ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

IN SERBIA

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

IN SERBIAProgress since Kiev 2003 and

Challenges AheadProgress since Kiev 2003 and

Challenges Ahead

Cover main photo: Household waste disposal in Belgrade’s Vinca landfill (Source: Tijen Arin)

Cover first inset photo: Baby autochthonous pig breed(Source: Tijen Arin)

Cover second inset photo: Concrete manure storage(Source: MAFWM DREPR Project Implementation Unit)

Cover third inset photo: Hazardous waste stored at anindustrial enterprise (Source: Tijen Arin)

E N V I R O N M E N T A LP R O T E C T I O N I N S E R B I A

Since the 2003 Kiev Environment for

Europe Conference (EfE), Serbia has

taken substantial steps to improve its envi-

ronment and reduce pollution. This

report outlines that progress and identifies

future actions to continue this improve-

ment. As requested by the Directorate of

Environmental Protection (DEP) of the

former Ministry of Science and Environ-

mental Protection (MSEP), this report

focuses on three key areas for future sus-

tainable economic development: (i) waste

management; (ii) biodiversity conserva-

tion and nature protection; and (iii)

energy and environment linkages.

Policy and InstitutionalFramework

Since 2003, the Government of Serbia has

done a significant amount to improve the

policy and institutional basis for better

environmental management within the

Since the 2003 Kiev

Environment for Europe

Conference (EfE), Serbia

has taken substantial

steps to improve its

environment and reduce

pollution.

Sour

ce:T

ijen

Ari

n

1

Traditional grazing land in StaraPlanina Nature Park

context of a growing economy. This

includes the 2004 adoption of four new

laws (Law on Environmental Protection,

Law on Environmental Impact Assess-

ment, Law on Strategic Impact Assess-

ment and Law on Integrated Pollution

Prevention and Control (IPPC)), the 2006

development of a National Environment

Strategy and strategies for the development

of the agriculture, forestry and energy

sectors that incorporate environmental

concerns. 26 municipalities and districts

developed local environmental action plans

that reflect the communities’ agreement on

priority environmental issues. A compre-

hensive Sustainable Development Strategy

has been developed with broad stakeholder

participation under the guidance of the

Deputy Prime Minister.

On the institutional side, the establish-

ment of the Serbian Environmental Protec-

tion Agency in 2004 reflects Serbia’s plans

to gradually separate policy design func-

tions from regulatory implementation and

enforcement functions, consistent with

practices in most EU countries. In the

meantime, the Serbian Environmental

Inspectorate’s inspection and enforcement

capacity improved as a result of training

activities, participation in the Compliance

and Enforcement Network for Accession,

and use of modern information technol-

ogy. The number of Ministry of Environ-

ment Protection (MEP) staff in charge of

inspection and enforcement was increased

2

Since 2003, the Govern-

ment of Serbia has done

a significant amount to

improve the policy and

institutional basis for

better environmental

management within the

context of a growing

economy.

in June 2007 by 50 percent from 90 to 137,

a significant step in enhancing the Govern-

ment’s capacity for environmental man-

agement. However, the skill and equipment

levels of municipal environmental inspec-

tors are not commensurate with the signif-

icant responsibilities delegated to them by

the Law on Environmental Protection. A

National Council for Sustainable Develop-

ment established in 2003 and headed by the

Deputy Prime Minister clearly indicates the

Government’s sensitivity to mitigating the

social and environmental impacts of the

growth in the economic sectors. The Sus-

tainable Development Strategy is expected

to increase the Council’s effectiveness.

Serbia distinguishes itself in the West-

ern Balkans through its progress in inte-

grating environmental concerns in the

privatization process. Recognizing that

strategic investors will be reluctant to

invest or will heavily discount their offer

prices if there are significant unassigned

environmental liabilities, the Government

in 2003 amended the Law on Privatization

to state that liability for environmental

damage caused by a socially or state-

owned enterprise up to the date of priva-

tization rests with the state. In the process

of privatizing the Copper Mining and

Smelting Complex of Bor, one of Serbia’s

foremost environmental hot spots, this

legal clarification has played an important

role in determining financial responsibili-

ties for cleaning up “historical pollution’

3

Serbia distinguishes itself

in the Western Balkans

through its progress in

integrating environ-

mental concerns in the

privatization process.

and mitigating “current pollution” associ-

ated with the enterprise’s ongoing opera-

tions. The Government is using World

Bank support for cleaning up historical

pollution. An outstanding issue is the

adoption of a bylaw defining the scope of

state liability as the Law on Privatization

requires.

