July 2005
Enhancing Access to Information and Public
Participation in Environmental Decision-
making in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
1st Progress Report
AUTHORS
PREPARED BY:
New York University of Law,
Regional Environmental Centre
Resources for Future
PREFACE
This Report is prepared for component 3.4 of Objective 3 of the Danube Regional Project
(phase 2).
The overall focus under Objective 3 is to enhance awareness raising in civil society and reinforce
the participation of NGOs and other interested parties in water management and pollution
reduction (nutrients and toxic substances) with particular attention to trans boundary
cooperation and river basin management in the context of the Water Framework Directive.
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................6
1.
Activities over the past 6 months ..........................................................................7
1.1. Needs Assessment for all countries........................................................................ 7
1.2. ICPDR Assessment Reports finalized .................................................................... 10
1.3. National Workshops........................................................................................... 11
1.4. Regional Workshop ........................................................................................... 12
1.5. Selection of Country Activities............................................................................. 13
1.6. Demonstration projects...................................................................................... 16
1.7. Steering Committee Meeting............................................................................... 17
1.8. Project Partners meeting.................................................................................... 19
1.9. United States Study Tour ................................................................................... 19
1.10. Follow up by Participants on Study Tour ............................................................... 22
1.11. Logframe and Indicators .................................................................................... 23
1.12. Communication on project component activities .................................................... 24
1.13. Lessons learned in the first 9 months of the project ............................................... 24
2.
Activities to come in the next 6 months................................................................ 25
2.1. Activities planned for the next 6 months............................................................... 25
2.2. Study Tour to the Netherlands ............................................................................ 26
2.3. Work plan ........................................................................................................ 28
3.
Financial Report................................................................................................ 32
3.1. Explanatory note on financial issues related to the implementation of the
component 3.4 ................................................................................................. 32
Annexes
Q. List of project deliverables so far
R. US Study tour schedule
S. List of US study tour participants
T. Pilot demonstration projects table
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Component 3.4, in particular, focuses on supporting emerging processes of improved public
participation in environmental decision making, with emphasis on better access to environmental
information and public participation in decision making on hot spot prevention and cleanup. The
project will assist and advise in building capacity in government officials who are the "front lines" of
access to information and responsible for implementing public participation through targeted
training and technical assistance activities carefully tailored to the needs and circumstances of each
country. National and local NGOs and the public involved in the Danube and water-related issues,
the main stakeholders and partners of the officials involved in public participation, when engaged
actively in this capacity building, will in turn support full and effective public involvement in
planning in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and prevention and cleanup of
Danube hot spots, an effect that should last long after the Danube Regional Project (DRP) has been
completed.
Over the period of past 10 months, the Consortium of the Regional Environmental Center for
Central and Eastern Europe (REC), Resources for the Future (RFF) and New York University School
of Law (NYU) has completed the Inception Phase and not only started the Implementation Phase
but has completed some of the milestones and deliverables, and reached substantial results.
This report has three parts. The first part describes the activities over the past six months in details
since January 2005, since the Implementation phase started. It does not deal with those activities
which have been already covered in the Inception report submitted in December 2004. The aim of
Part I is to provide the project donors and those responsible for both the larger DRP and
Component 3.4 with an overview of the most important steps taken, findings and decisions made,
results achieved in the past six months of the project.
The second part of the report is dedicated to the activities that will be undertaken in the next six
months and the different work products or deliverables that are prepared for these activities or will
result from them. Part II starts with a short description of these activities. Then it also provides an
overview of the detailed work plan which indicates the different activities, those which have been
already completed and those ahead, as well as the proposed changes in their timing.
Part III includes a financial report and a request for budget reallocation by the Consortium after
consideration of the proposed country activities to be carried out by the project countries.
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 7
1.
ACTIVITIES OVER THE PAST 6 MONTHS
1.1. Needs Assessment for all countries
The Inception Report to the DRP explains in detail the purpose of the needs assessments and the
process for finding and commissioning experts to write them. Since the date of the inception
report, the process described there has been completed.
The purpose of this section is briefly to provide additional information about the preparation of the
needs assessments, their presentations and use at country meetings, and later at the regional
meeting, the feedback we received, how they have been finalized, and then to provide a small
summary of each of the individual needs assessments in the context of commonalities found
among the needs assessments in the April regional meeting. Finally, this section explains how the
results of the needs assessments are being disseminated, both nationally and within the wider
Danube River Basin.
Needs assessments were created for each of the countries involved in the project. The needs
assessments were reviewed extensively, commented and later edited by the Consortium. When the
research and editing phase was completed, the needs assessments were provided for discussion to
participants in each of the country meetings.
At each country meeting, the consultants who wrote the needs assessment presented their
findings. Thereafter, the participants discussed whether these findings and the proposed priority
needs were correct, complete or if they needed to be revised. Additional thoughts were solicited,
and the meetings were used to establish country-specific priorities for further work addressing the
identified barriers during the course of Component 3.4.
At the April 25-26, 2005 Regional Workshop in Szentendre, representatives from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro reported on the conclusions
reached at their individual country meetings and any subsequent consideration of pertinent issues
identified for work in the Component 3.4 activities. The conclusions were based on the country-
specific Needs Assessments and discussions about the Needs Assessments that were conducted at
country meetings. Other members from the same country delegation were invited to add their own
thoughts. The subject was then opened up for general discussion and to compare experience from
all the participating countries, and for an examination of commonalities. All of this was done in
order to set the workplan for the remaining activities of Component 3.4, to identify and prepare
what issues would be addressed in the study tours, and to feed into preparations for the
implementation of country activities and demonstration projects.
Rather than repeat information from the specific needs assessments, which were extensive and
covered a great deal of ground, this report will focus on the commonalities expressed between the
five Needs Assessments, as they were discussed in the Szentendre meeting. It became clear there
that, although the individual countries are in very different states of development of both law and
practices, they face a number of similar challenges. The reports to the regional meeting were
captured, as well, in a matrix in the course of the meeting. The matrix is copied below, and
explained in writing.
Every participating country reported that government officials were, at best, inconsistent in the
ways they responded to information requests and often rejected information requests, even when
the relevant law supported the request. Each participating country also reported that ordinary
citizens and individuals were often ignorant about their rights to information, but that even when
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 8
they had some knowledge of their rights, they lacked knowledge about how to make appropriate
requests for information and what to do if their requests were denied.
Officials responded poorly for a variety of reasons including their own lack of knowledge about the
relevant laws and limited experience and/or resources in how to implement them. To remedy this,
the countries expressed need for various kinds of training and capacity building and for assistance
in the development of desk books, manuals and aids that can provide practical support to
government officials as they respond to information requests and individuals, as well as handbooks
for citizens and NGOs as they seek information.
The purpose of the training they propose is to build awareness and new skills so that all personnel
and officials understand and can carry out their public participation/information access
responsibilities. The purpose of creating materials for government officials is to have easily
accessible guidance documents that set out the rules and procedures to be followed when a
request for information is received, including sample response letters. Additional guidance could
provide ideas about the active provision of information.
The purpose of the handbooks for citizens is to provide, in the clearest possible language,
understandable to the "man on the street," what are their rights with respect to information, how
to ask for it in a clear understandable way, and how to protest and if necessary appeal failures or
refusals to provide the information. In some instances, countries identified the need for training on
these matters for citizens and/or NGOs, as well.
Four countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Serbia and Montenegro) identified
particular needs related to the dearth of specialized offices or governmental units and/or
specialized officials for disseminating information who understand and can carry out their
responsibilities. Without internal procedures, requests get lost because no record is kept of
applications or their outcome. The same countries also expressed concern about reporting of
environmental matters and related public awareness, recognizing the power of the print and
electronic media. The country participants expressed concern about the quality of reporting about
complex environmental technical and scientific issues, such that public awareness of such issues
was limited at best. They identified knowledge and understanding gaps that could be corrected to
improve the relations and information flow between officials and media reporting on the
environment.
The recommendation for addressing this gap was identified as assistance in developing tools and
procedures for transparency and dissemination aids, and for various aspects of interacting with
media and developing media support, and understanding for environmental issues.
Two countries (Croatia and Romania) identified a compelling need to establish procedures that
would assist their governments in collecting and managing information they hold. Information
within the responsibility of relevant ministries and offices is not well managed and countries often
lack dockets and other organizing devices to assemble relevant information and have it available,
should requests be made. These kinds of procedures would include establishing systems of records
and other shared filing and retrieval systems that allow governments to know what information
they have and where it is. A second purpose of such systems is to provide some means for
segregating and protecting confidential and national security information and, correspondingly, for
making available the information that is not confidential or secret and that should be shared with
the public. Some examples of the particular issues that concern these countries include the fact
that because countries lack centralized records and/or lists of the kinds of records that are
available, information that should be disseminated, is not. Some countries also identified the need
for links between national, regional and local level offices, each of which hold water-related
information that should be made accessible to the public but lack either a central data base system
or links between existing databases. Each identified the need to train personnel in these systems,
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 9
as well as to set them up. At least one country identified the need to provide greater amounts of
information proactively in electronic form. Several of the government officials who participated in
the U.S.study tour had responsibility for data collection and integrated data systems.
Three countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro) identified
inadequacies in their laws, and the related need for support in drafting laws or procedures that
would help them comply with the various relevant requirements of the EU Water Framework
Directive, the Aarhus Convention and EU Directives that implement the Aarhus Convention. Two of
the three countries that identified this need were countries that have only recently started the
process of developing and harmonizing their laws to be consistent with EU standards; their current
laws are deficient in terms of meeting European standards. Some of the deficiencies included
inadequate sub-laws and regulations such that significant commitments are left unimplemented.
In some instances, relevant laws lack critical definitions that would clarify what the purpose and
intent of the law is.
Three countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, and Serbia and Montenegro) identified the need to establish
clear rules about how to define confidential business information, national security information and
other information that should be protected from public view for reasons of public policy, and to
establish procedures for making determinations of confidentiality and protecting information that
has been deemed to be confidential. All expressed concern about the broad and imprecise
definition or criteria for confidentiality for industrial and trade secrets, and in one case about broad
permissions given to operators to keep confidential certain commercial and industrial information,
essentially without review. Serbia expressed particular concern about how Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) laws and their related information apply to national defense matters, and plans
and programs in the event of disasters.
