THEME 1:    CONTEXT FOR ENVIRONMENT 

Secretary: Mr. F. Uijting

1   Goals

Introduction of a general framework for designing effective environmental compliance and enforcement approaches and alternative approaches within that framework.

2   Presentations

Ms. Wasserman, Chief, Compliance Policy and Planning of Enforcement, U.S. E.P.A., presented a general framework for compliance and enforcement, "Principles of Environmental Enforcement". There is an increasing recognition that enforcement is a crucial element in achieving the goals that are stated in environmental policies and requirements. With the "Principles of Environmental Enforcement" a general framework is given which gives a bases for individual states to built up their own enforcement program. It provides definitions, a general framework, a set of principles and a range of options to facilitate the development and implementation of environmental enforcement programs and compliance strategies in different international settings. The "Principles" should not be seen as a model, but are a point of departure from which an individual state can build and improve their own unique enforcement program. A course, based on the "Principles" has been developed to assist states by improving their environmental programs. The course has now been delivered in Poland and Hungary and is planned for delivery in Turkey, the Ukraine and Mexico. The response of the participants has been very positive.

Mr. R. Macrory, Denton Hall Professor of Environmental Law, Imperial College, London, discussed the issue of "Membership of the EEC: What it Means for Environmental Requirements and Enforcement." Developing EEC law is a very complex process, it is not a top-down system. Community legislation is supreme over national law. Yet it is clear that the implementation in member states is far from being perfect. He stated that one of the difficulties associated with the implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law is the differing structural character of much of the legislation that has been agreed. The CEC is responsible for enforcement. They should not only look at the formal stage (the implementation of EEC law), but also to the practical implementation (enforcement of environmental legislation). There should be Community environmental inspectors to enforce the member states. Another interesting development would be the setup of a complaint system for citizens, so they can bypass their own government.

Furthermore he concluded that it requires a political will by all Member States to ensure that Community policies are implemented within their countries.

Mr. L. Krämer, Commission of the European Communities, DG Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, discussed "The Implementation of Environmental Laws by the European Economic Communities". He stated that the EEC should not be compared with a state or a international institution. Enforcement should be issued in the context of the national states. The EEC has some very progressive Member States, but also less progressive ones. That makes implementation difficult. EEC law is a bases for enforcement. The sovereign states do decide by themselves. He stated that there should be more priority for non-compliance and non-enforcement. Therefore more information is needed. To provide more information, new Community laws will be developed on publishing, auditing and information. An other point is that if there is no compliance, it should be discussed. Furthermore, if projects are carried out (e.g. economic), they must comply with the environmental legislation. Finally it should be clear that the environment is not a property of the administration. Citizens must be brought into the process of developing environmental policy and enforcement.

Ms. P. Kromarek attributes "The Upgrading of Environmental Laws in France as Part of the Requirements by the EEC". EEC-legislation has an important effect on national regulations. Ms. Kromarek highlights some problems that occur with the implementation of EC-directives. When an EC directive regulates an issue which is not regulated internally by a Member State, the relevant regulations must be created. A problem arises when Member States already have relevant legislation. It is more difficult to change existing legislation. In France there are several examples of such problems. One main problem is the interpretation of some elements in the EC directives. The French meaning of some words is not always the same as defined by the EC. Sometimes words are mentioned in directives but are left undefined, e.g. "best available technologies". All these problems of interpretation are difficult to solve, especially with 12 states having different legal, technical and economic practices. This problem should be tackled during the drafting of legislation.

It must be stressed that enforcement of EC environmental law is not just a matter of formalities and procedures. It goes beyond strict standards, it is a means to protect the environment as a common interest, and has come to be integrated with protecting individual rights.

Mr. W. Beblo, Director Ecological Department, presented "Environmental Enforcement in Central and Eastern Europe in Transition", especially in Hungary, Poland and CSFR. In the communistic period some very strict laws were developed. The purpose of these laws was to show the Western Countries that they protected the environment, but there was no enforcement. After the democracy revival in all Central and Eastern European countries environmental issues became one of the most important political issues. The policy-makers where forced to make new environmental legislation. The way of rebuilding the legislation is different in each country. It is done by a creating a general framework (CSFR) or by synthesizing a general system from detailed laws (Hungary, Poland). Environmental policy in the Central and Eastern Europe countries require modern laws derived from their national constitutions.

