BZB no. 30 - With or without Union. Polish environmental NGOs'attitude towards European integration
Environmental protection policy appeared relatively late in the history of European integration. It was not mentioned as such in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, only two Articles of which might be considered as dealing with the problem of sustainable development. Article 2 treats about idea of "harmonious development" and "balanced expansion" (Johnson and Guy 1992), and Article 36 emphases the importance of "the protection of the health and life of humans, animals and plants" (Foster 1990, Piotrowska 1994). The EC lawmakers soon recognised the importance of proper protection of consumer rights. Therefore, the first community environment legislation addressed the problem of dangerous chemicals, motor vehicle and detergents (EC 1990).
The first Environmental Action Plan was adopted by the EC during the Community Heads of State and Government meeting in Paris in 1972. The EAP set up the principles and priorities in the field of environmental protection and was focused on elimination of discharges of toxins and pollution caused by creation of dangerous chemicals (Johnson and Guy 1992). The second Environmental Action Plan covered the years from 1977 till 1982 and brought a change in the approach to environmental problems, from remedial actions to preventive actions. The main achievement of the third EAP (1982-1987) was an attempt to elaborate an overall strategy of natural resources preservation in the EC. It also included land use planning in the broader concept of environmental protection and tried to incorporate environmental matters into the other EC policies (Foster 1990).
In the Single European Act from 1987, which added Articles 130R-130T to the Treaty of Rome, much more attention was given to the environmental policy of the European Community. The objectives of the environmental policy were as follows (Haigh 1990):
The Single European Act (SEA) referred also to the "Polluter pays principle" introduced in 1972 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and accepted the preventive approach (Haigh 1990). The adoption of environmental legislation should start, according to the SEA from proposals from the European Commission. The proposal should be evaluated by the EC Council and this body, after consultation with the European Parliament and Economic and Social Committee, shall decide what action should be taken (EC 1990). The fourth Environmental Action Plan was set up in the same year. It was focused on the interconnectedness of environmental and economic issues and effective implementation of environmental legislation (Piotrowska 1994).
The Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht in 1992, strengthened European environmental policy by stating that the promotion of sustainable and non-inflatory growth respecting the environment should be one of the basic tasks for the European Union. The Maastricht Treaty introduced also the "precautionary principle", which set up the rules of acting in a situation when the seriousness of a potential threat to the environment is uncertain. The Treaty on European Union also obliged the decision makers to integrate environmental protection into other EU policies. From then on the decisions concerning environmental issues had to be taken by a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and Member States were allowed to take tougher protection measures than those adopted on the EU level (Piotrowska 1994).
The Fifth Environmental Action Program "Towards Sustainability" covers the period from 1992 till 2000. According to this EAP, the Community's environmental policy should emphasis the use of market oriented tools for protection of the environment, improve the collection and exchange of information between producers and consumers and establish new institutions and funds addressing environmental needs. The Fifth Programme stressed also the importance of public participation in the decision making process and enhanced building a partnerships with shared responsibilities between government, business and the general public. Five key sectors were targeted in the programme because of their environmental impact i.e.: industry, tourism, transport, energy and agriculture (CM 1993, EC 1998).
More than 200 items of Union legislation on the environment have been adopted so far as the result of action programmes which the Council of Ministers has signed since 1973. Their legal basis are the Articles 100a, and 130r to 130t of the Treaty on European Union. The Union's current policies go beyond air and water quality to include the protection of soils, habitats and fauna and flora, and the conservation of wild birds. Key instruments of the Union's environment policy are, inter alia (EC 1998):
A number of directives have been approved dealing with the protection of surface and underground water, both fresh and salt. Quality standards have been set for bathing water, drinking water, freshwater suitable for fish life and water used for rearing shellfish. The Union is a participant in several conventions designed to reduce pollution in international waterways such as the river Rhine, the north Atlantic, the North Sea and the Mediterranean. Despite the adoption of a series of directives, further progress is being sought by the Commission to deal with pollution from large combustion plants, particularly power stations, and the emission of gases from motor vehicles. A proposed carbon/energy tax aimed at reducing CO output and increasing energy efficiency is still discussed by the Council. Concern about the depletion of the ozone layer led the Union to adopt a series of measures to phase out the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other substances thought to be responsible for this phenomenon. Directives have been adopted fixing maximum noise levels for cars, lorries, motorcycles, tractors, subsonic aircraft, lawnmowers and building-site machinery. The noise level of household equipment must be written on its packaging, and proposals are under consideration in relation to helicopters and rail vehicles (EC 1998).
