number of ministries, such as the MWEP, severely understaffed. The restructuring itself may have been needed in some areas, but the associated staff changes can sometimes have a severe impact on efficiency. Moreover, the generally low salaries make it difficult to attract competent staff. Romania’s institutions for environmental protection have a relatively recent history. The 2001 Regular Report notes that the experience of most agencies with responsibilities for environmental management is rather limited, though the level of technical expertise is generally high.104 5.1.1 Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection (MWEP)The central public authority for environmental protection is the Ministry of Water and Environment Protection (MWEP). It makes policies in the area of water and environmental protection at national level and has the main responsibility for implementing the environmental acquis. The MWEP draws up strategies and the specific regulations for developing and harmonizing environmental protection activities into the general framework of the Government policy, and co-ordinates the implementation of environment-related government strategies. The MWEP has established a Department with specific responsibilities for European integration. This Department coordinates activities on legal transposition of the environmental acquis communautaire and on implementation of the new legislation. The Department also has a Unit for the Coordination of the Implementation of the Structural Pre-accession Instrument (ISPA). In November 2001, a decision was made to establish an "Environmental Guard" using existing staff and budgetary resources from the national and local levels (see section below on enforcement). In 2001, the Ministry also established a Directorate with specific responsibilities for waste and hazardous substances management, in view of the complexity of the actions needed to comply with the EU requirements in these areas. Another administrative reform may be pending. The Minister has announced his intention to establish a National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) by mid-2003. The NEPA would not be political; its main task would be to carry out implementation, including the monitoring and central database management now carried out by ICIM. The Ministry would remain a policy-setting body. The move to establish a NEPA as a permanent government authority could help bring more stability to some of the environmental management functions that need to be carried out at central level. However, it remains to be seen whether sufficient resources will be allocated from the national budget for the NEPA to discharge the role foreseen for it. The following central-level institutions under the MWEP are also important:
5.1.2 The Environmental Protection InspectoratesThe 42 county-level Environment Protection Inspectorates (EPI) are responsible for the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of legislation. The EPIs were established in 2001, following the reorganisation of the former regional Environmental Protection Agencies. Each inspec-torate has within its structure a Unit for development of capacity to elaborate and participate in the identification and implementation of Romania’s approximation strategies and the Community and international programmes. Each EPI also has a Department for Nature Protection and Protected Areas, a Department for Waste and Hazardous Substances Management, a Department for Integrated Monitoring of Environment Media, and a Department of Ecological Control and Monitoring of Environment Investments. A 2001 study on administrative capacity for environmental protection carried out for the European Commission105 found co-ordination between the national (the MWEP) and county level (the EPIs) to be inadequate. In particular, it noted a lack of communication and a lack of training. The staff in Romania’s EPIs often had a poor understanding of the requirements of EU legislation, and in particular gave inadequate attention to the technical (and policy) implications surrounding permitting and inspection. To help upgrade the EPIs and to provide better co-ordination, the MWEP plans to develop a regional-level administrative structure comprising 8 to 11 regional EPIs. A PHARE technical assistance project started up in September 2002 to assist the MWEP to decide on the best conformation of this regional structure, and to provide training and equipment to improve capacity of the EPIs. The PHARE project will decide whether to create a separate regional structure to group the EPIs, or to give certain EPIs a regional responsibility to co-ordinate adjacent EPIs. Another alternative under consideration is to group the EPIs according to the 8 regional development zones (see section 5.4), the 11 river basins, or the proposed "air quality basins" that are currently under discussion. The eventual configuration of these regional EPIs will be decided in the course of the current PHARE project. These reorganisation measures are aimed at improving environmental management capacity in Romania, but it should be noted that there have been few improvements in the overall level of staffing. The Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection has only 170 persons, while the EPIs have a total of 1680 staff, an average of just 40 per EPI. By way of comparison, Denmark – a country with one-quarter the population of Romania – has some 2500 officials devoted to environmental protection, including 1000 officials working at county level, and another 1000 officials at municipal level.106 In 2000, a new self-financing system was set up to provide financial support for the EPIs. A ministerial order issued in 2000 established the register of works and services to be performed by the EPIs and the related tariffs for these activities. This partial self-financing of the EPIs has given them more resources, but there is some concern within the MWEP that the self-financing may also increase the autonomy of the EPIs in ways which may affect national co-ordination of policies and implementation. 5.1.3 Environmental monitoringMonitoring the ambient environment is a major responsibility of the EPIs. The monitoring effort is overseen by the MWEP, and supported by ICIM (the National Research-Development Institute for Environmental Protection). At the same time, the Ministry of Health and Family operates its own network of installations for ambient monitoring for those parameters that might affect human health. This duplication of effort can lead to confusion about which Ministry is responsible for enforcement actions when health concerns are at play. In addition, the National Administration "Apele Romane" administers a National System of Water Quality Surveillance that inter alia monitors water pollution sources such as wastewater treatment facilities. It levies fees for wastewater discharged into waterways, as well as fines if emission limit values are exceeded. EPI personnel responsible for monitoring have relatively good expertise, but operate within severe constraints, e.g., poor equipment and limited staff. Capacity and expertise is lacking for monitoring some of the additional pollutants introduced in the course of approximation with EU law. The EPIs also do not have sufficient monitoring capacity to assess compliance with permit conditions. While enterprises are required to carry out self-monitoring according to parameters established in the operating permit, few enterprises have expertise or laboratory capacity to manage this accurately. Enterprises must alternatively conclude a contract with accredited laboratories for sampling and data analysis. Romania does not yet have a system for the accreditation of environmental protection and water management laboratories to meet this pending demand. 5.1.4 Inspection and enforcementWithin the EPIs, around one-third of the staff are inspectors. They are responsible for covering all media and, in an inspection of an installation, address all aspects of the permit (i.e., integrated permitting). They plan inspections on a yearly basis, but carry out additional inspections on special request and before authorising start-ups of operations. As mentioned above, the recently organised Environmental Guard will be fully in place by November 2002 to assume duties in this area. In particular the Environmental Guard will:
The Environmental Guard will also (a) collaborate with the police and/or gendarmerie on fact-finding for legal infractions and bringing these facts to the knowledge of authorities for penal investigation; (b) control applications for waste management and recyclable materials recuperation; and (c) co-operate with other states or international institutions on prevention, reduction and elimination of transboundary effects of accidents or ecological catastrophes. Though inspectors can levy administrative fines for failure to comply, fines are usually too low to act as an effective deterrent. The level of fines has not been revised for inflation since 1998.107 Inspectors can also in theory close facilities, but economic pressures have limited the use of such penalties. However, recently a section of the Doljchim Craiova chemical plant was closed down after polluting the River Jiu with nitrates. The inspection system benefits from the good professional expertise of most inspectors, and from its flexibility of response to complaints and accidental pollution. But staffing is limited, and laboratory equipment is poor. While the EPI inspectors can undertake basic inspection activities, they lack adequate equipment for measuring emission levels and other parameters. This hampers their effectiveness. As more complex permit requirements are introduced in accordance with the IPPC and other Directives, the expertise of inspectors will need to be improved. In addition, the National Administration "Apele Romane" (the national Romanian water company) carries out inspection and enforcement in the water sector, while the Health Inspectorates under the Ministry of Health and Family are responsible for inspection and enforcement for pollution affecting public health. 5.1.5 River basin managementAs described more fully in section 3.3 on the water quality sector, Romania’s waters have been managed on the basis of river basins for many years. This structure has recently been upgraded to prepare Romania for implementing the Water Framework Directive requirements. A basin department for water management is now in place for each hydrological basin, with responsibility for effective management of water resources according to basin planning programmes. Moreover, Basin Committees have been established comprising representatives of relevant national ministries, local public authorities and NGO representatives. The basin departments are responsible for advising on schemes for water management for each river basin, approving the classification by water quality of the surface waters within each basin, and analysing and recommending financing priorities to the central and local public administration. The reorganisation of Apele Romane into a national administrative authority should help to improve co-ordination but as the following organigramme shows, the structure for overall management and coordination of water policy is complex. The task ahead of co-ordinating among the many different ministries, agencies and local offices will require strong negotiating skills and a coherent set of policies. Technical assistance, especially from bi-lateral donors that have successfully dealt with similar challenges, would be useful. In any case, investment support will be necessary for years to come in order to implement the extensive EU requirements for water management. 5.2 Other MinistriesA number of other national administrative institutions share competence for implementing various environmental acquis. These include:
Coordinating mechanisms at national level include an Inter-Ministerial Committee created by Governmental Decision that coordinates drafting of legislation. A permanent Industrial Pollution Control Working Group has also been established with MWEP and MIR staff to coordinate implementation of the IPPC Directive and related acquis. As indicated in the new roadmap for Romania, coordination could still be improved between the various ministries involved at central level. Better definition of the responsibilities allocated to each ministry and better communications in general would help in this regard. 5.3 Local GovernmentsAnother reform carried out in 2001 extended a process of decentralisa-tion of government that had been started by the previous administration. A 2001 Law on Local Public Administration defined the relationship between central and local government, and prohibited central government from devolving additional responsibilities to the local level without also providing the necessary financial means. It also set forth the right of local authorities to levy local taxes and to elaborate and approve their own budgets. Decentralisation can help free local authorities to raise additional funds for municipal investment needs, but their capacity to raise user chargers or to levy taxes to repay loans may be constrained by questions of affordability. There are recent signs that administrative capacity is increasing at the local level, e.g., some local authorities have contracted for foreign loans to develop local infrastructure. In general, though, local governments have not yet developed sufficient financial or administrative capacity to deal with the decentralisation of competencies, and are not prepared for the burden of EU environmental infrastructure requirements. It is the local authorities at county and municipal level, for example, that are responsible for providing environmental services to the population. This requires setting in place and managing the necessary environmental infrastructure, e.g., drinking water supply systems, sewage collection networks, and wastewater treatment works. The local authorities will need to identify and prepare environmental projects for investment.108 They also have responsibility for granting development permits, which in some cases will require environmental impact assessments. The roadmap for Romania reflects on the urgent need to improve capacity at a local level, including measures to improve the status of existing staff, to recruit new inspectors, and to train them adequately. Assistance is therefore particularly needed at the local level in Romania. A series of DANCEE projects that supported the municipality of Piatra Neamt to develop a Local Environmental Action Plan and priority environmental management infrastructure, including a modern sanitary landfill, may provide useful lessons in this regard.
|
