Discussion Papers 2010. No. 79.
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of
Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 79
Environmental Policy and
the Institutional System of
Environment Protection
in the Carpathian Basin
Editors
Balázs DURAY – István MEZEI – Imre NAGY – Attila PÁNOVICS
Series editor
Gábor LUX
Pécs
2010
Discussion Papers 2010. No. 79.
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of
Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin
Research supported by OTKA (National Scientific Research Fund),
No. T 049067 FT2
Authors
Csaba Belanka, research assistant, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Regional
Studies, Békéscsaba
Balázs Duray PhD, research fellow, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Regional
Studies, Békéscsaba
Tamás Hardi PhD, research fellow, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Regional
Studies, GyĘr
István Mezei PhD, senior research fellow, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for
Regional Studies, Budapest
Imre Nagy CSc, senior research fellow, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for
Regional Studies, Békéscsaba
Attila Pánovics, senior lecturer, Pécs University, Faculty of Law
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN 978 963 9899 28 5
© Balázs Duray, István Mezei, Imre Nagy, Attila Pánovics
© Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
2010 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó.
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs.
Discussion Papers 2010. No. 79.
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of
Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
2 Research area and methodology ................................................................................... 6
3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Institutional system............................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Ministries.................................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 The institutional system of environment protection ................................. 10
3.1.3 The institutional system of water management............................................ 16
3.1.4 The institutional system of nature protection ........................................... 19
3.2 Environmental policy and international relations ............................................... 23
3.2.1 Environmental conditions of EU accession .............................................. 24
3.2.2 International relations ............................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Common management of the environmental problems in the
Carpathian Basin ...................................................................................... 29
3.2.4 The role of Euroregions in environment protection.................................. 36
4 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 36
References........................................................................................................................ 38
Discussion Papers 2010. No. 79.
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of
Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin
List of figures
Figure 1 The research area.............................................................................................. 7
Figure 2 Operational areas of the environmental institutions (with administrative
tasks) in the research area............................................................................... 16
Figure 3 Relations system of the organs of environment protection ............................ 17
Figure 4 Trans-border water catchment areas.................................................................. 20
Figure 5 Cooperation of water management organs ..................................................... 21
Figure 6 Nature protection areas and the areas of competency of the directorates ....... 22
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
1 Introduction
The aim of the research is to define, through a complex survey of the environmental
policy and institutional system in the Carpathian Basin, the effects of the environ-
mental policies in effect and operating in the Carpathian Basin, and to compare and
typify the attempts aiming at the implementation of environmental policies. Another
goal of ours is to reveal how much membership in the European Union will homoge-
nise environmental policy and the institutional system of environment protection of
the respective states, and how environmental policy will be implemented in the
Carpathian Basin, an area of sates at different levels of development, and within the
macro-regions of the Carpathian Basin. A part of the issue is the comparison of the
authorities responsible for the regional organisational system of environment protec-
tion and a sectoral comparison: what the territorial organisational system of envi-
ronment protection looks like at the different administrative tiers and sectoral levels,
i.e. what spatial characteristics describe environment protection in the Carpathian
Basin and how the neighbour states of the Carpathian Basin cooperate for the solu-
tion of cross-border environmental problems.
A theoretical and practical significance of the research is that it may reveal the
relations system in both the horizontal (among the regions or among the countries)
and the vertical sense (sectoral systems: environment protection, nature protection
and water management).
The single (homogeneous) environmental (physical geographical) features of
the Carpathian Basin have been disintegrated into fragments by the economic policy
processes of different intensity, the Basin is now a mosaic of areas with different
levels of severity of environmental problems. There are significant differences in
the level of organisation of the institutional system of environment protection,
especially in its regional characteristics, although the regional features now bear the
marks of the environmental normatives of the EU.
The integration of environment protection into the economic processes is now
visible not only in new EU member states (Central Europe) but also in the envi-
ronmental policy of the states in the second (or third) round of enlargement, mak-
ing the different environmental policies of the Carpathian Basin comparable and
assessable. The documents prepared by the ministries of the neighbour states in the
Carpathian Basin (regional development and environment protection action pro-
grammes etc.) and the surveys carried out by OECD clearly demonstrate this.
The academic survey of cross-border relations and cross-border cooperation has
been a significant subject for regional research projects in Hungary since the begin-
ning of the EU-accession process, and now there is extended literature on this issue.
A similar effort started in the other Central-East European states in the 1990s.
Research projects with an environmental focus have become more intensive
since PHARE, SAPARD and ISPA support has become available, although they
5
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
are typically focused on specific border sections and are conducted as background
studies for development plans.
The findings of the research activity of four years would contribute significantly
to the implementation of a single environmental policy, as well as the management
and institutional system of environment and nature protection in the changing
European Union.
2 Research area and methodology
At the designation of the research area, two important criteria have to be met. On the
one hand, the Carpathian Basin is a homogeneous spatial unit from the physical geo-
graphical sense; on the other hand, the subject of the research ensured we had to deal
with a multiplicity of rather heterogeneous administrative units. The management
systems of environment protection are manifested in the activities of smaller spatial
units with complex functions. Accordingly, the spatial designation of the Carpathian
Basin, the subject of our survey, has to be done with a methodology satisfying both
criteria.
The first step in this methodology is the definition of the functional and spatial
structure of the institutional system of environment protection in the “basin coun-
tries” in the territory of the Carpathian Basin. “Basin countries” are Austria, Slove-
nia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary, inasmuch as at least a
part of their territory is also a part in the Carpathian Basin. By functionality we mean
those differentiated environmental tasks and competencies which are the responsibil-
ity of institutions defined by the environmental policy of the respective countries. For
example the protection of air and water is not the competency of one single institu-
tion in all cases; also, environment protection and nature protection belong to differ-
ent authorities in certain countries.
Among the eight states above, in addition to Hungary it is only Slovakia whose
whole territory is in the Carpathian Basin (Figure 1). This also makes it important
to determine the spatial structure, i.e. the area of competency of the institutional
system. The research area – at this level – only covers those subsystems whose
territory is also part of the Carpathian Basin. In most countries involved in our sur-
vey, the areas of activity (competency) of the institutional systems of environment
protection (regional directorates, authorities and agencies) typically coincide with the
borders of NUTS 3 areas (in Austria, Serbia, Romania and Croatia) or cover coun-
ties, županijas or districts (in Slovenia, Slovakia and Ukraine). In Hungary, after the
reform of the institutional system of environment protection, the environment and
nature protection, and the water management directorates formerly operating in the
areas of counties or water catchment areas now all have authorities within the
boundaries of water catchment areas.
6
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Figure 1
Source: Authors’ construction.
3 Results
3.1 Institutional system
The institutional system of environment protection in the respective countries –
similarly to other sectoral systems – is divided into hierarchical tiers. The highest
state administrative levels of this system are the ministries of the respective govern-
ments. The structure of the ministries responsible for actual environment protection
affairs indicates in the better case the functional differences of the state administra-
tion institutions at the lower levels of the hierarchy. In Hungary for example separate
authorities are responsible for environment protection, nature protection and water
management, and this system was also valid until 2005 down to the level of the
respective inspectorates (authority tasks in nature protection were done by the direc-
7
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
torates of national parks). Other ministries, e.g. in Slovenia where regional develop-
ment issues also belong to the ministry responsible for environment protection, fol-
low different structures.
In a first approach we can differentiate among three well separable functions
among the competencies of the environmental institutions: directorates operating
as service and economic organs; authorities supervising the lawfulness of the ac-
tivities, and organisations undertaking concrete research and development activi-
ties. In Hungary, authority functions are exercised (since 2005) by the Inspector-
ates for Environment, Nature and Water, while service and economic activities are
pursued by directorates of the same name as the inspectorates. The two functions
are similarly divided in Slovenia, Romania and Slovakia. In Hungary, the Water Re-
sources Research Centre (VITUKI) is a research company interested in environ-
mental and water management issues; in Romania, the National Institute for Re-
search and Development in Environment is responsible for similar tasks.
3.1.1 Ministries
In the member states neighbour to Hungary, a total of eight of them, environment,
nature protection and water management activities are the responsibilities of minis-
tries that can be categorised into three different types1:
Single complex ministry, in whose activity environment and nature protection
− and the protection of the quality of water belong to the competency of the
same ministry, each sector represented at state secretary level. Within this
type, however, we can see an organisational structure where one of the three
areas is only represented at lower levels (department or division).
In case of a divided type of ministry, the fields of environment and nature
− protection and the protection of the quality of water are represented jointly
with other areas (e.g. in Serbia and Slovenia), environment protection shares
the same institutions as spatial planning, regional development, agriculture and
forestry. The sectors in our survey usually appear within the framework of a
state secretariat (directorate, authority) – state secretariat for the environment
– or they belong to the competency of other ministries.