Three countries identified special needs concerning particular issues facing them at the current
time.
>
Bosnia/Herzegovina identified the need for technical support for Aarhus Convention
implementation. Although much of Component 3.4 project involves implementation of
certain requirements of the Aarhus Convention regarding water management issues,
we have listed this aspect of Bosnia's Needs Assessment separately, as REC has
identified other related projects in the region that might be able to provide fundamental
training in the requirements and provisions of the Aarhus Convention. Most of the other
countries have already received or receive basic assistance of this type as well.
>
Romania identified specific needs related to developing and carrying out the
consultation components for drawing up the River Basin Management Plans called for
by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Romania has 11 River Basin Committees
responsible for management on a river basin level. The country has a proposal for a
guideline on "Public Participation in River Basin Management for the implementation of
Water Framework Directive". There has been no additional action after this proposal
was drafted and essential requirements for the consultation process prescribed by the
WFD are still missing.
>
Serbia identified the need for workshops to learn how to implement and inform public
authorities and officials, and the public, about new laws it has enacted (Law on EIA,
Law on Strategic EIA, Law on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control and Law on
free access to information of public significance) These newly developed laws are meant
to implement different EU directives and they impose significant responsibilities in the
field of access to information and public participation. However, government officials
and the public have very little knowledge or understanding of these new laws. Another
problem that makes working with these new laws difficult is that they exist alongside a
body of old laws, which have no or different requirements for access to information and
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 10
public participation. Also, the body of new laws appears to be inconsistent itself. There
are no rules or guidelines on how to work with these inconsistencies. The Serbian Needs
Assessment also indicated that the country needs assistance in drafting provisions on
public participation and access to information that are in conformity with WFD
standards, for its new Water Law.
Matrix showing the overlap of country-specific needs identified in the needs assessments and
subsequent discussions within and among participating countries:
NEEDS
Law
Training/C
Government
Transparency / Media (support Confidentiali
Procedure
support
apacity
& citizen's
Dissemination
and
ty of certain
s etc. to
Building
manuals,
Aids
consultation)
business
manage
desk books
and other
INFO
and other
information
types of aids
BIH*
X
X
X X X
Bulgaria
X
X X X X
Croatia
X
X X X X
X
Romania
**
X
X
X
X
Serbia***
X
X
X X X X
X
* technical support for AC implementation (BIH)
** additional River Basin Committees (Romania)
*** workshops to provide information on new laws (public involvement in drafting/finalizing Water
Law); also mentioned some special problems involving EIA and military installations (Serbia)
Subsequent to the April Regional Workshop, the Consortium did a further review of all the Needs
Assessments and, where necessary, a further edit. The purpose of the additional review was to
prepare the Needs Assessments to be placed on the project web site and on the web sites of the
relevant REC Country Offices, to be sure of broad dissemination (and use) of the valuable
information collected and analyzed in each of the Needs Assessments. The postings will be
accompanied by a disclaimer, to assure that no person inappropriately relies on the legal analysis
contained in the Needs Assessment. Along with the full Needs Assessment, short summaries were
prepared in English and in local languages based on an outline provided by the Consortium. These
summaries have also been put on the REC Country Offices' web sites.
1.2. ICPDR Assessment Reports finalized
In February 2005 the Consortium finalized two reports evaluating ICPDR rules and practices, one
focusing on access to information at ICPDR and the other on public participation in ICPDR decision
making and activities.
The report on access to information reviewed existing practices at ICPDR with regard to actively
giving access to information and with regard to giving information on request. Gaps and best
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 11
practices were identified. The report contained suggestions on how to improve access to
information held by ICPDR. In the Steering Committee meeting in April, ICPDR expressed
satisfaction with the report and indicated it would consider the different suggestions for
implementation.
The report on public participation at ICPDR (including both ICPDR's observer process and its
stakeholder forum initiative) proposed a series of options for improving public participation in
ICPDR decision making and activities, including options for enhancing the ICPDR observer process
and for further developing the stakeholder forum concept. These options were based on review of
ICPDR's current rules and procedures for public participation, as well as on research on the public
participation rules and policies of other comparable institutions. ICPDR indicated in the Steering
Committee Meeting in April that the options presented in the report were useful and that the report
has been used to inform the current process of changing ICPDR's observer process and in further
developing the new ICPDR stakeholder forum. A first stakeholder conference has just been held in
June 2005. One of the partners in the Consortium, REC was present in the meeting and contributed
to the discussion.
The Consortium needs feedback from ICPDR on what assistance it would like the Consortium to
provide to support ICPDR's implementation of changes to improve public access to information and
public participation at ICPDR. Based on this feedback, the Consortium will be able to design
activities consistent with the timeframe of Component 3.4.
1.3. National Workshops
At the end of February and beginning of April, 5 National Workshops were held to discuss the
findings of the Needs Assessment Reports, identify key barriers on public access to information and
public participation and propose country activities to attempt to remove them. Also the
demonstration project reports were discussed and options were proposed for pilot projects.
The workshops were held in the following order:
>
Sofia, Bulgaria, February 24-25, 2005
>
Sarajevo, BiH, February 29-March 1, 2005
>
Stubicke Toplice, March 17-18, 2005
>
Sinaia, Romania, March 31-April 1, 2005
>
Palic Lake, Serbia and Montenegro, April 4-5, 2005
The two-day workshops gathered approximately 25-50 experts from key ministries, agencies and
NGOs working or planning to work in the field of WFD implementation as well as representatives of
the DRP, REC, RFF or NYU. The workshops had similar agenda which included a first session
presenting and discussing the conclusions of the Needs Assessment reports prepared by country
consultants, the major barriers and the priority issues proposed to be addressed in the project
component activities. During the second session the demonstration project report was presented
and discussed. During the third session an activity plan was developed for the project activities
and outputs based on the priority problems using the outcomes of the results of the previous day
working groups on priority needs on legal, institutional and practical aspects. The discussion
sessions included plenary as well as interactive small working group sessions for all three topics.
The participants were in informed about the development of indicators for the different DRP project
components by Dutch consultants to measure progress and success in achieving the outcomes of
the project. The Dutch consultants participated in the Sofia workshop but the goals and
expectations regarding the project activities were discussed in all countries in small working groups
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 12
to be used for further development of indicators regarding the assessment of outcomes of national
level activities.
The minutes of the national workshops have been finalized. They have been circulated among the
national and operational team members and are being made available at the websites of the REC
Country Offices
See section on proposed country activities and table of proposed demonstration project.
1.4. Regional Workshop
On April 25-26, 2005 a Regional Workshop was organized at the REC Conference Center in
Szentendre, Hungary. The main objectives of the meeting were:
>
to address the common barriers and problems that were raised in the Needs
Assessments and during the national workshops, and to define future joint activities of
the project to address them;
>
to review the progress of the project to date and shape the future activities, and
>
to give the participants from the project countries the possibility to share their
experience among each other and to learn from the experience at the EU level and in
other countries, and build capacities.
The 45 participants in the workshop included the key members of the country's operational teams,
NGOs, country consultants, experts from REC Headquarters and Country Offices as well as the
representative of the DRP. The meeting was opened by Marta Szigeti Bonifert, the ED of the REC
and Kari Aina Eik, from DRP. The Dutch consultants, Jan Piers van Leeuwen and Jan Dogterom,
were also present and presented the indicators to be proposed to be developed to measure
progress of project implementation.
After a short update on the status of the project implementation by the Project Manager, the
meeting continued with an overview of the current status of public access to water related
information in each participating country. Each country team presented the findings of the Needs
Assessment Reports, the main barriers identified and the proposed national activities to attempt to
overcome them.
The workshop then focused on capacity building and exchange of experience on three priority
issues common to all countries, which are proposed to be addressed in the project including:
> developing user-friendly procedure for public access to water related information;
> developing legal framework and criteria for commercial and industrial secret, and
> developing tools for assisting the officials to provide information and the public to access
information.
Following presentations by experts from Hungary, Estonia and the US, experiences were shared by
the project countries. Good practices identified in these presentations were used to further develop
the country activities. The participants worked in country teams and further specified their activity
plan according to the needs identified earlier.
As a result of the workshop, the participants got acquainted with the commonalities and differences
in access to information and public participation issues to be addressed in their countries, and with
different models from EU countries and the US for the three common issues and they made
progress in developing their own country activity plan. It was agreed that specific and complete
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 13
country activity plans will be prepared by the end of June based on discussions by the Operational
Teams and comments from the REC, RFF and NYU.
The minutes of Regional Workshop, agenda and list of participants are available at the REC project
web site.
1.5. Selection of Country Activities
The selection of country activities was an iterative and gradual process. First, the national
consultants identified problems / obstacles in the Needs Assessment reports and suggested a few
as first priorities. These priorities were discussed and completed in National Workshops and further
refined in the Regional Workshop. Based on these proposals, the Consortium provided feedback to
the country teams on which of the country activities would fit the goals of DRP component 3.4 and
which are feasible to carry out within the timeframe of the project.
Three to four activities have been identified for each country and they have been developed by the
Operational Team into a more detailed country activity plan. This plan has been finalized in a
dialogue with the REC, RFF and NYU together with proper budget allocation. The country activities
plan will be fully finalized by July 15 and their implementation can start immediately, or at latest
from September 1, after the summer holidays.
The country activities plans can be summarized as follows:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
>
Contribution to development of bylaw(s), procedures with regard to Water Law once
officially adopted.
o assess the needs for bylaws connected to the draft Water Law in light of needs
for further elaboration of procedures, rights and duties concerning public access
to information and public participation;
o select priority bylaws in close cooperation with National operational team;
o draft selected bylaw or procedure;
o organize half day meeting/consultations to collect comments on drafts
bylaws/procedure.
>
Contribution to the development of a Water Data Base
o assess which institutions collect and disseminate what water related information,
(the CARDS project report on monitoring and the LIFE project on development of
information system in accordance with EEA requirements should be starting
point);
o discuss assessment with working group of relevant officials and NGOs;
o prepare list/inventory of institutions and information;
o prepare leaflet for the public on how and where, what information can be
accessed and make the inventory and leaflet publicly available in published and
electronic form;
o develop recommendations for relevant ministries and agencies on how public
access to the database can be improved.
