environmental protection agencies study - epsu€¦ · chapter two - environmental agencies and...

Environmental Protect ion Agencies Study

Syndex repor t fo r the European Federa t ion o f Pub l ic Serv ice Un ion s (EPSU)

We thank our partners from the European Public Service Unions very much, especially our referent, Jan Willem Goudriaan, and all other affiliates who contributed to the present study.

We also thank all members of the Friends of Earth’s network for their inputs.

The views presented here are those of their authors and do not engage the other participants in any way.

Authors

Sonia ROCHATTE

Alain MESTRE

Steering Committee

Alain MESTRE

Ana Isabel MARTINEZ GARCIA

Jean-François POUPARD

Documentation

Annick BOÏCO

Styling and correction

Syndex Edition service

E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R O T E C T I O N A G E N C I E S S T U D Y S Y N D E X R E P O R T F O R E P S U

S O M M A I R E 3

Table of contents

Chapter one – a comparative overview of the national systems of agencies and public institutions in charge of environmental protection .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Key elements...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. National actions on environmental issues vary widely across Europe ................................................................ 6 1.1. We can define a common framework for all the countries included in this study ........................................................................... 6 1.2. National systems reveal different organisations and political traditions, implying different analysis models ................................. 7

2. Different national contexts leading to different profiles and fields of intervention of the agencies .................. 9 2.1. The areas of responsibility of agencies differ from one country to another .................................................................................... 9 2.2. Trying to characterise the agencies with respect to their “player profile” ..................................................................................... 11

3. Estimating the impact of the national austerity plans on public resources dedicated to environmental policies 12

3.1. A widespread austerity context ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2. The consequences of the crisis for environmental protection: two approaches ........................................................................... 13

Chapter two - Environmental agencies and public institutional frameworks in different countries .........................21

1. The Czech Environmental Protection Agency – CENIA – and other bodies dealing with environmental policies 17

1.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 1.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 17 1.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 18

2. The French environmental protection agency – ADEME, with increased resources since the Grenelle process 19


3. The German environmental protection agency (UBA) at the centre of public environmental policies ............22 3.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 24

4. The Greek environmental protection agency – EKPAA – and environmental policies in a restrictive national context ...............................................................................................................................................................................25


5. The Hungarian environmental protection agency (CBWE) is focused on water issues ....................................27 5.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 5.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 27 5.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 28

6. The Italian environmental protection agency (ISPRA) at the head of a network ................................................29 6.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29 6.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 29 6.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 31

7. The Polish environmental protection agency: GIOS .............................................................................................32 7.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 7.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 32 7.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 33


4

8. The Portuguese environmental protection agency: APA .....................................................................................33 8.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 8.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 33 8.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 35

9. The Spanish environmental protection regionalised system ...............................................................................36 9.1. National overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 9.2. Characterising the agency’s activities .......................................................................................................................................... 37 9.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ....................................................................................................................... 38

10. The Swedish environmental protection agency (EPA): a decisive player within a highly developed framework 39

10.1. National overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39 10.2. Characterising the agency’s activities ........................................................................................................................................ 39 10.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ..................................................................................................................... 40

11. The two State agencies of Ukraine: the Environmental investment agency (SEIA) and the agency of energy efficiency and energy saving (SAEEES) .........................................................................................................................41

11.1. National overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 41 11.2. Characterising the agency’s activities ........................................................................................................................................ 41 11.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ..................................................................................................................... 42

12. The environmental protection agency in the UK: the Environment Agency as a central player .....................43 12.1. National overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43 12.2. Characterising the agency’s activities ........................................................................................................................................ 43 12.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies ..................................................................................................................... 44

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................................59

General documents ..........................................................................................................................................................46

National documents .........................................................................................................................................................46 Czech Republic .................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 France .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Germany .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Greece ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Hungary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Italy ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Poland .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Portugal ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Spain .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Sweden ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Ukraine ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49


A c o m p a r a t i v e o v e r v i e w o f t h e n a t i o n a l s y s t e m s o f a g e n c i e s a n d p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s i n

c h a r g e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n 5

A comparative overview of the national systems of agencies and public institutions in charge of environmental protection

Key elements

All European countries are covered by the same legal framework regarding environmental issues, with EU regulations having a significant impact on all national systems:

– Countries that have been in the forefront of implementing environmental regulations have largely given an impetus to developments as European level, while countries with a more recent interest in environmental issues are working to bring their infrastructure and public policy up to the level of the rest of Europe.

It is, however, difficult to make a comparison between countries since the organization of public resources dedicated to environmental issues varies greatly from one national model to another.

– The decision-making process and allocation of resources can be shared between different national ministries and agencies as well as between different levels of government – national, local or regional.

– The overall level of public resources dedicated to environmental policies also varies, depending on the level and development of awareness of environmental issues.

Austerity measures have had an impact on public expenditure in all the countries covered by the study:

– They have all taken action to reduce public spending, including public sector employment, particularly since 2010.

The impact on spending in relation to environmental policies seems to have been similar as on other areas of public policy:

– There is limited information available for 2011 and 2012 but this clearly shows a downward trend in public spending on environmental protection;

– This poses several risks for the output of environmental policies, the first being a loss of efficiency and coherence.

These cuts in public budgets come at a critical time when a green approach is probably one of the most relevant solutions to the crisis for European countries, by saving money (i.e., through energy efficiency) and by developing a new growth model.


6

1. National actions on environmental issues vary widely across Europe

1.1. We can define a common framework for all the countries included in this study

All the countries concerned by this study are bound by a common European normative framework on environmental issues.

The first level of these common positions stems from multilateral agreements on environmental issues (see box below) although these are not very binding.

European countries have consistently adopted a common position during negotiations such as the United Nations convention on climate change that are often different from those defended by emerging countries or the United States.

Main components of the international environmental framework

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

(http:// unfccc.int/2860.php)

The Kyoto Protocol, as the international treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the framework of UNFCCC

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php)

The Convention on biological diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol

(http://www.cbd.int/)

(http://www.cbd.int/abs/text/)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

(http://www.cites.org/)

The Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol

http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/index.php)

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

(www.pops.int)

Secondly, all countries that are part of this study, with the exception of Ukraine, are European Union members.

This is, however not really an issue, since Ukraine is seeking a close partnership with the European Union and tends to conform to EU standards, at least on official positions. To conclude, it is possible to argue that Ukraine refers to the same European framework on environmental issues as EU members. The study will adopt this point of view, although the situation is actually more complex, mainly due to Ukrainian-Russian relations.

The EU legal framework concerning environmental issues is dense and changes constantly (see box below).

European environmental regulations developed by the European Community, has a binding and sometimes immediate effect on national laws. It covers all fields related to environmental issues.

In relation to this legal framework, countries have to adapt their domestic legal systems to apply European regulations. In some cases, only compliance is required (e.g. the REACH regulation) and in other case it is necessary to adapt national legal frameworks (in the case of the transposition of directives).

At any event, to participate in the European policy-making dynamics on environmental issues and to comply with this framework, EU members are required to develop specific policies and tools to address environmental issues.

What has now to be underlined is that the answers provided to these requirements vary from one country to another.




A theme-based, non-exhaustive approach of the European legal framework on environment

Energy issues

20/20/20 objectives of the EU energy-climate package (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm)

Energy efficiency and renewable energies objectives

Policies on climate change and emissions

EU ETS (Emissions Trading System) for greenhouse gases (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm)

IED for industrial pollutant gases (ex IPPC directive) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/index.htm)

Environmental issues related to industrial policies

REACH (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) regulation (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/reach/index_en.htm)

Waste management

Waste framework directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/legislation/a.htm)

“RoHS” directive (restriction of hazardous substances) (http://www.rohs.eu/english/index.html)

Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm)

Preservation of biodiversity, use and control of natural resources (air, water, ecosystems)

Natura 2000 directive (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/nature_and_biodiversity/l28076_en.htm)

Water framework directive (WFD) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html)

1.2. National systems reveal different organisations and political traditions, implying different analysis models

The first assumption of this study was to approach and analyse the public resources allocated to environmental issues by a specific player, national “environment agencies”.

Behind this assumption was the postulate that these agencies concentrated a large part of the material and human resources intended for public environmental policy-making. Given that their financial as well as human resources have significantly increased, they should not receive public funds dedicated to the environment in the current “austerity” context.

A comparison between these agencies in the European countries included in the study would give some information about the public resources dedicated to environmental issues, how they are used and their evolution over the past few years.

For this reason, the first approach that has been adopted in this work was an analysis of national agencies that form a European network called the “Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies”. It is an initial method for identifying the public agencies responsible for environmental issues in each country.

The network describes itself as “an informal group bringing together the directors of environment protection agencies and similar bodies across Europe. It exchanges views and experiences on issues of common interest

to organisations involved in the practical day-to-day implementation of environmental policy”.

Nevertheless, we can identify some immediate limitations of the network:

– The information given through this network for some countries is not recent, because the agencies

have not updated the open-source information they provide to the public for a long time (Greece, Ukraine, etc.);

− Does it mean those entities have low level of activity?


8

− Or does it reveal a weak communicative profile of these agencies?

– No organization from France is represented – the ADEME does not seem to form part of the network, although it can be considered as an agency with a relatively high level of development – in terms of resources;

− So is the network exhaustive enough to be considered as representative of the relevant players in the European countries.

– For Spain, no name of a single agency is given, although the Ministry of Environment itself is considered as part of the network;

− This situation shows the different ways in which public resources are organised on environmental issues, and not only through a single entity.

In conclusion, the characteristics of the agencies vary greatly from one country to another, making the

comparison quite difficult.

More generally, in order to formulate proper conclusions three main methodological problems can be taken into account in this study:

– The level of involvement of the public sector in some issues differs from one country to another. This

statement is particularly relevant in the case of environmental issues, which can be considered as relatively “new” topics in some countries (Eastern European countries recently integrated in the EU or non-EU countries such as Ukraine).

− Firstly, the level of integration of environmental issues in the national agenda is not the same everywhere, with “forerunner” and “follower” countries in Europe;

− Secondly, the level of participation of private-sector players in environmental issues also has to be taken into account. In some countries, private players may be accredited to accomplish some tasks that are strictly public in other countries.

– As for the public sector itself, the location of resources (financial and human) varies from one country to another:

− Depending on the State organisation, resources may be located at a national or a regional level;

− Moreover, the organisation of such resources may be located in independent agencies as well as directly in the ministries: generally the Ministry of Environment, but in some cases with shared

remit with the Ministry of Economy or Energy, as well as with the Agriculture or Health Ministries. Lastly, the scope of ministries differs from one country to another, for historical and operational reasons, and the “environmental” scope may be sometimes difficult to locate.

– Finally, the information available on open sources differs from country to country, with quite heterogeneous results, creating a significant bias in a comparative analysis:

− The same applies to the resources available for communicating on environmental matters;

− However, this is also related to national political traditions in terms of transparency and communication to public.

We cannot use a single approach to study the diverse national systems on environmental public policies, because the frameworks are structured differently. The mere analysis of the “environmental protection agencies” would be too restrictive an approach.

Consequently, this study will focus initially on the agency part of this network. However, this will be only a starting point to understand the entire system of national players in this area.

To adopt a more complete point of view, we conducted research on other national agencies in order to estimate the resources available for environmental public policies and recent changes in these resources.

– In particular, we systematically investigated information about energy agencies;

– For countries with a federal system or highly decentralised organisation, we searched for information

about public resources available for environmental protection or specific stakeholders dealing with these issues at a regional level.

Furthermore, we gathered information about environmental public budgets and their evolution in order to show the effects of austerity plans on national environmental policies as precisely as possible.




2. Different national contexts leading to different profiles and fields of intervention of the agencies

2.1. The areas of responsibility of agencies differ from one country to another

Even if a proper approach of national public policies on environment requires a wider perspective, as explained above, this study attempts to show the different domestic frameworks from the strictly denominated

“environment agency”, i.e. entities that are part of the Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies. That would be the starting point, giving some relevant information.

First, the agencies may provide some information about the national position on environmental issues.

For instance, the different dates of creation of the agencies’ illustrate the timing of the country’s preoccupation with environmental issues. This helps to define two main types of countries:

– countries with a “forerunner” position on environmental awareness (Sweden, Germany);

– countries that set up their environmental systems later, often following their accession to the EU or in

the perspective of such accession (or countries still expecting an accession or at least a strengthened partnership);

– note that the position of Italy is specific because the creation of ISPRA in 2008 replaced former environmental institutions in several areas.

It is also necessary to take into account specific national characteristics concerning environmental concerns,

which can be illustrated in some cases by the agencies’ profiles and history: – in Poland, considering the concern about the management of the country’s many industrial sites, prior

to its interest in environmental protection, the agency had been created on the basis of an industrial plant inspectorate. Indeed, the GIOS is still called a “chief inspectorate”;

– in Hungary, water issues are the core of environmental concerns, due to the importance of the two

main rivers crossing the country. That is the reason why the remit of “environmental agency” has been given to an entity traditionally focused on water management and control, which remains the main role of the agency today.

To give an overview of which national environmental agencies operate in the countries included in the study, we have defined different aspects of the “environmental issue”:

– energy issues, which would often be considered as separate from environmental protection issues, and come under the responsibility of other agencies;

– climate change and emissions regulation;


10

– industrial policies and chemicals management, which tend to be a shared area of responsibility (between players from the environmental and industry sectors, i.e. the Ministries of Environment and Industry);

– waste management;

– biodiversity and natural resources management.

Main fields of intervention

Cze

ch R

ep.

France

Germ

any

Gre

ece

Hungary

Italy

Pola

nd

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden

Ukrain

e

UK

Energy X X

Climate change/Emissions X X X X X X X X X X X

Chemicals X X X X X X X

Waste management X X X X X X X X X X

Natural resources management X X X X X X X X X except water issues

X X

The table presented above clearly shows that the agencies’ fields of intervention differ from one country to another.

It is particularly important to notice the differences in the case of energy issues. Indeed, only two “environmental agencies” in our panel deal with energy issues, the French one – ADEME –, and the German one – UBA –, although there are other agencies in Germany dedicated to energy issues.

This generates a strong bias in this study, whereas energy is currently a major challenge within environmental policies for developed countries:

– Energy efficiency is one of the best ways of achieving the competitiveness imperative on today’s global

market. Energy efficiency represents a possibility of cost reduction for countries that consider themselves to be constrained by higher wage costs than emerging countries;

– Secondly, renewable energies represent a challenge for industrial policy, as a way of developing new technological and scientific advances for developed countries, and consequently another potential of economic competitiveness.

– The two foregoing points are even more relevant in the current crisis context, since a growth model

based on energy efficiency principles is one of the most serious scenarios for overcoming the economic crisis. The increase of resources dedicated to policies on energy efficiency and renewable energies would be particularly relevant to evaluating the position of countries as regards environmental issues.

To take international comparison of the areas of responsibility of these agencies even further, we have chosen one case study: that of the REACH regulation. The objective of this approach is to assess the involvement of national agencies in concrete aspects of domestic environmental policies.

The REACH regulation on chemicals is directly binding on member States. It imposes on manufacturers and importers to submit a registration to the European Chemicals Agency for each substance manufactured or imported in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year.

– This case study provides elements about the tools that the agencies may make available to national

economic players. Indeed, most of the agencies, but not all of them, include open-source information available for economic players regarding the REACH regulation.

– This is also a way of assessing the agency’s scope of intervention, given that chemicals overlap the industrial and energy sectors. Not all environmental agencies are tasked with this, and they sometimes share this responsibility with other public entities, generally under the responsibility of the Ministry of Economy or Industry.

This reflection on the areas of responsibility of these agencies is integrated as often as possible in the national overviews. It aims at determining the role of the agencies in the national environmental framework and showing to what extent they are representative of public resources dedicated to environmental policies.




Indeed, the country panel analysis tends to show that simply studying these agencies does not provide satisfactory insight into the level of financial resources and employment dedicated by public authorities to environmental policies in those countries.

The main exception to this statement is France, where the ADEME concentrates the major part of public resources dedicated to environmental issues since the Grenelle roundtable in 2008.

2.2. Trying to characterise the agencies with respect to their “player profile”

A second approach that may help to define the position of these agencies within the national environmental framework would be to characterise their “player profile”, i.e. the type of activities they are supposed to take up.

Three different types of “profiles” have been developed to characterise the panel agencies. Obviously, the agencies’ positions usually include more than one profile:

– The “expert” profile, characterising activities based on scientific and research works:

− Agencies that fall under by this profile are mainly composed of a small number of highly qualified employees, and are therefore not very significant in terms of public employment for instance.

− The types of research work conducted may also be taken into account; fundamental research may suffer from the budget restrictions – in the austerity context – more than scientific work aimed at providing immediate solutions for the environmental sector.

– The “resource centre” profile, composed of two main aspects:

− Most agencies are in charge of building reliable and structured information systems in various areas of environmental issues:

− In particular, European-level licensing and tax policies implemented at national level lead the governments to invest in efficient database building solutions.

− In this profile, the agency can provide operational tools to private-sector players (information about best practices, project support). It can also play a controlling/sanctioning role for the private sector.

− This kind of activity is particularly useful for public authorities, as a way of estimating the economic impact of environmental policies - tax and licensing policies in particular.

− It is thus supposed to be more or less spared by budget cuts, since authorities often see it as a way of increasing tax incomes.

− Another aspect of the “resource centre” profile is more operational. Some agencies are in charge of specific operational tasks, a profile that generally supposes larger resources than those needed for

investigation and database building projects:

− To give an example, the Environment agency in the UK is in charge of all flood and

coastal management at a local level, a task that was previously carried out by a variety of other public bodies including local municipalities and river boards;

− The Polish GIOS manages all inspections of industrial and natural sites and its staff is therefore mainly made up of inspectors and involves a presence all over the territory;

− The French ADEME manages all public funds dedicated to support ecological initiatives

and innovations by players from civil society. It therefore has a budget significantly increased by such attributions, as the agency manages not only an operating but also an “interventional” budget – eight times larger than the operating budget.

– Lastly, the “public assessment” profile characterises agencies designated to help public decision-making. In some cases (Sweden), this remit is particularly developed and the agency is strongly involved in the decision-making process.

Another profile that could have been studied is the “communicative” profile that means the agency’s activities in relation to the public, in its largest definition. Nevertheless, this profile has not been explored further;

indeed, even if “communication” to the public and/or civil society is often recognised as an attribution of the agencies, it seems to be little developed, except through the information made available to the public on the website pages.


12

Main profiles

Cze

ch R

ep.

France

Germ

any

Gre

ece

Hungary

Italy

Pola

nd

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden

Ukrain

e

UK

Scientific expertise and investigation

Resource centre (information and/or operational)

Public assessment

As we already implied it, these “profiles” have various implications on the agencies’ resources. The table above shows that, once again, the agencies in our panel have quite different profiles, and in some cases, manage personnel and budgets of sizes that are not easy to compare.

To conclude, although they give a first comparative approach of the subject, it is clear that the competences and profiles of national agencies are deeply different. They do not give, in most cases, a proper overview of

the financial and human resources dedicated to public environmental policies, nor that they are relevant indicators of the recent evolutions..

This leads to take into account other public players of the environmental sector:

– State agencies in charge of other specific issues (energy, water, inspectorates – i.e., entities

responsible for inspections and control of environmental impacts of facilities, activities and industrial sites, etc.);

– regional entities especially in highly decentralised or Federal State models;

– the entire public framework dedicated to environmental issues, particularly through Environment

Ministry budgets.

3. Estimating the impact of the national austerity plans on public resources dedicated to environmental policies

3.1. A widespread austerity context

The austerity context is perceptible all across Europe, as a consequence of the two crisis periods that can be distinguished over the past years:

– the 2008 global crisis;

– and the 2011 European sovereign debt crisis.

The issue of limited resources comes up in all the national cases included in our study. The context of austerity thus concerns the entire scope of the analysis. This is confirmed by all the information available.

It is probable that the 2011 data, when released, will confirm this trend of relative restrictions in public expenditure even further.

Nevertheless, the impact on public spending varies from one country to another, in particular, the time frames concerning the implementation of austerity measures. We distinguish three profiles of European countries:

– Most of the countries concerned by the study adopted principles for a restriction in public spending in the 2008 period, with significant staff and budgets reductions, at least since 2010.

– In most countries, the sovereign debt crisis in 2011 led to a new set of austerity measures.

Nevertheless, in some countries, a total re-assessment of public spending as a result of belt-tightening

programmes imposed in very short time limits by economic developments has led to a really tough framework (Spain, Italy, Greece and Hungary are the most obvious examples).

− In these cases, the scale of reduction in public expenditure would not be entirely perceptible before the 2011 forecasts despite the fact that these countries had already been affected by austerity measures. Nonetheless the situation will become get even tougher from 2011 on.

− For those countries, the study has sometimes made it possible to gather relevant information about the 2011 and 2012 budget cuts, although information is not always available.




Two countries, Poland and Ukraine, seem to have avoided major cuts in public spending for now. This seems to be linked mainly to their current catching-up position regarding the rest of the European economies. Nevertheless it is probable that European incentives for austerity will impact those countries’ public budgets in 2011 and 2012.

3.2. The consequences of the crisis for environmental protection: two approaches

Within this framework, public resources dedicated to environmental issues are supposed to have undergone significant budget restrictions. Nevertheless one question is whether these public budgets are more affected than others.

As it has been already mentioned several times, the observation of the changes in agency resources does not give a precise idea of changes to public environmental expenditure, given the diverse statuses of the agencies

and their central or marginal place in the environmental institutional framework.

Where the information was available, the study was extended to an analysis of the entire public environmental sector.

At this point of the study, we must point out that the information gathered from national unions that had been solicited by the EPSU did a lot to improve our assessment of the impact of austerity on environmental budgets in the various countries included in the study.

Two points must be considered before we analyse the specific environmental sector:

– depending on the different degrees of public involvement in the sector, the volume of financial and human resources at stake is very different from one country to another;

– in any case, it remains quite difficult to precisely identify the scope of “environmental policies” in each country. The comparative approach of the impacts of austerity measures impacts is therefore relatively biased.

Two main rationales are currently at the centre of political considerations regarding the role of environmental policies in a context of austerity.

From a first point of view, the crisis may be considered as an opportunity to redirect the country’s economic performance towards a “green” or “sustainable” economic approach.

– This is precisely the Swedish rationale, which distinguishes itself as a “green forerunner” country within

Europe. For 2012 term, this line seems to be applied, since there has been no perceptible decrease in the Environmental protection agency’s budget. It remains to see what is involved in the 2011 and 2012 budgets.

The challenge represented by the integration of environmental issues as an answer to economic constraints and a growth potential is nevertheless clear in several aspects:

– the development of pollution tax as a provider of economic resources;

– the job creation potential represented by the green economy: the development of “green activities” is increasingly considered as an opportunity to tackle the effects of the economic recession;

– the limitation on spending due to the consequences of pollution and improper use of natural resources.

Nonetheless under the national institutional framework, public environmental entities tend to be concerned by restrictive measures binding public services as a whole, in all the countries of our panel.

Three different cases can be identified in these countries, all revealing a form of restriction on environmental public spending:

– Countries where resources dedicated to environmental resources have basically decreased since 2011 (Spain, Greece, UK, etc.)

– Countries where resources are maintained at the same level as previously, but where the remit of public bodies has been extended at the same time.

− this can be a result of new major environmental challenges (nuclear power phase-out in Germany, dealing with new environmental regulations following the Grenelle roundtable in France, etc.).

− in such cases, although it is not perceptible at first, the result is the same, since public entities have to do more with the same level of resources.


14

– Lastly, countries where reduction in public spending is “hidden” by reorganisation processes, also dedicated to streamlining public spending. The cases of Italy or Portugal for instance can be mentioned, with impacts on the level of employment (mainly managerial jobs) and operating budgets.

The consequences of such a change in public resources on environmental policies and their outcome is still difficult to estimate, as the shift would not be perceptible before 2010 or 2011, depending on the countries.

The table below, from Eurostat, shows that the decreasing trend that is now clear had not yet been revealed in 2009 considering the global expenditure of public administrations on environmental policies (in millions of euros).

Indeed according to this source, which is the only one that provides information that is easy to compare from

one country to another, 2006-2009 shows no common trend among the UE countries. 2010 data should be available in the near future and make it possible to estimate whether a decrease is already visible.

From now, it can be stated that national trends in 2010 and 2011 considering environmental budgets that are already available show that the evolution is the same as for general public budgets, that means a clear decreasing trend.

Even if is it not possible to give a global an exhaustive overview of such information, as it is not available for

all countries, or by reference to different perimeters, cases where cuts in environmental budget are perceptible have been listed below:




Such review clearly underlines that even if the level of analysis differs from a country to another, the sae “restrictive” trend is threatening environmental policies since 2010.

In order to give a global perspective to our reflexion, the analysis of general trends given by EU positions on environmental policies for the following years enables us to determine two defining points:

– a “mainstreaming” approach of public action on environment seems to be favoured today. That means

that environmental preoccupations should be dealt with by integrating all fields of public intervention (such as industrial, social and agricultural policies);

− on the face of it, this seems to replace environmental issues at the core of public action, and places environmental challenges in broader economic and social perspective;

− nevertheless, the dilution of resources dedicated to environmental policies and the loss of capacity of action is a real risk of such an approach, especially if efficient monitoring systems are not implemented. An effective reduction of public spending on environment could pose a problem.

– Secondly, the austerity context also tends to be considered as an opportunity to transfer the responsibility of managing environmental initiatives to the private sector. The redirection of public

funds to private investment supporting programmes (loan and guarantee systems for instance) is one illustration of this.

− Indeed, this can be a way for public authorities to reduce their financial spending on such projects all the while maintaining a certain level of efficiency in the conduct of policies, on condition that the use of funds is safe from major financial crises!

− Nevertheless, we must point out several potential effects. First, the development of private

initiatives in the area of environmental policies represents a clear risk to public employment in the sector.

− Second, the question remains as to whether environmental issues, such as issues dealing with public property, can be implemented by private players, and to what extent the public sector can withdraw from this area.

The imperative to reduce public spending on environmental policies is shared by all the countries included in this study, as part of the global context of austerity and limitation of public expenditure. It is probable that


16

some other mechanisms, such as the supporting of private initiatives, represent opportunities to implement environmental projects.

Nevertheless it has to be underlined that only the public sector can define the political orientation of such critical issues, for which governance is a key to success. From this point of view, large cuts in the public environmental budget should represent significant threats for the political framework designed for a greener approach in all aspects and clear outputs considering environmental challenges.

Moreover, it is more than probable that without an incentive trend led by public authorities, private initiatives would not produce the expected effects on environmental situations.

From this point of view, the trend of suppression of tax credits on « private green investments, observed in several European countries such as the Netherlands or Spain, could be on more proof of the inefficiency of the current public decisions regarding environmental issues.

As mentioned in several memoranda from the Institute for European Environmental Policy about EU

environmental policy, “securing support for new environmental measures will mean convincing leaders of the cost of inaction and the cost-effectiveness of action”.


E n v i r o n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s a n d p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k s i n d i f f e r e n t

c o u n t r i e s 17

Environmental agencies and public institutional frameworks in different countries

1. The Czech Environmental Protection Agency – CENIA – and other bodies dealing with environmental policies

1.1. National overview

The Czech Environmental Information Agency (CENIA), was established in 2005, and is a transformation of

the former Czech Environmental Institute.

The Czech agency has probably no more European issues to deal with than other agencies in the countries

considered in this study, but the permanent reference to the European framework is obvious. Environmental policies in Czech Republic have been largely inspired by European rules, due to its recent membership of the EU and the subsequent need to integrate European environmental regulations at a national level.

1.2. Characterising the agency’s activities

Resources and means of action

The agency is a public institution reporting to the Ministry of Environment.

It has a horizontal organisation with five divisions:

– Environmental Technology Division;

– Information Management Division;

– Internal Services Division;

– Environmental Assessment Centre;

– Project Management Office.


18

The 2010 budget, made up entirely of public funds, was approximately €4 million.

The agency employed around 115 people at the end of 2010, which is not significant and cannot be considered as representative of public employment in the environmental sector.

Other public environmental agencies weigh more in terms of employment. For instance, the Czech Environmental Inspection (CEI), a public body reporting to the Ministry of Environment and responsible for the nation-wide inspection of air protection, water protection, waste management, nature protection and forest protection, employed 643 people in 2010.

Areas of expertise

CENIA deals with all environmental matters, except energy.

In the case of regulation on chemicals, in particular REACH regulation, the Ministry of Environment is directly responsible for its implementation in the country. According to its “resource centre” function (see after), the CENIA has developed a National Information Centre working as a help-desk for issues related to REACH.

Agency profile

The role of the agency is to “create, collect, validate, assess and report the information necessary to better sustainability and environmental policies”.

The agency has mainly a “resource centre” profile:

– it is in charge of the building of specific tools designated to environmental management such as integrated information systems, registries;

– from a wider point of view, the agency is responsible for access to environmental information and the

management of information and data flows through several theme-based portals, statistic databases, etc.

Such responsibilities give the agency a role of “public assessor”, for instance in the development of specific instruments (certification, etc.).

The agency’s position, between European and national levels, seems omnipresent in its daily activity:

– it is the national reference centre for the European Environment Agency;

– it is a competence centre on European legislation for organisations;

– it coordinates European projects and data processes.

1.3. Austerity and its impact on environmental policies

Changes in the agenda and main challenges today

The State organisation around environmental issues is not as old as in other countries, such as in Northern Europe. The necessity to organise competencies and establish public players with enough capacity of action in this field seems to dominate the environmental agenda.




Moreover, the national anti-crisis plan adopted at the beginning of 2010 expresses the need of a large-scale funding programme designed to promote energy efficiency in buildings and the use of green heat sources.

Budget and employment trend

As regards the CENIA:

– the agency’s budget has been stable in recent years; there is no sign of a decrease in the resources allocated to it, which amounted to €3.5 million in 2008 and €4 million in 2010,

– the employment trend reveals a development of its capacities rather than budget cuts. The agency employed 90 people in 2006, a figure that increased to 115 in 2010.

Nevertheless, the trend observed for the Czech Environmental Inspection for instance is quite different. From 2009 to 2010, the budget and workforce of this agency, which is a bigger employer than CENIA, decreased. It

reported 663 employees in 2009, and dropped to 643 in 2010.

Although the crisis of the impact is not evoked, this trend may lead to different conclusions other than the

mere observation of the CENIA, which primarily remains a resource centre. Austerity and a restrictive context may have affected the Inspectorate differently and could explain the decrease in workforce.

This trend is consistent with the national context of austerity imposing cuts in public spendings, a set of measures directly impacting public employment:

– It is reckoned that 2,500 public jobs were cut in 2010;

– This trend comes alongside with wage cuts for some public-sector employees in 2010 and 2011.

2. The French environmental protection agency – ADEME, with increased resources since the Grenelle process


The French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) was created in 1990 with the merging of several pre-existing agencies already specialised in environmental issues since the 1970s and 1980s (waste management, air quality, energy consumption, etc.).

This places France among the oldest countries of our panel to have built their own national tools dedicated to

environmental policies, even though the Northern European countries included in our study (Sweden, Germany) had reacted even earlier.

It is quite surprising that the agency does not appear in the listing of the Heads of European Environment protection agencies: has the French profile not been filled in yet? Or is there any disagreement about considering ADEME as part of this network?

Lastly, although European environmental rules are as binding for France as for other EU member countries, references to the EU legal framework is not as present in ADEME’s discourse as in other countries.



The agency is a public body under the joint supervision of the French Ministry for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, the Ministry for Economy, Finance and Industry and the Ministry for Higher Education and Research.

One may consider this triple supervision as an evidence of the wide scope of the agency’s remits, ranging from

public assessment on environmental policies to industrial and energy issues and the management of research projects. It shows the political wish to place it in the institutional setting in a cross-cutting manner.

The organisation of the agency itself reflects this concern, as it is horizontal rather than theme-based, made up of five divisions:

– Strategy, research and international

– Programme management


20

– Territories

– Support

– Communication

The agency is set up in Paris, with two other establishments in France (Angers, Valbonne) and regional branches in France and one representative office in Brussels.

At the end of 2010, the agency had 943 permanent employees and operating budget of €90 million.

We must specify that the agency’s budget is divided into two components. An operating budget is dedicated to internal functioning (mainly staff, but also rent and running costs). On the other side, an action budget gathers all funds distributed throughout the different projects and programmes implemented by the agency:

– 50% of the €800 million budget in 2010 came from tax credits related to environmental matters;

– The other 50% comes from specific public subsidies, such as the “Grenelle budget” granted accordingly to the new programmes launched after this participative round of negotiations (see later).

The agency’s resources are set out in a contract between the agency and the State.

Areas of expertise

The agency is officially dedicated to “participating in the implementation of environmental, energetic and sustainable development public policies”. Its areas of expertise are extensive, as the agency is the only one in the environmental landscape, and includes energy issues.

This point is quite exceptional among the countries included in the study; indeed, France and Germany are the only cases where energy issues are – totally or partially – managed by the environmental agencies, whereas in other countries specific energy agencies are set up.

The agency is also competent for issues related to chemicals, such as the REACH regulation. It is specified

that the agency “participates in the implementation of European policies”, but no specific tool for helping French business about the REACH registration requirements, for instance, is mentioned, although the ADEME is supposed to be a resource centre for business.

Agency profile

The “resource centre” profile seems to characterise the French agency most. It provides information and specific tools to business or other players from civil society – such as a “carbon calculator” intended for to major firms and communities. It also provides assistance for project financing.

This second aspect has taken on importance because of the financial resources available in the agency for project financing. In terms of budget management, this has increased its role, but in a specific way.

Indeed, according to some critical opinions, the agency’s activity has shifted from a scientific expert to a mere technical and administrative assistant for project arrangements.

Nevertheless, in its description, the agency assumes an “expert” profile, as it contributes to the financing of research in the environmental sector.

It is also a “public assessor”, as the agency is supposed to give specific advice to State and public communities on various specific issues (environmental taxation, sector-based analysis, etc.). Nevertheless, for




the French policy-making process concerning environmental issues, ADEME also plays a minor role with regard to executive councils, accordingly to the tradition of highly executive-centred decision-making in the country.

At last, the agency is also in charge of “communication” to the public, through information and awareness-raising campaigns, as well as training. Nevertheless, the agency is criticised for being relatively absent in terms of communication with the public.

Overall, distributing public funds to support environmental projects in communities and civil society has been a growing task in the scope of the agencies’ attributions, strengthening its technical and operational profile.

At a national level, partnership between the agency and business and well as local public-sector stakeholders is quite developed through project financing. Various local initiatives, both public and private, are managed in cooperation with the agency, which provides financial and technical support.

The agency is also considered as competent for developing international cooperation projects at different levels, such as relations with African and Mediterranean countries, in accordance with France’s traditional presence in this area.



The French situation in Europe is quite specific because it is the result of changes made after the Grenelle roundtable rather than the crisis context.

The Grenelle roundtable was launched in 2008 and consisted of a wide round of consultations among stakeholders to implement new legislation on environmental issues. The conclusions of this process were put in a document of 268 commitments. These commitments were enacted as laws with the "Grenelle I Act" that set the “major objectives and commitments” of the State ensuing from the negotiations and the "Grenelle II Act" that implemented the major projects resulting from the roundtable.

This event profoundly transformed the role of the agency, according to the 2009-2012 contract with the State following the roundtable: as its attributions increased, it is now considered as the “official operator” for environmental issues.


The agency’s workforce has grown constantly over the past years, from 816 in 2006 to 943 in 2010. It must be specified that 25 jobs were created in 2010 to take up new tasks that had come under the agency’s

responsibility. At the end of 2010, employment was almost exclusively sustainable with open-ended contracts and civil servants “given” by other public bodies.

The operating budget was cut in 2008, but has remained stable since then (€85 million in 2008, €90 million in 2010).

The 2011 assumptions give an operating budget of €92 million, which means that the level of resources is maintained for now. These assumptions include an increase in payroll expenses because of the full-year impact of the 25 jobs created at the end of 2010 (see above).

The Grenelle roundtable has therefore limited the restrictive policies due to the economic crisis on the agency’s resources, given the increasing attributions of such entity.

Nevertheless, official documents regularly mention restrictive conditions: the agency has to stabilise its spending and adopt a performance-based approach in its actions, according to the national context of “general revision of public policies process” aimed at reducing the number of State employees by half. This principle should cut nearly one million public-sector jobs by the 2014.

Although this trend was prior to the 2011 European debt crisis, restrictive measures have been amplified since this period:

– A law has passed several “austerity measures” in 2011;

– A general freeze on public-sector wages was decided for the 2011-2013 period.

This context should have an increasing impact on the agency’s resources. indeed, 2012 governmental funds directly earmarked for the ADEME are supposed to decrease by 0.4% according to the finance law.


22

3. The German environmental protection agency (UBA) at the centre of public environmental policies


The Federal Environment Agency (UBA), was founded in 1974 as the single central Federal authority on environmental issues.

The German agency is one of the oldest environmental agencies of the countries included in our study. It

underlines the importance that has been given to environmental issues for a long time in Germany, well ahead of the setting up of the European framework.

Indeed, Germany is still confirming its position in this sector, being one of the few European States – Sweden was the first – to develop a single, coherent Environmental Federal Code recording the whole legal framework concerning environment policies.

Considering the German federal institutional system, there is no specific explanation of the relation between the agency, a Federal player, and the Lander, in charge of many policy-making processes that may be concerned by environmental rules. It is only specified that the agency has to inform and assess political stakeholders, the Federal State as well as local stakeholders.



The UBA is under the responsibility of the Federal Environment Ministry, to which it “provides support”.

The agency has been built both on a theme-based and horizontal organisation:

– A central administration division;

– An environmental planning and sustainable strategies division;

– An environmental health and ecosystems protection division;

– A sustainable production and products and waste management division;

– A chemical safety division;

– A German emission trading authority.

The agency is based in Dessau, and also includes three sites in Berlin, one in Langen and one in Bad Elster.

The agency’s operating budget for 2010 was approximately €100 million, mainly consisting of payroll expenses. Funds managed by the agency and distributed for specific programmes exist but are few (less than €40 million in 2010).

It recorded a workforce of 1,500 employees in 2010, only 50% of which were civil servants.




Areas of expertise

The UBA covers the entire scope of environmental issues, including energy. Although some bodies such as the

DENA agency are involved in energy issues, no other public agency is prevalent in the public environmental policy-making landscape.

Regarding the application of the REACH regulation on chemicals for instance, the agency provides a whole page of its websites with reports, guides and databases that communicate European decisions to national players.

Agency profile

The UBA, as the central environmental authority, is in charge of implementing scientific work, enforcing environmental law and providing information to the public on environmental issues.

The agency’s dominant profile is the “expert” profile. Its agenda is mainly composed of research work, which is partly commissioned by the Ministry.

The theme-based organisation illustrates this scientific profile, based on work in diverse speciality areas, mainly:

– environment compatible technologies and industrial processes;

– scientific knowledge about chemicals and related risks.

From this expert position, the agency is able to “formulate science-based recommendations to public and

socio-economic decision-makers”, and thus exercise a “public assessment” role. It might conduct practical tests before a legislative decision in the environmental sector has been taken.

It can be noted that the agency’s 2011 strategy includes the objective of being “the most influential adviser to the government on environmental issues in Germany, while maintaining (its) scientific independence”.

The agency is considered as the German point of contact for international as well as European institutions. It ensures the enforcement of the European environmental legal framework.

The agency also manages databases, such as the hazardous substances database. One specific division, the German emissions trading authority, is in charge of quantitative instruments for national emissions control.

Lastly, the agency has also a communication remit, as it is in charge of information to the public. Some

analyses point out the recent improvement of that role, with the development of information and consultation of citizens and other stakeholders.

To sum up, the German agency seems to have adopted, above all, a deeply scientific posture. That can explain its relatively poor visibility for the civil society in Germany, despite the high mobilisation around environmental issues in the country.


24



The context of limited public resources is perceptible in the agency’s discourse, like in the 2010 report

mentioning, “in the face of new, additional tasks and limited financial and personal resources, there is an obligation to increase efficiency”.

In particular, the “UBA 2015 project group”, which is the strategic document orientating the agency’s day-to-day action, highlights the agency’s conduct, which should be a model of low energy and resources consumption and “green attitude” in various aspects:

– the need to comply with the development of information and communication technologies all the while reducing energy consumption is considered as a major challenge: the agency has been re-equipped with low energy consumption workstations;

– another significant project conducted by the agency is the renewal of its own headquarters according to zero-energy, or even negative energy objectives. The building is supposed to be completed by 2014;

– the agency has also built a CHM (Contentment, Health and Motivation) scheme to follow working conditions within the institution.

Budget and employment evolution

– Although Germany is concerned by the austerity context just like the other European economies, the measures taken can be considered as the lightest in our panel. Considering public employment, the

austerity measures are the following: limited increases of public-sector wages (around 0.5%) – when pay cuts are observed in several European countries;

– An objective of reduction of 10,000 jobs, which is relatively low in comparison to other countries.

Nevertheless the crisis context seems to have an impact on the agency’s operating budget as one may note a decreasing trend from 2010. The budget grew from €98 million in 2008 to €103 million in 2009, but was €102 million in 2010.

The workforce has increased overall in the past years, and this trend seems to be due to the growing number of civil servants. Indeed the 2008-2009 trends show a decrease in the number of “permanent employees” (in opposition to civil servants), from 1,151 to 1,146.

The 2010 data are not as precise as for the previous years, but tends to underline a decreasing trend in employment: staff expenditure is decreasing of a 2 per cent from the 2009 to the 2010 budgets, as well as the global budget of the agency.

2011 data are not openly available but should show whether or not there is a continued decrease in the agency’s human resources.




4. The Greek environmental protection agency – EKPAA – and environmental policies in a restrictive national context


The Greek National centre for environment and sustainable development, EKPAA in Greek, is designated to be the national agency for environmental protection. It was established in 1999 but became fully operational only in 2004.

Greece’s institutional framework was modified in the 2000s to take growing environmental concerns into account.

– Significant EU funds have helped for this move towards convergence – an OECD report estimates that

25% of European funds in 2000-2006 were earmarked for environmental policies.

– Alongside the transposition of EU regulations at a national level, operational bodies such as an environmental inspectorate have been created.



The EKPAA is a private independent organisation supervised by the Ministry of environment and public works and based in Athens.

It has a theme-based organisation, based on 4 departments:

– Pollution and anthropogenic environment;

– Natural environment;

– Coordination and scientific support;

– Administration and human resources.

It had 30 employees listed at the end of 2008, which did not correspond to a full functioning capacity. The workforce is expected to increase in coming years.

Areas of responsibility

The agency is supposed to “play the role of the European environment agency at a national level”.

Its remit is limited to strict environmental matters, and does not include energy issues, for instance. Likewise,

no responsibility of control over the REACH regulation is mentioned in the description of the agency’s attributions.

Furthermore, an examination of the workforce of this agency might lead to conclude that the institution itself is not representative of the level of public employees and resources dedicated to environmental policies.

Other public bodies are part of the network:

– the General Chemical State laboratory, dealing with chemicals and some of water issues;

– the Special Environmental Inspectorate, already mentioned, is the operator for inspection of public and private projects;

– The Hellenic Scientific Society for the Protection of the Environment is competent in nuclear waste issues;

– etc.

Moreover, it should be mentioned that the body responsible for energy issues is not the EKPAA but the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and saving (CRES), which is part of the EnR network.

Although it is the public coordinator of the players in this field, the CRES has a quite reduced size just like the EKPAA, and cannot be considered as representative of a trend in public sector employment. It currently employs around 100 to 150 people, mainly composed of scientists.


26

Agency profile

According to the description given of the agency, it seems to assume a “public assessor” role as its tasks are described as following:

– it is expected to become a strategic advisor on environmental issues by supporting policy-making and implementation;

– it gives a scientific contribution to the cross-coordination of public policies on environmental issues;

– it provides training to national and local administrations.

Its “resource centre” profile is also perceptible, as the agency is in charge of organising the environment data and information building process, such as the greenhouse gas emissions registry.



According to the relatively recent agency creation, its challenges consist in achieving its development rather than optimising and streamlining its resources and expenditure in spite of the current crisis.

Nevertheless, it is relevant to note that very little information is available about the agency, in particular relatively recent information. No quantitative or qualitative information could be found after 2008, which raises questions about the agency’s level of activity.

This matches the conclusions of an OECD report about Greece’s progress on environmental issues over the past decade, underlining that Greece has to:

– increase its financial efforts on environmental policies, by taking into account the possible decrease of EU funds;

– strengthen its environmental administration, mainly the Ministry of the Environment , Spatial Planning and Public Works, further.


Moreover, Greece is now at the centre of the European public debt crisis and is about to suffer significant reductions in public expenditure. Although environmental policies are not specifically mentioned in national programmes, the sector is supposed to be concerned in the same way.

The austerity measures are particularly severe in the Greek case, with an objective of public deficit reduction

from 7.5% of GDP in 2011 to 1.1% in 2015, according to the latest review of the Economic adjustment programme available on the Ministry of Finance’s website.

A reform of public sector wages and human resources management is currently carried out, to establish a “simplified remuneration system covering basic wages and allowances that applies to all public sector employees”. Concretely, this has a strong impact on public employment objectives:




– A reduction in public sector workforce, with the replacement of only 10% of civil servants retiring in 2011 (20% in 2012);

– An extension of weekly working hours;

– A reduction in contractual staff;

– The implementation of a new remuneration grid;

– The introduction of part-time employment and unpaid leave. It should be mentioned that significant pay cuts have already been observed in the public sector in 2010 and 2011;

– The transfer of excess employment to a labour reserve.

Such measures are supposed to reduce significantly public resources intended for environment protection. For instance, the “Green fund” that had been set up in 2010 in order to support environmental investments, has been dissolved and is now used for actions of public debt reduction.

National sources insist on the “short-term” style of such measures particularly contrary to a sustainability

approach. Environmental issues would now be considered as cost centres and not as a vector of economic growth for the forthcoming years.

For instance, environmental regulation of the construction sector seems to be abandoned, as public authorities prefer to receive from non-environmental construction – a more immediate source of public resource - than to favour sustainable buildings. National sources insist of the risk of such approach for the country, where natural resources are a huge source of income, through tourism.

5. The Hungarian environmental protection agency (CBWE) is focused on water issues


The Central Bureau of Water and Environment is considered as the national environmental protection agency. It is part of the Heads of European protection agencies’ network, and is in charge of the development of communication with national and international institutions.

Founded in 1993 and then reorganised in 2007, it is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Water, since these two fields were brought together under a single ministry in 2002. Prior to that, water affairs were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Transportation, Communication and Water.



As its name implies, the agency’s organisation underlines the importance of water concerns among the agency’s scope of expertise. It has three divisions:

– Projects

– Economy

– Water

Indeed, its competencies have been organised around water issues, traditionally at the centre of

environmental concerns in Hungary (mainly according to the management of the two main rivers, the Danube and the Tisza).

According to the information available at the end of 2010, 120 employees were listed in the agency, which cannot be considered as really representative of public employment in the environmental sector.


Water affairs have been put at the centre of the CBWE’s tasks, in terms of water management systems, water supply or waste water treatment.

Other entities generally manage other aspects of environmental issues:

– For instance, the National institute of chemical safety deals with issues related to chemicals, such as the enforcement of the REACH regulation;


28

– A National inspectorate for Environment, nature and water is in charge of implementing environmental regulation in the business sector. It issues permits, gives expert opinions and imposes fines and penalties.

Agency profile

The agency is mainly a “public assessor”, with tasks consisting in the participation, preparation and implementation of public decisions in water management issues, and in the management of large-scale projects.

Other entities, such as the Inspectorate previously cited, assume a more operational profile and thus probably have a larger workforce.



A significant change in the government organisation has resulted from the latest national elections in 2010.

Consequently, the Ministry for Environment and Water has been merged with the Ministry for Rural Development.

According to a study from the European environment agency (EEA), this change suggests “environment has fallen low on the current policy agenda”.

Moreover, one has to note that Hungary is among the countries most affected by the current economic crisis.

In 2008, the IMF provided financial assistance in return for major austerity measures, with an impact on public employment (withdrawal of the 13th monthly wage in the public sector, adjustment of wages to inflation).

Although the country is now fighting for financial independence from the IMF, austerity plans will continue in order to reduce the State debt. A “Structural reform program” has been established for the 2011-2014 period. It includes an objective to reduce administrative costs and to implement a “new system of public employment” from January 2012.

The objectives pointed out for 2011 mention a 5% reduction in central government jobs, and a 10% cut in all other public administrations. Public bodies dealing with environmental issues are thus supposed to be affected by a significant staff reduction.


The observation of the CBWE’s resources evolution over the past years shows two contradictory phenomena:

– The workforce has increased overall, from 82 in 2007 to 121 in 2010;

– But at the same time, the supposed operating budget has decreased; it grew significantly from 2007 (€2.3 million) to 2008 (€4.8 million), but then dropped to €3.3 million in 2010.

Since this budget is supposed to be essentially dedicated to the payroll, the question is: does it mean that

other sources of income are included in the agency’s overall budget? Does it mean that other kinds of expenditure have been reduced to a large extent?




6. The Italian environmental protection agency (ISPRA) at the head of a network


The Italian national institute for environmental protection and research, ISPRA in Italian, was established in 2008 by the merging of three institutions, giving some indications about the issues covered by the new agency:

– The former Agency for Environmental Protection and Technical Services;

– The former Central Institute for Applied Marine Research;

– The former National Institute for Wildlife.

Although it was created in 2008, the ISPRA functioned under an interim status until 2010, with an extraordinary management, before its definitive status was approved and entered into force.

The main original aspect of the agency is its “networked” construction, accordingly to the decentralising process that resulted from the 1993 referendum on environmental controls. The agency is at the head of a national “environmental agency system”.

This network is composed of 21 pre-existing Regional and Provincial agencies (ARPA and APPA), established by specific regional laws. ISPRA, which was created in a second phase, is supposed to represent the “system’s cohesion”, while the local agencies ensure that local concerns are taken into account.

The coordination entity is the Federal Council, chaired by the ISPRA Director General and composed of

members of ARPA/APPA. It ensures ISPRA’s coordination with the local agencies on the one hand, and coordination with the Ministry for fund allocation and use, on the other hand.

Outside Italy, the agency has to support activities of the Ministry for Environment at a European and international level. In particular, it acts as a focal point of the European Environmental Agency.



The ISPRA is a public body with organisational, administrative and financial autonomy, “subject to the vigilance” of the Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. General orientations are given by the Ministry on the basis of a three-year agreement.

It is based in Rome but has offices in several other cities.

The agency’s organisation is structured on the basis of nine theme-based departments:

– Soil protection;

– Nature protection;

– Inland and marine waters protection;

– Marine applied research;

– Wildlife research;


30

– State of the environment and metrology;

– Library, document and information;

– Nuclear safety, radiation protection and industrial risk;

– Human resources and general services.

In 2010, the agency’s total budget was €200 million. 40% was from government funding while the remaining 60% came from specific programmes and activities (such as European project funding).

The agency had around 1,200 employees in 2010. This figure must be considered jointly with the staff employed at a regional level, in the 21 ARTA/ARPA/ATTA. For instance, in 2010:

– The ARPA of Emilia Romagna had 1,032 employees;

– The ARPA of Veneto had 1,027 employees;

– The ARPA of Lombardy had 1,020 employees;

– The ARPA of Piedmont had 1,085 employees;

– The ARPA of Liguria had 374 employees;

– The ARPA of Puglia had 373 employees;


According to official sources, the agency “has to perform technical, scientific and research activities in the environmental sector”.

It is in charge of all fields of environmental issues but does not deal with energy matters, which fall under the responsibility of another agency, the ENEA. The latter had a little more than 2,800 employees in 2010, and illustrates an increase of employment since 2008.

The ISPRA sometimes shares competences too. With regard to chemical issues such as the REACH regulation, the agency offers on its website a whole “topic” page about REACH that providing technical and scientific support to players. Nevertheless, like many other European countries, the enforcement of REACH rules falls under the responsibility of various players. In the case of Italy, the ISPRA and Ministry for the Environment work with the Ministry for Labour and Health and the National Centre for Chemical Substances.

Agency profile

The agency’s activities correspond most to the “expert” profile. Indeed, its main task is to conduct technical, scientific and research activities on environmental issues.

The agency also plays the role of a “public assessor”, as it has to provide support to the Ministry of

environment and other public authorities, national as well as local. In particular, it intervenes in issues concerning the implementation of environmental certificates and labels.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the agency also has operating abilities such as responsibility for the inspection of installations regarding industrial risks.

The predominance of the “expert” profile in the agency’s activity can be partially explained by its position at the head of a network of local agencies, carrying out more operational functions – such as inspections, while

the national agency, the ISPRA, provides the general knowledge and orientations for reflections on environmental matters.






It can be mentioned that the agency’s most recent activity report dates from 2009. This report states that the

central concern is the development of new governance in the environmental field providing increased capacities of action. However, there is no reference to the current crisis and the restrictions that could have been generated.

At the end of 2011, the agency should be replaced in the national institutional framework, since it is supposed to be transferred under the responsibility of the Prime minister, officially to “increase the transversal capacities of action of the agency and of environmental issues”. But this does not indicate if this change goes with a reinforcement of the agency’s resources, in particular, human resources.

National sources also mention that improving the efficiency of the networked system remains necessary to get

increasing outcomes on environmental policies. This issue is even more crucial in a context of restricted resources.


As the latest information available on open sources is more than two years old, we cannot give an estimation of the budget and employment trend in the ISPRA over the recent years. Nevertheless national sources mention a significant downward trend in the agency’s budget starting from 2010.

They also point out a problem of precarious employment inside the ISPRA. Indeed, the temporary status given to the agency after the merging of the three former institutions in 2008 has led to a significant amount of jobs

with precarious status. After an intervention of trade unions on this issue, it was supposed that about one hundred jobs should become permanent jobs in 2011.

Nevertheless information about employment in the Ministry of Environment, which is the supervising body and

the main ISPRA funding organisation, is available. It shows that employment has decreased over the past three years, from 644 employees in 2008 to 609 in 2010.

National sources underline that the Ministry of Environment has suffered tougher budgetary cuts, as it is considered a “non-core” ministry. This trend is perceptible since 2008, and only a few funds dedicated to emergency situations would be excluded from this restrictive trend (mainly hydro-geological instability risk).

In spite of several reorganisations that may have affected the workforce, this development seems to underline a restrictive trend, perceptible on its effect on employment.

If so, this trend might continue in 2011, since Italy is one of the European countries where austerity measures are the toughest following the European debt crisis.

National measures covering the 2011-2013 period include:

– An objective of significant cuts in public expenditure, that was revised upwards at the end of 2011;

– With respect to public sector salaries, a pay freeze has been decided until 2014, and pay cuts have even been observed in 2010 and 2011;

– A reduction in public employment (replacement of only 20% of retiring civil servants).

Information available in the regional agencies that are part of the network tends to confirm this trend:

– As for the ARPA of Piedmont, the 2012 budget document shows that employment dropped from 1,209

in 2004 to 1,085, which means a reduction of over 10% in 8 years. The payroll costs started to decrease in 2010 and continued in 2011, with a reduction of over 7%.

– Another agency with available information, the ARPA of Emilia Romagna, had strictly stable employment between 2006 and 2010. Managerial staff decreased in this period while the technical workforce increase slightly. This change seems to confirm the assumption that payroll costs are being kept down in the current restrictive context.

– There is to mention that such trends are observed in Northern ARPAs, whereas some national sources

mention that the understaffing problem in public environmental agencies is even stronger in Southern agencies.


32

7. The Polish environmental protection agency: GIOS


The Inspection for environmental protection, GIOS in Polish, has its current configuration since 1998, when a large reform of the State was carried out.

Nevertheless, the agency exists since the 1980s, according to its core mission. It was the inspectorate dedicated to the control of industrial activities and main industrial sites. The “agency” status came later, but

unlike most of the other countries studied, in Poland, the entity part of the Head of environmental protection agencies network is the one in charge of inspections.

As a matter of fact, in the post-communist era, control of the environmental impacts of the old industrial sites as well as centralised industrial policy initiatives assessment remained a major task for the Polish agency.

In the 2000s, the need to conform to the EU legal framework on environmental issues in view of accession increased national concerns with such matters and, therefore, the agency’s tasks.

The relation to the EU framework is omnipresent in the description of the agency’s activity. The public environmental settings were implemented mainly to conform to EU requirements in view of EU accession. This compliance process has been carried out, in some cases, with corresponding European funds.



The GIOS is subordinated to the Ministry for the Environment and its Chief Inspector is appointed by the Prime Minister.

According to its main inspection, the agency is present all over the country, with an inspectorate in each province.

The agency employs around 150 people, which does not include the inspection staff. The most recent figure sets them at 2,500, including inspectors (720), monitoring and laboratory staff (1,040) and administrative staff (610).


The GIOS conducts inspections for environmental protection, checks compliance with environmental protection rules, examines the state of the environment and prevents major accidents.

It deals with all environmental issues except energy. Nevertheless, other entities also intervene in this field. Responsibility for implementing the REACH regulation for instance, seems to fall under the Bureau for

Chemicals substances and preparation rather than the GIOS.




Agency profile

Its core inspection activity clearly highlights out the agency’s “resource centre” profile, in an operational way.

The agency has the technical and human capacities for carrying out inspection and control processes and for suspending activities in violation of environmental requirements.

As a result, local implementation of the agency is prevalent in its day-to-day activity, in relation with its organisation.

It also manages the State Environmental Monitoring (SEM), providing quantitative information according to the European monitoring system.

To a lesser extent, the agency assesses public decisions, especially concerning major investment projects and their impact on environment.



At this time, we have no clear vision of the budget and employment trend within the GIOS.

According to the “Report on the state of the environment in Poland in 2008”, prepared by the agency in 2010 and approved by the Council of Ministries:

– It is underlined that a first step was crossed after accession to the EU, when this phenomenon generated a significant economic growth and pressure on environmental aspects was successfully controlled;

– But it is also pointed out that Poland remains one of the largest energy consumers in Europe and that a lot remains to be done.

No significant reference to austerity measures is made in this document. On the whole, restrictive measures are supposed to impact public policies, and especially environmental policies, to a lesser extent than in other European countries:

– As a catching-up country, Poland should be less affected by the economic crisis than the rest of Europe;

– Public employment, especially in the environmental sector, is relatively limited in the country.

Nevertheless, austerity measures, with a 2013 objective, have been set up recently, including cuts in public expenditure and a total freeze on recruitment and payment of public employment.

Lastly, since Poland currently benefits from significant European funds, especially in the environmental sector, the evolution of the resources dedicated to such policies is dependent of the evolution of European budgets in the coming years.

8. The Portuguese environmental protection agency: APA


The Portuguese environment agency (APA), is a public institution reporting the Ministry for Agriculture, Sea, Environment and Land. It is based in Lisbon.

Since 2012, the agency’s status has changed. It has been restructured and has integrated other public bodies such as the Water institute, the Hydrographical administrations, the Commission on climate change and the Commission for waste management. The whole now forms a wider entity considered as an “indirect” public body.

The European and international frameworks on environmental issues are relayed within the country by the agency.



The agency has a theme-based organisation around seven departments:


34

– Environmental policies and strategies;

– Climate change, air and noise;

– Environmental licensing;

– Waste management;

– Waste flows and waste stocks exchanges;

– Promotion of environmental citizenship;

– Environment reference laboratory.

The agency’s 2010 operating budget was €17 million.

The workforce for the same period was 236, mainly under government contracts. Engineers or senior technicians make up more than 50% of these employees. This level of employment is not considered

significant enough to have a satisfactory overview of the level and development of public employment in the environmental sector.


The agency proposes, develops and monitors the implementation of environmental policies.

It covers all fields on environmental issues except energy. The latest area falls under the responsibility of another public agency, member of the EnR network, the ADENE. It is related to the Ministry for the Economy rather than the Ministry for the Environment, and is involved in the development of renewable energy and

energy efficiency programmes. Nevertheless, it must be specified that the level of employment of this agency is even lower than in the APA, as it did not exceed 50 employees in 2010.

It also shares some responsibilities. For instance, the agency has been the institution responsible for the

listing of chemicals hazardous substances according to the REACH regulation. It is the competent authority for this regulation alongside specific bodies from the Ministry of Economics. A national help-desk has been implemented in coordination between the agency and its co-responsible.

Agency profile

The “resource centre” profile is the one characterising the most the agency, which is the responsible institution for numerous tasks of data collecting and database building:

– It is responsible for the National information system on environment (SNIAmb)

– It coordinates the National registry of emission allowance

– Its missions focus on establishing paperless registration procedures.

The agency’s relations with local authorities are scarcely mentioned in the description of its activity. This may be explained by the agency’s profile of resource centre more than a ground-operating player.

The agency also acts as a “public assessor”, especially in specific areas such as the implementation of waste management strategies, and waste market regulation.






The agency’s 2010-2012 strategic plan focuses on three objectives:

– integration of environmental issues in all policies;

– recognition of the agency as the reference in its area of responsibility;

– promotion of environmental citizenship.

Such developments have to be carried out, according to the 2011 roadmap, in a national as well as international restrictive context, in terms of financial and human resources.

In Portugal in particular, the 2010 sovereign debt crisis seems to have relegated environmental issues and

their impact on the economic situation to the background, except in cases where environmental measures can provide economic benefits.

Indeed, one major discourse today about environmental issues is through an “environmental financial policy” using tools such as taxation in order to “promote more ambitious environmental goals and claim a positive contribution to the improvement of the external and fiscal balances – the double dividend”. These orientations are developed in 2010 in an APA report called “Report on Portuguese environmental economic instruments”.

Moreover the attention is put from the first paragraph on principles of “new public management” and result-based evaluation.

In this restrictive context, far-reaching changes should be effected in 2012. The constitutional law on environmental has to be revised, as well as several structural plans on environment. The way austerity imperatives, if any, are integrated in such reforms has to be followed up in the following months.


Quantitative indicators such as budget and employment trends do not enable us to appreciate the resources available to the agency until 2011:

– Between 2008 and 2010 the operating budget increased from €12 million to €17 million;

– During the same period, the workforce increased from 227 to 236.

Nevertheless if we compare 2010 and 2011 roadmaps, it can be noticed that the spending objectives were considerably reduced from €17 million to less than €14 million in 2011. The trend is the same for payroll costs, which should decrease in 2011.

Moreover, the 2012 reorganisation mentioned above has also been considered as a way of optimising resources. According to national sources, it will result in a reduction of around 80 employees, mainly executive positions, and a €6 million cut in the operating budget.

This is together with the austerity measures taken at a national scale, with significant budget cut objectives, and consequences on public employment:

– A freeze in public wages has been decided until 2013, but 2010 and 2011 were even more restrictive, with pay cuts reaching 5%;

– A total freeze in recruitments has been declared.


36

9. The Spanish environmental protection regionalised system


The Spanish case of environmental agencies is quite different from the other countries presented in this study, as it is the only case where there is no single agency recognised as competent, at a national level, for dealing with environmental issues.

The National Office for Climate Change can be considered as the main public agency in charge of environmental issues. It is under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment.

Nevertheless, the website of the Heads of European protection agencies makes no reference to an agency in particular, but presents the Ministry of Environment itself as part of the network.

The multiplicity of players can be seen at two levels:

– Vertically, the high level of autonomy of the Spanish communities (Comunidades autonomas) has set much of the activity and legislation in the environmental sector at a regional level. The national level

intervenes when more than one community is concerned. Each community has its own institutional apparatus dealing with environmental issues.

− For instance, the Basque environmental agency (IHOBE) is itself part of the European network of the Heads of environment protection agencies:

− Created in 1983, it plays the role of a regional Environmental protection agency;

− It has 54 employees and a budget close to €13 million.

– Horizontally, there are various bodies that work under the supervision of the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs, such as:

− The National Office for Climate Change, already mentioned above ;

− The Observatory for Sustainability in Spain (OSE) was created in 2005, but its influence increased with the merging of two ministries into the Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine

Environment in 2008. It is established in partnership with Alcala University. It promotes the participation of the scientific and academic community in policy-making on environmental issues.

− The Council of Assessment on Environment (CAMA) also participates in policy-making and evaluation of policies in environmental issues. It is a participatory body for civil society organisations. It is chaired by the Minister for the Environment, and includes members of NGOs, trade unions, representatives of employers’ organisations (including the agricultural sector) and consumer organisations.

− The Biodiversity Foundation develops various projects dealing with the preservation of biodiversity.




− There are other State bodies surrounding the Ministry for the Environment: the State Society for Agricultural Infrastructure (SEIASA), the State Water Societies, the Centre for Studies and Experimentation in Public Works.



Because of the atomistic nature of stakeholders of environmental issues, it is quite difficult to evaluate resources. Each body seems to have a relatively low level of employment. For example, the OSE has 15 employees, plus 14 members of a scientific committee.


Each agency is in charge of a small set of attributions within the scope of environmental policies except energy.

But in spite of the attributions given to these agencies, the Ministry of the Environment retains the power of mobilisation and decision on all these issues. As a consequence of the multiplication of specialised agencies, the Ministry is the only institution able to adopt a transversal approach on all environmental matters.

In the case of the REACH regulation for instance, a specific portal managed by the Ministry has been set up to inform business and civil society.

Relations between central government and the communities are, among others, managed by the Commission for Coordination of Climate Change Policies (CCPCC), which promotes institutional partnerships among all public players.

The area of energy issues is not under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment but of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism. One main public agency – the IDEA - is responsible for these issues.

Agency profiles

The bodies surrounding the Ministry of environment essentially play a role of technical and scientific “expert”. They are also “public assessors”, as they support decision-making processes.

It may be noted that some of these agencies tend to provide participation in policymaking at a national level, by integrating the civil society (socio-economic players, members of the scientific community, specialised NGOs, etc.) in the process.

The operational capacities are in the hands of agencies at community level, that each operate under different conditions.


38



The Spanish stability program established for 2009-2013 sets out three objectives that have to be pursued as a way out of the crisis:

– Reduction in public deficits;

– Increased control of the finance sector;

– Development of a strategy for sustainable economy, including “a bet for environmental sustainability through improved mechanisms of management and monitoring of sectors with high environmental impact (energy, transport, etc.).

According to the latest data, environmental concerns should be repositioned at the centre of the country

program in the following years. Indeed, environmental pressure is particularly high in Spain as regards, among others, the water issue.


Although environmental issues are pronounced in Spain and recognised, the country is also one of the most affected by the current debt crisis in Europe. Austerity measures set up since 2011 are particularly tough.

They foresee a decrease of public wage spending, through:

– wage moderation: a pay cut was noticed in 2010 (around 5%), and there was a pay freeze in 2011;

– an interruption in public-sector recruitment, with an objective to replace only 10% of retiring public servants.

Employment in the public environmental sector is concerned as well as other public-sector jobs. In the Ministry of Environment for instance, there is a clear restrictive trend:

– The successive budgetary documents between 2009 and 2011 show a reduction of nearly 300 people in the staff of this body, corresponding to a decreasing of almost 7%;

– The Ministry’s 2011 budget reveals a 13% decrease in resources compared with the 2010 budget.

Lastly, the elections that took place at the end of 2011 and gave the parliamentary majority to the Popular Party will probably open up a period of increased austerity measures. According to national sources, a set of

measures has already been taken, with significant consequences on the resources available for environmental protection, including:

– Freezes on employment, and even cuts in staff;

– Freezes on research programmes: at the end of January 2012 for instance, the government announced the temporary closing of the feed-in tariffs program of renewable energies (wind, photovoltaic and solar energies).

– Moreover, national sources indicate that institutional restriction on environmental issues is also

perceptible: public entities such as the State Secretary for Climate change or the Observatory for Sustainability in Spain (OSE), mentioned above, are threatened with disappearance.




10. The Swedish environmental protection agency (EPA): a decisive player within a highly developed framework


The Swedish Environmental protection agency, EPA, was created in 1967. It is the oldest agency among the panel of countries presented in this study.

This is not surprising based on Sweden’s forerunner position in all actions considering environmental issues

and on regulation on this field. For instance, in 1999, Sweden was the first European country to implement a unified code of environmental law.

At an international level, the agency is responsible for bilateral and multilateral cooperation with other countries, and for the implementation of European rules as well as national laws.



The agency is an independent authority acting on the basis of a government ordinance. The government directly appoints the general executive of the agency.

The agency has a fully cross-cutting organisation and highlights its main attributions. It is made up of four departments

– Operational support;

– Research and Assessment;

– Policy development;

– Policy implementation

and 4 offices:

– Internal audit,

– Strategic management,

– Communication strategies,

– Human resources.

The agency has offices in Stockholm, Ostersund and Kiruna.

The agency managed an operating budget of approximately €40 million in 2010, which does not include other amounts dedicated “interventions” in specific programmes, such as investment programmes.

It employed around 550 people in 2010.


Because the Swedish institutional framework about environmental issues is highly developed and specialised, the EPA only deals with certain aspects of environmental issues:

– Chemicals or energy issues are managed by other agencies:

− The EPA is not in charge of the REACH regulation, which falls under the responsibility of the Swedish Chemicals Agency;

− Energy issues are managed by the Swedish Energy Agency – STEM, which is part of the EnR network.

– In 2011, all issues concerning the marine environment were be moved out from the EPA to a new agency for Marine and Water management.


40

This can illustrate the will of the Swedish institutions to develop specific bodies, highly specialised in the various issues related to environmental matters.

Agency profile

As defined in few words, the role of the agency is to present proposals for environmental policy and legislation to the Swedish government and to ensure that decisions are implemented. This definition clearly underlines the agency’s “public assessment” profile.

Indeed, the agency is dedicated to providing expertise and guidance to central government to assist it in defining and following up on national environmental policies.

It has a very close relation with political levels, especially the Ministry of Environment, is very close; the agency is deeply integrated in the policy-making process and policy implementation is largely delegated to the agencies. It has a remit that integrates a large political dimension.

– First example: the agency is responsible for the relation between the Swedish government and the European Commission.

– Another example: the agency provided the secretariat for the national environmental objectives

Council, an executive although participatory body, until 2010 (which has been replaced in 2011 by a permanent parliamentary commission).

The “expert” and “resource centre” profiles of the agency are also expressed: it is in charge of funding some research programmes, and prepares the report of the state of the environment as well as the measures necessary for the evaluation of National environmental quality objectives.

It must be specified that the agency also has an operational remit, such as the ability to intervene in the protection of natural sites or the capacity of appearing in courts in licensing matters.



In all official Swedish statements, environmental issues are described as central and strategic for the country from an economic point of view. The following quotation from a publication of the Ministry of Environment clearly illustrates this position: “Environmental solutions will win new export markets for Swedish companies. We will give the market scope to deliver solutions. By allowing entrepreneurs to develop and people to contribute by their commitment and interest, solution for a better environment will emerge and Sweden can become the Green forerunner that it aspires to be”.

Two elements are to be pointed out from this statement:

– Sweden has long considered itself as a “green forerunner”;

– The Swedish economic strategy is based, among others, on the search for export markets of “green” or “sustainable” products and solutions.




This approach seems to underline that the crisis context has not put the “green” perspective into question, and that the integration of environmental objectives into the criteria of economic performance still persist.

Nevertheless, Sweden, like other European countries, is concerned by austerity measures. The 2011 roadmap to 2014 includes:

– An objective to reduce public expenditure for 2014;

– And cuts in public employment. At the moment only temporary jobs are concerned by these cuts.


Until 2010, the agency’s budget seemed to have pursued its “normal” trend in spite of the crisis context. It rose from €33.5 million in 2008 to €40 million in 2010.

However, it would be now interesting to follow up the evolution of EPA resources within the context of public expenditure reduction.

11. The two State agencies of Ukraine: the Environmental investment agency (SEIA) and the agency of energy efficiency and energy saving (SAEEES)


The State Environmental Investment Agency of Ukraine, SEIA, has been recently set up, and its by-laws were approved in 2007.

This recent creation makes quite difficult to accurately assess the agency’s activities. Moreover, the political

and institutional instability since the Orange Revolution in 2004 has made the study even harder.

Nevertheless the state of the environment in Ukraine described in the Ukraine-EU partnership document sets out several crucial environmental issues for the country:

– First, a wide issue of industrial pollution is underlined, with the consequences of industrial waste

management. The Chernobyl disaster is obviously one on the most famous and critical aspects of this issue;

– A significant water issue is also mentioned, related to problems of water quality, and requiring a cross-border management of such issues – in particular concerning the Danube River and the Black Sea.



The SEIA is a central executive body guided and coordinated by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR), under the governance of the Council of Ministers.

Regarding environmental policies, the perspective of a close partnership with the EU, implies that national legislation has to be adjusted to European requirements on environmental issues. EU funds and programmes are quite developed in Ukraine, within the framework of the Ukraine-EU strategic partnership.

The SEIA is supposed to be responsible for environmental cooperation with the EU and adjustment to the EU legal framework, but national sources mention that it is merely dealing with governmental decisions about environmental issues.


Nevertheless, the agency does not deal with energy matters, which are under the control of the Ukraine State

Agency for Energy Efficiency and Energy Saving (SAEEES) established in 2005. It is the main national regulatory institution for the energy sector, supporting the Ministry of Fuel and Energy.

For geopolitical and economic reasons, energy is the focal point of interest for national authorities among the field of environmental issues. As a result the SAEEES, in charge of energy matters, should gain more influence

than the SEIA. This may be perceptible in terms of human and financial resources comparatively attributed to them.


42

Agency profile

The SEIA monitors the enforcement of the official regulation on environmental issues and makes proposals to

the Ministry. “It is responsible for implementing Kyoto protocol mechanisms, and is in charge of establishing a green investment scheme”.

The agency is essentially a “public assessor”, and its task description goes on relatively far within the policy-making process on environmental issues:

– It participates in drafting the State budget and the Action program;

– It prepares proposals on project financing and develops investment policies in the environmental protection area. For instance, it manages the State budget funds for the development of new technologies;

– It takes part in the preparation of international agreements.

Following such attributions, the operational power of the agency seems to be quite significant, as it is explicitly

mentioned in the agency’s by-laws that its decisions are compulsory for execution by the central and local authorities as well as by private players.



The Ukrainian agenda on environmental matters and especially energy has undergone significant changes recently according to several events, as it is underlined in a 2006 governmental document about energy strategy:

– The global increase of energy process;

– The change in the Russian gas company Gazprom pricing to Ukraine;

– The economic and financial crisis.

From a wider approach, there is the consideration that Ukraine is under constraint of IMF recommendations after several financial arrangements with the fund, the latest being from 2010. In return, payments to the IMF have to be pursued until 2015, a situation that has necessarily significant impacts on public expenditure management’s objectives.

Nevertheless the Ukraine-EU partnership document clearly mentions: “the major challenge facing Ukraine is to strengthen administrative capacity at national, regional and local levels, including cooperation between the relevant authorities”.

Indeed, it seems that implementing and enforcing legislation on environment in the country remains difficult, for reasons of administrative capacity.

The current crisis context seems to make such insufficiencies even more critical: a trend of disenrollment of the State on environmental issues is currently denounced. Plans for closing the Ministry of Ecology and Natural

resources could illustrate it, as well as the little will to dedicate resources for environmental protection and fighting against violations of environmental legislation.





Austerity measures have affected Ukraine too, and include a reduction of public expenditure: an objective of a 30% cut in civil service jobs was announced in 2010.

Public resources dedicated to environmental policies are expected to suffer the same restrictions despite the information available do not allow a precise overview of the consequences of austerity in this sector.

As for energy for instance, national sources mention that the 2010-2015 spending programme has been reduced recently for more than a half, a trend that was already perceptible in 2011.

12. The environmental protection agency in the UK: the Environment Agency as a central player


The Environment Agency was created in 1995 and took over the responsibilities of several previous agencies: the National Rivers authority (NRA), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) and the Waste regulation such as the London waste regulation authority (LWRA).

The agency’s missions focused in the beginning on floods and coastal risk management, but it now covers all fields related to environmental issues.

One may note that the scope covered by the agency is only England and Wales. Scotland has its own entity, the Scottish environment protection agency, also established in 1995, and placed under supervision of the Scottish Parliament.

According to its operational missions, the agency has highly developed partnerships with different public and

private local players. The agency’s strategy plan underlines principles of a bottom-up, participative approach. Communities and local authorities as a whole are placed at the heart of its action.

Relations with European or international environmental bodies are not seen at priorities as it is clearly focused on operational actions at a national level.



The agency is a “non-departmental public body”. It is not part of central government but carries out missions under the supervision of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which appoints the agency’s chairman and Board members.

The agency’s organisation illustrates the size of the agency and its wide territorial implantation:

– Its head office is split between London and Bristol where it draws up the agency’s action plans, helped by several National services;

– The scope of intervention of the agency is then divided into seven regions, each of them organised in a Regional office;

– At a more micro-level, the agency has 21 area offices responsible for the day-to-day management of the area and for making sure that the needs of the local community are met.

As a result, the agency has extensive duties and responsibilities; its 2010 operational budget was more than €1 billion. It is funded as follows:

– Two-thirds of this budget comes from annual grants from the UK governmental Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Welsh Assembly;

– The remaining one-third is for Flood Defence and comes directly comes from taxation, in accordance

with the agency’s flood management mission (the funds previously came from the local Flood defence committees).

In 2010, the agency employed around 13,000 people in both national and local (regions and areas) offices.

In comparison with other agencies studied in the present work, one may note that the Environment Agency has a bigger budget and more employees than other European Environmental Agencies. Its responsibilities for flood management (see after) may explain this.


44


The agency is officially established to “bring together responsibilities for protecting and improving the

environment to contribute to sustainable development and identify the best options and solutions from an integrated approach”.

The main task of the agency is related to flood and coastal risk management. It is responsible for the operational activities of flood warnings. It is recognised as the lead authority and it coordinates the support provided by the police, fire services and local municipalities. Some of these tasks were previously carried out by water authorities. In terms of resources and geographical presence, this activity is significant throughout the agency’s organisation.

More than half the staff expenditure in 2010 was on water-related activities, including flood and coastal risk management, water resources, fishery and navigation.

It must be noted that the management of pension funds of former employees of water authorities also falls

under responsibility of the agency, and explains why members of the Board are also members of the Pensions Committee.

The EA does not deal with energy matters. Like the other countries, it also assumes shared responsibilities such as in the case of chemicals. For the REACH regulation, the agency is considered as one of the enforcing authorities, along with the Health and Safety executive (HSE), which is the competent authority, another governmental body.

Agency profile

The agency defines itself according to three different profiles:

– An operator acting locally, especially in the management of flood risks, according to the principles of a coordinated action with all stakeholders;

– A regulator setting the conditions economic players must comply with (permits, authorisations) and targeting activities that may threaten the environment;

– An advisor to policy-makers at a national as well as a local level.

From this description the “resource centre” from an operational point of view is clearly the main component. The agency is also described according to a “public assessment” profile. However, its integration into the policy-making environmental process is only secondary in regard to its main operational mission.



The Environment Agency’s activities in the following years have been explicitly altered under the impact of the crisis.

The agency’s documents and reports clearly refer to the national context of governmental spending review,

deployed over the next 4 years, with an objective of reducing public funding. Such measures started to be deployed in 2008, which represented the first round of austerity policies.




At a national scale, between 400,000 and 600,000 public jobs are to be cut from national and local public authorities in addition to the general recruitment freeze that has been announced.

As for the DEFRA funds, a 33% reduction is expected over the next four years.

The agency is directly affected by such objectives, including the effects of financial efficiency and staff reduction. It is specified that this effort will focus on cutting support services rather than front-line services.

– Indeed, support offices (finance, human resources, legal services, etc.) were reorganised in 2010 according to a national rather than local approach, and this led to a reduction of 168 jobs from the previous year.

– Nevertheless, national sources tend to underline that staff reductions also concern staff such as flood coastal risk management employees.

Second, a “business approach” is currently being built in order to increase financial efficiency within the

agency.


The agency’s 2010 annual report refers to a “significant change programme” in the agency’s financial

management undertaken in 2008, in order to increase efficiency. The economy generated by such programme is estimated at more than €2 million per year.

The program of reduced expenditure currently set up is clearly perceptible in the agency’s budget evolution, as one of the most affected within the panel studied: the operating budget of the agency, established at €1.4 billion in 2009, dropped to €1.1 billion in 2010.

This trend also affects staff expenditure, which has been reduced between 2009 and 2010. Staff reduction is estimated at 168 between 2009 and 2010 on support offices and this trend may persist in the following years.

This evolution is accompanied by pay restraint in the agency as well as in a large part of the public sector: civil servants earning over £21,000 have faced a pay freeze over the past two years, a constraint that should be maintained for 2012/2013.

Indeed, although the corporate plan to 2015 only mentions “a reduction in workforce numbers over the next four years”, without any quantitative information, national sources refer to a reduction of approximately 340 employees by 2015.


46

Bibliography

General documents

Environment Protection Agencies, EPA Network, 2011-10, 94p.

Network of Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies, Barriers to Good Environmental Regulation, 2007-01, 26p.

Network of Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies, Improving the Effectiveness of EU Environmental Regulation – A Future Vision, 2008-04, 20p.

Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Mainstreaming the environment and climate change in the post-2013 EU budget, 2011-08, 8p.

IEEP, The future of EU environmental policy: challenges and opportunities, 2012-01, 4P.

IEEP, Mobilising private investment for climate change action in the EU: The role of new financial instruments, 37p.

IEEP, Towards a 7th environment action programme: potential options and priorities, Policy paper for IEEP project on “Charting Europe’s environmental policy future”, 2011-12, 17p.

IEEP, Environment, climate change and the future EU multi-annual financial framework. Prospects, priorities and actions, Workshop report, 2011-03, 19p.

European Environmental Bureau, Future of EU Environmental Policy: Towards the 7th Environmental Action Programme, EEB 2010 Annual conference Report, 25p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. A cross-country analysis, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 74p.

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), Climate change, the new industrial policies and ways out of the crisis, 44p.

ETUC, Resolution on a Sustainable New Deal for Europe and towards Cancun, 20p.

Syndex, Initiatives involving social partners in Europe on climate change policies and employment, Integrated programme of the European social partners - Joint study, Summary report for the conference on 1-2 March 2011 in Brussels, 2011-02, 90p.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Industrial Relations in Europe – 2010, 2010-10, 232p.

EnR, Bulletin d’information du club EnR – Réseau européen des agences nationales de maîtrise de l’énergie, 2010-12 – 2011-06, 29p.

C. Alaux and R. Fouchet, Performance des politiques publiques environnementales en situation de crise économique : l’ère des paradoxes visibles, 31p.

National documents

Czech Republic

Czech Environmental Information Agency (CENIA) website

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic and CENIA, Statistical Environmental Yearbook of the Czech Republic 2009, 2009, 697p.

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic and CENIA, 2008 Report on the Environment of the Czech Republic, 58p.

Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic 2004-2010, 2004, 60p.


B i b l i o g r a p h y 47

France

Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie (ADEME) website

ADEME, Orientations stratégiques de l’ADEME et nouvelle organisation, 2010-01, 24p.

ADEME, Rapport d’activité et de performance 2010, 42p.

ADEME, Faits marquants 2010 et perspectives 2011, 11p.

Contrat d’objectifs 2009-2012 entre l’Etat et l’ADEME, 27p.

Premier Ministre, Mise en œuvre de la Stratégie nationale de développement durable 2010-2013, 1er rapport au Parlement, 2011-10, 140p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. France country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 34p.

Les Amis de la Terre, Rapport Annuel 2010, 12p.

Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, Projet de Loi de finances 2012, 43p.

Germany

Federal Environment Agency (UBA) website

UBA, What Matters 2011, Annual report, 94p.

Friends of Earth Germany, Compass Bearings for a Course Change, Summary of the study “Sustainable Germany in a Globalised World by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2009-06,

44p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. Germany country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 48p.

Greece

National Centre for the Environment and Sustainable Development (NCESD), The Greek NCESD’s Experience in Producing Strategic Environmental Information and Supporting the Policy-Making Process, 8p.

Ministry of Development, Energy outlook of Greece, 2009-02, 100p.

Ministry of Finance, The economic adjustment programme for Greece, 2011-05, 40p.

Working Party, Conclusions and Recommendation reviewed and approved on Environmental Performance, 2009-02, 10p.

Hungary

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. Hungary country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 34p.

Ministry for National Economy, Hungary’s Structural Reform Programme 2011-2014, Based on the political thesis of the Szell Kalman Plan, 2011-03, 35p.

Italy

ISPRA’s websites

ARPA’s websites

Ministerio dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare, Piano della performance 2011-2013, 2011-12, 452p.

Agenzia regionale per la protezione ambientale del Piemonte, Bilancio di previsione per l’esercizio finanzuiario 2012 e pluriennale 2012-2013-2014, 204p.


48

Agenzia regionale per la protezione dell’ambiente Ligure, Bilancio sociale 2010, 48p.

Agenzia regionale prevenzione e ambiente dell’Emilia-Romagna, Ricorse 2009 e Bilancio di previsione 2011-2013, 11p.

Poland

Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (GIOS), Report on the state of the Environment in Poland 2008, 2010, 122p.

Council of Ministers, The national environmental policy for 2099-2012 and its 2019 outlook, 2008, 47p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. Poland country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 46p.

Portugal

Agencia Portuguesa do Ambiente (APA)’s website

APA, Report on Portuguese Environmental Economic Instruments 2010, 2011-05, 105p.

Agencia para a Energia (ADENE), Annual report 2010, 2011-09, 112p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. Portugal country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 28p.

Spain

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Estrategia espanola de cambio climatico y energia limpia. Horizonte 2007-2012-2020, 2007, 56p.

Presupuestos generales del Estado 2011

Actualizacion del programa de estabilidad 2009-2013, 2010-02, 45p.

Sociedad publica de gestion ambiental IHOBE, Cuentas anuales e informe de gestion del ejercicio 2010 junto con el informe de auditoria, 2011-03, 57p.

Instituto para la Diversificacion y Ahorro de la Energia (IDEA), Memoria annual 2009, 45p.

UGT, Secretaria de Cambio Climatico y Medio Ambiente, Observaciones a los presupuestos del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Ruraly Marino para 2011, 3p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. Spain country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 32p

Sweden

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s website

EPA, Sweden’s environmental objectives, 2011-10, 12p.

Swedish Energy Agency, Energy in Sweden 2010, 144p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. Sweden country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 44p

United Kingdom

Environment Agency (EA)’s website

EA, “Creating a better place 2010-2015” – Our corporate strategy, 33p.

EA, Corporate Plan 2011-2015, 40p.

EA, Annual Report and Accounts 2010-2011, 86p.


B i b l i o g r a p h y 49

Friends of the Earth, “The Greenest Government Ever”: One year on, 2011-05, 53p.

European Environment Agency, BLOSSOM – Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods. United Kingdom country case study, EEA Technical report, 2011-05, 44p

Ukraine

Commission européenne, Instrument européen de voisinage et de partenariat Ukraine, Document de stratégie 2007-2013, 34p.

National Environmental Investment Agency of Ukraine, Statutes approved by the regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2007-06, 5p.

State Environmental Investment Agency of Ukraine, Investment Plan for the Clean Technology Fund, 2010-02, 61p


50

EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE UNIONS

45 rue Royale, Box 1

1000 Brussels

EPSU is the European Federation of Public Service Unions. It is the largest federation of the ETUC and comprises 8 million public service workers from over 275 trade unions; EPSU organises workers in the energy, water and waste sectors, health and social services and local and national administration, in all European

countries including in the EU’s Eastern Neighborhood. EPSU is the recognized regional organization of Public Services International (PSI).

For more information on EPSU and our work please go to:

www.epsu.org

www.epsu.org

http://www.epsu.org/

environmental protection agencies study - epsu€¦ · chapter two - environmental agencies and...

Documents