INCEPTION REPORT ON COMPONENT 3.4 DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
"ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING"
IN
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CROATIA, ROMANIA, SERBIA AND
MONTENEGRO
December 2004
1
PREPARED BY THE CONSORTIUM OF
MAGDA TOTH NAGY
The Regional Environmental Center
for Central and Eastern Europe
2000, Szentendre
Ady E. ut, 9-11
Hungary
JANE B. STEWART
AND
ERNESTINE MEIER
New York University School of Law (NYU)
77 1/2 Charles St., New York, NY 10014
USA
RUTH GREENSPAN BELL
Resources for the Future
International Institutional Development
and Environmental Assistance (IIDEA)
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
2
This Inception 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 transboundary cooperation and river basin
management in the context of the Water Framework Directive.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
6
PART
I INCEPTION
PHASE
7
COUNTRY
CONSULTATIONS
7
1. Presentation of Danube Regional Project and Project Component 3.4
8
2. Feedback on barriers to public access to information and
public participation in environmental and waterrelated matters
8
3. National and operational teams
10
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
11
1.
Preparatory
documents
11
1.1 Outline for Needs Assessment
11
1.2 Questionnaire for Needs Assessment
12
2.
National
consultants 12
2.1.
Selection
process
12
2.2 Selected national consultants
13
ICPDR
ASSESSMENT
14
1.
Access
to
Information
14
2.
Public
Participation
14
COMMUNICATION ON PROJECT COMPONENT
ACTIVITIES
15
ACTIVITIES SIMILAR OR OVERLAPPING WITH DRP COMPONENT 3.4
16
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO TERMS OF REFERENCE
17
PART II
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
18
WORK PLAN
18
ACTIVITIES
21
1. Criteria and selection process on the local demonstration projects
21
1.1
Selection
criteria
22
1.2
Selection
process
23
2. Technical assistance by NHL consultants
24
3. National capacity building workshops in 2005
25
4.
Needs
assessments
26
4
PART
III
ANNEXES
- 27
A1
COUNTRY
CONSULTATIONS
28
A2
PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED WITH IMPACT TO DRP 3.4
83
A3
LIST OF OPERATIONAL TEAMS
91
A4
OUTLINE FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
92
A5
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
94
A6
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
96
A7
CVs
OF
EXPERTS
99
A8
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRP 3.4 TOR
137
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Component 3.4, in particular, will focus on supporting emerging processes of improved public
participation in environmental decision making, with emphasis on better access to environmental
information in decision making on hot spot prevention and cleanup. Over a period of 28 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) 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.
Component 3.4 begins with an Inception Phase. The purpose of this initial phase of four months is to
take the first steps in getting the project started and to take decisions on the activities that will take
place in the second, implementation phase of the project.
This report has two parts. The first part describes the inception phase. Not each and every step taken
or decision made is mentioned in Part I of the report. 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 in the first four months of the project.
The second part of the report is dedicated to the Implementation Phase of the project. Part II starts
with a detailed work plan, which indicates the different activities that will be undertaken and the
different work products that are prepared for these activities or will result from them. The work plan
also provides a detailed timeframe of when and how activities are undertaken and when and how work
products are prepared. A following section on activities highlights some of the main activities and work
products planned for the Implementation Phase, describing what these activities and products consist
of and how the Consortium has envisioned they should take place. The last section for Part II indicates
a minor budget reallocation, decided by the Consortium after reconsideration of one of its activities in
the Implementation Phase.
6
PART I
INCEPTION PHASE
COUNTRY CONSULTATIONS
In October and November 2004, the Consortium organized country consultations in each of the five
participating countries.1
The national consultation meetings were successful and were received with interest. Although in Serbia
and Montenegro and Croatia the meetings were organized on rather short notice due to the late start
of the project component activities and the capacity problems of the REC Country Office in Croatia,
most relevant agencies and stakeholder groups were represented in the meetings, and there was
active participation and good discussion. Major input and feedback was received that will be useful
during the implementation of activities. The major in-country partners and project participants are
aware of the proposed objectives, content and activities of the project component and a good working
relationship has been established with them.
However, some invitations for the consultations were sent out relatively late. Such late invitations can
affect the perception of the component and may have resulted in lower representation by a few
stakeholders that we would otherwise liked to have in attendance at some of the first national
consultations. Preparation time for meetings in the future should not be underestimated. It was agreed
that for future meetings, written invitations and materials would be sent well in advance, i.e., at least
two weeks before the actual meeting for national meetings and, if at all possible at least one, or
preferably even two months before international meetings. Advance verbal notification is not sufficient
for some stakeholders.
The main objectives of the meetings as defined beforehand by the Consortium were:
To present to relevant stakeholders the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project and particularly
Project Output 3.4 Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental
Decision-making;
To collect feedback at the national level on the project activities and expected outputs (including
the scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment); and
To identify experts and relevant stakeholders who should take part in the national teams, discuss
the process of their establishment, and to start building stakeholder ownership of component 3.4.
The consultation meetings in the five countries followed basically the same agenda developed by the
Consortium in consultation with DRP. Where necessary, this agenda was adapted following requests by
the national partners and the REC Country Offices. The meetings were chaired by the REC Country
Office Director or the REC Project Manager and co-chaired by a representative of the Ministry of
Environment and Waters. In some countries professional facilitators were used to lead the discussion,
e.g., in Croatia. (For the meeting agenda, list of participants and meeting minutes of each country
consultation, see Annex 1.)
In each country, a representative of the ICPDR head of delegation was asked to address the meeting
with an opening speech and to present the delegation's perspective about the participation of the
country in the ICPDR, DRP project activities as well as their views about the Project Component 3.4
and the implementation of the WFD access to information and public participation provisions in the
country.
1 Serbia and Montenegro: October 12 in Belgrade; Bosnia and Herzegovina: October 14 in Tuzla; Croatia: October
22 in Zagreb; Romania: November 16 in Bucharest; Bulgaria: November 26 in Sofia.
7
1. Presentation of Danube Regional Project and Project Component 3.4
In the consultations, the general context in which project component 3.4 plays a role was presented by
either Rayka Hauser, DRP Public Participation Expert or Magda Toth Nagy, REC Project Manager. The
presentation included the goals and the approach of the ICPDR and the Danube Regional Project
regarding public participation, and how the different project components (including component 3.4)
address this issue. Details on Project Component 3.4 were presented by Magda Toth Nagy, REC Project
Manager. Both presentations were followed by questions and answers.
After the presentations, a plenary discussion followed about the current situation of public access to
information and public participation in environmental and waterrelated matters, including barriers to
such access and participation. The plenary discussion assisted in focusing the discussion on the scope
of the project component and facilitated further discussions in small groups.
2. Feedback on barriers to public access to information and public participation in
environmental and waterrelated matters
Some of the major barriers to public access to information and public participation in environmental
and waterrelated matters that were identified in both the plenary meetings and the subsequent group
discussions that took place in each of the country consultations were:
Lack of a proper legal and institutional framework;
Delay in law drafting and the slow pace of changing institutions in transitional economies faced
with many challenges;
Lack of by-laws, implementing regulations or secondary legislation, and the absence or vagueness
of procedures;
Lack of implementation of legal requirements, in practice;
Legislative tools and guidelines for access to information (active and passive) are missing;
Lack of collection of adequate information or information systems and thus insufficient basis for
public participation; in other words the quality of information provided is often a problem;
Government officials' insufficient knowledge of relevant legal requirements, and the need for
explicit guidance on issues including:
requirements for which information should be made publicly accessible and at what level of
detail;
what institutions are responsible for provision of information to the public, making it difficult to
know which authorities to address with requests;
what is public interest information and how it relates to legitimate industrial secrets and
business confidentiality requirements;
Charges to requesters for provision of information are not (or are insufficiently) regulated
(processed and primary information);
Lack of facilities or services to provide information for or to communicate with the public;
If government agencies do distribute information to stakeholders, there are often delays, excessive
costs, or only limited information is given, leading to complaints by NGOs;
Public involvement comes too late in the decision-making process;
The public is skeptical about the accuracy of the information it receives;
The authorities are skeptical about the capacity of NGOs to contribute to the resolving of water
management issues.
WFD provisions are considered unclear: the WFD does not use the term 'public participation' and
its guidance document is not obligatory;
8
Conflicts of interests and lack of inter-sectoral cooperation as well as cooperation among higher
level and lower lever information holders, providers and decision makers. This is especially
important since information on various aspects of water resource status and conditions is held by
different authorities;
Lack of clarity about "who is who" in environmental institutions;
Lack of integrated and coherent water databases. Improvements are being made in some
countries, but in several only separate databases exist;
Lack of funds, capacity and skills of NGOs, leading to considerable problems in performing their
role as active recipients and requesters of information.
The participants further proposed solutions/activities to be carried out in the context of project
component 3.4 and raised related issues of concern to them. (See minutes of national consultations in
Annex 1)
The following more general issues regarding the project component implementation were brought to
the attention of the Consortium during the country consultations:
It is important to build synergies with other relevant projects in similar fields that are either in
place or will come up in the future in order to avoid duplication and overlap. A number of other
access-to-information/public participation or Water Framework Directive implementation related
activities are ongoing in the target countries. Coordination of efforts under the different projects
may increase their impact. If no coordination efforts are made, this may result in duplication of
work or other negative outcomes. To the extent these other projects (major completed projects,
on-going projects, projects in the pipeline, including all REC interventions in the field) are known or
knowable, they should be identified and, where possible, a mechanism for coordination should be
established. (For a list of activities similar to or overlapping to the project component, identified so
far see Annex 2 and the section on "Activities similar to / overlapping with DRP component 3.4
under implementation or implemented in the future by REC Country Offices or others" of this
report).
Data provided for the ICPDR EMIS database or information on transboundary pollution provided
earlier to ICPDR may be few years old and should therefore be used with care in the identification
of the locations for demonstration projects. Before the demonstration projects are proposed,
careful consultation is needed with relevant country partners to make sure that there is an
agreement on the priority importance of the proposed site.
Component 3.4 should support the practical implementation of access to information regulations,
including the necessary steps for the ratification and implementation of the Aarhus Convention and
implementation of the EU WFD. The project component activities may include input in ongoing
legal drafting processes and development of implementing regulations, guidance materials, etc.
During some country consultations (BiH and Croatia) it was noted that national authorities have
limited staff capacity to contribute to the component implementation. Some of the government
authority representatives have suggested that staff working on the project should be paid but this
approach is generally viewed as undesirable since it provides only temporary relief and leaves
unresolved the capacity question for sustainable results in the long term (beyond the project end).
A possible solution, discussed inter alia with the Croatian head of delegation to the ICPDR, is to
designate a more junior staff member (at for example the Environment Ministry or Water
Authority) as the contact person responsible for public participation in the WFD in the Danube
Basin. This contact person will be trained and have her/his capacity built in the course of the
component. In addition, clear communication lines would have to be established with senior staff
so that the contact person keeps them informed and will consult them on decisions about all
project developments, while at certain key stages and for limited time periods, the senior staff
provides direct input to the project. It has also been decided that in some countries governmental
experts may be hired to prepare needs assessment report. In this case, they should act strictly in
their private capacity.
9
Clear communication lines were considered extremely important because of the typically high staff
turnover in the project countries, which may lead to loss of capacity and institutional memory. This
problem should be kept in mind in the capacity building process, which should include efforts to
ensure some institutional continuity, possibly implementation of project component activities in
coordination with other relevant projects for added momentum.
Lists of specific proposals made during the country consultations are annexed to the minutes of each
meeting (see Annex 1). The outcomes of the national consultations will be used as a starting point by
the national consultant preparing the Needs Assessment report.
3. National and operational teams
With regard to the involvement of stakeholders in Project Component 3.4 the Consortium has chosen
to establish two teams for each country. A national team will include a broader pool of stakeholders,
who would be informed and involved in most of the activities. An operational team, consisting of a
small number of people, would directly participate in the project implementation through more regular
work contact and advise on the planned activities.
During the country consultations the Consortium discussed which institutions and stakeholders would
be involved in the national teams and the operational teams. It was agreed that the national teams will
include representatives of all ministries, agencies, and institutions which have responsibilities for
access to information and public participation in the context of the Water Framework Directive and the
Aarhus Convention or which have major coordinating roles in this regard. Also, NGOs and
representatives of other stakeholders working in these fields will be included in the national teams.
Other potentially relevant participants may be added to the national teams.
National teams will regularly receive information about the project component's activities, plans, and
results, including national meetings.
The operational teams will participate actively in the activities undertaken in the context of the project
and will serve as regular advisory groups on operational issues to make sure that the project activities
are coordinated with the major project partners. An operational team will include maximum 5-8
representatives of key players and institutions such as for example, the ICPDR head of delegation,
members of expert groups, the water management department of the ministry of environment and/or
waters, or another ministry with responsibility for water, the national water directorate, the river basin
councils. The team should also include the Aarhus Focal Point from the ministry of environment and at
least 1 key NGO working in the field. (See list of experts proposed to be members of operational
teams in Annex 3.)
Based on this understanding reached with the country partners, the REC Country Offices sent out a
letter to the representatives of different institutions and stakeholders asking them to nominate a
representative by the end of December. With the nomination of these representatives the national and
operational teams will be established.
Communication and consultation with the national and operational teams will happen through
scheduled national and regional meetings, direct contact with specific stakeholders on specific issues,
common e-mail lists as well as through websites. These e-mail lists were established when the minutes
of the consultation meetings were sent out. In addition to the e-mail lists, and a combined e-mail list
in the form of a project list-serve, the option of a website with restricted access will also be explored
by the REC.
10
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. Preparatory
documents
In order to identify existing legal, practical and institutional barriers to public access to environmental,
more especially water-related, information, a Needs Assessment will be carried out in each country by
independent national consultants.
1.1 Outline for Needs Assessment
The Consortium has prepared an outline for the Needs Assessment, (see Annex 4) as well as a
questionnaire for national and local government authorities and stakeholders (see Annex 5). Both
documents are meant to focus the approach of the national consultants so that key issues of access to
information are identified that will get attention in the following part of the project.
The Needs Assessment is based on the methodology used in the previous Consortium pilot project in
Hungary and Slovenia, adapted to the specific requirements of project component 3.4. Rayka Hauser,
DRP Public Participation Expert, was consulted extensively before drawing up a final version of the
outline.
The outline identifies a number of key components for the Needs Assessment:
an inventory of the status of public access to information laws and regulations, both general and
water-related, both procedural and substantive
an inventory of how these laws and regulations are being implemented and enforced
an inventory of related institutional arrangements
legal and practical barriers with respect to providing access to environmental, including water-
related information
access to information held by ICPDR and countries in the context of the DRP and other Danube
projects
problems and gaps with regard to all previous issues
identification of priority issues to be addressed in component 3.4 activities
limitations to the needs assessment (gaps in available information)
In the context of the first key component, all relevant laws and regulations will be examined including
access to information and public participation requirements of each project country's implementation of
the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and pertinent national legal framework for general,
environmental and water related access to information. In addition to the Water Framework directive,
attention will be given to the EU directive on access to environmental information as well as the
implementation of the Aarhus Convention regarding public access to environmental information.
The needs assessment should also examine ongoing and planned legal developments in the five
countries involved including the implementation of EU directives on water (especially the WFD) in as
far as they regulate the access to information and public participation. If the country has not yet begun
harmonization, transposition or implementation of EU legislation, specific national legislation regarding
water management and water issues should be described as indicated above.
In addition to the substantive provisions, the second key component focuses on analyzing specific
procedural rules for gathering and accessing water related environmental information, including issues
such as how information is defined, duties of public authorities, legal requirements for collecting and
disseminating data and information, timeframe to provide information, grounds for refusal,
confidentiality, charges, appeal procedures etc. The analysis of the status of enforcement and
implementation of laws on public accessibility and collection of environmental and water-related
11
information (including existing databases) would include the evaluation of implementing practices and
enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
The third key component, the evaluation of the institutional arrangements for provision of access to
environmental and water-related information will focus on the status of the different institutions
collecting, processing and disseminating information, the coordination and cooperation among them as
well as their technical, personnel and financial conditions. The evaluation should look at both the
practical experiences and conditions of provision and active dissemination of environmental and water-
related information.
As a fourth key component for the Needs Assessment, legal, institutional and practical barriers for
provision and dissemination of environmental and water-related information for national,
regional/River Basin and local levels should be identified.
A specific question, and the fifth key component identified for the Needs Assessment, will deal with the
accessibility of the information collected within the frame of the implementation of the Convention on
the Danube River Protection, regarding information held by countries and ICPDR, DRP and other
programs/projects relevant to environmental and water- related information on discharges into the
Danube.
As key components six and seven for the Needs Assessment, the Consortium indicated that the
consultant should identify the problems and gaps regarding all previous key components and should
propose a list of priority issues that could be / need to be addressed in the different activities initiated
under the project component. These will be based on the analysis but also on the results of interviews
with different stakeholders.
1.2 Questionnaire for Needs Assessment
The questionnaire prepared by the Consortium takes the key issues that will be addressed in the Needs
Assessment one step further, transforming them into the more practical instrument of a list of
questions. The questions have been created for officials of local and national authorities as well as
stakeholders in a way that enables these officials to give their views on the key issues flagged in the
Outline for the Needs Assessment. The list of questions in the questionnaire is not meant to be
exhaustive and can be added to when specific circumstances so require. The questionnaire will provide
feedback from the different authorities and stakeholders for various chapters of the Needs Assessment
report.
2. National consultants
Clearly, the national consultants will play a pivotal role in the Needs Assessments that take place in
each of the particpating countries. The Consortium has therefore paid great and detailed attention to
defining exactly what the tasks of the national consultants will be and have also specified what the
background, experience and capacities of such national consultants should be. All of this has been
articulated in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the consultants (see Annex 6). Drafts of the TOR have
been discussed in detail with DRP and agreement has been reached on the final version provided in
Annex 6.
2.1. Selection process
Based on the Needs Assessment outline and draft TOR for the national consultants, CVs of potential
candidates were collected.
National consultants are being selected based on their experience and familiarity with water quality
issues, the Water Framework Directive, the Aarhus Convention, and their capacity to develop useful
and accurate information to guide the project's future activities. In the pilot project, the national
consultants were environmental lawyers who came from the NGO sector but had good often
longstanding and trusted -- relationships with government authorities. In both cases, the national
expert had a history of providing consultation services to the relevant environment ministries of their
12
countries, for example to assist the process of EU approximation in support of the accession process.
Thus, the Consortium was confident that the national consultants would not approach their task with
bias either for or against government, NGOs or industry, and that their conclusions and findings would
be trusted by the authorities and country participants in the projects. Experience bore this out.
Thus, it was agreed in the context of Component 3.4 that while national consultants can come from
different backgrounds, with the provision that their position must not lead to bias in their assessment
(government or NGO expert), or to their conclusions being rejected by the authorities. One of the
solutions proposed to strike the right balance in the reporting by the national consultants was to
establish for each country a mixed team of government and NGO experts and ask them to work
together, provide comments and input into each other's sections. However, practice has shown that it
may not always be possible or necessary to establish such mixed teams. In some countries the
persons identified for the position of national consultant were independent or NGO experts, while in
others due to lack of expert capacity on water issues, experts from the governmental sector were also
contracted to work in the mixed team on the Needs Assessment report.
The national consultants will begin with a short-term contract, which will include researching, writing
and presenting the needs assessment report and the demonstration project report. This assignment
may be followed by a long- term contract/s after a successful accomplishment of the tasks of the first
contract as required by future tasks regarding the country activities and outcomes.
The DRP was consulted on the final selection of national consultants as well as on the proposed rates.
The national consultants will be contracted all together for 30 workdays to prepare the needs
assessment. In Serbia and Montenegro and additional 5 workdays is offered to cover the part of
Montenegro falling in the Danube River Basin. The team of two or more experts will share these
workdays and their contract will clearly reflect which part of tasks they will carry out, by what
deadlines.
The national consultants have received guidance and instructions on conducting the Needs
Assessment, beside the Outline and Questionnaire. (See also page 26 of the Inception Report.)
2.2 Selected national consultants
In the following table, the national consultants selected are set forth. The proposed rates have been
discussed with the DRP but still need to be negotiated with the consultants. The CVs of the consultants
chosen are attached in the annex. (see Annex 7)
COUNTRY NAME
FUNCTION/BACKGROUND
Bosnia and
Jasmina Cengic
Management and Humanitarian Affairs, Consultant
Herzegovina
Dalibor Vrhovac
Economist, Directorate for Water, Office, Banja Luka
Bulgaria
Alexander Kodjabashev
Environmental lawyer, Asssociation Demetra
Stanislava Boshnakova
Environmental Sciences and Policy, Center for Environmental Information
and Education, Danube Environmental Forum
Croatia
Karmen Cerar
Civil Engineering, Hydrology, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Management, Directorate for Water Management
Eurolex Ltd
Consultant company
Danube
Environmental
NGO involved in Danube issues
Forum/Green Action
Romania
Adina Relicovschi
Environmental policy expert, NGO, Pro-Management Association
Veronica Toza
Environmental lawyer
Serbia and
Jovanka Ignatovic
Civil Engineering, Hydrology, Head of Water Quality Department,
Montenegro
Hydrometerological Institute
Sreten Djordjevic
Environmental Lawyer
To be announced
13
ICPDR ASSESSMENT
1. Access to Information
In response to the ICPDR's request for ideas to increase its transparency as a source and provider of
information and data about Danube water quality and water management and its intention, as
expressed by its Executive Secretary, to be as transparent as possible, the consortium has drafted an
analysis and set of preliminary recommendations. A draft of the memorandum will be provided to
ICPDR on 31 December 2004 and a final version on 15 February 2005.
The memorandum starts by summarizing the Consortium's understanding of the kinds of information
ICPDR currently holds in its electronic and physical files and how it handles both "active" outreach to
assure that the information is known to relevant populations, and so-called "passive" information
sharing, where information is made available in response to requests from individuals, NGOs and other
organizations.
Several obstacles to the smooth functioning of active and passive information dissemination are
indicated, which will not be repeated here. The memorandum notes the importance of recognizing the
reality of ICPDR's function as a coordinating body and a platform for its member states, without
independent collection or regulatory functions beyond those approved by its members. The critical
issue is how best to make use of the information ICPDR uniquely holds and of the very genuine
constraints posed by ICPDR's relationship with its member countries.
Also, as several people interviewed by the Consortium pointed out, most of the data ICPDR holds
(aggregated data provided by national authorities, not actively collected by ICPDR) is trend data, by
definition old data rather than in-time monitoring. The memo acknowledges that trend data may not
be fresh enough to satisfy the needs of technical experts who are working to resolve specific problems
along the Danube. Although not the most up-to-date data, an advantage of the aggregation of these
data across the Danube River Basin region by ICPDR is that it may be unique in providing a "bigger
picture". This kind of trend data is not necessarily a liability from the point of view of the general
population, and the mandate of the ICPDR to provide information to that broader public. Other
organizations in shared water bodies, such as the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Great Lakes
Commission, have effectively made trend data available, expressed in easily understandable ways, and
with an emphasis on year-to-year or reporting period- to- reporting- period comparisons of water
quality and impacts on aquatic and human health. They do this through reports that are directed at
the general public, legislators and opinion leaders, that help crystallize the problems of the water
bodies and possible solutions. That information can be used by interested citizens for lobbying
campaigns, or to otherwise provide support to the commissions in their efforts. In doing so, these
commissions have strengthened their leadership position. ICPDR can do the same.
Based on information gathered on ICPDR's database and its current information access rules and
procedures, the memo presents preliminary recommendations for increasing active and passive forms
of information dissemination and building constituencies for improvements in Danube River Basin
water quality through information sharing.
2. Observership and Other Forms of Public Participation before the ICPDR
This draft report examines opportunities for public input and participation, including observership,
provided under ICPDR's current rules and policies, as well as under those of a selected number of
other international institutions whose experience may be relevant. The other institutions surveyed in
the report include several European river basin commissions, other water-related international
institutions, and other (non-water related) international institutions or regimes.
Major issues regarding observership and other forms of public participation that are raised by these
examples and examined in the report include:
Which categories of entities can participate (individuals, non-governmental organizations, States,
intergovernmental organizations, etc.)?
14
What form(s) of participation are allowed?
Is participation limited in time?
What are the rights of participants, including: in which meetings and/or activities may participants
participate, which documents do participants receive from the institution in question and/or have
access to, can participants make oral and written statements, do participants have a right to vote?
What are the obligations of participants?
What are the obligations of the institutions, including: are they obligated to reply to or incorporate
comments or other input from participants, are they required to take account of such input in their
decision making, do they have to internally/externally distribute written materials provided by
participants, must they discuss such materials or issues raised by participants at meetings?
Is financial assistance provided to defray travel costs of or support capacity building for
participating entities?
The draft report also contains a general discussion of benefits and drawbacks of the participation
regimes investigated, in terms of the key issues identified above.
To supplement the review and analysis of public participation regimes that is provided in the report,
the Consortium will conduct a brief survey of current observers to ICPDR on their experience as
observers. Current observers will be asked to provide their views on which aspects of observership
have worked well for them, which have not, what improvements could be made to the observership
process in particular and/or to ICPDR's public participation regime in general. The survey will be
conducted through a questionnaire that will be sent out to the current 10 observers to ICPDR, and
through follow-up telephone interviews where needed. The results of the survey will be incorporated
into the final draft of the report.
Based on the report and the results of the survey of current observers, the Consortium will formulate
options and preliminary recommendations for ICPDR on possible improvements to its current public
participation regime.
COMMUNICATION ON PROJECT COMPONENT ACTIVITIES
In the inception phase, the Consortium together with the DRP team have developed procedures for
regular and coordinated communications on the results of the project component activities.
In order to provide increased visibility of, and acknowledgement to, the donor agencies, GEF/UNDP,
and the DRP, the Consortium has used, and for the duration of the project will use:
references to GEF/UNDP and the DRP in texts of web page materials;
references to GEF/UNDP and the DRP in presentations given during the National Consultations;
references to GEF/UNDP and the DRP in presentations in different international meetings such the
Danube Black Sea Stocktaking meeting in Bucharest;
the DRP logo on project related flyers and presentations
In addition, the DRP team will have opportunities to distribute promotional materials at various
meetings in the context of the project.
On 8 November 2004, a meeting dedicated to communication related issues was organized by the
Danube Regional Team in Vienna. At that meeting opportunities and efforts to disseminate and
enhance project results, as well as awareness raising to ensure long term sustainability of similar
activities, were thoroughly discussed and agreed on.
The project partners agreed to act in partnership in communications with the donor, DRP team
members and each other for all issues related to project activities. Partners and DRP team members
15
agreed to regularly inform and consult each other in advance about planned communications activities.
The DRP will provide sufficient time for feedback on communications, and in turn partners will make an
effort to provide feedback in a timely manner.
Frequent communications take place with Rayka Hauser, consultant to the DRP, in order to coordinate
and facilitate the organization of National Consultation meetings.
The following communication activities were undertaken during the inception phase:
project websites were established at REC Headquarters and at RFF with basic information about
the project component; and one will be established shortly at NYU;
flyers describing the project were produced for the Danube Black Sea Stocktaking Meeting;
news items were included on the launch of the project component in the REC's Green Horizon
Magazine;
a brief news item was included for publication in the Danube Watch;
articles on the project were published in Resources, the publication of Resources for the Future,
and the NYU Law School magazine.
Ongoing and planned communications activities include:
news and launch of project websites in all REC Country Offices involved in the project;
publication of a longer, more in-depth article about Component 3.4 in a forthcoming issue of
Danube Watch;
creation of email lists for dissemination of the summaries of outcomes of the National Consultation
Meetings;
dissemination of outcomes of the National Consultations in English and/or local languages;
regular updating of the project websites established at REC, RFF and NYU to provide up- to -date
information on the project and to post- project products as they become available;
preparation of a dissemination plan for Component 3.4;
preparation and publication, at the conclusion of the project, of articles about the results of and
lessons learned from implementation of Component 3.4.
ACTIVITIES SIMILAR OR OVERLAPPING WITH DRP COMPONENT 3.4
The Consortium identified relevant projects/activities which are similar to or could overlap with the
DRP project component 3.4. Such a request was also raised in the country consultations and during
the DRP Bucharest kick-off meeting, which also suggested that a mechanism for coordination should
be established where possible to avoid duplications.
The information on the projects was collected during the consultation meetings and through the REC
Country Offices. The list enclosed includes those projects about which Consortium has information at
the present time. ((For a list of activities similar to or overlapping with the project component, see
Annex 2)
There may be other related projects implemented by other agencies or planned in the future.
Therefore, the Consortium will follow with attention the developments and update regularly the
information on such projects, as well as make an effort to coordinate them with the implementation of
DRP Component 3.4.
The Consortium proposes that:
identification of these projects and examination/evaluation of possible synergies should be made
on an ongoing, regular basis by REC, its Country Offices and local partners;
16
such identification/evaluation should also take place in the context of the planned national Needs
Assessments, future national and regional meetings, as well as Steering Committee meetings;
representatives of these projects should be invited to be part of the national teams of component
3.4 so that a regular mutual exchange of information could take place with them, and/or possible
cooperation could be discussed.
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO TERMS OF REFERENCE
Based on the experiences of the Inception Phase, the Consortium proposes a few changes to the
Terms of Reference (TOR) (See Annex 8 for these TOR with proposed changes).
These changes include:
changes regarding timing in the Timetable/Important Milestones, due to the preparation of a more
precise and detailed work plan;
amendments to the original text on Objective 3 of the TOR regarding the assessment and support
to be given to ICPDR regarding possible improvements in public access to information and public
participation (the proposed changes reflect the Consortium's understanding of the tasks to be
carried out under Objective 3 in the light of information received from ICPDR and DRP on these
issues), and a more precise timetable);
some minor comments of an editorial nature.
17
PART II
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
WORK PLAN
This section discusses the Implementation Phase of the project beginning with a detailed work plan
(the work plan lists activities in both the inception and the implementation phase, activities completed
in the Inception Phase have been marked with **), and moving on to highlight some of the main
activities and work products planned for this phase, indicating how they will be structured and
managed. The last part of this section proposes a minor budget reallocation.
ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
1. 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 **
2. 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 organizations
31 December 2004-January 31
operational teams
2005
3. 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
Consultant
February, mid- to end of March
consultations
2005
Final Needs Assessment Reports
Consultant
31 March 2005 1st week of
April 2005
4. 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 **
5. 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 paper on PP models with
Consultant (NYU)
5 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
15 February 2005
information mechanisms
18
Final design of reform measures for ICPDR
Consultant
15 July 2005
Assistance to ICPDR in implementing
Consultant/ICPDR
September 2005-June 2006
recommendations on access to information
and observer/PP models
6. 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
7 April 2005
Completed logframe and indicators
Consultant, NHL
4 May 2005
7. 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
Consultant
29 February 2005
ideas
Discussion at national workshops
Consultant
February (end) and March 2005
Submission of proposals to 3.4 SC
Consultant
31 March 2005
Selection of local sites and demonstration
3.4 SC
April 28 (immediately following
projects
Steering Committee meeting)
Draft TORs for local experts
Consultant
6 May 2005
Feedback on TORs
DRP
13 May 2005
Contract local experts
Consultant
June-July 2005 (Upon approval)
Implementation Plans for demonstration
Consultant July
2005
projects
Start of demonstration projects
Consultant July-August
2005
(Following
contracting of experts)
Capacity building workshops at local sites
Consultant
August 2005-April 2006 (on an
ongoing basis)
Technical Assistance to demonstration
Consultant
August 2005-April 2006 (on an
projects
ongoing basis)
End of demonstration projects
Consultant
June 2006
Final report on lessons learned from
Consultant August/September
2006
demonstration projects
8. MEETINGS
AND
WORKSHOPS:
Plan/prepare for first set National Workshops Consultant
January-February
2005
National workshops--first set
Consultant February-March
2005
Plan/prepare for second set National
Consultant
December 2005-January 2006
Workshops
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
Second
Plan/Prepare for Final Plenary Meetings
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
November 2005
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/ICPDR November
2005
needed
Meeting of Project Partners/ICPDR/DRP, as
Consultant/DRP/ICPDR October
2006
needed
9. STUDY
TOURS:
Selection of participants for U.S. and EU
Consultant/National Teams
15 February 2005
Study Tours
DRP feedback on participants
DRP
28 February 2005
Draft agenda for U.S. Study Tour
Consultant
11 April 2005
DRP Comments on agenda
DRP
18 April 2005
19
Final agenda for U.S. Study Tour
Consultant
6 May 2005
U.S. Study Tour2
Consultant
16-27 May 2005
Draft agenda for EU Study Tour
Consultant
30 June 2005
DRP Comments on agenda
DRP
3 July 2005
Final agenda for EU Study Tour
Consultant
31 August 2005
EU Study Tour
Consultant
October 2005
U.S. Study Tour lessons learned report
Consultant
15 July 2005
EU Study Tour lessons learned report
Consultant
November 2005
10. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE / CAPACITY BUILDING:
Technical assistance to national teams as
Consultant
June 2005-September 2006 on
needed
an 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
Materials) researched/drafted/translated
needs identified in national
workshops and regional plenary
meetings
Practical work products completed Consultant
October
2006
11. NATIONAL MEASURES / PRODUCTS:
Identification of measures/products
National teams/Consultants
February-March 2005, in national
workshops
Preliminary design of measures/products
National teams/Consultants
30 June 2005
Draft national reform proposals and/or other
National teams/Consultants
January-February 2006
draft measures/products
Final national reform proposals and/or other
National teams/Consultants
September 2006
final measures/products
12. DISSEMINATION:
Draft dissemination plan
Consultant
November 2005
Final dissemination plan
Consultant
December 2005
Dissemination of project products Consultant
December
2006
13. WEBSITE:
Project website established
Consultant
November 2004 **
Posting of project products/articles and
Consultant
November 2004-February 2007
periodic updates
on an ongoing basis
14. FINAL REPORT / LESSONS LEARNED:
Draft Final Report
Consultant
October 2006
Final Report
Consultant
December 2006
15. 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
16. ARTICLES:
Draft articles
Consultant
March 2006
Finalize/begin to place articles for publication
Consultant
April -October 2006
Notes:
1. ** Activity has been completed.
2. In case the response/comments on the part of the DRP management team on a draft project output
are delayed, a corresponding delay in the final output would be accepted in order to ensure sufficient
time for finalization by the consultant.
3. Where it has been impossible to specify exact dates for activities that will be performed well in the
future (i.e., more than six months from now), we have provided the month or months in which these
activities are expected to take place. Exact dates for these activities will be specified as soon as they
are known.
2 The proposed date depends on receiving visas in due time. Fall back date for US study tour : June 20-30, 2005.
20
ACTIVITIES
The discussion below focuses on several major activities and issues that are of immediate concern.
However, we mention more briefly here several other planned activities. We do not, in this document,
provide a great deal of detail on these because they have been discussed at some level of detail with
the ICPDR and the DRP, and are referenced in the Work plan and previous project planning
documents.
Plenary meetings: The Consortium will convene plenary meetings to bring together the key
representatives and stakeholders from each of the participating countries to address, discuss and
decide priority issues of common concern to all participating countries. The meetings will include
joint capacity building and technical assistance on these key issues and will be used to identify
solutions/options for the problems/needs. One of the results will be the resource materials the
Consortium will produce to assist the participants on identified common issues.
Technical assistance: The Consortium will provide on-going technical assistance, throughout the
project, both at the national, ICPDR level and at the level of the local demonstration projects. As
in the pilot project, this will be provided both in response to individual requests from project
participants, and generally, in preparation of resource materials or input on key topics of common
concern. Technical assistance is to be provided in a flexible manner, using e-mail, phone calls
(individual and conference) and other methods as indicated. We will also prepare a project list
serve that will allow each of us easily to send relevant materials to the core project participants,
and facilitate joint communication.
Study tours: The study tours are a major learning and training tool of the project and the means
to identify models and ideas for adaptation in each of project countries. Thus, this 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 shared water bodies,
will provide each of the project participants with ideas that they can consider in the context of their
own needs and institutions. Along with the plenary sessions, the study tours are among the main
"joint" activities of the project.
National measures/products: Each project country will determine for itself, through joint
consultation, which specific national measures and products will best help them achieve the overall
goals of the project component with respect to access to water-related environmental information
and implementation of the public participation goals of the Water Framework Directive. The
specifics will be decided by each project country team, who will discuss the identified priorities for
such measures or products in the national workshops, and then refine and further develop them as
the project progresses, a process that is set out in the Timeline and TOR. These are central
products of the project.
Capacity building: The Consortium will provide capacity building during the national and regional
workshops regarding the identified priority problems and to prepare those implementing the local
demonstration projects. Capacity building is also a feature of the on-going technical assistance and
of the study tours.
Website and articles: as noted, members of the Consortium have already prepared websites for
the project, located on their organizational web sites, and have published notices describing the
project in institutional publications of general circulation. These web sites will be regularly updated
and will provide timely information about the ongoing and planned activities and their results. The
Consortium prepared a short introductory article on the component for the upcoming edition of
Danube Watch and prepared a longer article for publication in a subsequent edition. The
Consortium is also committed to producing other materials that increase the dissemination of the
methodology and the results of the project, although the exact placement of these articles is
currently unknown and cannot be known until submitted and accepted by publishers.
1. Criteria and selection process on the local demonstration projects
This section discusses the basic criteria and selection process for demonstration projects.
21
The purpose of the demonstration projects is to provide concrete, practical experience in the
implementation of principles of access to environmental information and public participation, and if
possible, to test-run methods that are devised in the context of Component 3.4 in each country to
make these methods a reality. The main aim of the demonstration is not to solve the source discharge
at the hot spot, but to learn how information and participation can help lead toward finding solutions
for that and related environmental problems. Additionally, the demonstration projects will inform the
project's work at the national level to develop effective measures to improve public access to
environmental information and support public participation, and will be shared regionally.
There will be one demonstration project in each country; and the project duration for each project will
be up to a maximum of one year. The choice of the demonstration project will be made in a way that
assures, to the extent possible, that lessons learned in one project are replicable on a larger scale,
providing a relevant example for wider audiences in both the particular countries and the region.
1.1 Selection criteria
The following criteria have been established for selection of the demonstration projects. The
Consortium aims at selecting projects that fulfill all of these criteria. However, the circumstances in
each of the countries suggest that it may end up being necessary to select some projects that do not
completely fulfill all of these criteria, if in one or more of the countries involved it would appear to be
impossible to find a location that fulfills all criteria. It is important to retain implementation flexibility in
view of the vast differences in capability and development of the five countries that are part of this
project and likely unforeseen issues and complications.
Each demonstration project will be located at and clearly connected with an existing pollution "hot
spot" site, as defined and identified under ICPDR aegis. The Consortium will use the list of hot spots
from the EMIS database (updated in 2002) to identify potential locations for demonstration projects.
Ideally, although this may not always be possible, the site chosen for a demonstration project will be
connected with on-going clean-up and remediation efforts, whether spearheaded locally or with
support from GEF or other donors. If, however, none of the hotspots in the EMIS database in a country
satisfy one or more of the other criteria for a demonstration project, the Consortium will propose other
locations (with environmental problems of a similar magnitude or source as the hot spots) to the DRP
project management.
Another selection criterion for demonstration projects is that there exist one or more NGOs with
adequate capacity to carry out a demonstration project, in order to assure the sustainability of the
project's results over the long-term. The Consortium would prefer that candidate NGOs have already
identified the hot spot (or other problem-location) as a location that requires their attention, or are
working on similar or sufficiently-related activities, and that some level of remediation-related activity
with regard to the hot spot (or other problem-location) is already be going on. However, the
Consortium recognizes that these may be difficult criteria to fulfill. This activity does not need to be at
full force when the demonstration project starts, but there must be actors who are capable of handling
such a project adequately and effectively, and who--with capacity building and technical assistance
from the project--could carry on this effort in the future, when the demonstration project is over.
Because information access requires willingness and readiness to provide information on the part of
the relevant governmental authority that holds information and/or is responsible for environmental
decision making, as well as stakeholder demand for that environmental information, another of the
selection criteria is the existence of a cooperative governmental authority willing to work on the
project.
Another criterion for selection will be the existence of an "access to information problem" or a "related
public participation problem" on the local level that is relevant to one or more information access or
related public participation problem(s) that, through the project's national consultations, have been
identified as priority problem(s) at the national level. In addition, the local approaches to the local
access to information or related public participation problem could supply valuable information about
possible solutions to the problem identified at the national level. The purpose of this criterion is to
assure that the demonstration projects help inform efforts at the national level to develop measures to
overcome the key identified barriers to access to information and hence, public participation. In
addition, the requirement that there be an actual and significant information access or related public
22
participation problem that is worth trying to solve at chosen sites will help assure that the
demonstration projects are concrete and produce results that are meaningful in the context of our
project.
1.2 Selection process
The following process will be followed for selection and implementation of the local demonstration
projects.
In each country, the national consultant who is preparing the Needs Assessment will consult the list of
hotspots compiled by the ICPDR and found in Annex II of the Strategic Action Plan for the Danube
River Basin, Revision 1999, to propose a number of hot spot locations for demonstration projects.
He/she will be assisted and supported in this effort by the REC Country Office and the
operational/national teams. Input from these local stakeholders is indispensable since they are the
ones best acquainted with local conditions and possibilities. If for any reason the hotspot list provides
insufficient information or data to select appropriate locations of demonstration projects, other sources
will be consulted, keeping in mind how possible other locations could fit in the larger Danube Regional
Project.
In addition, candidate locations will be screened according to the selection criteria described above.
The same group (national consultants, REC Country Office, national team) will identify NGOs who are
working in the geographic locations selected. Because of their knowledge of local conditions and
opportunities, identifying NGOs and authorities should be relatively straightforward for this group.
However, the identification of locally involved NGOs assumes there are enough NGOs at the selected
sites with a capacity to carry out public participation processes.
The result of the selection process will be a proposal for a site and a framework for the content of the
demonstration project.
Following the analysis referenced above, the Consortium will invite the available local organizations to
apply with specific project ideas in the form of a 2-3 page proposal. Accompanying its request for
proposals, the Consortium will provide project guidelines that will help guide applicants to propose
effective local projects that are also relevant to, or can help in, the development of measures or
solutions to concrete, access to information and related public participation problems of priority
concern at the national level, within the limited timeframe of the project. Organizations can send in
proposals of project ideas both individually and in groups. In a situation where there is little NGO
involvement at a location that fulfills all other selection criteria, the Consortium may also decide to
request the NGOs involved to provide for joint implementation (by more than one NGO) of a concept
that was initially advocated by one. The Consortium is aware that it may be a challenge to unite local
NGOs around the implementation of one project (especially if only one of them proposed this project).
It may be equally challenging to ensure that NGOs have a sense of ownership with regard to their
project (even though they may have limited influence on the project framework they will have to work
with). Local knowledge of the national consultants, the national team and the REC Country Offices
may suggest solutions.
The Consortium is aware of the fact that the approach described above requires more detailed
involvement of the Consortium. However, with the input of the national consultants, the REC Country
Offices and the national teams, it is the Consortium's understanding that such detailed involvement
can be provided without significantly delaying the project timetable.
Only in those situations where the approach to the selection of a specific project described above
would fail due to special circumstances, a more open solicitation of proposals could be envisioned as an
ultimate "fall back" option. In this approach, the Consortium would develop a list of interest areas/hot
spots and selection criteria and invite NGOs to submit project proposals. It is important to note that
soliciting of proposals is not the most effective approach if local expertise is limited and local NGOs
lacks expertise to develop good proposals, especially to implement participatory processes.
23
After consultation with local stakeholders and experts (national teams, REC Country Offices) including
national workshops, the Consortium will select one proposal for each country and present each to the
Steering Committee for Component 3.4 for endorsement.
After acceptance by the Steering Committee of the proposals, the Consortium will officially appoint the
NGO that submitted the selected proposal (possibly in combination with other local NGOs) for the
project. Thereafter, other parties that will be involved in the project, including the local authority, as
well as those NGOs that were not selected for the project, will be informed of the decision.
The Consortium will make more specific arrangements subsequently with the selected NGO(s) to
prepare a sound implementation plan, including further specification of the project, its financial
implications and a detailed timeframe for the project, as well as possible contracting of local experts.
Over the course of the demonstration projects, capacity building and training will be provided. Capacity
building and training will focus not only on the rights and processes available for access to information
and public participation, but also on developing and improving stakeholder skills and tools for
effectively using and applying such rights and mechanisms.
The local REC country offices, in collaboration with local trainers and in consultation with the
Consortium and under its guidance, will provide such training and capacity building to local
stakeholders (including local government officials, interested or affected citizens, local NGOs) on an
ongoing basis during the demonstration projects.
In addition, a capacity building workshop will be organized for each of the demonstration projects at
the local sites. These workshops will provide an opportunity for stakeholders and the partners in the
Consortium to evaluate the progress in the demonstration projects so far and provide structural
capacity building with regard to reoccurring issue, flagged as being problematic for a project.
The Consortium will be heavily involved in the entire implementation process of the demonstration
projects, from any necessary further refinement of selection criteria based on further information and
experience through to selection, planning, direct support, technical assistance and capacity building,
and monitoring of implementation of the actual project.
2. Technical assistance by NHL consultants
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.
After an extended conversation with Rayka Hauser, which will be followed up by a conversation with
the experts from NHL, the following plan of action was devised.