>
Development of guidelines/manual for authorities on how to disseminate active/passive
water information and how to involve the public in water related decision making
o design of table of content by operational team and representatives of relevant
authorities and NGOs;
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 14
o preparation of first draft taking into account international experiences and good
practices;
o discussion of 1st draft in meeting with Operational team and representatives of
relevant authorities and NGOs;
o finalization after comments, publishing and disseminating.
>
NGOs contributing to the improvement of access to water related information
o Organize workshop in order to assess the minimal needs of community with
regard to information related to drinking and bathing water (DEF);
o Based on the findings, give input to the guidelines/manual for the authorities
addressing active/passive info access and dissemination and clarifications on the
issue of confidentiality;
o Produce an information brochure/leaflet for NGOs/ public in order to assist them
to find the water related information sources, and increase their capacity to
interpret the data provided by authorities.
Bulgaria
>
Assessment and improvement of the rules and regulations regarding the confidentiality
of environmental information for authorities
o assessment of the current situation in Bulgaria and comparison with EU practices;
o development of options for improvement and/or change (draft law, amendment
of the law or guidance material);
o set up working group of officials and NGOs to discuss and develop the proposals,
interact with businesses;
o capacity building for officials through presenting and discussing practices in EU
Member States and what could be used in Bulgaria;
o develop guidance material on how to address the issue of confidentiality.
>
Training and capacity building for authorities
o identification of good practices and failures to implement the existing procedures
for active/passive access to information with a special focus on water related
environmental information;
o development of a proposal on good practices and suggestions for overcoming the
failures to implement the existing legislation;
o pilot implementation of the identified good practices and the approaches for
overcoming the failures to implement the existing legislation in selected
administrations (e.g. in the Danube river Basin Directorate);
o training of officials to implement the identified techniques/good practices
>
Improvement of active dissemination of information on environment and water through
web page of responsible authorities
o identification of needs for improvement;
o implementation of changes for improvement;
o elaboration of a web site for the Danube RDB;
o Assessment of changes by asking the interested stakeholders;
o Development of material on frequently asked questions and put on web page;
o put on web site information how access is possible/where/what info can be
accessed (on sources of information).
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 15
>
Development of a brochure for civil society to advise the larger public on how/where to
access environmental / water related information.
Croatia
>
Development of internal protocol with regard to access to water related information
that will assist the authorities holding water related information
o Preparation of a paper that will address the current status of how information
requests are handled by authorities, use best practices collected from
international examples (EU);
o Using the available information, the WG will discuss a proposal paper for
methodology that will be the content of the Protocol. Based on this an expert will
prepare a draft Protocol;
o Collecting feed-back on the draft Protocol during the National Meeting
>
Developing a practical guide/brochure on public access to water related information for
use by the NGOs and general public
o practical assistance on how/where/whom to approach when info is needed how to
address relevant institutions in a more efficient way;
o public campaign promoting use of brochures in the context of enhancing public
participation and access to water related information;
>
Conducting a training program for relevant public officials for improving practices in
providing environmental information with a specific emphasis on water issues
o development of training structure for national/regional/local level authorities on
relevant procedures, using best practices;
o holding trainings based on the structure developed;
o evaluating how the training improved the every day practice.
Romania
>
Improvement of the functioning of River Basin Committees (RBCs)
o assess ways and methods of communication/ information exchange among RBCs
and members and how the information produced to various documents reach the
communities (public);
o assess and analyze how the feedback from the public on the delivered
information gets back to RBC and how this is being used;
o design models to follow in order to improve stakeholder representation and
involvement of public into water management issues in communities;
o share conclusions, experience and best practices at national level with RBCs.
>
Contribution to development of water information webpage that would assist the
Ministry of Environment and Waters and other central government authorities to reach
the public through delivering user friendly information
>
Improving and sharing best practices while handling requests related to water
information through development of manual for authorities
o design of the content by a WG that will later give input to the 1st draft;
o discuss the 2nd draft and contribute to the finalization of the manual, including
with NGOs perspective during the National meeting;
o capacity building exercise for authorities that are beneficiaries of the product on
how to use the material.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 16
>
Development of brochure for wider public and NGOs on where/what/how the
information on water related issues can be accessed, integrating to the web page
activities and the manual for authorities.
Serbia and Montenegro
>
Capacity building for authorities and NGOs to improve understanding and application of
new legislation and international obligations in practice regarding public access to
information, public participation in decision making on water related matters
o Development of a Manual for government officials in local language;
o Defining structure/outline of manuals by working group of relevant officials and
NGOs;
o Consultations with international experts (REC, NYU, RFF);
o Consultations on the draft Manual with relevant officials and NGOs parties to
collect comments and finalize Manual after comments;
o Publish and disseminate Manual to relevant institutions (in combination with
capacity building workshops).
>
Improve public access to information
Development of a brochure for NGOs and the general public in easily understandable
language to facilitate public access to water related information (where to find what
information, which ministries, agencies hold the information, how to access the
information, etc.
o Discuss outline of the brochure with selected group of NGOs;
o Prepare first draft of brochure;
o Discuss draft brochure in meeting with selected group of NGOs and finalize
based on comments;
o Publish and disseminate the brochure (in combination with capacity building
workshops).
>
Twinning program/study tour to learn form other countries' experience regarding the
practical implementation of public access to information and public participation
requirements of EU WFD
>
Improvement of public involvement in law drafting process (Draft Water Law)
o organize roundtable discussion with all stakeholders/experts/NGOs/authorities on
draft Water Law;
o analyze the draft, collect input on the draft law;
o send the input collected to the authorities drafting the law.
The activity plans when in final form will be put on the web site of REC COs.
1.6. Demonstration projects
The demonstration projects have been selected in an iterative process:
>
National consultants prepared a demonstration project report for each country, using
the EMIS database, outlining the most serious hotspots. The selection criteria included:
o there should be a serious hotspot, included in the EMIS Database,
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 17
o there should be a relevant public access to information or public participation
problem,
o the capacity of the NGO who will implement the project and of the local authority
who will be a cooperative partner.
>
These reports were discussed in national workshops where participants, based on their
experience, provided further information on these selection criteria.
>
The national workshop participants identified 2-3 top priority hotspots based on the
selection criteria.
>
The Operational Teams of the countries and the REC Headquarters and Country Offices
worked further with the identified sites and invited proposals from NGOs working on
water issues in those hotspots.
>
The list of proposed demonstration sites was presented, discussed and approved in the
1st Steering Committee Meeting on April 27, 2005
>
In two countries the identified sites had to either be further investigated (Croatia) or
chosen from two options (Romania). In these cases, Operational Teams were involved
in advising on which proposal should be supported as a demonstration project.
>
The consortium developed three models to help the design of the demonstration
projects: a model with advanced industrial pollution, a model where River Basin
Committees could be involved and a model where the public access to information
mechanisms at still at a starting point.
>
REC Headquarters developed a format for the description of an activity plan and
budget, and in dialogue with the interested NGOs, with the help of the Country Offices,
the full proposals have been developed
>
During the pilot projects technical assistance will be provided by the Consortium (the
proposals include requests for such assistance), and the REC Headquarters and Country
Offices will monitor and support the project implementation.
>
The contracts will be signed after all activities and the budget have been finalized and
agreed.
>
The implementation of the demonstration projects will start September 1, 2005.
A table of demonstration projects is included in the Annex T.
1.7. Steering Committee Meeting
The 1st Steering Committee Meeting took place on April 27, 2005 at the REC Conference Center,
Szentendre, Hungary, following the Regional Workshop. All project countries were represented in
the meeting, either by the ICPDR Head of Delegation or his/her representatives. Representatives of
DEF, ICPDR, DRP and the implementing Consortium were also present.
The objectives of the meeting were to:
>
Review and discuss the progress of the project component;
>
Decide on the sites of pilot demonstration projects;
>
Inform about the progress on developing indicators and log frame for evaluating project
progress;
>
Provide support and strategic direction for the implementation of the project
component.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 18
After introductory remarks by Ivan Zavadsky, DRP Project Manager and Marta Szigeti Bonifert,
Executive Director of REC, the implementing Consortium gave an overview of the project
component activities in the inception phase and in the implementation phase of the project.
The country representatives were asked to share their experience on what they found problematic
or useful during the first 8 months of the project component. All participants found useful the
project activities, the needs assessment reports and the workshops and the identification of the
demonstration project sites, process. Only the Croatian representative stated that it was difficult to
understand what the demonstration projects should be about. Ivan Zavadsky and Phillip Weller also
welcomed the project results and proposed that an overall summary, a synthesis report, should be
prepared summarizing the common problems in the region and the proposed actvities to respond
these challenges. Such an analysis would also help ICPDR in further developing public involvement
in the Danube Basin.
The consortium presented the methodology for selection of pilot demonstration sites. The priority
sites were identified by participating countries based on Hot spot reports prepared by national
consultants, discussed in National Workshops where options were identified and proposed for pilot
sites. The country representatives presented the recommended sites for final approval. The
Steering Committee approved the proposals including the further development and decision on
alternative sites in Romania and in Croatia. (See list of proposed demonstration projects in Annex)
Among upcoming activities the draft programme of the US study tour between June 11 and 24 and
the status of selection of study tour participants were presented by the consortium. Ivan Zavadsky
and Philip Weller underlined the critical importance that governments should delegate officials to be
involved in the project, who are directly involved in access to information and public participation
regarding water or the WFD. The Consortium was requested to consult with DRP and ICPDR
regarding the program and the participants for the study tour to the Netherlands which will take
place in October and will be focused more on public participation in WFD implementation.
The Steering Committee discussed the workplan for the second half of 2005, including the
finalization of Needs Assessment Reports, country activity plans, the final selection of
demonstration projects, the progress report, the information about the component to be prepared
for the REC web site, and further communication activities including the preparation of a leaflet for
the International Waters Conference in Brazil and a special edition of REC's magazine `Green
Horizon' for Danube Day.The Committee also discussed the availability of the budget information,
synergies with other components, the development of indicators for component 3.4.