After the Seveso accident in northern Italy in 1977 which had contaminated a large area with a highly toxic dioxin, measures have been taken to reduce the risks arising from the manufacture and disposal of chemical substances. Directives adopted regulate, among other things, the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, and the composition of detergents. Since 1986, there has been an European inventory of existing chemical substances which lists all chemical products on the market, enabling them to be subject to a general procedure for notification, evaluation and control. A Directive of June 1982 imposes on manufacturers in all Member States the obligation to inform the authorities about substances, plants and possible location of accidents. The EU produces more than 2 billion tonnes of waste every year and its collection, disposal, recycling and processing is regulated by a number of directives. Specific measures have also been taken to control transboundary shipments of wastes, as well as in individual areas, such as waste from the titanium oxide industry, waste oils, the dumping of waste at sea and radioactive waste.
The EU is a member of the 1979 Berne Convention on the Conservation of Wildlife, and has also recommended Member States to adhere to the 1950 Paris Convention on the Protection of Birds and the 1971 Ramsar Convention on wetlands. The Council of Ministers has adopted several directives on the conservation of wild birds and habitats, on banning the importation of products made from the skin of baby seals and on the control and restriction of scientific experiments on animals (EC 1998).
Environmental measures are generally adopted by a qualified majority of voters in the Council of Ministers but the Council has the right to require unanimity in the areas of tax policy, land use or energy supply. The European Commission proposes legislation (either in the form of regulations, which are binding and generally applicable by Member States, or of directives, which are binding on Member States but applied through national legislation). Directorate-General XI is responsible for the environment and monitors the implementation of directives (Piotrowska 1994).
To better address environmental issues the European Environment Agency (EEA) was established. The Agency is based in Copenhagen and has been operational since 1994. Its main goal is to "provide Union, Members States and third countries with reliable data for drawing up and implementing effective environmental protection policies; supplying technical, scientific and economic information required for laying down, preparing and implementing measures and laws related to environmental protection; developing forecasting techniques to enable appropriate and timely preventive measures to be taken and ensuring that European environmental data are incorporated into international environmental programmes" (EC 1998).
The European Environment Agency was also responsible for preparation of the Report on the State of the European Environment the main conclusion of which is that the European Union is "making progress towards reducing certain pressures on the environment" but "this is not enough to improve the general quality of the environment and represents even less progress towards sustainability. Without accelerated policies, pressures on the environment will remain exceeding human health standards and the often limited carrying capacity of the environment" (EC 1997c). According to the EEA the actions taken so far have not reached the aim of full integration of environmental issues into economic sectors and will not lead to sustainable development (EC 1997c).
The relation of environmental NGOs, either from the West or from the East, to European integration has always been ambivalent. Ecological movements are aware of the need of international co-operation on transboundary environmental problems. In order to properly address the environmental problems, which are international in nature, Europe needs supranational institutions such as the EU. The real question however is whether environmental protection and broader sustainable development are the real foundations of the ongoing European integration (Zagema, Kodde, and Oomen 1993).
The EU officials often highlight their commitment to "sound environment, freedom, security, justice, employment and high quality of life in Europe" (EC 1997a). Notwithstanding the "Agenda 2000" sets up goals for the EU for next few years, it is criticised for lack of concrete measures and detailed plan of action to reach these goals. It does pay attention to sustainable development, but as a sectoral issue, not as an overall strategy. It refers to "environmentally sustainable production and consumption patterns" and promotion of "incorporation of the latest technological evolutions into environmental policy" (EC 1997a). But it also states that the continued development of the Trans-European Networks (TENs) will enhance sustainable development, if accompanied with "a move towards sounder transport systems, drawing fully on new technology" (EC 1998). In the opinion of European Environmental Bureau (EEB) it shows that the Commission still does not understand that the increasing mobility, caused by the development of TENs, will reduce to a large extent the positive results of technological improvements and traffic policies. The EU's remark that integration of environmental considerations into all relevant Community policies is needed to respond to public demand for creating higher "quality of life" shows, according to the EEB, that the Union still does not understand that the its main objective should not be just improvement of the current situation, but prevention of decline due to global warming, reduction of biodiversity, deterioration of natural resources like soils and fish-stock, etc. Hontelez (Secretary-General of the EEB) states that the Commission lacks the sense of urgency that is needed to make difficult choices in favour of sustainable development (Hontelez 1998).
