Anthropologists generally claim that group thinking is deeply embedded in human nature. If this is true, the ‘groupthink’ trait became even more encouraged within the Soviet system of working class domination, Communist Party leadership, collectivisation, pioneer teams and pensioners’ clubs. Private responsibility was limited, discouraged and systematically uprooted—even more so than was private property. Even the authoritarian decisions of top-level leadership were often attributed to groups, such as the Communist Party Politburo, Central Committee, factory caucus, or regional or local council. In this way no one could be held individually accountable for taking such decisions. The subversive effect of such a practice was that ordinary people gradually accommodated themselves to a system in which personal responsibility was neither sought nor expected.

DECISION MAKERS: However we get to where we’re going is anyone’s guess, and everyone’s concern.

During the period of transition to democracy and market-based economies, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe embraced individualism in various guises, whether in terms of wealth, entrepreneurship or political leadership. But while private property and private interest has thrived over public or group-centred concerns, the concept of individual responsibility has been slower to catch on. I am constantly amazed at the general reluctance of people living in CEE to demand accountability from elected representatives or paid service providers who are clearly guilty of professional negligence or political or ethical malfeasance. As a result, corrupt officials and incompetent professionals—even rude taxi drivers and waiters—have a much better chance of staying on the job and making life more miserable for all of us.

A clean environment and nature conservation, ultimately public goods, have suffered a lot from the aforementioned discrepancy. Seeking personal responsibility from a business developer who damages a common natural heritage for private benefit has been nearly impossible. Holding public officials, police officers, municipal clerks or members of parliament accountable for allowing the damage to happen has been equally difficult. As a consequence, individual leadership and environmental vision have become very rare commodities at the state level. At the same time, environmental activists with quite a bit at stake personally have been largely ignored by governments, or at least marginalised and ridiculed by mainstream media and society.

Things have, however, started to change with recent EU accession. To begin with, and thanks to Brussels, activists and civil society have started to gain increased domestic clout. The EU architecture is built on societies where individual opinions, voter approval and customer satisfaction matter, which is why activist opposition to motorway construction in Poland, gold mines in Romania or nuclear plants in Lithuania is heard more clearly at home in these new EU countries. New members must not only enforce EU laws, commitments and rules to protect the environment, but also back EU opinion in international discussions, of which the Environment for Europe forum in Belgrade is one example.

A strong political commitment to the environment requires strong vision and leadership. Inspiring examples from the ‘old’ EU have found their way into CEE politics. Take Svend Auken, the Danish Social Democrat who during his tenure as minister of environment turned his country into a world model for using renewable energy and sowed the seeds of the pioneering Aarhus Convention. Aarhus has provided societies with vital ingredients for cultivating individual responsibility and environmental action, securing citizens’ access to information, participating in decision making, and gaining access to justice on environmental issues.

In Belgrade, Europe’s ministers demanded stronger political commitment to nature protection from the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA region). These countries have thus far relied on international help to improve their state of environment, but should now develop their leadership and demonstrate by doing—which means travelling the route once taken by the CEE region, and learning, if possible, from the region’s experiences. One such experience is learning the importance of individual responsibility at all levels.

But the Aarhus Convention cannot bring about sufficient change by itself. Now well past the point when green leadership was a no-go, Aukens are now emerging among the region’s state officials, politicians and experts. The success of the ‘Green Presidents’ initiative, launched by Hungary’s head of state Laszlo Solyom, is just one regional example of individual vision and environmental commitment. Not surprisingly, at the recent World Science Forum, held in Budapest, the initiative successfully brought scientific knowledge into real life. In order to take responsibility, people need to be well informed and knowledgeable about the state of environment, and be made aware of the consequences of individual choice.

Taking individual responsibility for the environmental impacts of daily existence is the key for successful environmental policy and real life improvement. Indeed, Dennis Meadows, the American who co-wrote Limits to Growth three decades ago, warned that old habits will likely prove too difficult to break—and especially in CEE where consumerism is still gaining power. But indications are that the region possesses a critical mass of citizens, officials and leaders who are well informed, connected to the internet and poised to take action. If this is true, Meadows’ grim forecast may be proven wrong—which is, of course, what he and all of us should hope for.