Feed back was provided about the two draft reports prepared by the implementing Consortium on
"ICPDR Information access, report and suggestions" and "Options for further developing public
participation, including observership and stakeholder participation, at ICPDR". Both draft reports
were helpful to identify where changes could be made at ICPDR and what possible alternative
approaches could look like.
The Steering Committee meeting was closed with the following conclusions:
>
The next Steering Committee will be held in early 2006 (January or February).
>
The Consortium will assure that participants to the US and EU study tours meet the
criteria specified in the meeting and that they will disseminate and use the experience
after their return.
>
ICPDR will be consulted during the planning of the study tour to the Netherlands.
>
The Consortium will proceed with the approval of the pilot demonstration projects sites,
as discussed.
>
Overall information on the budget should be distributed with the minutes of the
Steering Committee meeting.
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 19
>
Steering Committee members should be consulted on budget allocation regarding
country activities, and the detailed country plans and allocated budget should be
included in the July Progress Report.
>
Synergies with the other DRP components should be maintained as proposed.
The Steering Committee discussed and approved the progress of the project component 3.4. The
draft minutes of the meeting were sent to the participants for comments
1.8. Project Partners meeting
Following the April Regional Workshop and Steering Committee Meeting, the project partners met
for a day in Szentendre to discuss their work to date and to plan for the upcoming phases of
Component 3.4.
The most critical agenda items were:
>
Review of the results of Regional Workshop, Steering Committee Meeting and
Component 3.4 activities to date.
>
Planning for the U.S. study tour and related details (including the effort to expedite and
obtain visas for the study tour participants which included writing invitation letters to
each participant, writing letters to relevant embassies that would be issuing the visas,
and writing a letter for ICPDR signature to relevant ministries seeking their
cooperation); A considerable amount of time was spent on this topic, in view of the
immediacy of the then-upcoming study tour.
>
Implementation of the demonstration projects. As a result of these discussions, the
project partners prepared three model "cases" illustrating what a demonstration project
might involve. These included a model with advanced industrial pollution, a model
where River Basin Committees could be involved and a model where the public access
to information mechanisms are still at a starting point. The three cases reflected the
wide range of development and capacity within the five countries in the project, and
were designed to provide guidance to NGOs as they formulate written proposals of what
they want to accomplish in the course of the demonstration projects.
>
Further development of country activities. We discussed the activities proposed by the
participating countries and further steps needed to refine and elaborate these activities
and to make them "do-able" within the timeframe of Component 3.4..
>
Targeted technical assistance. We discussed the forms that technical assistance could
take over the course of Component 3.4, depending on the final design of the country
level activities.
1.9. United States Study Tour
Fifteen representatives from the five Danube countries (two government officials and one NGO
representative for each country) involved in component 3.4 and Orsolya Szálasi, from the Regional
Environmental Center came to Washington, D.C. and New York City, arriving June 11 and departing
June 24 2005 (logistics required that three participants depart New York on June 25, 2005). This
section will discuss the substantive and procedural parts of the study tour, and a preliminary
analysis of what was gained.
Purpose of study tour
The study tour provided government officials and NGOs from the five Danube countries with
concepts, ideas, tools and practical information that they can use in their efforts to develop
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 20
effective procedures for access to water-related information and to stimulate increased public
participation in the context of Danube environmental issues, the Water Framework Directive and
the Aarhus Convention. Along with the study tour to the Netherlands, which will take place in
October 2005, the U.S. study tour is a major learning and training tool of the project and the
means to identify models and ideas to be adapted for use in each of project countries.
The aim of the Consortium organizers was to provide a highly structured exposure to mature
systems of information access and environmental public participation, with strong emphasis on how
these tools work in the context of water bodies including those shared by different jurisdictions.
The Consortium fully understood that in many cases, the tools that are examined and discussed in
any study tour to the U.S. or Western Europe are the product of 35 or more years of effort and
experience and reflect a great deal of experience in a mature system of government and legal
experience. Thus, significant efforts were made to assure the relevance of the study tour
experience to countries that are at the early stages of instituting Aarhus Convention and WFD
related participation and consultation procedures, and to provide each of the project participants
with information and ideas that they can consider in the context of their own needs and
institutions.
Study tour design
The project consortium identified a series of issues for examination in the study tour, including:
>
the specific information access laws under which government works in the United
States and what practical measures government has taken to implement those laws,
with emphasis whenever possible on water-related information;
>
organizing data bases so they can be made publicly accessible and are usable by a wide
range of potential users;
>
how the government manages requests for information including tracking systems,
practical response tools and the special problems surrounding denials, including issues
of chain of command;
>
physical arrangements (such as dockets, public reading rooms and locked on-site EPA
facilities) for collecting and organizing documents obtained and generated by the U.S.
government including how sensitive and confidential business information is protected;
>
physical arrangements for making information available, whether or not it is the subject
of a specific information request from the public;
>
moving from paper to electronic access, opportunities and problems;
>
management of information issues related to shared water bodies from the
perspectives of all stakeholders including both government and NGOs;
>
the environmental press, what are their interests and approaches to their profession,
how can government and NGOs get the media to pay more attention to water quality
issues and to report it more accurately;
>
how NGOs seek information; what they do when they are denied information; how they
use the information they obtain in litigation, public campaigns, and other activities; and
>
relationships between NGOs, government and other stakeholders.
RFF and NYU identified a number of individuals and organizations located in Washington and New
York who could best exemplify and articulately discuss efforts to manage these issues (referred to
in this report as study tour presenters). Preliminary interviews were conducted with most of the
potential presenters. We were lucky to get extraordinary cooperation from the headquarters,
Annapolis and New York regional staffs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from state
and city environmental protection bodies and other relevant government offices, and from
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 21
stakeholder groups including some of the leading NGOs located in Washington, Annapolis and New
York City.
The role of the Consortium in specific meetings:
Personnel from RFF, REC and NYU escorted the study tour participants to every meeting, and
participated actively to assure maximum understanding and communication. RFF and NYU acted
as "cultural interpreters" to bridge the gap between the knowledge and experience of the study
tour participants and the presenters and facilitate communication.
Study tour results
Considerable effort was expended to assure that each session was not a "lecture," but offered
opportunities for adequate interaction and maximum comprehension. Each presenter agreed that
questions or comments could be made throughout the presentations, and not held to afterwards.
As a result, the meetings were marked by frequent questions and a lively exchange of views.
It was recognized in advance that different study tour participants would have more intense
interest in different sessions, and this was clearly reflected in the responses to particular sessions.
The Consortium did request that specific needs be expressed in advance of the study tour, so as to
accommodate those with specific needs with for example one-on-one meetings on specific issues
with US government or NGO representatives. One individual request was received and the issue at
stake was covered by the visit the participants had to Annapolis and Chesapeake Bay . A number
of the study tour participants themselves recognized that they had disparate interests, and that
particular individual sessions might be of more interest to one or another of them.
Based on discussions and evaluations from the study tour participants, the Consortium can safely
say that participants gained significant information in the following areas:
>
Participant learned how the U.S. developed national reporting on environmental data
and how the public can access environmentally related data, with particular emphasis
on the institutions involved.
>
Participants examined in some detail several efforts in the U.S. involving the clean up
and protection of shared water bodies, including the Hudson River and the Chesapeake
Bay, processes that have distinct parallels with the Danube process.
>
Participants learned how trust and specific issue-related coalitions between
stakeholders such as industry, government, NGOs, and the general public implementing
the information, are built between various and disparate bodies and institutions in the
U.S. that are concerned about shared water bodies and concluded that there has to be
a good connection and relationship between the various stakeholders and also that it is
important to take action on the information that they obtain.
>
Participants learned how EPA conducts its records management, a necessary building
block in any access to information regime, and understood how much depends on
implementing and following the law
>
Participants learned the point of view of NGOs that watchdog and monitor how the U.S.
government does or does not allow public access to information. Their perspectives
gave a more rounded version of the problems of implementation of the FOIA and
provided useful insights that were used in subsequent meetings with government.
>
Participants learned how EPA manages the considerable amount of confidential
business and other sensitive information that it obtains to balance the need for
protection against the imperative of public access.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 22
>
Participants learned how government and NGOs communicate complex environmental
and water quality messages to the public, how to deal with different stakeholders, and
how NGOs build very specific coalitions around particular issues in order to increase
their own power to demand better manage of those issues.
>
Participants obtained several perspectives on the environmental press and its role in
protecting sensitive water bodies, both from independent environmental journalists,
environmental journalists who work within environmental NGOs, and from the various
people in governmental agencies that interact with the media.
Reactions from the study tour participants:
The Consortium received very positive feedback from the study tour participants. Participants
stated that they learned much about a number of issues, including providing/requesting
information on environmental matters, general collaboration between officials and NGO in
important problems, best and not so good practices, and the importance of teamwork.
Reactions from the presenters
Reactions from the presenters were very positive. Many presenters offered their assistance
following the study tour if participants had further questions or needed further information or
assistance. One of the presenters, a representative of Hudson Riverkeeper, proposed that an
organization like Riverkeeper could be created for the Danube. After the Study Tour, a number of
the NGO participants expressed great enthusiasm for this plan, and ideas are being discussed to
follow up on it.
What would we have done with more time and resources?
The study tour participants responded quite favorably to the field trip to Annapolis and to the
concrete information they obtained there and indicated in their evaluations that such practical
examples from the field were greatly appreciated. This suggests that a future study tour might
have more field trips, for example to visit industries that discharge to water bodies such as waste
water treatment plants; to attend a public hearing conducted by EPA or a state environmental
regulatory body; to watch how a workgroup interacts; or to directly see the work of NGOs. These
types of visits are more difficult to schedule in advance, as the study tour must somehow be
coordinated with the time of the events, which are not always so easy to predict.
Hotels and other study tour arrangements
The Study tour participants expressed great satisfaction with the physical arrangements of the
study tour including the hotels and venues for the various meetings.
See US Study Tour Schedule and List of Participants enclosed in Annex R and S.
1.10. Follow up by Participants on Study Tour
As outcome of an active communication held after both the Washington and the New York part of
the study involving the project partners and the country team members the participants from each
country team will prepare an integrated Study Tour Report.
The document will be produced on country by country basis and will include the integrated
highlights on behalf of the team members and how best the experiences gained will impact the
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 23
selected country activities. These reports are under preparation and are expected to be ready by
September.