Waste Management

With successive governments making

waste management a priority, significant

progress has been made, particularly in

terms of policy. A National Waste Man-

agement Strategy was adopted in 2003 and

a new, EU-compliant Law on Waste Man-

agement has been drafted. Central Gov-

ernment has also extended support to

municipalities that cooperate on regional

landfills, a more efficient solution than

each of Serbia’s 180 municipalities operat-

ing its own dump site. Since the beginning

of this initiative, MSEP/DEP and the Fund

for Environment Protection have sup-

ported construction of several regional

landfills by co-financing feasibility studies

and construction. In the Uzice, Pirot and

Prokuplje municipalities feasibility studies

were co-financed with European Agency

for Reconstruction (EAR), while in

Kikinda, Nova Varos and Vrsac republic

and local funds were used only. In some

regions including Kikinda, Leskovac,

Jagodina and Despotovac joint venture

4

Untreated slaughter house wastewater discharge.

Central Government has

also extended support

to municipalities that

cooperate on regional

landfills, a more efficient

solution than each of

Serbia’s 180 municipal-

ities operating its own

dump site.

Sour

ce: T

ijen

Ari

n

companies were established between local

public utility companies and foreign part-

ners. On the other hand, much more

needs to be done with tariffs for waste col-

lection and disposal. These service charges

remain below levels covering operations

costs, let alone capital costs of replacing

dilapidated collection equipment.

With regard to nonhazardous in-

dustrial waste, a Law on Packaging and

Packaging Waste is under preparation and

a Regulation on the Conditions and the

Manner of Selection, Packaging and Stor-

ing of Secondary Raw Materials has been

introduced. To provide an incentive to

enterprises to reduce and/or recycle in-

dustrial waste (hazardous and nonhazard-

ous) in 2005, the Government introduced

a tax on the production of such waste by

installations that are subject to the Law on

IPPC. MEP has also begun licensing

cement factories for incinerating ap-

propriate industrial waste. An important

short and medium term priority is the

promotion of industrial waste recycling.

Import of hazardous waste has been

made illegal through the new Law on Envi-

ronmental Protection. With financial and

technical support under an EU CARDS

project, an inventory of hazardous waste in

IPPC installations has been prepared and

guidelines for their handling have been

published. Furthermore, the Government

has begun to address the problem of PCBs

and other stockpiled Persistent Organic

5

Mature disposal in lagoon withoutany insulation.

Sour

ce: T

ijen

Ari

n

Pollutants by preparing an Inventory and

National Plan for the Implementation of

Stockholm Convention. The Government

has also allocated in its National Invest-

ment Plan about 62 million for replace-

ment of all devices containing PCB oil and

decontamination of devices. The issue of

non-treatment of hospital waste is being

addressed through the acquisition of

78 mobile medical waste treatment units

to be placed in hospitals around the

6

Box 1. Managing Animal Waste

When discharged improperly, manurefrom livestock farms and waste fromslaughterhouses can cause significant pol-lution in above and underground waterbodies. The MAFWM, with support fromGEF, the World Bank and SIDA, is leadingefforts to introduce modern managementpractices that not only significantlyreduce pollution but also generate finan-cial gains. Livestock farms receive grantstowards the installation of manure storagefacilities and equipment for spreadingmanure on land as fertilizer. Applyingmanure as fertilizer in accordance withplant needs saves farms funds and reducesleachate to water bodies. As in EU coun-tries, a voluntary Code of Good Agricul-tural Practices is developed to guide Serbian farmers. Under the projectslaughterhouses also receive grant support to improve treatment of waste-water, and separation, storage and land application of appropriate waste.These practices will help slaughterhouses meet strict EU animal health andanimal by-products management regulations.

Livestock farm Napredak con-structing manure storage facilities.

Sour

ce: M

AFW

M D

REP

R P

roje

ct Im

plem

enta

tion

Uni

t

Building capacity for environmen-tally friendly agriculture.

Sour

ce: M

AFW

M D

REP

R P

roje

ct Im

plem

enta

tion

Uni

t

country. Finally, the Government has begun

addressing slaughterhouse waste through

the Serbia Danube River Enterprise Pollu-

tion Reduction Project implemented by the

Ministry of agriculture, forestry and water

management (MAFWM). Some substantial challenges remain. A

key policy change remains the regulatoryvacuum regarding licensing for the han-dling, transportation, temporary storageand storage of hazardous waste. On theinstitutional side, clarification of the divi-sion of labor between AP Vojvodina andMEP would help implementation andenforcement. Furthermore, a substantialpolicy and institutional challenge for thenear and medium term future is the lack ofmechanisms for the state and civil society towork together and reach consensus on siteselection for waste management facilities.