First, the Consortium will provide the experts from NHL with all written materials available on the
project, so that they can get a good idea of what exactly will be undertaken by the Consortium and the
local stakeholders. For example, with regard to objective 1, the Consortium will provide the Inception
Report, the minutes of the country consultations that took place in October and November 2004, the
Needs Assessments and the minutes of the national meetings that will take place in February and
March 2005. With regard to objective 2, the Consortium will provide the experts from NHL with the five
projects that have been selected as demonstration projects, the reasons for selecting those and the
implementation plans. It may be useful to arrange one or more conference calls so that the
Consortium partners can explain any details that are not clear. These activities together will assure
that the experts from NHL have a full and concrete understanding of the access to information and
public participation goals that the Consortium will be aiming for in each country, as well as the
activities planned to achieve these goals.
24
Based on these materials and conversations, the experts from NHL will define the kind of additional
inputs they think are needed from local counterparts (the stakeholders) so that the Consortium, with
the help of the experts from NHL, can develop a list of indicators for each objective.
The Consortium will then approach local counterparts in each country in order to obtain the necessary
additional inputs suggested by the experts from NHL.
Then, the Consortium will work closely with the experts from NHL to develop a set of well-defined
indicators for each objective.
The local partners in each country will be approached to discuss and give feedback on the proposed
indicators.
As a last step, the Consortium, together with the experts from NHL finalize the indicators, so that
along the way in the project, the progress and success of the project in achieving its objectives can be
measured by DRP, by local counterparts, and by the Consortium.
3. National capacity building workshops in 2005
The first national capacity building workshops will be held at the end of February, 2005 and during
March 2005. The REC and its partners will consult the DRP, the operational teams and the REC Country
Offices about the proposed date and venue of the workshops before 15th of January 2005. These
consultations will also include the draft agenda, materials to be distributed and the list of participants.
Invitation letters and registration forms will be sent out one month before the workshop. The more
detailed updated agenda and the draft Needs Assessment report will be sent out to those who register
for the workshop at least one week in advance.
The workshop agenda will include:
presentation of and discussions on the findings of the Needs Assessment report by the national
consultants;
special focus on identification of national priorities, barriers/solutions to those priorities, and
proposed activities/ outcomes to be addressed by the project component;
discussion of potential measures and approaches for addressing priority needs;
presentation of and discussion on the findings of the demonstration project report by the national
consultants; and
identification of preferred options among potential demonstration sites that best meet the selection
criteria.
Outcomes of the workshop:
better understanding of legal, institutional and practical barriers of access to/provision of
environmental and water-related information, within the context of the Water Framework
Directive, in the respective country;
discussion and agreement on priority needs, activities and outcomes regarding improvements
which can be achieved within the timeframe and framework of the project component;
proposed specific activities/outcomes;
preliminary scoping of potential measures and approaches to addressing priority needs;
preferred options for demonstration sites;
25
feedback and comments on draft Needs Assessment report, and identification of revisions to be
made by national consultants in finalizing the report.
The draft Needs Assessment reports and the demonstration project reports will be finalized based on
the results of the workshop within two weeks after the conclusion of the workshops.
4. Needs assessments, who is involved and when
The purpose of each Needs Assessments is to provide a clear, factual foundation on which the entire
project can proceed in each country. The Needs Assessment will set the framework for the work that
is to follow in the two years of the project. One will be created in each project country. The Consortium
is in the process of identifying and then contracting national consultants, who will then be directed to
undertake a systematic examination of current laws, policies and practices in each of the countries.
Their work is more than a paper review of laws and on-the-books procedures, however. Among other
things, the national consultants are directed to develop practical information. For example, they must
learn from those who have experienced this, how easy or hard it is to obtain information from national
and local authorities by making requests at each level and reporting on the results, and by collecting
other practical and pertinent information.
National consultants will work on the Needs Assessments under the supervision of the Consortium. The
Consortium will be in close contact with the national consultants by e-mail and phone as they develop
their national Needs Assessments. In the pilot project, the national consultants produced several drafts
of their needs assessments in response to comments from the Consortium. This iterative effort
sharpened and refined significant parts of the analysis. It is expected that the same will be the case for
Component 3.4, and that the following schedule of events will be followed.
As noted in greater detail in Part I, Section 1.1 of this Inception Report, the Consortium has
prepared an outline of issues to be addressed in Needs Assessments and will also provide guidance
to the country experts;
The Consortium will oversee the national consultants' work including reviewing and commenting on
drafts (both in writing and orally via phone conversations) and will do any necessary editing
including to improve the way the information is conveyed, if necessary;
The Consortium will circulate the results to the main country partners/national team (government
and DEF/NGO) for review and comment;
The Consortium will prepare and package the final reports of the national consultants in ways that
make each of them easily accessible to the relevant country participants attending the national
meetings and then the first plenary meeting scheduled for April 2005;
The Consortium will facilitate an effective review and discussion on the Needs Assessments at the
first national and plenary meeting, as the needs assessments will form the basis of discussions for
identifying project priorities country-by-country, selecting hot spot demonstration project
locations, and otherwise structuring the project efforts in each country;
Following the plenary meeting, the Consortium will edit the Needs Assessments into a form
accessible to a general or broader audience, reflecting discussions in the plenary meeting, and will
post this information on the project websites and otherwise make them available as appropriate.
For an example of this from the previous pilot project in Hungary and Slovenia, see
http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/DanubeInformation/PDF/HungaryNeedsAsse
ssment.PDF and
http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/DanubeInformation/PDF/SloveniaNeedsAsse
ssment.PDF
It is important to note that the 5 countries present a variety of different circumstances. The status of
existing legal, institutional and practical arrangements necessary to implement public access to water-
related information and the Water Framework Directive varies quite widely among them. Thus, the
26
country experts' specific assessment tasks in each country and the ultimate form of their reports may
differ in form and/or emphasis from country to country.
27
PART III ANNEXES
A1
COUNTRY CONSULATIONS, DOCUMENTS
28
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
MINUTES OF MEETING
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Bosnia and Herzegovina
Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
14th October 2004
The main objectives of the meeting
·
To present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, Project Output 3.4
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making to
relevant stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership and input at the national level.
·
To collect feedback on national level on the project activities, expected outputs including the
scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment on barriers of public access to information
on water issues taking into account the WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant international
and national legislation.
·
To identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the national teams and discuss
with participants about the process.
Participants
Representatives of Ministries of Environment (MoE) on Entity level, as well as on cantonal level,
institutions, business sector, NGO's (See Participants list in Annex 1)
Introductary part
The meeting was opened by Djordje Stefanovic, REC Banja Luka Field Office. Opening speech was
delivered by Ms Naida Aneli, BiH representative for ICPDR Expert Working group for River Basin
Management. She greeted all on behalf of Prof. Borislav Jaksic and Mr. Mehmed Cero, BiH Heads of
delegation to ICPDR. She presented the current situation regarding the role of BiH in the
implementation of Danube Convention, as well as how the ICPDR operates and how BIH experts
participate in different working groups and activities. BiH is in the process of ratification which will be
finished by the end of this year. Currently there is no regular information flow due to problems of
communication among institutions in BiH. already has involved in different activities so they could also
join the Water Framework Directive implementation. BIH participates in observer status in the different
expert groups including the River Basin Management Expert Group, now was asked to nominate
experts to all working groups. The River Basin Management Expert Group took the initiative to develop
29
a Public Participation Strategy in River Basin Management Planning. BiH also participates in the
discussions on the Roof Report and the upcoming Ministerial Meeting in December. ICPDR. A workshop
will be held in Sarajevo on November 3-4, 2004 to present the ICPDR and DRP activities.
Introductory presentation
Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager and Head of Public Participation Programme, REC presented in
details the Danube Regional Project and the context of the project component 3.4 "Enhancing Access
to information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making" and the implementation of
the Water Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin, in the name of Ms. Rayka Hauser,
consultant of DRP. The presentation introduced the audience with goals of the DRP, applied description
and justification of the methodology used in enhancing public participation process, involving and
supporting ICPDR in the process concerning the implementation of the Strategy of public participation,
principles of UNDP/GEF ways of acting, cooperation with DEF. (See the presentation attached.)
Magda Toth Nagy also presented on behalf of the implementing consortium of REC/RFF/NYU the
objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public
Participation in Environmental Decision Making" of the DRP:
·
presented to the audience main project goals achieving ultimately a clean Danube River basin,
the good experiences and knowledge gathered in the previous activities, the possibilities for
removing existing barriers and the need for coordinated, integrated approach of all relevant
society actors in society
·
illustrated possible approaches based on implementation of the existing international
documents, such as Aarhus Convention and Water Framework Directive, and through
addressing national hot-spots at local level in countries which are project participants
·
gave an introduction on project implementation phases with justification and expectations
within framework of each particular project phase
·
informed about the management of the project
(See presentation attached in Annex.)
Plenary Discussion on Barriers to Access to Information and Public Participation in BiH
The following comments were made by the participants:
·
BiH has not ratified the Aarhus Convention yet, and ratification is not foreseen for the end of
the current year.
·
The DEF is organizing trainings for NGOs on teh ewater Framnework directive.
·
Mr. Simicic enquired about the possibilities of public involvement in decision making concerning
environmental protection when new industrial investment plans are being decided which may
have significant impacts on the environment and water.
·
If there is no collection of adequate information, the basis for public participation is weak. Also
there is a demand on information supply for the higher level decision-makers which needs to
be organized
·
Mechanisms for dissemination of information can be found in NGO sector now
·
With regards to industrial waste dissposal, this needs to be tackled first in an appropriate and
preventive manner, not to discuss how water protection can be introduced. Local Agenda 21
type of approach is needed to evaluate the impact ofdevlopment plans on the envrionemnt and
water.
·
There is no or very little communication between NGO's and govermental sector especially at
the local level. NGOs should be partners for the governemnt to improve communication.
·
There are also positive examples of cooperation between NGOs and autjhorities
Results of the working groups
Group A
30
TASK
Discuss current situation on access to information and public participation, identify the obstacles and
solutions to it.
RESULT
Obstacles
·
No or only outdated information is available
·
Information is only available in English,
·
Lack of public awareness and knowledge
·
There is no proper information system in place so that it would enable the public to take
part in the decision making process
·
There is no cooperation between NGO-s and the governmental sector
·
Improper institutional structure
·
The Law on Water is not drafted yet
·
There is a lack of by-laws or secondary legislation
·
Lack of guidance materials on hoe to implement existing legislation
·
Guidelines for civil servants
·
Conflict of competencies between ministries and environmental institutions
·
The role of the media is to guide the public in locating relevant information
·
There is not enough media coverage on environmental issues
·
Journalists are not interested in and not knowledgeable enough on environmental issues
·
There is no qualitative water monitoring in place
·
Information exists, but have to be purchased.
·
Existence of administrative borders (between FBiH and RS)
Solutions
·
Legal framework needs to be completed
·
Preparation of entity level water laws in harmonized way (There is an ongoing CARDS
project on institutional structure in water sector)
·
Public relations officers to be put in place in institutions
·
Partnerships to be improved with all sectors
·
Journalists need to be trained and educated
·
Training seminars should be organized
·
Public awareness raising about environmental issues Water Framework Directive and
access to information
·
Systems of charges for water use are not adequate, if improved, awareness would increase
·
All stakeholders should see their responsibilities
Group B
TASK Identify suggestions and opinions relevant to project activities and concluded following:
RESULT
Problems
·
There is no critical mass of public opinion
·
Long-term improvement is needed to have feedback from the public
·
Lack of quality communication between decision-makers and the stakeholders
·
There is a lack of competent experts/capacities/institutions
·
The competences for the Sava and the Danube river is not defined on the state level, not
clear whop is responsible
·
No proper information about ongoing reorganization of water sector to stakeholders
Solutions
31
·
Capacity building, training for officials
·
Support from ICPDR
·
Stimulation for young people through involvement
·
Institutional strengthening at local level
·
Vertical integration, to see who is responsible to whom and for what
·
Water sector needs to be reorganized including state level agency and new water sector
law (CARDS project)
·
Database to be established at state level according to needs of officials and stakeholders
and no participation opportunities
Competent authorities should involve public within the process from draft stage.
·
Information should be made accessible at national level and should be provided to ICPDR
·
Websites should be used to make public documents and should be used for communication
with public and NGOs
·
Cost effective dissemination of information
Group C
TASK: identification of the relevant authorities, NGO-s, experts and other stakeholders, their
involvement in the project component 3.4
RESULT
For the national team:
·
State and entity ministries including those dealing with water, Danube issues
·
Other ministries and agencies including Ministries of Health, Trade and Commerce,
·
Public enterprises for water management, (Sava and Adriatic Basin)
·
Steering Committees on Environment and Water on inter-entity level
·
Cantons and municipalities,
·
Communities,
·
Enterprises dealing with production of electricity ,
·
Umbrella NGO-s (DEF, Eco network, BiH ecology union etc.)
·
Agriculture and industry,
·
Media,
·
Education system
·
Enterprises dealing with environmental issues
·
All should be consulted (except schools and media) and informed
For the operational team
- Ministry for Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, (State level ministry responsible for
water issues)
-
Entity level ministries on water and environment
-
Public enterprises for water management
Closure of the meeting and next steps
Ms Magda Toth Nagy explained the difference between the national and operational team. The National
team will be open to representatives of all institutions and stakeholders who have relevant
responsibilities or activities on Water Framework Directive implementation, with special regard to
access to information and public participation. The operational team will be a small flexible (5-8
members) team with the involvement of the key institutions and organizations who will advise
regularly on the project activities. An e-mail list will be established for communication and information
dissemination. Letters will be sent to the heads of the relevant institutions to nominate a
representative to the National Team and the key institutions to nominate representative to the
Operational Team. The involvement of the Aarhus Focus point will also be required and useful.
32
She also underlined that focus of the project was access to information and not collecting of
information, such as in RANSMO project. (The main goal of RANSMO is setting up an information and
monitoring system in BiH). However, any kind of cooperation in water-related issues would be
welcome. Cooperation with other projects is required, and they should be invited to the national
teams.
The next steps
·
Establishing the national and the operational teams
·
Letter will be sent to heads of institutions to nominate a representative to the national and
operational team
·
National expert/s will be hired to conduct Needs Assessment about the barriers on public
access to water related information
·
National workshop will be held in February or March to discuss the findings of the Needs
Assessment report and decide on which priority problems the project activities should deal with
during the next two years.
33
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATION MEETING
AGENDA
Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
14th October 2004
The main objectives of the meeting: to present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, Project
Output 3.4
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making to relevant
stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership and input at the national level
- to collect feedback on national level on the project activities, expected outputs
including the scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment on barriers of public access to
information on water issues taking into account the WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant
international and national legislation
- to identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the national teams and discuss with
participants about the process.
9.00 9.20
Welcome by REC Country Office Bosnia and Hertzegovina, Deputy Director, Mr.
Djordje Stefanovic
Opening statement by Ms. Naida Andelic on behalf of ICPDR Head of Delegation
9. 20- 9.35
Introduction of agenda and participants
9.35 - 9.55
Introduction on the Danube Regional Project and the context of the
component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making and the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive in the Danube River Basin" by Magda Toth Nagy on behalf of Rayka Hauser,
Public Participation expert to DRP.
Questions and answers
9:55 11.20 Introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4
"Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision
Making" of the DRP by Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC (on behalf of the
implementing consortium of REC/RFF/NYU)
Questions and answers
11.20-11.35 Coffee break
34
11.35-11.50 Linkages with other components of the DRP and the Danube Public Participation
Strategy. Introduction by Magda Toth Nagy on behalf of Rayka Hauser followed by
questions and discussion
11.50-12.30 The current state of access to information and public participation in environmental
and water related issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs)
Plenary discussion moderated by Mr. Djordje Stefanovic
12.30 - 14.00 Lunch break
14.00 - 15.00 Work in 3 Small working groups
Group A
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water related
issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs, legal and institutional perspective, possible
solutions)
(Input for the scope of the needs assessment surveys and the inception report)
Group B
Input and suggestions for Project activities on national level
(Input for the Inception Report and future activities/outcomes)
Group C
Identifying relevant officials, experts NGOs and other stakeholders who need to be involved in the
project and their proposed role or involvement
15.00-16.00 Presentation on the outcomes of the of the working groups and discussion
16.00- 16.30 Process of formation of the national team for the project implementation and
discussion on methods of work/cooperation/communication
Discussion facilitated by Mr. Djordje Stefanovic
16.30-17.00 Conclusions and evaluation of the meeting
35
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT (DRP)
PROJECT COMPONENT 3.4 ,,ENCHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING"
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
14th October 2004
Name Instiution
Tel/fax
e-mail
1.
Mijo Stani
Odzak municipality
031-762 056
2.
Igor Palandzi
COOR NFP DEF BiH
033-212-466
igor.palandzic@heis.com.ba
NGO Center for ecology 035 249 310
ceetz@bih.net.ba
3.
Sabina Jukan
and energy
BiH Ecology Union
035 286 176
hsimicic@inet.ba
4.
Hajrudin Simici
Municipality Prijedor
065-511-855
vranjes.dusan@prijedor.com
5.
Dusan Vranjes
NGO Ekolosko drustvo
065 847 751
djenadija@spinter.net
6.
Drasko enadija
"Kozara"
PE for `' Sava river basin" 033-209-871
7.
Naida Aneli
naida@voda.ba
PE for "Sava river basin'' 033 209 854
dilista@voda.ba
8.
Dilista Hrkas
Federal Ministry for
033 205 620
fmpvode@bih.net.ba
9.
Almir Prljaca
agriculture, water
management, and
forestry
PE for " Adriatic sea
036 397 881
jsliv-03@voda.tel.net.ba
10. Mirko Sarac
basin" Mostar
Oil rafinery Modrica 053
810
111
zivko@modricaoil.com
11. Zivko urevi
Republic direction for
053 200 570
jvioleta@teol.net
12. Violeta Jankovi
water management
NGO `'Young researchers 051 320 960
mibl@teleklik.net
13. Tatjana Sohajcek
Banjaluka `'
suhajcek@mibl.org
Program of development
052 240 330
ibg-rs@poen.net
14. Nebojsa Jaksi
of Una river basin
Republic direction for
051 312 058
kancelarija_vrbasbl@blic.net
15. Dalibor Vrhovac
water management
d.vrhovac@blic.net
Institute for water
055 211 866
zav_vodbn@rstel.net
16. Nedeljko Sudar
management Bijeljina
NGO" ToPeeR"
053 242 894
topeer@rojal.net
17. Jusuf Makarevi
PE "Brcko Harbor"
049 216 402
luka@teol.net
18. Mehmedalija Zili
Institute for water
055 202 175
zav_vodbn@rstel.net
36
19. Uros
Hrkalovi management
Bijeljina
065 665 782
dglog@teol.net
20. Dragan Glogovac
Municipality Visegrad
tmagdi@rec.org
21. Magdy Toth Nagy
REC HQ
rec.bl@inecco.net
22. ore Stefanovi
REC BIH
051 317 022
051 317 022
nerminb@blic.net
23. Nermin Beirbasi
REC BIH
033 263 050
jascengic@rec.org.ba
24. Jasmina Cengi
REC BIH
37
38
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
MINUTES OF MEETING
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Bulgaria
Sofia
26th of November 2004
Preparation
Representatives of governmental institutions, academia, environmental programmes,
associations of municipalities, businesses and NGOs, stakeholders in water protection and
public involvement were invited to participate in the meeting. The invitation included besides
the official letter, draft agenda and short description of the project.
The meeting took place in the Executive Environmental Agency. Participants received as
information package the presentations and a booklet on the Aarhus Convention.
The meeting was attended by 25 representatives of governmental institutions and 18 of
academia, businesses and NGOs. (See Annex 1: List of Participants 26 Nov 2004)
The meeting took place on 26th November, according the preliminary distributed agenda of the
meeting.
Ms. M. Mateeva, director of REC CO Bulgaria opened the meeting and welcomed the
participants.
Mr. Vladimir Donchev, Head of Water Protection Department at the MOEW, stressed the
importance of the project for implementation of the requirements of the Water Framework
Directive and national water legislation. A draft text of the New Water Act was accepted by the
collegium of the Council of Ministers. Full EU legislation harmonization is to be achieved with
the adoption of the new Water Act. Access to information and public involvement are stated
priorities of the national environmental policy and REC for CEE continuous efforts in this regard
are highly appreciated.
Ms. Margarita Mateeva introduced the project goals and the goals of the first national meeting
on the project. She presented the slightly revised agenda to the participants and it was
accepted. (See Annex 2: Agenda 26 Nov 2004)
Ms. Rayka Hauser, Public Participation Expert, Danube Regional Project (DRP), made an
introduction on the project and the context of component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to
information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making and the implementation
of the Water Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin". (See Annex 3:
DRP_PP_Rhouser.ppt)
39
Ms. Magdolna Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC made an introduction on the objectives,
activities and outputs of component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public
Participation in Environmental Decision Making" on behalf of the implementing consortium of
REC/RFF/NYU. (See Annex 4: Danube consultations finalMTO.ppt)
Mr. Alexander Kodjabashev in his introduction stressed that there have been significant
developments in the sphere of public access to information and public participation in the
recent years, especially on the legislative site and on the governmental responsibilities.
However there are still issues that need consideration as those of definition of public interest,
of commercial and industrial secret and others.
The following discussion identified current barriers on access to information and public
participation.
Identified Barriers on Access to information
1. Regulatory
barriers
(minimal)
2. Insufficient knowledge of the regulation by the officials. Information is needed for
officials, for courts
3. Interpretation is needed (for instance of public interest of commercial and industrial
secret)
4. Lack of belief in win-win solutions
5. Insufficient consultation skills (to be overcome by training, change of culture)
6. Transparency of institutions to be increased
7. Price for information. Pricing is not regulated, price for processed and primary
information, clear guidance.
8. Delay
of
Information
9. Insufficient motivation of public interest in information, beyond crisis situations
10.
Media understanding and capacity to interpret environmental information
unsatisfactory
11. Level of detailisation of publicly accessed information data, sources of pollution
insufficient
12. Representativeness of the monitoring points is doubted.
13. Lack of monitoring of some parameters
14. Terminology: information data
15. WFD does not use directly the term public participation. Guidance document is not
obligatory.
16. It is not clear which are the responsible institutions for provision of information (
response ExEA, MOEW website)
17. New Water Act public consultation to be incorporated in it
18. 75 % of the public does not know their rights and do not believe they can change
anything
19. Basin Councils' role to be replaced by technical expert councils?
20. Lack of good coordination among the institutions
Working Groups
Identification of problems and needs, possible solutions and relevant activities were stated as
the tasks of the three working groups in the afternoon session. The facilitators of the three
working groups represented the task of each working group and whom it may be of interest
to.
Three working groups discussed the following issues:
·
Legal and institutional aspects of access to information and public participation in
environmental and water related issues (Problems encountered, solutions, proposed
project activities)
40
·
Practical aspects of access to information and public participation in environmental and
water related issues (Problems encountered, solutions, proposed project activities)
·
Identification of officials, experts, NGOs and other stakeholders who need to be
involved in the project and their proposed role or involvement in the
national/operational teams.
Working Group Results
Working Group A
Legal and Institutional aspect of access to information and public participation in environment
and water protection (Problems, measures)
Identified problems and measures:
1. Water Act Public Consultations on the draft text.
Problem: Only the first draft of the Water Act was made available for public
consultation. It had a lot of shortcomings and had to be essentially changed. A second
draft was developed by the authorities and adopted by the Collegium of the Council of
Ministers, in which allegedly these shortcomings have been addressed. It is of major
concern to stakeholders that the second draft was not made public before submission
and adoption by the Council of Ministers.
Measures:
a/ organization of another public consultation process on the second draft,
b/ in the future, organization of consultations before the submission of the draft law;
c/ the act should include a mechanism for evaluation of the results from its
implementation, and for corresponding corrective measures (amendments).
Possible project activities:
The DRP Component 3.4 can provide assistance in the development of a monitoring
mechanism for the Water Law. An EU PHARE pilot project will assess the impact of the
Water Law on farmers. The approach and results of this pilot can be used as a basis
for a broader evaluation and amendment mechanism. A DRP representative should
contact the PHARE project team.
The DRP Component 3.4 can also look into the procedure for stakeholder consultation
in legal drafting and propose improvements.
2. The Water Act provides for public participation in River Basin Management
Planning through the River Basin Councils, which are the future
Consultative bodies of the River Basin Directorates.
Problem:
The River Basin Councils are not operating entirely effectively
Possible Project Activities:
Technical assistance to the Basin Councils for the 2 regions (Danube and Black Sea) in
order to help them organize their work and become operational. Special attention
should be given to other on-going assistance to these structures, in order to avoid
overlapping. This proposal assumes that River Basin Councils have been restored to
their original functions in the latest draft of the Water Act.
41
3. Problem: the collection and processing of information by certain institutions is
secured through public funds (e.g. at the National Institute of Meteorology and
Hydrology, of Cartography, etc.). However payment is required from MOEW, NGOs
and other interested parties for the information they request from these
institutions.
4. Problem: No legal criteria for the definition of commercial and industrial secret
allow for the misuse of this term.
5. Problem: Lack of effective, legally adopted penalty for not providing information
to the public or stakeholders.
Measures for 3,4, 5 and possible project activities: legal amendments (new
regulations or amendment of existing ones) in order to: regulate which kind of
information should be provided free of charge, and in which cases payment is needed;
defining what can be considered commercial and industrial secret; and setting
effective penalties for refusal of access to information.
6. Problem: Unclear implementation procedures to legal and administrative staff
concerning the general regulation on access to information Access to Public
Information Act and the specialized regulation Environment Protection Act and the
Aarhus Convention.
Measures and proposed project activities: training of the legal specialists within
the administration
Working Group B
Practical aspect of access to information and public participation in environment and water
protection (Problems, solutions, proposed activities on the project)
Problems:
1. NGOs are not involved in the development of Municipal Environmental Protection
Programmes (incl. water issues), neither in the Regional Strategy development.
Development of Municipal Strategies/WRMP is assigned to private companies, no
public consultation.
2. Lack of good practice for municipal announcement of submitted applications for water
use; inefficient announcement of EIA consultation
3. Conflict of interests between investors and public
4. General public is not acquainted with the Aarhus Convention, Environmental Protection
Act, environmental and water protection management procedures
5. Lack of coordination among the institutions in regard of access to information
responsibilities.
6. No stakeholder analysis is done
Solutions to problem 1:
1. Process of development of municipal and regional plans, programmes, strategies to be
regulated to include involvement of NGOs, business, public, media
Activities:
1. Request to MOEW and Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works to include
relevant text in regulations (for environmental assessment of plans and programmes).
2. To be preserved the subbasin councils in the recent draft text of the new Water Act.
42
Solution to problem 2:
- Municipal and RIEW training in efficient communication with stakeholders
Activities:
1. Survey of current practices
2. analysis and recommendations for good practices
3. Development of guidelines
4. Trainings
5. Annual reward for municipality with best results
Solution to problem 3:
- To amend the Regulation instead of national newspaper, media, announcement to be
required to be done in regional, local newspaper / media
Activities: Proposal to the Ministry to amend the Regulation
Solution to problem 4:
- Increase of awareness and knowledge
Activities:
1. Publicising successful public participation
2. Awareness campaigns addressing target groups
3. Training of messengers for dissemination of environmental information
4. Establishment of cooperation with media, through: meetings and seminars, regular
delivery of information, weekly bulletins of municipalities and RIEW on the state of
environment (website, press office)
Solution to problem 5:
-
Concreticise the RIEW and BD responsibilities
Activities: Request from RIEW and BD to the Minister to regulate the issue with an Order.
Solution to problem 6:
-
To regulate the process of: identification of stakeholders, ways of
communicating the information
Activities: proposal to the MOEW for amendment of the Regulation.
Working Group C
Identification of representatives of governmental institutions, experts, NGOs, other
stakeholders, and their role in the project for both national and operational team
National team
Institutions:
1. MOEW
2. Ministry of Energy and Energy Resources
3. ExEA
43
4. RIEW
5. x Agency for exploration and maintenance of the Danube river.
6. Basin
Directorates
7. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
8. National center for Hygiene, Medical Ecology and Nutrition
9. Ministry of Transport and communications
10. Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
11. Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works
12. National Statistical Institute
13. Municipalities
14. Executive Agency Fisheries and Aquacultures
15. Ministry of Economy
16. Ministry of Finance
NGOs
1. Association of Danube Municipalities, Belene
2. Association of Black Sea Municipalities
3. Earth Forever - Svishtov
4. Union for Environmental Protection, Vidin
5. Bulgarian Society for Protection of Birds
6. CEIE
7. NAMRB
8. Bluelink
9. National School Eco-parliament
10. Danube Environmental Forum
Academia
1. Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology, Bulgaria Academy of Science
2. Institute on Water Problems, Bulgaria Academy of Science
3. Geological
Institute
4. Central Laboratory on General Ecology
5. Universities
6. Sociological Institute (BAS)
Media
1. National
media
2. Specialised
media
3. Regional
Media
4. Information
Agencies
Business
1. Bulgarian Industrial Association
2. Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
3. Stakeholders from business
Operational team:
1. Water Directorate of the MOEW
2. ExEA Quality of surface water
3. RIEWs the Danube and the Black Sea region
4. Basin Directorates the Danube and the Black Sea
5. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
6. National
statistical
Institute
7. Access to information Programme
44
8. Danube Environmental Forum
9. National
pupils
eco-parliament
10. Bulgarian Academy of Science with the relevant Institutes
11. Bulgaria Industrial Association
Discussion on working group results
In regard of the national team was pointed that there are many institutions/organizations
which participation may contribute to project outcomes and for the different tasks the team
may differ to allow for inclusion of experts on specific tasks. It was stressed that the activity of
both teams is organized in voluntary basis.
Conclusions
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy presented the next steps on the project:
o Minutes from this meeting will be sent out to all participants
o REC will send a letter to the heads of institutions and organizations to nominate a
representative to the national team
o REC will send a letter to those key institutions and organizations requesting them to
nominate a representative in the operational team
o REC is inviting by 1 December candidates for the implementation of a national Needs
Assessment (to be completed by end March 2005). TOR for the task is under
development.
o Establishment of an e-mail list for communication and information dissemination
about activities related to the project component
o Selecting and contracting National consultant/s to prepare a Needs Assessment report
on the barriers of public access to information
o Organising and holding National workshops February-March to discuss the findings of
the Needs assessment report and decide on which priority problems the project
activities should deal with during the next two years.
Closing of theg Meeting
Ms. Margarita Mateeva expressed her satisfaction of the creative and devoted work of the
participants and officially announced the closure of the meeting.
45
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
AGENDA
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Bulgaria
Sofia
26th of November 2004
The main objectives of the meetings is
- to present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, Project Output 3.4
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making to
relevant stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership and input at the national level
- to collect feedback on national level on the project activities, expected outputs
including the scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment on barriers of public access to
information on water issues taking into account the WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant
international and national legislation
- to identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the national teams and
discuss with participants about the process
9.00 9.20
Welcome by Ms. Margarita Mateeva, REC CO Director,
Opening statement by, Mr. Vladimir Donchev, Head of Water Protection
Department of MOEW
9. 20 - 9.35
Introduction of agenda and participants
9.35 - 9.55
Introduction on the Danube Regional Project and the context of the
component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making and the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin" by Ms. Rayka Hauser, Public
Participation Expert, DRP.
Questions and answers
9:55 10.20 Introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component "Enhancing
Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision
Making" of the DRP by Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC (on behalf
of the implementing consortium of REC/RFF/NYU)
Questions and answers
10.20 -10.35 Coffee break
46
10.35 -12.15 The current state of access to information and public participation in
environmental and water related issues on national level (Problems
encountered and needs)
Plenary discussion, introduction by Mr. Alexander Kodjabashev.
12.15 - 12.30 Introduction into the working groups
12.30 -13.30 Lunch break
13.30 -14.30 Work in 3 working groups
Group A
Legal and institutional aspects of access to information and public participation in
environmental and water related issues (Problems encountered, solutions, proposed project
activities)
Group B
Practical aspects of access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues (Problems encountered, solutions, proposed project activities)
Group C
Identification of officials, experts, NGOs and other stakeholders who need to be involved in the
project and their proposed role or involvement in the national/operational team.
14.30-15.45 Presentation of the working groups and discussion
- Problems, solutions, proposed project activities
- Process of formation of national and operational team for the project
implementation and methods of work
Discussion facilitated by the REC CO Bulgaria Director
15.45 16.15 Conclusions and evaluation of the meeting, next steps. Closure
47
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
LIST OF PARTYICIPANTS
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Bulgaria
Sofia
26th of November 2004
#
Institution Contacts Confirmed
pre Addressed
Representative4
sen
t3
Governmental Institutions
Nikolay
MoEW
Kujumdjiev
Deputy Minister
1
MoEW - Head of water
22 Maria Luiza Str, t.
Vladimir Dontchev
protection department
9406523,
dontchevvl@moew.gov
ernment.bg
2
MoEW - Expert in water
22 Maria Luiza Str,
Boriana Georgieva
framework Directive
bgeorgieva@moew.gov
(for Violeta
ernment.bg
Roiachka)
940 66 44
3
MoEW - Expert in water
22 Maria Luiza Str, t
Denitsa Petrova
protection department
9406527deni@moew.g
(for Nevena
overnment.bg;
Teneva)
9406562
MoEW
Public
67 W. Gladstone Str
Nely Ilieva
participation, State
9406299
Expert in Strategies and
Programmes for
environment
4
MoEW - Expert in water
22 Maria Luiza Str,
Kremena
protection department
kplamenova@moew.go
Plamenova
vernment.bg; 9406545
5 Dimitar
Vergiev xEA
136 Tsar Boris III,
Mihail Mollov
Director
mollov@nfp-
bg.eionet.eu.int
3 Number is entered only for participants in the meeting
4 Some of officially confirmed representatives were not present
48
9406483
6
ExEA
136 Tsar Boris III,
Daniela Deleva
7
ExEA -
136 Tsar Boris III,
Madlen Georgieva
9406454
8 Director
Basin
Directorate
1 Vasil Levski Str
Petya Ivanova
Danube
Pleven 064803279
064803342
bd_dr_pl@yahoo.com
064885133
9
Basin
Directorate
1 Vasil Levski Str
Veselka Pavlova
Danube
Pleven 064803279
064803342
bd_dr_pl@yahoo.com
064885100
10 Director
Basin
Directorate
Black 4 Jan Palah Str, Varna
Silvena
Sea
bdvarna@bsbd.org
Gospodinova (PR)
052687447
11
Basin
Directorate
Black 4 Jan Palah Str, Varna
Cenka Vasileva
Sea
bdvarna@bsbd.org
052631447
Director
Basin
Directorate
East 26 Bulair Str. Plovdiv
Liliana Barganova
Aegean Sea
Tel 032621552
12 Director
Basin
Directorate
West 18 Mitopolit Boris Str
Marta Zlatkova
Aegean Sea
Blagoevgrad bd-
(PR)
blgr@prin.com
07388947117
13
Director
RIEW - Montana
4 Julius Irasek Str
Vera Zhatova
Montana tel 096
300963, f300961
14
RIEW Montana
4 Julius Irasek Str
Ljudmil Gavrilov
Montana tel 096
300963, f300961
Director
RIEW - Sofia
136 Tzar Boris III Sofia Petya Georgieva
tel fax 9539362
RIEW Sofia
136 Tzar Boris III Sofia Liubomir
tel fax 9539362
Gramcharov
15
Director
RIEW - Vratsa
81 Ekzarh Josif
Georgi Cenov
SrtVratsa 092624761
16
RIEW Vratsa
81 Ekzarh Josif Srt
Georgi Skachkov
Vratsa 092624761
17
Director
RIEW Pleven
1 Alexander
Vatoslava
Stamboliiski Str.
Naidenova
Pleven 064801772,
801768, 064800711
riosvpl@yahoo.com
18
RIEW Pleven
Krasimir Ivanov
19
Director
RIEW Veliko Tarnovo
68 Gabrovski Str, tel
Milka Asenova
062 646841, f
062623784
riosv_vt@vt.techno-
link.com
20
RIEW Veliko Tarnovo
68 Gabrovski Str, tel
Nadezhda Petkova
062 646841, f
062623784
riosv_vt@vt.techno-
link.com
21
Director
RIEW Rousse
20 Pridunavski Blvd
Marinela Kulelieva
Ruse 082820774
49
riosv@ruse.bg
24 Miroslava
Ministry of Agriculture
55 Hristo Botev Blvd,
Vladimir Hadjiiski
Georgieva,
and Forests
1050 Sofia
(agroecology)
Director of
Rural Development
Tel: 985 11 410 /455,
Directorate
Directorate
Fax: 981 94 23
vl.georgiev@mzgar.go
vernment.bg
25 Alexander
National Center for
1431 , .
Valeri Metodiev
Spassov /deputy Hygiene
15 .
director/
9581277 t 5812467
Companies
Gacho
Gachev Water and Sewage
27 Tzar Ivan Shishman Meglena
Director
Botevgrad
Str, 60074,
Radoslavova
0723/66581 Botevgrad
2140
26 Mitko
Spassov
25 San Stefano Str
Maria Marinova
Director
Water and Sewage
Pleven, F 832426, t.
Pleven
822476
marimarinowa@yahoo.
com
Ana
Koleva, Sofiiska voda Sofia
2 A Business Park f
head of PR
Water
8750168, t. 9744413
deparment
Port Administration
22 Pristanishtna Str,
Rousse
.. 88, . 821808
Associations
Ginka
National Association of
16-20 Alabin Str, f
Chavdarova Ex
the Municipalities in the
9879826 . 9884660
Director
Republic of Bulgaria
27 Asia
Bulgaria Association of
0361 65 630,
Asya
Dobrudjalieva
Municipal Environmental
a.dobrudjalieva@mail.
Dobrudjalieva
Chairperson
Experts
bg
28 Maria
Pavlova Association of Danube
23 Bulgaria Sq .. 14
Petar Stojkov
Ex Director
Municipalities
F.0658/22960 5930
Belene t. 22940
Mariela
Tzoneva
Association of Yantra
2 Maika Bulgaria sq,
Doyno Doynov
Ex Director
Municipalities
5000 Veliko Tarnovo
t/f 062/630139
Academia
29 O.
Santurian
Bulgarian Academy of
Bl 1, Akad. G. Bonchev Vanya Joncheva
Director
Science Institute for
Str Sofia 1113 F.
water problems
722577
30 Atanas
Paskalev Bulgarian
National
51 Kn. Maria Luiza
Irina Todorova
Association for water
Blvd. 1202 Sofia,
quality
f9839375, t 9832744
Projects and Programmes
Ms.
Marietta GEF/World Bank
Ministry of
Ms. Marietta
Stoimenova
Wetlands Restoration
Environment and
Stoimenova
and Pollution Reduction
Waters
Project
Tel/Fax: 980 87 34,
Tel: 940 65 51
wetlands_ppu@moew.
government.bg
Gergana
Access
to
Information 76 Vasil Levski Str,
Alexander
50
Zheleva,
Programme Sofia
1000,
t/f
Kashamov/Kiril
director
9885062
Terziiski
31 Vesselina
WWF-International
67 Tzanko Tzerkovski
Ivan Hristov
Kavrakova
Danube-Carpathian
Street, 1421 Sofia
Programme
Tel/Fax: 964 05 45
ihristov@internet-
bg.net;
kavrakova@internet-
bg.net
NGOs
32 Alexandar
Demetra
5 .
Alexandar
Kodjabashev
208 9813315
Kodjabashev
33 Alexandar
Ecoglasnost Rousse
36 Troian Str, entr I,
Alexandar
Alexandrov
082/824452, 861083,
Alexandrov
a_alexandrov@yahoo.co
m
34
Yulian Spirov
Earth for ever Svishtov 5250 84 Tzar
Yulian Spirov
Osvoboditel Str
0631/22048/43117
earthforever_sv@abv.b
g
35 Lyudmil
Institue for Ecological
8 ilarion Makariopolski Lyudmil Ikonomov
Ikonomov
Modernization
Varna,
ikonomov@enviro-
link.org 052
621013 t052612858
36 Milena
Centre for
17A Sofroniy
Milena Kovacheva
Kovacheva
Environmental
Vrachanski Street,
Information and
1303 Sofia
Education (DEF FP)
Tel/Fax: 989 27 85
ceie@iterra.net
38
Centre
for
17A Sofroniy
Stanislava
Environmental
Vrachanski Street,
Boshnakova
Information and
1303 Sofia
Education (DEF FP)
Tel/Fax: 989 27 85
ceie@iterra.net
39
Hristo Nikolov
Green Balkans
6th September Blvd,
Valentina Fidanova
Federation
4000 Plovdiv
Tel: (032) 626 977;
Fax: (032) 635 921
40
Black Sea NGOs network 12 Sheinovo Str fax
Ema Gileva
Ema Gileva
052/602047, tel
052615856
reg_off@bseanetwork.
org
41
Ecoglasnost Veliko
POB 185 Veliko
Kamelia
Kamelia
Tarnovo
tarnovo 5000, tel
Djanabetska
Djanabetska
062624116
academica@bluelink.ne
t
42
Black Forest Systems
3 Pozitano Str t
Stefana Staynova
Bulgaria
9801884, sstaynova
@bfs-bg.com
43
Sustainable
9542660, f 9516863,
Viara Gancheva
Development Forum
gancheva@hotmail.co
Focus
m
Organisers
51
44 Magdolna
Toth-
REC for CEE,
Nagy
Szentendre,
tmagdi@rec.org
45 Rayka
Hauser DRP
46 Margarita
REC for CEE CO
3 Pozitano Str, Sofia
Margarita Mateeva
Mateeva
Bulgaria
POB 1142, rec@rec-
bg.org f 9881670, t
9807486
47
REC for CEE CO
3 Pozitano Str, Sofia
Sonya Yankova
Bulgaria
POB 1142, rec@rec-
bg.org f 9881670, t
9807486
48
REC for CEE CO
3 Pozitano Str, Sofia
Ognian Enev
Bulgaria
POB 1142, rec@rec-
bg.org f 9881670, t
9807486
52
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
MINUTES OF MEETING
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Croatia
Zagreb
22nd of October 2004
Meeting Objectives
- to present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project's new Component 3.4: "Enhancing
Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making" to relevant
stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership of the project component and input at
the national level
- to collect, summarize, analyze and interpret stakeholders' feedback on the national level on
specific needs and potential project activities and outputs. In particular, determine the scope
and inputs for a needs assessment of national level barriers to public access to information on
water issues taking into account the future harmonization with the EU Water Framework
Directive - WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant international and national legislation
- to identify relevant experts and interested stakeholders who will be able to build up national
working teams and participate in various project activities
Introduction
Chairman: Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Moderator: Ms. Borjanka Metiko
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager opened the meeting introducing briefly to the
audience the objectives of the meeting, the Danube Regional Project and the framework of the
Project component 3.4, expressing the project needs, expectations and preferred
methodology. (See agenda and list of participants attached in the Annex.)
Ms. Karmen Cerar, representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management, welcomed the participants on behalf on Mr. Zeljko Ostoic, Head of Croatia's
ICPDR delegation, expressing the support and motivation of the Croatian water authorities to
be actively involved in the project implementation. She talked about the importance of public
participation in the framework of the Water Framework Directive implementation and about
initiatives taken to this end in the framework of the River Basin Expert Group to develop and
approve a Public Participation Strategy of the ICPDR. She also shared the news that in order to
support the project implementation, a key contact person has been nominated responsible for
public participation within the National Water Authority, namely Ms. Vesna Krolo.
53
Presentation: UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project and the context of Component 3.4
Ms. Rayka Hauser, DRP Public Participation Expert, presented the goals of the Danube
Regional Project: to reduce nutrient and toxic pollution and promote transboundary
cooperation in the Danube River Basin. The context of the new project component 3.4
"Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making" is
formed by the role of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River as a
coordinating body for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Danube
River Basin. The Danube Regional Project supports the ICPDR and the Danube countries in this
process, working with authorities and stakeholders at all levels. Within Objective 3, the DRP
aims to strengthen public awareness and participation in environmental decision-making.
Component 3.4 represents an important element in this effort, and special attention is given to
coordinating it with other activities within Objective 3.
Questions and answers:
- Ms. Nevenka Preradovic inquired about the availability of the ICPDR PP strategy in the
Croatian language. Ms. Karmen Cerar clarified that although it is not available in Croatian, the
document can be accessed in English via the ICPDR web page.
- Ms.Doris Filipovic, Ministry of Sea, Tourism and Transport and Development enquired about
the Small Grants program as part of the Danube Regional Project. Ms. Dalia Matejevic gave an
update on the latest development of accessing the grants: 1st round of grants under
implementation; second call for proposals will be out in spring 2005.
Presentation: Objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4
Ms. Toth Nagy, REC Project Manager, acting on behalf of the implementing consortium of
REC/RFF/NYU:
·
provided a detailed introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component
3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental
Decision Making" of the DRP.
·
presented to the audience the main project goals supporting the ultimate objective of
a clean Danube River basin, the good experiences and knowledge gathered in previous
pilot activities, the possibilities for removing existing barriers to access to information,
and the need for a coordinated, integrated approach of all relevant society actors to
this end.