So far the identified positive impacts and contribution to the project outcomes and outputs have
included:
1. contribution to the development of guidance materials
2. assistance to the different ministry working groups and processes dealing with the
development of an inventory of water related data
3. clarification and input to the development of procedures/guidelines in relation to
the issue of confidentiality of water related information
4. advocating for the relevance and positive impact of the cooperation of different
stakeholders, namely cooperation with NGOs (this refers to a few countries where
the cooperation is not yet very intensive or deep)
5. keeping the group of study tour participants in touch and using them as regional
tool for communication, using their contribution to national activities
Also as follow up, as part of an official process, the ministry and agency participants will have to
prepare an official report that will be disseminated in their institutions and shared with other
relevant water authorities, as well as direct impact in form of experience sharing during project
activities and expert input in developing specific products.
The DEF members will actively disseminate the knowledge gained using in future events, will use
diverse communication opportunities to share the lessons learned, including the assistance that will
be given to the demonstration project implementation.
1.11. Logframe and Indicators
The Consortium has been in close contact with Rayka Hauser and with J. Dogterom and J.P.E. van
Leeuwen of NHL to reach agreement on how NHL will provide support in the development of
indicators, with the specific aim of assuring that their involvement will be most effectively used to
support the Consortium in fulfilling its tasks, as well as the Consortium and DRP in developing a
clear tool for monitoring of the progress and achievements of Component 3.4.
The following plan of action was followed. The Consortium provided the experts from NHL with all
written materials available on the project, so that they could get a good idea of what exactly would
be undertaken by the Consortium and the local stakeholders. A conference call was used to provide
additional information and clarification. The experts attended a national workshop in Bulgaria on 24
and 25 February 2005 to see first hand how the Consortium works on the project and to inform the
national participants about the development of indicators. The Consortium made a presentation on
indicators to participants at the other national workshops, in Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Romania. The Dutch experts were also present at the Regional workshop
in Szentendre, Hungary on 25 and 26 April 2005, where they made a presentation on the use of
indicators to all participants. These activities together assured that the experts from NHL had a full
and concrete understanding of the access to information and public participation goals that the
Consortium is aiming for in each country, as well as the activities planned to achieve these goals.
The presentations by the Dutch experts similarly assured that participants understand the indicator
concept and the value of having indicators as a way of measuring project progress. Based on these
materials, meetings and discussions, the experts from NHL provided a draft Logframe, which was
sent to the Consortium for comments. After extensive comments a structurally revised draft was
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 24
presented which is currently being discussed by the Consortium and which will be finalized in by
the end of July 2005.
1.12. Communication on project component activities
During the implementation period the Consortium continued to use the procedures that have been
agreed for regular and coordinated communications on the results of the project component
activities with DRP.
Ongoing and planned communications activities include:
>
news and updates of project websites of REC HQ and all REC Country Offices involved
in the project;
>
article in REC's Green Horizon Magazine on the project activities and some of the
findings of the country reports in the special issue dedicated to Danube Day;
>
input for DRP leaflet to be distributed in the International Waters Conference, Brazil
>
dissemination of summaries of outcomes of the National Workshops including country
activity plans;
>
dissemination of findings of the Needs Assessment reports in English and its summaries
in English and local languages via email list and REC Country Office web pages
1.13. Lessons learned in the first 9 months of the project
The following is a list of lessons learned by the Consortium partner. The lessons are not listed in a
particular order.
1. The countries involved in Component 3.4 are at very different stages of
development and capacity for successfully achieving and implementing reforms in
the field of access to information and public participation
2. It is important that activities are developed and carried out in each country in a
participatory way proposed and worked out by the country partners, that they are
feasible and will leave a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction, so that future
work can build on it and be similarly successful.
3. Participants from different countries have found the opportunity to share and learn
from each others' country's experience valuable. The countries involved should
make it a habit to share information amongst each other. Although they are at
different stages of development, they are all moving in a similar direction and they
can use each others lessons learned, which may save them time and the effort.
4. The US Study tour taught us that what the government officials and NGO
representatives involved need most, are examples from actual practice: how do
things work on a daily basis, what problems do people run into when working on
issues of access to information and public participation, what works well. The
assistance activities of the Consortium should also be of a practical nature.
5. Involving a range of people who are responsible for different aspects of providing
public access to information and public participation (NGOs, national level water
officials, national environmental officials, local and regional officials involved in
environmental protection and water protection, database specialists) in Component
3.4 is very important. Each has a different perspective on the barriers and
opportunities for improvement of access to information and public participation;
together these different perspectives help flesh out the dimensions of the obstacles
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 25
to access to information and public participation and will help in formulating more
effective approaches to overcoming the barriers. In addition, it is very important
that these different sectors talk to each other and cooperate. No one sector can
solve these problems alone.
6. Working collaboratively on project activities can help build bridges between NGOs
and government officials; this process has started through joint activities such as
the country-level meetings in each participating country, and the U.S. Study Tour
and Regional Plenary. This is a process, and it takes time and getting to know one
another. Many of the government officials had never worked with NGOs before, and
are coming to understand that NGOs can actually help them accomplish their goals
and do their job more effectively (Some officials on the U.S. study tour said this
quite directly).
7. Looking at examples of good practices in other EU countries or the US, as was done
in the capacity building workshop at the Regional Plenary Meeting and through the
U.S. Study Tour, can be very helpful in stimulating participants' thinking about how
to overcome the barriers to access to information and increase public participation,
and can help generate potential approaches and solutions that can be developed
further in participants' home countries. It is not a matter of simply importing
someone else's solution wholesale, but of seeing analogies and identifying
promising approaches that could be adapted and tailored to the needs back home.
8. Participants' enthusiasm for the project and optimism about its results sometimes
leads them to set unrealistically ambitious goals; the project team and DRP need to
help them set realistic goals that can be accomplished within the timeframe of the
project.
9. The iterative process of identifying the priority needs, developing ideas on how to
remove obstacles through country activities, and planning and implementing those
in practice, is itself a capacity building process during which the country teams not
only learn by doing but also establish valuable networks among officials which can
be used to sustain similar activities in the future.
10. Demonstration projects will be most helpful and useful if they are tied thematically
and practically to the access to information and public participation issues that
have been identified as priorities at the country level. Many of the demonstration
project ideas were quite vague the start of discussions, and it was important that
the project team work closely with participants to help them refine those ideas into
workable projects that will be both useful locally and also provide helpful examples
to inform work on the national priority issues.
2.
ACTIVITIES TO COME IN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS
2.1. Activities planned for the next 6 months
A number of activities are scheduled to take place in the second half of 2005.
In January and February 2005, the Consortium presented two reports to ICPDR: one on access to
ICPDR information and the other on public participation in ICPDR decision making and activities.
ICPDR expressed satisfaction with the contents of the reports. At the request of ICPDR the
Consortium will provide assistance to ICPDR in implementing recommendations made and options
provided in the reports during the second half of 2005.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 26
A demonstration project has been chosen for each of the participating countries. These will start
in September 2005. The Consortium will hire local experts, based on detailed terms of reference, to
work with the Consortium and with the relevant local stakeholders on these projects. Detailed
implementation plans are being created for each project. Where needed, the Consortium will
provide technical assistance for each project, will monitor and support the implementation and will
organize capacity building activities for local stakeholders.
A list of activities has been developed for each country that will assist these countries in
enhancing access to environmental and water related information and public participation. These
lists have been discussed extensively during the national and regional meetings that took place
between February and April 2005. The Consortium will provide technical assistance for each of
these activities (e.g. assistance in drafting of legal or policy texts, sharing experience on good
practice models in the EU and US, comment on the draft guidance materials, etc.), if needed, will
create input for specific work products, and will use the regional capacity building workshops to
support participants' efforts with respect to these activities, beginning in the second half of 2005.
In the first half of 2005 a draft Logframe and indicators has been prepared by two consultants
from the Noordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden (NHL). The draft was discussed in great detail by the
Consortium, representatives of DRP and the two consultants. A final version of the Logframe is
scheduled to be ready by the end of July 2005.
In late October 2005 a Study Tour to the Netherlands will be organized (early November 2005
is reserved as a fall back option). The Netherlands Study Tour will have an in-depth focus on the
specific mechanisms for public access to information and public participation being put into practice
in the Netherlands under the EU Water Framework Directive in conjunction with other EU directives
on public participation and access to information and the Aarhus Convention. The participants in
this Study Tour will be those involved in practice in the implementation of the WFD. The
Consortium will closely consult with DRP and ICPDR on the agenda and the participants selected for
this Study Tour. See proposed draft program in the section 2.2.
In November 2005, the second Regional Plenary Meeting and a meeting of the project
partners (possibly with attendance by representatives of ICPDR and/or DRP) will take place. The
purpose of the Regional Plenary Meeting will be to share the results of the two study tours
especially how the experience to date (and early results, if any) has been used in the country
activities, to conduct capacity building workshops on key issues of common interest to participants
identified during the country activities in the five countries, and to help the Consortium define the
countries' technical assistance needs for the remainder of the Component. The Consortium will
prepare documents and presentations for these meetings and will be involved in further follow-up
activities resulting from these meetings.
In order to reach the widest possible audience for the activities undertaken, the outcomes and
work products produced in the project, a dissemination plan will be developed by the Consortium
partners in the second half of 2005.
2.2. Study Tour to the Netherlands
Draft Program
October 2005-November 2005
Day 1-The Hague-Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and Ministry of
Agriculture and Water
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 27
Mapping the structure that is involved in the coordination and implementation of the EU WFD at
international, national and sub-national levels
Which institution does What? How? When? coordinates, communicates with other ministries and
subordinate levels
Instruments and mechanisms used at central government level for information, communication and
involvement of stakeholders
Current status of EU WFD implementation: Main achievements and problems
Connection to implementation of other A to I and PP specific legislative, procedural tools within NL
(implementation of other EU directives and Aarhus Convention in practice at national level)
Meeting and discussion with national level stakeholders, NGOs involved in WFD issues: How do
stakeholders organize themselves to get involved? (WWF, FoE, Natur Milieu and Stichtig, etc)
Day 2 and 3 The Hague? Other location?