1 Ministry of the Environment And Water Management (Hungary); Ministry of the
Environment (Slovakia); Ministry of the Environment (Ukraine); Ministry of the
Environment (Romania); Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning; Voivodina
Autonomous Province Secretariat for Sustainable Development and the Environment
(Serbia); Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Constructions; Ministry of
Cultural Heritage; Ministry of Regional Development, Water Management and Forestry
(Croatia); Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (Slovenia); Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management (Austria)
8
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Group of ministries: this is the case if all three fields in our survey are dealt
− with by different ministries, like in Croatia where there is a Ministry of the
Environment, Spatial Planning and Constructions, but nature protection is or-
ganised in the frameworks of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, whereas the
protection of the quality of water is the responsibility of the Ministry of
Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management.
The organisational structure of the respective ministries is thus very heteroge-
neous even in those countries where the protection of the environment, nature and
water quality is managed together.
Because in the case of divided ministries a state secretariat for the environment
deals with all three institutional areas of our survey, the weight of some sectors is
probably not as great as in the case of a separate state secretariat level. This state-
ment, however, should be examined in the framework of further academic research.
In the case of separate ministries, the three institutional areas are organised into
separate state secretariats within the different ministries (there are variations at this
type too), which we believe gives a greater emphasis to the institutional aspects of
environment protection (although its division into several parts by no means con-
tributes to the complexity of the institutional system).
In Serbia the ministry (and thereby the institutional field in question) is also di-
vided regionally: besides the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning of
the Republic (of Serbia), the Voivodina Autonomous Province has, in accordance
with the Omnibus Act, its own separate Secretariat for Sustainable Development
and the Environment, with full competency in environment protection and nature
protection tasks in its region, in harmony with the environmental act of Serbia. In
this respect, however, the management of the protection of water quality is different
from the above model, as it is in the competency of the Ministry of Agriculture, For-
estry and Water Management that exercises its authority through its institutions dele-
gated to the voivodships.
The selected issue of energy efficiency within the field of environment protec-
tion and environmental management, and the related issue of the integration of the
use of alternative sources of energy into the national economies, together with the
issue of climate change affecting the field of environment protection in many re-
spects, and the institutionalised forms of the preparation for the climate change are
integrated into the organisational structure of all ministries.
Especially in those countries that have recently joined the European Union, EU
integration offices (divisions or departments) were created, and in most of the cases
these organisations manage the implementation of environmental issues still to be
harmonised, and the tendering activities for the environmental funds of the EU.
The EU integration offices created in the ministries of the countries in the pre-
accession phase are responsible for the continuity of the legal harmonisation and
the procedure of the absorption of the available financial instruments.
9
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Although it would be a slight exaggeration to consider the Ministry of the Envi-
ronment and Water Management of Hungary as a basis of comparison when ana-
lysing the ministries of the Carpathian Basin, still its organisational structure seems
to show the logically most consistent structural harmony. Also, the balance within
the organisational structure of the three institutional areas (state secretariat for
environmental management, for nature and environment preservation and for water
management) is more complete, as the logical unity of preservation, management
and development (or the prevention of damage) suggests complexity.
The (Carpathian) Basin-centred attitude, however, is either totally missing or it is
not efficient enough for the time being. Despite the fact that the participation in local
and EU supported tenders enjoys a growing publicity and activates a growing num-
ber of institutions and municipalities, the management of the cross-border environ-
mental issues and the bilateral and sectoral relations of the neighbour states have not
yet been built out and are not efficient enough, except the relations in the field of
water management.
3.1.2 The institutional system of environment protection
When assessing the institutional system of environment protection (and nature pro-
tection and water management) in the Carpathian Basin, we have to look at the
responsibilities (competencies) and also the operational areas (areas of effect) of the
special institutions of the “basin countries”. The chapters below are a summary of the
evaluation of the institutional systems of the three sectors.
In Hungary – in harmony with EU guidelines – the management and official
control of environment protection are institutionally separated. The former tasks are
provided by the Environmental, Nature and Water Directorates, while the latter is
the responsibility of the Inspectorates for Environment, Nature and Water. The
Inspectorates exercise in the first degree the environmental, nature protection, land-
scape protection and water management competencies specified by law. The
Inspectorate operates the laboratory necessary for the authority operation; it keeps
registrations specified in separate acts; it collects the data related to its activity and
makes them available for the National Environmental Information System; also, it
cooperates with other control and information systems. The Directorate contributes
to the preparation of the national and regional programmes for the purification and
safe deposition of municipal sewage, and to the research, training, education and
knowledge dissemination activity related to environment protection. The Directorate
is also responsible for keeping registrations specified by law.
The operational areas of the Inspectorates and Directorates are unique among
the examined countries. Their operational areas cover the administrative boundaries
of municipalities that belong to different water catchment areas, so they are opera-
10
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
tional areas of mixed character inasmuch as they do not follow either water catch-
ment area boundaries of the borders of NUTS units.
In Slovakia, in the field of environment protection, the Environment Protection
Inspectorate of Slovakia – as a budgetary organ, part of the ministry –, and the re-
gional (micro-regional and district) organ (Environmental Authority of Slovakia) of
the sectoral ministry (Ministry of the Environment) have responsibilities, the for-
mer has authority and the latter management tasks (Mezei, 2008). The inspectorate
is divided into central and regional inspectorate offices. As regards its competen-
cies, it is responsible for state control in issues of environment protection on the
basis of the decrees in effect; it levies fines in the case of environmental offences,
and is responsible for state administrative tasks and exercises the surveillance of
the state in the implementation of Environmental Fund supported actions at national
and regional level. The inspectorate issues decrees in its competency defined by
law and cooperates with other state administrative institutions and other public
actors and organisations for the protection of the environment. The Bratislava centre
of the Inspectorate provides a professional and methodological support for the dis-
trict inspectorates, organises national and international relations and acts as a forum
of appeal in connection with the decisions of the district authorities in the first de-
gree. The most important tasks of the regional inspectorates are to control legality in
environment protection, the levying of fines and the promotion of improvement
measures.
The tasks of the regional offices of the Environmental Authority of Slovakia are
environment protection related administrative activity and acting as an organ of ap-
peal in administrative procedures (the decision in the first degree is made by the dis-
trict office). They control and manage the activities of the district offices, are also
responsible for the protection of the quality and quantity of water, water manage-
ment, flood protection, tapwater supply and canalisation, the control of fishing
activities, nature and landscape protection, the protection of the wild fauna and flora
by the regulation of their trade, the protection of the atmosphere, ozone layer and
climate of the Earth, waste management, the prevention of serious industrial acci-
dents with environmental hazards and the assessment of environmental impact analy-
ses. The 79 regional environmental offices are the first degree authorities in envi-
ronmental administration. Their activities and competencies in their operational areas
are the same as those of the district offices in their areas. In addition, they are
responsible for support services for the municipalities. In environmental issues they
act a forum of appeal in all cases that are in the competency of the local/municipal
environmental organs in the first degree. The operational areas of the districts of the
Environment Protection Inspectorate of Slovakia (integrated and divided regions) are
similar to the units at NUTS 3 level. The operational areas of the Environmental
Authority of Slovakia are purely regional (NUTS 2 level), while the micro-regions or
districts are at the NUTS 4 level.
11
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
In Romania there is a decentralised management system of environment protec-
tion (Duray, 2008). Two institutions under state (ministry) control are responsible
for environment protection issues in Romania. One of them is the Environmental
Agency (EA) controlled by the Ministry of the Environment of Romania; the other
is the National Environmental Guard (NEG). The EA operates in an organisational
structure covering three regions and 16 counties in the Carpathian Basin. Since 2005
a central National Environmental Agency (NEA) and 7 Regional Environmental
Agencies (REA) have operated, the main task of the latter being the provision of
information flow between the county EAs and the NEA and the sectoral ministry at
the national level. The EAs are responsible for several measures and tasks related to
the environmental laws. Their main functions are to issue permissions for (listed)
activities with environmental impacts, the implementation of environmental impact
analyses, control of the quality of air and air pollution in their operational areas and
making periodical reports to the sectoral ministry. The local EAs make annual plans
for the actions to be implemented and make quarterly reports on their measures real-
ised; also, they are responsible for forcing the industrial plants, agricultural estab-
lishments, public works and other polluting activities to meet environmental stan-
dards. They play a considerable role in the application of the acts on the protection of
the quality of air, in the collection of waste management data of the municipalities
and they are also responsible for the supervision of the individual waste management
plans of the companies.