Biodiversity Conservation and Nature Protection

Serbia has highly significant biodiversitytreasures. Its protected areas have increasedin size since 2000 (Table 1) and the numberof Ramsar sites has increased to six.Progress made since 2003 also includes fac-toring biodiversity concerns into key sectordevelopment strategies, including forestry,agriculture and to some extent, energy.However, the sustainability of the tourismstrategy could be improved. Rigorousapplication of strategic and environmental

7

Autochthonous sheep breed inSoutheast Serbia.

Sour

ce: T

ijen

Ari

n

impact assessments to economic sectorplans and projects is the most effective toolfor ensuring that biodiversity conservationand nature protection concerns are ade-quately taken into account.

Serbia has drafted a Law on Nature Pro-tection which is in harmony with the EUDirective on the conservation of naturalhabitats, and of wild fauna and flora the EUDirective on the conservation of wild birdsand the EU Regulation on the protection ofspecies of wild fauna and flora by regulatingtrade therein. Implementing this law willrequire revising several regulations. Anotherkey next step will be identifying “SpecialAreas of Conservation” and “Special Protec-tion Areas,” (which will collectively consti-tute Serbia’s contribution to the Natura2000 Network) in a manner consistent withthe above-named EU directives.

While policy and institutional measures

are crucial, the most successful implemen-

tation activities must be designed with local

community participation and yield local

8

Autochthonous pig breed in Southeast Serbia.

Sour

ce: T

ijen

Ari

n

Table 1. Protected Areas in Serbia (1,000 ha)

2000 2005 2006

National parks 159.0 159.0 159.0Nature parks 157.4 234.0 238.1Protected (natural) landscapes 24.7 36.4 44.8Nature reserves 82.5 83.5 89.2Cultural-historical landscapes 4.1 4.1 36.0Nature monuments 7.3 7.5 7.8Total 435.0 524.5 574.9

Source: SEPA and MEP

economic benefits. In fact, the challenge of balancing economic development

with nature protection requires a landscape approach not limited to protected

and non-protected area, but including diverse land use zones. The In-Situ

Agro-biodiversity Conservation component of the WB-GEF supported Ser-

bia Transitional Agricultural Reform Project implemented by MAFWM will

aim to achieve this goal in the Stara Planina Region (Box 2).

Energy and Environment Linkages

The growing Serbian economy generates increasing demand for energy.

While energy and environment linkages often seem to present zero-sum

choices, a closer look at the Serbian situation, including progress made since

2003, indicate a number of win-win opportunities.

Serbia has substantially addressed the two key linkage issues since 2003:

inefficient use of energy and air pollution from thermal power plants. With

9

Box 2. Biodiversity Friendly Rural Development in the Stara Planina Region

In the Stara Planina Region, the traditional, but declining economic systemof extensive livestock grazing and small-scale (garden) farming effectivelymaintained the biologically rich landscape mosaic of forest and natural pas-ture. MAFWM aims at (a) restoring and developing economically viableactivities in order to improve local livelihoods and stem the tide of out-migration, and (b) supporting biodiversity conservation and sustainable usein accordance with the goals of the Stara Planina Nature Park. MAFWMintends to achieve these objectives by developing incentives and capacityfor sustainable land use management and in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity. Particular emphasis will be placed on developing and mar-keting of environmentally friendly niche products based on indigenous livestock varieties grazing in mountain meadows, and on developing envi-ronmentally sustainable rural tourism as a supplementary source of incomefor the local population. The project will also support training activities tobuild Srbijasume staff capacity so it can carry out its evolving mandate forforest management, from one that is focused on timber production to onethat maintains diverse eco-systems and the biodiversity they house.

regard to energy efficiency, on the policy side, the new Energy Law of 2004 rec-

ognized the importance of energy efficiency in both production and in con-

sumption. In order to promote energy efficiency, the Government intends to

prepare special legislation along the lines of EU Legislation. On the institutional

side the Serbia Energy Efficiency Agency, which was established in 2002, has

promoted energy efficiency, provided policy advice to the Government, and

given technical advice to the industry and the end users. Furthermore, five

Regional Energy Efficiency Centers and the Serbian Industrial Energy Effi-

ciency Network have been established.