Mr. G. Bandi, Scientific Director, Copernicus Environmental Law Program of the Danube Region, presented "Environmental Enforcement in Hungary - Today and Tomorrow" and what is needed to improve the current situation. He stated that enforcement is far from being satisfactory. He discussed some items to which attention should be paid. First of all there is a lack of environmental policy in Hungary. A great burden for enforcement is that new laws are developed, without knowing how to use them. Secondly, at the moment privatization happens a lot. One should know how to deal with responsibilities, the price for pollution and what kind of standards should be used. Thirdly, a new philosophy is needed. A key element is cooperation instead of as one sided approach. In the fourth place, more public pressure is needed. An important condition to public participation is access to information. This is still missing in general legal rules. Fifthly, all participants involved in environmental issues should have environmental ethics. Finally, where do we have to begin?

We should be aware that there is not much difference between states, so cooperation is very important. He made a link with the presentation of ms. Kromarek, it is easier to create new legislation instead of reviewing old laws. This gives Hungary a good opportunity.

Ms. E. Krusikova, Executive Director, Institute of Environmental Policy, Prague, presented some factors which are influencing "The Current Status of Environmental Enforcement in the CSFR". One factor is the environmental legislation and its quality. All acts in the CSFR are brand new. The fact that the regulations where prepared in a big hurry, they where constructed because of the future membership of the EEC and that there was a lack of environmental policy some disadvantages appeared. Environmental enforcement is not so easy because professional skills are not sufficient and it is hard to express what environmental damage is. Furthermore it is too ambitious and non-realistic. On the other hand the advantages are that we could take into account new trends in economic, social and political life. It also allowed us to make an effort to incorporate as much as possible EC environmental requirements. One success is that the CSFR is the first country in Central and Eastern Europe that approved this year an amendment on environmental audits for privatization.

Another aspect is public participation. This aspect is also important like law making. It is not easy to involve the public into environmental decision-making. Environmental protection is not a priority for citizens today. NGO's are not well organized and not always willing to cooperate with each other. However, new NGO's are being created and will hopefully play a role in environmental policy.

3    Open discussion

Mr. Philippi, Brazil, has a question about the behavior of large industries regarding environmental concerns towards the EEC. Are industries anticipating environmental measures in order to be the "first" companies to achieve environmental requirements of the EEC ? Furthermore, are these industries using this for marketing?

Mr. Krämer, EEC, thinks that big companies see a competitive advantage in applying measures, but it differs from company to company. They use this for their marketing. Mr. Macrory adds to this that companies realize that the major changes are taking place at EEC level. That's where they have to got to look to.

According to Ms. Wasserman, USA-EPA, in the USA companies are using their environmental record for promotion.

Furthermore Mr. Philippi, Brazil, is interested in the role of NGO's in the evaluation step of the Environmental Management Cycle.

Ms. Wasserman, EPA, points out that the citizens are involved by having access to information and through the congress citizens are involved in implementation and enforcement of environmental law.

Besides this, EPA supports citizens by helping them dealing with the problems they are facing, e.g. giving information, giving support for taking legal steps by citizens.

Citizens do also have an "ear and eye function" that is important for enforcement. So citizens have an important role in the evaluation step.

Mr. J. Plaut, USA, thinks that the issue of enforcement is just one part of a larger general plan. This comes at the end of the plan, not at the beginning. We need to understand this as a group.

Ms. Wasserman, USA-EPA, the definition of enforcement includes both those things necessary to encourage and compel compliance. We do recognize that to get compliance you need both. One could think that enforcement? wait while compliance is encouraged ?, this period between requirements and compliance. While balance is needed, you need to start as soon as possible with enforcement when compliance is required or you will? the wrong message, that is not important.

Ms. Maslarova from Bulgaria wants to know if there is a possibility that her country can get support in the process of developing environmental regulation and policy.

Mr. L. Krämer, EEC, points out that the EEC is not able to protect the environment of member states if there is not a will to protect the environment. If there is no request from a association state, and they have not ranked environmental aspects high in priorities, it will not come into that.

Environmental issues play a growing role but not a priority role. It is one of the aspects of the EEC. So if the country itself does not protect the environment, do not expect that the EEC will do this.

According to Mr. R. Macrory, UK, there is a difficulty with developing environmental policy and regulations. One has to deal with agreements that are made in EFTA context.

Ms. Wasserman, USA-EPA, is impressed by the contrast that was described between trade and environment in Europe. In the USA there is an integration of trade and environment.

