Since 1989 the Czech Republic has experienced several stages of the environmental legislation development. The main body of the legislation has originated at the beginning of the 1990s, particularly in 1991 and 1992. During this stage the Czech Republic succeeded to enact such important acts as the Act on Environment, Act on EIA, sectoral legislation. Since that time the legislation has been amended several times (Waste Act three times, for example). In the middle of the 1990s we were relatively satisfied with the state of the environmental law. It covered all the aspects of the environmental protection. At that time, however, the development in this field slowed down significantly - until 1998.

The nowadays development is fully driven by the needs of the approximation process. At the beginning of this stage the Czech environmental legislation was compatible with the Community law up to 60 %-70 % as confirmed by the screening. However, almost no environmental directive was fully transposed. A relatively big number of directives have not been transposed at all (packaging waste, IPPC, e.g.).

The current stage might be called as the second most hectic period of the development of our environmental legislation (after the first one at the beginning of the 1990s.).

Short summarisation of the newest development:

• The horizontal legislation is almost fully compatible; the Act on EIA needs certain changes reflecting requirements of the directives. The draft of the new EIA Act is being discussed by the Parliament. The Act on Access to Environmental Information is fully in compliance. The eco-labelling system is introduced. The same is for the EMAS regulation requirements.
• The new Air Protection Act is almost ready to be submitted to the Parliament.
• The draft of the framework Water Act is already in the Parliament. The draft reflects requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The main problem of both the current legislation and the draft is the competition concerning competencies in water management between Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture.
• Nature conservation legislation is very well developed. However, it needs certain changes to comply with the requirements of the Natura 2000.
• The new Waste Act is being drafted. The current legislation has problems concerning responsibility of waste producer, polluter pays principle, packaging waste, dangerous waste.
• The legislation on chemicals is very well developed. It is compatible with the EC requirements. It concerns also the legislation on GMOs.
• The legislation on noise is mostly contained in the Act on Public Health. The new legislation concerning the noise from appliance is being drafted.
• The legislation on industrial risks is only partly well developed. The new Act concerning major accidents (Seveso) is fully in compliance with the EC Directive. The risk assessment needs to be developed. The IPPC is considered as one of priorities but the key concept of the Act is still being discussed and therefore it is far from being submitted to the Parliament. The main problem is the division of competencies among different ministries.

• waste and packaging waste,
• urban waste water treatment,
• water pollution by NOx from agricultural sources,
• discharges of dangerous substances to water,
• including the Czech Republic into the network of NATURA 2000,
• integrated prevention and pollution control (IPPC).

• the environmental legislation generally is scattered, based on sectoral approach; it needs co-ordination and unified principles and approaches;
• principles are included in the legislation but not always applied (enforced); it concerns particularly the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, prevention principle and particularly integration principle; BAT requirements occur in certain acts but they are not being applied in practice;
• civil liability for environmental damage is relatively well developed; liability for past environmental damages needs attention;
• administrative liability is based on fines; it has a form of the strict liability; there is the need to provide for unified principles;
• criminal liability needs substantial changes � environmental crimes are too general;
• the efficiency of economic instruments is low; the ecological tax is missing;
• voluntary instruments (covenants, e.g.) are being used very rarely;
• system of administrative courts has to be changed to comply with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention;
• there is also the need to improve the legislation on public participation;
• the system of environmental enforcement is not sufficiently efficient.