Visits to regional and local level authorities that have responsibilities for EU WFD implementation,
RIZA, Water boards
Roles and competencies
Info dissemination with regard to EU WFD, water management planning (who does what?)
Methods/tools for information dissemination: what information is provided by whom and what way.
How are confidentiality issues handled? How the agencies are organized to deal with access and
provision of information?
Stakeholder identification, selection, communication and information process and methods.
Public involvement with regard to EU WFD, commenting of water management plans: good practice
examples (active involvement, information, consultation) What are the forms and methods applied?
Experiences with stakeholder forums, public discussions, meetings, hearings, etc.
Working with stakeholders: taking into account their comments in decision making and
communication of their input, about the decision
Meeting and discussion with representatives of stakeholders including NGOs working on WFD
issues; How are they involved, how do they provide input?
Day 4and 5 Location ?
Authentic case study, site visit to country side
EU WFD implementation in the Scheldt River Basin, International River Basin Management-
Belgium, France, The Netherlands
Pilot case within EU where EU Guidance on Public Involvement has been tested: lessons learned
International and trans boundary aspects of the case
The Netherlands national level implementation of the case, with involvement of provinces, water
boards, municipalities
Communication, information and public participation (active involvement, information and
consultation)
-experiences
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 28
-best practices
-lessons learned
Meeting and discussion with representatives of stakeholders including NGOs working on WFD issues
Evaluation and follow up actions
2.3. Work plan
This work plan lists activities envisioned for the inception and the implementation phase of the
project. Activities completed so far have been marked with **. For this 6-month report, changes
(compared with the work plan as provided in the Inception Report) have only been made to dates
in the next 6 months (July December 2005). These changes are highlighted.
ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
SELECTION AND HIRING OF NATIONAL CONSULTANTS:
Feedback on draft TOR
DRP
23 November 2004 **
Finalised TOR
Consultant
30 November 2004 **
Collection of CVs and proposal on selected
Consultant
5-10 December 2004 **
experts to DRP
Approval of nominated experts
DRP/ICPDR
A week after submission **
Contracting of experts
Consultant Upon
approval
**
ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL TEAMS:
Serbia and Montenegro national workshop
Consultant
12 October 2004 **
Bosnia and Herzegovina national workshop
Consultant
14 October 2004 **
Croatia national workshop
Consultant
22 October 2004 **
Romania national workshop
Consultant
16 November 2004 **
Bulgaria national workshop
Consultant
26 November 2004 **
Letters to key institutions with workshop
Consultant
1-22 December 2004 **
minutes and requests for nominations
Nominations of members for national and
Stakeholder
31 December 2004-January 31 2005
operational teams
organizations
**
NATIONAL NEEDS ASSESMENTS:
Feedback on draft NA outline
DRP
23 November 2004 **
Submission of draft questionnaire
Consultant
5 December 2004 **
Feedback on draft questionnaire
DRP
15 December 2004 **
Finalized NA outline
Consultant
5 December 2004 **
Finalized outline
Consultant
10 December 2004 **
Guidance for local experts
Consultant
December 2004 **
Draft NA reports, BG, SiM
Consultant
31 January 2005 **
Draft NA reports, HR, RO and BiH
Consultant
15 February 2005 **
Translation, distribution, national consultations
Consultant
February, mid- to end of March
2005 **
Final Needs Assessment Reports
Consultant
31 March 2005 1st week of June
2005 **
INCEPTION REPORT:
Draft Report
Consultant
17 December 2004 **
Feedback from DRP
DRP
January 7, 2005 **
Final Report
Consultant
End of second week of January 2005
**
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 29
ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
ICPDR ASSESSMENT:
Draft review and analysis of models for
Consultant
31 December 2004 **
Observers and PP
Feedback from ICPDR on draft
ICPDR
January 13, 2005 **
Draft observer questionnaire
Consultant
1 December 2004 **
Feedback from ICPDR on draft observer
ICPDR
17 December 2004 **
questionnaire
Final draft paper on PP models with
Consultant (NYU)
27 February 2005 **
recommendations to the ICPDR
Draft ICPDR assessment of access to
Consultant (RFF)
31 December 2004 **
information mechanisms
Final ICPDR assessment of access to
Consultant
20 February 2005 **
information mechanisms
Final design of reform measures for ICPDR
Consultant
If and when requested by ICPDR
Assistance to ICPDR in implementing
Consultant/ICPDR
If and when requested by ICPDR
recommendations on access to information and
observer/PP models
FINALIZATION OF LOGFRAME AND INDICATORS:
Comments on TOR for TA
Consultant
26 November 2004 **
Feedback from DRP
DRP
10 December 2004 **
Start of cooperation with TA
Consultant, DRP
January 2005 **
Methodology for indicator development and
Consultant, NHL
15 January 2005 **
other TA planned
Draft logframe with outcomes and outputs
Consultant, NHL
24 May 2005 **
Completed logframe and indicators
Consultant
20 July 2005
LOCAL DEMONSTRATION SITES:
Selection criteria and a concrete proposal for
Consultant
Inception Report **
selection, planning and implementation process
Feedback on selection criteria and processes
DRP
15 January 2005 **
Review of potential hot spots and project ideas
Consultant
29 February 2005 **
Discussion at national workshops
Consultant
February and April 2005 **
Submission of proposals to 3.4 SC
Consultant
April 2005 **
Selection of local sites and demonstration
3.4 SC
April-June 2005 **
projects
Draft TORs for local experts
Consultant
July 2005
Feedback on TORs
DRP
July 2005
Contract local experts
Consultant
July 2005 (Upon approval)
Implementation Plans for demonstration
Consultant
September 2005
projects
Start of demonstration projects
Consultant
September 2005
Capacity building workshops at local sites
Consultant
September 2005-April 2006 (on an
ongoing basis)
Technical Assistance to demonstration projects
Consultant
September 2005-April 2006 (on an
ongoing basis)
End of demonstration projects
Consultant
June 2006
Final report on lessons learned from
Consultant August/September
2006
demonstration projects
MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS:
Plan/prepare for first set National Workshops
Consultant
January-February 2005 **
National workshops--first set
Consultant
February-April 2005 **
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 30
ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
Plan/prepare for second set National Workshops
Consultant
December 2005-January 2006 **
National workshop--second set
Consultant
January-February 2006
Plan/prepare for First Plenary Meetings
Consultant
March-April 2005 **
Regional Plenary Meetings--First
Consultant
25-26 April 2005 **
Plan/Prepare for Second Plenary Meetings
Consultant
September-October 2005
Regional Plenary Meeting --
Consultant
November 2005 (December 2005 will
Second
be the fall back option)
Plan/Prepare for Final Plenary Meeting
Consultant
August October 2006
Regional Plenary Meeting--Final
Consultant
October 2006
3.4 Steering Committee Meeting--first
Consultant/DRP
27 April 2005 **
3.4 Steering Committee Meeting--second
Consultant/DRP
January-February 2006
3.4 Steering Committee Meeting--Final
Consultant/DRP
October 2006
Kick-off Meeting of Project Partners/DRP
Consultant/DRP
November 2004 **
Meeting of Project Partners
Consultant
28 April 2005 **
Meeting of Project Partners/ICPDR/DRP, if
Consultant/DRP/IC
November 2005
needed
PDR
Meeting of Project Partners/ICPDR/DRP, as
Consultant/DRP/IC
October 2006
needed
PDR
STUDY TOURS:
Selection of participants for U.S. and EU Study
Consultant/Nationa
15 February 2005 **
Tours
l Teams
DRP feedback on participants
DRP
28 February 2005 **
Final agenda for U.S. Study Tour
Consultant
15 June 2005 **
U.S. Study Tour
Consultant
11-24 June 2005 **
Draft agenda for EU Study Tour
Consultant
July 2005
DRP/ICPDR Comments on agenda
DRP
July 2005
Final agenda for EU Study Tour
Consultant
September 2005
EU Study Tour
Consultant
October 2005 (fallback date:
beginning of November 2005)
U.S. Study Tour lessons learned reports
Country teams
July 2005
EU Study Tour lessons learned report
Consultant
December 2005
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE / CAPACITY BUILDING:
Technical assistance to national teams as
Consultant
June 2005-September 2006 on an
needed
ongoing basis
Report on design of national capacity building
Consultant September-October
2005
activities
Practical Work Products (e.g., Best Practices
Consultant
To be determined, based on needs
Materials) researched/drafted/translated
identified in national workshops and
regional plenary meetings
Practical work products completed
Consultant
October 2006
NATIONAL MEASURES / PRODUCTS:
Identification of measures/products
National
February-March 2005, in national
teams/Consultants
workshops **
Preliminary design of measures/products National
30 June 2005 **
teams/Consultants
Draft national reform proposals and/or other
National
January-February 2006
draft measures/products
teams/Consultants
Final national reform proposals and/or other
National
September 2006
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 31
ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
final measures/products
teams/Consultants
DISSEMINATION:
Draft dissemination plan
Consultant
November 2005
Final dissemination plan
Consultant
December 2005
Dissemination of project products
Consultant
December 2006
WEBSITE:
Project website established
Consultant
November 2004 **
Posting of project products/articles and periodic
Consultant
November 2004-February 2007 on
updates
an ongoing basis
FINAL REPORT / LESSONS LEARNED:
Draft Final Report
Consultant
October 2006
Final Report
Consultant
December 2006
REPORTING:
First 6-month report
Consultant
15 July 2005
Second (Annual) 6-month Report
Consultant
December 2005
Third 6-month report
Consultant
July 2006
Fourth (Annual) 6-month report Consultant
December
2006
External mid-term evaluation
Indep. Contractor
December 2005
ARTICLES:
Draft articles
Consultant
March 2006
Finalize/begin to place articles for publication
Consultant
April -October 2006
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report
page 32
3.
FINANCIAL REPORT
3.1. Explanatory note on financial issues related to the
implementation of the component 3.4
The Consortium has used the financial resources as planned in the original budget. (See attached
Financial Report in Excel format under 3.3 for the period of September 2004-May 2005.)