·
illustrated possible approaches based on the implementation of the existing
international documents, such as the Aarhus Convention and the Water Framework
Directive, and through addressing national hot-spots at local level in the countries
which are project participants
·
gave an introduction on the project implementation phases with justification and
expectations within the framework of each particular project phase
·
informed about the management arrangements of the project
(See presentation attached in Annex.)
Panel discussion
·
Ms. Karmen Cerar asked for an overview of already running or future projects
including those implemented by REC that are targeting Croatia and might cause
certain overlaps of activities, mentioning the CARDS project of which she is aware. Mr.
Predrag Sibalic from Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and
Construction, Osijek Department expressed the need for closer integrated multi-
sectoral cooperation, especially from the point of view of inspectors. He mentioned
that there is a good cooperation among experts but accessing information in a
systematic manner is a problem for them too, sometimes information is not available
at all, information flow is not secured. The need to give priority to integrated water
54
management approach when tackling water issues and give the political interests a
secondary position.
·
The representative of the Green Action, Irma Popovic, urged the governmental
institutions to use the opportunity by the project component for accelerating the
ratification of the Aarhus Convention. She shared her negative experience when
requesting information she did not receive the information for two months, although
15 days is required as a timeframe in the national law. There are problems with regard
to timely delivery of information and this has a negative impact for the process of
public participation, therefore in order to comply, the state administration has to be
strengthened, their capacities should be improved, the work process needs to be more
efficient and transparent
·
Ms. Nevenka Preradovic expressed her view that the project might be a good
opportunity for the governmental decision-makers for taking the last steps to ratify
Aarhus Convention. The national legislation adopted in 2003 already reflected the
Aarhus approach as well as the Law on Access to Information
·
Ms. Karmen Cerar confirmed that the integrated database is needed, partially is
available. The setup of database on underground waters is completed and accessible
both for officials and public, but indeed the rest of information might be scattered. She
also mentioned the need to provide both the decision-makers and the public the
information they need.
·
Ms. Doris Filip, Ministry of Sea, Tourism and Transport and Development concluded
that while on higher level inter-sectoral cooperation and information flow is good,
there are problems on the lower levels and improvement in this is needed
·
Ms. Dora Radoslavljevic NGO Participant from Varasdin Illustrated their experiences in
listing concrete examples of problems and obstacles they are facing, when or relevant
environmental information related to the water resource management.
·
Ms.Tatjana Borosa Pecigos, raised how much the actual real picture is reflected in the
transboundary hotspot list prepared in 1999 and the EMIS database on the actual hot
spots. The situation has changed significantly in the last years.
·
Mrs. Magdolna Toth Nagy gave more details in order to clarify how the "hot spots" are
considered in the project context and the methodology how hot-spots were being
selected
Summary of plenary discussion: Barriers to Access to Information and Public
Participation in Croatia
·
It is important to build synergies with other relevant projects which are either in place
or will come up in the future in order to avoid duplication and overlap. This will be the
first task of the planned national Needs Assessment.
·
Inter-sectoral cooperation should be improved as well as cooperation among higher
level and lower lever information holders, providers and decision makers. This is
especially important since information on various aspects of water resource status and
conditions is held by different authorities. There needs to be also clarity about "who is
who" in environmental institutions
·
The new DRP Component should support the institutions for the practical
implementation of Access to Information regulations, including the necessary steps for
the ratification of the Aarhus Convention and implementation of the EU WFD.
·
An integrated and coherent water database should be established. This is underway
within a project of the National Water Authority. An integrated groundwater database
already exists and is available to experts and the public.
·
Data in the ICPDR EMIS database may be outdated and should therefore be used with
care in the identification of the pilot sites.
·
NGOs are facing considerable problems in performing their role in civil society,
especially because of lack of funds
·
The legislative tools and guidelines for information dissemination are missing.
·
The establishment of a Public Information Office is not enough, a larger
interdisciplinary approach is needed in order to make it function in an adequate way
55
It was pointed out that many of the issues raised during the plenary session already refer to
barriers to information access. These need to be prioritized and further elaborated in the
working groups.
WORKING GROUPS
In continuation the participants separated into two working groups with the following tasks:
·
Group A: to list and prioritize particular problems within the project framework,
looking into legal, institutional and practical issues and to suggest the possible
solutions
·
Group B: to list the main authorities and stakeholders that have an interest in the
project implementation, identifying national and operational team members
Results of the Group discussions
Group A
List and Prioritize particular problems within the project framework, to suggest the possible
solutions to the problems considering the legal, institutional and practical issues
Problems listed were:
·
difficulties in accessing information
·
low capacity of civil sector representatives to achieve successful access to relevant
information and low capacity in governmental sector to provide relevant requested
information in time and in an appropriate way
·
constant problems in accessing information for the general public and difficulties in
public participation process
·
lack of user-friendly meta-database that would be shared among relevant sectors that
would be functionally networked.
·
Lack of procedures that would allow easier implementation
Solutions:
·
creation of national sets of indicators, structured and well maintained information
system
·
establishing inter-sectoral cooperation system through establishing working groups
and international working groups that would be working on particular problems
·
law harmonization, education and informing public regularly
·
improved NGO capacity in order to erase their negative image in the society as non-
competent and non-relevant
·
Methodology to be used should be trainings, consultations, technical support, thematic
publications, networking, campaigns.
Group B
Identify the relevant project participants, to describe their particular roles and benefits they
will be able to gain through this project, and finally to propose the structure of the future
operational project national team.
The relevant persons who would form the national project team are:
·
water related experts, relevant decision-makers, and users of the information and the
resource that should be actively involved, consulted and informed
·
Beside the relevant Ministries, also counties, local communities, scientific institutes
and interested financial institutions have to be actively involved. Benefits would be on
the institutions that will be able to accomplish their tasks properly and to improve
their inter-institutional cooperation and communication.
56
·
Operational project team, this body should consist of representatives from Croatian
Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction, Ministry for
Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Ministry of Marine, Traffic, Tourism and
Development Affairs, National Institute for Information, Croatian Agency for Water
Management "Hrvatske vode", environmental NGOs, Ministry of Culture, Dept. for
Nature Protection, Ministry of Health, media representatives.
Discussion
Ms. Rayka Hauser explained the difference between the national and operational team. The
National team will be open to representatives of all institutions and stakeholders who have
relevant responsibilities or activities on Water Framework Directive implementation, with
special regard to access to information and public participation. The operational team will be a
small flexible (5-8 members) team with the involvement of the key institutions and
organizations who will advise regularly on the project activities.
Ms. Toth Nagy, REC Project Manager presented the proposal for structuring the future national
and operational team for the project implementation, as well as the possible appropriate
methods of future work/cooperation/communication. An e-mail list will be established for
communication and information dissemination. Letters will be sent to the heads of the relevant
institutions to nominate a representative to the National Team and the key institutions to
nominate representative to the Operational Team.
Ms. Karmen Cerar emphasized that it is not enough to nominate a person but it has to be a
person who has background and knowledge on water issues. The problem of capacity of water
authorities to provide the necessary input into the project (and in general to ensure public
access to information) was discussed.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager in her conclusions and closure indicated the following
next` steps in the project:
o minutes of the meeting will be prepared and sent to the participants
o a letter will be sent in December to heads of institutions and organizations to nominate
a representative to the national team
o a letter will be sent in December to the heads of those key institutions and
organizations which will be asked to be involved in the smaller operational team to
nominate a representative
o an e-mail list will be established for communication and information dissemination
about activities related to the project component
o National consultant/s will be hired to prepare a Needs Assessment report on the
barriers of public access to information
o National workshop will be held in February-March to discuss the findings of the Needs
assessment report and decide on which priority problems the project activities should
deal with during the next two years.
57
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
AGENDA
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Croatia
Zagreb
22nd of October 2004
The main objectives of the meeting
- to present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, Project Output 3.4
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making to
relevant stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership and input at the national level
- to collect feedback on national level on the project activities, expected outputs
including the scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment on barriers of public access to
information on water issues taking into account the WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant
international and national legislation
- to identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the national teams and
discuss with participants about the process
9.00 9.20
Welcome by Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Head of Public Participation, REC HQ
Opening statement by Ms. Karmen Cerar, representative of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management on behalf of ICPDR Head of
Delegation
Moderator: Ms. Borjanka Metikos
9. 20- 9.35
Introduction of agenda and participants
9.35- 9.55
Introduction on the Danube Regional Project and the context of the
component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making and the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin" by Ms. Rayka Hauser.
Questions and answers
9:55 11.20 Introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component
3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental
Decision Making" of the DRP; by Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC
Questions and answers
58
11.20-11.35 Coffee break
11.35-12.30 The current state of access to information and public participation in
environmental and water related issues on national level (Problems
encountered and needs)
Plenary discussion. Moderator: Ms. Borjanka Metikos
12.30-14.00 Lunch break
14.00-15.00 Work in 2 working groups
Group A
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs)
(Input for the scope of the needs assessment surveys and the inception report)
Group B
Input and suggestions for Project activities on national level
(Input for the Inception Report and future activities/outcomes)
Identifying relevant officials, experts NGOs and other stakeholders who need to be
involved in the project and their proposed role or involvement
15.00-15.30 Presentation on the outcomes of the of the working groups and discussion
15.30- 16.00 Process of formation of the national team for the project implementation and
discussion on methods of work/cooperation/communication
Discussion. Moderator: Ms. Borjanka Metikos
16.00-16.30 Conclusions and evaluation of the meeting
59
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Croatia
Zagreb
22nd of October 2004
60
CONTACT
NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS TELEFON/FAX
E-MAIL
Dora
"Dravska liga" (NGO
ekoloska-
Radosavljevi
association), NGO "Frano
A.Senoe 10a,
(042) 320-357 /
udruga@vz.htnet
c
Koscec"
Varazdin
320-359
.hr
Irma
Green Action (NGO), DEF
Frankopanska 1,
irma@zelena-
Popovi
Croatia
Zagreb
01 48 13 096
akcija.hr
Ministry of Environmental
protection, Physical
Nevenka
Planning and Construction, Republikek Austrije
01 37 82 187, 37
nevenka.prerado
Preradovic
Aarhus Focal Point
16
82 157
vic@mzopu.hr
Croatian Waters,
Gorana Cosic
Association for Water
Vukovarska 220,
Flajsig
Protection
Zagreb 01
6307-325
gcosic@voda.hr
Sandra
Sturlan
Vukovarska 220,
Popovi
Croatian Waters
Zagreb 01
6307-668
ssandra@voda.hr
Ministry of Sea, Tourism,
Transport and
Doris
Development; Department Prisavlje 14,
01 6169-062 /
doris.filipovic@m
Filipovi
for inland water transport
Zagreb
6196-505
ppv.hr
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water
Karmen
Management, Directorate
Vukovarska 220,
Cerar
for Water Management
Zagreb 01
6307-300
kcerar@voda.hr
Ministry of Environmental
protection, Physical
Planning and Construction, Setaliste
Predrag
Osijek Dpt. for Soil
K.F.Sepera 12/II,
(031) 201-211 /
predrag.sibalic@
Sibali
Protection
Osijek
201-212
mzopu.hr
Ministry of Environmental
protection, Physical
Planning and Construction, Setaliste
Osijek Dpt. for Soil
K.F.Sepera 12/II,
(031) 201-211 /
silvija.sitar@mzo
Silvija Sitar
Protection
Osijek
201-212
pu.hr
Kruno
Osijek Greens - Free
D.Neumana 2,
centrala@zeleni.
Kartus
Movement, NGO
Osijek
(031) 201 - 599
hr
Ministry of Agriculture,
Tatjana
Forestry and Water
Borosa
Management, Directorate
tatjana.borosa@
Pecigos
for Fishing
Zagreb
01 61 06 520
zg.htnet.hr
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water
Management, Directorate
Vukovarska 220,
Vesna Krolo
for Water Management
Zagreb
01 63 07 348
vkrolo@voda.hr
UNDP / GEF
01 24 22 840
rayka.hauser@vi
Rayka
p.hr
Hauser
Croatian Waters, Dept. for Vukovarska 220,
01 63 07 319, 63
bmilovic@voda.h
Blagoje
Water Economy
Zagreb
07 333
r
Milovi
Brodsko-Posavka County,
Dubravka
State Authority
035 448 587, fax.
Miski
035 448 592
Meimurksa County, State 040
374
229
Miroslav
Authority
Vrbanec
REC HQ
`
tmagdi@rec.org
Magda Toth
Nagy
REC HQ
Orsolya
61
Salaszi
orsi@rec.org
REC Country Office Croatia
dalia@rec-
Dalia
orieva 8a,
croatia.hr
Matijevi
10000 Zagreb
01 49 21 117
62
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
MINUTES OF MEETING
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Rumania
Bucharest, Hotel Continental
16th of November 2004
Project objectives
-
presentation of the Danube Regional Project(UNDP-GEF), Component 3.4 "Enhancing
Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making" to
the main groups of interest with the purpose of involving them at national level
-
collecting comments and recommendations at national level regarding:
1. project scope and activities, expected outputs, importance of involving the
authorities to assure a correct frame of the Needs Assessment Study to evaluate
the problems encountered in public's access to information, regarding water,
taking into account the Water Framework Directive and the Aarhus Convention and
international and national legislation
2. identification of the experts and relevant interested groups which will form the
National Team and discuss with the participants
Mr. Lucian Ionescu, REC Country Office Romania welcomed the participants and opened the
meeting.
Ms. Ana Drapa, representing the Ministry of Environment and Water Management greeted the
participants and welcomed them on behalf of the ICPDR Delegation and gave an outline on the
process of implementation of the WFD.
Ms. Rayka Hauser, representative of the DRP presented in details the Danube Regional Project
and the context of the project component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public
Participation in Environmental Decision Making" and the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin.
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, REC Public Participation Head of Program, Project Manager of the
component DRP 3,4, acting on behalf of the implementing consortium of REC/RFF/NYU in her
presentation addressed the following topics:
·
introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4 "Enhancing
Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making" of the
DRP.
·
main project goals achieving ultimately a clean Danube River basin, the good
experiences and knowledge gathered in the previous activities, the possibilities for
63
removing existing barriers and the need for coordinated, integrated approach of all
relevant society actors in society
·
possible approaches based on implementation of the existing international documents,
such as Aarhus Convention and Water Framework Directive, and through addressing
national hot-spots at local level in countries which are project participants
·
project implementation phases with justification and expectations within framework of
each particular project phase
·
project management information
Plenary discussion: Barriers to Access to Information and Public Participation in
Romania
Ms. Mirela Leonte/ DEF:
Sometimes the role of NGOs was to make criticisms towards the governmental institutions
that they lack proper legislative tools. We also have to mention that although the public is not
active enough, reacts when is the case of relevant investments. Example: Rosia Montana,
Dracula Park, etc.
Mr. Viorel Tecuci/ Institute of Hydrology
Brought in attention the case of public involvement in the past times, investment projects like
"building the dam ", using the method of distributing flyers to the post boxes of the local
inhabitants. Public was targeted by the assistance of the local personalities like the teacher
and the priest. This example is relevant since Romania is still beneficiary of such investment
projects.
Problems expected with the involvement of public while implementing WFD:
·
Middle age people are not very keen to be part of decision process bad experiences as
"consequence" of the former regime
·
Mentality issues, while the man from village interested on the impact caused by the
dam being built, throws the garbage at the river bank
·
WFD requests a new approach, shifting from the issue of drinkable water to an
integrated approach looking into water quality, quantity and eco systems
·
The public needs to be aware of these so that their involvement would indeed
contribute with the added value
·
Conflict of different interest ; too strong political influence is not wished
Ms. Ana Drapa
Asked the Project Manager to make a summary of the previous meetings, the main
conclusions.
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy
The countries are situated at different levels when we look into the transposition of WFD and
ratification of AC and their implementation.
SCG and BIH:
·
have transposed yet WFD and AC
·
they are in the process of ratification
·
developing legislative tools and in the process of legal harmonization
CRO:
·
a bit more ahead on both issues
In each of the countries the stage of legislative harmonization water came up in the meetings
as important element.
Several similar practical problems have been identified:
·
several institutions that have responsibilities on the water issues, different ministries,
agencies, institutes covering different activities
·
sharing/flow of information among the diverse institutions/departments is a problem
·
this has an impact on the public, making the process very difficult and time consuming
64
·
while trying to integrate the Access to Information and Public Participation principles
and regulations in the implementation of the WFD institutions and their officials
encounter problems :
lack
capacity
short
timeframe
Ms. Camelia .Zamfir/ NGO, Friends of Earth
Asked the ministry representative to present the actual situation of the public involvement in
relation to the implementation of WFD regarding evaluation, methods and plans
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy
Asked about other efforts/projects are ongoing or being planed for in the future on
implementation of WFD, or generally related to Access to Information and Public Participation
in Romania
Ms. Ana Drapa
Gave a general outline and invited a colleague from the Water Directorate to complete
As the project title said the "improvement" is the key word. In Romania the WDF
implementation is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Waters and the
Water Agencies.
Relevant Legislation is in place for A to I and PP:
Law
86/2002
Access to Public Information
Law on the Environment
Relevant water legislation is updated:
·
Law 107/-../1996 amended 2004
·
Law 310
·
Governmental decree 2000 for establishing the Water Basin Committees
Steps in for WDF transposition in Romania:
-Presently rules and procedures on A to I and PP is under drafting process.
-Horizontal legislation developed
-Water Management Plans developed 2001, in the water management plan: activities,
measures, deadlines, respectively for A to I P and PP.
Ms Aurora Vasile presented the elements of PP:
General development of PP in Romania:
-To ensure PP in water management decision making processes
-Finalization of working documents.
-Finalizations of proposals
-Support of EU policies implementation related to water issues
-Strategy of water management 2003-2009 and A to I and PP according to ICPDR
requirements for implementing WFD.
-A national water management operational plan had been elaborated.
-PP is needed: reflected on level of river basin (national/regional/local level)
How can we involve the public?
-Using the guide (EC document)
-Using the guide (ICPDR document fro the Danube Basin)
-2006: Draft measures
-
Draft water management plans
Start up of monitoring process
2007: Information and PP for the river basin management plans,
a 6 month period for gathering comments and hold consultations
2008: Draft widely circulated
2009: Publishing the final water management plan and establish measures
2010: Measures will be implemented
65
2015: Update on measures, sharing good/bad experience.
The National Water Directorate has 11 Regional Water Directorates under its supervision and
have tasks of:
-drafting water management plans for its region
-establishment of Basin Committee, composed from representatives of: Ministry, Local
authority, Industry, Technical Expert secretariat, Environmental Inspectorate, and NGOs
- All in the 11 RWD have received the rules of PP that had been adjusted to local needs
(ICPDR)
Tasks of the Basin Committees:
-to inform about the phases of the Water management Plans, through press conferences,
dissemination of information materials.
-assist the implementation process of the WFD
-approves the draft WMP on basin level
-approves the list for protected areas
Based on the basin level WMP the national WMP is being drafted and approves
Problems:
-Not all Basin Committees are performing at the level of expectations
-Difficulties with dissemination of information for factors, actors that are outside the process,
Mayors and representatives of NGOs could help to increase the information flow
-Not enough financial resources in order to have capacities to hold meetings and ensure
information dissemination, with the assistance of REC Country Office Romania project on Prut
and Siret information dissemination seminars have been held
Needs:
-Stakeholder analysis to be prepared
-More public debates in order to identify the issues in the WMP.
-River Basin Committee are the basic units, an improvement of their function and operational
possibilities is needed.
-Maintenance way of operation
Mr. Viorel Tecuci/ Institute of Hydrology
-the PP is not the main scope of the WMP and implementation of the WFD
-In Romania it is a special situation needs a special approach to involve the public, short and
long term strategy is needed
-Adoption of concrete field test are needed, project should consider to address this
-Bottom up approach is needed
Ms. Laura Boicenco/ Mare Nostrum, NGO, Constanta
Presented a project which they had recently with Royal Haskoning, to draft of a plan on
sustainable development. As final product, a vision on the development of the coastal area of
the counties Constanta and Tulcea had been developed. In order to gather input from the
public, method of questionnaires has been used and related to this they experienced:
-lack of preliminary information dissemination on what is topic and why they are requested to
give their contribution lead to uninformed
-citizens felt being "attacked by questions"
-they used the opportunity for complaining about the authorities related to other issues
Therefore, information dissemination in the early phase of WMP is crucial.
In 3 work groups the participants addressed different issues:
Group A
66
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs, legal framework and
possible project activities that could address these needs, solutions)
Group B
Obstacles in accessing environmental information( problems encountered and needs,
institutional framework and project activities that could address those)
Group C
Identify relevant authorities, NGO's and other interested groups, that need to be involved in
the project, defining their role and level of involvement in the project
Group A
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs, legal framework and
possible project activities that could address these needs, solutions)
Problems and Needs
Solutions
interest in the water related issues It is necessary to complete the Order No. 1212 with
regulations that would allow all the Basin Committees to
act coherently.
More efficient public relations Consolidation of those that exist at Hydrographic
offices
Directorate Level
Difficulties in access to public list of public information must be listed according to Law
information
544/2001.
Uneasy collaboration among
The Romanian Water Administration must improve it's
different stakeholders
collaboration with local authorities and schools for
educational projects and with environmental NGO's
Not sufficient technical& logistic Must be strengthened
support
Group B
Obstacles in accessing environmental information( problems encountered and needs,
institutional framework and project activities that could address those)
Problems and Needs
Proposals for Project Activities
There is an integrated information
system that doesn't work properly
Problems with technical and personnel Transfer of know how from institutions that in the
capacity/instruments and personnel to given personnel and technical conditions operate
produce information
efficiently
In country study tours at the agencies that have
pilot projects in implementation
Group C
Identify relevant authorities, NGO's and other interested groups, that need to be involved in
the project, defining their role and level of involvement in the project
67
Relevant authorities and other Role and level of involvement in the project
interested groups
National environmental authorities
Operational and national team
Business/ industry sector
National team
Professional organizations
Operational and national team
Civil society
Operational team, national team more active in all
relevant project issues
Pollutants that have activities with
Raise awareness on their share in contributing to
environmental impact
reduction of water pollution with greener
technologies
Media
Disseminate information, inform about project
development and share the good experiences
Meeting concluded with the presentation of the next steps:
·
Minutes of meetings will be prepared
·
An e-mail list will be established for communication and information dissemination
about activities related to the project component
·
In cooperation with Country Offices and relevant institutions nominations will be
finalized for the operational and national teams
·
National consultant/s will be selected and contracted in order to prepare a Needs
Assessment report
·
National workshops will be held in February-March to discuss the findings of the Needs
assessment report and decide on which priority problems the project activities should
deal with during the next two years.
68
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
AGENDA
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Rumania
Bucharest, Hotel Continental
16th of November 2004
The main objectives of the meetings
- to present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, Project Output 3.4
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making to
relevant stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership and input at the national level
- to collect feedback on national level on the project activities, expected outputs
including the scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment on barriers of public access to
information on water issues taking into account the WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant
international and national legislation
- to identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the national teams and
discuss with participants about the process
9.00 9.20
Welcome by Mr. Lucian Ionescu, REC CO Director,
Opening statement by Ms. Ana Drapa, the Head of Delegation to the ICPDR,
Chair of the meeting, representative of the Ministry
9. 20- 9.35
Introduction of agenda and participants
9.35- 9.55
Introduction on the Danube Regional Project and the context of the
component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making and the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin" by Ms. Rayka Hauser,
consultant to DRP
Questions and answers
9:55 11.20 Introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4
"Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental
Decision Making" of the DRP by Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC
(on behalf of the implementing consortium of REC/RFF/NYU)
Questions and answers
11.20-11.35 Coffee break
69
11.35-12.30 The current state of access to information and public participation in
environmental and water related issues on national level (Problems
encountered and needs)
Plenary discussion, introduction by Mr., Lucian Ionescu
12.30-14.00 Lunch break
14.00-15.00 Work in 3 working groups
Group A
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs, legal framework)
(Input for the scope of the needs assessment surveys and the inception report)
Group B
Input and suggestions for Project activities on national level
(Input for the Inception Report and future activities/outcomes)
Group C
Identifying relevant officials, experts NGOs and other stakeholders who need to be involved in
the project and their proposed role or involvement
15.00- 15.15 Coffee break
15.15- 16.00 Presentation of the working groups and discussion
16.00- 16.30 Process of formation of the national team for the project implementation and
discussion on methods of work/cooperation/communication
Discussion facilitated by the REC CO Director, Mr. Lucian Ionescu
16.30-17.00 Conclusions and evaluation of the meeting
70
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Rumania
Bucharest, Hotel Continental
16th of November 2004
Crt.
Name and
Institution Contacts
No.
Surname
1
REC Romania
231.97.64/65
Magda Chitu
magdac@recromania.ro
2
REC, Public Participation
+36.26.504.000
Szalasi Orsolya Program
oszalasi@rec.org
3
WWF- DCP, Romanian Office
224.40.44
f: 224.40.49
Sevastel Mircea
smircea@wwfdcp.ro
4
WWF- DCP, Romanian Office
224.40.44
f: 224.40.49
Luminita
ltanasie@ wwfdcp.ro
Tanasie
5
Environmental Protection
0247/316.228
Agency, Teleorman county
0247/316.229
Gheorghe
ipmalex@artelecom.net
Mariana
6
NGO "Earth Friends" Galati
0236/462.564
Zamfir Camelia
earthfriends@rdslink.ro
7
Water Directorate, Jiu- Craiova
0251/427.597
Dudau Daniela
daniela.dudau@daj.rowater.ro
Liana
Water Directorate, Jiu- Craiova
0251/427.597
8
Macamete Jean-
jean.macamete@daj.rowater.ro
Puiu
9
National Environmental Guard-
021/410.04.94
Popescu
General Commision
opopescu@mappm.ro
Octavian
10
Environmental Protection
0242/315.035
Agency, Calarasi county
F: 0242/311926
Ivan Mariana
apm_cl@nex.ro
11
Environmental Protection
0242/315.035
Agency, Calarasi county
F: 0242/311926
Mitea Gratiela
apm_cl@nex.ro
12
Environmental
Protection 0239/616.899
71
Mihaescu
Agency, Braila county
apm_br@byte-net.ro
Livioara
13
Environmental Protection
0240/515.505
Micu Elena
Agency, Tulcea county
apm_tl@tim.ro
14
National Environmental Guard- 0240/512.681
Soparla
Tulcea County
gardatl@x3m.ro
Gabriela
15
National Environmental Guard- 0240/512.681
Badea
Tulcea County
gardatl@x3m.ro
Gheorghe
16
Regional Environmental
021/490.61.76/77
Petrisor Sanda
Protection Agency, Bucuresti
bucur@mappm.ro
17
Tecuci Ion
National Hydrological and Water 021/233.35.73/133
Management Institute
F: 021/233.35.96
ion.tecuci@hidro.ro
18
National Hydrological and Water 0721/042.840
Oana Slivneanu
Management Institute
oananyc2000@yahoo.com
19
New York University School of
00 1 212 337 0664
Ernestine Meijer Law
meijere@juris.law.nyu.edu
20
Resources for the Future
001 202 328 5032
Ruth Greenspan
bell@rff.org
Bell
21
Water Directorate, Dobrogea-
0241/673.036/425
Pascu Virgil
Seaside
0722/782.367
22
Water Directorate, Dobrogea-
0241/673.036/425
Necula Lucia
Seaside
0723/536.169
lucia.necula@dadl.rowater.ro
23
Water Directorate , Crisuri
cezar.morar@dac.rowater.ro
Cezar Morar
24
Water Directorate, Arges- Vedea razvan.micu@agwater.ro
Micu Razvan
25
Water Directorate, Siret- Bacau georgiana.draghinda@das.rowater.ro
Draghinda
Georgiana
26
Water Directorate, Somes- Tisa avize@dast.rowater.ro
Oana Macarie
27
Water Directorate, Mures
dispecerat@dam.rowater.ro
Calin Fokt
28
Water Directorate, Dobrogea-
paula.anghel@dadl.rowater.ro
Paula Anghel
Seaside
29
Water Directorate, Jiu Craiova
elena.palasca@daj.rowater.ro
Elena Palasca
30
Water Directorate, Banat- Timis
andreeacristina_s@yahoo.ro
Andreea
Butnarasu
Carmen Dinu
Romanian National Water
0722/370.831
31
Administration
carmen.dinu@rowater.ro
32
Water Directorate, Prut
0232/218.192
Corneliu Zait
corneliu.zait@dap.rowater.ro
33
NGO BIOTECH
021/212.99.55
Maria- Elena
mteodorescu@fundatie-biotech.ro
Teodorescu
fnd_biotech@yahoo.com
34
Liviu Popescu
National Environmental
021/221.92.26
Protection Research and
021/348.09.47
Development Institute (ICIM)
lipopescu@icim.ro
72
Bucharest
lipopecu@b.astral.ro
35
Romanian National Water
021/315.55.35
Aurora Vasiu
Administration
aurora.vasiu@rowater.ro
Public Participation advisor
36
Ecological Counceling Centre
0236/499.957
Galati
F: 0236/312.331
Mihaela Radef
eco@cceg.ro
37
NGO Eco Counceling Centre,
0236/499.957
Galati
F: 0236/312.331
Mirela Leonte
eco@cceg.ro
38
REC Romania
021/231.97.64/65
F: 021/231.20.17
Bogdan Barbu
bgdan.barbu@recromania.ro
39
REC Romania, Country Office
021/231.97.64/65
Director
F: 021/231.20.17
Lucian Ionescu
lucian.ionescu@recroamnia.ro
NGO "Mare Nostrum"
0241/612.422
40
Laura Boicenco
mare_nostrum@cier.ro
41
Magda Toth
REC, Public Participation
tmagdi@rec.ro
Nagy
Program, Project Manager of
DRP component 3,4
42
Ministry of Environment and
021/335.25.91
Ana Drapa
Water Management
F: 021/410.20.32
adrapa@mappm.ro
43
Rajka Hauser
UNDP/ GEF Danube Regional
rayka.hauser@vip.hr
Project
Public Participation Expert
73
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
MINUTES OF MEETING
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Serbia and Montenegro
Belgrade
12th of October 2004
The main objectives of the meetings was
- to present the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project, Project Output 3.4
Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making to
relevant stakeholders in order to assure stakeholder ownership and input at the national level
- to collect feedback on national level on the project activities, expected outputs
including the scope and inputs needed for the needs assessment on barriers of public access to
information on water issues taking into account the WFD and Aarhus Convention and relevant
international and national legislation
- to identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the national teams and
discuss with participants about the process
The meeting was opened and facilitated by Mr. Jovan Pavlovic, Project Manager, REC CO SCG,
together with Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, member of ICPDR delegation. All the presentations and
introduction of the Project was following the enclosed Agenda (see Annex 1)
After the introduction of the agenda, participants introduced themselves (see List of
participants, Annex 2)
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic in her opening speech presented the role and activities of the ICPDR
and the Danube Regional Project. UNDP/GEF is present in the Danube region since 1992 and
through this financial mechanism priority problems and environmental issues are addressed in
transboundary cooperation. Serbia and Montenegro ratified the Danube Convention and
participates in the efforts by ICPDR and Danube \Regional Project in reducing pollution by
nutrients and toxics. The Convention is in force and chaired by the EU in 2004 ICPDR
coordinates implementation of the Danube Convention through cooperative efforts and by
activities in individual countries parties/signatories to the Convention. The structure of ICPDR
includes delegations of the countries, the Presidency and the Secretariat of the Convention.
ICPDR developed a system for early warning and prevention of accidents as well as a network
of monitoring water quality both of which are operated in transboundary cooperation. One of
the main focuses of the ICPDR activities is the creation of conditions for the implementation of
the EU Water Framework Directive. All Danube countries are harmonizing their legislation with
the EU directives. NGOs can participate in the process through the small grants program
funded by UNDP/GEF and managed through the REC. The first phase of the Danube Regional
Project has started in December 2000 to reinforce the existing structures and activities in the
Danube River Basin. The DRP is supporting the ICPDR through capacity building and
implementation in regional/transboundary approach. The second phase of DRP started in 2003
74
and is running until 2006. It focuses on capacity building activities to achieve ultimately
pollution reduction, establishment of efficient legislation and monitoring as well as
implementation. Public Participation is in the focus of the second phase as well, through
support to NGOS as well as through the project component 3.4. The DRP includes components
on developing and implementing legal instruments at national and regional level, nutrient
reduction and pollution prevention, water management including all necessary structures and
adequate monitoring systems. Assessment f the first phase was done by the Expert Groups.
The second phase includes component on institutional development of NGOs through public
awareness raising, small grants program, communication and the new component 3.4 on
"Enhancing Access to Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making".
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC, has introduced the Danube Regional Project and
the context of the component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in
the Danube River Basin".(The presentation was written by Rayka Hauser. DRP Consultant who
could not attend the meeting. See the summary of presentation attached, Annex 3.) She also
presented the objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to
information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making" of the DRP;
Comments made after the presentations:
Ms Milica Durac (Ministry of Science and Environment of Serbia-Aarhus Focal point):
-
A new system of environmental protection was proposed in the new draft Environmental
Protection Act in 2002 which currently has been changed and new versions of draft laws
have been prepared on EIA, SEA, IPPC.
-
New draft laws enhance public participation in decision-making and include radical
provisions on public access to information (It is considered a criminal offense if information
is not provided)
-
The new draft laws (ncluding the Water Law) are still possible to comment.
Ms.Tanja Nikolic (Young Researches of Serbia):
-
There is no legal basis in the country since the old basic law on Environment is still in
effect and the new one is in the pipeline for a very long time. The main problem is related
to implementation of the legislation because even the old one is acceptable if the
implementation and enforcement is conducted in a proper way.
Plenary discussion: Barriers to Access to Information and Public Participation in
Serbia and Montenegro
Ms. Milica Durac (Ministry of Science and Environment of Serbia-Aarhus Focal point):
-
The assessment conducted about the compatibility with Aarhus Convention concluded that
the first and third pillar but there is need to enhance better the second pillar. A new draft
law on public participation in territorial planning and construction is underway with similar
requirements as the EIA process
-
The main obstacle for the implementation of first and second pillar is that the procedure
needs to be better defined regarding public participation
-
The obstacle regarding access to information:
o There is database on air, water and soil but a good information system is
needed where relevant environmental information could be found. Certain
institutions, tools, techniques are needed.
o The Ministry for Protection of Natural Resources and Environment was
restructured at the beginning of 2004 and was merged with the Ministry of
Science and Environment.. An Agency for Nature Protection of Serbia was
planned to be established and to have important role in access to information
and public participation but the establishment is being delayed due to practical
implementation and other reasons including financial ones. The initiative still
exists and possible donor is identified (Greek government
75
-
There is a problem with the access to justice: citizens are not involved in EIA in practice
since under the current law it is not required to involve the public from an early stage.
-
There are different channels used for informing the public including:
o The media
o State of the environment report is published yearly
o Internet sites for citizens
Mr. Rodomir Mijic, Belgrade Municipality, Secretariat for Environment:
-
The Secretariat issues a bulletin with an annual report on the quality and state of the
environment on pollution and radiation to air, water and land which was published for
2002 and 2003. The bulletin is published in cooperation with REC CO.
Ms. Mira Bartula (DEFSCG):
-
Government agencies distribute information to all stakeholders but there are often
complaints by NGOs.
-
The Environmental Protection Act is still a draft, there are no implementation practices
-
It is difficult to know which authorities to address with request
-
It is necessary to set up a section for communication with the public.
-
There have been several activities initiated to increase the knowledge level of NGOs on
public participation, future target group should be the representatives of official
institutions.
Ms. Jelko Preskalo( OK MOROVIC NGO)
The NGOs have not seen the new drafts and would like to make sure that they contain proper
access to information and public participation requirements
Mr. Vladimir Luki (NGO Ecological and Citizens Action Tales)
-
No proper legislation in force which information should be made accessible. The media
only deals with sensational information
-
Need to access in different forms information necessary for EIA, on water pollution, etc.
Ms Milena Jovanovic (Yugoslavian Shipping Operator)
The citizens are skeptic about the information they receive. The quality of information is a
problem
-
Ms Gajinov Jelena, (Society for Water Law, Novi Sad):
-
There is great need for strengthening cooperation regarding the relations between
NGOOfficialsMediaLocal level
-
NGOs could promote the dialogue and cooperation
Results of the working groups
Group A
TASK
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues on national level Legal, institutional barriers. (Problems encountered and needs)
(Input for the scope of the needs assessment surveys and the inception report)
RESULT
Problems Needs Solutions
Lack of environmental
Education
Introduction of the needed
awareness
Starting with the youngest
elements in basic school
(missing the habit of
generation-elementary
program as a first step in
addressing the questions to the school
education.
76
relevant institutions
Insufficient motivation of the
citizens for seeking
information)
Lack of cooperation among the
Need for better usage of
Capacity building-Trainings
different resource
electronic media
and seminars
institutions/ministries/institutes
Unsatisfactory state of
Need for capacity building of
Procurement of the
equipment supply for
employees and technical
equipment
processing the information in
assistance
the relevant institutions
All stakeholders insufficiently
Communication between
Regular meetings between
informed
NGOs and government
NGO and GO
organization on the regular
Defining un-commercial
basis
obligation of electronic
media (to put environmental
information toward the
public as obligatory one)
Group B
TASK
Input and suggestions for Project activities on national level
(Input for the Inception Report and future activities/outcomes)
RESULT
Project activities on national level
·
outcome1 Distribution of the environmental legislation (Basic law+ sub legislation acts
on EIA, SEA and IPPC , Framework Water Law-draft and other relevant laws )
activity 1 launching web site
activity 2 distribution through electronic networks-different types to cover all
stakeholders (such as Electronic network of environmental NGO in SCG-
Volvox)
activity 3 announcement to the Media
·
outcome2 Formation of "body/committee" responsible for:
a) Summarizing suggestions and proposals made by stakeholder on proposed
law
b) Organization of public hearings
c) Incorporation of adopted/justify suggestions into the proposed law
·
outcome3 Capacity building
activitiy 1 organizing trainings ,workshops.
Target: Officials, NGOs, stakeholders and Media
Target
group
Type of the training
Ones who are interested in
Media Training/workshop-how
to
receiving env. inf.
find relevant environmental
inf., way of communication
with relevant bodies,
officials...
Ones who are interested in
NGO, Public
Training/workshop-how to
receiving env. inf.
find relevant environmental
77
inf., way of communication
with relevant bodies,
officials...
Ones who give env.
Officials Introducing
the
legal
information
practices from neighboring
countries
Putting the environmental
information into the right
format-presentation of the
env.information
activities 2 presentation/review of the PP best practice in the different countries (EU, countries
in transition)
a) National workshop
b) Web-presentation
c) Printed materials
activitie3 Guidelines for relevant institutions (containing contacts, names...)
activities 4 Study tours
activities 5 Sustainability check TofT
·
outcome4 Horizontal and vertical distribution of information and establishment of
structure for distribution of the information
a) appointment of the persons/institutions responsible for dissemination of
the information
b) procurement of equipment for dissemination of the information on a local
level
·
outcome5 Pilot Project for selected Hot-spot-demonstration of PP methodology for
selected Hot-spot
Identification of governmental agencies, institutions and other stakeholders who need to be
involved in the activities of the project component
Discussion on how to form National and Operational teams facilitated by Ms. Jelena Kis and
the goal of discussion was to identify experts and relevant stakeholders who will build up the
national teams.
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager explained that the National Team will include all
institutions and stakeholders who have relevant activities regarding the water management
and water issues as well as access to information and public participation in water related
matters. The National Team is open and further additions are possible. The smaller 5-8 person
Operational Team will include only some of the key institutions which are responsible for the
implementation of Water Framework Directive and its access to information/public
participation requirements and at least one key NGO. The Operational Team will help to
prepare events, materials with advice and commenting. Both groups will work on a voluntary
basis.
The participants developed the list of institutions and organization that will be invited to
appoint responsible persons who will continue work in the national teams.
The list is divided on
·
broader list -containing all stakeholders who are interested and will be involved in
the implementation project
·
shorter list- containing the relevant institution and organization who will build up
operational team
78
Operational team-shorter list
1. Ministry for Science and Environment, Directorate for Environmental Protection of
Republic of Serbia
2. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water management, Republic Water Agency
3. Secretary for Environment and Sustainable Development of Autonomous Province of
Vojvodina
4. City Council of Belgrade, City Secretariat for Environment
5. Republic Hydro-meteorological Institute of Serbia
6. Institute for Water Distribution Jaroslav Cerni
7. NGO (DEFSCG, Young Researches of Serbia, Yugoslavian Society for Water Law and
few more to be determined by sending letter of interest)
National team:-broader list
In addition to the above:
1. Ministry of Capital Investments
2. Ministry of Environment of Montenegro
3. Yugoslavian
Shipping
Operator
4. Belgrade Sewage and Water Supply
5. and all institutions/organizations that were present on the meeting
The meeting was closed with the positive evaluation made by participants who are looking
forward to receive further information about project activities and implementation of Project.
Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager in her conclusions and closure indicated the following
next` steps in the project:
o minutes of the meeting will be prepared and sent to the participants
o a letter will be sent in December to heads of institutions and organizations to nominate
a representative to the national team
o a letter will be sent in December to the heads of those key institutions and
organizations to which will be asked to be involved in the smaller operational team to
nominate a representative
o an e-mail list will be established for communication and information dissemination
about activities related to the project component
o National consultant/s will be hired to prepare a Needs Assessment report on the
barriers of public access to information
o National workshop will be held in February-March to discuss the findings of the Needs
assessment report and decide on which priority problems the project activities should
deal with during the next two years.
79
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
AGENDA
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Serbia and Montenegro
Belgrade
12th of October 2004
9.00 9.20
Welcome by REC CO Director
Opening statement by the ICPDR member Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, Chair of the
meeting
9. 20- 9.35
Introduction of agenda by Mr. Jovan Pavlovic REC CO SCG (facilitator of the
meeting) and introduction of participants
9.35- 9.55
Introduction on the Danube Regional Project and the context of the
component 3.4 "Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in
Environmental Decision Making and the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin" by Ms. Magda Toth Nagy,
Project Manager, REC (on behalf of Rayka Hauser, DRP Consultant)
Questions and answers
9:55 11.20 Introduction on the objectives, activities and outputs of component 3.4
"Enhancing Access to information and Public Participation in Environmental
Decision Making" of the DRP by Ms. Magda Toth Nagy, Project Manager, REC
(on behalf of the implementing consortium of REC/RFF/NYU)
Questions and answers
11.20-11.35 Coffee break
11.35-12.30 The current state of access to information and public participation in
environmental and water related issues on national level (Problems
encountered and needs)
Plenary discussion, introduction by Mr. Jovan Pavlovic, REC CO SCG
12.30-14.00 Lunch break
14.00-15.00
Work in 2 working groups
80
Group A
Present state on access to information and public participation in environmental and water
related issues on national level (Problems encountered and needs)
(Input for the scope of the needs assessment surveys and the inception report)
Group B
Input and suggestions for Project activities on national level
(Input for the Inception Report and future activities/outcomes)
15.00-16.00 Presentation of the working groups and discussion
16.00 - 16.30 Process of formation of the national team for the project implementation and
discussion on methods of work/cooperation/communication- identifying
relevant officials, experts NGOs and other stakeholders who need to be
involved in the project and their proposed role or involvement
Discussion facilitated by the Ms.Jelena Kis, REC CO SCG
16.30-17.00 Wrap up of the meeting
81
ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING
UNDP-GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT, PROJECT OUTPUT 3.4
NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Country office Serbia and Montenegro
Belgrade
12th of October 2004
Institution
Name
Telephone
number
E-mail
Gajinov Jelena
NGO Society for Water Law
jelena@neobee.net
Ministry of Science,
Directorate for
Jovanka
Environmental protection of
Ignjatovi
Republic of Serbia Ministry
vana@meteo.yu
Mirjana Bartula
DEF Serbia and Montenegro
3231-374
defyu@eunet.yu
Dragana
Institute Jaroslav Cerni,
Ninkovi
Belgrade 3908-239
jcerni_dn@eunet.yu
Zeljko Prskalo
NGO -O.K.,, Morovi,, 063/8142-886 okmorovic@yahoo.com
Tanja Nikoli
Young Researchers of Serbia 3116-663
misvss@eunet.yu
Republic Hydro
meteorological Institute of
Svetozar Mijovi
Serbia 542-568
kvalitet_voda@hidmet.sr.gov.yu
Belgrade Sewage And Water
Davor Jaksi
Supply
064/813-102
davor.jaksic@buk.co.yu
Ministry of Agriculture
Dmitar Zakula
Republic Water Agency
3116-436
rdvode@eunet.yu
Institute for Biological
Momir Paunovi
Research, Belgrade
2078-397
nesr@eunet.yu
Yugoslavian Shipping
Milena Jovanovi Operator
064/1366-832
Yugoslavian Shipping
Zoran Zecevi
Operator
Ministry of Science,
Directorate for
Environmental protection of
Milica Durac
Republic of Serbia Ministry
064/1996-026
milica.durac@ekoserb.sr.gov.yu
NGO-Ecological and Citizens
Vladimir Luki
Action -Tales
474-600, 063/239-699 vlukic@beograd202.co.yu
JVP Srbijavode
135-864,063/8237-
Radoslav Mandi
Sava-Danube dpt
829
City Council of Belgrade,
Secretariat for Nature
Rdomir Miji
Protection 3345-538
beoeko@beogradsc.org.yu
82
A2
PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED WITH IMPACT TO DRP 3.4
83
ACTIVITIES SIMILAR OR OVERLAPPING WITH DRP COMPONENT 3.4
UNDER IMPLEMENTATION OR IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE BY REC COUNTRY OFFICES OR OTHERS
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
No Title of the
Institution/program Period
of
Main goals/outputs of
Possible link with DRP
project
implementation
the project
project component 3.4
1. Capacity
building CARDS project
October 2003
Three main activities:
Capacity building
in Environmental
beneficiary are two B&H
September 2005
Economic aspect
EU legislation related to AI
Management
MoEs
Legal aspect
and PP, general environmental
systems
Public awareness
issues
2 Development
of CARDS project
October 2003
Development of Monitoring Improvement of AI system
Environmental
beneficiary are two B&H
September 2005
system in accordance with
Monitoring
MoEs
EEA
System
3. Environment
CARDS project
October 2004 April
An overview of institutional Capacity building
Performance
beneficiary are two B&H
2005
set up in environmental
Institutional strengthening
Review of B&H
MoEs and B&H State
sector
Ministry for Foreign trade
and Economic Relations
4. Institutional
CARDS project
October 2003
Preparation of new water
AI and PP incorporated in new
strengthening of
beneficiary are two B&H
September 2005
related legislation in both
legislation
water Sector in
MoWs
of B&H entities;
B&H
New institutional set up in
B&H water sector
5.