With the support of bilateral donors and lenders, the Government has

also carried out related investments. With the assistance of EAR several

demonstration projects have improved energy efficiency in public buildings,

street lighting, water supply and residential buildings connected to the dis-

trict heating system. EAR has also supported training activities on energy

auditing of industrial enterprises and energy management in municipalities

and industry. With World Bank support, the Government is investing in

retrofitting public buildings (Box 3).

In cooperation with the private sector, local governments and consumer

groups the Government can support several actions to reduce the amount of

energy consumed per Dollar of GDP. While this indicator has decreased in

recent years, it is still much higher than the corresponding figure in the EU-15.

10

Box 3. Improving Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings

Since 2004, the Government of Serbia has been implementing a World Banksupported project to improve energy efficiency in heating buildings in orderto make heating more affordable as well as improve functional and healthenvironment of the users. An important associated objective of the project isto reduce the local and global environmental impact of the use of fuels forheating buildings in Serbia. Key investments funded by the project include:

� Replacement of inefficient lignite and heavy oil-fired boilers with a gas-fired co-generation plant and connection with the gas network of theClinical Center of Serbia in Belgrade and connection with the gas net-work of the Nis Clinical Center.

� Energy efficiency improvements in approximately 116 public buildingsincluding schools, hospitals and social care institutions throughout Serbia.

Government action may build on the

experience gained and capacity built in the

past four years. Specifically, further focus

for demand management programs

would be a priority. Examples for such

programs include energy audits and

energy management certification pro-

grams; energy efficiency standards and

labeling of appliances; energy efficiency

building codes; energy efficiency programs

in government buildings; and financing

schemes for energy efficiency investments.

The Government has taken significant

policy steps with regard to air pollution

from industry, including energy genera-

tion. Most notable are the enactment and

submission to the Parliament in 2006 of a

framework Law on Air Protection. Fur-

thermore, Serbia signed the 2005 Energy

Community Treaty according to which

“… the construction and operation of new

generating plants shall comply with the

acquis communautaire on environment”

upon its entry into force. Promising

progress has been made in terms of imple-

mentation as well. A new electrostatic pre-

cipitator was installed in the Kostolac A

Thermal Power Plant (TPP) resulting in a

reduction of particulate matter emissions

up to 24 fold.

However, the TPPs continue to be signif-

icant sources of SO2 pollution which leads

to substantial damages to public health,

agricultural products and ecosystems. The

annual cost to the Serbian economy of SO2

11

Fly ash landfill at the Nikola TeslaB Thermal Power Plant.

Sour

ce: U

nide

ntifi

ed

and NOx and particulate matter emissions from TPPs is estimated to range

between 615–353 million. The one-time investment cost of installing mitiga-

tion equipment is about 6610 million. While this one-time investment outlay

is high, the returns in the form of reduced damage to human health, crops,

ecosystems and building will compensate for this expense. The energy sector is the main source of CO2 emissions. Key areas of inter-

ventions which would lead to overall emission reductions include (i) renew-able energy (new and rehabilitation of exiting assets), (ii) renewable biomassenergy, (iii) rehabilitation of thermal power plants; (iv) rehabilitation of dis-trict heating systems; and (v) energy efficiency in buildings and industries.Such interventions could partly be financed through carbon credits underthe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol shouldSerbia choose to ratify it. As a law on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocolis awaiting Parliamentary consideration, a number of preparatory activities,including a strategy for the implementation of CDM projects in the energysector and a project to set up the necessary legal and institutional frameworkfor CMD implementation, are being carried out.

Conclusions

In conclusion the review emphasizes the following overall approaches:

� Take time with the transposition of the EU Legislation, but once adirective or regulation has been transposed, adopt the accompanyingsecondary legislation for policy implementation. This needs to be donefor waste management and IPPC.

� Build local enforcement and management capacity including municipalenvironmental inspectors and protected area management staff.

� Execute mitigation and cleanup actions such as installation of equip-ment to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from TPPs, cleaning up fly ashaccumulations at TPPs, and implementing management plans fornational parks and other protected areas; and

� Continue promotional activities with the general public, NGOs andindustry on waste recycling, hazardous waste management, energy effi-ciency, socially sustainable biodiversity conservation, and financial sus-tainability of domestic waste management

12

Waste leachate in vinca landfilldischarged to the Danube river(Source: Tijen Arin)

Internet: www.worldbank.org/eca/environmentintegration