Regarding the budget allocated to REC within the Consortium, after the selection of country
activities proposed by the countries, for the next phases it has become clear that due to the nature
of these activities, we will need diverse resources for human and direct costs and that there will be
need to reallocate funds among budget lines. There seems to be need for less finances for national
expert work (consultancy) and more needs to be allocated for covering direct expenses mostly
meeting costs (workshops, trainings, development of capacity building materials) within the
countries. (See section on Selection of country activities)
The exact figures cannot be given at this point. Our estimation is that it could be even 40-50% of
the leftover under the National Consultants budget line that we would need to be reallocated to
direct costs. In the near future, when the country activity plans will be finally approved, the
Consortium will submit a specific reallocation proposal if needed which will contain the specific
figures regarding the amounts and the budget lines.
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 33
ANNEXES
Q. List of project deliverables so far
R. US Study tour schedule
S. List of US study tour participants
T. Pilot demonstration projects table
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report - Annexes
page 34
ANNEX Q
LIST OF PROJECT DELIVERABLES SO FAR
Milestones/Deliverables
Time frame: January June 2005
Inception report
January 2005
National implementation teams established
January 2005
National experts/consultants contracted
January 2005
Selection criteria for demonstration project
January 2005
sites
ICPDR Assessment Report on Access to
February 2005
Information
ICPDR Assessment Report on Public
February 2005
Participation
Five national workshops and workshop
February-April 2005
materials
Needs Assessment Reports
February-April 2005 (draft)
June 2005 (Final)
Summaries of Needs Assessment Reports
June 2005
Regional Plenary meeting, meeting materials
April 2005
and presentations
Steering Committee Meeting, meeting
April 2005
materials and presentations
National priorities/gaps identified
April 2005
Activities/ measures to address
April-May 2005
priorities/gaps identified
Design of national activities
June July 2005
Selection of demonstration project sites
February-April 2005
Demonstration project sites proposals
April 2005
US Study Tour and study tour materials
June 2005
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 35
ANNEX R
US STUDY TOUR SCHEDULE
Study Tour week in Washington, D.C.
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
June 13
June 14
June 15
June 16
June 17
9 10:30 AM RFF
9- 10:30. Housekeeping
9:30 - 12 Rick
9 meet at RFF.
8 AM - leave for
Organize for week;
items at RFF (including
Blum OMB
Review questions,
Annapolis
distribute per diems
civics lessons to
Watch and
concerns, context
and other housekeeping understand U.S. forms of
OpenTheGovern
from meetings
items; depart for U.S.
government), and depart
ment.org
Environmental
for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Protection Agency
11:00- 11:30:
11:30-12:30: Public
10:00 12:15 Scott
9:30 EPA Annapolis
Welcome and
Access via the web: issues
Amey General
Offices. Rebecca
introductions at EPA
and problems including
Counsel, Project on
Hanmer, Director,
w/Deborah Williams
maintenance. Pre-and
Government
Chesapeake Bay
(Office of
post-9/11 issues.
Accountability
Office; Michael
Environmental
Odelia Funke, (OTOP) and
(POGO)
Burke, Associate
Information OEI) and
Emma McNamara (OEI)
Director; Nita
staff (Escorts: Lillian
Sylvester (web
Penny & Van Tran-Lam
responsibilities),
(OEI))
Chris Conner
(outreach and
communication),
Mike Land
11:30-1 PM: Overview
12:30-1:30: Lunch - self
Lunch: catered
Lunch: catered at
1 PM Catered lunch
of records management pay near EPA
at RFF
RFF
at Chesapeake Bay
at EPA and website tour
Foundation
Tammy Boulware,
Office of Environmental
Information (OEI);
Scott Stirneman, ASRC
1-2: Lunch-- self pay
1:40 2:30: Public
Afternoon:
1:30 NGOs and the
2-3:30 PM
near EPA
Access via dockets (walk
Divide into
environmental press
Chesapeake Bay
through; visit the docket
country teams
Janet Hodur
Foundation Jay
rooms; see physical
and outline and
Sherman
layout) Robert Johnston,
begin writing
Patrick Grimm (OEI); Peter country team
Wendolkowski, ASRC
reports
2:00-3:00:
2:30 3:15:
3 4:30: Health
4-5 PM
Managing access to
Moving from Paper
based inventories on
Walk in the
Confidential Business
Dockets to Electronic
the web. Gale A.
Annapolis Old Town
and other Sensitive
Access.
Dutcher, Head, Office
Information. Tony
Robert Johnston, Patrick
of Outreach and
Cheatham, Office of
Grimm (OEI); Peter
Special Populations
Pollution Prevention
Wendolkowski, ASRC
Division of
and Toxics;
Specialized
3:00 3:45: CBI
Information Services,
Center walk-through
National Library of
(Tony Cheatham)
Medicine
4-5:30 PM: Public
3:15-5 PM: Public access
Access via the Freedom
to Information on
of Information Act and
Compliance and
processing of requests.
Enforcement (including
Larry Gottesman (OEI)
chain of command issues
& Byron Brown (Office
and reporting to Congress.
of General Counsel)
Joe Acton, Office of
Enforcement & Compliance
Assurance.
5-5:15: closing remarks,
Deborah Williams
Dinner: self pay
Dinner: self pay
Dinner: self pay
7 PM Dinner at Ruth
Dinner: self pay
Bell's home
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report - Annexes
page 36
Agenda
Danube River Delegation
June 13 14, 2005
Purpose: To enlighten, educate and share "lessons learned" with representative from the Danube
River countries so that they may benefit from EPA's experiences with providing public access to
environmental information.
DAY 1
Escorts: Lillian Penny & Van Tran-Lam (OEI)
Monday, June 13
Location: EPA East, Room 4349
11:00 am 11:30 am
Welcome and Introductions
11:30 am 12:45 pm
Records Management Overview & Website Tour
Tammy Boulware, Office of Environmental Information (OEI);
Scott Stirneman, ASRC
12:45 2:00 pm
LUNCH
2:00 3:00 pm
Managing Access to Confidential Business and Sensitive
Information, Tony Cheatham, Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics
3:00 3:45 pm
Protecting Access to Sensitive Information
(CBI
Center
Walk-thru,
Tony Cheatham)
4:00 5:30 pm
Public Access via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Larry Gottesman, OEI; Byron Brown, Office of General Counsel
Adjourn Day 1
DAY 2
Tuesday, June 14
Room: EPA West, Room 6124
11:00 am 12:30 pm
Public Access via the Web
Emma McNamara, OEI; Odelia Funke, OTOP
12:30 1:30 pm
LUNCH
1:40 2:30 pm
Public Access via Dockets (Walk-thru)
Robert Johnston, Patrick Grimm (OEI); Peter Wendolkowski, ASRC
2:30 3:15 pm
Moving from Paper Dockets to Electronic Access
Robert Johnston, Patrick Grimm (OEI); Peter Wendolkowski, ASRC
3:15 5:00 pm
Public Access to Information on Compliance and Enforcement
Process , Joe Acton, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
5:00
5:15
pm
Closing
Remarks
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 37
Study Tour week in New York
location time
Organization,
activity
persons
Monday 20
EPA
10.00 11.00 EPA
Bonnie Bellow, Director of Public Affairs
Region II 11.00 11.45 EPA
Peter Brandt, Chief of Intergovernmental and
Community Affairs Branch
11.45 12.15 EPA
Wanda Calderon, Regional FOIA Officer
12.15 13.30 Lunch
13.30 14.30 EPA
David Kluesner, Community Involvement
Coordinator for the Hudson River Superfund
Site
14.30 14.45 Tea break
14.45 15.45 EPA
David Kluesner, Community Involvement
Coordinator for the Hudson River Superfund
Site
Afternoon
Go to WTC site,
evening
Dinner at South Street
Seaport
Tuesday 21 NYU Law
09.30 11.00 Natural Resources Defense
Brad Sewell, Senior Attorney
School
Council
And Allison Chase, Scientist
11.00 11.30 Coffee break
11.30 13.00 Environmental Defense
Jim Tripp, General Counsel, New York office
13.00 14.30 Lunch
14.30 15.30 Environmental Law and
Joel Kupferman, attorney
Justice Project
15.30 16.00 Tea break
16.00 17.30 New York City Department of
Charles Sturcken, Director of Public Affairs
Environmental Protection
and
Judah Prero, FOIA Officer, Counsel's Office
Wednesday NYU Law
09.30 11.00 New York State Attorney
Peter Lehner, head of the Environmental
22
School
General's Office
Protection Bureau
11.00 11.30 Coffee break
11.30 13.30 New York State Department
Joe Dimura, head of the bureau of compliance
of Environmental
of the NYState water programme
Conservation
13.30 14.30 Lunch
14.30 16.00
Dan Fagin, free lance journalist, associate
professor of journalism, associate director of
graduate-level Science and Environmental
Reporting Program
16.00 16.30 Tea break
16.30 17.30 NYU Law School
Mirela Roznovschi, Reference Librarian for
international and foreign law
Thursday
NYU Law
09.30 11.00 Riverkeeper
Basil Seggos, Chief Investgator
23
School
11.00 11.30 Coffee break
11.30 12.30 NYU Law School
Richard Stewart, John E. Sexton Professor of
Law, Director Center on Environmental and
Land Use Law
12.30 13.15 Lunch
13.15 14.00 Get to Circle Line
14.30 17.30 Circle Line
17.30 18.30 Walk 42nd street to Times
Square and take 1 or 9 metro
18.30
Dinner at Stewarts'
Friday 24
NYU Law
08.45 9.30
Short plenary meeting
Discuss overall lessons learned from study
School
tour
09.30 10.45 Country delegation
what they will do, based on study tour, as
discussions on
measures in their country
10.45 11.15 Coffee break
11.15 12.30 Plenary session
country delegations reporting back
summing up by project team
12.30 13.30 Lunch
Afternoon and Departure
evening
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report - Annexes
page 38
ANNEX S
LIST OF US STUDY TOUR PARTICIPANTS
US Study Tour 11-24th June 2005
Bosnia and
Ms. Dilista Hrkas
Tel : +387 33 209 903
Herzegovina
Public Relation
Mobile: +387 61 722629
Public Enterprise "Vodno Podrucje Slivova
Fax : +387 33 209 993
Rijeke Save"
E-mail: dilista@voda.ba
Grbavicka 4/3,
71000 Sarajevo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ms. Violeta Jankovic
Tel : +387 53 200 570
Advisor for Environment Protection
Fax : +387 53 200 572
Bosna River Basin Authority
Mobile: +387 65 879 386
Republic Directorate for Water
E-mail: jvioleta@teol.net
Vojvode Misica 22,
74000 Doboj
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mr. Nenad Buzanin
Tel : +387 65 920 827
Executive Director
Mobile:+ 387 65 920-827
Ecological Promotion Association Eco Zone
Fax : +387 50 371 181
Sipovo
E-mail: eko-zona@teol.net
Vidovdanska 21,
70270 Sipovo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
bulgaria
Ms. Kremena Plamenova Simeonova
Tel: +359 2 940 6545
Junior Expert
Mobile: +359 889 901 308
Water Use Department
Fax: +359 2 980 9641
Ministry of Environment and Water
E-mail:
Blv. "Maria Luiza" No. 22,
kplamenova@moew.government.bg
1000 Sofia
Bulgaria
Ms. Denitsa Petrova-Todorova
Tel: +359 2 940 6562
Junior Expert
Mobile: +359 888 657828
Water Protection Department
Fax: +359 2 980 9641
Ministry of Environment and Water
E-mail: deni@moew.government.bg
Blv. "Maria Luiza" No. 22,
1000 Sofia
Bulgaria
Ms. Milena Emanuilova Kovacheva
Tel: +359 2 980 8497
Project Manager
Mobile: +359-888-798-712
Centre for Environmental Information and
Fax: +359 2 9892785
Education CEIE
E-mail: milena@ceie.org
17 A Sofroniy Vratchanski Str.
1303 Sofia
Bulgaria
Croatia
Ms. Sanja Genzic
Tel: + 385 1 63 07 312
Adviser
Mobile: + 385 91 19 777 68
Information and Public Participation
Fax: +385 1 615 1821
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
E-mail: sgenzic@voda.hr
Management
Directorate for Water Management
Vukovarska 220,
10 000 Zagreb
Croatia
Ms. Anica Juren
Tel: +385 1 488 6849
Head of Water-SEA Department
Mobile: + 385 91 610 6394
Croatian Environment Agency
Fax: +385 1 488 6850
Trg. Marsala Tita 8,
E-mail: anica.juren@azo.hr
10 000 Zagreb
Croatia
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 39
Ms. Maja Baksaj
Tel: +385 42 320 357,+385 42 311
NGO "Franjo Koscec"
535
J.Kozarca 26.a
Fax: +385 42 320 359
42 000 Varazdin
Mobile: +385 98 9709458
Croatia
E-mail: ekoloska-udruga@vz.htnet.hr
romania
Ms. Ana Drapa
Tel: +40 21 335 2591
Ministry of Environment and Water
Mobile: +40 743 49 43 99
Management
Fax: +40 21 410 2032
Bulevardul Libertatii Nr. 12,
E-mail: adrapa@mappm.ro
Bucharest
Romania
Ms. Carmen Camelia Maria Calatan
Tel: +40 21 493 4237
Senior Counsellor
Mobile:+ 40 722 844 520
Directorate for Environmental Policies
Fax: +40 21 493 4237
Implementation
E-mail: cami_calatan@yahoo.com
National Environmental Protection Agency
151 Aleea Lacul Morii Sector 6,
060841 Bucharest
Romania
Ms. Mirela Leonte
Tel: +40 236 499 957
Vice-President
Mobile: +40- 0788 428 068
ECO Counselling Centre Galati (ECCG)
and +40- 0740 045 645
Basarabiei Street No. 2,
Fax: +40 236 312 331
800 201 Galati
E-mail: eco@cceg.ro
Romania
mleonte@cceg.ro
Serbia and Montenegro Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic
Tel : +381 11 215 8759 ext. 150
Head of Department
Mobile:+381 63 373 696
Strategic Development of Environmental Media
Fax : +381 11 215 8793
Ministry for Science and Environmental
E-mail:
Protection
jovanka.ignjatovic@ekoserb.sr.gov.yu
Directorate for the Environmental Protection
vanai@EUnet.yu
91, Drivana Ribara
11070 Belgrade
Serbia and Montenegro
Ms. Biljana Jovanovic Ilic
Tel: +381 11 313 1355
Change Agent and HR Manager
Mobile:+381 64 349 8227
Department for European Integration
Fax: +381 11 313 1394
Ministry for Science and Environmental
E-mail: biljana@mail.ru
Protection
Directorate for Environmental Protection
Omladinskih brigade 1,
11000 Belgrade
Serbia and Montenegro
Ms. Mirjana Bartula
Tel: +381 11 323 1374
Secretary General
Mobile: +381 63 88 01 572
Danube Environmental Forum Serbia and
Fax: +381 11 323 1374
Montenegro
E-mail: defyu@eunet.yu
Andricev venac 2,
11000 Belgrade
Serbia and Montenegro
REC
Ms. Orsolya Szálasi
Tel: +36 26 504 000 ext. 212
Project Manager
Fax: +36 26 311 294
Public Participation Programme
E-mail: oszalasi@rec.org
The Regional Enviornmental Center
For Central and Eastern Europe
Ady Endre ut 9-11,
2000 Szentendre
Hungary
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
1st Progress Report - Annexes
page 40
ANNEX T
PILOT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TABLE
Country / Location Type of
Objectives
Planned main activity lines
Institutions
of the site /
pollution/
to be
Implementing
Problems
involved
NGO
Bosnia -
Herzegovina
Tuzla Canton,
-Industrial
- To increase the access to
-Assess the water
-Municipal
Lukovac
pollution from
information with regard the
information sources and
authority
River Bosna
Coke factory and
existing pollution by assessing
produce a publicly
-
Chemical
the status of the rivers and
available work document
Companies
Lead NGO
industry
the availability of information -Define the priority issues
-University
"Eko Zeleni
-Lack of
To involve the stakeholders,
and propose locally
-Other
Lukovac" and
municipal waste
industry, municipality, and
feasible plan that
relevant
"EKO pokret"
water treatment
civil society in developing a
stakeholders can commit
water/envir
Tuzla
on Spreca and
plan that will address the
to put in practice
onmental/
Turija river
priority problems and propose
-Develop information and
health
solutions to improve the
communication mechanism authorities
public access to water-related
to reach stakeholders and
-Other
information
general public in order to
NGOs
-To strengthen the capacities
maintain commitment and
of authorities and various
improve capacities
stakeholders to improve the
information dissemination in
relation to local water
problems
Bulgaria
Troyan-Lovech
-Industrial
--To improve the mechanisms
-Establishment of a
-Municipal
Osam river basin
pollution from
of public access to information working group with the
authorities
chemical
by the authorities
affected stakeholders in
-Waste
Lead NGO
industry/nutrient
-To identify the problems and
order to assess the
water
"Ecomission21
s-IPPC
barriers and with involvement
information available and
treatment
century" Lovech
permitting
of stakeholders and to
to facilitate the
plant
procedure
propose solutions,
participation in the
-Other
-Municipal waste
-To develop and implement a
permitting procedure
relevant
water treatment
plan for overcoming the
-Work out and implement
water/envir
plant/in
barriers
proposals for removal of
onmental/
construction in
-To strengthen the
the existing barriers on
health
Troyan
cooperation of the civil society water related information
authorities
and local authorities in order
-Increase the institutional
- Other
to develop good practice in
capacities of local
NGOs
water related participation
authorities by capacity
building
Croatia
Osijek-Baranja
-Industry with
- To cooperate with local and
-To initiate a working
-Municipal
county
activity in fuel
regional administration to take groups of the stakeholders
authorities
Drava river
production, poor
initiatives to control better
that would address and
-Regional
waste treatment
the level of pollution of Drava
discuss the water problems authorities
Lead NGO
facility
river
-To propose an integrated
-Public
Ecological
-Municipal waste
-Initiate information
plan for public involvement utility
Association Green
water plant
dissemination and public
in planning and
-Other
Osijek
consultation on the planning
construction f the WWT
NGOs
and construction of waste
-To develop mechanisms
water purification system
for improving
-To improve information
communication and
dissemination mechanisms
information dissemination
with regard to regular water
- To establish a Water
related information through
Forum and initiate the
capacity building of authorities development of an
integrated river basin
management plan
NYL / REC / RFF
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
page 41
Country / Location Type of
Objectives
Planned main activity lines
Institutions
of the site /
pollution/
to be
Implementing
Problems
involved
NGO
Romania
Tg.Mures, Mures
-Industrial
-To improve the functioning of -Stakeholder identification
-Local
river basin
pollution from
the River Basin Committee
-Assessment of the
municipalit
Nitrate/Chemical
(RBC) as main body that is
working documents,
y
Lead NGO
plant
responsible for the river basin
information produced by
-Member
"Focus Eco
-Municipal
management and its
and within the RBC
authorities
Center"
pollution, waste
communication, information,
-Prepare good practice
of the RBC
water treatment
and steering body
examples for identifying
-Water
plant
-To define clearer and more
and cooperation with
Directorate
participatory procedures on
delegated civil society
-
how the civil society can
representatives
Companies
delegate its members to RBC
-Preparing
-Other
-To test and based on the
recommendation for best
NGOs
result to improve the public
practices and share it with
consultation in the
other RBCs while testing
development of water
the public involvement
management plans in one
small community
Serbia and
Montenegro
Bor, Timok River
-Industrial
- To identify and involve
-Assessment of available
-Municipal
pollution due to
relevant stakeholders in the
data about water quality
authorities
Lead NGO
mining and
analysis and problem solving
state, list of data sources
-Regional
"Young
metallurgy
-To improve the level of
and other information
authorities
Researchers of
industrial
awareness with regard to
resources, review of
-
Bor"
activities
environmental issues of the
provisions, programs and
Companies
-Lack of
area with special focus on the
plans
-Other
municipal waste
waste water issues
-Make available and
NGOs
water treatment
-To strengthen information
accessible the water
plant
dissemination and cooperation related information
with the relevant local
-Prepare information
authorities and the media
materials, brochure for
-To improve the work of the
informing the public
local authority by developing
-Capacity building for the
regular information and
authorities providing
communication mechanisms
information
for the water related issues
-Initiate the process of a
(industrial pressure data,
local water management
water quality information, etc,
plan
)
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT