G. Conclusions and Findings

G. Conclusions and Findings

Since the starting point of the three countries is the same, it is no wonder that the structure of environmental legislation and administration is quite similar. The tradition to issue framework laws and regulate even quite important rules with decrees is typical in each of the countries. There is, however, a conscious tendency to raise more issues from the decree level to the law level. This development is probably going to take time because rapid changes in legislation especially when values of the society are changing, can lead to a situation when law loses its coherence and its significance in society with it.

Understanding environmental law from the point of view of managing and controlling natural resources of the state is still typical for each of the countries. Even the division between land law, forest law, water law and law of below ground resources and the corresponding administrative control is similar in every country. It is possible that such a tradition still has a strong effect on the preferences of management of natural resources as state property. On the other hand when natural resources are state owned, it may be easier to coordinate environmental policy and protection of nature.

The starting point of the socialist internal control of the administration can still be observed. It has been developed by adding payments for the use of natural resources and for polluting the environment. Openness and transparency is also tried to be increased. It is difficult to know how well it functions in practice, but on the legislative level, there has been a rapid change. Byelorussia seems to be closer to the starting point. Therefore it can be said that her system is the most coherent one. The traditional channels for influencing on environmental protection (through parliamentary deputies and procuracy) are still the ones that might lead to more effective results than using the freedom of speech through the NGOs. Russia has worked hard to establish civil society organizations (NGOs) legal channels to influence on environmental policy. Environmental programs which were used also during the socialist period, can and are changed into a more non-governmental process of changing information and finding out interests of different groups of citizens.

The increased worry for the environment among the population has lead to increased control as well as  stricter limits and standards. In many countries such a development has also lead to more bureaucracy and increase of controlling organs. In the European Union it has been discovered that everywhere spreading environmental policy needs coordination both within environmental administration and with other national policies. Russia has also experienced increase of bureaucracy because of the increased need to control pollution of the environment. When heavy bureaucracy already is typical for this huge federal country with several administrative and legislative levels, the situation may turn out to be quite complicated for the objects of control - the enterprises. Russia has answered the needs for coordination with drawing separate authorities under one Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. Russia has also coordinated administration by increasing the control of the federal organs, especially the presidential administration. Ukraine has on the other hand given more tasks to the regions concerning environmental permits, and it has been discovered that at least information should be exchanged and gathered on the central level.

Increasing control and limits may have a precautionary effect, but unfortunately the problems of the enterprises are huge. According to European experience punitive tendency and forcing enterprises to follow stricter limits and standards is inevitable in order to improve the quality of the environment. However, it should be done firmly and impartially.  Enterprises in Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia are afraid of inspections and seem to think that they are often arbitrary. On the other hand strict punitive policy may lead to necessary deviations and exceptions accepted by governmental authorities in practice. Creating uniform rules for inspections is a wise policy showing that the state aims at strict control of enterprises with firm and impartial rules.

Precautionary principle works better, if punitive activities are complemented with incentives. The enterprises need funds for investing in better technology. Privatised former state enterprises have inherited economically dangerous technology, and therefore it is not fair to push all the problems on them.  Often the actual polluter is the former soviet state not the new private enterprise. The state should not only punish but also support and encourage enterprises for environmental investments. Collecting funds for cleansing and protection of the environment mainly with payments and fines imposed on enterprises may also have negative side-effects on the enterprises.

Municipalities are extremely weak in transition countries. They were earlier treated as remote stations of state administration. Now people should be offered a local channel to influence on their own environment. This is not easy with the old culture not acknowledging local self-governance and with the lack of financial resources. Often tax incomes of the local budget have to be negotiated with the state and taxes are not even paid. In environmental issues municipalities still seem to be remote stations of the state environmental policy.

Liability in environmental crimes, accidents and faults is evaluated according to the general rules of civil and criminal liability. In practice it means that for personal injury and damage to heath it is difficult to prove the polluter who is in fault and the causal connection between the fault and the damage. Because earlier the state has taken the responsibility and has paid for victims of accidents, this problem has probably not yet been realised. Courts have not dealt with cases of environmental accidents. There are neither special regulations for environmental liability nor special legislation for certain types of environmental accidents such as paying and limiting damages for nuclear accidents.

It is quite clear that the development is in each of the three countries heading towards harmonisation with the European Union regulations. For Ukraine which has even applied for membership of the Union this is quite natural, but also Russia seems to have a determined aim to develop its environmental legislation towards European standards.

Next: Recommendations

Previous: F. Does the Polluter Pay? Costs for Using the Environment and Liability for Environmental Damage.