RBM on the Sava
CARDS Regional project,
October 2004
Preparation of conditions
Capacity building;
River Basin
including SCG, Cro and
September 2007
for preparation of RBM Plan Stakeholders involvement;
B&H
in accordance with
AI
requirements of WFD
6. Establishing
of
REC&ITF in cooperation
June 2003
Preparation of Feasibility
Information dissemination;
B&H EPA
with national authorities
December 2004
on B&H EPA and LAW on
International conventions in
EPA
including Aarhus convention;
Capacity building
84
7. Preparation
of
Ministry for Foreign Trade
Started in November
Preparation on B&H level
Legal changes related to water
State Law on
and Economic Relations
2004, there is no
law on Environmental
protection, AI and PP
environmental
precise time limit
Protection
protection
BULGARIA
No Title of the project Institution/program Period of
Main goals/outputs of
Possible link with DRP
implementation
the project
project component 3.4
1.
Capacity Building of
East White Sea region 1st Jan 2005-December
Capacity building for
Capacity building, Water
the East Aegean
Directorate, Plovdiv/
2006
implementation of WFD on
Framework directive, in
Basin Directorate in
MATRA Pre-
regional level
country regional level
Bulgaria for the
accession fund
Implementation of
Requirements of
Water Framework
Directive in Pilot
Basin Arda River
2 Assisting
of
Black Black Sea region
1st Jan 2005-December
Capacity building for
Capacity building, Water
Sea region
Directorate, Varna/
2006
implementation of WFD on
Framework directive, in
Directorate in
Pre-accession
regional level, focused on
country regional level, coastal
Bulgaria for the
program
monitoring of coastal
area/ Black Sea
Implementation of
environmental fund
waters
Water Framework
Directive in relation
of the Monitoring
System in coastal
waters.
3. Integrated
Water
MoEW and West White 2005-2007, in two
Implementation of
Management of
Sea region
phases
integrated water
85
River Mesta/Nestos
Directorate/ PHARE-
management principles,
Basin
TBC
regional level
In two Phases.
INTERREG/
Bulgaria-Greece
4.
Capacity Building of
MoEW/ Phare-
2005-2006 Implementation
of
WFD
on
PP activities within
the Basin
Twinning
national level , capacity
implementation of WFD
Directorates for the
building for all Danube
Implementation of
rives basin directorates, PP
the Framework
activities planned for 2006
Water Directive in
the River Danube
Basin
5. Management
and Municipalities:
2003-2005
Capacity Building
Tutrakan, Belene/
for Protected
PHARE
Wetlands
6. Implementation
of MoEW/ Republic of
2004-2005
Framework Water
Italy
Directive on the
Ministry of
Basin of Iskar River
Environment and
and Feasibility Study Territory
for WWTP
CROATIA
No Title of the
Institution/program Period
of
Main goals/outputs of
Possible link with DRP
project
implementation
the project
project component 3.4
1. Public
REC Country Office
Sept 2004-Aug 2005
Capacity building for
General capacity building for A
Participation in
Croatia
various stakeholder groups to I, PP and A to J in for
Environmental
in applying all 3 Aarhus
Aarhus Convention.
Decision-Making:
pillars, with focus on PP.
Promoting Aarhus
Activities include a series
86
principles
of 6 training-workshops,
including ToT (for mixed
groups of NGO, local
authorities, media and
business representatives);
publishing the manual on
public participation; and
publishing a directory of
environmental information
sources in Croatia.
2 Pilot
River
Basin Safege Consulting
October 2004 - October
Improving water
Development of Water
Plan for Sava
Engineers, Belgium
2007
management of Sava river
Management plans, possible
River
Responsible authorities:
basin following the
overlap with some capacity
(EuropeAid/11894
Ministries of Agriculture
integrated approach of
building activities of the DRP
0/C/SV/Multi
and Water Management
WFD, including: developing for A to I and PP.
of Croatia, BiH and SCG
capacities of water
Beneficiary countries, 3 the
Donor: EC-CARDS
authorities, implementing
same from the DRP 3,4.
Regional Program
pilot projects in each
country (CRO, BiH, SCG)
on preparing Sava river
mgmt plans according to
WFD; supporting capacities
of Sava Commission;
facilitating coordination of
WFD-related support
projects in the Sava Basin.
3 Water
Information
DHI Water &
March 2004 - March
Modernization,
Project focusing on technical
System -
Environment, DK
2005
standardization and
issues, possible issues the A to
Standardization
Responsible authority:
improvement of the Water
I considering data gathering
and Monitoring
Ministry of Agriculture,
Information System in
system.
(EuropeAid/11603
Forestry and Water
Croatia. There are 2
4/C/SV/HR)
Management, Croatia
project components: (1)
Donor: EC-CARDS
institutional set-up and
National Program
functioning of WIS with
Croatia
standardization of
procedures and IT-
infrastructure in line with
EU and international
standards; (2) design of
87
real-time data gathering
subsystem and developing
technical design & tender
documentation for
one monitoring station.
4. Approximation
of Tender to select the
Assist national and local
?
Water
agency is still pending
water administrations for
Management
Donor: EC-CARDS
the implementation of
Legislation with
National Program
Croatian water
the EU Water
Croatia
management legislation in
Acquis (ref.
Responsible authority:
accordance with the EU
EuropeAid/11944
Ministry of Agriculture,
water acquis. TA will be
5/C/SV/HR)
Forestry and Water
provided for performing
Management, Croatia
legal gap analysis, law
drafting, administrative
and institutional capacity
building, horizontal impact
assessment, development
of compliance schedules
and estimation of
implementation costs for
"heavy investment" EU
Directives, in particular the
Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive.
ROMANIA
No Title of the
Institution/program Period
of
Main goals/outputs of
Possible link with DRP
project
implementation
the project
project component 3.4
1. LEAP-
European PHARE/FDSC
2004-2005
Involving all stakeholders
Public participation in LEAP
Model of
in implementing the LEAP
developing inter-
for Bucharest
sectorial
partnership
88
2 Technical
EPTISA
Dec.2003-Jul.2005
Assessment of the cost
Evaluation of costs related to
assistance for the
associated to the
WFD implementation
elaboration of the
implementation of all EU
environmental
Directives
cost assessment
and investment
plan
3.
Pro-Aqua
PHARE/FDSC
Project submitted
Non governmental
Implementation of Water
coalitions and integrated
legislation ; access to justice
solutions in implementing
the Water Environmental
Acquis in Romania
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
No Title of the
Institution/program Period
of
Main goals/outputs of
Possible link with DRP
project
implementation
the project
project component 3.4
1.
Ministry for Foreign
April 2002 to April 2005
Harmonisation of
Freedom of Access to
Capacity building
Affairs of Finland
legislation of Serbia and of
Information on the
in Environmental
beneficiary Central
Montenegro with EU
Environment
Management
government of SCG
Directives on EIA and SEA,
system
IPPC, and Freedom of
Development of
Access to Information on
Environmental
the Environment
Legislation in
Serbia and
Montenegro
(YUGOLEX)
2 GEF
Serbia
World Bank/River Basins planned
DRP
Danube River
Enterprise
Pollution Reducing
Project
3.
Clean up of
EC/Hot spot Clean up
ongoing
Hot-spot
89
Pancevo Canal
4.
RBM on the Sava
CARDS Regional project, Preparation
of
conditions
Capacity building;
River Basin
including SCG, Cro and
for preparation of RBM Plan Stakeholders involvement;
B&H
in accordance with
Access to Information
requirements of WFD
REGIONAL PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED BY THE REC HEADQUARTERS
No Title of the
Institution/program Period
of
Main goals/outputs of
Possible link with DRP
project
implementation
the project
project component 3.4
1. Sava
Commission Booz, Allen and
Ongoing
Assist the Sava
Developing stakeholder
Secretariat,
Hamilton (USAID)
December 2003-March
Commission in developing
involvement strategy
Legal and
2005
and implementing a
Capacity building workshops
Stakeholder`
stakeholder involvement
Providing information related
Support
strategy in the Sava River
to Sava Agreement
Basin.
2 Improving
Ministry for Foreign
Ongoing
Support the practical
Capacity building to promote
Practices of Public affairs of the
December 2004-
implementation of Aarhus
improvements of public access
Participation:
Netherlands
December 2006
Convention and the PRTR
to environmental information
Next Steps in
Protocol in Albania, Bosnia
and public participation and
Implementing the
and Herzegovina, Serbia
access to justice in
Aarhus
and Montenegro, Kosovo/a environmental matters
Convention in
and FYR Macedonia.
Albania, Bosnia
Herzegovina, Serbia and
and Herzegovina,
Montenegro, Kosovo/a.
FYR Macedonia,
Serbia and
Montenegro and
Kosovo/t
90
A3
LIST OF OPERATIONAL TEAMS
LIST OF PROPOSED MEMBERS OF OPERATIONAL TEAMS
The experts below have been proposed and some of them already have agreed to participate in the
Operational Teams for each of the countries involved in Project Component 3.4. In order to
formalize their participation, a letter was, or will be, sent in December 2004 and January 2005 by
the REC Country Offices to the institutions asking for official nominations.
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Mr. Mehmed Cero and Mr. Jaksic Borislav - Heads of B&H Delegation to ICPDR;
Mr. Almir Prljaca - Ministry for Water Federation B&H;
Ms. Violeta Jankovic - Ministry for Waters RS - B&H - representative of ICPDR PR Expert Group;
Ms. Dilista Hrkas - Sava River Basin Public Enterprise, PR, editor of magazine "Water and
e"(Water and us);
Mr. Igor Palandzic - DEF B&H;
TBN( to be nominated):
representative from B&H Ministry for Foreign Trade and Economic Relations
Representatives of two entities Ministry of Environment
BULGARIA
Water Directorate of the MOEW;
ExEA Quality of surface water;
RIEWs the Danube and the Black Sea region;
Basin Directorates the Danube and the Black Sea;
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry;
National statistical Institute;
Access to Information Program;
Danube Environmental Forum;
National representatives of Eco-parliament;
Bulgarian Academy of Science with the relevant Institutes;
Bulgaria Industrial Association.
* all the institutions above mentioned will nominate their representatives by the end of December
CROATIA
Ms. Karmen Cerar , ICPDR Delegation, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management;
Directorate for Water Management;
Ms. Mojca Luksi ,ICPDR Delegation , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management;
Directorate for Water Management;
Ms. Gorana osi Flajsig , Croatian Waters;
Ms. Nevenka Preradovi, Aarhus focal point, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical
Planning and Construction;
Ms. Irma Popovi, representative DEF, NGO "Zelena akcija - Green Action";
Ms. Vesna Krolo , Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Directorate for Water
Management;
Ms. Ljiljanka Mitos Svoboda, Osijek Greens;
Ms. Dalia Matijevi (REC Country Office Croatia).
ROMANIA
Ms. Ana Drapa, Ministry of Environment and Water Management;
Ms. Aurora Vasiu, National Water Directorate;
Ms Mirela Leonte/Petruta Moisi DEF Romania, Eco Counseling;
Mr.Valentin Brustur, Ministry of Environment and Water Management;
Ms. Alecsandra Ionescu, Ministry of Environment and Water Management;
Mr. Liviu Popescu, National Institute for Research and Development in Environmental Protection;
Mr. Lucian Ionescu, REC Country Office Romania
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
Mr.Nikola Marjanovic, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water management, Director of
National Water Directorate, Head of ICPDR Delegation;
Mr.Milovanovic Miodrag, Institute for Water Distribution Jaroslav Cerni, member of ICPDR
Delegation;
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, Ministry for Science and Environment, Directorate for Environmental
Protection of Republic of Serbia- Head of Water Quality Department
Ms. Milica Durac, Aarhus Focal Point;
Mr. Branislav Bozovic, City Council of Belgrade, Secretariat for Environment;
Ms. Mira Bartula ,DEF SCG-, Ms.Tanja Nikolic, Young Researches of Serbia;
Ms. Jelena Gajinov, Yugoslavian Society for Water Law , representatives of NGOs;
TBN (to be nominated ):
Secretary for Environment and Sustainable Development of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina
Republic Hydro-Meteorological Institute of Serbia- Head of Water Quality Department.
A4
OUTLINE FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND PRACTICAL BARRIERS TO
PUBLIC ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER-RELATED
INFORMATION TO SUPPORT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU'S WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
Introduction
I.
Status of laws/regulations on public access to environmental and water-related
information
1. General laws and regulations
1.1. Constitutional rights to information
1.1.2. Environmental framework and other laws relevant to environmental and water-related
information
1.1.3 Access to monitoring information gathered by the State
1.1.4 Access to information within the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and
licensing/permitting procedure
1.2.1 Other laws and regulations
1.3 Implementation of EU directives on access to environmental information and active
dissemination of information, relevant provisions of the WFD and other relevant directives
(Focus should be on WFD requirements for access to information, the EU access to environmental
information directive (2003/35/EC), including both passive and active aspects of access
to/provision of information.)
1.4 Implementation of the Aarhus Convention regarding public access to environmental information
and active dissemination of information
2. Specific law or regulations related to water
2.1. Status of legislation concerning waters including harmonization/transposition with the EU
directives on water with special regard to Water Framework Directive, (Please focus on the access
92
to information and public participation requirements or the water laws. Please also consider
national legislation if transposition or harmonization is in process or is not yet started.)
2.1.1. Planned developments in developing and implementing legislation regarding water
2.2 Requirements for collection of environmental and water-related information
2.3 Institutions collecting and providing environmental and water-related information
(Environmental and water-related information system, record-keeping, registers, information
center/s accessible for the public, Active dissemination of information)
2.4 Environmental monitoring and reporting requirements including water
(State monitoring, Polluters' environmental self-monitoring and reporting requirements
Enforcement of polluter's self-monitoring and reporting requirements,
Requirements for implementing regulations)
2.5 Information on permit applications and reporting required by permits
3. Procedural rules for gathering and accessing water-related environmental information
3.1 Definition of environmental information. Data or information
3.2 Duties of public authorities.
3.3 Procedures for access to/provision of information. Legal requirements regarding collection and
dissemination of information
3.4 Timeframe providing access to information
3.5 Grounds for refusal of access to information
3.6 Confidentiality of information (State secret, military secret, business secret, etc.)
3.7 Access to administrative appeal procedure or to court
3.7.1 Ombudsman
3.8 Charges for supplying the information
4.0 Accessibility of information concerning pollution caused by private persons
II. Status of enforcement and implementation of laws on public accessibility and
collection of environmental and water-related information
1.1 General findings - Implementing regulations and procedures regarding access to the general
environmental and water related information in the practice
1.1.1 The types of information to be made accessible and /or available by law and how
this is being implemented
1.2. Administrative enforcement
1.3. Public accessibility of databases concerning waters
(Accessibility of data concerning water discharges, ambient quality of surface and ground water,
Accessibility of data concerning quantity of water resources and planning Accessibility of data
contained in the Water Book)
III. Institutional arrangements for provision of access to environmental and water-
related information
Please evaluate the issues below for national, regional/River Basin and local levels
1. Institutional framework and cooperation
1.1. Institutions dealing with collecting, processing and disseminating of environmental and water-
related information
1.2 Relationship (Cooperation/coordination) among different agencies and bodies having
responsibility for collection and dissemination of environmental and water-related information
1.3. Personnel, infrastructure and budget for providing access to environmental and water related
information
1.4. Database linkages for environmental and water related information
(Domestic databases accessible on internet)
2. Status of provision of environmental and water-related information upon request
2.1 Practical experiences with provision of information,
2.2 Implementation of procedures, guidance documents,
2.3 Number and types of requests received by agencies)
3. Status of active dissemination of environmental and water-related information
93
3.1 Methods of active dissemination of environmental and water-related information;
3.2 What tools are used for dissemination of information;
3.3 Information is made available on websites, publicly accessible databases, registers,
3.4 Emergency notification,
3.5 Other tools including publications; practical experiences
IV. Legal and practical barriers to providing access to environmental and water-related
information
1.1 Confidentiality, secrets, including business secret
(Concerns of government officials, NGOs and other stakeholders)
1.2 Analysis of the laws/regulations governing confidentiality and their effects. State secret and
other ground for refusal of access
1.3 Technical and other barriers to providing access to information
1.4 Practical experiences
V. Public access to information gathered within the framework of the implementation of
the Convention on the Danube River Protection, information held by countries and
ICPDR, and other programs relevant to environmental and water- related information
on discharges into the Danube
VI. Problems and gaps identified with respect to all of points (1-5)
VII. Priority issues proposed to be addressed in the project component activities
VIII. Limitations of the needs assessment itself - information which was impossible to
obtain and reasons
IX. Notes or references
A5
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT5
1.
In general, what is your opinion about the possibilities for members of the public, local
communities and NGOs to have access to environmental information, and more specifically to
water-related environmental information?
(Please include information in connection with water protection, water management and the
activities or projects regarding the Danube and its tributaries and focus on the requirements of the
EU Water Framework Directive.)
2.
How do you evaluate the availability of environmental and water-related information? Please
address the conditions for systematic collection, processing and dissemination of the most
important environmental information and for more specifically regarding water-related information.
3.
Please evaluate the substantive and procedural legal conditions of access to and provision of
environmental information, including water-related information, and their practical implementation
in your country
(e.g. definition of information, access to data/information, necessity of proving interest, timeliness
of information provision, deadlines, separation of confidential information, information in
5 The proposed questionnaire is non-exhaustive, there may be further questions and issues added on the topics
during the interviews
94
extraordinary situations, the price of the data/information, rules for confidentiality, refusal of
information provision, forwarding of requests, appeal procedure, etc.).
4.
What in your opinion and experience are limitations of access to/provision of environmental and
more specifically water-related information, regarding submitting or answering requests (business
secret, state secret, other sorts of secrets, procedural barriers, insufficiencies of the
requests/answers, price of information, etc.)?
Please address the issues regarding submitting a request and receiving the information or if you
belong to the authority responsible for handling requests, please address the issues/difficulties
regarding answering the requests.
5
What are your experiences in connection with the active provision of environmental and more
specifically water related information? What type of information is made available actively? What
forms of active dissemination are used? What limitations have you experienced?
6.
What are your experiences in connection with accessing information gathered within the framework
of the implementation of the Danube River Protection Convention, information held by countries
and ICPDR, DRP and other projects relevant to environmental and water- related information on
the Danube? Have you had any problems when accessing such information at ICPDR/DRP or when
asking for such information from ICPDR/DRP or from your national authorities? If so, please
describe.
7.
To what extent is there an institutional background to support access to environmental information
and more specifically water related information? (Please evaluate this for different levels including
local, national, and regional/River Basin levels.)
(Infrastructure for provision of information upon request or actively including proper organizational
background such as specific departments/sections/units, personnel, equipment, budget, other
resources; public registers, databases - and linkages among databases if any, and how are they
accessible to public, etc.)
Is the provision of information organized? Are there specific officials serving the information needs
and assisting to receive, process and answer requests? Is there a procedure developed on tracking
and answering the requests?
Do the institutions charge for the information provision and if yes, on what basis? If there are
charges, are these charges made publicly available?
What is the situation regarding active dissemination? Is there a procedure to decide what
information should be put on the website or distributed in other forms?
What guidance/assistance/training is available for the officials responsible for answering requests
or for actively providing information?
8.
Please estimate how many requests for (1) environmental information and (2) water-related
information have arrived to the ministry, authority you are working for or, if you are an NGO
representative/expert, how many of such requests you have submitted or heard about.
9.
What do you consider to be the greatest insufficiencies/barriers in the field of access to
environmental information and provision of environmental information, including water related
information?
10.
What, in your opinion, are the most important priorities that need to be addressed to improve the
situation regarding access to environmental information and provision of environmental
information, including water related information?
95
A6
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUBCONTRACT FOR NATIONAL CONSULTANTS PREPARING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
REPORT FOR THE COMPONENT 3.4 OF THE DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
"ENHANCING ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING"
1. Background Information
Component 3.4 of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) "Enhancing Access to Information
and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making" aims to build capacities on the regional,
national and local levels for the provision of public access to information and participation in
decision-making on water pollution issues. National level capacity building will be carried out in five
selected Danube countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, and Serbia and
Montenegro. In the first stage of the project component, a national Needs Assessment will be
carried out in each of these countries, in order to identify barriers to public access to information,
and based on this, to develop priority capacity building activities.
Also, for each of the five countries a demonstration project will be selected. This project is meant
to serve as a replicable example of how access to information and public participation issues can be
handled in hot spot areas of the Danube, involving the local public and NGOs, as well as
local/regional responsible authorities.
The Project Component is implemented by a Consortium of three partners: the Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC, lead organisation), Resources for the
Future (RFF) and the New York University School of Law (NYU).
2. Purpose and description of assignment
The objective of the present subcontract is to ensure that technical assistance provided to
[country] within the project component addresses priority needs concerning national legislation,
policy, practices and capacities for providing public access to environmental and water-related
information as a precondition for public participation, as well as the requirements of the EU Water
Framework Directive and the Aarhus Convention.
The specific purposes of the subcontract are to:
(1) Carry out a National Needs Assessment of Legal, Institutional and Practical Barriers to
Public Access to Water Related Information, and to prepare a Needs Assessment Report in
[country].
(2) Assist the Consortium in identifying and selecting one demonstration project for [country]
and to draw up a demonstration project report, which in first instance identifies a number of
potential sites for demonstration projects, using (all or, if necessary, most of) the criteria for
demonstration projects established by the Consortium, and explaining how the criteria apply to
the projects selected in first instance.
The subcontractor will be responsible to REC for the production of the demonstration project report
and the needs assessment report, which will serve as a basis for the tasks and activities under
Objective 1 of the project component. The subcontractor will work closely and collaboratively with
REC and the other project partners, NYU and RFF to complete and finalize the draft needs
assessment report, according to the attached outline and questionnaire.
96
The subcontractor will consult a wide range of stakeholders identified together with the
Consortium, as well as further stakeholders to be identified in the course of the assessment.
It will be important for the experts working under this subcontract to provide an independent view
on the issues requested in the outline. The report should also reflect stakeholder views on the
related issues, however, this should be made as separate part of the requested materials indicating
when expressing personal or stakeholder view.
3. Concrete tasks
a. Assist and advise REC in finalising arrangements and establishing a National Team of
stakeholders and an Operational Team of key actors to be directly involved in the
project implementation.
Output: established National and Operational Teams by December 31, 2004
b. Research and put together an overview of completed, ongoing and wherever possible
planned activities and processes relevant to public access to water-related and
environmental information and participation in environmental decision-making in
[country]. Advise on possible overlaps or links with the present project component.
Output: overview of completed, on-going and planned relevant activities by` January
5, 2005
c. Needs Assessment
i.Familiarise themselves with the Needs Assessment approach and methodology,
following closely the Needs Assessment Questionnaire and Outline and further
guidelines from the Consortium; provide suggestions on how to adapt the
methodology and questionnaire to local circumstances;
ii.Collect and review relevant documents and consult key stakeholders for the
completion of the Needs Assessment Questionnaire;
iii.Develop and submit to REC and partners a 1st draft Needs Assessment Report for
comments and feedback from the project team by 31 January 2005
iv.Integrate comments and feedback from the project team, including further
research if found necessary, and submit a 2nd draft Needs Assessment Report by
15 February 2005.
v. Participate in a 2-day national workshop organised by REC and its partners at
which the sub-contractor will present the main findings and conclusions of the
report, and will receive feedback from stakeholders (During second half of
February or March 2005).
vi. Based on comments received at the workshop, complete and submit the final
Needs Assessment Report to REC by 31 March 2005.
Outputs: Final Needs Assessment Report by 31 March 2005
d. Participate in a Regional Plenary Meeting and give input on legal, policy and practical
issues based on the analysis provided by the Needs Assessment, in the second half
of April 2005
(The expenses related to travel and participation in the workshop will be covered by the
project in addition to the consultants' fee.)
e. The subcontractor assists in identifying and selecting one demonstration project for
[country].
97
I. Identify locations that may be used for a demonstration project in the given country,
based on the criteria established by the Consortium.
Ii. Consult the Consortium, the REC Country Office and the Operational Team in this
phase. Identify between 3 and 5 locations depending on the availability of such
locations, and give an explanation on why the proposed projects fulfil the criteria for
demonstration projects.
Iii. Present the results of the identification of the demonstration project locations (and
explanation why these locations are relevant) to the project team in a demonstration
project-report. The draft report of 5-10 pages should be submitted by January 31,
2005
Output: Demonstration Project Report
Iv. Prepare final draft report based on comments from the Consortium before the
national workshop.
V. Present findings of the draft final hot spot report in national workshop for discussion
in February (or March)
Vi. Finalize demonstration project report based on input and comments by workshop
participants two weeks after the national workshop (by 29 February 2005 or March
31 2004)
Output: Finalized demonstration project report by March 31, 2005
Based on the hot spot report one location will be proposed for a demonstration project by
the Consortium. The final choice for the demonstration project will presented to the
Steering Committee at April 15, 2005.
Reporting
1st draft of Needs Assessment report and Hotspot report by January 31, 2005
2nd draft of Needs Assessment report and Hotspot report by February 15, 2005
Final version of Needs Assessment report and Hotspot report by March 31, 2005
The Needs Assessment report 25-30 pages long, the Hot spot report should be up to 10 pages
long. Both reports should be written in English.
Accountability
The sub-contractor will be responsible to REC for the quality and timelines of the activities required
under this contract.
Payment and payment schedule
The sub-contractor will receive a payment for ......USD for the above services. This payment is equal
to 30 full workdays of work.
The payment will be transferred in two installments according to the following schedule:
1st installment of ...USD will be transferred upon receiving the first draft by January 31, 2005
2nd installment of ....USD will be transferred upon receiving the finalized versions of the needs
assessment report and participation in the regional plenary workshop by April ..., 2005
Expert Profile Requirements
98
- Background in environmental legislation or a related subject, with special regard to water laws
and policy, and/or work experience in water management
- Familiarity with EU environmental law and the Water Framework Directive, national legislation on
water issues and on access to information/public participation requirements and practices
- Familiarity with the institutional structures and operation of national environmental and water
management authorities
- Experience regarding legal institutional and practical aspects of public access to environmental
and water-related information and public participation, implementation of Aarhus Convention,
relevant EU directives and national legislation in practice.
- Acceptance by stakeholders and acknowledged expertise on one or more of the above.
A7
CVs OF EXPERTS
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
E U R O P E A N
C U R R I C U L U M V I T A E
F O R M A T
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name JASMINA CENGI
Address Antuna Hangija 64, 71 000 Sarajevo, BiH
Telephone +387 33 221 998; 387
Fax +387 33 209 130
E-mail jascengic@rec.org.ba
Nationality BiH
Date of birth
11TH MARCH 1969
WORK EXPERIENCE
· Date
January 2004 up to date
· Name and address of
REC-Regional Environmental Center for South-Eastern
employer
Europe Country Office Sarajevo, BiH, Sarajevo
· Occupation or position held
Project Manager/Consultant
· Main activities and
- Project: Institutional Strengthening of Environmental
responsibilities
Ministries in Bosnia and Herzegovina; PHASE II: Back-
stopping support to the Experts-working Groups for
preparation of Draft Environmental Law at State Level and
Feasibility Study for establishment of an Environmental
Protection Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
- Preparation of various environmental projects, feasibility
studies and assessment reports for Bosnia and Herzegovina
for funding by international multilateral and bilateral
environmental and reconstruction Funds and Organizations
(EU-EC CARDS; REReP; LIFE-Third Countries; UNDP)
- Participation in activities and organization of various
99
meetings and workshops, organized by REC;
Date
June 2001 - September 2002
· Name and address of
Ministry of European Integrations EC Technical Assistance
employer
to the Establishment of a Single Economic Space in Bosnia
and Herzegovina in line with the EU Internal Market,
Sarajevo, BiH
· Occupation or position held
Local Long-Term Project Administration and Finance
Manager
· Main activities and
- Assistance to the International Project Manager and local
responsibilities
and foreign experts/consultants in the Project
management;
- Project budget management and Project supply
management;
- Administration works and correspondence;
- Organization of conferences, seminars, workshops and
meetings for the project development;
Date
February 2001- June 2001
· Name and address of
Agency for Translation and Business Consultancy, Sarajevo,
employer
BiH
Occupation or position held
Consultant
· Main activities and
- Translation into Bosnian / Serbian / Croatian of various
responsibilities
documents and articles from English and Slovenian
Languages;
- Consultancy services for the National Ozone Unit in the
environmental projects preparation;
- Participation in the preparation of environmental
Assessment Report on Public Participation and Public
Awareness in the matters related Ozone Layer Protection;
Date
February 2000 - January 2001
· Name and address of
EC IDP (Industrial Development Programme for BiH),
employer
OBNOVA Project of Woman Entrepreneurship Development,
Sarajevo, BiH
Occupation or position held
Deputy Project Manager & Finance Manager of the project
· Main activities and
- Assistance to the Project Manager in overall Project
responsibilities
implementation;
- Assistance to the local and foreign experts and
consultants assigned within the project;
- Managing budget & finances;
- Interpretation and translation tasks;
- Office supply management,
- Arranging meetings and organizing conferences,
workshops and seminars;
- Maintaining project files and correspondence;
Date
May 1999 - August 1999
Name and address of
"POIN" Engineering, Export-Import & Construction Co,
employer
Sarajevo, BiH
Occupation or position held
Administrative Officer, Interpreter, Translator
· Main activities and
- Assistance to the Company Manager in the preparation of
responsibilities
business offers and bids
- Assistance in workers engagement evidence and pay-role;
- Management of English correspondence;
- Communication with local and foreign business partners;
100
Date
February 1998 - May 1999
Name and address of
UNDP VEEP (Village Employment and Environment
employer
Programme), Sarajevo, BiH
Occupation or position held
Municipal Monitor for Project Implementation Supervisor for
Sarajevo Region
· Main activities and
- Co-ordination of the relations between the UNDP and
responsibilities
VEEP Headquarters and relevant Municipalities;
- Preparation, contracting and supervision of the VEEP
projects (public and infrastructure investment works-
cleaning the rivers, protection of river banks, waste
management, forestation,
- Preparation of summaries, surveys and assessment
reports of the implemented projects and foreseen activities;
Date 1996 - 2000
Name and address of
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of BiH-Education
employer
Seminars;
Summit on Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe,
Sarajevo 1999;
Process on Stability and Good Neighbourliness in South-
Eastern Europe Project-Education Seminars; Sarajevo, BiH
Occupation or position held
Part-time job as Interpreter, translator of English/Bosnian/
Slovenian language;
· Main activities and
- Translation of seminar reference-books and lecturing
responsibilities
materials and hand-outs;
- Translation of reports and other documents;
- Interpretation at conferences, seminars and meetings;
Date
July 1992 - June 1995
Name and address of
Slovene Cultural Centre "Cankarjev Dom"(seminars,
employer
workshops, round tables);
Slovene International Tourist Fair "Alpe Adria",
LjubljanaSlovenia
Occupation or position held
Organizer, Hostess, Interpreter, Translator
· Main activities and
- Logistical support to the Organizational Committee;
responsibilities
- Translation of materials and documents for seminars and
meetings;
- Interpretation at international conferences and seminars;
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
· Dates
February 2002 September 2003
· Name and type of
University of Sarajevo & University of La Sapienza, Rome,
organisation providing
Italy;
education and training
· Title of qualification
awarded
M. Sc. in State Management and Humanitarian Affairs
(Master Theses: Environmental Issues in International
Relations)
101
Date 1993-1997
· Name and type of
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
organisation providing
Faculty of Arts
education and training
· Title of qualification
B. Sc. in English Language and Literature
awarded
PERSONAL
SKILLS
AND COMPETENCES
MOTHER TONGUE
[ Specify mother tongue ]
Bosnian
Serbian
· Reading skills Excellent
· Writing skills
Excellent
· Verbal skills
Excellent
Slovenian
· Reading skills
Excellent
· Writing skills
Excellent
· Verbal skills
Excellent
English
· Reading skills
Excellent
· Writing skills
Excellent
· Verbal skills
Excellent
French
· Reading skills
Excellent
· Writing skills
Excellent
· Verbal skills
Good
Spanish
· Reading skills
Excellent
· Writing skills
Excellent
· Verbal skills
Good
Italian
· Reading skills
Excellent
· Writing skills
Excellent
· Verbal skills
Good
SOCIAL SKILLS
Intercultural skills: experienced work in European
AND COMPETENCES
dimension such as work and cooperation with REC country
offices
Team work, work in multicultural environment,
negotiations, management
Good communication skills
ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS Organizing, facilitating and coordinating different seminars,
AND COMPETENCES
workshops and conferences with economic and
environmental background. Management of environmental
and business projects.
102
TECHNICAL SKILLS Computer
literacy:
Windows, MS Excel, MS Word, Power
AND COMPETENCES
Point
ARTISTIC SKILLS
Photographing, painting and interior design
AND COMPETENCES
OTHER SKILLS The Official Court Interpreter for Slovene and English
AND COMPETENCES
language
103
DRIVING LICENCE(S) Category
B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Key Qualifications / Specialisation:
-
Implementation of Institutional and Business
Development and Infrastructure Investment Projects;
-
Preparation and drafting of environmental protection-
related projects and feasibility studies
-
Consultancy in Business Administration and
Cooperation with International Agencies and
Organisations;
-
Environmental issues in International relations and
Environmental Treaties;
-
Organisation of conferences, meetings, seminars and
workshops;
-
Preparation and management of development of
Environmental projects;
-
Interpretation and translation tasks (English,
Slovene);
-
Lecturing on Global Environmental Protection Issues
and Development of International Cooperation in
Global Environmental Protection and Multilateral
Environmental Agreements Conventions and
Protocols)
Specific Experience in the Region:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
February 1998 - May 1999
- UNDP - VEEP workshop for national
environmental project supervisors on investment
project management
- UNDP - VEEP workshop on sub-projects for
environmental revitalisation in BiH
February 2000 January 2001
- International Conference on Woman
Entrepreneurship Development, Sarajevo
- Seminar on Development of Italian Woman
Entrepreneurship, Sarajevo, Banja
Luka and Mostar
June 2001 - September 2002
- EC Workshop on Single Economic Space in BiH,
Banja Luka,
- EC SES Seminar on Competition and Consumer
Protection, Sarajevo
- EC SES Seminar on Market Surveillance,
Sarajevo
- EC SES Seminar on Veterinary and Phyto-
sanitary Control, Sarajevo
- EC SES Seminar on Free Movement and Safety
of Industrial Products, Sarajevo
- EC SES Seminar on Free Movement and Safety
of Agricultural Products, Sarajevo
- EC SES Seminar on Public Procurement,
Sarajevo
- EC SES Seminar on IPPC Directive, Sarajevo
January 2004 up to date
- EC CARDS Seminar on IPPC Directive, Sarajevo
- EC-CARDS workshop on establishment of the
Environmental Monitoring and Information
System of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- REReP-REC (3) workshops on drafting the State
Environmental Law and State Environmental
Agency activities
104
Slovenia
April 1993 September 1996
- Seminar on Small Entrepreneurship and the
Environmental Protection;
- Round table on Human Responsibility in relation
to Global Environmental Problems;
- Seminar on Development Investment Projects
and their Environmental Impact;
- Round table on Public Awareness and the Local
Environment
105
E U R O P E A N
C U R R I C U L U M V I T A E
F O R M A T
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name VRHOVAC DALIBOR
Address 28 AV. SVETOG SAVE, 78000 BANJA LUKA, BOSNIA NAD
HERZEGOVINA
Telephone +387 51 312 058 , mobile : +387 65 596 752
Fax +387 51 312 058
E-mail kancelarija_vrbasbl@blic.net , dvrhovac@blic.net
Nationality
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date of birth
FEBRUARY 5 1976
WORK EXPERIENCE
· Date
April 2002 - today
· Name and address of
Republic Directorate for water , office Banja Luka
employer
· Occupation or position held
Adviser for Finances
· Main activities and
Financial and economic aspects in water sector ,
responsibilities
envolment on diferent projects
related to water sector
· Date
November 2001 April 2002
· Name and address of
Acounting and Inspection Association
employer
Adviser for Finances
· Occupation or position held
Acounting aspects
· Main activities and
responsibilities
106
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
· Date
19
199861--2198
00 6
1
· Name and type of
University of Sarajevo Law Faculty
University of Banja Luka Faculty of Economy,
organisation providing
department of Business Economy
education and training
and Management,Banja Luka , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bachelor in Law
· Title of qualification
B.Sc. Economy
awarded
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
· Date
19
200831-1986
today (in progress)
· Name and type of
University of Sarajevo Law Faculty
University of Banja Luka School of Economy, Banja
organisation providing
Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
education and training
· Title of qualification
Bachelor in Law
To be in 2005 MsC of Business Economy and
awarded
Management
PERSONAL SKILLS
AND COMPETENCES
MOTHER TONGUE
Serbian-Croatian
OTHER LANGUAGES
ENGLISH
· Reading skills
excellent,
·
very
good
Writing skills
· Verbal skills excellent
SOCIAL SKILLS
Team
work:
AND COMPETENCES
Mediating skills:
Facilitating skills: Phare Workshop Water Institutional
Strengthening in
Bosnia and Herzegovina June 24-28 2002 (Zenica) ,
Azahar Workshop Water
Management course for water basins June 30- july 5
2003 (Madrid) , CARDS
Project about reform in water sector
ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS Two seminars/workshops organized by EU Consultant
AND COMPETENCES
`'Haskoning'' in B&H and
Ministry agriculture , forestry and water management ,
Republic Directorate
for water- 2002 2003;
Workshop subject was Institutional Strengthening in
water sector BiH.
TECHNICAL SKILLS Excellent computer skills (MS Word, MS Excel, MS
AND COMPETENCES
PowerPoint, electronic mail
systems, Internet, HTML)
107
.
ARTISTIC SKILLS
[ Describe these competences and indicate where they
AND COMPETENCES
were acquired. ]
Music, writing, design, etc.
OTHER SKILLS [ Describe these competences and indicate where they
AND COMPETENCES
were acquired. ]
Competences not mentioned
above.
DRIVING LICENCE(S)
category B and C
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Publications
- Manual: Public Participation for users in Bosnia and
Herzegovina ,
specific water sector (as a nacinal representative for
organization Dunube day in
Bosnia and Herzegovina)
- Economic analysis of the ,,Framework Agreement on
the
Sava River Basin"
- Economic analysis of water charges
- Economic aspects of EU Water Framework Directive in
BiH
Key qualifications:
Economic and financial analysis
Sustainable development
Reporting in cordiance water sector
Inter-institutional matters
Sustainable regional development
Capacity-building and technical support of local and
national authority officials
Communications and the civil society
Press and media relations
Organization of conferences and events
Training and education
108
Specific experience in the region:
B&H
-
Workshop about Institutional Strengthening in
water sector BiH in
Cooperation with EU Consultant (period 2002-
2003
`'HASKONING'' , period 2003- today
`'PLANCENTAR'' Ltd)
- National representative BiH for organization
Danube day and
public participation , period april-october 2004
-
Workshop about public participation and
information under the
Danube Regional Project (DRP)
-
Member of Economy expert group in cooperation
with ICPDR
-
Member of Economy group for preparation a
new water law in BiH
Serbia and Montenegro
Visit to Belgrade : July 2004 participation on meeting
under the ICPDR us member
of new expert goups (economy group)
Croatia
Visit to Zagreb : June 2004 participation on meeting
and excange a information
about reform in water sector .
Spain
Visit to Madrid : June 30- July 5 2003- participation
Azahar Workshop Water
Management course for water basins
Hungary
Visit to Budapest: October 2004 participation on
Regional Workshop
organised under the CARDS project Assistance in
Enviromental Law
Drafting in SEE funded by the EU
Subject ; Approximation of the Water Framework
Directive in
South Eastern Europe
109
BULGARIA
1. Family name:
Kodjabashev
2. First names :
Alexander
3. Date of birth :
29 April 1958
4. Nationality :
Bulgarian
5. Civil Status :
Married
6. Education :
Institution
Degree(s) or Diploma(s) obtained:
[Date from - Date to]
Council of Europe, Environmental
Department, 1992
University Robert Schumann,
Diploma for Special Studies in environmental
Strasbourg, France, Faculty of Law
law,
1991-1992
Sofia University, Faculty of Law
MS Legal Sciences
1979-1984
French Language School Sofia
Secondary school diploma
1972-1977
7. Language skills: (Mark 1 to 5 for competence, 1- excellent, 5 - basic)
Language Reading Speaking Writing
French 1
1
2
English 1
2
3
Russian 1
3
4
8. Membership of professional bodies:
1986 Member of Bulgarian Bar Association
1994 Member of Association of Environmental Lawyers Worldwide (E-LAW)
1999 Member of Association of Environmental Lawyers from Central and Eastern Europe (GUTA
Association)
9. Other skills: (e.g. Computer literacy, etc.)
Microsoft Office applications Word; Excel, Power point;
10. Present employer and position
Freelanced attorney at law
Project leader of the Center for Environmental Law, Sofia, Bulgaria
11. Years with the present employer:
12. Work experience
·
Legal Advisor of State and Municipal Institutions
A. Legal consultant for the Ministry of the Environment 1993-1999 /on long term contract in the
period 1993-1995 and on contracts ad hoc in the period 1996-2001/
- Member of Commissions at the Ministry of the Environment for preparation of drafts of laws and
sublegislative acts:
- 1994 -The Regulation on the Environmental Impact Assessment
- 1995 -The Regulation for the Professional Capacities of EIA Experts
- 1995 -The Regulation on the Status of the Ecological Fund.
- 1995 and again in 2000 - from January 2000 to August 2000 - Drafting of a project for
legislation on Access to Environmental Information ;
- 1997 from September 1997 to December 1997 - The Law on the Protected Areas;
- 1998-1999 - from August 1998 to January 1999 - The Water Law
110
- 2000 from July 2000 to September 2000 - The Biodiversity Act
- 2000, 2001 Environmental Protection Act /for two of it's chapters/
- 2001 Regulation for issuing waste water discharges permits.
- 2001 Regulation for non road machinery emmissions into the atmospheric air.
B. Other activities in Bulgaria
- 1993-1994 Drafting of Local regulations for Environmental Protection(Municipality of
Troyan and Botevgrad).
·
Legal Consultant to International Projects
- 1998 from January 1998 to July 1998 - Legal consultant , Sir William Halcrow & Partrners Ltd.
- Development of an Environmental Approximation and Training for the Bulgarian Ministry of
Environment and Waters
- 1998-1999 from September 1998 to June 1999 - Legal consultant, Sir William Halcrow &
Partners Ltd - Provision of Technical Assisstance in the Approximation of Water Legislation
- 1998 and 2000 Local legal consultant of the Regional Environmental Center-Budapest and of
Milieu Ltd for Progress Monitoring of Approximation Activities in Environmental Legislation (analysis
and assessment of the level of approximation of Bulgarian legislation to the legislation of the EU)
- 2001 Legal consultant of the Ministry for Agriculture and Forests for preparation of legal
scheme for implementation of the SAPARD programme
·
Project Manager/Leader
-
1999 Manager of a project for ratification and implementation of the Aarhus Convention
in Bulgaria
-
2001 Manager of a project for development of a legal framework for protection of
industrial and trade confidential information
-
2002 Manager of a project for investigation of the quality of Environmental Impact
Assessment Decisions at the Ministry for Environment and Water
-
2002-2004 Project leader of the Center for Environmental Law
·
Public Interest Environmental Legal Advisory Activities
Legal consultancy to environmental NGOs in the period 1993-2003 including:
- discussions with NGOs on the possibilities to find legal solutions for the environmental
problems;
- writing demands, petitions, appeals and other papers for implementation of the
environmental legislation;
- appearing in court as attorney of environmental NGOs;
- helping NGOs for formulating their proposals for amendments of the existing
environmental legislation and for adoption of new legislation;
In the period 1996-2003 this activity has been done as member of the Ecological Association
"Demetra", Sofia, Bulgaria.
Since 2002 and until 2004 - project leader of Center for Environmental Law an office for helping
citizens and environmental NGOs in access to justice in environmental matters.
·
Assistance in Preparation of Educational Programmes in Environmental
Decisionmaking
- 1994 Manual for Public Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking.
- 1996 Drafting of Educational Program for Public Participation in Decision Making in the Field of
the Environment.
·
Lecturing and participation in training courses as lecturer or facilitator (the more
recent ones)
-
2002-2003 Giving lectures on access to environmental information, on public
participation in environmental decisionmaking and on access to justice related to environmental
rights. More than a dozen workshops organized by the Regional Environmental Center for Central
and Eastern Europe-Bulgaria.
-
2003-2004 Giving lectures on access to environmental information, on biodiversity
protection and on environmental impact assessment for various stakeholders judges, lawyers,
NGOs, officials. Five workshops held in the period 2003-2004 for the Center for Environmental Law.
111
-
2002-2004 Giving lectures on environmental law and on water protection and
management law for the students at the University for Civil Buildings and Architecture, the
Hydrogeological Faculty.
-
2003-2004 - Giving lectures on urban (construction) law for the students at the University
for Civil Buildings and Architecture, the Hydrogeological Faculty
· Preparation of Reports, Analysis and Investigations in the field of Environmental
Law
-
1994-2003 - Reports and articles, requested by the Regional Environmental Center,
Budapest on the participation of the public in decision making in the field of the environment;
-
2001 Preparation of analysis concerning the application of the Aarhus Convention for
Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking and
Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in relation to genetically modified organisms (for the
UNECE).
-
2001 Preparation of analysis of the Bulgarian legislation for prevention of forest fires
(for the Bulgarian Swiss Forest Protection Programme).
-
2003 The Aarhus Convention a new challenge for the Bulgarian administrative
jurisdiction (an article published in the leading review Bulgarian Administrative Jurisdiction
No 5/2003)
-
2004 Preparation of commentary to the Aarhus Convention for Access to
Environmental Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters (in partnership with other authors).
13. Professional Experience Record (most recent first):
Date
Location Company
Position
Description
from
- Date to
2004-
Sofia Attorney
at
Freelanced
Consultant in Civil, Environmental
1992
law at Sofia
consultant
and Administrative Law
Bar
Association
1986-
Pleven Attorney
at Freelanced
Consultant in Civil and
1989
law at
consultant
Administrative Law
Pleven Bar
Association
112
STANISLAVA BOSHNAKOVA
Current
39 Trakia Str.
Address:
1527 Sofia
tel. 843 9389 (home), 980 84 97 (work)
GSM: 0887 887 367
e-mail: sboshnakova@yahoo.com, pazitelb@abv.bg
Permanent
5600 Troyan
Address:
Dobrudja 1-B
Bulgaria
tel. (359) 670 34338
Education:
2003 - 2004 Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central
European University, Budapest, Hungary
Master Thesis topic: "Public Participation in Water Resource Management in the
Danube River Basin it the Context of the Water Framework Directive of the EU"
2000 2002 Sofia University `St. Kliment Ohridsky', Bulgaria and Lund University,
Sweden (Joint distant learning course Transeurope)
Master Thesis topic: "Bulgarian Environmental Non-governmental Organizations:
Local Activities in a Global Context: The Pirin Case"
1996 2001 Faculty of Journalism, Sofia University, Bulgaria
Master Thesis topic: "Bulgarian Environmental NGOs: Media Reality and Actual
Activities"
Qualifications: 2004 MSc in Environmental Sciences and Policy (CEU, Budapest)
2002 Transeurope European Master Course Certificate (Lund University, Sweden)
2001 Cambridge Certificate in English as a Foreign Language (Advanced Level)
2001 MA in Journalism, Sofia University `St. K. Ohridsky'
2000 Germanicum Institute Grundstuffe 1
Languages:
Bulgarian (native), English (fluent), Russian (good), Macedonian (basic), German
(basic)
Internships: 2001 Junior Fellowship Programme of Regional Environmental Center, Hungary:
junior fellow
1999 `Trud' Daily Newspaper, Bulgaria reporter
1998 Bulgarian National Radio reporter
1997 Bulgarian News Agency reporter
Professional 2002
2004
Center for Environmental Information and Education (CEIE), Bulgaria,
113
Experience:
Project Officer
2001 2002 Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds/ BirdLife Bulgaria, Public
Relations Officer
2001 Information campaign for water use in the town of Montana, CEIE, Bulgaria,
Campaign Consultant
2000- 2001 `Alma Mater' Radio, Bulgaria, Show Moderator of environmental
program
Participation in 2004 Austrian Energy Days in Bulgaria
projects:
2004 World Wetlands Day 2004 at the Central European University
2002 2004 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project - Strengthening the
Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in
the Danube River Basin
2002 2003 Regional Environmental Press Center for South East Europe, project
of REC Hungary, funded by the EU under REREP Program
2002 2003 Sustainable development in North-West Stara Planina through
encouraging the implementation of traditional handicrafts and practices, and
promotion of the possibilities for alternative tourism, project of CEIE funded by REC
(Hungary) under Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit
2001 2002 Establishing the European Environmental Network Natura 2000 in
Bulgaria, project of BSPB/BirdLife funded by Phare Access Program of the EU
2000 2001 Bulgarian environmental NGOs and Mass Media, individual student
project funded by Open Society Foundation Sofia
Scholarships
2003 Soros Foundation: Open Society Scholarship to undertake MS in
and awards:
Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University
2000 - Open Society Foundation, Sofia: Student Achievement Award
Computer
MS Word, Internet Explorer, MS Power Point, Netscape Composer, MS Excel, Dream
literacy:
Weaver Basics, Cool Edit Pro Audio
Interests:
Water resource management, access to information, public participation, EU
legislation, globalization
Publications: 2003,
2004
Press releases and publications in Bulgarian and international
magazines in the Danube River Basin for Centre for Environmental Information and
Education/Danube Environmental Forum
2003 Publications for Regional Environmental Press Center for Southeast Europe
2002 NGO Communication Activities in the Danube River Basin. In Wetlands and
Nutrient Reduction. Bratislava, 2002.
2001 The Pirin dilemma and reflections on the role of mass media. In Civil Practices
for access to Environmental Information. Sofia, 2001
114
2001 Press releases for Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds
2000, 2001, 2002 reports for BlueLink Information Network
1999 publications for Trud Daily Newspaper
1998 reports for Bulgarian National Radio
1997 international news for Bulgarian News Agency
115
CROATIA
E U R O P E A N
C U R R I C U L U M V I T A E
F O R M A T
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name CERAR KARMEN
Address JOSIPA MAROHNIA 12, 10 000 ZAGREB, CROATIA
Telephone ++385 1 6307 300
Fax ++385 1 6151821
E-mail kcerar@voda.hr
Nationality CROATIAN
Date of birth
14, JANUARY, 1966
WORK EXPERIENCE
· Dates (from to)
MAY 1995 ONWARDS
· Name and address of
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND WATER
employer
MANAGEMENT, DIRECTORATE FOR WATER MANAGEMENT,
ULICA GRADA VUKOVARA 220, 10 000 ZAGREB
· Type of business or sector
WATER MANAGEMENT
· Occupation or position held
SENIOR ADVICER
· Main activities and
DEALING WITH WATER LEGISLATION, ISSUING WATER
responsibilities
ACTS, RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANING,
INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
· Dates (from to)
9.-29. September, 2001.
· Name and type of
The international Agricultural Centre (IAC), Wageningen,
organisation providing
NETHERLAND
education and training
· Principal
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANING
subjects/occupational
- WFD-RIVER BASIN CONCEPT AND INSTITUTIONAL
skills covered
ASPECTS
- GROUNDWATER AND THE EU-WATER FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE
- INLAND SURFACE WATERS
- MANAGERIAL ASPECTS-GIS ASPECTS OF THE WFD
- MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ASPECTS OF THE WFD
- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
.....
· Title of qualification CERTIFICATE
awarded
· Level in national
classification
116
(if appropriate)
· Dates (from to)
1984-1992
· Name and type of
UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB, FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
organisation providing
education and training
· Principal HYDRAULIC
ENGINEERING
subjects/occupational
skills covered
· Title of qualification B.Sc
awarded
· Level in national
classification
(if appropriate)
PERSONAL SKILLS
AND COMPETENCES
Acquired in the course of life
and career but not
necessarily covered by formal
certificates and diplomas.
MOTHER TONGUE
CROATIAN
OTHER LANGUAGES
ENGLISH
· Reading skills
GOOD
· Writing skills
GOOD
· Verbal skills
GOOD
SOCIAL SKILLS
I HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING ON MANY NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
AND COMPETENCES
WORKSHOPS WHERE I USED TO WORK IN TEAM AND ALSO I HAVE ABILITY
Living and working with other
TO ADAPT TO MULTICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT.
people, in multicultural
environments, in positions
where communication is
important and situations
where teamwork is essential
(for example culture and
sports), etc.
ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS I WAS MEMBER OF ORGANISATION COMMITTEE OF
AND COMPETENCES
INTERNATIONAL HYDROLOGICAL CONFERENCE AND MANY
Coordination and
OTHERS ORGANISATION COMMITTEE FOR DIFFERENT
administration of people,
SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS. I CO-ORDINATE WORKING
projects and budgets; at
GROUP ON GROUNDWATER ISSUES AND CROATIAN
work, in voluntary work (for
DELEGATION IN THE RBM/EG OF THE ICPDR. ON THE
example culture and sports)
NATIONAL LEVEL I CO-ORDINATE PROJECT "Development
and at home, etc.
of the Sava River basin" AND LOTS OF OTHER PROJECTS
TECHNICAL SKILLS COMPETENT WITH MOST MICROSOFT COMPUTER PROGRAMMES (WORD,
AND COMPETENCES
EXCEL, ACCESS,...)
With computers, specific
kinds of equipment,
machinery, etc.
ARTISTIC SKILLS
AND COMPETENCES
Music, writing, design, etc.
117
OTHER SKILLS Positions of responsibility in voluntary organisations:
AND COMPETENCES
Member of main committee of Croatian hydrological society
Competences not mentioned
Member of Croatian society for protection of water and see
above.
DRIVING LICENCE(S) category
B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PUBLICATIONS:
-Concessions in Sava River Basin
-Abstraction of water for sailing in the market
-River basin management plan and the Water Framework
directive
MEMBERSHIP OF professional organisations:
-Croatian national committee for International Hydrological
Program and Operational Hydrological program of the
UNESCO/WMO
-Member of Interim Sava Commission
NATIONAL CONSULTANT FOR THE PROJECT
"STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS FOR
INVOLVEMENT OF DIFFERENT KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN
THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT
ON THE SAVA RIVER BASIN IN CROATIA" LEDED BY
REC (2003)
118
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal details:
Name:
Irma Popovic
Date of birth: 17th April 1978
Place of birth: Vinkovci, Croatia
e-mail: irma@zelena-akcija.hr
Education and qualifications:
- 2002 graduated at Faculty of Sciences, University of Zagreb,
Graduation thesis: "Ecological and Phytosociological Characteristics of Beech Forest on Mt.
Medvednica"
- 2002- participated in Training Course on Development of Forest Certification Standard by Indufor
Oy from Finland
- 2001 participated a WWF Wild School - course on Hotspots/Protected areas management
- 1996 - high school education: VII Gymnasium in Zagreb
- 1992 - finished primary school in Zagreb
Languages:
Fluent in English (spoken and written)
Passive in Italian and Spanish
Working experience:
- 2004 national coordinator of campaign "Save the Drava" - stop the gravel excavation and river
regulation of Drava River - in partnership WWF International Danube-Carpathian Program
- 2003/2004 coordinator and Board Member of Danube Environmental Forum in Croatia (DEF is
NGO platform for protection of Danube River)
- 2002 in October become officialy employeed in Green Action on "Green Belt Velebit project
Ecoregional conservation of Mt. Velebit in partnership with WWF MedPO
- 2002 - in April started to work in Green Action on Nature Protection Program
- 2001 started with volunteering in ENGO Green Action
- 2000 working in organization team on "Littoral 2000" Conference in Cavtat, Croatia
Skills:
- PC Office, Photoshop, Freehand
- Mac - Office
- communication skills, office work, organization experience
119
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal data:
Surname :
Petra
Christian name : Djuric
Date of birth
: February 6, 1979
Nationality :
Croatian
Family Status
: Single
Address
: Augusta Senoe 45, 10 290 Zapresic, Croatia
Telephone
: ++385 1 33 11 321
GSM
: ++385 98 91 098 03
E-mail :
petra_djuric@yahoo.com
Education:
1997 - 2002.
: Faculty of Science, Zagreb Department of Biology
BS thesis: "Microclimate conditions on different habitats in the vicinity of the
Sunger village"
1993 - 1997.
: High School of Science, Zagreb
1984 - 1993
: Primary School, Zapresic
Professional experience:
Academy year 1997 / 1998
-
participated in "Paklenica" - scientific-educational camp for biology students in NP
Paklenica organised by Croatian Herpetological Society - "Hyla"
Academy year 1998 / 1999
-
involved in research bonitet classes of Veliki potok (Grand Stream) on Sljeme,
-
involved in pilot project "SOS for amphibians on roadways" in Koprivnica
-
participated in international summer biological camp "Paklenica 1999", organized by
BIUS ( Organization of biological students )
Academy year 1999 / 2000
-
participated in project "Telascica 2000" in Nature Park Telascica, organized by BIUS
Academy year 2000 / 2001
-
participated in project "Preliminary biological research of the Nakovana plateau"
Year 2002
-
involved in a project of estimation of population density and migration of the
noble crayfish, Astacus astacus in Paklenica National Park
-
collaboration on the paper:
Maguire I, Erben R, Klobucar G, Stambuk A, Hudina S, Galic N, Djuric P
(2002) The noble crayfish (Astacus astacus L.) in Paklenica National Park. The
study of University in Zagreb, pp 16
-
participated in population study of Salamandra salamandra in NE part of Kalnik
mountain
-
student assistant in General Zoology practicum
Year 2003
-
course "Human Dimensions in Large Carnivore Management" lectured by Prof. Alistar
J. Bath, Ph.D. from Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
-
participating as a Green Action volunteer in organisation of World Bank and WWF
Alliance Workshop "High Conservation Value Forest" held in Baske Ostarije, 27-30
October 2003
Year 2004
-
currently a volunteer at Green Action
-
leading a project "Alpine Salamander (Salamanndra atra) on Zumberak
popularisation of species, education of inhabitans and maping of potential habitats in
order to protect a species"
-
involved in a project "Inventory and Monitoring of Stripe-necked Terrapin
(Mauremys rivulata) in Croatia"
-
participated in winter count of birds in Nature Park Lonjsko polje
-
for a period from 7 till 24 September 2004 worked as a teacher of ecology at 9th
Gimnasium
-
participated as a representative of Greeen Action at the CEEWEB "TIME IS LIFE"
conference on 3-4 November in Budapest, and at CEEWEB program "Building
120
partnerships towards halting the loss of biodiversity" as well as at CEEWEB Annual
Meeting on 5-6 November in Jósvaf (Hungary). (CEEWEB Central and East
European Woprking Group for the Enhancement of Biodiversity)
-
participated on Water Framework Directive Directive 2000/60/EC 2nd training
workshop held on 11-12 November 2004 in Slavonski Brod and organized by Danube
Environmental Forum (DEF)
Also:
- scholarship Stipendija Grada Zapresica (academy year 2001/2002)
- member of Croatian Herpetological Society - "Hyla"
- member of Green Action
- member of Croatian Mountaineering Association
Foreign Languages:
Croatian :
Native
language
English :
Excellent
German :
Basic
Additional Skills:
Driving license (B)
IT Skills:
MS Office, Internet Explorer
Interests and Hobbies:
Volunteering
: Green Action (non-governmental organisation whose aim is the protection of
environment and nature, as well as the promotion of sustainable developmet in
Croatia)
Caving
: Trainee
Alpinisam :
Trainee
Other : Hiking, Painting
PUBLICATIONS
Papers in proceedings:
Hudina S., Maguire I., Gali N., Djuric P. (2004), The population dynamics of noble crayfish
(Astacus astacus L.) in Paklenica National Park, Paklenicki zbornik vol. 2 povodom 55. godisnjice
Nacionalnog Parka Paklenica (in press)
121
ROMANIA
Curriculum vitae
1. Family name: RELICOVSCHI
2. First names: ADINA MANUELA
3. Date of birth: June 4 1968
4. Nationality: Romanian
5. Civil status: Married
6. Education:
Institution
Degree(s) or Diploma(s) obtained:
[ Date from - Date to ]
University of Bucharest Faculty of Geology
Graduate MSc. Geology
September 1986 March 1991
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Post graduated Diploma on Environmental
USA
Economics & Policy Analysis
June-July 1999
Supplementary Education:
· 1993, Romania - World Health Organisation , certificate on "The management and
implementation of risk assessment studies"
· June 1996, Romania - Environmental Institute from Glasgow, certificate on "Landfills and new
technologies in this field"
· March 1998, Romania - Environmental Training Programme, USAID, certificate on "Institutional
development for local Environmental Protection Agencies"
· January 2003-November 2003, Romania Phare Programme, certificate: trainer on EIA/IPPC;
· September 2004, Protugal Phare programme, study tour on management of Structural and
Cohesion funds, Environmental Operational Programme
7. Language skills: Indicate competence on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 - excellent; 5 - basic)
Language
Reading
Speaking
Writing
Romanian Mother
tongue
English 1
1
1
Spanish 1
2
2
8. Membership of professional bodies: No
9. Other skills: (e.g. Computer literacy, etc.) PC Intel Pentium Compatible; MS Word for Windows,
Word Perfect 5.1 for Windows; Other Editing Software; dBase Data Processing; MS Excell; Internet,
E-mail.
10. Present position: Manager Director FOLOS Consulting Ltd
11. Years within the firm:
2 years
12. Key qualifications: (Relevant to the project)
· Strong technical and project management skills (experience in conducting
independent/team projects and in providing recommendations for subsequent initiatives),
project manager/ team leader and deputy team leader in a big number of international projects;
· Proven experience in conducting projects evaluation;
· Excellent knowledge of Phare, ISPA and SAPARD pre-accession instruments and of PRAG rules;
· Trainer in a number of EU funded projects on environmental legislation, approximation
process, project cycle management
· Environmental expert key sectors: environmental strategies, policy, legal drafting (main
author of main Romanian environmental legal acts)
· Legal drafting: co-author of the existing (and proposed) Romanian permitting procedures,
integrating specific requirements on EIA, IPPC, SEVESO II, Habitat, Landfill and technical
norms, as well as inspection procedure;
· EU approximation process especially the horizontal legislation and the industrial
pollution control and risk management;
· Institutional expert co-author of several proposals for strengthening institutional capacity in
order to implement the environmental acquis, based on the assessment of the existing
122
institutional capacity of environmental authorities; co-author of the self-financing system for
environmental authorities;
· President of the Romanian National Committee for Certification of the natural and legal persons
for environmental impact assessment studies and environmental audit, 1998-1999;
· President of the Romanian Evaluation Committee for Life Environmental Projects - Life
Financial Instrument to support the implementation of the European Community
environmental Policy; 1998
· Fostering the professional expertise of the staff within the permitting procedure,
inspection activity/report and analysis of the environmental impact assessment
studies, environmental audits and risk assessment studies;
· Managing staff and collaborators including selection, establishing job description,
setting performance objectives, evaluation or regular basis.
13. Specific experience in the region
Country
Date from - Date to
Switzerland,
December 1997 - March 1999: Member of UN/ECE Committee on Environmental
Geneva
Policy preparation of the fourth ministerial conference "Environment for Europe"
Hungary, REC
1997 2001: Member of General Assembly coordination of REC's strategy/policy and
project implementation, including evaluation and monitoring services for the
programmes/projects implemented by REC as well as institutional strengthening
Luxemburg
1998: Member of the WHO working group developing the National Environmental and
Health Action Plans, institutional section
Belgium,
1998: Member of the Romanian Delegation in charge with preparation of the accession
Brussels
process (involved in the screening process), responsible for horizontal legislation
Hungary, Czech
November 1999: October 2000 "PPP" Project Opportunities and Constrains in
Republic,
Private Public Partnerships in Municipal Waste Management in Central and
Bulgaria,
Eastern Europe, position institutional expert responsible for the country strategy,
Slovenia,
evaluating the current PPP arrangements and the institutional framework, including the
Romania
assessment of the local authorities.
Bulgaria, Serbia,
2002 2004: "REReP 2.2 Technical Assistance to Develop the Regional
Albania, Romania Strategy for the Implementation of Aarhus Convention", position trainer on
EIA/permitting procedure expert
10 Accession
2002 2004: PHARE multi-country Programme: "Monitoring transposition and
Countries
implementation and monitoring commitments made during negotiations Location
Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia
Slovenia"- legal/institutional expert
China
December 2003 on going: "Trans-jurisdictional Water Pollution Prevention and
Control"- environmental permitting expert
Portugal 2004:
"Strengthening the central public administration in the field of EU affairs
with special focus on managing the EU programmes" responsible for the study-
tour in Portugal to the representative institutions dealing with the management of the
Structural Funds
Turkey
November 2003 on going: "Developing Capacity in Implementing and
Enforcement of Environmental Legislation in Turkey through the IMPEL
Network", Ministry of Environment, (EUROPEAID/114824/D/SV/TR), position team
leader
14. Professional experience
Date from
Location
Company
Position
Description
- Date to
December
Ankara,
AHT Group,
Team Leader
Developing Capacity in Implementing and
2003 on
Turkey
Essen,
Enforcement of Environmental Legislation
going
Germany
in Turkey through the IMPEL Network (overall
project management, task leader for the
development of the institutional strategy
for the effective implementation of the
acquis, including the design of a comprehensive
institutional programme to be undertaken based
on a more radical restructuring and
reorganization, task leader for legal drafting: a
123
new permitting and inspection procedure,
including related guidelines, trainer on IPPC
and inspection, pilot project implementation
on permitting and inspection)
July 2002-
Bucharest
Project
Deputy Team
Technical Assistance to ensure compliance
November
, Romania Management Leader
with Environmental Impact Assessment
2003
Ltd, Dublin,
Directive (overall project coordination, task
Ireland
leader for drafting the new EIA, access to
information, SEA and the new permitting
procedure based on IPPC legislation fully in
compliance with the EU legislation, developing
guidelines, task leader for capacity building
component, including detailed assessment of
the central and local authorities, as well as
development of institutional procedural
documents, trainer on EIA/IPPC
November
Bucharest
FOLOS
Manager
Preparing project proposal and raising funds and
2002
, Romania Consulting
Director
developing international environmental projects
present
SRL
financed by European, Commission, World Bank
and other donor;
Managing staff and collaborators.
January
Bucharest
Project
Head of
Preparing project proposal and raising funds and
2002
, Romania Management international
developing international environmental projects
July 2002
Ltd, Dublin,
projects,
financed by European, Commission, World Bank
Ireland
Romania
and other donors;
Managing staff and collaborators.
1999 -
Bucharest
FOLOS
Director
Preparing project proposal and raising funds and
2002
, Romania Consultant
developing international environmental projects;
Managing staff and collaborators.
May 1998
Bucharest
Ministry of
State
Co-ordination of the activity of Environmental
February
, Romania Waters,
Secretary
Protection Department, including the local
1999
Forests
Environment
environmental authorities;
and
al Protection President of the Environmental Committee
Environme
Department
within RENAR; Counterpart for World Bank
ntal
Project "Pollution Abatement Project"
Protection
November
Bucharest
Ministry of
Director
Co-ordination of National Environmental
1997 -
, Romania Waters,
Strategies,
Protection Strategy and the sectorial strategies;
May 1998
Forests
Legislation,
National Environmental Action Plan, Technical
and
Environment
Secretariats for the International Conventions
Environme
al Economy
Drafting the new Romanian regulations: laws,
ntal
and
guidelines, norms and Implementation of the
Protection
Sustainable
permitting procedure and inspection within the
Developmen
MWFEP and EPAs;
t Directorate Responsible for introduction of the economic
instruments in the environmental policy
Responsible for running the screening process
for horizontal legislation,
Responsible for the institutional reorganisation
Counterpart for ROM 101/102 projects
Assistance to Romania in the management of
the environmental approximation process
financed by DG Enlargement;
1991 -
Bucharest
Environme
Environmental Analysis of the technical documentation, that
1997
, Romania ntal
Expert
includes the environmental audits, EIAs and
Protection
Regulation
issued environmental permits/agreements;
Agency of
Department
Analysed the environmental audits for the
Bucharest
privatisation of some companies within the
privatisation
15. Other relevant information (eg, Publications)
Participation in Projects Financed by the External Sources
124
Achievement
Financing
Personal
Project title
period
source
position
Project Preparation Facility for Environmental Projects
May 2004
Phare CBC
support the relevant central and local authorities in
May 2005
programme
Institutional
identification and preparation of CBC projects in the
RO 2002/000 Expert
environmental sector and to prepare the
625.05.02
environmental grant scheme 2005-2006 and its
implementation/selection process
Assistance to the implementation of Phare 2001
May 2003
PHARE Project
Environment technical assistance to MoEWM in
October
RO
Key Expert
preparing ToRs, TS, tender Dossier and overall
2005
Institutional
management of 5 Environmental projects (3
Expert and
Technical Assistance and 2 Supply Contracts),
Trainer
including to enhace the staff capability regarding
Project Cycle Management, procurement Procedure,
Contract Management, etc, providing training on the
above mentioned.
Strengthening the central public administration in the field December
PHARE Project
of EU affairs with special focus on managing the EU
2003
RO
Environmental
programmes, especially PCM, monitoring and
December
0106.06.02
policy expert
evaluation of projects financed under EU
2004
programmes. Responsible for the environmental
protection workshop on indicators of monitoring
and achievement for the 2003 projects Phare fiches
and for the study-tour in Portugal.
Technical Assistance to ensure compliance with EIA
June 2003
PHARE Project
Directive as applicable to "Rosia Montana" golden-
November
RO
Deputy Team
silver mining: preparing detailed guidelines for
2003
0006.14.02.0
Leader
environmental authorities on implementation of EIA
1
procedure for "Rosia Montana" project
Technical assistance for the monitoring and dissemination February
EC-DG
of LIFE actions (evaluation and monitoring services),
2001
Environment
Environmental
including elaboration of Interim Evaluation Reports based
December
expert
on 5 criteria: Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Impact, 2001
evaluator
Sustainability; and Issue recommendations to be used for
improving the management of the projects.
"Training in European Affairs" Component A
September
PHARE Project
Training of Civil Servants
2000
RO
Trainer - EU
December
9706.01.20
expert
2000
"Market study of the Environmental Market in
200 OIKOS
Co./
Team Leader
Romania"
REC
"Strengthening the environmental monitoring
May 1999
USAID
capacity within the Environmental Protection
March 2000
Legal/Instituti
Agencies" drafting the new emission inventory
onal
guidelines and detailed institutional assessment of local
expert/Trainer
authorities
"Strengthening the environmental inspection
April 1999 USAID
capacity within the Environmental Protection
May 2000
Legal/Instituti
Agencies" drafting the new inspection procedure and
onal
detailed institutional assessment of local authorities
expert/Trainer
"Implementing the Polluter Pays Principle" preparing 1999 - 2000 Open Society
the deposit-refund system for used tires
Foundation
Environmental
expert
Publications and workshop participation:
· Main author and Co-author of the new Romanian legislation transposing the EU legislation related to:
GD and MO on environmental agreement procedure, integrating EIA, IPPC, SEVESO II,
Habitat Directive, Landfill Directive and Water Framework Directive, MO for approval of
guidelines on screening, scooping and review of EIS report, MO on permitting procedure,
125
including IPPC installations; GD on SEA, MO on technical norms for inspection procedure
following Impel criteria; framework environmental protection law, including the procedure
for self-financing of the local/regional EPA, waste management law, air protection law,
environmental fund law, GD on management and control of the PCB impacts and asbestos related
impact, etc.
· Co-author of "Public participation to decision-making process and access to environmental
information" guidelines for local public authorities, REC, 2004
· Author of "Environmental policy in the context of EU integration" European Institute, 2001
· Co-author of "Implementing polluters pays principle" Public Policy Center, 2000
126
Curriculum Vitae
Proposed position in the programme: LEGAL EXPERT
1.
Family name: TOZA
2.
First name(s): VERONICA
3.
Date of birth: 19 FEBRUARY 1980
4. Nationality:
ROMANIAN
5. Civil
status:
SINGLE
6.
Education:
Institution
Degree(s) of Diploma(s) obtained
Date from to
Faculty of Law, "Ovidius" University from
Paper Diploma: "The Aarhus Convention. Legal
Constanta, Romania:
aspects" International Environmental Law"
September 1999 January 2004
average graduation points 9.28
"Mircea cel Batran" High School, Science Class, Baccalaureate Diploma average graduation points
Constanta, Romania:
9.61
September 1995- June 1999
7. Language
skills: (Indicates competence on a scale from 1 to 5: 1 - Excellent, 5 - Basic)
Language
Reading
Speaking
Writing
Romanian
Mother tongue
English 1
1
1
French 2
3
2
Spanish 1
2
1
German 3
5
4
8.
Membership of professional bodies: -
9. Other
skills:
Computer Literacy: Ms Office, Outlook, Adobe Suite (Photoshop), Corel Graphics Suite (Corel Draw)
and Internet
10. Present
position:
LOCAL LEGAL EXPERT
11. Years within the firm: Since July 2004
12. Key qualifications: (relevant to the programme)
Ms. Veronica Toza is a Local Legal Expert that achieved during her work activity a broad experience
in European and national environmental legislation and policy-making. She previously graduated
the Faculty of Law with the Paper Diploma "The Aarhus Convention. Legal aspects" "International
Environmental Law" and attending the courses on "International Law", "International
Environmental Law", "Law of the Sea", "Maritime Law", "International Legal Protection of Human
Rights" and "European Community Law".
Ms. Toza worked and is working in projects funded by The European Commission, European
Community and US Government through RASP Program as a Local Legal Expert, Legal Assistant
and Legal Counsellor as well. She is directly involved into the process of monitoring the
approximation progress of Romanian legislation with the EU environmental acquis. Legal guidance
and assistance is provided to the Romanian Ministry of Environment in this respect. This year
progress monitoring exercise covers 7 sectors of EU legislation; Horizontal and Water Quality are
among them.
She was previously directly involved into preliminary investigations on environmental protection
legislation infringements and legal actions undertaken by these brought to the courts. She also
drafted and updated a legislative database consisting of environmental protection legislation or
related to it, national and international as well.
127
Ms. Toza has a detailed knowledge and understanding of the Romanian legal and administrative
system, especially in what concerns the environmental protection law and the competent
institutions. She is also familiar to EU environmental acquis requirements and the process of
transposition and implementation of the EU acquis into the national legislation as she had to base
her legal procedural acts and pleas upon it and provide legal overview within the approximation
process.
13. Experience relevant to project:
Country or
Date: from- to
Name and brief description of the project
region
Romania
July 2004 - present
Supporting the Accession Process of the Candidate
Countries and Croatia: Local Legal Expert: Responsible
for providing the Romanian Ministry for Environmental
Protection and Water Management with legal assistance
and guidance on approximation process of national
legislation with EU requirements (transposition and
implementation). Further assistance provided to DG ENV
in order to update its Progress Monitoring data-base at
national level. Client: COWI, Denmark, as contracted by
European Commission.
Romania
April 2004 July 2004
Access to public information programme: Legal
Counsellor. Responsible for identifying the reluctance of
the public institutions and other bodies in providing public
information (environmental as well) and hence bringing
them to justice in the national courts. Training support
for journalists and students in access to information of
public interest also provided. Client: Center for Legal
Resources Foundation (Member of Soros Open
Network/SON Romania), Bucuresti, Romania.
Strategic Litigation Programme: Legal Counsellor.
Responsible for identifying test cases to protect human
rights, sanction discriminatory conduct and corruption,
promote free access to information of public interest and
environmental protection etc. Another responsibility is to
set-up the Human Rights Protection Advocacy Network at
national level. Client: Center for Legal Resources
Foundation (Member of Soros Open Network/SON
Romania), Bucuresti, Romania.
Romania
September 2002 March European Partnership for Black Sea Clean Beaches
2004
Legal component: Legal Counsellor. Responsible for
running the preliminary investigations on environmental
protection legislation infringements, especially of the
coastal and marine protection one; providing legal
assistance through the Litigation Action Fund to the
NGO's, informal groups, citizens with regard to the
environmental protection legislation; running most of the
legal actions or court proceedings as requested by
national courts; keeping up-to-date the legislative
database consisting of environmental protection
legislation, national and international as well. Client:
Mare Nostrum NGO, Constanta, Romania
128
Country or
Date: from- to
Name and brief description of the project
region
Romania
February 2002
Black Sea Coastal Initiative Legal component:
September 2002
Legal project assistant. Responsible for setting up the
Litigation Action Fund for the Black Sea to make money
or assistance available for advocacy and court appeal
initiatives to NGO's, informal groups, citizens concerned
with urgent public policy changes and citizens seeking to
prevent decisions that are posing risks to the
environment; it has to be allocated upon request and
without any discrimination to citizens or NGO's through a
formal and transparent procedure. Responsible also for
drafting and keeping up-to-date of a legislative database
consisting of environmental protection legislation,
national and international as well; specific consultancy to
citizens or NGO's. Client: Mare Nostrum NGO, Constanta,
Romania
Romania May
2002
Internship in the Decision Making Bodies in the
Youth Sector international training on direct youth
involvement into the decisional process organized by
RYCD/Regional Youth Center for Information and
Documentation in South Eastern Europe Participant.
Elaboration of the National Action Plan for Youth and
drafting the "Volunteering Law". Clients: Youth
Commission Chamber of Deputies and Educational and
Youth Ministry, Romania.
14.
Professional experience record:
Date
Location
Company
Position
Description
from - to
July
Bucuresti, COWI/ Denmark
Local Legal
Provides the Romanian Ministry for
2004 -
Romania
Expert
Environmental Protection and Water
present
Management with legal assistance and
guidance on approximation process of
national legislation with EU
requirements (transposition and
implementation). Further assistance
provided to DG ENV in order to update
its Progress Monitoring data-base at
national level. Draw up the draft of
Progress Monitoring Report 2004 in
close cooperation with the Team
Leader/COWI.
April
Bucuresti, Center for Legal
Legal
Identifies the reluctance of the public
2004
Romania
Resources
Counsellor
institutions and other bodies in
July
Foundation
providing public information
2004
(environmental as well) and hence
bringing them to justice in the national
courts altogether with the Foundation
lawyer. Training support for journalists
and students in access to information
of public interest also provided. Assists
Foundation lawyer in promoting test
cases to protect human rights,
sanction discriminatory conduct and
corruption, promote free access to
information of public interest and
environmental protection etc. Another
responsibility is to set-up the Human
Rights Protection Advocacy Network at
national level.
Septemb Constanta, Mare
Nostrum
NGO Legal
Run the preliminary investigations on
129
Date
Location
Company
Position
Description
from - to
er 2002
Romania Counsellor
environmental protection legislation
March
infringements; especially of the coastal
2004
and marine protection one; provide
legal assistance through the Litigation
Action Fund to the NGO's, informal
groups, citizens with regard to the
environmental protection legislation;
run most of the legal actions or court
proceedings as requested by national
courts; keep up-to-date the legislative
database consisting of environmental
protection legislation, national and
international as well
February Constanta, Mare Nostrum NGO Legal project
Set up the Litigation Action Fund for
2002
Romania
assistant
the Black Sea to make money or
Septemb
assistance available for advocacy and
er 2002
court appeal initiatives to NGO's,
informal groups, citizens concerned
with urgent public policy changes and
citizens seeking to prevent decisions
that are posing risks to the
environment; it has to be allocated
upon request and without any
discrimination to citizens or NGO's
through a formal and transparent
procedure. Responsible also for
drafting and keeping up-to-date of a
legislative database consisting of
environmental protection legislation,
national and international as well;
specific consultancy to citizens or
NGO's.
August
Constanta, Constanta City
Press Officer
Organize the press conferences during
2002
Romania
Council
the "Mamaia Music Festival 2002";
Septemb
provides full support to the accredited
er 2002
reporters to the Festival; supervise the
well functioning of the "Mamaia Music
Festival" Press Center
January Constanta, Mare Nostrum NGO Public
Organize and attend NGO Mare
2001
Romania
Relations
Nostrum press conferences; organize
March
Assistant
workshops and other events on
2004
environmental protection issues at
international, national, regional and
local level; organize public events in
order to raise the public awareness
regarding the environmental
protection and nature conservation
issues.
Septemb Constanta, Mare Nostrum NGO Project
Manage the activity implementation
er 2000
Romania
Manager
and budgeting of the "Let's save our
dolphins!" Project; elaborate and edit
January
informative and educational materials
2002
for youth (The Dolphins' Monitoring
Guide along the Romanian sea sides
and national waters); organize public
events and campaigns related to
dolphins' conservation issue.
15. Others: Member of the Environmental Advocacy Network for South Eastern Europe
EANSEE since September 2003, developed under REReP.2.6.
130
Publications: Co-author of "The Bystre Waterway One hot issue for nature protection and
diplomacy in (Eastern) Europe", part I, MEDA/Spain, January 2005
131
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
PHARE CV FORMAT
1. Family Name:
Ignjatovi
2. First Name:
Jovanka
3. E-mail:
vana@meteo.yu
4. Mailing Address:
11000 Beograd, Solunska 25
5. Contact phone
(011) 659-171, 063-8-699-566
numbers:
Proposed Position in the Project:
1. Family Name:
Ignjatovi
2. First Name:
Jovanka
3. Date and place of birth:
05.06.1956. Belgrade
4. Nationality:
Yugoslav
5. Civil status:
Single
6. Education:
Belgrade University-Civil Engineering Faculty
Institution: Belgrade University-Civil Engineering Faculty, Yugoslavia
Date: October 1983
Degree: Bachelor of Civil Engineering-Hydrotechnical Department
Institution: International Post-Graduate Course on Hydrology (VITUKI), Budapest, Hungary
Date: July 1992
Degree: Post-Graduate Certificate (advanced training on water quality )
7. Language skills: (1 to 5: 1 lowest - 5 fluent)
Language. Speaking
Writing
Reading
English 4 4 5
Russian 2 2 3
Serbian 5 5 5
8. Other skills:
Computer skills:
- Windows,
- MS-Office,
- Relational Database
9. Present position:
Head of Water Quality Department
10. Years with the Firm:
2,5 (two and a half)
11. Key qualifications:
-
Hydrology,
-
Statistical Data Processing,
-
Surface and Ground Water Quality,
-
Water Quality Simulation Modeling
12. Specific experience:
Date
International organization
ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River),
Vienna, Austria - Member of:
-
APC EG (Accident Prevention and Control)
-
MLIM EG (Monitoring, Laboratory and Information Management Expert
from September 2000
132
Group)
from March 2002
13. Professional experience record:
(Start with last place first)
Date: September 2000-Present 2002
Location: Bircaninova 6, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Company: Federal Hydrometeorological Institute
Position: Head of Water Quality Department
Description: All aspects of surface water quality issues, particularly trabsboundery waters
(data processing, statistical data processing, water quality state estimation,
National Programme for the Danube survey, water quality database
development, etc.);
All activities related to the ICPDR APC and MLIM E's actions and tasks at the
international and national level.
Date: March 1996 - September 2000
Location: Kneza Viseslava 66, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Company: Republic Hydrometeorological Institute
Position: Senior Adviser for Water Quality Modeling
Description: All aspects of water quality issues (national monitoring programme, data
collection and processing, statistical data processing, water quality database
development and handling, water quality state estimation, water quality
modeling, bilateral water quality monitoring with Hungary and Romania, etc.);
Project revision (industrial plants, water treatment plants, dams, etc.) - water
quality protection aspects
Date: July 1988 - March 1996
Location: Kneza Viseslava 66, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Company: Republic Hydrometeorological Institute
Position: Senior Adviser for Water Balance
Description: All aspects of water quantity issues (data collection and processing, water
balance, statistical data processing, water quantity and quality modeling, water
quantity database development and handling, analysis of low flow and drought ,
etc.);
Project revision (industrial plants, water treatment plants, dams, river training,
etc.)
Date: November 1983 - July 1988
Location: Kneza Viseslava 66, Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Company: Republic Hydrometeorological Institute
Position: Adviser for Water Quality
Description: Water quantity issues (data collection and processing, statistical data processing)
133
PHARE CV FORMAT (not more than four pages)
1. Family Name:
Djordjevic
2. First Name:
Sreten
3. E-mail:
ecolawgica@ptt.yu
4. Mailing Address:
Hajduk Veljkova 4, 14000 Valjevo, Serbia/Yugoslavia
5. Contact phone
+381 14 232 636; +381 64 164 22 48
numbers:
6. Date and place of birth:
09.01.1969
7. Nationality:
Serbian
8. Civil status:
Married with two children's
9. Education:
Lawyer
Institution: University of Belgrade
Date: 1999, November
Degree: B.A.
Institution:
Date:
Degree:
10. Language skills: (1 to 5: 1 lowest - 5 fluent)
Language. Speaking
Writing
Reading
English 4 4 4
11. Other skills:
Presentation skills, excellent organizational skills, Computer literacy:
Windows, Desk Top Publishing, Internet publishing , diving, driving.
12. Present position:
President of the Ecological Society "Gradac", Valjevo
Director of " Legal advocacy center " in Serbia, "Centar za eko-pravnu
pomoc"
13. Years with the Firm:
Ten years
14. Key qualifications:
Lawyer, Environmental law expert, experience in work with NGOs,
managerial experience (10 years of experience of working in national
environmental NGOs), Organizational and communicational skills,
project management, lectures and Presentation skills, Regional
experience, Ability to work independently.
15. Specific Eastern European countries experience:
Country Date
16. Professional experience record:
(Start with last place first)
Date: 2003.
Location: Valjevo, Serbia
Company: "Legal advocacy and advisory center"- "Centar za eko-pravnu pomoc"
Position: Director
Description: First environmental legal advocacy/advisory center in Serbia, based on
cooperation with other environmental lawyers and relevant NGOs. Specific
advocacy/advisory activities, focused on specific issues of environmental law,
such as nature protection, EIA and IPPS procedures, public participation in
decision making procedures, right to env. Information, legislative analysis in
environmental matters etc.
134
Date: 2003.
Location: Belgade
Company: OSCE Mission in SCG
Position: Consultant for legal environmental matters
2001
Date:
Location: Valjevo
Company: Ecological Society "Gradac"
Position: President
Description: Organize meetings, co-operate with the media and other NGOs, make contacts
with governmental institutions and international funds and organizations, co-
ordinate the activities of the whole NGO, Managing the NGO staff, representing
organization on the meeting and such events.
Date: 2001
Location: Belgrade
Company: Directorate for environmental protection
Position: Working group for the ratification and implementation of the Aarhus Convention.
Description: Access to Justice in Environmental Matters - Project Coordinator
Date: 2000.- 2002.
Location: Valjevo
Company: County Court Valjevo
Position: Judge Assistant
Description: Dealing with criminal and civil issues
17.
Participated: Seminar "Wide view" , environmental programs of the Political
Seminars/Trainings parties in Yugoslavia; Round table "Public participation in the decision making
process" organized by The Regional Environmental Center for Central and
Eastern Europe-Country office Yugoslavia; Workshop on UNEP and UN/ECE
environmental conventions in FR Yugoslavia , organized by Directorate for
environmental protection Ministry for health and environmental protection of
Serbia, Belgrade 2001. , Capacity building procedures for EIA and IPPC (REReP
1.4), Workshop Yugolex, Conference on Prioritization on Environmental
Law Drafting Needs in SE Europe (Bosnia and Herzegovina, REReP 1.3), 10.
OSCE Economic Forum (Prague, Czech Republic), Lucca Conference
2002. (Italy 2002.) , First meeting of the Aarhus Convention Task force on
Access to Justice (Brussels 2003.), Member of the Serbian ministerial
delegation on The Fifth Conference on "Environment for Europe" process
(Kiev 2003.), Conference on Post Kiev process in Serbia and Monte Negro
(Belgrade, 2003.), Around table on Agency for natur protection in Serbia
(Belgrade 2003.), Sinaia Meeting of EANSEE members (Romania 2003.), Second
meeting of the Aarhus Convention Task force on Access to Justice
(Geneve 2003.), Ohrid Meeting of EANSEE (Macedonia 2003.), Pula Meeting of
EANSEE (Croatia 2004.),
Lectures: Seven seminars within the project "With school in natural protected
area" Valjevo 2004., Four seminars "Public participations in the Tisa river basin",
organized by
Danube environmental forum Yugoslavia, Two Seminars "NGO Management"
Lectures for Aarhus convention and Management in natural protected areas
organized by Belgrade open school, Seminar "Public participation in process of
preparation of LEAP" Prokuplje, Leskovac and Smederevo Serbia, Moderator on
First preparatory meeting for Kiev Conference "Environment for Europe"
Belgrade 2003., Milocer preparatory meeting for Kiev Conference "Environment
for Europe" (introduction), Monte Negro 2003., Seminar "First step", Valjevo
2003., NGO managing in natural protected areas, Valjevo 2003.