The Dutch Coalition for a Different Europe (DCDE) also claims that the current growth for the sake of growth causes increasing environmental destruction and leads to an enormous - and usually unnecessary increase in the transport demands. "Mainports and Trans-European Networks - concrete highways, highspeed trains and airports - spread all over Europe" (DCDE 1997a). The Coalition emphases that large corporations and the ministers of finance and economy most of all want more economic growth in Europe. But, according to the Coalition, this Europe produces more and more but creates less and less jobs. The care sector, education and the environment are underinvested and need more manpower. European opinion polls show that solving the problem of un-employment is the main concern of the citizens of the EU, where 18 million people can not find a work.
Because the Common Market plays a central role in the unification process, some ENGOs, such as international Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environment and Development, assert that the European Commission's regulation has been motivated by free trade rather than by effective environmental policy. Examples of this are the efforts of the European Commission to stop the Danish can-prohibition and the Dutch subsidy for cars with catalysers. Both efforts failed and such countries as the Netherlands and Denmark were allowed to have their own environmental measures. Nevertheless, protecting free trade results in less strict EU environmental regulations in comparison with the Scandinavian or North American ones (Zagema, Kodde, and Oomen 1993).
NGOs from the countries which are generally far ahead of the EU in their environmental policy, like Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands raise the problem that the policy makers have often used the EU as an argument against more rigorous national laws because they would have harmed the international competitiveness of national business. However, one can hardly neglect the fact that for some countries in the EU (particularly the Mediterranean countries and Ireland) the European directives were their first environmental laws in certain policy areas (Zagema, Kodde, and Oomen 1993). European directive, regulations and standards could also play a very important role in improving environmental protection laws in countries applying for membership to the EU.
For the Socialist Group in the European Parliament the priorities in the environmental policy include enhancing all State Members to respect the same principles, embodying the environmental policy in to other sector's policies regarding transport, agriculture, fisheries, energy and regional development, developing a sustainable industrial and waste management, setting international standards for environmental protection. They highlight that European environmental laws need to be better implemented and enforced, economic policy should be developed in a line with sustainable growth, "polluter pays" principle should apply to all economic activities, European biodiversity should be better protected, consumer's rights have to be better assured within the Single European Market, pollution control must be prioritised at all stages of the industrial process and environmental assessment needs to be made more effective (SGEP 1998). One of the conclusion of this statement is that according to the Socialist Group all these problems have not been yet satisfactory addressed by the EU.
The European Environmental Bureau shares this point of view. The European Union is not on the path towards sustainable development - stipulates Hontelez - "it is rather an the stage of discussing this issue" (Walczak 1998). He states that the NGOs are not pleased with the present environmental policy of the EU due to bureaucratisation of the EU structure, lack of manpower of the department XI (DG XI), which is the smallest and therefore the weakest one. The main problems of the environment of the EU remain acid rains, NOx emission, proper waste management, road traffic, CO emission beyond year 2000. The environmental policy is assessed by Hontelez as the "policy of patching" instead of coherent, long term policy. The conception of introduction CO emission tax got stacked, and some of the pesticides were replaced by other chemicals which are not neutral for the environment (Walczak 1998).
Apart of these environmental organisations, such as EEB, who believe that the above mentioned constraints can be overcome within the existing EU paradigm, there is also a group of ECOs which claim that the very basic values constituting the European Union are unacceptable. From this point of view the EU is an old fashioned institution reflecting the same wishes and aspirations as the founders of the European Economic Community in the 1950s, i.e. economic growth and a higher standard of living for all European citizens. At the end of the century we are, however, confronted with more complicated and intertwined problems and challenges than 50 years ago and a new, alternative approach is needed. The common market in the form in which it is promoted nowadays will, from these ECOs' perspective, strengthen the European economy, and will only make it possible to produce more, pollute more and waste more. GNP will increase but only because social and environmental costs will not be taken into account (Zagema, Kodde, and Oomen 1993). This wasteful consumerism and growth - oriented approach may be transferred to the new members of the EU, multiplying the negative effects of human economic activity on the environment in these countries. Some of the candidate countries have a long tradition in preserving biodiversity and promoting nature conservation which can be jeopardised by keeping pace with EU economic standards at any price (Zagema, Kodde, and Oomen 1993)
The Dutch Coalition for Common Europe (1997a) presents its own program for Europe: "Our Europe must be a Europe that carries out a strong social and environmental policy, creates jobs, eliminates the democratic deficit, offers equal opportunities to women and men, safeguards the rule of law, is hospitable to refugees, is open to the East and in solidarity with the South, disarms in order to contribute to peace, and promotes sustainable development both inside and outside Europe" (Dütting 1997). The Coalition claims for a Europe that guaranties a decent level of living conditions and social security, and which enable everybody to fully participate in society. Its members think that citizen rights should be extended to migrants living in Europe and pay a lot of attention to the environment. Coalition calls for upgrading environmental standards, and respecting the right of countries to adopt further going measures. It criticised the construction of the Trans-European Networks and the growth of car use. The Coalition is convinced that European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) should be dismantled, and renewable energy promoted. It also underlines the responsibility of Europe for guaranteeing security and safety in and outside Europe. In order to build a new Europe of democratic participation, equality, environmental responsibility and an economy of co-operation instead of competition they appeal for inter alia (DCDE 1997b):
Most of these points could be hardly accept by the decision maker due to the fact they stay in contradiction with the very basic principles of the EU, such as free flow of goods and capital. Nonetheless they can be important benchmarks and help setting up a EU policy. Besides, it should be probably re-considered which principles of the EU do best serve the needs and interests of its citizens.
The very controversial area which the EU has to deal with is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In "Agenda 2000" the European Commission sets out a number of objectives for the CAP, such as: "enhancing the production of safety and high quality food, which are both fundamental obligations towards consumers; ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community and contributing to the stability of farm incomes". Agenda 2000 mentions also about the integration of environmental goals into the CAP; promotion of sustainable agriculture and the creation of alternative job and income opportunities for farmers and their families (EC 1997a). The Commission points out that rural areas are increasingly required to fulfil important environmental and recreational functions. The new measures should be aimed at supporting the additional efforts of farmers to protect the environment by less intensive production methods, proper management of land and natural resources, and increasing biodiversity as well as afforesting activities.
The CAP reform proposal published on 18 March was criticised by the environmental groups as well as farmers. According to the Coordination Paysanne Européenne the proposed European measures "lack a political willingness in favour of employment, environment and a better distribution of the public funds. The very fact of choosing the world prices at the lowest production costs as the driving force for the CAP, means that the European Union engages itself in a destroying spiral, lost in advance for the so-called "European model of agriculture" (CPE 1998). CPE argue that selling agricultural produce below the production costs, enhancing by the compensatory directs aids, can not last for ever. CPE believes also that the driving force of CAP is "not the production of a quality and healthy food and a balanced European territory, but the production of exportable surpluses" (CPE 1998). In its opinion if this new CAP is adopted, it will speed up the production concentration process, and will make hundreds of thousands of farms disappear each year.
The new CAP policy does not meet also the expectation of ecological non-governmental organisations. The World Wide Fund underlines that the present reform of the CAP proposed by European Commission would improve the existing farm support system but at the same moment WWF expresses its concern on leaving the environment at the periphery of the CAP's reform. In its opinion the European Commission does not go far enough to shift policy from production support towards environmental and sustainable rural development measures, offering little help for Europe's wildlife and rural areas (Yellachich and Murray 1997), while the declining of the biodiversity on the territory of the EU is an on-going process. BirdLife International has recently published major studies on the status of all of Europe's birds, habitats and farming and birds. If birds are an indicator of the effects on other biodiversity and the environment in general, these Europe-wide studies show how important farming is to biodiversity. Of 514 bird species found regularly in Europe, over half (54 per cent) are classified as of conservation concern (because they are globally threatened, are concentrated in Europe or are declining) and nearly 40 per cent are considered seriously threatened. The majority (116 or 60 per cent) of them depends partly or wholly on farmland. This threat to birds is mirrored in the declines of plants, invertebrates, mammals and reminds about destruction and deterioration of wildlife sites in Europe (Pisano 1998).
WWF underlines that only 4,9 billion ECU (out of 50 billion ECU of the total agricultural expenditure which will be spent on market mechanisms) has been earmarked for measures, which could be regarded as pro-environmental. WWF believes that a greater share of the CAP budget should be allocated to sustainable rural development and environmental measures. The organization encourages Member State Finance and Agriculture Ministers to take "responsibility to initiate a significant shift in agriculture policy from product-related support towards environmental and sustainable rural development payments. The compensatory direct payments should be gradually phased out, because in long term they will be unacceptable for the European tax payers, while the savings should be shifted to environmental and sustainable rural development payments" (Yellachich and Murray 1997).
The Union is criticised for excessively bureaucratic decision making procedures and lack of democratic legitimacy. Brennock maintains that "Union's citizens regarded the EU as a remote agglomeration of apparatchiks rather than a dynamic organisation which improved their lives" (Brennock 1998). There are voices from left as well right wing of the political arena, supported by great share of the NGOs, which accuse the EU for lack of transparency in its work and efforts to dilute the nation's states in amorphic European Super-state. From their point of view the Amsterdam Treaty was been prepared by bureaucrats behind closed doors. By such a way of acting the EU undermines democratic practice in the 15 member states and replaces it with more legislative power for the bureaucrats. Since Maastricht Treaty EU legislation has increased by more than 30 per cent. In 1992 EU legislation amounted to 16,027 Directives, Resolutions and other legal acts. This number had increased to 24,150 by 1997. The preparation of these acts as well as their implementation is not democratically controlled. Although the Amsterdam Treaty brought some changes for better, giving more power to the European Parliament, this power only gives the Parliament a veto on issues, where it is hardly ever opposed to EU legislation. It should be mentioned, however, that the newly introduced principle of "flexibility" allows a group of member-states which wants to organise co-operation in a particular area, but does not have unanimous support, to do so as long as it is in line with the EU treaties. Members of the European Parliament are also from now on co-legislators in areas such as employment policy, freedom of information, freedom of movement, certain internal market regulations, transport and development policy (Brennock 1998).
There is a strong opposition against federalism in the EU. The opponents claim that the EU objective is only to address the cross-border problems which can only be solved at an international level anyway. According to Bonde (1998), who is a member of the European Parliament and President of Group of Independents for a Europe of Nations "the EU needs to see its limitations outside the spheres of trade and environmental problems. The number of Directives and regulations should be lowered and limited to those regulating a crossborder issue. The EU should not be at all concerned with issues which can be addressed by one member state internally which have no negative impact on other member states". In his opinion it is possible to have common minimum rules regulating the legal amount of pesticides in bottled water sold across borders, while at the same time allowing Denmark to apply stricter rules on pesticides. Bonde rhetorically asks "why the Commission should prevent the Danes in Denmark from fighting toxic-pollution of their water, when the Danes are the only people who drink it?". He argues that we do not need a European super-state but a "Europe of Nations", a Europe of democracies (Bonde 1998).
On the other hand there are voices that European integration is the only way to preserve European democracy. The voters of Europe are disillusioned with their national politicians and with the political system. Public opinion surveys across the countries of the European Union have shown that - almost without exception - the public is today more cynical about national governments than at any time in recent decades (Palmer 1998). There is a widespread feeling that it makes less and less difference whoever is elected. One of the reason is that after the crash of the communist system, almost all parties use the same language and promote the same liberal-democratic paradigm. In such a situation the racist, xenophobic and extreme right wing political forces have exploited the fears, uncertainties and frustrations of people at a time of radical changes in the global economic system and a time of very high levels of unemployment.
Palmer (1998) asserts that "contrary to what many of the xenophobes claim, this is not a consequence of any sinister conspiracy by the European Union to undermine the democratic right of its member states or to centralise power in its own unaccountable institutions". In his opinion it is rather the consequence of changes in the global economic, trading and financial system which has limited national governments' freedom of decision. Because of the globalisation, the connections between political decisions and economic results are no longer tied up with the nation state. "In an era of global free movement of capital there are very powerful constraints on the scope for unilateral action by any single national state in the economic, social or environmental sphere" (Palmer 1998). Federalists claim that a more united Europe would not only have greater scope for action itself but it could also help ensure that the global market is more liable, civilised, and more responsible to the global community. They agree that the whole system needs to become more open and transparent. Palmer writes: "Federalism, far from being an ideology of centralism and unaccountable power, lies at the heart of the project for a decentralised and democratic Europe in the 21st century" (Palmer 1998).
Integration with Western political, economic and security structures, with membership of EU as the strategic objective, has been the main goal of Polish foreign policy since 1989. The first diplomatic relations between the EU and Poland were established in September 1988. A Trade and Cooperation Agreement was signed in September 1989. An Association Agreement, to be known as a Europe Agreement, between the European Communities and Poland was signed on 16 December 1991 and entered into force on 1 February 1994. On 5th April 1994 Poland presented its application for membership in the European Union. In 1997, Poland published a National Integration Strategy presenting a plan of preparing for accession to the EU. The document included also the National Integration Strategy in the field of environment. According to the Europe Agreement environment is a one of the priorities in the area of co-operation and harmonisation of the legislation (KIE 1998, EC 1997a).
At the April 1993 Lucerne Conference, ministers of environment from all over Europe agreed to create National Environmental Action Programs to enhance their environmental policies and investments. The main goal of the EAP was to help countries of Central and Eastern Europe find realistic, efficient and cost-effective methods of improving the environment. Poland was the first country in the region to develop a new environmental policy approved by the Polish Parliament in 1991. A NEP set short, medium and long term priorities, and listed policy tools for development. In 1995 a detailed review of policy implementation was published, setting new and detailed targets to the year 2000 (Sommer 1996, EC 1997a).
The European Commission states that despite "developing one of the most sophisticated approaches to environmental management in the region, Poland still faces severe environmental problems, with major challenges in waste water and air pollution" (EC 1997a). It also points out that little progress has been made in hazardous waste management, although Polish accession to the OECD might bring a positive change in this area. There has been some success in reducing pollution loads in water. Poland has managed to provide this sector with significant resources, which has resulted in improvement or completion of some 300 waste water treatment plants since 1989 (EC 1997a). However, much more investment in this sector must be made, due to the high discharge of waste water from Polish territory to the Baltic, a "sensitive area" requiring particularly high standards of water management. Air emission standards set in 1991 are "perceived to be unrealistically high - higher than EU standards" (EC 1997a) and were not achieved, although they have formed a useful basis for proper management. Poland has also some areas of great natural value which may increase the biodiversity of the enlarged Union (EC 1997a).
Poland's environmental investment level as a share of GDP is average for the region (1,3-1,5%). Only 5% of the investment in the field of environment protection comes from external sources. A well-developed system of financing is based on fees and fines channelled to national and regional environmental funds. In 1995 the National Environmental Fund income was 800 million dollars, most of which was re-invested in reducing industrial and water pollution. However, the Fund's income recently lowered due to improved compliance by the industry and lower fines (EC 1997a).
Since 1991 Polish legislation has been checked for compatibility with EC legislation. The work on a Water Act (aimed on introducing river basin management and strict standards for water discharged to rivers and soil) is proceeding but the legal approximation of the Waste management legislation still remained low. The way of action focused on reducing air pollution has been dominated by economic instruments (including a preparation of a pilot project in tradable permits), rather than legislation, and according to the European Commission will need "particular attention given to the quick transposition of framework directives dealing with air, waste and water, as well as the establishment of financing strategies for legislation in the water, air and waste sectors requiring major investments". On the other hand: "the foundations for the procedures needed under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive are to a large extent in place" (EC 1997a). The European Commission expresses also its concern about the resources which will be made available by government and enterprises, due to the very expensive investments which are needed, while "weak implementation and enforcement could be an additional bottle-neck" (EC 1997a). Meeting of the environmental acquis in Poland could be expected in the medium term. However, as the Commission states, "effective compliance with a number of pieces of legislation requiring a sustained high level of investment and considerable administrative effort (e.g. urban waste water treatment, drinking water, aspects of waste management and air pollution legislation) could be achieved only in the long term". It will require also a substantial increase in the level of public and private investment (EC 1997a).
Regarding the other sectors of economy, there is a need for fast and deep restructuring and modernisation in the steel sector, putting a heavy burden on the environment of Poland (KIE 1998). For social and economic reasons it will be, however, one of the "hottest" topics during the negotiations with the EU.
The EU claims that there is a lack of coherence in the transport system, Poland is facing a steady rise in the share of road transport and should focus its efforts on the use of railways and inland waterways. The EU has pointed out that more attention should be given also to the public service aspect of rail transport and to the safety of road transport. This aspect is of particular importance "in the context of a future Union without internal borders when road haulage will be totally unrestricted" (EC 1997a). In order to improve links with the Member States and its neighbours, Poland is planning to invest about 5 billion ECU of its own budget over the period 1995-99 in transport infrastructure used by international traffic, primarily on trans-European corridors. This sum amounts to about 1,2% of GNP, which will not necessarily cover EU expectations, taking into account the fact that Poland had no motorway infrastructure until 1990 (EC 1997a).
Demonopolisation or privatisation plans in the energy sector are still under preparation, but it seems that the new structures will be based on privatised distribution, generation and third party access to grids. Energy prices have been increased but particularly those for households (for social reasons) do not yet cover costs. The government's restructuring plan foresees, with the necessary mine closures, a reduction of production of coal until 2000. However, some questions remain unsolved such as the financing of the environmental measures needed to remedy the severe problems related to the coal mining and coal use particularly affecting the Katowice Voivodship (EC 1997a).
Poland has started the development of EU-compatible energy efficiency (e.g. labelling appliances, minimum efficiency standards) and environmental norms, but more remained to be done. Although Poland has no nuclear power programme it needs to comply with the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, in particular those related to supply of nuclear material, the nuclear common market, safeguards, health and safety and international agreements. In these fields Poland has a full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA, so in this and the other areas mentioned above no major difficulties are expected in applying Community legislation, or in integrating Poland into Euratom's international nuclear policies (EC 1997a).