The NEA is a decentralised environmental institution also under the control of the
ministry. Its main activities include the supervision of the keeping of the legal regu-
lations of hunting, environment protection and forestry, and it also makes actions in
case of offences. Its regional competency is the same as that of the EAs, it has repre-
sentatives in all three regions and 16 counties. The main tasks of the representations
in the field of environment protection are the control of activities with environmental
impact, and taking legal actions against offenders in harmony with the environmental
act. The operational areas of the local and regional EA-as and the NEG are adjusted
to the NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 levels.
In Serbia it became possible in 2006 to establish the Voivodina Autonomous
Province Secretariat for Sustainable Development and the Environment, independent
of the Ministry of the Environment of Serbia but in close cooperation with that, with
adequate financial means. The basic activities of the Secretariat include the regular
monitoring of the environmental quality, the making of environmental programmes,
the control of the quality of the environment, making of analysing studies and the
creation of the inventory of sources of pollution. In Voivodina the environment and
nature protection inspectorates are in the direct competency of the Secretariat. The
operational area in the Voivodina region is more or less adjusted to the NUTS 3 lev-
els (by the integration of two levels in two cases).
12
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
As regards the Croatian areas in the Carpathian Basin, the environmental au-
thority and directorate tasks are undertaken by the inspectorates located at the level
of the županijas. This is realised through two institutions: on the one hand, the
county (županija) level inspectorates belonging to the chief inspectorate of the en-
vironment – the regional organ of the Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Plan-
ning and Construction – is responsible for the control of the keeping of the decrees
on air quality management, waste management, sea water and sea coast protection,
and also of the international agreements on the protection of the environment and
for making sure that all activities are in accordance with the procedures of the in-
spectorates. The inspectorate carries out the analysis of detrimental effects on the
environment, and coordinates the controlling and professional issues related to
taking measures concerning the environmental impact analyses and intervention
plans. Its field of competence also involves the issue of permissions for and the
control of the use of waste deposits, the transport of hazardous waste and green-
house gas emissions. The authority prepares draft acts, regulations and plans and
makes sure that they are kept. It prepares information to be communicated to the
public, replies to the questions by representatives and organises the information of
the public.
The other level of the institutional system of environment protection in Croatia
is the Environmental Authority of the County Self-Government, organised – as an
organ of administrative tasks – on the basis of the Environmental Act and the Act
on Local Governments. The Authority, in addition to the environmental activities,
can be responsible for other activities such as communal management, spatial plan-
ning etc. The environmental departments made within the županijas can integrate
other departments and activities connected to environment protection activities. The
operational areas of the two institutions are the level of the županijas (NUTS 3).
In Austria, at the national level (and competency) the Federal Environmental Of-
fice (FEO) is the authority of environment protection, responsible for environ-
mental supervision and the preparation of environmental control reports covering
the whole territory of the country. At the level of provinces, the responsible organs
are the Provincial Assembly, the Provincial Government and the Provincial Office.
The provincial administration consists of nine divisions. Of these, Division 5 deals
with nature and environment protection. Division 5 is further divided into depart-
ments and sub-departments. In Burgenland, a provincial environmental agency was
created for the protection of the environment, led by the environmental delegate of
the province. The act on the Environmental Agency of Burgenland (EAB) gives the
following rights to the environmental agent: cooperation in certain administrative
procedures, right of initiative for legal remedies, access to and forwarding of docu-
ments, access to private sites and establishments. The EAB makes professional
statements about the recommended legal regulations of the province, if they have an
environmental impact. In every second calendar year its prepares a public report and
13
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
submits it to the provincial assembly. The inhabitants of Burgenland can turn in
environmental issues to the Environmental Agency for professional advice. In
Burgenland there are 7 district offices. Their structure is not homogeneous; in some
cases the protection of the environment and nature is done by a separate office de-
partment, in other cases jointly with other issues such as healthcare or veterinary
sanitation. The district offices are authorised to issue different permissions, control
the keeping of rules etc. The environmental municipal council has to assist the ad-
ministration of the mayor in local environmental affairs. It has to continuously
inform the mayor on the municipal requirements of local environment protection and
make suitable recommendations for him/her. The municipal environmental council-
lor and the municipal environmental council are responsible for keeping the rules of
environment protection, reporting on the topical issues of environment protection, the
implementation of adequate measures and tasks related to publicity.
The Ministry of the Environment of Ukraine established the Environmental
Inspectorates (EI) to control the keeping of environmental regulations. The joint
task of the state Environmental Inspectorate and the other organs subordinate to the
ministry is the control of environmentally harmful activities at national and regional
level. Further tasks of the EI include the prevention of environmental emergencies
and disasters and the provision of information for the ministry. The EI pays special
attention to the prevention of offences against environmental regulations, interest
representation activities, the promotion of environmental consciousness of businesses
and inhabitants. The EI as an authority in the first degree can exercise supervisory
activities and levy fines. In Transcarpathia, in environment protection it is the county
self-governments that have administrative authority. The operational areas of both
organs coincide with the NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 categories.
In Slovenia the environmental authority functions are exercised by the Environ-
mental Agency (EA) and the ministry. The EA is also a directorate that does profes-
sional, analytical, regulatory and administrative tasks related to environment pro-
tection. The Agency deals with nature protection and the protection of the quality of
water in an integrated way. It collects fees and levies fines. Unlike in other “basin
countries”, it is a single-centred authority, with operational area and competency
covering the whole of the country.
On the whole, we can say that the ministries in each of the countries in our sur-
vey have set up the institutional frameworks endowed with authority and directorate
responsibilities. We can also see, on the other hand, that these organs are rather het-
erogeneous as regards their operational areas; we can see types following the
boundaries of water catchment areas and others following the administrative borders
of NUTS units, in the development of which the competencies played a role too –
like in Hungary where the competencies of environment protection, nature protection
and water management are concentrated in one single authority.
14
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
The most hierarchically constructed and also the most fragmented type can be
found in Austria, where responsible organs can be found at all territorial tiers. Di-
rectorate tasks are located at the municipal and district levels, while provincial and
federal levels are assigned authority competencies. The breakdown of the institu-
tional system of environment protection in Transcarpathia, Croatia and partly in the
Voivodina region of Serbia resembles each other the most, where both directorate
and authority tasks are located at the county level, through the county self-gov-
ernments, on one hand, and the inspectorates with control functions, also located at
the county level, on the other hand. The Slovakian type of the management system
of environmental protection is different from the solutions of the other countries in
the spatial competency of the inspectorate with authority tasks. The state administra-
tive control organ hierarchically following the administrative breakdown of Slovakia
has quasi-regional competency.
The administrative tasks of environment protection – with some transitions –
are done by one responsible organ in each country. In the research area there are
thus a total of 147 spatial units belonging to the authorities of 8 countries (Figure
2). The spatial heterogeneity is indicated by the fact that out of all these, 79 are
Slovakian organs, due to that system’s extreme fragmentation on the territorial level
(it is true, on the other hand, that these district organs operate under 45 regional units,
which makes the system seem slightly less fragmented2). In four countries (Ukraine,
Romania, Serbia and Croatia) the county, or županija or municipal level is the low-
est territorial unit (in the Voivodina region four županijas were integrated into two
units). It is only the boundaries of the operational areas of the Hungarian Inspector-
ates for Environment, Nature and Water that represent a hybrid type (based on both
water catchment areas and municipalities), the other countries usually follows the
NUTS 3, in some cases NUTS 2 division.
Looking at the cooperation possibilities of these organs in the Carpathian Basin,
a total of 37 institutions are adjacent to the organs along the borders of Hungary.
This is more than a third (36%) of all institutions in almost half (45%) of the terri-
tory of the Carpathian Basin. If we add to this the inter-state and cross-border rela-
tions of the respective countries, we can see that more than half (63%) of these
organs cover with their operational areas a total of 66% of the Carpathian Basin
(Figure 3). We can state then that the single environment management of the
Carpathian Basin depends to a large extent on the cooperations of these institutions.
2 The analysis of the institutional system was done in accordance with the regional levels.
15
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
3.1.3 The institutional system of water management
The administration and the authority tasks of water management in Hungary –
similarly to the tasks of environment protection – belong to the competency of two
organs. Administrative tasks are done by the Environmental, Nature and Water
Directorates (ENWD), with the cooperation of the Inspectorates for Environment,
Nature and Water (IENW) as authorities in the first degree. The Directorate coordi-
nates the preparation of water management concepts and plans concerning its opera-
tional area, or contributes to their making. It is responsible for the harmonisation of
the development and operation of the public – national and municipal – and own
water establishments. It participates in the research, education, training and knowl-
edge dissemination activities related to water management. It keeps registers as
required by law. The Inspectorate contributes to the implementation of international
tasks, in case of 3rd level flood protection (i.e. the highest level of hazard) to the
Figure 2
ȋ Ȍ
Source: Authors’ construction.