18.Expert work
135
Environmental law consultant on Project ,,Legal consultancy for the drafting of a
regulation on the conditions and procedure for a risk based definition of the
liability of the state for past environmental damage caused by enterprises under
privatization", Belagrade 2004., Expert and advisor on REC CO YU Public
participation seminars, Co - author of the Needs Assessment for the
development of on implementation strategy for the Aarhus Convention in Serbia
in the framework of the project " Support Developing Strategies for the
Implementation of Aarhus Convention"(REReP 2.2), Analytic assessment of the
Environmental draft law under the OSCE Support to Environmental Legislation
and Institutional Structuring in Serbia Program, Member of working group for
accesses to information within the project "Yugolex"- harmonization of present
Yugoslav law with EU directives.
19 Publications
Co-author of the " The Right to Adequate Environment", comparative
analysis of the Aarhus Convention and relevant Yugoslav legislation,
Belgrade 2001.
Author of the "Guideline for NGO's on Access to information, Public
participation and Access to justice in environmental matters and
practice in Serbia ", Belgrade 2003.
136
A8
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRP 3.4 TOR
UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project
Terms of Reference
"Enhancing Access to Information and
Public Participation in Environmental
Decision Making"
(Project Output 3.4)
Draft, May 24, 2004
137
OBJECTIVE 3:
Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision
making and reinforcement of community actions for
pollution reduction and protection of ecosystems
Output 3.4: Enhancing Support of Public Participation in Addressing Priority Sources of
Pollution ("hot spots") through Improved Access to Information in the Frame of the EU
Water Framework Directive
1. Background
1.1.
Introduction
The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), with
support of the Danube Regional Project (DRP) has identified the participation of the
public in environmental decision making as one of the key elements for sustainable
improvement of the environmental condition of the Danube and its tributaries. Improved
laws, regulations and self-imposed industry restrictions can only be enacted successfully
if the various stakeholders who are either polluters or beneficiaries of a cleaner
environment, or like in many cases both at the same time look for common ground
and accept joint action as a part of win-win-solutions.
Directives of the European Union that implement the Aarhus Convention and the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) recognize that people are a necessary part of improving
shared water bodies such as the Danube, and that the foundation-stone of public
involvement in making environmental improvements is information. Despite this, in
many countries in the Danube Basin there are barriers to public access to environmental
information that need to be identified and overcome in order to facilitate effective public
participation in water basin management planning, as mandated by public participation
provisions of the WFD and the Aarhus Convention.
For this reason, the ICPDR recognizes the need to build capacity in government officials
who manage water and environment related information, to assure that they have the
tools and comprehension to make information available to individuals and NGOs, to, in
turn, improve the chances that all parts of society will take responsibility in the
necessarily joint efforts toward a cleaner Danube River.
The DRP supports the creation of enabling structures for public participation on basin-
wide, sub-basin, national and local levels. Public participation strategies for all these
levels have been discussed at a joint DRP/ICPDR workshop in Bratislava in April 2003.
Following this workshop, a sub-group of the River Basin Management Working Group,
including the DRP, ICPDR, WWF, REC and GWEP, developed a Danube River Basin
Strategy for Public Participation in River Basin Management Planning, 2003-2009. The
ICPDR adopted the strategy for the Danube River Basin level and recommended to the
Danube countries to implement the strategy at the other levels as well.
In order to gain momentum, UNDP/GEF has allocated extra funds for a new project
component, which particularly is meant to support emerging processes of improved
138
public participation in environmental decision making, with emphasis on better access to
environmental information in decision making on hot spot prevention and cleanup. The
component will build capacity in government officials who are the "front lines" of access
to information and responsible for implementing public participation in the various stages
of the WFD planning process and in decision making at Danube hot spots, through
targeted training and technical assistance activities carefully tailored to the needs and
circumstances of each country. The NGOs involved in the Danube and water-related
issues and active at the national or local level WFD and Aarhus activities will also benefit
from the project as main partners of officials regarding public participation among the
stakeholders and when carrying out project activities. The objective of these activities is
to facilitate the development of country-specific, practical, legal and institutional
measures to improve public access to water-related information in each of the
participating countries. Implementation of these measures will in turn support full and
effective public involvement in WFD planning and prevention and cleanup of Danube hot
spots in a sustainable manner, long after the GEF-funded DRP has been completed.
The UNDP/GEF DRP conducted a multi-stakeholder workshop to begin planning the
new component 3.4 in Zagreb in August 2003. This workshop yielded the following
guidance on design and implementation of the new component:
The WFD and the Aarhus Convention, as well as other relevant EU directives and
international agreements, as tools for Access to Information, provide the legal base for
the project component 3.4.
The ICPDR, as a co-executing agency of the DRP and as a primary beneficiary, has a
guiding role in the project component. The Consultants, given their experience
conducting the pilot project on which component 3.4 is based, should closely collaborate
with ICPDR on planning and implementing the project. The DEF as a network of NGOs
should both help in the implementation of the project as well benefit from the project in
terms of institutional strengthening.
Support to the implementation of the ICPDR Public Participation Strategy should be one
key objective of the new project component.
The new project component is closely related to other outputs of the DRP and needs to be
integrated with these.
This project, while being implemented in 5 selected countries, has a strong regional
impact and should be used for general improvement of access to environmental
information in support of public participation in water related issues, particularly with
respect to the WFD, via the structures provided by the ICPDR.
The demonstration of how enhancing access to information helps to facilitate public
participation in decision making on hot spot clean-up is a key part of this new project
component. Therefore, to assure maximum impact, demonstration sites on hotspots
should be selected on base of the hotspots identified in the ICPDR EMIS database.
A project component (3.4) steering mechanism should be established to provide guidance
on project implementation.
The workshop participants also suggested initial considerations for country-specific
measures, which should be taken into account in the Inception Phase.
In a stakeholder analysis, carried out in Baden/Austria in December 2003, ICPDR
experts, members of governments, DRP, and NGOs defined first steps of a strategy to
139
involve stakeholders in the implementation of the EU WFD and how to define
stakeholders at the Danube river basin level. The important work done there is critical in
identifying stakeholders and developing stakeholder involvement mechanisms programs
at the Danube River Basin level. Similar mechanisms may be created at other levels as
well, which the Output 3.4 should consider among the methods of involving the public
and other stakeholders.
1.2. Requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
The EU WFD entered into force in December 2000. It has a strict and binding plan of
implementation with detailed steps that EU member countries have to put into practice
over the coming 10 years. None of the countries involved in component 3.4 is an EU
Member State. Romania and Bulgaria are to become Member States in 2007. There is no
specific timeframe for accession by Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and
Montenegro, and Croatia will only start negotiation on accession in 2005. . Nevertheless
all five countries have indicated that they shall implement the requirements of the WFD
in their national legislative and policy frameworks, starting before 2007.
The central feature of the WFD, around which all its other elements are arranged, is the
use of river basins as the basic unit for all water planning and management actions. This
recognises that water respects physical and hydrological boundaries, but not political and
administrative limits. Mainly through the development and implementation of River
Basin Management Plans, the overall environmental objective of the WFD is the
achievement of `good status' for all of Europe's surface- and ground-waters. As a
consequence, WFD implementation should involve a vast range of stakeholders, ranging
from individual consumers, major water-using sectors such as agriculture and industry,
and secondary uses like water-based recreation, to water supply/treatment companies,
scientists, nature conservationists and the authorities involved in planning land and water
use at local, regional, national and international levels.
According to the provisions of the WFD the public is to be informed about the definition
of river basin characteristics and it is to be actively involved in the drafting of river basin
management plans and the consequent programmes of measures. The practical
implementation of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention with respect to public access
to information and related public participation, including concrete mechanisms,
procedures and practices, will at the same time effectively give "teeth" to the PP
requirements of the WFD.
In addition to the WFD, recently developed and adopted EU directives on public access
to environmental information and public participation in decision-making will implement
the related obligations under the Aarhus Convention in EU legal instruments. These
directives will need to be taken into account in the project implementation.
1.3.
Requirements
of
the Aarhus Convention
The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-
making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25th June 1998
in the Danish city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the 'Environment for
Europe' process. It has been signed by most European countries, including several
140
countries in the Danube region. The Convention entered into force in October 2001 and
to date 27 countries have ratified or acceded to it, including Romania and Bulgaria. Other
countries that will also participate in component 3.4, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro and
Bosnia and Herzegovina have shown interest in ratification and have been developing
strategies to go about achieving this.
The Aarhus Convention links government accountability and environmental protection. It
focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context
and it is forging a new process for public participation in the negotiation and
implementation of both effective domestic environmental requirements and potentially of
international agreements. The Convention is not only an environmental agreement, it is
also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness.
The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on Parties, and thus on
public authorities, obligations regarding access to information and public participation
and access to justice in environmental matters. Despite signature and in some cases
ratification of the Aarhus Convention, and the remarkable progress in several of the
Danube countries, there is still lack of the kind of good practices that are necessary to
translate the precepts of the Aarhus Convention from words to deeds. Bulgaria,
Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Serbia and Montenegro have developed
strategies for the implementation of the convention and have carried out capacity building
activities to put the convention in practice. Output 3.4 will particularly be related to the
first two pillars, access to information and public participation, and will link them to
water related matters.
1.4. Lessons Learned from a Pilot Project in Hungary and
Slovenia
UNDP/GEF has already completed a pilot project that was implemented in two countries,
which led to the dissemination of results to more countries of the Danube region and the
design of the new DRP project component 3.4. From 2000 to 2002, the project for
improved access to information has been successfully implemented in Hungary and
Slovenia. Important lessons that can be learned from the project were drawn up in an
evaluation as:
In an effort such as this to make changes as substantial as mandatory efforts to
provide citizens and stakeholders with access to environmental information currently
in the hands of the government, it is imperative to develop strong, genuine support of
high-level officials.
If government priorities are changed in the course of project implementation, other
stakeholders should put in an extra effort to achieve the goals of the project. Well-
designed capacity building activities targeted at NGOs which can generate pressure to
implement determined changes, are certainly of a high benefit.
A vast amount of effort is required to convince governments of the importance of the
Aarhus Convention implementation.
Well prepared workshops and a facilitated exchange of qualified arguments are
simple ways of achieving a seemingly complicated change of attitudes, elimination of
141
prejudice and ultimately a change of general practice. Active participation of foreign
experts enriches the project by contributing invaluable practical experience with well-
developed access to information systems.
It is important for countries in transition to have the opportunity to observe the experience of
the countries with well-developed, mature systems of access to information, where the
"growing pains" have been completed. This aspect, including through the use of well-
prepared study tours, provides motivation for officials and examples for NGOs.
It is advisable to allocate resources more in the field of intensive in-country capacity
building, or in designing a comprehensive training system for relevant officials.
Country driven and bottom up approaches; workshops based on the needs of
participants are considered self-evident features of similar project activities
Access to information, public participation and other Aarhus related themes present
a meaningful investment for GEF and UNDP. The project can result in a much better
understanding of the issue of access to information, shaping the new form of relations
between stakeholders, capacity building and mobilization of sources capable to implement
concrete changes.
2. Objectives
2.1. Overall
objective
DRP
The long-term development objective of the DRP is to contribute to sustainable human
development in the Danube River Basin (DRB) through reinforcing the capacities of the
participating countries in developing effective mechanisms for regional cooperation and
coordination in order to ensure protection of international waters, sustainable
management of natural resources and biodiversity. In this context, the DRP supports the
ICPDR, its structures and the participating countries in order to ensure an integrated and
coherent implementation of the Strategic Action Plan 1994 (revised 1999), the Common
Platform, the ICPDR Joint Action Program (approved by the ICPDR Plenary in
November 2000) and related investment programs in line with the objectives of the
DRPC.
The overall objective of the DRP is to complement the activities of the ICPDR required
to provide a regional approach and global significance to the development of national
policies and legislation and the definition of priority actions for nutrient reduction and
pollution control with particular attention to achieving sustainable transboundary
ecological effects within the DRB and the Black Sea area.
Taking into account the basic orientations of the Danube/Black Sea Basin Programmatic
Approach, the DRP, in its Tranches 1 and 2 facilitates implementation of the Danube
River Protection Convention in providing a framework for coordination, dissemination
and replication of successful demonstration that will be developed through investment
projects (World Bank-GEF Strategic Partnership, EBRD, EU programmes for accession
countries etc.)
142
2.2. Specific
objective
of Phase 2 of the Project
The specific objective of Phase 2 of the Project, December 2003 November 2006, is to
set up institutional and legal instruments at the national and regional level to assure
nutrient reduction and sustainable management of water bodies and ecological resources,
involving all stakeholders and building up adequate monitoring and information systems.
To reach these goals and to secure the implementation and consolidation of those basin-
wide capacity-building activities, the Project has to build up on the results achieved
during the 1st Phase of the Project (December 2001 November 2003).
The following immediate objectives are designed to respond to the overall development
objective:
(1) Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water management;
(2) Capacity building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improvement of
water quality and environmental standards in the Danube River Basin;
(3) Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision making and reinforcement of
community actions for pollution reduction and protection of ecosystems;
(4) Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to control transboundary
pollution, and to reduce nutrients and harmful substances.
2.3. Specific Outcome 3.4: Enhancing Support of Public
Participation in Addressing Priority Sources of Pollution ("hot
spots") through Improved Access to Information in the Frame
of the EU Water Framework Directive
An additional component 3.4. in the frame of the Danube Regional Project will strengthen and
enhance the GEF priority of community involvement and reinforce the capacities of the ICPDR to
implement the elements on public participation in the EU WFD.
The purpose of the new project component is to strengthen and institutionalise access to
information and public participation in addressing priority sources of water pollution in the
Danube River Basin ("hot spots"), in the frame of the EU Water Framework Directive.
The component, to be implemented in 2004-2006, will build national capacity in selected Danube
countries on implementation of public access to information on Danube pollution and thereby
support public participation in decision making on hot spot cleanup and prevention. The
following countries have been selected for implementation of the project component:
Bulgaria
Bosnia i Herzegovina
Croatia
Romania
Serbia and Montenegro
The project component will work at the national, local and river basin levels, as appropriate, to
promote capacity building and mutual learning, develop specific solutions tailored to the needs of
the partners, using workshops and other tools including exposure to relevant experience in other
countries in the region and elsewhere, through targeted training, technical assistance, study tours
143
and other mechanisms. It would primarily focus on government officials but also include citizens,
communities and NGOs, specifically through the concrete mechanism of efforts to implement and
facilitate access to information.
In a stakeholder analysis workshop held in Zagreb, Croatia in Aug. 2003, national representatives
stated their support for the project and indicated preliminary interests that will be further defined
during a Needs Assessment phase.
It is expected that the project will also have positive consequences for other countries of the
Danube basin, by working through it to find and if possible implement concrete steps for
improvement in the way ICPDR itself handles access to information and public participation, as
well as by disseminating lessons learned and successful models on a wider scale in the Danube
River Basin.
The Purpose of the Present TOR is to assist the participating countries in building capacity and
developing country-specific legal, institutional and practical measures to promote public access to
environmental information, and related public participation through technical and logistical
support to the wide range of project partners in the Danube Basin, for the achievement of the
above objectives.
3. Expected Results and Services
3.1. Inception
Phase
The project wil be implemented in two phases:
A) Inception Phase (2-4 months), during which the following activities shall be completed:
Establishment of project structures;
Mobilization of national teams;
Mobilisation of national experts, in close consultation with the DRP management team;
Review of relevant information, identification of inputs required and initiation of Needs
Assessment;
Conduct of five national project consultation meetings and/or other means to assure
stakeholder ownership and input at the national level;
Identification of criteria for selecting local demonstration project sites. Examples of
criteria could be grave pollution problems, priority given to sites with transboundary
pollution impacts, government willingness to participate, local stakeholder initiatives
already started that need support etc.
At the end of the Inception Phase, the Consultant shall present an Inception Report outlining
the main findings, outcomes from the national consultation meetings (or other means for
national input,) scope of further assessment of needs, draft criteria for the selection of local
demonstration project sites, a proposed Work Plan, description of the national teams, as well
as national and international experts/consultants (including TOR and CVs).
B) Implementation Phase, within which the Consultants shall carry out the following activities
and achieve the following objectives:
Objective 1: Key national and local institutions in the five participating countries meet their
obligations in practice with regards to granting access to water related environmental
information and public participation in an enabling environment under the EU Water
Framework Directive, the Aarhus Convention and national legislation.
144
Activities in the five participating countries:
1.1 Complete a Needs Assessment on access to information on water issues, taking into
consideration especially the provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive and the
Aarhus Convention, existing legislation and enabling institutional framework for public
participation.
1.2 Work out, as necessary, reform proposals for mechanisms to overcome the barriers
identified in the Needs Assessment and to fill in gaps identified in 1.1 dealing with
improved access to environmental information in support of public participation. This
activity will be carried out in close consultation with relevant stakeholders.
1.3 Raise awareness and increase the capacity of national administration/policy makers on
issues of access to information and public participation.
1.4 Support the establishment and strengthening of the enabling institutional framework for
access to information and related public participation on the national and local levels, in
support of the ICPDR public participation strategy and the identified needs under 1.1. In
this process, work closely with the national authorities to ensure their ownership and
support for any established structures and mechanisms beyond the end of the project.
Objective 2: Participatory processes are established and strengthened in selected sites in
the five countries, and stakeholders participate in environmental decision making towards
addressing water pollution problems, providing models for public involvement
Activities:
2.1 Propose water pollution hot spots in the five participating countries in the Danube River
Basin, that need to be addressed through improved access to information and public
participation. The Consultant shall identify and propose suitable sites from the EMIS
Database, using the selection criteria defined in the Inception Phase and consultations
with the national teams in the countries and with the ICPDR. The final decision on the
sites will be made at the first meeting of the Component 3.4. Steering Committee.
2.2 Guide and support local stakeholders in developing and implementing a public
participation process for each of the demonstration sites.
2.3 Monitor the progress of local demonstration projects and assess the lessons learned
regarding access to information and public participation.
Objective 3: The ICPDR provides access to information in support of public participation in environmental and water related
issues
Activities:
3.1 Assess the kinds of information ICPDR holds and how it handles active dissemination
and passive sharing of this information, making recommendations based on the
assessment, of ways to increase active and passive forms of release and dissemination.
3.2 Provide ICPDR with an overview of opportunities for public input and participation,
including observership, provided under ICPDR's current rules and policies, and under
those of a selected number of other relevant international institutions, as well as with a
survey of the experiences of current observers to ICPDR, leading to a list of options and
preliminary recommendations for ICPDR on possible improvements to its current public
participation regime
145
3.3 Support the ICPDR in the implementation of measures for improvement.
Objective 4: Project results, models and lessons disseminated in the five participating countries and the DRB
Activities:
4.1 Undertake activities to disseminate to the other DRB countries the lessons learned during
implementation and models/measures/strategies developed through component 3.4 to
improve public access to information and related public participation in the five countries
participating in the project. Such activities should include a dedicated web page linked to
the DRP web site, articles in relevant publications (Danube Watch, REC Bulletin etc.)
and regional workshops.
4.2 Develop appropriate and cost-effective mechanisms and disseminate lessons learned
within the five participating countries in respective national languages.
4. Assumptions
It is expected that the project component will achieve its purpose, if the activities as described are carried out, and the following
assumptions hold true:
· National, regional and local authorities take all necessary steps to adopt and implement in
practice legal and institutional measures, mechanisms and operational tools developed
through the project; communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders and take
appropriate action in response to public information requests and pressure; assure that all
relevant staff receive adequate training and guidance/instructions in AI and PP; provide
the resources necessary to maintain beyond the project end appropriate mechanisms to
provide public access to environmental information and improved public participation.
· Stakeholders, including polluters, individuals and NGOs, are willing and able to
cooperate in a proactive and conducive manner; take initiatives to obtain information and
use information obtained to participate in relevant decision making processes and actively
work towards solutions to Danube hot spot and pollution problems..
· There is national support from the Danube Basin countries for the role of the ICPDR in
ensuring public access to information and participation in environmental decision-making
and continued strong interest in participating in the Danube River Basin planning
processes.
This timetable is based on the proposed Activities and Timelines by the Consortium, with some
amendments (see file "040525_DRP_Comments on Activities and Timelines" for details) and
further revisions agreed to during the Inception Phase.
Activity Important
Milestones
and
Delivery
Deliverables
timeframe
(months from
project start)
Project Start: Month 1 is
September 2004
Inception Phase
Develop TOR and recruit national
TOR, CVs approved by
4
experts for Needs Assessments in the
DRP
146
5 countries
Local experts contracted
Carry out national level consultations
Consultations held
2-3
for country-specific planning and
Summary of findings in
4
feedback on access to information at
Inception Report
the ICPDR
Design detailed questionnaire(s) /
Questionnaires and outlines
4
outlines for national Needs Assessments
Mobilise national teams
National teams established
4
National experts carry out Needs Draft Needs Assessments
6
Assessments
Draft criteria for local demonstration
Criteria for local
4
projects, discuss with national teams demonstration project sites
and submit for approval to the
ICPDR/DRP
Review and assess ICPDR policies, ICPDR Assessment Report
4-6
documents and structures on access to
information
Review and assess observer and other ICPDR Public Participation
4-6
PP processes at ICPDR, research
Report
other relevant observer/PP models,
and provide recommendations to
ICPDR
Establish project website
Project website
4
Prepare detailed work plan and
Work plan
4
timeline for project implementation
Finalize Inception Report
Inception Report
5
Implementation Phase
Identify, discuss with the national
Proposals for local
8
teams potential local demonstration demonstration project sites
sites from the EMIS database, and
submitted
submit proposals for potential sites to
3.4. Component Steering Committee
members.
Circulate National Needs Assessment Preliminary National Needs
6-7
reports to national teams for review
Assessment Reports
circulated
Plan/prepare for 5 national workshops
Workshop materials
5-6
in months 6-7
(agenda, background
documents etc.)
Hold 5 national workshops to discuss 5 National Workshops held
6-7
draft Needs Assessments; identify
Workshop Reports
priority barriers and potential
147
measures to them; and plan national
capacity building and technical
assistance activities/outputs
National Needs Assessments finalised
Final National Needs
7
with gaps/priorities identified
Assessment Reports
Project logframe finalised
Final logframe
8
Preparations for First Steering
Meeting materials (agenda,
7-8
Committee Meeting
invitations, background
docs)
Preparations for First Regional /
Meeting materials (agenda,
7-8
Plenary meeting
invitations, background
docs)
Draft reform measures for access to Report on proposed design
6
information and public participation at of ICPDR reform measures
the ICPDR level
First (6-monthly) Progress Report
First Progress Report
11
First Steering Committee Meeting
Steering Committee
8
organized and held
meeting held
9
Meeting Report
Local demonstration project sites List of agreed selected local
8
selected by Steering Committee
demonstration project sites
First Regional/Plenary meeting at Regional Plenary meeting
8
REC to identify common issues for
held
joint regional workshops and plan
Meeting report
regional level capacity building and
technical assistance
Meeting of project partners
- 8
(scheduled to immediately follow
Plenary meeting)
Preliminary design of measures to
Preliminary design of
10
address gaps/barriers regarding access
measures
to information in each participating
country
Final design of reform measures for
Final design of ICPDR
11
access to information and stakeholder
reform measures
participation at the ICPDR level
Preparation of study tours in the EU Study tour programmes,
6-8
and US
agendas and participants
Technical assistance to ICPDR on
TA provided
13-23
implementation of measures as
needed
Assemble/Research/Prepare/Translate
Best practice materials
To be determined,
best practices materials on priority
based on needs
regional information access/PP issues
identified in
identified in Regional/Plenary
national workshops
meeting
and regional
148
plenary meetings
Technical assistance on regional,
TA provided
10-25
national and local level (shifting
emphasis)
Finalize implementation plans for the
Local demonstration
10
selected local demonstration projects
projects implementation
plans
Develop TOR and contract TOR, CVs, contracted
10-11
consultants for local demonstration
consultants
projects
TA and capacity building, where
- 11-21
needed, for local demonstration
projects (subsequent meetings and
activities scheduled and implemented
by local partners, with continuous
technical support by the Consultant)
Study tour in US
Study tour completed
9
Study tour report and
11
lessons learned
Study tour in EU
Study tour completed
14
Study tour report and
15
lessons learned
Second (Annual) Progress Report
Second Progress Report
16
Complete design of national capacity Report on Activities Design
13-14
building activities
Plan Second Regional / Plenary
Workshop materials
13-14
Workshop at REC
(agenda, invitations,
background docs)
Plan Second Steering Committee Meeting materials (agenda,
13-14
Meeting
invitations, background
docs)
Technical assistance as needed and
Workshop reports
14-15
holding of local demonstration
projects' capacity building workshops
Second Regional / Plenary Workshop
Workshop Report
15
Second Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting minutes
15
Meeting of project partners and
Meeting memo
15
ICPDR/DRP if needed
Dissemination Plan completed
Dissemination Plan
16
External mid-term evaluation
Response according to the
16
findings and
recommendations of the
Evaluation Report
Plan five national capacity building
Workshop materials,
16-17
workshops
agendas, etc.
Five national capacity building
Workshop reports and
17-18
149
workshops held on the development
background documents
of strategies and measures to
overcome priority barriers,
incorporating early results from local
demonstration projects, lessons
learned from study tours, and best
practice materials
Develop national reform proposals, National reform proposals
19
and technical assistance as requested
Third (6-monthly) Progress Report
Third Progress Report
23
Completion of technical support to
TA provided
23
ICPDR
Completion of demonstration projects
-
21
Final report on lessons learned from
Final report on lessons
24-25
demonstration projects
learned
Completion of country-specific
25
measures and products, and of
national capacity building activities
Fourth (Annual) Progress Report
Fourth Progress Report
28
Practical Work Products completed
Practical Work Products
26
Planning of final Regional / Plenary
Meeting Preparation
25-26
Meeting
materials
Draft Final Report with lessons
Draft Final Report
26
learned
Final Regional / Plenary Meeting
Meeting report
26
Final Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting minutes
26
Meeting of project partners and
- 26
ICPDR/DRP as needed
Final products posted on website
Website updated
28
Final report with lessons learned
Final Report
28
4. Project Management
4.1 Steering Mechanisms
The project component will be supervised by clearly defined steering mechanisms. There are
three levels of management and coordination relevant to this DRP project output (3.4):
The overall DRP Project Steering Committee at ICPDR/UNDP/UNOPS level is the
decision-making body having the overall responsibility on all project components,
including endorsement of work plans and outputs. The implementation of the project
component is under the responsibility of the DRP Project Manager.
A Component 3.4. Steering Committee will be established for this project component,
that will have the following tasks:
- review progress and provide guidance on the general project component
implementation, including work plans and associated budgets,
150
- assist the DRP in ensuring smooth project implementation,
- ensure impact of the national activities on different levels of the project,
- provide strategic guidance on the direction of the project component,
- facilitate dissemination of the component outcomes.
The Component 3.4. Steering Committee will be a representative body, one that can
provide clear guidance, but small enough to be flexible. Probably meetings would be
needed twice a year but scheduled as the needs arise. Costs for these meetings will
come from the component 3.4 budget. The Consultant will organise the meetings,
prepare all relevant materials and submit them for approval to the DRP team, which
will send out invitations. Stakeholders represented there will include:
- The ICPDR Permanent Secretariat
- DRP
Manager
- Representative(s) of consultants (up to three)
- DEF one representative, which will be a DEF speaker
- National representatives (the decision on who should represent the participating
countries will be given in the hands of the national head of delegations; it is
important to ensure that this person is also involved with and represents the
national teams.)
- ICPDR Expert Groups' representatives as appropriate (e.g. from the EMIS EG).
4.2 Implementation Arrangements
The partnership of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC),
New York University School of Law (NYU), and Resources for the Future (RFF) ( further
collectively, "the Consultant") will lead implementation of the project component, through a main
subcontract to REC, in close consultation with ICPDR and other project structures. The
Consultant shall establish a central project office in the REC premises, with a Project Manager
responsible for the internal coordination of the Consultant, for consultancy outputs and for
communication with the DRP team. The Consultant shall ensure sufficient office space,
equipment, administrative and secretarial provision as necessary to enable the experts working on
the project component to concentrate on their primary responsibilities.
In the Inception Phase, the Consultant shall assess the options for, and facilitate the establishment
of small, flexible and cost-effective coordination mechanisms in the participating countries, based
on national implementation teams, including representatives of key relevant stakeholder groups
(e.g. national public participation focal point, national Aarhus focal point if different, DEF
representative, etc.). The process for their establishment will be designed at the first national
project consultation meetings to be organized in all five countries during the Inception Phase.
The project component budget will provide resources to cover participation related costs of
stakeholders, such as travel, communication expenses, etc. In addition to the national
implementation teams, the Consultant shall aim to use the capacities of the local REC offices and
of the DEF structures in the participating countries. The proposed arrangement shall be presented
in the Inception Report, and put into effect early in the Implementation Phase.
4.3 National and international consultants
The Regional Environmental Center led team will propose consultants to the DRP management
team. Selection and contracting of consultants will be made in agreement of those two partners.
151
The Consultant shall propose the core team of key experts in their Services Proposal to the DRP
management team.
In the early stages of the Inception Phase, the consultant shall identify, consult the DRP for
approval, and mobilise national experts in each of the participating countries. The Inception
Report will provide a description of the national experts.
Additional short-term local or international experts may be hired for specific assignments as
necessary for the successful execution of the TOR. The Consultant shall aim to use local
expertise. Support of international short-term consultants will be sought for targeted inputs,
particularly those which place the project component into an international context, and those for
which national expertise cannot be found. Approval of small additional short-term international
consultancy tasks shall be obtained in written communication with the DRP Project Manager.
4.4 Role of DEF
The Danube Environmental Forum should be a key implementation partner for the
implementation of these activities. DEF will advise on the selection of demonstration sites, the
implementation of public participation mechanisms and on capacity building of stakeholders.
A DEF representative should participate in the Component 3.4. Steering Committee. DEF
representatives will also participate in the national implementation teams in the five countries.
In putting together local teams of experts/consultants and national coordination mechanisms, the
Consultant should aim to involve to the extent possible and appropriate the existing DEF
structures, in order to both draw on their capacities and build them further in the course of project
implementation.
4.5 Links to other DRP components
Most DRP components are related to the subject of Output 3.4. The components which have
particular relevance are:
Output 1.1: River Basin Management
Output 1.3: Pilot Projects for Best Agricultural Practices
Output 2.6: Capacity Building
Output 3.1: Support to DEF
Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme
Output 3.3: DRB Communication Activities
The DRP can only be successful if the various partners cooperate in the implementation of the
project. The DRP project team will therefore advise consultants involved in the implementation
on possible synergies and potential collaboration between the teams.
Capacity building plans need to be coordinated with other components to reduce inputs necessary
for design and implementation of workshops, to avoid overlaps and ensure coherence.
Results of this component need to be continually communicated in a form that is easily accessible
to other project actors. A specific dedicated project component web page linked to the DRP
website shall be established and updated in a timely manner, on which intermediate results,
152
activities, events and reports are published. Reports on the project progress shall also be
disseminated through other regional media such as Danube Watch, the REC Bulletin, etc.
4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation
A draft logical framework for the project component is enclosed to these TOR. Further detail on
the indicators, outputs and inputs will be added to the log frame based on the findings of the
Inception Phase and the Needs Assessment.
As this is an innovative component and very much work in progress, some activities will be
defined in greater detail in the course of the project.
The project component will be monitored and evaluated externally and internally. Internal
monitoring will be a day-to-day task of the consortium leader and concentrate on activities and
results. The Component 3.4. Steering Committee will review project progress, work plans and
related budgets, and will provide guidance on project implementation.
There will be an external mid-term evaluation, which will look at the results achieved and,
together with the involved stakeholders, will propose changes of the project design if necessary.
The external evaluation will focus on objectives, outputs and assumptions as stated in the logical
framework.
4.7 Reporting
Besides specific deliverables that will be produced within this project component, the following
reports shall be provided by the consultant:
- An Inception Report, four month after the project start, outlining the main findings, the
selection criteria for demonstration sites, a proposed Project Implementation Plan, TOR and
composition of the national teams, implementation timelines and inputs.
- 4 six-monthly Progress Reports (up to 5 pages) outlining progress, problems encountered, and
attached project outputs, as well as any significant changes. A work plan with associated
budget for the next 6 month period will be submitted together with the Progress Reports.
- Project Draft Final Report, at least 2 months before the project end, and Final Report at least
one month before the project end.
- Workshop documentation, including at least agenda, participants and short minutes. For some
key events, and upon advance agreement with the project team, the Consultant shall prepare
workshop reports. Advance agreement will be made during the revision of the 6-month work
plans.
All reports should be prepared in concordance with DRP guidelines for project reports.
4.8 Visibility
The Consultant is responsible to ensure that the DRP support is appropriately acknowledged, and
the project logo is prominently displayed in all briefings, newsletters, press conferences,
presentations, invitations, signs, promotion materials and all other items produced by the project
component. Before initiating any communication related to the activities under the project
component or visibility action, the Consultant must contact the DRP staff responsible for
153
communications to ensure compliance with the UNDP/GEF communications and visibility
policies.
Attachments:
List of background documents to be taken into account by the consultant
154
Annex I : International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River
1. Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the river
Danube
2. Rules of Procedure ICPDR
3. Legal Status of the Signatory Parties, Participants with Consultative Status and
Observers to the Danube River Protection Convention
4. Detailed Guiding Criteria for granting Observer Status
Annex II : International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine
1. Convention on the protection of the Rhine
2. Rules of procedure and financial regulations of the ICPR
Annex III : International Commission for the protection of the Meuse river
1. Convention on the protection of the Meuse
2. Rules of organizational and financial procedure
Annex IV : International Sava River Basin Commission
1. Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin
2. Statute of the International Sava River Basin Commission
3. Draft Rules of Procedure of the Sava Commission
4. Draft stakeholder involvement strategy
Annex V : Great Lakes Commission
1. Great Lakes River Basin Compact
2. Great Lakes Commission Bylaws
3. Role and responsibility of observers
Annex VI : OSPAR Commission
1. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic
2. Rules of Procedure of the OSPAR Commission
Annex VII : Border Environment Cooperation Commission
1. Agreement concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation
Commission and a North American Development Bank
2. Rules of Procedure Board of Directors
3. Procedures regarding public notice
4. Project Certification Criteria
5. Procedures regarding complaints from groups affected by projects
Annex VIII : North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
1. North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
2. Council Rules of Procedure
3. Joint Public Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure
4. Framework for Public Participation in CEC Activities
Annex IX : Aarhus Convention
155
1. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
2. Draft guidelines on promoting the application of the principles of the Aarhus
Convention in international forums
3. Rules of Procedure
Annex X : European Commission Proposal for a Regulation on the application of
the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to
EC institutions and bodies.
1. Proposal for a Regulation on the application of the provisions of the Århus
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC institutions and bodies
156
ANNEX I
1. Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the
river Danube
Part III: International Commission
Article 18 Establishment, tasks and competences
(...)
6. The International Commission decides on the cooperation with international and national
organizations or with other bodies, which are engaged or interested in the protection and water
management of the river Danube and of waters within its catchment area or in general questions
of water protections and water management. This cooperation is directed to enhancing
coordination and to avoiding duplication.
2. Rules of Procedure ICPDR
6. Signatory Parties, observers and participants with consultative status
Unless the International Commission decides otherwise, Signatory States to the Convention,
Participants with Consultative Status and Observers may take part in the meetings of the
International Commission in accordance with the relevant provisions of the ICPDR documents:
"Legal status of Participation and Observership under the DRPC" (IC/010) and "Detailed guiding
criteria for granting Observer status" (IC/020)."
3. Legal Status of the Signatory Parties, Participants with Consultative
Status and Observers to the Danube River Protection Convention
I. Definitions
1.1 "Convention" means the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use
of the Danube River (Danube River Protection Convention), done at Sofia, on 29th of June 1994.
1.2 "Contracting Party" means a State or a regional economic integration organization that signed
and ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the Danube River Protection Convention and for
which this Convention is in force. 1.3 "Signatory Party" means a State or a regional economic
integration organization that signed the Danube River Protection Convention before the date of its
entry into force (the 22nd of October 1998) and for which this Convention is not yet in force,
because of the non-ratification, non-acceptance, non-approval or because the 90 days period after
the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval did not expire yet.
1.4 "Participant with consultative Status" means a State or regional economic integration
organization as referred to in Article 28 of the Convention, unanimously invited by the
Contracting Parties to participate to the activities in the framework of the Convention.
1.5 "Observer" means an international or national organization or other body as referred to in
Article 18 (6) of the Convention invited by the International Commission to participate to all or
only selected activities in the framework of the Convention.
1.6 "Interim Period" means the period before the entry into force of the Convention.
157
1.7 "International Commission" means the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River (ICPDR) established by Article 18 of the Convention.
1.8 "Steering Group" means the group consisting of the heads of the delegations to the
International Commission.
1.9 "President of the International Commission" means the member of the delegation to the
International Commission that holds the Chair of the International Commission, nominated to
become President according to Annex IV, Article 2 of the Convention.
1.10 "Secretariat" means the Permanent Secretariat established by Annex IV, Article 7 of the
Convention.
1.11 "Executive Secretary" means the person appointed by the International Commission
according to Annex IV, Article 7 of the Convention.
(...)
III. Observers
6. Rights and Duties
6.1 to be informed, by the Secretariat, of the date, place and agenda of the meetings and of the
activities in which they are entitled to participate.
6.2 to have access to the documents of the International Commission and its bodies in accordance
with the decisions of the Commission.
6.3 to participate in meetings organized in the framework of the Convention in which they are
entitled to participate with the possibility to express their position and views and to have them
reflected in the relevant documents.
6.4 to take part in the programs and contribute to the projects initiated under the auspices of the
Convention in which they are invited to participate or to make any other voluntary contribution.
6.5 to reflect in their practice the principles and goals of the Convention.
7. Procedure of granting the Observer Status
7.1 Having in view the interest of participation the Observer status may be granted by the
International Commission for a limited or unlimited period of time, for all or only selected
meetings and activities in the framework of the Convention. The Executive Secretary shall
address a letter of invitation to the future Observer, containing these elements of the Observer
Status.
7.2 The detailed criteria for granting Observer Status shall be elaborated by the Secretariat and
adopted by the International Commission.
IV. Common Rules concerning the Decision-making
8. The Signatory Parties, the Participants with Consultative Status and the Observers cannot take
part in the process of adopting decisions during the meetings in the framework of the Convention
in which they are entitled to participate.
4. Detailed Guiding Criteria for granting Observer Status
(...)
3. Criteria deriving from the DRPC's implementation
158
3.1 The general conditions under which candidates are admitted to get Observer Status to the
ICPDR are the following:
(a) the goals and basic principles of the DRPC acknowledged;
(b) the existence of specialized technical or scientific competence or of other
competences relating to the goals of the DRPC;
(c) the existence of a structured permanent administration;
(d) the mandate to speak as accredited representatives.
3.2 Supporting the effective implementation of the DRPC the observership to the ICPDR is
intended to focus on particularly competent partners and to meet additional criteria in terms of
efficiency:
(a) partners within the Danube River Basin being strongly interested or even engaged in
the Danube protection and water management; the latter, sharing the goals and even the
implementation of the DRPC through their specific activities, are the most important
partners to basin-wide coordination (as provided by the EU-Water Framework Directive);
(b) partners outside the Danube River Basin being strongly interested and ready to
stimulate and even support the development under the DRPC, in particular those being
familiar with the tasks of large River Commissions;
(c) preference for basin-oriented cooperation and coordination, which cannot be left to
current activities other than observership; this applies to both, GOs and NGOs. Small
River Commissions can be involved through the governmental delegations acting on both
sides. Specific groups of potential partners can be represented by one relevant umbrella
organization, to which observer status is granted;
(d) an overall criterion serving the DRPC's implementation is to get well balanced
participation both as to the provisions to be covered and to the interests represented;
(e) these criteria, although having in mind the best effective support and input to the
activities under the DRPC, do not mean any priority ranking or discrimination of
potential partners. An open-ended List of Candidates for granting the Observer Status is
given with the Annex.
4. Application and admission
4.1 There are two ways for taking the first initiative leading to the Observer Status granted, for
both the criteria for application, admission do apply accordingly:
(a) the candidate interested in becoming observer to the ICPDR on its own initiative
comes in with a formal application or at least with an informal request, which is the usual
way;
(b) the ICPDR, driven by its specific interest, takes the first initiative inviting a particular
partner to apply for observership.
4.2 The application for recognition by the ICPDR is to be addressed to the Secretariat and has to
contain the following:
(a) a description of the candidate including its competences and experience available for
making inputs to the ICPDR;
(b) the reasoning concerning the foreseeable benefit, of which this input will be for the
ICPDR's activities; expected input by the ICPDR to the candidate in terms of reciprocity;
(c) a written confirmation of acceptance and readiness to meet the obligations imposed
according to the ICPDR's Rules of Procedure.
4.3 The letter of invitation to be addressed by the Executive Secretary formally makes known the
admission of the candidate as observer. This letter specifies the period (limited or unlimited) of
time and for which meetings and activities (all or selected ones) this status is granted. As a rule
the participation is focused on the ICPDR/Plenary meetings and/ or on relevant Expert Body
159
meetings, so as to cover both the general interests and the special needs expressed by the
applicant.
4.4 If there exists an efficient possibility being preferable for cooperation and coordination, other
than observership and convenient for both sides of partnership, the Candidate is informed
accordingly and on behalf of the ICPDR invited to participate this way in its activities.
4.5 The Secretariat invites the admitted Observers to take part in the particular meetings and to
perform any other exchange of experience and information in oral or written form via the
Secretariat, in individual case. By this invitation the Observer is informed in advance about
potential agenda items, which are to be dealt with exclusively amongst the delegations
(Contracting Parties), such as internal administrative issues.
4.6 General conditions for Observers taking part in particular meetings are the following:
(a) active cooperation in support of the ICPDR's goals;
(b) fulfillment of the President's orders regarding the meeting conduct and management;
(c) fulfillment of special arrangements made together with the ICPDR or its Expert Body
concerned.
160
ANNEX II
1. Convention on the protection of the Rhine
Article 14 Cooperation with other States, other organizations and external experts
1. The Commission shall cooperate with other intergovernmental organizations and may address
recommendations to them.
2. The Commission may recognize as observers:
(a) States that have an interest in the work of the Commission;
(b) intergovernmental organizations whose work is related to the Convention;
(c) non-governmental organizations, insofar as their field of interest or activities are
relevant.
3. The Commission shall exchange information with non-governmental organizations insofar as
their fields of interest or activities are relevant. The Commission shall in particular consult such
organizations before discussing decisions liable to have an important impact on them and shall
inform them as soon as such decisions have been taken.
4. Observers may submit to the Commission any information or reports relevant to the aims of the
Convention. They may be invited to participate in Commission meetings without having the right
to vote.
5. The Commission may decide to consult specialists representing the recognized
nongovernmental organizations or other experts and invite them to its meetings.
6. The conditions for cooperation and those for eligibility and participation shall be laid down in
the rules of procedure and financial regulations.
2. Rules of procedure and financial regulations of the ICPR
8. Co-operation with non-governmental organizations and external experts
8.1 ICPR terms for granting observer status to NGOs:
a. Acceptance of the targets and basic principles of the ICPR-Convention
b. Specific technical or scientific knowledge or other knowledge pertaining to the targets
of the Convention;
c. Well-structured administration of the organization;
d. Powers to speak in the name of the members of the organization as accredited
representative.
8.2 Applications for granting the observer status are addressed to the Commission's secretariat.
Any application for granting the observer status should be addressed to the secretariat at least
twelve weeks prior to a plenary assembly. The application should
a. comprise a description of the organization, the competence and experience it may
contribute to the Commission's work;
161
b. list the reasons for why the non governmental organization esteems its contribution of
use for the Commission's work; and
c. include a confirmation in writing that the non-governmental organization respects the
obligations under the ICPR rules of procedure.
Upon receipt of an NGO application for granting observer status
d. the Secretary General immediately forwards it to all Contracting Parties, requesting
them to make a statement on the application
e. the Secretary General distributes a summary of the statements of all Contracting Parties
concerning the application in question at latest four weeks prior to the Commission
meeting.
f. The respect of the rules of procedure establishing the observer status for the NGOs is a
prerequisite; the observer status enters into force after the meeting in which it was
granted.
If a non-governmental organization with observer status does not participate in the Commission's
work for two years in succession, the President of the Commission may decide to withdraw the
observer status.
8.3 The secretariat draws up a list of the non-governmental organizations to which the
Commission has granted observer status.
8.4 The NGOs may submit relevant documents and proposals to the Commission which are
distributed at the Secretary General's discretion and discussed at the discretion of the participants
in the meeting.
The co-ordination group decides
a. on the kind of the exchange of information with the NGOs with observer status
b. on the organization and realization of gathering written and oral statements of the
NGOs with observer status.
Unless the co-ordination group decides otherwise, hearings and technical meetings not combined
with a Commission meeting are held at the seat of the secretariat. The secretariat prepares and
supports hearings and technical meetings. It drafts a note on the outcome of the hearings and
technical meetings in due time.
8.5 The co-ordination group decides whether acknowledged NGOs and external experts are
invited to the plenary assemblies of the Commission as observers. It sees to an equilibrated
participation of the different interest groups.