Almost a quarter of the Polish labour force is employed in agriculture, i.e. the number of Polish farmers is almost equal to that of all farmers in the European Union. Poland is in the process of adapting quality standards for most fruit and vegetables. Classification schemes and marketing standards in the beef, pigmeat and poultry sectors would need to be harmonised to EC standards. Moreover, according to the EC, some of the support measures aimed at reducing the costs of production, in particular subsidies, seems to be inconsistent with Community policies (EC 1997a).
The facilities at border inspection points are still inadequate for Community veterinary control and most border checks are limited to controls on certificates and other documents, without physical checks. Regarding internal measures there is a need for the Polish authorities to secure Poland's animal health status in accordance with certain EU requirements. Concerning pesticide residues and plant protection products, there is a high level of compliance with EC requirements, but proper implementation will need to be achieved. In the area of organic farming, legislation is under development with draft legislation expected by the end of 1998 (EC 1997a).
Consumer protection in Poland has suffered, according to the EU, from the absence of an overall strategy. Proper legislation to protect the economic interests of the consumer is missing in many important areas, such as "unfair contract terms, consumer credit, product safety, timeshare property and distance selling" (EC 1997a). The law on misleading advertisement does not fully implement the EC Directive. To meet the requirements of the EC acquis on consumer policy, Poland will have to make a substantial effort to adopt a number of new and important laws (EC 1997a).
It is not clear what will be the cost of accession. According to the forecast of the Commission, if the Common Agricultural Policy reform is implemented, Poland's accession would give rise to an additional expenditure of about 5-6% of the expenditure forecast for the present fifteen Member States. Later on the allocations to Poland for structural measures would be within about 4% of its GDP.
When an applicant country joins, it will not be any longer eligible for the grants under the various pre-accession programmes, such as PHARE. From this perspective, the estimated costs arising from Poland's accession should range from, annually, ECU 7.5 to 9.5 billion in 2005-06 (at constant 1997 prices). Assuming full application of the own resources system, the new members' contributions to the Community budget should, in terms of total GNP and VAT resources be close to the proportion of the Union's GNP they account for, which in Poland's case is about 1.8% (EC 1997a).
The 3rd sector has a long history in many countries including Poland. Citizens have civil right to form organisations in order to solve what they see as important problems. Depending on the tradition of the country the name of this organisation might be: Non Governmental (NGO), voluntary, independent, non-profit or social. The name 3rd sector comes from America where it was created to differentiate NGO from national institutions (1st sector), those concentrating on profit - business (2nd sector) and mass-media (4th sector). During the past thirty years, environmental social organisations have played a very important role in addressing the environmental problems of modern civilisation (Gliński 1996).
The organisations belonging to the 3rd sector are also called non profit organisations because they are obliged to use their resources for the aims described in the statute not for creating profits for their members or founders. The existence of such organisations is an indispensable factor in the act of forming a well-working civil society and determining a stable, democratic country. This results from the economic policies, which assumes that the market itself cannot cope properly with providing collective needs (clean air, water, public safety). The government is responsible for satisfying these needs but it mainly concentrates on the matters of the majority, so the needs of different minorities are left unmet. Here NGOs often step in, to fill the niche between market, government and society (Kozakiewicz 1997).
The tradition of nature protection in Poland goes back to the beginning of the 19th century. In 1928 the oldest, still active organisation: Liga Ochrony Przyrody - LOP (The League for Nature Protection) was created. During the totalitarian regime there was no truly independent environmental organisations in Poland. All activities of existing social organisations were severely curtailed at the end of the 1940s. From 1950 until 1970s some nature conservation organisations were allowed to exist on the condition that they respected and did not question the official conservation policy (or rather its lack). Despite today's criticism of their political and ideological dependence, these groups carried out some positive educational work in the field of nature conservation (Czajkowski 1998).
In 1990, the democratic changes in Poland enabled the creation of thousands of NGOs working in various areas of social life, which now form an important part of the democratic society. They differ in size, internal structure, manpower, the amount of resources and access to information, have different goals and prefer different methods of action.
Nowadays the ecological movement, according to various estimates, consists of several hundred formal and informal groups. However, the most regular and well organised activities are conducted by many fewer. Most organisations and ecological groups are classified as local and regional. Only four ecological organisations have a well - working network of sectors and clubs in Poland. These are: Liga Ochrony Przyrody (The League for Nature Protection - LOP), Polski Klub Ekologiczny (The Polish Ecological Club - PKE), Ogólnopolskie Towarzystwo Ochrony Ptaków (The Polish Society for the Protection of Birds - OTOP), and Federacja Zielonych (The Green Federation - FZ) (Gliński 1996). Due to their main course of action, Polish NGOs might be divided into the following groups (Gliński 1996; Kozakiewicz 1997):
The ecological movement does not have a well-worked out, solid program of activities, not even its basic draft. Most organisations aim at improving the environment and society's living conditions through increasing its ecological awareness. Since the year 1989 there have been gradual, remarkable quality changes in the movement - the development and specialisation. The actions undertaken are more often the result of rational strategies. Protests and demonstrations are completed by alternative solutions or even substituted by positive actions. Attempts have been made to co-ordinate the undertakings of specific organisations and to specialise their activities, to build information and communication networks (the creation of The Polish Green Network of Environmental Information Offices, the annual National Meetings of the Ecological Movement in Kolumna), and to employ in the organisation permanent professional workers. The members of the movement are trained to design campaigns and ecological projects and to manage ecological organisations. The training sessions aim at acquiring knowledge about local codes and co-operation with national agendas, municipalities and mass-media (Gliński 1996).
Although poll shows high popular interest in ecology, any discussion proves that people have very little understanding of what really pollutes and what mechanisms contribute to the local or global environmental problems. Environmentalism has not been widely recognised in Poland and very few people can name a Polish environmental NGO. "In a newly consumerist, free market and free press Poland it takes new skills to successfully lobby for the green cause" (Hyła 1997).
It was not easy for the members of the movement to communicate with other sectors, especially with the governmental sector, which required finding common grounds without prejudices and stereotypes. The contract between the ecological movement and the government is limited to two sectors, such as: ecological education, informal contacts and consultations, and the attempts to influence the prepared projects of law. Likewise contacts with parliamentary institutions which were made after the political changes of 1989 are fairly limited. This status quo might be changed by the creation of the Lobby Facility - an independent bureau aimed at helping NGOs with contacts with the members of parliament and representatives of government. It can be an important step towards a bigger NGOs presence on the official political scene without the need to support one, specific political option (Kozakiewicz 1997).
Quite recently there has been noted a growing division into organisations co-operating and those not co-operating with the government (Hyła 1997). This is closely based on the character of the activities and their style. Some organisations in their campaigns and projects put an emphasis on mistakes made by the government or oppose it. Similar conflicts between the NGOs and authorities can be perceived on the regional or local scale.
Some prominent environmental movement leaders decided, however, to come into close co-operation with one of the biggest Polish parties - liberal Union of Freedom. Their decision made a profound resonance among the NGOs and revealed that although organisations themselves want to stay apolitical, the preferences of their members can extend from the left to the right wing of political arena. According to Gliński: "the members of the environmental movements do not follow the same ideology". Although, in his opinion the process of maturation based upon development of a variety of formal structures within the movement should lead to the convergence of collective belief and common thinking. Following the example of the greens from other countries the environmental movement tries to became a respectful partner in political life (Kozakiewicz 1998). There is no agreement how to reach this goal - by co-operation with political parties, by creation own "Green Party" or by supporting individual candidates to local or central ruling bodies. One of the main reasons for this situation is the countercultural roots of many NGOs which therefore hardly accept the existing rules of political life. Nonetheless, thanks to their long experience in acting in accordance with rules of democratic political system and to their growing professionalism, it can be assumed that the influence of NGOs on Polish policy (not only in the environmental field) will be increasing. The main challenge they will face in near future is the necessity of rising from the level of very concrete, mainly local environmental problems to level of more abstractive and general and way of thinking focused on all citizens. The first step will be an elaboration of political program, acceptable at least by the majority of the NGOs community and attractive for potential supporters.
It will require reaching sometimes difficult compromise, while even the word itself has a very bad connotation among NGOs. As Gliński points out: "there is a tension between the countercultural character of the movement's activity and its ultimate goals which can be achieved only through mainstream politics". Moreover one of the slogans constituting the environmental movement is rejection of modern materialism or at least self-limitation of the consumption and use of resources. This idea, however, stays in contradiction to dominant trends in the societies in all Central and Eastern European countries, rather recovering from times of under-consumption. The environmental movement must present ambitious political program, without betraying its own ideals but appealing and convincing society. The creation of such programs requires a tremendous amount of intellectual and political effort. The Polish integration with EU will be next great challenge for the environmental movement.