Mr. R. Macrory, UK, brings up a question about privatization in relation to enforcement. State enterprises in Eastern Europe raise peculiar problems for enforcement, because the laws may apply to them, but there are other tensions like economic goals. He is wondering how the Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) feel about the possibility that privatization offers improved opportunities for enforcement?

Ms. Krusikova, large enterprises are in the state property. There is no substantial change in approach to environmental enforcement. They still feel that the government is responsible for them and they suppose they even will be excluded from new legislation. This situation might slightly change after privatization. Some measures are taken to stimulate them.

Mr. Bandi, Hungary, points out that privatization solves nothing for this moment. Privatization is a massive process, but not so massive to change the situation as has been mentioned before. There is also the situation of introducing a market economy and on the other hand dealing with enforcement. Developing a market economy has priority.

Mr. Nagy, Hungary, notes that when you are starting with enforcement, one thing is not included, namely how to enforce authorities to enforce the law.

Mr. Bandi, Hungary, explains the situation in Hungary. There are 6 political parties in Hungary. None of them has developed environmental policy. So there is a long way to go. One should have first of all a policy and then there is a basis for enforcement. We should get rid of the current standards that were set up in the 80's by the communist government. They cannot be applied and enforcement is not realistic.

Ms. Krusikova, CSFR, points out that in the CSFR there are also a lot of political parties. They do have an environmental program, but these programs are all the same. It look like a duty to have it in their program. In the CSFR politicians are not interested in enforcement. That's because of the splitting between Czecho and Slovakia. It might become an item again next year.

According to Mr. Beblo, Poland, there are ways to enforce governments. First of all there is parliament that controls the government. Secondly, the media do have power to enforce the authorities to a certain extend.

Mr. Syryczinski from Poland is asking what the influence is of advisors, the World Bank, the EEC and consultants on the implementation of environmental policy.

Ms. Krusikova, CSFR, thinks this depends on what kind of ministry is involved. Ms. Krusikova worked with two consultants from the USA on environmental matters concerning privatization. It worked excellent.

Mr. Beblo, Poland, also has good experience with support from the EEC or the World Bank. Our problem is that we don't have the knowledge or the experience and the skills how the handle implementation/enforcement.

Mr. Bandi, Hungary, thinks there is a positive influence of the World Bank support. They want an environmental assessment for the project that are carried out. The World Bank also gives loans for industry. There are only a few requests. The reason for this is that they should meet some standards.

Ms. Duncan, Canada, is wondering how the Central and Eastern Europe countries are dealing with costs for cleaning up during privatization projects.

Mr. Bandi, Hungary, points out that it depends on the legislation. The costs for cleaning up are for the privatizers. There are no requirements taken up in the law. There is also no fund. This problem has to be solved somehow.

Ms. Krusikova, CSFR, explains that her country has no regulation about cleaning up, but there is a resolution about how to deal with cleaning up sites. There are two relevant points in this resolution. The first one is, who is liable: new purchasers are liable for old enterprises. The second point is, who will pay: the purchaser will clean up the site, and afterwards he receives 50% of the costs back.

Ms. Bowman, USA, notes that public participation is mentioned as a very important part of environmental enforcement and that privatization is a fundamental place where changes in environmental issues are going to happen. But, what is the practical role of the public ?

Ms. Krusikova, CSFR, thinks that the public can play a role. She explains that information about risk assessment and environmental audits should be published, so that citizens know what the situation is. Besides that they also should be informed about what measures a company should take to comply.

Mr. S. Madonna, USA, is wondering if there has been any thought about how to deal with environmental audits that they will not turn against the company.

According to Mr. Beblo, Poland, audits are primary for getting the permits needed. Environmental auditing in Eastern Europe is just in a beginning stage.

Ms. Popescu, Romania, is curious about how to deal with standardization and harmonization with the EEC law during the process of development of environmental legislation, policy and enforcement.

Syryczynski, Poland, It would be very useful to make in future one European directive on environmental policy. Everybody speaks another language and everybody speaks about ? environmental rules.

Mr. Bandi, Hungary, all the actions taken are in line with the EEC legislation. It is difficult to meet the requirements of the EEC at this moment. There should also be harmonization between Central and East European states, but that would take a long time.

Mr. Kesselaar closes the discussion session with the conclusion that we do speak the same language, regarding to enforcement. Now it is a question of how to bring this in practice.