Note: This is the 1997 edition of UNEP's Global Environment Outlook. If you are interested in more recent information, please see the 2000 and 2002 editions.

Table 3.1. Key Characteristics of Five National Environmental Protection Funds in Central and Eastern Europe

Key Characteristics BULGARIA CZECH REPUBLIC HUNGARY POLAND SLOVAK REPUBL.
Operational (in current form) since 1993 1991 1993 1989 1991
Institutional status Part of MoE Part of MoE Part of MoE Independent Part of MoE
Number of full-time staff 2 34 13 95 22
Final decision-making authority Minister of the Environment Minister of the Environment Minister of the Environment Supervisory Board (for projects >US$225,000); Fund Directors (otherwise) Minister of the Environment
Public participation opportunities in decision-making Included in the work of the Supreme Board; public hearings twice a year During environmental impact assessments NGOs are consulted during the formulation of the Annual Program for Support Through membership in the Supervisory Board Through the Fund Council
1993 National Fund environmental expenditures (as a per cent of total national environmental expenditures) US$ 2.3 million (7 per cent) US$ 107.0 million* (10 per cent) US$ 27.7 million (11 per cent) US$ 198.5 million (22 per cent) US$ 34.7 million* (20 per cent)
1993 revenues US$ 3.6 million US$ 101.0 million US$ 36.3 million US$ 284.0 million US$ 30.8 million
Major revenue sources (with per cent of total value) -pollution fines (58 per cent) -import tax on used cars (33 per cent) -water charges (41 per cent) -air charges (30 per cent) -waste charges (13 per cent) -land charges (12 per cent) -fuel tax (44 per cent) -traffic transit fee (20 per cent) -PHARE support (19 per cent) -pollution fines (17 per cent) -air emission charges -wastewater charges -water use charges -waste charges -State budget (37 per cent) -wastewater charges (30 per cent) -air emission charges (25 per cent)
Primary disbursement mechanisms in 1993 (with per cent of total expenditures) -grants (68 per cent) -interest-free loans (32 per cent) -grants (71 per cent) -loans (29 per cent) -grants -interest-free loans -soft loans (77 per cent) -grants (17 per cent) -interest subsidies (6 per cent) -grants
Major fields of 1993 expenditures (with per cent of total value) -monitoring system (40 per cent) -loans to companies (32 per cent) -subsidies to municipalities (19 per cent) -water (58 per cent) -air (33 per cent) -air (70 per cent) -waste (15 per cent) -water (11 per cent) -air (47 per cent) -water (35 per cent) -other, i.e., soil, nature protection, monitoring, education, emergencies (18 per cent) -water (48 per cent) -air (27 per cent) -waste (8 per cent)

Source:
Adapted from REC, 1994, p. 8.
Note:
a. Fund Directors approve all expenditures except those greater than US$225,000. These are approved by the Supervisory Board.
b. For the Czech and Slovak Funds, the 1993 expenditures actually exceeded revenues. The matrix shown above does not include data for 1992, however, in which revenues exceeded expenditures, thus leaving a potential surplus for 1993.
c. Includes soil, nature protection, monitoring, education, and emergencies.