16
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Figure 3
Source: Authors’ construction
protection against flood and topsoil water, as well as water quality damage
prevention defined in separate acts. Their operational areas are the same, more or
less following water catchment area boundaries (see environment protection).
In Slovakia the Hydrological and Meteorological Institute of Slovakia (SHMÚ)
is responsible for the assessment of the quantity and quality of the water assets, on
the basis of data available. In its field of competency following the boundaries of
water catchment areas it contributes to the making of water management planning
documents, the control of the quality of surface and subsoil waters and the moni-
toring of water consumption. They cooperate with the water management organi-
sations of the countries along the border.
In Romania the “Romanian Waters” National Directorate (RWNI) operates in
the form of Public Limited Company, with 100% ownership of the state (Ministry of
the Environment). The company does the administration of its affiliates in the 11
water catchment areas and the local offices. The company is responsible for ad-
ministrative tasks in the water catchment areas, flood prevention and the preparation
17
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
of plans against drought, makes agreements with the holders of permissions issued
by the Agencies – i.e. with the users of water – makes sure that the agreements are
kept; supervises the permissions and collects fines. In addition to these tasks, it
operates a hydrology and water quality information monitoring network, handles
water management works and takes care of the operation of water management
establishments, reservoirs and canals. The local authorities are responsible for tap
water supply and the treatment of sewage, and the Environmental Agencies are also
interested in waste management issues. Besides these organisations, the Ministry of
Health and Family Affairs has competencies in the control of the quality of drinking
water, while the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Transport and Constructions
are competent in water transport and related activities.
In Serbia – including the Autonomous Area of Voivodina – regional water
management tasks are the responsibility of the “Vode Vojvodine” Water Man-
agement Company. The basic activity of the company is the utilisation of water
(supply of the inhabitants with water, irrigation and waters for industry technolo-
gies, provision of water transport, fishing, holidays and tourism), but its activities
also include flood prevention, the discovery of the sources of pollution, the equip-
ment of sewage treatment plants, the prevention of topsoil water and ice damage,
topsoil water drainage and measures against the slowing down of the stream of the
rivers caused by the “Iron Gate” hydroelectric plant. This is all relevant for the sur-
face and subsoil waters alike, including the provision of drinking water and the
utilisation of thermal and mineral waters. Tasks are realised through the Chief Direc-
torate of water quality protection within the frameworks of the Ministry of Agri-
culture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFW). The water management super-
vision in Voivodina is provided by the water management inspectorate. On the
other hand, the Secretary of agriculture, water management and forestry of
Voivodina has no tasks related to the quality of water.
In Croatia, water management and supervision is the responsibly of the water
management public company called “Waters of Croatia”. The most important tasks
of the company are protection against the damages of water, the control of the use
of water and the protection of water quality.
The water management, water protection and control tasks in Austria (or Bur-
genland) are done in a system the same as that of the administrative system of
environment protection, i.e. the authority tasks are done at federal and provincial
level, while the district and local level is responsible for administrative functions.
We have very little data on the water management in Transcarpathia, Ukraine.
Nevertheless, we can say that system of directorates and authorities concerning the
water quality and water management issues of Transcarpathia is managed in the
Transcarpathian region under the supervision of the ministry, through its county
level representatives.
18
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
In Slovenia, the Environmental Agency operating under the ministry is respon-
sible for the tasks of water management and water quality protection. It participates
in administrative procedures, handles water infrastructure establishments and
equipment, and furthermore it deals with flood prevention and the legal regulation
of water management (MEPP, 1988).
On the whole, water management policy and its implementation in the frame-
work of the institutional systems are done in each country in a spatial structure fol-
lowing the boundaries of water catchment areas. As regards the research area,
Transcarpathia, Voivodina, the Mura Region and Burgenland can be taken as sin-
gle water management units, while we can differentiate four areas of competency
adapted to water catchment areas in Slovakia, five in Romania, twenty (!) in Croatia
and 12 in Hungary. The administrative system of water management of the research
area is relatively homogeneous. With the exception of Burgenland and Voivodina,
all regions have water management directorates established on the water catchment
area principle. A total of eight authorities with 41 organisational units carry out the
administration of water management in the Carpathian Basin. In harmony with the
Water Framework Directive (WAFDIP, 2005), in case of international water
catchment areas the countries concerned have to find joint solutions for the coordi-
nation of water management issues. For the national and international water catch-
ment area units, one single catchment area management plan has to be made, besides
the member states with area in the international water catchment area have to do their
best to cooperate with the non-member states in the making of the joint water catch-
ment area management plans. Almost three-quarters (73%) of the territory of the
Carpathian Basin is made by territories in trans-border water catchment areas
(Figure 4).
In light of this, we looked at the relations system of the state institutions respon-
sible for water management in the Carpathian Basin, on the basis of water catch-
ment areas. We found that only four Croatian water management affiliates have no
relation to the neighbour country through a joint water catchment area, there are four
Hungarian organs, one in Slovakia and one in Romania that have bilateral relations to
each other, all other water management institutions have to cooperate with at least
two organs of similar functions in other countries (Figure 5). The analysis of this
relations system definitely underlines the necessity of the cooperation of the coun-
tries in the Carpathian Basin in water management issues.
3.1.4 The institutional system of nature protection
Among the institutional systems of the surveyed “basin countries”, the national level
management and organisation of the nature protection tasks is the most
heterogeneous in character. It is only Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary where we can
talk about an institutional system of nature protection covering with their area of
19
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
competency the total territory of the respective countries (Figure 6). In Slovakia
there are 11 organs, in Slovenia 7 and in Hungary 10 that are responsible for the
administrative tasks of nature protection (Nature Protection Authority of Slovakia;
Nature Protection Institute of Slovenia; Hungarian National Park Directorate). The
national park directorates only carry out non-state authority activities and the related
property management and maintenance tasks (accordingly they are still responsible
for the regional tasks of nature and landscape protection, they prepare the protected
status award of areas and landscapes worth protecting and preserve the protected
natural areas and protected natural values). The institutes in Slovakia and Slovenia
are authorised to issue permissions, do control activities, collect data and make
analyses on the state of the environment. They supervise the interventions into the
operation of the environment, they are responsible for the maintenance of the
ecological stability and the protection of the biological diversity. In accordance with
the European regulations they stop the trade of protected species.
Figure 4
Ǧ
Source: Authors’ construction.
20
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Figure 5
Source: Authors’ construction.
In the other surveyed states, the organisational structure is more diverse. The
management of the nature protection areas of Romania is the responsibility of the
Ministry of the Environment of Romania. In addition, the ministry has contractual
relations to most national parks and nature parks. The national parks and protected
areas are subordinate to the Forestry Authority (ROMSILVA), which is a source of
conflicts of interests as forestry is an economic activity that is partly pursued in
protected areas. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve is under the direct control of
the Ministry. Protected areas that do not belong to the areas of competency of na-
tional parks and nature parks are handled by natural persons, non-governmental
organisations and foundations. The infrastructure of no more than four national
parks are provided with substantial financial support and only three protected areas
have physical plans approved by the Ministry of the Environment. In Serbia and
Croatia the activities of the competent ministries involve the regulation of the pres-
ervation of protected natural values, the public utility companies managing the pro-
tected areas, biodiversity and landscape diversity, the organisation and control of the
21
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Figure 6
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories: CATEGORY Ia – Strict Nature Reserve: protected
area managed mainly for science; CATEGORY Ib – Wilderness Area: protected area managed
mainly for wilderness protection; CATEGORY II – National Park: protected area managed
mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation; CATEGORY III – Natural Monument: protected
area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features; CATEGORY IV – Habi-
tat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through manage-
ment intervention; CATEGORY V – Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed
mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation; CATEGORY VI – Managed Re-
source Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosys-
tems.
Source: Authors’ construction.
22
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
nature protection inspectorates and the maintenance and operation of the ecological
networks.
Of all institutional systems in our survey, that of the administration of nature
protection is the most heterogeneous. With the exception of the three countries
mentioned (Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia), not one state has created an institu-
tional system covering the total territory of their country. Also taking the hetero-
geneity of the nature protection categories into consideration, in the single nature
protection administration of the Carpathian Basin this seems to be the most prob-
lematic area that requires further researches.