Conditions of the observers' participation are:
a. constructive co-operation with a view to achieving the targets of the Commission;
b. respect of the President's instructions aimed at a proper conduct of the meetings;
c. respect of particular agreements passed with the ICPR.
When issuing the invitation, the secretariat informs the NGOs if certain points on the agenda,
such as internal affairs are discussed by the delegations only.
8.6 In agreement with the President, working and project groups decide on inviting external
experts or competent NGO representatives.
162
ANNEX III
1. Convention on the protection of the Meuse
Article 6 Observateurs et coopération avec des tiers
1. La Commission peut reconnaître en qualité d'observateur et à leur demande:
a) la Communauté Européenne;
b) des organisations intergouvernementales dont les activités sont liées au présent
Accord;
c) des organisations non gouvernementales pour autant qu'il y ait des points communs
avec leurs intérêts ou tâches ;
d) tout Etat qui n'est pas Partie Contractante au présent Accord et qui marque un intérêt
pour les travaux de la Commission.
2. Les observateurs peuvent participer aux réunions de la Commission sans pour autant disposer
d'un droit de vote et peuvent transmettre à la Commission toute information, tout rapport ou toute
opinion relatifs à l'objet du présent Accord.
3. La Commission échange des informations avec les observateurs. En particulier, elle entend les
observateurs, s'il s'agit d'avis, recommandations ou décisions qu'elle estime importants pour ces
derniers, et elle les informe des avis ou recommandations émis et des décisions prises.
4. La Commission organise en son sein la collaboration avec les observateurs. Les modalités de
cette collaboration ainsi que les conditions requises à l'admission et à la participation à cette
collaboration sont fixées dans le Règlement intérieur et financier.
5. La Commission peut décider de se faire assister par des experts et les inviter à ses réunions.
2. Rules of organizational and financial procedure
Annexe I Collaboration avec les observateurs
1. Les demandes d'admission en qualité d'observateur sont adressées à la Commission. Les
organisations internationales et les ONG doivent présenter dans leur lettre de candidature une
description de l'organisation, de ses activités et de ses compétences particulières, et les
motivations de participation aux travaux de la Commission, et joindre une copie de ses statuts.
2. Une ONG peut être reconnue en qualité d'observateur, si elle répond aux conditions suivantes:
a. elle dispose de statuts et d'une organisation structurée, garantissant qu'elle peut
s'exprimer au nom de ses membres par le biais de représentants dûment mandatés;
b. elle a des intérêts, des missions et des connaissances scientifiques ou techniques
particulières en liaison avec l'objet de l'Accord et les travaux de la Commission;
c. elle reconnaît les objectifs et principes fondamentaux de l'Accord et accepte les
dispositions du Règlement intérieur et financier de la Commission.
163
3. Les ONG qui remplissent les critères précités peuvent également soumettre une demande
commune de reconnaissance en tant qu'observateur mais, dans ce cas, elles doivent désigner un
point de contact spécifique qui assurera la communication avec la Commission. En ce qui
concerne la limitation nécessaire du nombre d'observateurs reconnus, la Commission peut tenir
compte des demandes communes de plusieurs ONG, en particulier lorsque cette façon de
procéder contribue à une représentation équilibrée de différents groupes d'intérêt.
4. Pour la reconnaissance des ONG en tant qu'observateurs, la Commission est guidée par les
principes suivants:
a. tendre vers une représentation équilibrée des différents groupes d'intérêt des ONG
reconnues en qualité d'observateurs;
b. tendre vers une répartition équilibrée des ONG 'régionales' et des ONG internationales
reconnues en qualité d'observateurs;
c. limiter à un nombre raisonnable le nombre total des ONG reconnues comme
observateurs, de manière à permettre une collaboration efficace.
5 Pour les ONG reconnues en qualité d'observateurs, la reconnaissance est accordée pour une
durée limitée, correspondant au maximum à 4 années civiles consécutives. Elle peut être retirée à
tout moment par decision motivée de la Commission. La reconnaissance est renouvelable. Dans
les 6 mois qui précèdent l'échéance de la période de reconnaissance, les ONG qui le souhaitent
introduisent une demande de renouvellement.
6.Tout observateur :
a. est invité à participer aux sessions ordinaires de l'Assemblées plénières ordinaires pour
les points de l'ordre du jour qui concernent les travaux de la Commission, à l'exclusion
des points relatifs au personnel, au budget et à l'organisation interne de la Commission. Il
reçoit les documents relatifs aux points de l'ordre du jour qui le concernent.
b. peut proposer de déléguer aux réunions des groupes de projet un ou plusieurs experts
ayant des compétences particulières et pouvant apporter une contribution significative.
c. peut, sur proposition du président d'un groupe de travail et après approbation des chefs
de délégation, être invité à déléguer un ou des experts à participer à l'examen d'un ou de
plusieurs points de l'ordre du jour d'une réunion d'un groupe de travail.
d. est invité à participer une fois par an à une réunion avec les chefs de délégation
organisée spécialement à cet effet, afin d'avoir un échange de vues au sujet des travaux de
la Commission. La date et l'ordre du jour de cette réunion sont fixés par les chefs de
délégation. Les chefs de délégation peuvent se faire accompagner par les présidents des
groupes de travail.
7. Les chefs de délégation statuent sur l'admission aux réunions des groupes de travail et des
groupes projet, des experts proposés par les observateurs en concertation avec le président du
groupe de travail. Les experts admis reçoivent les documents qui les concernent.
8. Les observateurs et leurs éventuels experts, ainsi que les personnes relevant de l'article 11 du
présent règlement qui reçoivent des documents de la Commission ne peuvent utiliser ces
documents que pour leurs activités en relation avec les travaux de la Commission et ne peuvent
diffuser ces documents sous peine d'exclusion immédiate.
9 Il sera procédé régulièrement à une évaluation de la collaboration. Une première évaluation aura
lieu en 2005.
10 La Commission peut décider d'autres formes de coopération avec les observateurs.
164
ANNEX IV
1. Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin
Article 5 Cooperation with International Organizations
In realization of this Agreement, the Parties shall especially cooperate with:
a) The International Commission for Protection of Danube River (hereinafter: ICPDR);
b) The Danube Commission;
c) The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (hereinafter: UN/ECE), and
d) Institutions of the European Union.
Article 6 Cooperation with National Organizations (Authorities or Bodies)
1) The Parties agree to nominate organizations (authorities or bodies) competent for
realization of this Agreement on the part of the Sava River Basin within their territories.
2) The Parties agree to inform the Chairman of the International Sava River Basin
Commission (as established in Article 15 of this Agreement) of the nomination of the
organizations (authorities or bodies) stated in paragraph 1 of this Article.
2. Statute of the International Sava River Basin Commission
Article 3 Sessions of the Sava Commission
(...)
5) The Sava Commission may invite observers to its sessions.
Article 4 Tasks and competencies of the Sava Commission
1) In implementing this Agreement, the Sava Commission shall:
(...)
k) Cooperate and harmonize activities with international and national organizations
(authorities and bodies), and
3. Draft Rules of Procedure of the Sava Commission
Article 5 Sessions of the Sava Commission
5.6 The sessions of the Sava Commission shall be held in private and recorded, unless the Sava
Commission decides otherwise. The participation of observers to sessions of the Sava
Commission shall be done according to the procedure specified in Rule 14 on Observer Status.
Article 14 Observer status
The Sava Commission may grant observer status to states, international, regional and national
governmental and non-governmental organizations. The granted observer status may be permanent
or ad hoc.
165
Article 16 Cooperation with International Organizations
16.1 The Sava Commission shall cooperate with international, regional and national organizations.
16.2 The Sava Commission shall develop specific cooperation and coordination mechanisms with
the international organizations designated in Article 5 of the Agreement.
16.3 The Secretary may nominate Officials of the Secretariat as representatives to meetings
organized by other international, regional and national organizations.
4. Draft stakeholder involvement strategy
(...)
V. The approach to public/ stakeholder involvement
When preparing the draft strategy for stakeholder involvement, it is necessary to match the
Aarhus Convention and the EU legislation approach with the stakeholder approach.
The Aarhus Convention can give a general orientation on how to involve the "public" or the so
called "concerned public" which can be used as a general starting point. According to the
Convention, "public" "means one or more natural or legal persons, and in accordance with
national legislation or practice, their associations, organizations or groups". The "public
concerned" means "the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in the
environmental decision-making..." The "concerned public" includes as well "NGOs promoting
environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law".
The Aarhus Convention has a broader approach since it deals with public access to information
on information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental
matters. The scope of "environmental information" as well as the scope of the "environmental
decision-making" includes all information and decisions which have or may have a significant
impact on the environment and health.
The Sava Agreement deals with a number of specific issues related to the international
navigation, sustainable water management and measures to prevent or limit hazards. These issues
or decisions affect or may affect the "public" or the "public concerned" since they affect or likely
to affect the environment or health. These issues and decisions also may affect the interest of
different key stakeholders dealing with those issues.
Our aim is that the Sava initiative should also be an example for informing and involving the
public and the key stakeholders about the issues/measures and activities discussed/negotiated or
undertaken within this sub-regional initiative, as well as about the implementation of those
issues/activities or measures at the national level. It is necessary therefore to match the Aarhus
Convention's "concerned public" approach with a more specific process of stakeholder analysis
and identify those other key stakeholders as well who might have different specific interests
related to these matters.
While providing regular information about the Sava Agreement and its implementation process
should target the general public, active involvement of the "concerned public" can be foreseen
regarding the specific issues within the Sava process and its implementation.
166
VI. Levels of decision-making processes, activities or issues
The information and involvement of the public/stakeholders can happen at different levels:
- Sub-regional level: the level of the Sava Agreement where the Parties /Signatories take
decisions or measures
- National level: the level of the national decision-making process where national
governmental authorities have a responsibility to take actions
- The local level where concrete decisions will be implemented in the future including for
example projects, investments affecting or likely to affect the local community.
In the stakeholder involvement strategy, therefore, all of these levels should be addressed.
We need to clarify also, what are the decision-making processes, activities or issues in which the
public/stakeholders can be and should be involved at the sub-regional or the national level.
The provision of information and stakeholder involvement opportunities (and thus the
identification of key stakeholders) should be related to the following issues/activities and possible
decision-making related to them:
- Issues related to navigation including exchange of data and information on the water
regime, the navigation regime, legislation, organizational structures and administrative
and technical practices. Regime of navigation and related measures, activities;
- Cooperation with international organizations in the realization of the agreement
(including ICPDR, Danube Commission, UNECE and institutions of the European
Union);
- Cooperation with national organizations (Authorities or bodies);
- Regulation of "all issues concerning measures aimed at securing integrity of the water
regime in the Sava River Basin and the elimination or reduction of transboundary impacts
on waters of the other parties caused by economic or other activities". (A separate
protocol shall be developed on procedures for issuance of water law acts (licenses,
permits and confirmations) for installations and activities that may have a transboundary
impact on the integrity of water regime");
- Appropriate measures to prevent causing significant harm to other Party(ies)
- Sustainable water management including integrated management of surface and ground
water resources;
- Development of a joint and/or integrated Sava River Management Plan;
- Establishment of a coordinated or joint system of measures, activities, warnings and
alarms for extraordinary impacts on the water regime.
In addition to issues, the following activities also should be covered:
- Regular meetings of the Interim Commission (meeting of signatories), and after entry into
force the Meetings of Permanent Commission which bodies are to oversee and review the
implementation of the Agreement;
- Establishment of the International Sava River Basin Commission including development
of the details of how the Sava Commission will function and how it will be financed;
(this includes the Rules of Procedure)
- Establishment of a Secretariat for the Commission;
- Monitoring of the implementation of the agreement including establishment of a
methodology of permanent implementation of the Agreement and the activities: "timely
provision of information to stakeholders and the general public by the authorities
167
responsible for implementation of the Agreement.";
- Drafting of several protocols in the next year/s for regulating:
a) Protection against flood, excessive groundwater, erosion, ice hazards, drought and
water shortages;
b) Water use/utilization;
c) Exploitation of stone, sand, gravel and clay;
d) Protection and improvement of water quality and quantity;
e) Protection of aquatic eco-systems;
f) Prevention of the water pollution caused by navigation, and emergency situations
(...)
VIII. Public participation/ stakeholder involvement
Public participation/stakeholder involvement, as said above, also can happen at sub-regional,
national and local level. As we pointed out above, while information access should be based "on
any person" principle, in case of public participation/stakeholder involvement, the so called
`concerned public" or representatives of specific relevant stakeholder groups should be invited.
For the decision-making, activities or issues foreseen under the Sava Agreement at sub-regional
and national level, the same list of issues are considered as mentioned on page 6 and 7. There
should be national level input in each of these issues therefore, the levels are interrelated. There
should be information provided at the sub-regional level on all of these decision-making
processes, activities and issues to the key stakeholders on the opportunities for involvement.
1. Sub-regional level
At the Sub-regional level the crucial issue is whether it is possible to have public/stakeholder
involvement when the representatives of the public /stakeholders could participate in the meetings
of the Sava Commission and its Expert groups.
Three aspects are relevant in this respect:
a) What should be the form of participation
b) Who
should/could participate
c) What rights would the representatives of the public/stakeholders have in the meetings
When discussing the possible options for these questions, the abovementioned models on pages
3-4 could be followed.
The Aarhus/UNECE model
The Aarhus model is a relatively open model (See page 3), where NGOs and international
organizations can ask for an observer status by sending their registration request and can participate
in the meetings of the convention, the working groups and task forces, etc. (This is the practice of
several other UNECE conventions as well, such as the Espoo Convention, Helsinki Convention and
their protocols.) The applicants are usually accepted, although there is an encouragement through
financial assistance that the representatives of NGOs should organize themselves in coalition and the
representatives should represent a broader coalition not only one national or local organization.
Traditionally, among others, the ECO Forum is present and coordinates the involvement by a great
number of NGO groups from all over Europe. In the different specific meetings, according to the
subject, business associations are also present.
168
If the Aarhus model is followed, the Sava Commission should include in its Rules of Procedure clear
guidance and criteria on how NGOs or representatives of other stakeholders can get observer status.
In this case the language of the Rules of Procedure should be amended to ensure that NGOs or
representatives of other stakeholders can get observer status and should clarify
- who and when can get the observer status,
- what are the criteria for granting and what is the procedure of getting this status
- whether there is a registration procedure request,
- to whom this request should be submitted and who decides on the request
- what are the rights of the observers. (Can they access all documents, participate in meetings,
speak and submit documents?)
- what is the difference between the permanent and ad hoc status and who can get one or the
other.
The criteria for gaining observer status could be relevant activity in the fields to which the Sava
Agreement relates. The Rules of Procedure could include in Art. 14 the following formulation: "The
Sava Commission shall grant observer status to relevant international, regional or national
governmental or non-governmental organizations qualified or having an interest in the fields to
which the Sava Agreement relates....."
Currently the Draft Rules of Procedures in Article 14 says that "The Sava Commission may grant
observer status to states, international, regional and national governmental and non-governmental
organizations. The granted observer status may be permanent or ad hoc." If adopted this
proposed draft, this would mean that NGOs can ask for being granted an observer status but it
would not be clear when they can receive it and why.
The ICPDR model:
The ICPDR which also has very strong traditions in public participation, invited major NGO
networks or international/regional NGOs active in Danube issues such as Danube Environmental
Forum (DEF), Global Water Partnership (GWP), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). These
NGOs are invited to ICPDR meetings as well as to the expert group meetings along with
international organizations such as the REC, and recently, representatives of stakeholder groups.
The stakeholder groups include for example: The International Association of Water Supply
Companies in the Danube River Catchment Area (IAWD), International Hydrological Programme
(IHP), or the International Association for Danube Research (IAD).
The ICPDR governs these issues based on the documents, "Legal Status of Participation and
Observership under DRPC" adopted in 1998 and the "Detailed Criteria for Granting Observer
Status", adopted in 1998. These documents are planned to be updated, in the light of the
implementation of the WFD. The ICPDR approach is dual, application is possible as well as the
ICPDR may invite stakeholders to take the observer status.
If this model is followed, the Sava Commission should also invite/ensure that the representatives
of the main NGOs and NGO networks or international/regional NGOs active in Sava issues
should be invited as observers. However, the Sava Agreement includes only 4 countries and there
are less international/regional NGOs (only DEF, GWEP) involved while more national NGOs are
active .on Sava issues. Therefore it is recommendable to include also representatives of national
NGOs or NGO coalitions representing national NGOs. In addition, the key stakeholder groups
should be identified and their representatives should be invited.
169
In case of both examples the meetings are open, unless the Parties decide otherwise. Regarding
the Sava Commisson, the current draft Rules of Procedure has a different approach. The current
draft says in Article 5: "The sessions of the Sava Commission shall be held in private and
recorded, unless the Sava Commission decides otherwise. "
In case of following the abovementioned examples, the draft Rules of Procedures would need to
be amended to allow the openness of meetings.
The observers in case of both models have a right to participate in the meetings of Parties and
other meetings, including expert group meetings, have a right to speak and submit documents, as
well as access all documents.
(...)
During 2003, a process of dialogue was already started in the framework of the project "Sava
River Basin Support to Public Participation" funded by USEPA and implemented by the REC.
Four national workshops and a regional workshop was held where participants including officials,
NGOs and other key stakeholders discussed how stakeholders should be identified for
participation, who should be invited to participate and recommendations were made on possible
forms of participation at national as well as sub-regional level. A list of stakeholders was
developed in each country which can be used as a basis when stakeholders need to be identified
by Parties/Signatories or by the Sava Commission. Based on these lists, a database of
stakeholders could be developed in each country and at the Secretariat of the Sava Commission
which could be regularly updated.
The dialogue should be further continued regarding both the sub-regional and the national
level involvement and one possibility is to develop a process of identification and selection
of key representatives of major stakeholder groups starting at the national level and further
select from the national stakeholder groups representatives who would then participate in
the sub-regional level.
(...)
3. Who should be involved? Stakeholder identification
When identifying those who need to be involved as the so-called "public concerned" or the
relevant key stakeholders, specific look should be taken to the different sectors whose
cooperation is needed for the implementation of the Agreement and whose activities will be
influenced or whose activities influence the issues covered by the Agreement. The same exercise
should be done regarding the national level decision-making processes and their preparatory
phases.
"Stakeholders" can be any relevant group or organization with an interest in the respective issue
either because is to be affected positively or negatively, or has influence, or because has
knowledge, expertise or experience that is useful for the process.
When identifying stakeholders we need to look at:
- Which are the key stakeholders affected or likely to be affected by the decision-making
and activities covered by the Sava Agreement and the implementation of the Agreement
or have an interest to participate in the decision-making related to them?
170
- Which stakeholders need to be informed and/or involved in what activities or types of
activities and in what way?
The types of stakeholders may include, for example: government agencies at different levels,
local government, non-governmental institutions, political organizations, research institutes,
industries, agriculture, tourism, or different other businesses, households, etc.
We also need to look at the proposed scope of decision-making/activities/measures under the
Sava Agreement, and review which stakeholders are affected or likely to be affected and therefore
relevant to be involved in the process at the national or local level and determine what way the
stakeholders should be involved, at which stage, how, etc.
The relevant stakeholders, for our purpose, may include different authorities and those
stakeholder groups in addition to NGOs who may have different economic and other interests
connected to the Sava initiative such as business and industry associations, chamber of commerce
or economy, e.g: those connected to navigation, ports, ship owners, as well as to agriculture,
tourist industry, biodiversity issues, management and supply, quality of water, but also other
stakeholders, NGOs, professional experts, academy, municipalities, etc should be looked upon
when defining key stakeholders. The different international or regional organizations which have
valuable expertise or extensive activities in the Sava region should also be involved.
When identifying key stakeholders, it also should be discussed which stages they should be
involved in the future if such stages can be determined for decision-making. Different stakeholder
groups may have specific interests and they may not be interested to be invited to participate in all
meetings. Some stakeholders may not needed to be actively involved at all times but they need to
be regularly informed of the Sava Agreement developments (e.g. the general public). The key
stakeholders should participate and contribute to the process while others could be stakeholders
from whom some specific input is needed at certain times or on certain issues.
The process of stakeholder involvement needs to reach out to those as a minimum which will be
most affected and they should be identified and approached actively and invited to the process.
However, it is not possible to identify always all of the key stakeholders, therefore the stakeholder
identification and involvement at the same time should be open for others to participate who are
not actively approached and identified. The combination of active and targeted identification and
invitation of key stakeholders should be matched with the open approach of giving information
about the upcoming meetings and process, opportunities for involvement in broadly circulated
notice so those who there would be space for those not reached but affected/interested also could
join the process.
The steps for stakeholder identification should be the following:
1) Define the key stages of process/ key issues or opportunities for involvement (See
Section on proposed decision making/activities/issues below);
2) List stakeholders and their perspectives to the selected decision making/ issues/activities
and regarding different stages if possible;
3) Organize them in different categories/types;
4) Allocate to the identified stakeholders a concrete name, address, contact information;
5) Check results: have all stages of the process been covered? Are those who benefit or will
be negatively affected both included?;
6) Once the stakeholders are identified, the list can be ordered by identifying the degree of
171
involvement of each actor in each stage and completed with a contact list;
IX. Conclusions
There should also be a dialogue and discussion regarding the development of a strategy and
concrete mechanisms for public access to information and public/stakeholder involvement under
the Sava Agreement at the sub-regional level, including the relevant international models
proposed above as well as the model of delegating stakeholder representatives from the national
level stakeholder forums.
At the national level, existing stakeholder forums could be continued with or new ones/ could be
established including the relevant networks, NGOs and other relevant stakeholder groups. .
There should be also scope for operating and further improving/developing the proposed
structures/networks and keep the stakeholders informed and involved.
At the moment there is only ad hoc public/stakeholder involvement at the national level, apart
from the results of the mentioned EPA funded project in 2003. There is no any public/stakeholder
involvement at the sub-regional level, at the level of the Sava Commission. However, the aim of
the current draft strategy and the current ongoing project is to start a dialogue and initiate the
development and implementation of a more systematic and institutionalized involvement both at
the level of the Sava Commission and at national level by the Parties/Signatories of the Sava
Agreement.
172
ANNEX V
1. Great Lakes River Basin Compact
Article VI
The Commission shall have power to:
(...)
12. Cooperate with the governments of the United States and of Canada, the party states and any
public or private agencies or bodies having interests in or jurisdiction sufficient to affect the Basin
or any portion thereof.
2. Great Lakes Commission Bylaws
Article II Membership, section 4.
The Commission shall be permitted to designate observers representing the United States and
Canadian federal governments, provincial governments, regional organizations, or any others it
may so designate to advance the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Basin Compact.
Observers may be permitted to participate in discussions, deliberations and other activities as
approved by the Commission, but shall have no vote.
3. Role and responsibility of observers
Each observer is expected to
1. be fully versed in the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Basin Compact, and in the
structure and operation of its implementing agency, the Great Lakes Commission;
2. serve as an initial point of contact for Great Lakes-related inquiries to your agency /
organization;
3. Participate regularly in all relevant Commission activities, including regular attendance at
semiannual and annual meetings of the Commission;
4. When requested, consider membership and active participation on one or more
Commission task forces or groups addressing issues consistent with his/her areas of
interest/expertise;
5. Ensure that draft policy positions and related Commission materials are circulated for
review and comment, as appropriate, within his/her agency/organization;
6. Serve as a conduit to ensure that Commisison members and staff are well informed of
policy issues and developments within his/her agency/organization;
7. When requested by the Commission, and where possible, be available to represent the
Commission and its applicable task forces at meetings, hearings and other events;
8. Organize roundtables, workshops and other meetings, as needed, for the mutual benefit of
the Commission and his/her agency/organization;
9. Designate an alternate who is authorized to represent the Observer agency/organization in
the event that he/she is unable to attend a given event or participate in policy discussions;
10. Be accessible to Commission staff for periodic inquiries concerning Commission
business;
173
11. Where necessary and appropriate, work within his/her agency/organization to secure
financial support, in-kind services or related resources that may be required to support
activities of mutual interest;
12. Maintain an active role in Commission operations, including provision of advice, support
and feedback on all aspects of Commission activities and, in particular, setting regional
priorities and identifying opportunities for joint initiatives.
174
ANNEX VI
1. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-
East Atlantic
Article 11 Observers
1.The Commission may, by unanimous vote of the Contracting Parties, decide to admit as an
observer:
a any State which is not a Contracting Party to the Convention;
b any international governmental or any non-governmental organisation the activities of
which are related to the Convention.
2.Such observers may participate in meetings of the Commission but without the right to vote and
may present to the Commission any information or reports relevant to the objectives of the
Convention.
3.The conditions for the admission and the participation of observers shall be set in the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission.
2. Rules of Procedure of the OSPAR Commission
9. In accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, the Commission may unanimously decide to
admit
a any state which is not a Contracting Party to the Convention;
b any international Governmental organisation; and
c any international non-Governmental organisation (NGO);
to be represented by observers at its meetings. If need be, the Commission may restrict the
participation in a specified meeting of observers in any category. The participation of NGO
observers in the work of the Commission shall be governed by the Criteria and Procedures set out
in Annex 2.
20. Unless the Commission makes special provision to meet a particular need, the subsidiary
bodies shall be:
- the main committees;
- working groups;
- the Meeting of Heads of Delegation to the Commission and the Committee of Chairmen and
Vice-Chairmen;
- the Group of Jurists and Linguists;
- intersessional correspondence groups;
- ad hoc meetings included in the schedule of meetings.
23. States and intergovernmental organisations which have been admitted as observers may be
represented at meetings of the main committees and working groups, and may participate in
intersessional correspondence groups, on the same basis as for meetings of the Commission. By
special invitation of the Chairman, they may also participate in Meetings of Heads of Delegation
and meetings of the Committee of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen and the Group of Jurists and
Linguists.
175
24. Representatives of non-governmental organisations admitted as observers may participate in
the work of subsidiary bodies in accordance with the criteria and procedures set out in Annex 2.
ANNEX 2
Criteria and Procedures Governing Observership of Non-Governmental Organisations at
Meetings within the framework of the OSPAR Commission
General
1. The following criteria shall be applied in considering applications from non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs) for observer status at meetings within the framework of the Commission.
1.1 Subject to the conditions specified in the paragraphs 4 and 5 below, observer status
will be granted for agenda items dealing with issues other than management issues
internal to the Commission or the discussion of restricted documents as specified in Rule
58 of the Rules of Procedure of the OSPAR Commission.
1.2 Consideration of the suitability of NGOs for observer status shall be based on the
capability of the NGO in question to contribute constructively to the aims and objectives
of the Commission. Observer status may only be granted to an NGO with specialised
technical, scientific or other expertise pertinent to the objectives of the Convention.
1.3 Observer status will only be granted to NGOs which:
a have an organised administration;
b are international in character (an organisation shall be deemed to be an
international organisation for the purposes of the Commission only if it has
members, component branches or affiliated bodies in a number of States covered
by the Convention area);
c are authorised under their constitution to speak for their members through
accredited representatives.
1.4 Applications for observer status shall be either for such status generally or for specific
topics. The Commission shall decide in which category to approve any application.
Application and Selection Procedure
2. An application for observer status should be sent to the Executive Secretary at least 12 weeks
before a meeting of the Commission. Such applications should include:
a a concise statement about the organisation and how it meets the criteria in paragraph 1.3
above and of the expertise and experience which it could provide to the Commission;
b reasons why the NGO believes this contribution would assist the work of the
Commission;
c confirmation in writing that the NGO will respect the obligations imposed on it by these
Criteria and Procedures and any additional requirements imposed by the Commission
from time to time.
3. Following receipt of an application from an NGO for observer status:
a the Executive Secretary shall immediately distribute the application to all Contracting
Parties for comments;
b at least 4 weeks before the meeting of the Commission the Executive Secretary shall
circulate a summary of the views of Contracting Parties on such applications;
c observer status shall be granted by a unanimous decision of the meeting of the
Commission. Observer status will be subject to the acceptance of the Criteria and
Procedures governing observership for NGOs and will take effect following the meeting
at which it was granted.
176
General and Specialised NGO Observer Status
4.1 NGO observers may participate in meetings held in the framework of the Commission as
follows:
a meetings of the Commission:
two seats per delegation will be allocated to general NGO observers;
a total number of six seats will be available for specialised NGO observers. Such
observers may apply to attend the meetings of the Commission for one or more
points of the agenda. The Chairman of the Commission will decide upon the
distribution* of the seats available to specialised NGO observers.
* the aim will be to make such distribution at the latest three weeks before
the date of the meeting
b the total number of seats allocated to general and specialised NGO observers in
meetings of subsidiary bodies of the Commission will be:
8 for meetings of main Committees;
6 for meetings of working groups specified in the annual schedule of meetings
adopted by the Commission;
for ad hoc working groups, a number to be settled by the subsidiary body
establishing the ad hoc working group.
The Chairman of the meeting of the subsidiary body will decide upon the distribution of the
available seats to NGO observers requesting participation. This may include the allocation of a
seat for a limited period or for a specific piece of business. When there is no Chairman prior to
the meeting, the Executive Secretary shall decide. The host of a meeting may decide to provide
more seats for NGOs.
4.2 Any NGO accepted as an observer to the Commission may:
a submit prior to meetings held in the framework of the Commission relevant documents
to be distributed at the discretion of the Executive Secretary and to be considered at the
discretion of the meetings; and
b participate in discussions at the discretion of the Chairman at a meeting at which it has
been allocated a seat;
c make proposals at such meetings, but no proposal by an NGO shall be discussed unless
discussion of this proposal is supported by at least one Contracting Party.
4.3 Any NGO admitted as an observer to the Commission may ask to participate in an
intersessional correspondence group, unless participation is limited.
4.4 Documents for these meetings will be circulated as appropriate.
Other Procedural Conditions
5. The Commission or any subsidiary body may at any time take any appropriate action in
accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Commission if, in the opinion of the Commission
or of that subsidiary body, the conduct of an NGO is contrary to these Criteria and Procedures
relating to its status as observer.
6. The observer status of any NGO shall impose an obligation:
6.1 to recognise the basic purposes and principles of the Convention and not to hinder the
work of the Commission or of its subsidiary bodies;
6.2 to deliver only such information as is pertinent to the work of the Commission or of
its subsidiary bodies;
6.3 to refrain from using the meetings of the Commission or of its subsidiary bodies for
the purpose of demonstrations;
177
6.4 to respect the private character of the meetings and of the documents circulated for
them; and
6.5 to respect any specific requirements agreed to by the Contracting Parties relating to
the participation of NGOs at the meetings of the Commission or of its subsidiary bodies.
7. If an NGO observer does not participate in the work of the Commission for 2 consecutive
years, then the Chairman of the Commission may either determine that its observership status has
lapsed or restrict the observership to the receipt of documents.
178
ANNEX VII
1. Agreement concerning the establishment of a Border Environment
Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank
Article II Operations
Section 2. Requests for assistance
(c) In providing such assistance, the Commission shall consult with the Advisory Council
established pursuant to Article III, Section 5 of this Chapter, and, as appropriate, with private
investors and national and international institutions, particularly the North American
Development Bank.
Section 4. Relationship with the public
The Commission shall establish procedures in English and Spanish:
(1) ensuring, to the extent possible, public availability of documentary information on all projects
for which a request for assistance or an application for certification is made;
(2) for giving written notice of and providing members of the public reasonable opportunity to
comment on any general guidelines which may be established by the Commission for
environmental infrastructure projects for which it provides assistance, and on all applications for
certification received by the Commission; and
(3) whereby the Board of Directors could receive complaints from groups affected by projects
that the Commission has assisted or certified and could obtain independent assessments as to
whether the terms of this Chapter or the procedures established by the Board or Directors
pursuant to this Chapter have been observed.
Article III Organization and management
Section 3. Board of Directors
(a) All the powers of the Commission, including the power to determine its general operational
and structure polices, shall be vested in the Board of Directors. The Board shall have ten
directors:
(...)
(5) six additional directors having expertise in environmental planning, economics,
engineering, finance, or related matters, consisting of--
(i) a representative of one of the U.S. border states, appointed by the United
States in such a manner as it may determine;
(ii) a representative of one of the Mexican border states, appointed by Mexico in
such manner as it may determine;
(iii) a representative of a U.S. locality in the border region, appointed by the
United States in such manner as it may determine;
179
(iv) a representative of a Mexican locality in the border region, appointed by
Mexico in such manner as it may determine;
(v) a member of the U.S. public who is a resident of the border region, appointed
by the United States in such manner as it may determine; and
(vi) a member of the Mexican public who is a resident of the border region,
appointed by Mexico in such manner as it may determine.
(...)
(f) The Board of Directors may adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary or
appropriate to conduct the business of the Commission.
Section 5. Advisory Council
(a) The Advisory Council shall be composed of:
(i) at least one resident of each of the U.S. border states, totaling not more than six such
representatives, who shall represent states or localities, or local community groups, to be
appointed by the United States in such manner as it may determine;
(ii) one resident of each of the Mexican border states, who shall represent states or
localities, or local community groups, to be appointed by Mexico in such manner as it
may determine;
(iii) three members of the public, including at least one representative of a U.S. non-
governmental organization, appointed by the United States in such manner as it may
determine; and
(iv) three members of the public, including at least one representative of a Mexican non-
governmental organization, appointed by Mexico in such manner as it may determine.
(...)
(d) The Council may adopt such rules as may be necessary or appropriated to conduct the
business of the Council.
(e) The Council may provide advice to the Board of Directors or the General Manager on any
matter within the scope of this Chapter, including certifications pursuant to Article II, Section 3,
of this Chapter, and on the implementation and further elaboration of this Chapter, and may
perform such other functions as directed by the Board.
2. Rules of Procedure Board of Directors (no longer in effect)
Article 4: Participants in the Board of Directors' Meetings
a) Unless the Board of Directors otherwise determines, and upon the motion of any Director,
meetings at regular and special sessions shall be open to attendance by the General Manager, the
Deputy General Manager, as well as the required staff of the Directors and the Commission, and
such other persons as the Board may invite.
b) The Board, as appropriate, shall enter into confidentiality agreements with attendees of such
meetings, pursuant to Article 19(b) of these Rules.
c) At all regular sessions of the Board, the Board shall hold at least one public meeting which
shall be the subject of public notice given at least thirty days prior to the date of the public
meeting.
180
Article 5: Public Meetings
a) Any person may attend a public meeting of the Board as an observer upon registration with the
General Manager by providing his/her name and the name of the organization, if any, with which
he/she is affiliated. Attendance at the meeting is subject to the availability of space, security, and
safety considerations, with due regard to attendance by an equitable proportion from among the
nationals of each of the United States and Mexico. Persons may register in advance or at the
meeting.
b) The Board may invite any person, state, locality, or intergovernmental organization to advise
the Board on any matter relevant to the Commission's work.
c) Any persons and representatives of states, localities, and non-governmental organizations of
the United States and Mexico, and representatives of inter-governmental organizations, who have
a specific interest in requests for assistance or certification, or other matters directly related to the
Board's public meeting agenda:
i) may request to make an oral statement at a public meeting of the Board. Any such
request shall be addressed to the General Manager, and must be received by the
Commission at least fifteen days prior to the date of the public meeting.
Each request shall identify the person wishing to address the Board, the organization, if
any, that he/she represents and shall identify the subject of the statement.
The General Manager shall transmit to the Board the list of those requesting to make oral
statements together with all other information received. The Board shall determine who
may make oral statements at least ten days prior to the date of the public meeting and
shall provide notice of their decision at least seven days prior to the date of the public
meeting.
The Board, under special circumstances, may consider requests to make oral statements
received less than fifteen days prior to a public meeting.
All such oral statements shall be made in an official language of the Commission. Each
speaker should provide prior to his/her presentation a written version of his/her remarks
in one of the official languages of the Commission. The written version shall be made
available only when translated into both official languages of the Commission.
Additional written materials submitted in connection with an oral statement must be
submitted in both official languages of the Commission.
ii) may submit a written statement for formal consideration by the Board during a public
meeting.
The submission must be made in the two official languages of the Commission, or must
be submitted at least ten days prior to the meeting in one official language of the
Commission to allow sufficient time for the General Manager to translate the document
into the Commission's other official language.
If a written statement is not available to the Board in the two official languages of the
Commission, the Board shall decline to consider it at the meeting. Except as the Board
may decide otherwise, if a written statement is submitted less than ten days prior to a
public meeting, the Board shall decline to consider it at that meeting.
181
d) With respect to all oral and written statements at the public meetings, the Board shall give
priority to requests presented by residents of the localities where the projects are located, and may
set reasonable limits on the total number of statements on each matter and the time allowed for
each. Due regard shall be given to the importance of having an equitable proportion of oral and
written statements from among the nationals of each of the United States and Mexico.
e) No one may address the Board without previously having been recognized by the Chairperson.
The Chairperson may call speakers to order when their remarks are not relevant to the subject
under discussion.
Article 9: Minutes
(...)
d) All the minutes approved by the Board that summarize public meetings shall be made available
to the public. The minutes that summarize the meetings that are not public may be made
available to the public only upon a decision of the Board.
Article 14: Written Submissions
a) Any person may make a written submission to the Board at any time on any subject relevant to
the work of the Commission.
b) A written submission only may be considered by the Board if it is submitted in both official
languages of the Commission or if it is simultaneously available in both official languages.
3. Procedures regarding public notice
ARTICLE I.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Notice
The Commission must notify the public, with at least 45 days anticipation, of any public meeting
of the Board of Directors. Such notice must include the proposed agenda for the meeting as well
as the place and time the meeting will be held.
Means for Providing Notice
The Commission, taking into account the conditions in both the United States and Mexico, will
use the most appropriate means to comply with the notice requirement referred to in Section 1
above. In this sense, the Commission will give notice of the public meetings of the Board of
Directors as follows:
· Paid notices in at least two major news papers in the region where the headquarters of the
Commission are located, one on each side of the border;
· When a meeting is not held in the region where the Commission is headquartered, a
notice must be paid in at least one major news paper of the locality where the meeting is
to take place;
· If applicable, paid notices in at least one major newspaper in the communities where the
candidate projects for certification during the public meeting are located;
182
· Posting notice of the meeting on the Commission's Home Page on the Internet;
· Posting an electronic mail message to the BECCNET list server; and
· Providing such information to any person or organization who has specifically requested
to periodically receive it.
The Commission shall comply with all the requirements mentioned above, unless such
compliance is not possible due to causes not attributable to the Commission, in which case a
meeting will not be postponed.
Additionally, when the Commission considers it appropriate, it may resort to using other means to
give notice of public meetings. These means may include the following:
· Paid notices in national newspapers in both countries;
· Paid notices in major news papers in the border region;
· Paid announcements in radio and television;
· Through the publication BECCNEWS.
Registration.
Any person who wishes to attend a public meeting of the Board of Directors is encouraged to
register with the General Manager of the Commission. Registration may take place by telephone,
fax, electronic mail or in person at the Commission's offices, after public notice of the meeting,
and up to the day of the meeting, at the place of the meeting. Attendance to the meeting will be
conditioned to available space, and although the Commission will strive to provide facilities that
allow all interested parties to participate, it is recommended that registration not be postponed
until the meeting begins.
All other aspects regarding public meetings will be governed by the Rules of Procedure of the
Board of Directors.
ARTICLE II.
PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT CERTIFICATION
Notice
The Commission shall publish within the first ten working days of each month, a list of all
projects that have been submitted to the Commission for certification during the last thirty days.
This list must include the projects for which a Step I format has been submitted in accordance
with the Commission's Certification Criteria, since publication of the previous month's list. As a
minimum, the list should include the following information:
· the date of receipt of the application;
· The name of the project;
· The type of project;
· The location of the project;
· The official name of the applicant and the project's primary contact person;
· The estimated cost of the project, where applicable; and
· A brief summary of the project.
Means for Providing Notice.
The list mentioned above shall be made available to the public as follows:
183
· Placing it on the Commission's Home Page on the Internet;
· Posting an electronic mail message on the BECCNET list server;
· Sending the information to any person who has specifically requested it.
ARTICLE III.
PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
Notice.
The Commission shall publish within the first ten working days of each month a list of all
technical assistance requests that have been presented to the Commission in the past thirty days,
and a list of all technical assistance granted during the past thirty days. As a minimum, this list
should include the following information:
· Name, type and location of the project for which technical assistance is being requested;
· Date on which the application for technical assistance was received;
· Type of technical assistance requested;
· Amount of technical assistance granted, where applicable.
Means for providing Notice.
The list mentioned above will be made available to the public as follows:
· Placing it on the Commission's Home Page on the Internet;
· Posting an electronic mail message on the BECCNET list server;
· Sending it to any person who has specifically requested such information.
ARTICLE IV.
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROJECTS PENDING FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE
COMMISSION.
Notice
The Commission must notify the public, at least forty five days prior to a meeting of the Board of
Directors, of all the projects that shall be considered for certification by the Board at such
meeting. This notice must include, at least, the following information:
· A summary of the project, describing how it complies with the Commission's
Certification Criteria;
· A list of the most important project documents on file at the Commission;
· A list of all written public comments received.
Means for Providing Notice:
The information mentioned in the preceding Section must be made available to the public as
follows:
· Through the Commission's Internet Home Page;
· Making printed copies available at the BECC's offices;
· Sending it to any person or organization who has specifically requested to periodically
receive it.
184
Additionally, the Commission will send a short message to the mail server BECCNET indicating
that the information on the candidate project for certification is available to the public through
any of the means established in this section.
When the Commission considers it appropriate, it may resort to using other means to give notice
of projects up for certification. These means may include the following:
· Paid notices in national newspapers in both countries;
· Paid notices in major news papers in the border region;
· Paid announcements in radio and television.
Public Comments.
All written comments from the public regarding a project, shall be considered by the
Commission's Staff, and shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors and Advisory Council, as
long a such comments have been received at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting at
which the project will be considered for certification.
Compliance with Procedures.
No project may be certified by the Board of Directors unless the project has been given public
notice in the terms of this Article.
4. Project Certification Criteria
(...)
Community Participation
Certification Criteria
Comprehensive Community Participation Plan. Applicants must submit and implement a
BECC-approved Community Participation Plan that will consist of a local steering committee,
meetings with local organizations, public access to project information, and at least two public
meetings.
Report Documenting Public Support. Following implementation of the Comprehensive
Community Participation Plan, applicants must submit a report to the BECC demonstrating
public support for the project.
Information Required
Comprehensive Community Participation PlanEach Comprehensive Community Participation
Plan will vary with the specifics of each project and will be designed to meet the particular needs
of the community where the project will be located. In each case, the applicant must demonstrate
how the public will be meaningfully engaged in project development and implementation.
Members of the BECC Board of Directors, Advisory Council, and staff may participate, where
appropriate, in the implementation of this Participation Plan to ensure compliance with the
Community Participation criteria.
Each Participation Plan must describe how the applicant will fulfill at least the following essential
components:
· Local Steering Committee. The applicant must develop a local steering committee or
utilize an existing committee. This steering committee must be made up of
185
representatives from diverse organizations (e.g., business, civic, non-profit, academic,
governmental, educational, environmental, elected officials) in the affected community to
assist with implementation of the Participation Plan. The steering committee must invite
representation from both countries if the proposed project is located in and/or impacts
both the United States and Mexico.
The steering committee may be responsible for developing detailed outreach activities,
conducting surveys of public support, disseminating information about the project, engaging
public participation in the process, developing public education and media campaigns, attending
public meetings, preparing meeting minutes, and soliciting public support. The local steering
committee may also be involved in developing the Participation Plan.
· Meetings with Local Organizations. The applicant must meet individually with local
organizations (e.g., business, civic, community, neighborhood, academic, environmental)
affected by the project to provide information on and develop support for the project.
· Public Access to Project Information. The applicant's project proposal must be made
available to the public at least 30 days before the applicant's first public meeting. This
information must be available in a publicly accessible location during and after work
hours. As required for public meetings, the applicant must disclose the availability of the
project information in the public meeting notices.
Additionally, the applicant should utilize as many additional avenues as possible to distribute the
project proposal including, but not limited to, providing copies to the local steering committee,
providing copies during meetings with local organizations, and mailing copies to local
organizations. In the event that the project affects other communities, the project sponsor must
inform appropriate public officials from the affected communities of the project proposal's
availability.
· Public Meeting. Each applicant must hold at least two public meetings in the community
affected by the project. If the project affects more than one community, the public
meetings must be noticed to citizens in all affected communities. Notification must at
least consist of notifying public officials in affected communities.
For a meeting to be BECC-approved the applicant must comply with the following requirements :
· The applicant must provide notice of the public meeting to the BECC and publish in the
local newspaper, and other media avenues, where appropriate. The notice must also
include an accessible location where the public may obtain the applicant's project
proposal. For at least one public meeting, the notice must be posted at least 30 days prior
to the meeting.
· During the public meeting, the applicant must provide a briefing on the proposed project
and hear public comments on the proposed project. Impacts of user fees must be
presented during at least one of the public meetings. A summary document containing the
fundamental aspects of the project must be made available during the public meeting.
· The applicant must record minutes of the public meeting to include the names of the
participants and comments made. The minutes will serve as an official record of the
meeting.
