According to a widely accepted definition, public policies are everything that the government of a country chooses to do or chooses not to do.^[1]Public policy means that this decision is made on behalf of and in the interest of the public, usually initiated and made by the government and implemented by public or private actors. Public policies are decisions that governments make to solve a public problem of significance to society.

If we focus on the environment, public policies should be public decisions by those in power to address environmental pollution problems, issues of general significance to society. So, what are the environmental protection public policies in Serbia? Or to phrase it differently - what have the governments in Serbia chosen to do, and what have they chosen not to do?

First, let's examine the environmental situation in Serbia.

According to a 2020 study, Serbia ranks first among European countries in mortality from various forms of environmental pollution and is the only European country in the top ten globally in terms of mortality. ^[2] Environmental reports from institutions confirm that Serbia's air was excessively polluted in 2022, mainly due to excessive concentrations of PM 2.5, PM 10 particles, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Air was excessively polluted in 21 cities and municipalities, including Kragujevac, Kostolac, Pirot, Loznica, Čačak, Paraćin, Zaječar, Kraljevo, Novi Pazar, Valjevo, Subotica, Sombor, Zrenjanin, Pančevo, Smederevo, Užice, Kosjerić, Bor, Novi Sad, Niš, and Belgrade, with a total population of over 3.5 million people exposed to excessive pollution.

Similar conditions are observed in surface waters. In Vojvodina, 39% of surface water samples are classified as "poor" or "very poor" quality. Although the Danube, the largest river in Serbia, maintains a "good quality" status, the discharge of untreated wastewater into surface waters remains over 85%, putting enormous pressure on Serbia's waters. Regarding drinking water, the situation is somewhat better, but still worrisome. In 2020, over 16% of citizens could access water from their taps considered to pose a moderate, high, or very high microbiological risk to human health. The worst water quality is found in Vojvodina, where over 40% of the population is supplied with water containing increased arsenic concentrations. Waste management is also complex, with only twelve sanitary landfills properly handling municipal waste in 2021. Meanwhile, 58% of the population is not covered by a municipal waste collection system, leading to thousands of non-sanitary landfills throughout Serbia.

Similar information can be extended to other environmental areas – soil, noise, industrial pollution, climate change. All these pieces of information convey the same message: the environment is under threat, and urgent action is necessary!

What action can we take? Are our environmental public policies genuinely addressing the identified problems? Let's examine some of the public policies implemented in Serbia.

Air pollution is a current concern, especially with the onset of winter and the heating season. The obligation to adopt a comprehensive public policy in Serbia, according to the Air Protection Act, dates back to 2013. Two years later, authorities were expected to establish a national air protection policy to create conditions for an institutional system to take measures to avoid, prevent, or reduce air pollution and its harmful effects on human health and the environment as a whole in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. Despite the increasing number of citizens inhaling excessively polluted air each year, as reported officially, Serbia only adopted the National Air Protection Program in December 2022, seven years behind schedule. The program estimates that nearly 10,000 people die each year in Serbia due to exposure to PM 2.5 particles. During the seven years that authorities delayed adopting an air protection policy, almost 70,000 people died prematurely.

Examining the policy for managing industrial pollution, Serbia enacted the Integrated Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution Law in 2004. The law aimed to regulate the operation of facilities and activities with potential negative impacts on human health, primarily major polluters with potentially more harmful effects, such as thermal power plants, ironworks, copper smelters, cement factories, and similar. The law is based on the precautionary principle, stating that every activity must be conducted to avoid significant pollution, prevent or reduce emissions at the source that lead to air, water, and soil pollution, minimize the use of non-renewable natural resources and energy, minimize waste creation, and minimize risks to human health, the environment, and material goods. The law mandates these facilities to obtain integrated permits regulating their operations and their impact on the environment and human health. Authorities identified 227 facilities in Serbia that should acquire integrated permits, setting a deadline for large industrial polluters to align their operations with the best available techniques and environmental protection standards by the end of 2021. However, in December 2021, fewer than 50 facilities had valid integrated permits. From January 1, 2022, the remaining facilities would operate illegally. So, what did the authorities choose to do? They did not choose to increase their administrative capacities to expedite the issuance of integrated permits. They did not choose to penalize operators of facilities that failed to align their operations with the law over nearly 20 years. The authorities did choose to extend the deadline for an additional three years, allowing facilities that significantly pollute water, air, and soil to continue operating as before, thus continuing to endanger people's health.

The dedication of the government to a public policy is most apparent in how limited resources, especially finances, are allocated. So, how does the environment stand in terms of finances?

It was estimated back in 2011 that aligning with EU environmental standards and policies would be the most expensive and complicated aspect of Serbia's accession to the European Union. The estimated cost was at least 10 billion euros, with waste management and wastewater management being among the most expensive. What did the authorities choose to do? First, they disbanded the Green Fund, where funds from various environmental fees were collected. Then, in 2015, they decided to eliminate the earmarked nature of the funds, meaning that environmental fees were no longer dedicated funds for environmental protection but were channeled into the general budget of the Republic of Serbia and allocated according to the current priorities of decision-makers. By tracking the inflow of environmental fees and the expenditures of state and local budgets, it becomes apparent that over half a billion euros have been spent in the last decade on purposes unrelated to environmental protection in this way. ^[3] Simultaneously, the amount of money allocated by authorities for the environment has decreased year by year. From 0.7% of GDP in 2018,^[4] it has dropped to less than 0.2% of GDP in 2023.

What can we conclude about the environmental protection policies in Serbia?

Based on the content of environmental public policies and the financial resources allocated by Serbia for the environment, we can conclude that the environment is not a priority on the agenda of those in power. Considering the effects of public policies for environmental protection, as seen in the poor quality of air, water, soil, and other elements of the environment, we can infer that the implemented policies are not effective. What kind of public policies for environmental protection do we need? For a healthy environment where healthy citizens live, there must be a state environmental protection policy that addresses the real needs and issues of the citizens, and to which the authorities are committed, not only declaratively but also practically – through effective implementation, appropriate financing, and transparent decision-making on the distribution of limited resources.

The government of the Republic of Serbia is preparing a comprehensive environmental protection policy – the Environmental Protection Strategy with an Action Plan for the period up to 2032. This is a new opportunity to correctly identify problems, adequately allocate resources, capacities, and finances, and truly improve the environment. Therefore, the public should send a clear demand to the authorities to choose an environmental protection public policy that genuinely responds to the society's needs.

Mirjana Jovanović

Belgrade Open School

Source: Ekolist