3.2 Environmental policy and international relations
The countries of the Carpathian Basin – with the exception of Austria – consist of
four new EU member states (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) and three
accession countries (Croatia, Serbia and Ukraine). This makes it necessary to look at
certain framework conditions of the accession process, as this was the basis of the
shaping environmental policy of the by now uniform post-socialist “basin countries”.
It is inescapable, on the other hand, to examine the cooperations among the “basin
countries” themselves in the protection of environmental resources and natural values
(REC-CEE, 1996). The quality of the environment of certain areas has significance
beyond the administrative and state borders; in many cases some objectives (road
network, quality of air and water etc.) can only be realised by cooperation and
effective collaboration. The socio-economic and political possesses of the different
administrative systems, and accordingly the diverse conditions of the environments,
have an effect on each other.
The highest level of cooperation is the international agreements among several
states. The national development plans are basically determined by these coopera-
tions.
At around the turn of the millennium, parallel to the obligation to meet the EU
directives, the (environmental) cooperations of the member states among each other
were deepened, and this process was manifested in the birth of different inter-state
agreements, with concrete ideas about the priorities aiming at the improvement of
the state of the environment in the respective states. Hungary made such
agreements with all the respective states, except for Serbia and Montenegro, and
Slovenia.
The next level of cooperation is relationships through Euroregions and the im-
plementation of their development objectives of macro-regional view. This process
unfurled in the EU-supported bottom-up (cross-border or interregional) cooperations.
At lower horizontal levels of cooperation, we can see institutional collaborations that
can be both cooperations within the same nation state and also inter- or multinational
23
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
institutional cooperations. Examples for this are the targeted cooperations of
environmental inspectorates, directorates, municipalities or non-governmental
organisations, and the integrated realisation of such cooperations at higher levels,
among other things the level of Euroregions.
Of course not one of the cooperations can be examined in themselves. It is be-
coming more and more obvious that the border counties and municipalities must
inevitably integrate in their development ideas the cooperation possibilities with the
neighbour states (all regions of Hungary are adjacent to a neighbour state). No flood
prevention development is possible, for example, without the examination of all
reaches of the respective river, and in the Carpathian Basin this necessitates the
cooperation of several countries. This means that it is not only institutional coop-
eration (of environmental directorates and research and development firms) that is
necessary but also the harmonisation of the planning processes at different levels.
In case of non-harmonised developments, several problems can arise: an ex-
ample for this was the construction of a hydroelectric plant on the Drava River,
initiated by Croatia, which would have been implemented to the detriment of
Hungarian environmental efforts.
3.2.1 Environmental conditions of EU accession
In 1998, the European Commission outlined the environmental strategy of the acces-
sion. This contained those preliminary conditions by the meeting of which the Cen-
tral and East European countries could become members of the EU.
The aim was to prove the preparedness of the respective countries for accession.
The primary objective is to assist the accession countries to adjust their national pro-
grammes to European laws. In order to achieve this, the European Commission
worked out its strategy called Agenda 2000. With the use of this, the accession
countries had to define their national strategies and had to start the implementation
of the objectives in these strategies already before accession. The strategies had to
include the main action fields, the topics that would be implemented by the time of
the EU accession and those that could only be realised later. This meant a planned
process and the necessity of making a schedule.
The Commission also helped the respective accession countries to work out their
own programmes for the adaptation of European laws: it defined those areas – such
as air pollution, water pollution, and waste management – the detailed analysis of
which is a good indication of the situation in the given country. When defining the
above fields, the starting point of the Commission was that it felt probable that the
most serious problems in the accession countries were connected to these fields. The
situation was exacerbated by the fact that while the accession countries had to estab-
lish the protection of the environment with legal and organisational arrangements,
24
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
parallel to this they had to promote the development of the market economy. In order
to help to solve this problem, the Commission published in 1997 a guideline for the
promotion of the legal regulation of environment protection, in which the main cor-
nerstones were also defined.
In order to meet the environmental regulations, the accession countries had to
rely on their own resources as well. For this purpose, both the Community and the
respective member states provided support through bilateral relations. This was as-
sisted by the PHARE programme and other financial support for the protection of the
environment. Prior to the accession, after 2000, support serving environment protec-
tion was increased in the framework of ISPA, concentrating on the relationship
between nature and transport.
3.2.2 International relations
The cross-border effects of environment, nature and water quality protection mean an
extremely important task for environment protection in the Carpathian Basin. During
the implementation of these projects the small links of environmental cooperations
are created.
In 2000, on the initiative of the minister of the environment of Slovakia, the
ministers of the Visegrád Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia)
had a meeting. In 2003 they held two sessions. The ministers of the environment
mostly discussed the joint tasks to be done after the accession. They agreed on fur-
ther joint cooperation.
Within the framework of Hungarian–Slovakian relations, on 19 March 1995, the
two governments signed a basic treaty in Paris. A part of this document was the de-
velopment of relations in environment protection and nature protection. In order to
realise this, a considerable step forward was the signing of the agreement on the
cooperation in environment protection and nature protection in Bratislava on 12
February 1999. The agreement entered into force on 27 May 1999. For the coordi-
nation of the implementation of the agreement, the Hungarian–Slovak Joint Coop-
eration Committee of Environment- and Nature Protection was set up, whose first
meeting was held in Budapest on 31 May 1999. The work of the joint committee is
managed by co-presidents. In the joint committee and its task forces, in addition to
the ministries of the environment, other ministries interested in the activities are
represented from both sides. On the Hungarian side it is the Prime Minister’s Office,
the ministries of education, economy and transport, healthcare, social and family
affairs, the national public sanitation centre and the directorate general of disaster
prevention in the ministry of interior.
In the framework of the joint committee, nine task forces and a professional
consultancy forum operate.
25
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
An especially great level of activity can presently be seen between Hungary and
Serbia as a requirement of the development programme, for the integrated
protection and utilisation of the border zone. On the Serbian side, we have to
mention – due to its special endowments – the sandy area around Subotica in the
north Baka region, and two special natural reserves, the Puszta (“Waste Land”) of
Selevenj and the Ludaš Lake. These regions, in the water catchment area of the
Körös River, make an organic unit together with the neighbouring Hungarian areas.
Cooperation between the provincial institutions and the National Park of Kiskunság
in Hungary has been continuous for decades. The aim of this cooperation is the
protection of the natural values in an ecologically single area divided only by a
state border. The development and protection programme and joint actions and
management are also considerable in the careful use of the Tisza and Danube
River, including the preservation of the sensitive ecosystems of the steppe and
saline and sodic soils and the protection of the rare species such as the great
bustard (Otis tarda) and the Eurasian crane (Grus grus).
The cooperation between the Autonomous Province of Voivodina (APV) and
Romania in the field of environment protection came into force in March 2001 in
Szeged, within the framework of the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion
(with the participation of four counties from Hungary, four counties from Romania
and the APV) (Nagy, 2003). It is especially important to draw the attention to the
vulnerability of two water systems: the issues of the management of the Bega Canal
and the Bega-Timi. Long term cooperation, according to the agreement, will include
the regulation of the river system, following the example of the Zlatica pilot project.
The objective is the award of protected status to these areas (Vršac [Versec] hills
regional park and the Carpathians). Cooperation is also possible for the protection
of the wetlands around the mouth of the Nera River; this area would be a protected
Ramsaar area. In the border region of North Banat, there is a habitat of the great
bustard (Otis Tarda), so this region must be awarded a special natural reserve
status.
The objective of the cooperation of Serbia with the Republic of Croatia is to
come to an agreement in order to establish a joint system of environment protec-
tion, with special regard to the natural heritage and the richness of biodiversity. An
especially intensive cooperation is developing in the international Sava Committee;
this will make the backbone of the cooperations in the coming years, and will also
serve as the basis of the operation of the ICPDR (International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River) around the Danube River (Nagy, 2008).
The joint water management cooperation committee consisting of the delegates
of Hungary and Croatia deals with the water management and water quality
protection issues of the Danube, Drava and Mura Rivers. Besides this committee,
in the framework of the Croatian–Hungarian–Serbian trilateral agreement, the
26
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
issues of flood protection and ice drift along the two banks of the Danube River are
regulated.
In addition to this agreement, the convention on the sustainable use and the
protection of the Danube River, and the convention on the protection of the cross-
border rivers and international lakes also serve the cooperation with the neighbour
states in the fields of water management and water quality protection.
The countries in the water catchment area of the Sava River have signed a
framework treaty of cooperation, the objective of which is the creation of the
conditions for river navigation on the suitable reaches of the Sava and the promo-
tion to the birth of water management cooperation among Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia
and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The most important tasks coming from the framework
treaty are the preparation of the water management plan of the catchment area of the
Sava River, and the organisation of the tasks of flood protection and anti-disaster
measures.