The public meeting may be conducted in conjunction with public meetings required to comply
with existing state or federal laws as long as the corresponding state or federal agency agrees to
186
such and the notice of a public meeting is written and published accordingly. Report
Documenting Public Support The applicant must provide a written report to the BECC
documenting the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Community Participation
Plan. The report must include supporting documentation including a list of local steering
committee members and their activities related to the project, a list of the local meetings
conducted, copies of public meeting notices, the minutes from the public meetings, and other such
documentation demonstrating the scope and success of the Public Participation Plan. The report
should convey that the community understands and supports the environmental, health, social,
and financial benefits and costs of the project, as well as any changes in user fees.
5. Procedures regarding complaints from groups affected by projects
ARTICLE I: DEFINITIONS
Group affected by a project(s)
Two or more people who are affected in a direct and material way by one or several projects that
the Commission has assisted or certified. Members of the group must reside in the area where the
project(s) causing the effects is(are) located or in an area where the project(s)' effects are
manifested or likely to be manifested based on evidence. Groups may include an organization or
other association of individuals. The group affected by a project(s) may appoint a representative
acting on instructions as its agent.
ARTICLE II: SUBJECT MATTER OF COMPLAINTS
a) Projects about which complaints will be considered under these Procedures shall be those for
which the Commission has:
· Actually provided technical or other assistance requested by the project applicant;
· Certified pursuant to a decision of the Board of Directors.
b) A complaint under these Procedures must be based on the health or environmental effect(s) of
a project(s) or on evidence or facts which enables the complainant to foresee the health or
environmental effects of a project.
ARTICLE III: CONTENTS OF COMPLAINTS
a) The group affected by a project(s) must provide the following information:
· A description of the project(s), including how the project(s) satisfies the requirements of
Article II of these Procedures;
· A description of the facts or evidence supporting the complaint, including how the group
is affected or likely to be affected by a project(s), as defined in Article I of these
Procedures;
· Any other supplemental information supporting the complaint;
187
· Copies of any correspondence with Commission staff or with third parties, which include
the applicant of the project which is the subject matter of the complaint, and any
government agency which has participated in the project.
b) If the Complaint relates to a matter previously addressed pursuant to these procedures, the
complainant shall also state whether new evidence or changed circumstances now exist.
ARTICLE IV: FORM AND TIMING OF COMPLAINTS
a) Complaints shall be submitted in writing to the Board of Directors through the General
Manager of the Commission. If a complaint is provided in only one official language, the
Commission will ensure that it is available in both languages before it is considered by the Board
of Directors. In this case, the Commission shallbe allowed suficient time to ensure that strive to
have the complaint translated within fifteen working days from the date it was received.
b) Complaints shall be dated and signed by a member, or members, of the group affected by a
project(s), and contain the address (and telephone number, when available) of such person or
persons.
c) The representative of a group affected by a project(s) shall submit written proof, satisfactory to
the Commission, that the representative has authority to act on behalf of the group.
d) Complaints shall be sent by registered or certified mail, or delivered by hand, to the Board in
care of the General Manager.
e) Complaints shall be submitted in as timely and expeditious a manner as circumstances permit.
Specifically, complaints pursuant to Article II(a)(1) and Article II(a)(2) of these procedures shall
be submitted no later than two years from the date that the project becomes fully operational.
f) All complaints submitted in accordance with the time limitation established in Article IV(e)
above shall be formally addressed by the Board in accordance with these Procedures. All other
complaints concerning projects assisted or certified by the Commission arising after the time
limitation set forth above shall be directed to the appropriate local, state or national authorities,
and a certified copy of the complaint shall also be sent to the Board of Directors, which shall
continue to play an informal and facilitative role with respect to such complaints among the
appropriate authorities, the project sponsor and the complainant, and shall provide available
information regarding the project(s) that is the subject of the complaint.
ARTICLE V: REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS
a) Upon receipt of a complaint pursuant to these procedures, the General Manager, with the
assistance of Commission staff, shall notify the Board of Directors and the Advisory Council of
the complaint and will notify the public through the Commission's periodic publication.
Consistent with the Agreement and with the Procedures Regarding Disclosure and
Confidentiality, the notice shall consist of a brief description of the complaint.
b) The Board of Directors, with the assistance of Commission staff, shall review each complaint
received by the Commission and assess whether a complaint satisfies the requirements of Articles
II, III and IV of these Procedures. If the Board of Directors determines that any of these
188
Provisions are not satisfied by a complaint, the complaint shall be rejected, and the Commission
shall notify the complainant, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the reason(s) why the
complaint was rejected by the Board of Directors, and will publish a summary of the reasons for
the rejection in its periodic publication. Once a complaint is rejected, the complainant shall have
one opportunity to submit an amended complaint that fully satisfies the requirements of these
Procedures. If the Board of Directors, with the assistance of Commission staff, determines that
the amended complaint does not satisfy the requirements of these Procedures, the Board of
Directors shall reject the amended complaint, informing the complainant of its reason(s) for
rejecting it, and will publish a summary of the reasons for the rejection in its periodic publication.
c) If, after making initial inquiries pursuant to Article V(b) of these Procedures, the Board of
Directors, with the assistance of Commission staff, decides that further information is necessary
to adequately assess or respond to the complaint, the Board of Directors may request such
information from:
· The complainant;
· The Advisory Council
· Any other public or private institution it deems appropriate.
d) Once the file on the complaint is complete, and the Complaint has been accepted the Board of
Directors shall send it, through certified mail, to the Advisory Council so that it can evaluate the
complaint. The Advisory Council shall then prepare a report for the Board in which it provides its
recommendations regarding the complaint and the basis for such recommendations. The Advisory
Council shall strive to present its report before the next regular session of the Board. In its
analysis of the complaint, the Board of Directors will consider the Advisory Council's report.
e) If requested by the Board of Directors, Any other organization or individual may submit
information or recommendations to the Board with respect to the complaint. The brief description
of the complaint provided as notice shall be sufficiently detailed to enable the public to submit
information or recommendations to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors must keep a
file containing copies of the complaint, including any supporting information from the
complainant. The information contained in this file shall be made available to the public,
consistent with the Agreement and the Procedures Regarding Disclosure and Confidentiality.
f) The Board shall issue a determination in writing on each complaint, and shall strive to issue
that determination within two quarterly regular sessions of the Board following the date on which
the Board is notified of the complaint. The determination shall be forwarded simultaneously to
the complainant by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Advisory Council, and shall be
included in the Commission's periodic publication.
g) The Board's determination on the complaint shall include:
· A clear statement of the conclusion with respect to the complaint;
· Afull statement of the reasons supporting the conclusion;
· Steps, if any, the Board intends to take as a result of the complaint, including a timetable
for undertaking such steps.
h) The General Manager, at the request of the Board, may assist in the review of complaints.
189
i) Other than for purposes of the amendment process described in paragraph (b) of this Article,
the Board shall not consider a complaint on the same subject and from the same affected group as
a prior complaint that has already been fully considered by the Board, unless new evidence is
presented or changed circumstances exist
190
ANNEX VIII
1. North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
Article 9:
Council Structure and Procedures
(...)
4.
The Council shall hold public meetings in the course of all regular sessions. Other
meetings held in the course of regular or special sessions shall be public where the Council so
decides.
5. The
Council
may:
(a)
establish, and assign responsibilities to, ad hoc or standing committees, working
groups or expert groups;
(b)
seek the advice of non-governmental organizations or persons, including
independent experts; and
Article 13:
Secretariat Reports
1.
The Secretariat may prepare a report for the Council on any matter within the scope of
the annual program. (...)
2.
In preparing such a report, the Secretariat may draw upon any relevant technical,
scientific or other information, including information:
(...)
(b)
submitted by interested non-governmental organizations and persons;
(c)
submitted by the Joint Public Advisory Committee;
(d)
furnished by a Party;
(e)
gathered through public consultations, such as conferences, seminars and
symposia;
Article 14:
Submissions on Enforcement Matters
1.
The Secretariat may consider a submission from any non-governmental organization or
person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law, if the
Secretariat finds that the submission:
(...)
Article 16:
Joint Public Advisory Committee
(...)
4.
The Joint Public Advisory Committee may provide advice to the Council on any matter
within the scope of this Agreement, including on any documents provided to it under paragraph 6,
and on the implementation and further elaboration of this Agreement, and may perform such
other functions as the Council may direct.
5.
The Joint Public Advisory Committee may provide relevant technical, scientific or other
information to the Secretariat, including for purposes of developing a factual record under Article
15. The Secretariat shall forward to the Council copies of any such information.
(...)
191
2. Council Rules of Procedure
Rule 4: Conduct of Business
4.1 The Council shall hold public meetings in the course of all regular sessions. Other meetings
held in the course of regular or special sessions shall be public where the Council so decides. A
decision of the Council to convene a session shall be made public.
(...)
4.3 Where persons, including representatives of nongovernmental organizations, advisors and
experts, are invited to advise the Council at nonpublic regular or special sessions, such persons
shall undertake to protect information designated as confidential pursuant to Articles 11(8) and 39
of the Agreement and sign a declaration to that effect.
Rule 6: Public Meetings
6.1 The Council may invite any person, including a representative of any province, state or
intergovernmental or nongovernmental organization to advise the Council.
6.2 Any person, including a representative of any province or state, residing in the territory of a
Party, or a nongovernmental organization established in the territory of a Party, or an
intergovernmental organization, may make oral statements to the Council regarding agenda items
for public meetings, provided they are accredited as participants.
6.3 Requests for accreditation as participants at a public meeting shall be addressed to the
Executive Director. The Executive Director shall prepare a list of all person, intergovernmental
organizations, non-governmental organizations, and all representatives of provinces and states,
requesting accreditation and that have an interest in the work of the Commission. The Executive
Director shall transmit the list to the Council. The Council shall decide upon accreditation of
participants 30 days before the public meeting. The Council may consider requests for
accreditation received less than 30 days before the public meeting under special circumstances.
(...)
6.6 Non-accredited persons may attend public meetings of the Council as observers on
registration with the Executive Director, subject to availability of space, security considerations
and with due regard to the importance of having an equitable proportion of attendees from among
the nationals of each Party. If space is limited, attendance by observers shall be determined taking
into account attendance by an equitable proportion from among the nationals of each Party. Non-
accredited persons may not make oral or written statements at such public meetings.
Rule 7: Committees, Working Groups and Experts Groups
7.1 The Council may establish and assign responsibilities to ad hoc or standing committees,
working groups or expert groups as it may require to fulfill its mandate. The Council shall
establish the terms of reference, guidelines and budget for the committees and groups. The
Council may request the Executive Director to assist in carrying out these functions.
7.2 Subject to the terms of reference, guidelines and budget established by the Council under Rule
7.1, the committees and groups may seek advice and information from JPAC,
Provinces, States, participants, nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations,
independent experts and affected members of the public as necessary in order to fulfill their
mandates.
Rule 9: Agenda
9.1 All items on the agenda of the Council session shall be within the scope of the Agreement.
192
9.2 The Executive Director shall prepare and transmit lists of proposed agenda items for each
regular session. The lists shall include any items proposed by Parties, items related to the
Executive Director's responsibilities as defined in the Agreement, items proposed by JPAC and
items proposed by other interested persons residing or established in a territory of a Party.
3. Joint Public Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure
Rule 5: Functions
5.1 JPAC may provide advice to the Council on any matter within the scope of the Agreement,
including on any documents provided to it under Article 16(6) of the Agreement and on the
implementation and further elaboration of the Agreement, and may perform such other functions
as the Council may direct. JPAC reports and recommendations shall incorporate all points of view
of JPAC members.
5.2 JPAC may provide relevant technical, scientific or other information to the Secretariat,
including for purposes of developing a factual record under Article 15 of the Agreement. The
Secretariat shall forward to the Council copies of any such information.
4. Framework for Public Participation in CEC Activities
(...)
2. Goals
Building on the understanding that public participation is a two-way process, the CEC should:
(...)
d) Provide the public with a means to interact constructively with the CEC;
e) Promote opportunities for the participation of the public in all of the three countries;
and
f) Enhance the understanding of both the CEC and the public by including and
considering also those sectors of the public that are not active participants.
3. Guiding Principles
The following principles upon which the framework is based are all of equal importance:
3.1 Equity for Public Participants
To promote equity, the CEC's public participation strategies are directed toward diverse
constituents. The needs and economic requirements of diverse groups and cultures should be
recognized and actively supported. Achieving broad, equitable participation requires applying
active, innovative methods in order to offer the same opportunities in all three countries for
educating, informing and consulting varied stakeholders.
3.2 Efficiency and Timeliness
Public participation should be an integral part of decision-making at the CEC so that public views
can be considered. Public participation should begin the planning stages so that opportunities for
public input can be clearly identified and appropriately scheduled in the CEC's activities.
The public participation should be planned in such a way that the circumstances and facts are
presented and conveyed to the stakeholders in a manner that allows them to determine how best
to participate. No one set of formats for public participation is likely to meet all needs, therefore,
tailoring the format to the needs of each situation and/or sector of the public is essential.
193
Participants should be informed of what decisions the public participation process can affect and
how that particular process will affect them. Any links to other related activities (i.e., those of the
government, nongovernmental organizations, or industry) should also be described.
The purposes and goals of the public participation process should be clearly defined and
communicated in a timely manner. Public notification and the documents to be discussed at
public meetings should be sent, to the extent possible, to identified stakeholders beforehand for
their review and comments.
3.3 Transparency and Accessibility
The CEC endeavors to conduct its activities in an open and transparent fashion. The public should
be provided with all relevant CEC documents as appropriate, for their involvement in CEC
activities.
All CEC documents for a public consultation should be made available simultaneously in
English, French and Spanish. These documents should be, to the extent possible, accessible
electronically in the three languages through the CEC web site, as well as in hard copy upon
request to the CEC Secretariat.
Translation of the other documents into the three official languages will be handled in
conformance with the CEC rules on translation.
The CEC annual program and budget, proposed by the Secretariat, should be distributed, posted
on the CEC web site and be available in hard copy upon request to the CEC Secretariat. When
appropriate the project descriptions or details of programs should address opportunities for public
participation in each project.
There are several types of CEC meetings where opportunities for public participation may be
provided. The public notice of the meeting should provide information on how the public can
participate, and on any restriction that might apply:
a) Open Public Meetings: These meetings would be open to participation by all without
restriction, subject to space availability and the security of participants.
b) Public as Observers: These are meetings which are fully or partially open to the public
as observers, subject to space availability and the security of participants.
c) Public Participation by invitation: In specific circumstances, the appropriate CEC
component may decide that a meeting or portion thereof, should be focused to specific
groups or persons. The appropriate CEC component may decide that a meeting should be
closed to the public.
Documents to be discussed at an open public meeting should be made available to all interested
stakeholders in advance, for a period of not less than 30 (thirty) days, during which comments
from the public may be received.
All meetings of the public under the auspices of the CEC shall provide a service of interpretation
in the three languages of the Commission. Under certain circumstances, the participants may
decide that one or more of the official languages are not required 2 (two) weeks before the
meeting.
Information on official activities under the CEC work program should be made widely available
through all possible channels, including the CEC web site and be provided directly to
organizations in the three countries interested in CEC activities. In activities involving public
participation, details of the registration process for the public should be included.
Records should be kept of public meetings and contain minutes of the meetings. The summary
report of a meeting should include the recommendation(s) made, and should be circulated to
participants through registration addresses or whatever means the CEC deems appropriate.
3.4 Inclusiveness
194
The CEC should seek to communicate effectively with the full range of communities and
interested groups within the North American public. The CEC will seek to ensure that meaningful
opportunities for the public to be informed and able to comment on CEC activities are provided.
3.5 Financial Support
Each CEC activity and project should detail how it will involve the public and what part of the
budget has been allocated for those purposes.
Decisions on financial support to public participants, as well as the manner in which public
participants are selected, should be made by the appropriate CEC committees and work groups in
accordance with the annual work program and budget.
Financial support, when offered, will be limited to only one participant per organization for the
same meeting and will take into account the principles outlined in paragraph 3.1.
Selection of eligible candidates for financial support will be guided by the following:
a) Ensuring a wide range of views and interest--public participants should be selected
from different sectors representing a broad range of views in each country.
b) Demonstrated expertise with the topic(s) to be dealt with at the public meeting.
c) Ability to present specific, concrete and constructive proposals.
Funding for participants shall be in accordance with the CEC Business Travel Directive.
3.6 Accountability to the Public
Accountability to the public, and evaluation of public participation processes, is a key element of
successful and effective public participation requiring:
a) That clear objectives for public participation be established in advance of meetings.
b) Providing the public with information on possible next steps and decisions that need to
be taken by CEC components regarding specific subject areas/initiatives that the public
will be discussing.
c) Informing the public of how and when their comments will be considered in the
ongoing activities of the CEC.
d) Evaluating the effectiveness of public meetings. As part of overall project evaluation,
or evaluation of other CEC initiatives, public participation processes will also be
evaluated, taking into account the objectives for these sessions. This will allow for
continuous improvement of public participation sessions.
4. Public Participation Mechanisms
With respect to the goals and the principles described above, one or a combination of mechanisms
could be used for involving the participation of the public. In any case, the CEC shall strive to
promote informed public participation, taking the appropriate measures by:
a) Consulting with JPAC as one vehicle for public participation, and disseminating CEC
information to the public through the JPAC in ongoing efforts to encourage public
participation.
b) Seeking the advice of the National and Governmental Advisory Committees in
promoting informed public participation.
c) Informing the public of ongoing activities through CEC publications, such as the
Annual Program and Budget, CEC annual reports, the Eco Region newsletter, press
releases, conferences, and the CEC web site.
d) Obtaining information from the public on a specific issue via questionnaires,
interviews, forums, meetings, seminars, community and site visits, focus groups, and
Internet exchanges.
e) Consulting with the public on a specific issue through, workshops, round tables,
electronic discussion groups, and outreach programs.
195
f) Preparing and distributing reports for all CEC public participation activities, to assist
the public in evaluating follow-up decisions by the appropriate CEC body.
4.1 Directives
The CEC Secretariat shall coordinate logistics for public participation in all CEC activities.
To implement these mechanisms, some basic public participation directives should be used as
follows:
4.1.1 Open Public Meetings
a) Except in extraordinary circumstances, notice of open public meetings should be
provided no less than 30 (thirty) days before such meetings are to take place. The
purpose, objectives, agenda, date and venue of such meetings should be posted on the
CEC web site and other appropriate electronic venues such as CECNet. The Secretariat
should make available a current calendar of key CEC meetings and update it weekly. The
CEC Secretariat will coordinate the administration and logistics for the public
participation processes in all CEC activities. Other tools may be used to ensure as wide a
distribution as possible; for example, mail, fax, and advertising in newspapers or other
publications.
b) A chairperson or facilitator should be considered for specific meetings.
c) Agendas will clearly indicate when oral statements from the public may be made.
d) Individuals or organizations may submit written comments to the appropriate CEC
component even if unable to attend the meeting. Written comments received within 5
(five) days after the meeting will have the same status as verbal comments made during a
public meeting. A summary record of discussions at public meetings should be sent to the
participants and made available to the public through the CEC web site.
e) Registration for public meetings will be limited to the capacity of the meeting room(s)
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
4.1.2 Call for Public Comments
a) Any call for public comments should provide a minimum of 30 (thirty) days' notice for
review of documents. The purpose and objectives of the call for public comments and any
draft documents related to the issue should be posted on the CEC web site and other
appropriate electronic venues such as CECNet or sent to potentially interested individuals
and organizations who do not have access to the Internet.
b) All comments from the public should be sent to the Secretariat with the understanding
that they might be made available to the public.
4.1.3 CEC Contact List
The CEC Secretariat develops and maintains a list of relevant contacts. This list is used by the
CEC for distribution of information on specific issues and activities.
196
ANNEX IX
1. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-
making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
Article 3 General provisions
(...)
7. Each Party shall promote the application of the principles of this Convention in international
environmental decision-making processes and within the framework of international
organizations in matters relating to the environment.
Article 6 Public participation in decisions on specific activities
1. Each Party:
a) Shall apply the provisions of this article with respect to decisions on whether to permit
proposed activities listed in annex I;
b) Shall, in accordance with its national law, also apply the provisions of this article to
decisions on proposed activities not listed in annex I which may have a significant effect
on the environment. To this end, Parties shall determine whether such a proposed activity
is subject to these provisions; and
c) May decide, on a case-by-case basis if so provided under national law, not to apply the
provisions of this article to proposed activities serving national defence purposes, if that
Party deems that such application would have an adverse effect on these purposes.
2. The public concerned shall be informed, either by public notice or individually as appropriate,
early in an environmental decision-making procedure, and in an adequate, timely and effective
manner, inter alia, of:
a) The proposed activity and the application on which a decision will be taken;
b) The nature of possible decisions or the draft decision;
c) The public authority responsible for making the decision;
d) The envisaged procedure, including, as and when this information can be provided:
i) The commencement of the procedure;
ii) The opportunities for the public to participate;
iii) The time and venue of any envisaged public hearing;
iv) An indication of the public authority from which relevant information can be
obtained and where the relevant information has been deposited for examination
by the public;
v) An indication of the relevant public authority or any other official body to
which comments or questions can be submitted and of the time schedule for
transmittal of comments or questions; and
vi) An indication of what environmental information relevant to the proposed
activity is available; and
e) The fact that the activity is subject to a national or transboundary environmental
impact assessment procedure.
3. The public participation procedures shall include reasonable time frames for the different
phases, allowing sufficient time for informing the public in accordance with paragraph 2 above
and for the public to prepare and participate effectively during the environmental decision-
making.
197
4. Each Party shall provide for early public participation, when all options are open and effective
public participation can take place.
5. Each Party should, where appropriate, encourage prospective applicants to identify the public
concerned, to enter into discussions, and to provide information regarding the objectives of their
application before applying for a permit.
6. Each Party shall require the competent public authorities to give the public concerned access
for examination, upon request where so required under national law, free of charge and as soon as
it becomes available, to all information relevant to the decision-making referred to in this article
that is available at the time of the public participation procedure, without prejudice to the right of
Parties to refuse to disclose certain information in accordance with article 4, paragraphs 3 and 4.
The relevant information shall include at least, and without prejudice to the provisions of article
4:
a) A description of the site and the physical and technical characteristics of the proposed
activity, including an estimate of the expected residues and emissions;
b) A description of the significant effects of the proposed activity on the environment;
c) A description of the measures envisaged to prevent and/or reduce the effects, including
emissions;
d) A non-technical summary of the above;
e) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant; and
f) In accordance with national legislation, the main reports and advice issued to the public
authority at the time when the public concerned shall be informed in accordance with
paragraph 2 above.
7. Procedures for public participation shall allow the public to submit, in writing or, as
appropriate, at a public hearing or inquiry with the applicant, any comments, information,
analyses or opinions that it considers relevant to the proposed activity.
8. Each Party shall ensure that in the decision due account is taken of the outcome of the public
participation.
9. Each Party shall ensure that, when the decision has been taken by the public authority, the
public is promptly informed of the decision in accordance with the appropriate procedures. Each
Party shall make accessible to the public the text of the decision along with the reasons and
considerations on which the decision is based.
10. Each Party shall ensure that, when a public authority reconsiders or updates the operating
conditions for an activity referred to in paragraph 1, the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 9 of this
article are applied mutatis mutandis, and where appropriate.
11. Each Party shall, within the framework of its national law, apply, to the extent feasible and
appropriate, provisions of this article to decisions on whether to permit the deliberate release of
genetically modified organisms into the environment.
Article 7 Public participation concerning plans, programmes and policies relating to the
environment
Each Party shall make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate
during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment, within a transparent
and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public. Within this
framework, article 6, paragraphs 3, 4 and 8, shall be applied. The public which may participate
shall be identified by the relevant public authority, taking into account the objectives of this
Convention. To the extent appropriate, each Party shall endeavour to provide opportunities for
public participation in the preparation of policies relating to the environment.
Article 8 Public participation during the preparation of executive regulations and/or
generally applicable legally binding normative instruments
198
Each Party shall strive to promote effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while
options are still open, during the preparation by public authorities of executive regulations and
other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
To this end, the following steps should be taken:
a) Time-frames sufficient for effective participation should be fixed;
b) Draft rules should be published or otherwise made publicly available; and
c) The public should be given the opportunity to comment, directly or through
representative consultative bodies.
The result of the public participation shall be taken into account as far as possible.
Article 10 Meeting of the Parties
(...)
4. The United Nations, its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as
well as any State or regional economic integration organization entitled under article 17 to sign
this Convention but which is not a Party to this Convention, and any intergovernmental
organization qualified in the fields to which this Convention relates, shall be entitled to participate
as observers in the meetings of the Parties.
5. Any non-governmental organization, qualified in the fields to which this Convention relates,
which has informed the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe of its wish
to be represented at a meeting of the Parties shall be entitled to participate as an observer unless at
least one third of the Parties present in the meeting raise objections.
6. For the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 5 above, the rules of procedure referred to in paragraph 2
(h) above shall provide for practical arrangements for the admittance procedure and other relevant
terms.
2. Draft guidelines on promoting the application of the principles of the
Aarhus Convention in international forums
II General [principles] [objectives] and considerations
(...)
16.Guaranteeing international access might, for practical reasons, be more complex, costly, and
difficult to manage than access at a national or local level. In some cases, practices in
international forums do not effectively meet, and may even aggravate, these challenges. There is a
need to adapt and structure international participation processes and mechanisms in order to
address these challenges and assure balanced and equitable participation of the public
[concerned].
17.Participation processes and mechanisms should be structured to facilitate international access
by the public [concerned], including participation by a diverse range of relevant actors within an
efficient and manageable process. Such actors may include:
· representatives of those affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the
outcomes of decisions, including environmental citizens organizations;
199
· those who can offer expertise relevant to the issues under consideration; and
· representatives of commercial interests that might cause, contribute to, or be in a position
to alleviate the problems under discussion.
18.Special efforts should be made to minimize barriers to access for representatives of those most
directly affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the outcomes of decisions,
including environmental citizens organizations [and traditionally marginalized constituencies].
19.Where the public concerned have differentiated capacity, resources, socio-cultural status or
political power (among other factors), there may be a need for differentiated treatment to assure a
balanced and equitable process. Processes should be designed to minimize inequality by creating,
where possible, a more level playing field for the resolution of issues and controversies.
Recognizing that commercial interests, including those regulated by international forums,
frequently have greater financial capacity [and political influence] than other actors, efforts
should be made to ensure that representatives of such interests do not have an inappropriate role
in or undue influence upon decision-making in international forums.
20.Where it is necessary [and unavoidable] for practical reasons to restrict participation of
representatives of the public concerned, this should be done taking account of the need for
meaningful, balanced and equitable participation and any such restrictions should be based on
transparent and clearly stated standards which are established in advance.
21.International access should be provided without discrimination on the basis of citizenship,
nationality, domicile or accreditation status and without any requirement to prove or state a legal
or other interest. In the case of a legal person, international access should be provided without
discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities.
22.Capacity building is important, both for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and, in
different ways, for secretariats of international forums. Capacity building in developing countries,
in countries with economies in transition, and for stakeholders who are new to international
forums is of particular importance.
23.Enhancing civil society involvement in international forums implies investment of resources.
Accordingly, sufficient resources should be made available to enable balanced participation of all
members of the public concerned.
24.Some codification of procedures governing international access could be beneficial and
contribute to transparency, predictability and the creation of a `level playing field'. However,
excessive formalization of such procedures (e.g. those relating to accreditation of participants)
could in some circumstances be counterproductive and impede or reverse the progress of
international access.
25.Effective international access requires involvement at an early stage, when all options are
open, and at all relevant levels. This includes access to relevant preparatory processes at the
national and regional levels.
26.To ensure the transparency of the decision-making process and thereby strengthen the
application of the principles of the Convention, meetings of international forums, including their
subsidiary bodies, established for purposes such as those described in paragraph 3 should be open
to the attendance of the public unless there is [an overriding reason][a reasonable basis] to close
200
the meeting to the public and a[n] [explicit] reasoned decision taken to that end, the text of which
is made publicly available.
27.In order to ensure the effectiveness of international access without impeding the efficiency of
the decision-making processes of international forums, NGOs and other actors should be
encouraged to consider their structures of self-organisation. The issues that should be taken into
consideration in this context include transparency, [legitimacy,] breadth of representation,
openness to participation, coordination and procedures for [comprehensive] consultation with
constituencies.
(...)
V. Public participation
40.Option I: [With due regard to chapter I, Parties, Signatories and other interested States should
ensure the application, to the extent [possible][appropriate], of the guidelines in this chapter in
international forums in the light of the objectives and considerations set out in paragraphs 41 to
43.]
Option II: [The promotion of public participation in international forums should take into account
the general principles set out in paragraphs 41 to 43.]
41.Public participation generally contributes to the quality of decision-making in international
forums by bringing different opinions and expertise and increasing transparency and
accountability. The forms of participation might vary according to the nature and phase of the
process, and the format of the meeting (expert, negotiation, etc).
42.Public participation should be as broad as possible. [However, when restrictions are needed
according to paragraph 20, they should [not] be [neither excessive nor] established solely for the
sake of minimizing governmental burdens or promoting efficiency unless there is no reasonable
alternative to such restrictions.]
43.Participation of the public [concerned] in the meetings of international forums, including their
subsidiary bodies and other formal and informal groups, established for purposes such as those
described in paragraph 3, should be allowed unless there is [a reasonable basis][an overriding
reason] to exclude such participation and a reasoned decision to this effect is taken and made
publicly available.
Entitlement to participate
44.Under special circumstances, depending on the nature and phase of the decision making
process, as well as on the format of participation sought, participation may be restricted in order
to ensure the quality, efficiency and expediency of the decision-making process. In this case,
accreditation or, if applicable, selection procedures based on clear and objective criteria,
[should][could] be set up and the public be informed accordingly. The procedures should be
transparent, fair, accountable and accessible. Selection criteria may include, among others, field
of expertise, representation in geographic, sectoral, professional and other relevant contexts, and
knowledge of working language. Procedures and criteria should take account of the value of
continuity of participation without restricting the entitlement of newcomers and underrepresented
stakeholders to participate..
201
45.In order to ensure efficiency and expediency of decision-making processes and ensure as far as
possible that members of the public purporting to represent a particular sector or interest group
are genuinely representative of that sector or interest group, self-organization and self-selection
processes among participants sharing common goals should be encouraged.
46. [Public interest organizations should be given no less standing and participation rights in
decision-making processes as those enjoyed by business organizations.]
Types of decision-making processes
47.The international decision-making processes which should benefit from public participation
include national preparation for international decisions, the formulation of rules, plans,
programmes, policies and projects, the negotiation and implementation of conventions, and the
preparation of international events.
Public participation mechanisms
48.Effective public participation may be ensured through a variety of forms, depending on
different factors, such as the type of international forum concerned and the nature and phase of
decision-making process. Such forms may include consultative status, NGO advisory committees,
NGO forums and dialogues, participation of NGOs in governmental delegations, Internet
broadcasting of events and general calls for comments.
49.Public participation should include the entitlement to have access to relevant documentation,
propose items for the agenda, speak at meetings and circulate written statements.
50.Public participation procedures in international forums should include reasonable time-frames
for the different phases, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public to
prepare and participate effectively during the decision-making process. The timing of the
opportunities to participate should be compatible with those pertaining to public access to the
relevant documents, in order to facilitate informed public participation. The opportunity to
participate in a given decision-making process should be provided at a stage when options are still
open and effective public influence can be exerted.
51.The public concerned should be informed in due time of the opportunities, procedures and
criteria for public participation in the decision-making and of the availability of information for
the public, such as drafts for comments, final documents, decisions and reports. Such information
should be provided through websites as well as directly to members of the public concerned
having requested to be so notified. To preserve the quality of the decision-making process, clear
objective criteria should be set regarding the provision of comments and the public should be
informed accordingly.
52.Participation mechanisms should result in reasoned decisions that clearly take into account
public comments. Transparency with respect to the impact of public participation on final
decisions should be promoted, through, inter alia, ensuring the public availability of documents
submitted by the public, the records of such positions in the related official documents and the
mechanisms to assess their impact on the final decision.
Assistance and Capacity Building
202
53.Decision-making processes in international forums are enhanced by the participation of an
informed, knowledgeable and diversely represented public. Measures that would contribute to
such participation, including preparatory meetings organized by or for the public and the forming
of coalitions on specific issues, should be recognized as important and governments, relevant
organizations and donors should accordingly consider providing support. This could include
financial assistance and support to international secretariats and public interest organizations,
especially those based in countries with economies in transition and developing countries,
including support for capacity building.
3. Rules of Procedure
IV. Notification
Rule 5
(...)
2. The secretariat shall also provide notification in the official languages of the Meeting of any
meeting, including information on the date and venue, at least six weeks before it is due to take
place to:
(...)
(d) Relevant intergovernmental organizations, qualified or having an interest in the fields
to which the Convention relates, that have requested to be so notified;
(e) Relevant non-governmental organizations, qualified or having an interest in the fields
to which the Convention relates, that have requested to be so notified; and
(f) Any member of the public that has requested to be so notified.
V. Observers
Rule 6
1. Representatives of the States and the organizations identified in rule 5, paragraph 2 (a), (c) and
(d), shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of any meeting governed by these rules.
Representatives of any State that is entitled under article 19, paragraph 3, of the Convention to
seek to accede to it shall also be entitled to participate in such meetings, regardless of whether it
has requested to be notified of such meetings.
2. Representatives of any of the organizations referred to in rule 5, paragraph 2 (e), shall be
entitled to participate in the proceedings of any meeting governed by these rules, unless one third
of the Parties present at that meeting objects to the participation of representatives of that
organization.
3. Observers entitled to participate in meetings pursuant to this rule do not have the right to vote
at such meetings.
VI. Presence of the public
Rule 7
1. The meetings of the Parties shall be open to members of the public, unless the Meeting of the
Parties, in exceptional circumstances, decides otherwise especially to protect the confidentiality
of information pursuant to the Convention.
203
2. Where it is not feasible to accommodate in the meeting room all the members of the public
who have requested to attend the meeting, the proceedings of the meeting shall be relayed to
those members of the public using audiovisual equipment wherever possible.
3. The secretariat, and, in the event of the meeting being held in a location other than the
United Nations Office at Geneva, the host government or organization, shall ensure that practical
arrangements are made to facilitate the entitlements of members of the public under this rule.
VII. Agenda and documentation
Rule 10
The provisional agenda, together with any supporting documents for the meeting, shall be
distributed by the secretariat to the Parties and to the other States, organizations and bodies
referred to in rule 6 at least six weeks before the opening of the meeting. (...)
Rule 11
All official meeting documentation prepared in connection with meetings of the Parties or of
subsidiary bodies, and the notification under rule 5, shall be placed on the ECE web site when
sent to the Parties and shall be provided to members of the public on request. The terms of public
access to the information shall be consistent with the provisions of article 4 of the Convention,
except that the documentation shall be provided in electronic form where it exists in that form
unless the applicant has specific reasons justifying its provision in a different form in which it is
also held.
IX Officers
Rule 22
1. A bureau shall be established consisting of seven members, as follows:
(a) The officers referred to in rule 18;
(b) Representatives of other Parties.
2. The Bureau shall invite a representative of non-governmental organizations established for the
purpose of, and actively engaged in, promoting environmental protection and sustainable
development, appointed in accordance with paragraph 4, to attend bureau meetings as an
observer.
3. At each ordinary meeting of the Parties, following the election of the officers, the remaining
members of the Bureau shall be elected by the Parties present at the meeting.
4. The representative of the non-governmental organizations referred to in paragraph 2 shall be
appointed by those organizations at meetings of the Parties.
X. Subsidiary bodies
Rule 23
1. The Meeting of the Parties may establish such subsidiary bodies as it deems necessary, in
accordance with article 10, paragraph 2 (d), of the Convention. It may also dissolve such bodies.
2. These rules of procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of subsidiary bodies
established by the Meeting of the Parties, save as otherwise specified in paragraphs 3 to 6 below
or decided by the Meeting of the Parties.
(...)
XII. Conduct of business
204
Rule 27
1. No one may speak at a meeting without having previously obtained the permission of the
Chairperson. The representatives of the States, organizations and bodies entitled to participate
under rule 6 shall be entitled to seek to address the Meeting under each agenda item and, having
made such a request, shall be included on the list of speakers. Without prejudice to rules 28, 29,
30 and 32, the Chairperson shall in general call upon speakers in the order in which they signify
their desire to speak, but may at his or her discretion decide to call upon representatives of Parties
before observers.
(...)
4. The Chairperson may request representatives of two or more non-governmental organizations
having common goals and interests in so far as the subject matter of the Convention is concerned
to constitute themselves into a single delegation for the purposes of the meeting, or to present
their views through a single representative, in order to facilitate the proceedings.
205
ANNEX X
1. Proposal for a Regulation on the application of the provisions of the
Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC
institutions and bodies
GENERAL PROVISIONS (Title I)
Definitions (Article 2)
The Article establishes definitions that are crucial for the interpretation of the
proposed Regulation. The most important ones are:
(...)
Plans and programmes relating to the environment
The Århus Convention does not define "plans and programmes relating to the
environment". In its overall context, it is given a broad meaning, also including
complex strategies such as environmental action plans that might themselves
give rise to plans based on the strategies. The proposed definition of "plans and
programmes relating to the environment" has been drawn up with the intention to
remain, where appropriate, as much as possible in parallel to the requirements
for Member States, notably under the Directive 2003/35/EC on public
participation and Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on `strategic environmental assessment'9. The proposed definition would
include plans and programmes that contribute to the achievement of the
Community's environmental policy objectives. Furthermore, those plans and
programmes shall be included that are likely to have a significant effect on the
achievement of those objectives. This is in line with the integration requirement of
Article 6 EC Treaty. In relation to the Member States, a parallel approach is
followed by Directive 2001/42/EC, which, in the framework of the environmental
assessment requirements, provides for public participation in line with the Århus
Convention. To give guidance for the selection of the plans and programmes
concerned, the proposal refers to Decision 1600/2002/EC laying down the Sixth
Community Environment Action Programme10, which contains the actions to be
taken within the next ten years in order to reach EC environmental policy
objectives. Related plans and programmes would be subject to the public
participation provisions. Furthermore, the definition provides for specific
exceptions. Thus, financial or budget plans and programmes shall not be
included, as they do not as such have a significant direct effect on the
environment. Budget plans and programmes would include the annual budgets of
the Community institution or body. Financial plans and programmes would
include the ones which describe how some project or activity should be financed,
or how grants or subsidies should be distributed. Internal work programmes are
also excluded.
206
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION BY COMMUNITY
INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES OF PLANS AND PROGRAMMES RELATING
TO THE ENVIRONMENT (Title III)
The point of departure for the present proposal for a Regulation was that it should
be limited to the legally binding requirements of the Århus Convention, i.e.
Articles 6 and 7, where the latter concerns public participation in the preparation
of plans and programmes relating to the environment.
(1) Public participation in decisions on specific activities and projects (Article 6 of
the Århus Convention)
The Århus Convention provides for public participation "with respect to decisions
on whether to permit" certain activities listed in Annex I to the Convention (Article
6(1.a)). Decisions to authorise the listed activities are not taken at Community
level, but by Member States, at local, regional or national level.
It has been considered whether the provisions of Article 6 of the Århus
Convention should be applied to decisions taken at Community level relating to
the financing of the listed activities and of others that may have a significant
effect on the environment (Article 6(1.b)). The proposal decides against this
option. Indeed, the Århus Convention does not explicitly require public
participation in financial decision-making related to the activities covered. When
the Commission made its proposal for transposing the requirements of the Århus
Convention in relation to public participation into Member States' legislation, it did
not propose to have such provisions at national level, nor did the Council or the
European Parliament consider this necessary or desirable. Setting up
participation requirements for financial decisions made at Community level would
thus create different approaches at national and Community level.
Furthermore, there is considerable risk of duplication, as normally the permitting
procedure for the respective activity covered by the Århus Convention already
itself requires public participation. Participation of the public should therefore be
made a requirement where the permitting procedure takes place, as provided for
in Directive 2003/35/EC, but not for the financial decisions related to such
activities.
Article 6(1.b) of the Århus Convention, providing for public participation in
decisions on other proposed activities "which may have a significant effect on the
environment", is not of application in relation to the Community level.
Administrative decisions on the authorization of chemicals, pesticides and
biocides are, as a rule, taken at the level of Member States.
Decisions taken at Community level, such as the establishment of lists of active
substances or the classification of substances, are as such not aimed at as
specific activities in the sense of Article 6. Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on
ozone-depleting substances13 provides for administrative decisions at Community
level. However, the decisions concerned do not have a significant effect on the
environment, as they concern only the management of the different quota for the
placing on the market or importation of such substances.
207
In relation to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Directive 2001/18/EC14 also
provides, under certain circumstances, for decisions on the placing of the market
of GMOs to be taken at Community level and its Article 24 contains some
provisions on public participation. Under the present proposal, no specific further
public participation is provided for as regards GMOs.
Indeed, the Århus Convention itself recognises that GMOs have a specific status
under the Convention15. Within its framework, work on the elaboration of specific
rules on the application of the Convention to GMOs is underway, and the
Community and the Member States participate in these discussions. Therefore, it
appears more appropriate to await the outcome of these international
negotiations, before establishing specific rules at Community level.
(2) Public participation concerning plans and programmes relating to the
environment (Article 7, first part, of the Århus Convention)
Article 7, 1st part of the Århus Convention requires making provisions for the
participation of the public during the preparation of plans and programmes
relating to the environment. As concerns the basic requirements of such public
participation, it refers back to certain parts of Article 6. The notion `plans and
programmes relating to the environment' is not defined in the Convention. In
order to transpose the requirements into Community legislation and to give, at
the same time, legal certainty to administrations and to the public, the present
proposal defines plans and programmes relating to the environment. The
definition is sufficiently broad to cover also sets of measures that, although not
officially called `plans' or `programmes', in substance constitute an `organised and
co-ordinated system in order to reach certain objectives'.
Article 2(1)(c) of the proposal clarifies that the definition of "Community
institutions and bodies" does not include those "when and to the extent to which
they act in a judicial or legislative capacity". Applied to the decision-making on
plans and programmes relating to the environment, which are prepared by the
Commission and subsequently endorsed or adopted by a legislative act, this
means that the public participation requirements cover the stage preceding the
legislative proposal by the Commission. Once a proposal is made, participation is
ensured through the parliamentary process.
Requirements for public participation (Article 8)
Article 7, first part requires that "practical and/or other provisions" be made for
public participation in the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the
environment. As concerns the modalities to be provided for, it refers back to
Article 6, paragraphs 3, 4 and 8.
The present proposals takes up these requirements, addressed to Community
institutions and bodies where they prepare plans and programmes relating to the
environment.
208
In line with Article 7, sentence 3 of the Århus Convention, it will be for the
relevant Community institution or body to identify the public which may
participate. This takes account of the fact that the plans and programmes
covered might be very varied, and that the public authority in question is best
placed to define the target public. In any case, when identifying the public to
consult, the Community institution or body will have to take account of the
objectives of the Convention, and to include relevant non-governmental
organisation, such as those providing environmental protection. In line with
Articles 7, 6(3) of the Århus Convention, the proposal requires the public
participation provisions to include reasonable timeframes and provide the
necessary information to allow for effective participation. The requirement to
provide for early and effective participation is formulated along the lines of Article
6(4) of the Århus Convention. The requirement to take due account of the results
of public participation follows from Article 7 in conjunction with 6(8) of the Århus
Convention.
For the Commission, general principles and minimum standards for consultation
of interested parties have already been established in December 200218. These
standards were not designed to cover specifically environmental decision-
making, but in particular `major policy initiatives' which, as a first step, are those
for which also an extended impact assessment is required following the
Commission's Communication on that issue of 5 June 200219. Within this frame,
they contain basic requirements for the consultation of interested parties, which,
according to the policy proposal under preparation, also include the public at
large and civil society organisations. The general principles and minimum
standards in particular require consultation to take place at an early stage, to
provide the necessary information on the consultation, to provide sufficient time
for comments and to give feedback to those consulted, including on the results of
the consultation and how these were taken into account in the proposal.
These guidelines however do not apply to the other Community institutions or
bodies, which by the present proposal will be obliged to adopt similar instruments
in relation to the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the
environment.
As the Commission's general principles and minimum standards for participation
in decisionmaking were adopted with a view to a more general coverage, the
Commission will have to complete those to fully integrate the specific
requirements of the Århus Convention, in particular the coverage of relevant
`plans and programmes relating to the environment'. A commitment to that end is
already contained in the Commission's Communication establishing those
standards20. Given that the consultation standards have been in operation only
for a short period, it is envisaged to take up this issue after a period of two years,
when some more practical experience on all aspects of their operation will have
been gained.
TITLE III
209
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION BY COMMUNITY
INSTITUTIONS
AND BODIES OF PLANS AND PROGRAMMES RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Article 8
Community institutions and bodies shall make appropriate practical and/or other
provisions for the public to participate during the preparation of plans and
programmes relating to the environment. The provisions to be made to this end:
a) shall include reasonable timeframes, allowing sufficient time for informing the
public of the plans and programmes to be prepared and the modalities of its
participation, and for the public to participate effectively in the preparation of the
plans and programmes relating to the environment;
b) shall enable public participation at an early stage, when all options are open;
c) shall provide that in the decision-making on the plan or programme relating to
the environment, due account is taken of the outcome of public participation;
d) shall identify the public which may participate, including relevant
nongovernmental organisations such as those promoting environmental
protection.
210