Within the framework of the Hungary–Croatia Small Project Fund, the
hydrological, hydraulic, water quality and ecological parameters of the Drava River
are monitored, and monitoring stations are planned whose integration into the
existing system will allow the gathering of continuous information on the water
management and ecological conditions of the river, contributing on both the
Hungarian and the Croatian bank of the Drava River to effective environment and
nature protection as well as meeting the normatives of the European Union. The
cooperating partner of the South Transdanubian Environmental Inspectorate is the
Croatian Waters Water Management Company as the national water management
organisation of the respective areas of Croatia. This organisation actively
cooperated in both the definition of the content of the project and the making of the
study (designation of the location of the monitoring objects).
In the framework of the Neighbourhood Programme realised with the use of EU
assistance in 2004–2006 by the cooperation of Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia,
several cross-border environmental actions were implemented that made progress
in the protection of the environment and the water quality by the solution of
problems concerning the triple border region (Belanka – Nagy, 2007).
In the 2007–2013 planning period, in the framework of the IPA programme,
Croatia is eligible for support for participation aiming at the development of border
regions with both Serbia (West Baka, South Baka and Srem districts) and with
Hungary. These programmes have environmental priorities as well.
The legal foundations of the Hungarian–Romanian environment and nature
protection cooperation is the document called “Agreement of the Government of the
Republic of Hungary and the Government of Romania on cooperation in the field of
the protection of the environment”, which was signed in Bucharest on 26 May 1997
and came into effect on 14 December 2000. Since the 2003 establishment of the
Hungarian–Romanian Joint Committee of environment protection, managing the
27
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
implementation of the objectives set in the Agreement, a total of seven meetings have
been held – one every year – the last meeting took place in Budapest September
2009.
Three expert groups have been set up for the implementation of the tasks speci-
fied in the Agreement (for Nature Protection; Environment Protection; and Interna-
tional Projects and Programmes). The first two groups have been operating
continuously since 2004, while the third held its first formal meeting in Budapest in
March 2007. Beyond these organisations, for the examination of activities with a
potential environmental impact an ad hoc expert group was set up in 2005, with the
participation of the state secretaries responsible for environmental affairs within the
ministries.
Hungarian-Romanian cooperation in the issue of cross-border rivers has several
decades of experience. The first agreement was made in 1970. The new agreement
presently in effect, called “Agreement of the Government of the Republic of
Hungary and the Government of Romania on the cooperation to be carried out for the
protection and sustainable use of the cross-border rivers” was signed in Budapest on
15 September 2003, and came into effect on 17 May 2004. This new agreement is
compatible with the relevant international agreements and also in harmony with the
Water Framework Directive of the EU (2000/60 EC). The implementation of the
tasks defined in the agreement is coordinated by the Hungarian-Romanian Water
Management Committee, operating with the leadership of the delegates from the
governments of the two countries.
A framework for these versatile cooperations is provided by the joint meetings
of the governments of Hungary and Romania that have been held annually since
2005. On these meetings the decisions reinforcing the cooperation in environment
protection and water management are made among other things.
Ukrainian–Hungarian cooperation in environment protection mostly concerned
the solution of hydrological, ecological and landscape protection issues in the
reaches of the Tisza River in the triple border area and its floodland. In the
framework of Phare CBC, a number of bi- and trilateral environmental policy and
flood prevention developments have been supported, whose objectives were the
modernisation of protection against topsoil water, as well as sustainable water man-
agement and water tourism. Interreg IIIA funding was available for the preparation
of the development models of sustainable tourism, Hungarian-Ukrainian complex
flood prevention, water management and floodland revitalisation plans (water
catchment areas of the Borzsa and Bereg Rivers), for the removal of waste and
restoration of damages in the floodlands and flood plains along the Hungarian–
Ukrainian reaches of the Upper Tisza River. A joint Ukrainian–Hungarian strategy
has also been worked out for the sustainable management of the water assets in the
Szatmár-Bereg region.
28
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
3.2.3 Common management of the environmental problems
in the Carpathian Basin
In the spatial structure of the Carpathian Basin that is divided by state borders but
single in a physical geographical sense, the single cross-border management of envi-
ronmental problems is of special importance. The institutional and financial frame-
works most suitable for the creation of the single attitude, the joint conceptualisation,
planning, implementation and monitoring actions, the complex management of the
problems are the cross-border programmes realised with the co-financing of the
European Union – primarily due to the lack of national regulations and the missing
harmonisation of the institutional system. As the makers of the actual programmes
have always done their best to harmonise the content of the calls for tenders and the
actual needs and requirements of the tenderers (the success of this effort is well indi-
cated by the fact that the demand for support exceeds several times the amount of the
available support framework), the spatial structures of the actions eligible for support
within the programmes are not fully compatible with each other, because of the ex-
tremely heterogeneous development path and level of development of the respective
border sections, their altering spatial structures and different future challenges. How-
ever, even with such heterogeneous programme content, environment and nature
protection as well as flood protection have been announced as areas eligible for se-
lected support in all border regions.
In the beginning, after the accession of Austria to the European Union in 1995,
the Hungarian-Austrian border region was the first where the initial steps of coop-
eration could be learnt and experience concerning the implementation of cross-
border gained, through the Phare CBC programmes.
This border section has always been the flagship of cooperation, the implemen-
tation field of innovative developments of decisive importance in environment pro-
tection. The pioneer elements gradually spread in the border regions and were inte-
grated into the programmes of other border areas as well. The breakthrough was
brought by the year 2002, when a separate support fund was opened for the devel-
opment of cross-border environmental infrastructure networks.
A special support fund was available from 2002 for the development of the
cross-border environmental infrastructure network. The programmes of the previous
years also contained projects with large budgets (e.g. for the implementation of
regional waste deposits or biomass fuelled power stations), but its was the pro-
gramme of 2002 that first allowed in the framework of a separate fund the devel-
opment of resource management, technical infrastructure and the renewable energy
supply in the border region – primarily by the utilisation of the examples and know-
how from Austria. The total amount of support in the programme was € 6 million,
and among the 13 projects implemented there are large-scale developments such as
the expansion of the capacity of a regional sewage treatment plant, the implemen-
29
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
tation of wind and biomass fuelled power stations, canalisation and sewage treat-
ment network and the implementation of training programmes. In the same year a
separate fund was set up in the Hungarian–Slovakian relation for the support of local
initiatives in environment and nature protection, but with a much more limited
amount of support (€ 2.4 million) available.
The project owners, following the accession of Hungary to the European Union
could utilise their experiences, gathered in the Phare programmes, within the frame-
work of the Interreg Community Initiative (in Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and
above all in Austria). Both the Phare CBC and the Interreg programmes, coming
from their basic objectives, required and still require a change of attitude, a shift in
thinking and partnership cooperation of the project owners during the whole life
cycle of the projects. The joint actions gave a framework to formerly existing rela-
tions on the one hand, and they assisted the further development of project concepts
already financed by the CBC or the Small Project Fund on the other hand. Third,
there were brand new cooperations, when the partners got to know each other and
each other’s organisations during the planning phase, and they jointly formulated the
project logic chain. The relations of different length of traditions have cross-border
impacts of different quality, but in the evaluation of the projects not only those were
supported – fortunately enough – that were meant to further develop a previous rela-
tion; this way the opportunity was provided for the expansion of the range of institu-
tions and organisations that wished to join in the cooperation. The cross-border im-
pact of the implemented projects and the quality of the partnerships made are hard to
judge as yet, as we only found information on the actual relations networks in the
follow-up phase.
Looking at the programmes, we can make a general conclusion that the man-
agement of environmental, flood and natural problems classically ignoring state
borders was given a special emphasis during the implementation of the pro-
grammes – especially in the programmes realised in relation of Hungary and the
respective neighbour states. In the 2004–2006 period, for example, we could wit-
ness the following proportions in the breakdown of support distributed in the pro-
grammes with the participation of Hungary:
In the Hungary–Slovakia–Ukraine programme, of the 4.89 billion HUF avail-
− able (which is 25% of the total support framework), 31.5% of the support
amount was used for the financing of the cross-border coordination of envi-
ronmental policies and the connected small-scale investments, and 13.75%
for the financing of cross-border cooperation in environment protection.
In the Hungary–Romania–Serbia cross-border cooperation programme, where
− the total available support amounted to 9.71 billion HUF (making 41% of the
total support framework), 59.8% of the support amount was paid for the
financing of the handling of joint challenges in the fields of environment
protection and flood prevention.
30
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
For the Hungary-Slovenia-Croatia neighbourhood programme, there was 3.6
− billion HUF available (making 19% of the total of the support framework), of
which 29.96% was used for the financing of the sustainable use of envi-
ronmental resources and environment protection, and another 8.12% for the
financing of nature protection.
In the Hungary-Austria community initiative programme, of the 3.2 billion
− HUF available (which was 15% of the total of the support framework),
19.73% was paid for the financing of sustainable development and environ-
mental developments.
The above data reinforce the promising tendency for the future, i.e. that the
management of the interventions formerly done at the national level will more and
more shift to the interregional level, largely increasing the efficiency, problem
solving capacity and sustainability of the interventions. The legislators have
recognised the need for cooperation instead of ad hoc palliative treatments and the
re-emergence of “treated” problems. Of course, there are still many things to be
done in this field (too), but the transformation of the development policy in this
direction greatly contributes to the establishment of the joint coordination of long-
term problems and the setting up of joint institutional and financial frameworks.
Because of the altering endowments, each of the programmes has unique char-
acteristics, but common results and conclusions can also be found in their operation
in the past 10-15 years. Looking at the circle of applicants, we can see that the
cooperations among municipal governments and the regionally competent organs of
environment and water management directorates are of special importance in this
border region, in addition to the circle of those eligible for support, project
managers can be non-governmental organisations (associations and foundations),
the directorates of national parks, micro-regional associations, and higher education
institutions. When creating the partnerships, the legal status of the project owners is
of decisive importance. In practice, it is typical that institutions with experiences in
similar sectors, having a similar staff of experts and facing the same problems
make partnerships within the respective projects. Accordingly, municipalities
associate with municipalities, professional organisations with other professional
organisations, higher education institutions with higher education institutions, and
non-governmental organisations with non-governmental organisations in order to
realise the desired objectives. An exception from this rule was when the beneficiaries
associated within the same country. The Hungarian-Austrian relation was different in
this respect; here the legal status of the project owners was not so important when
selecting a cross-border partner. Accordingly, we can see partnerships between
municipalities and the local representatives of government organs; between a
chamber and a non-governmental organisation; between a directorate of environment
and water management and a municipality, or among economic companies (mainly
engineering firms).
31
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Among the applicants from Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia, municipalities have
an outstanding role, besides them – in line with the other programmes – it is business
development foundations, national park directorates, public and private non-for-
profit organisations, higher education institutions and environmental and water
management directorates that establish project relations.
The contents of the projects are rather heterogeneous, which can be traced back
to the variety of problems and endowments. In the Hungarian, Slovakian and
Ukrainian relations most projects aimed at the working out of impact analyses, de-
velopment plans, action plans, concepts, feasibility studies and environmental pro-
grammes in the fields of flood protection, renewable energies, the protection of
subsoil waters and water management. Other projects included the shooting of a
documentary film on the values and characteristics of the common physical geo-
graphical units; documentation of the construction of flood storage reservoirs; and a
series of publications and programmes featuring the natural values. However, the
number of cooperations with actual physical implementation is low, the reason for
which is the long time needed for the preparation of the investments of this type on
the one hand, and the limited availability of financial resources compared to the
amount of investment costs on the other hand. Constructions were implemented
along the Ipoly River: these were fish passes besides dams, wells for monitoring
subsoil water quality and an ecological technology theme park and educational
centre.
In the Hungarian, Romanian and Serbian relation, the partnerships created and
the projects implemented by the water management directorates played an
especially important role. Already in the framework of the Phare CBC programme,
a large-scale Körös Valley flood prevention development project was implemented,
and this was followed by an increased volume and number of joint actions imple-
mented in the field of water management and flood prevention. Eighty-two percent
of the cooperations concerned our research area, while 58% of the project owners
were from this area. The significance of this programme is indicated by the fact
that more than half of the support framework of the programme was used for this
purpose.
In the Croatian, Slovenian and Hungarian relation attitude formation, issuing
information leaflets and nature and environmental films, series of presentations and
organisation of education camps have an outstanding role. A large number of large-
scale investments were realised, including, in addition to health investments, the
extension of the drinking water supply also serving tourism and competitiveness
purposes, the construction of flood storage reservoirs, procurement of equipment for
the treatment of construction waste, regeneration of living habitats and regeneration
of wetlands. Coming from the budget and the local significance of the project, we
should also selectively mention the preparation of the construction of a local biomass
fuelled power station, whose planning documentation has been recently completed.
32
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
In this relation of these three countries, the Drava River was of special importance
for the whole programme, coming from the river’s natural, economic, transport and
tourism significance.
In the Hungarian, Austrian and Slovenian relation, it was mainly nature
protection, the use of renewable sources of energy and waste and sewage treatment
where joint developments were prepared or implemented.
Along those borders and among those member states of the Carpathian Basin
that are not members of the European Union yet, only a minimum level of coop-
eration can be seen at the moment in the field of environment protection and flood
prevention. On the one hand, they are eligible for limited resources in the co-fi-
nanced programmes for the implementation of joint developments; on the other
hand, there is still a tremendous amount of work to do in changing the attitudes and
consciousness concerning environment and nature protection. Of course the
situation is not homogeneous across the different border sections, but in all cases it
is far from the necessary and desirable level.
The intensity of institutional cooperation should be enhanced at the Ukrainian-
Romanian, the Romanian–Serbian and the Serbian–Croatian border. In the relation
of Serbia and Romania for example, the most significant impact was made by the
working out of the “Regional ecology action plan” covering the areas of the
historical Banat region, a project of not more than € 95.000 budget.
In general we can say that Hungary plays a kind of generating role for institu-
tional cooperations in the field of environment protection and flood prevention,
coming from its geographical features and historical traditions. The joint efforts
along the so-called “inner ring” are much more intensive and durable than the
tendencies experienced at the so-called “outer ring”.
On the outer ring, the number and quality of joint actions mainly depends on the
volume of resources available for the given programme, the traditions of cooperation,
of handling problems together, and the scale of the willingness to “break down” the
barriers that lasted for decades. It is not surprising then that a much broader range of
projects is implemented on the western edge of the Carpathian Basin, while moving
eastwards the intensity of relations is decreasing.
Austria and Slovenia – as the two most advanced states of the Basin – gave a
selected priority in their jointly implemented programmes to the joint management of
environmental challenges; accordingly the supported activities are quite varied in
nature. The project implemented included, among other things, attitude forming in
the framework of cooperation among national parks, calling attention to natural
values and to local tourism and agricultural products, the creation of local
opportunities of sustainable sylviculture by the provision of water sources, or the
assessment of the geothermal potential of the border region. In a physical
geographical sense the Carpathian Basin also reaches to the Mura Project
implemented by the Ministry of Spatial Development and Environment and the
33
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
Provincial Water Management Association in Slovenia. This project concerned large
areas of environment protection.
As regards the cooperating organisations, the respective projects included coop-
eration between provincial government offices and regional development agencies,
higher education institutions and research institutes, museum and nature protection
societies, directorates of national parks, and tourism associations.
The Austrian-Slovakian relations are also quite active, but as we will see, they are
not as diverse as the Austrian-Slovenian cooperation. Among the implemented
projects, we find for example actions aiming at the harmonisation of cooperations
between adjacent national parks on the two sides of the border, focusing on the de-
velopment of joint infrastructure and supply of programmes. Also, actions were
made for the working out of cross-border know-how for handling the shortage of and
imbalances in precipitation seriously impacting agricultural production, in the
cooperation of a background institution of the Austrian government and the Ministry
of Agriculture of Slovakia. In the collaboration of the City of Bratislava and the
Regional Management of Upper Austria, a series of action concentrating on the
sustainable cooperation of city relations (between Vienna and Bratislava) was im-
plemented, besides working out the feasibility study of a biosphere reserve. The
direction of cooperations is oriented to a large extent by the relations of the two
capital cities, their demand for and use of space and the Danube River as a dominant
element of the space from natural, transport, tourism and aesthetic aspects.
The amount available for the Ukrainian party in the Slovakian–Ukrainian
cooperation was curtailed by the decision made by the Kiev Delegation of the
European Commission in which they rejected the call for tenders for the second
round of the Hungarian–Ukrainian–Slovakian trilateral neighbourhood programme.
Accordingly, the Ukrainian organisations were not entitled to submit applications for
joint projects and they were only allowed to participate as (non-supported) partners
in the mirror and auxiliary projects submitted by Hungarian or Slovakian tenderers.
As a consequence of this decision, cooperations between the Slovakian and the
Ukrainian party were restricted to a few projects only, so this is the border section
after the Croatian–Serbian border area where the most serious deficiencies can be
seen in the field of joint problem management. Cooperations usually took place with
the “mediation” of some Hungarian partner. Among the environmental projects, the
most important were the plans and studies for the use and sustainable development of
the Tisza River as an ecological corridor, and the elaboration of joint steps and
actions for the prevention and management of floods. Furthermore, a joint feasibility
study for the complex management of biomass was made in the triple border area,
done in the collaboration of administrative units (county self-government), a
development agency and an educational non-governmental organisation. In the
framework of strengthening the cross-border initiative for the use of the renewable
energy gained from biomass, joint actions were made for the improvement of cross-
34
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
border nature and environment protection cooperations, and the reinforcement of the
sustainable cross-border management and regulation concerning renewable energies.
It is import to emphasise in general and to mention also in the framework of this
project that a great emphasis was laid by the partners on the increase of the
environment consciousness of the public opinion. The making of the study allowed
the creation of a basis of utmost importance for the implementation of new
investments in the region. Also in triple partnership, a river management concept for
the Slovak–Hungarian–Ukrainian border rivers was made, together with the
evaluation of the establishment and sustainability of a 4th class inland waterway and
the assessment ands harmonisation of the development needs of settlements along the
Tisza River. Also, a joint strategy was worked out for the Uzh, Latorica and Bug
rivers for the monitoring of water quality, the prevention of pollutions and the
decrease of their impacts.
As regards Ukrainian–Romanian cooperation, it is the Tisza River again that is
one of the most important elements in environmental cooperations. A two-year
complex large project gave the partners the first opportunity for the joint evaluation
of the environment health impacts of the Tisza River and the development
possibilities of flood protection. The aim of cooperation is to decrease the negative
environmental impacts of floods and human intervention. An attempt was made for
working out the long-term complex system of the utilisation of the river, creating the
Flood Information Centre in Tiachiv, carrying out a large number of examinations
for the assessment of the ecological state of the respective reach of the river and
serving the development of the flood protection infrastructure in several settlements
along the Tisza. The budget of the project was € 900,000; in the implementation,
regional and national level organisations took part from both sides.
In the future the partners in member states have the possibility, during the im-
plementation of the European Spatial Cooperation programmes started in 2007, to
establish and fund so-called European Territorial Cooperation Associations in
accordance with the decree No. 1082/2006/EC of the EU Parliament and Council.
The Association is taken as a legal entity, and has in each member state all the legal
rights that legal entities enjoy in the law of the respective member state. The
Associations can thus be suitable for the establishment of the organisational
frameworks of the former partnerships, the development and implementation of
projects with large budgets and activities pursued in common interests, and in the
long run for the harmonisation of the institutional system, the (partial) elimination of
the bottlenecks caused by the altering competencies and for the creation of common
organisational structures.
35
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
3.2.4 The role of Euroregions in environment protection
Along the borders of Hungary several Euroregions of initiatives of Euroregional
character have been founded in the recent years. Most of them were established after
the announcement of the Madrid Convention (European Outline Convention on
Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities) in 1997.
In the deed of foundation of all Euroregions, the wish to deal with environ-
mental and nature protection issues is mentioned. However, not one organisation
has either the competency or the working organisation for this. Their main task may
be the establishment of relations among the partners concerned. In the development
of the environment the cooperations of non-governmental organisations are
decisive.
Unfortunately we have to admit that the operation of these organisations is
contradictory. We can rarely see an adequate operation in accordance with the
objectives stated, a stopping short is more typical after the initial enthusiasm. The
first signature ceremonies and meetings were often not followed by any real work.
It is true on the other hand, that these organisations are too young to be judged;
what we can do is draw attention to the factors blocking their operation, which can
serve with morals for the further operation. First of all we have to make it clear that
cross-border cooperation is not an obligatory task of any municipality or other
regional organ. The participants usually do their activity without remuneration, i.e.
taking part in a committee of a Euroregion is not the same task as working in a
similar committee, e.g. a general assembly of a county (Hardi, 2006). The
dominant characteristic of the operation of the organisations is common
4 Recommendations
On the basis of the research findings the following main recommendations were
made:
as several academic events that deal with the environmental considerations of
− the Carpathian Basin are not more than presentations of a heap of studies
dealing with every and any issue, we recommend that those events should be
supported among the conferences on the Carpathian Basin (either from EU or
national resources) which are more focused, mainly those that rely on the
participation of environment protection experts groups from the “basin
countries”, i.e. events that have a “brain-storming” character;
because of the limits of the interventions at national level into the state of the
− environment of the Carpathian Basin, a physical geographical unit divided by
state boundaries, developments implemented in the homogeneous physical
36
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
geographical units should enjoy priority for a more efficient and uniform
environment development;
− the classification of the cross-border environmental strains and those affect-
ing the border regions, and of the nature protection areas based on coopera-
tion, joint investments and operation would greatly contribute to the defini-
tion of environmental and nature protection priorities and goals in the future
and to the as careful as possible selection of the joint development measures
realised in operational programmes.
37
Duray, Balázs - Mezei, István - Nagy, Imre - Pánovics, Attila :
Environmental Policy and the Institutional System of Environment Protection in the Carpathian Basin.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 79.
References
Belanka, Cs. – Nagy, I. 2007: A környezetvédelmi együttmĦködés Magyarország határrégióiban
különös tekintettel az Interreg IIIA Szomszédsági Program eredményeire [Environmental
cooperation in Hungary’s border regions, with a special emphasis on the outcomes of the Interreg
IIIA neighbourhood programme]. Gulyás, L. – Gál, J. (eds.): Európai Kihívások IV. Nemzetközi
tudományos konferencia. Szeged, Szegedi Tudományegyetem Mérnöki Kar Ökonómiai és
Vidékfejlesztési Intézet. pp. 21–26.
Duray, B. 2008: Románia környezetpolitikája [The environmental policy of Romania] Fodor, I. –
Suvák, A. (eds.): A fenntartható fejlĘdés és a megújuló természeti erĘforrások környezetvédelmi
összefüggései a Kárpát-medencében. Konferenciakötet. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások
Központja. pp. 339–348.
EU Accession Monitoring Program. Monitoring the EU accession process: judicial independence:
country reports, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Roma-
nia, Slovakia, Slovenia (2001). Central European University Press, Budapest–New York. 472 p.
Hardi, T. 2006: Euroregions in Hungary – GeoPolitica [Bucharest] 4. 20, pp. 71–84.
MEPP – Ministry of the Environment and Physical Planning (1998): Environmental accession strat-
egy of Slovenia for integration with the European Union: annex to the national programme for the
adoption of the European Union Acquis Communautaire – NPAA. Ljubljana.
Mezei, I. 2008: A környezetvédelem intézményrendszere Szlovákiában [The institutional system of
environmental protection in Slovakia]. Fodor, I. – Suvák, A. (eds.): A fenntartható fejlĘdés és a
megújuló természeti erĘforrások környezetvédelmi összefüggései a Kárpát-medencében. Konfe-
renciakötet. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja. pp. 331–338.
Nagy, I. 2003: DKMT Eurorégió szerepe a határ menti kapcsolatok fejlesztésében. [The role of
Euroregion in developing crossborder cooperation] Felkészülés a Strukturális Alapok fogadására.
Békéscsaba, Békés Megyei Humán Fejlesztési és Információs Központ. pp. 119–133.
Nagy, I. 2008: Horvátország környezetvédelmi intézményrendszere. [The institutional system of
environmental protection in Croatia] Fodor, I. – Suvák, A. (eds.): A fenntartható fejlĘdés és a
megújuló természeti erĘforrások környezetvédelmi összefüggései a Kárpát-medencében. Konfe-
renciakötet. MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, Pécs, pp. 325–330.
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe: Approximation of European Union
environmental legislation: case studies of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lat-
via, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia (1996). Budapest.
WAFDIP: Implementation of the new water framework directive on pilot basins Euro-
peAid/114902/D/SV/RO 2005.
Web-sites
http://www.sepa.sr.gov.yu/index.
http://www.enviro.gov.sk
http://www.apmar.ro/index.html
http://www.sazp.sk
http://www.apm-bihor.ro/
http://www.sizp.sk
http://www.apmcluj.ro/
http://www.sguds.sk
http://www.arpmnv6.ro
http://www.shmu.sk
http://www.arpmv5.ro/
http://www.muzeumbs.sk
http://www.grida.no/enrin/htmls/romania/soe
http://www.sopsr.sk
2000/eng/index.htm
http://www.ssj.sk
http://www.icim.ro/indexen.html
http://www.zoobojnice.sk
http://www.mappm.ro/
http://www.envirofond.sk
http://www.unep.net/
http://www.azo.hr
38