DRAFT: October 13, 2001
FINAL REPORT
Building Environmental Citizenship to
Support Transboundary Pollution
Reduction in the Danube River:
A Pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia
The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern
Europe (REC)
Resources for the Future (RFF)
New York University School of Law (NYU)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I: Introduction .................................................................................................... 4
Section II. Environmental, Legal and Institutional Background and Overview ...... 13
A. Danube Pollution and International Restoration Efforts ......................................... 13
B. Drawing the Connection Between Access to Environmental Information and
Pollution Reduction in the Danube................................................................................ 14
C. Public Access to Information--Existing Laws, Institutions, and Practices......... 16
Section III. Project Objectives ...................................................................................... 23
A. Objectives in Pilot Countries .................................................................................. 23
B. Global Objective ...................................................................................................... 25
Section IV. Project Approach and Methodology ........................................................ 26
Section V. Inputs ............................................................................................................ 31
A. Original Budget and Final Expenditures by Year................................................... 31
B. Regional Coordination with Terms of Service for Project Staff and Consultants... 31
D. Support from UN Agencies and Parallel Support from the Donor Community...... 36
E. Government Support ................................................................................................ 36
Section VI. Financial Management .............................................................................. 39
Section VII. Project Management ................................................................................. 40
A. The Project Implementation Team.......................................................................... 40
B. Team Coordination ............................................................................................... 41
C. The Project Steering Committee............................................................................. 41
Section VIII.Identification of Barriers to Effective Access to Environmental
Information...................................................................................................................... 43
A. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 43
B. Barriers to Effective Information Access Common to Both Countries ................... 43
1. The Legacy of The Past......................................................................................... 44
2. Deficiencies in Existing Information Access Statutes and Implementing Laws ... 45
3. Lack of Guidance to Officials on Implementation of Information Access Laws .. 46
4. Resource Constraints and Institutional Gaps ......................................................... 47
5. Inadequate Training and Experience of Government Officials ............................. 48
6. Technical System Needs ........................................................................................ 48
7. Lack of Public and NGO Experience and Know-How in Obtaining Access to
Environmental Information. ....................................................................................... 49
8. Lack of intra-governmental, governmental-NGO cooperation .............................. 50
9. Differences in Nature of Barriers in Hungary and Slovenia .................................. 50
Section IX. Project Activities ........................................................................................ 52
A. Identify Barriers to and Opportunities for Improvement of Public Access to Water-
Related Environmental Information .............................................................................. 53
1. Needs Assessments ............................................................................................... 53
2. Case Study Analyses ............................................................................................. 54
B. In-Region Meetings and Capacity-Building Workshops......................................... 55
1. Kick-Off Meeting, October 11-13, 2000............................................................... 56
2. First Hungarian Capacity Building Meeting, January 30-31, 2000 ..................... 57
3. First Slovenian Capacity Building Meeting, February 2, 2001............................. 57
4. Second Hungarian Capacity-Building Meeting, June 14-15, 2001....................... 58
2
5. Second Slovenian Capacity-building Meeting, June 11-12, 2001....................... 59
6. Final Plenary Meeting, October 1-3, 2001............................................................ 60
7. Meetings and Exchanges Initiated by Hungarian and Slovenian Country Teams 61
C. Study Tour in the U.S. and the Netherlands, February-March, 2001 ................... 63
D. Technical Assistance Activities............................................................................ 65
E. Dissemination of Project Outputs and Results and Regional Coordination
F. Final Report.......................................................................................................... 73
Section X. Project Outputs and Results....................................................................... 74
Section XI. Lessons Learned and Conclusions............................................................ 78
A. Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 78
1. The Project Approach and Methodology Were Appropriate for Achieving the
Stated Objectives........................................................................................................ 78
2. Stakeholder and Public Involvement Were Appropriate for Achieving the Stated
Objectives................................................................................................................... 81
3. The Project activities were effective in producing the anticipated project outputs
.................................................................................................................................... 82
4. The Project Measures have Addressed Identified Obstacles to Public Access to
Environmental
5. Lessons-Learned on the Use of Case Studies........................................................ 90
6. A Difficult Time Frame......................................................................................... 91
7. The Relationship between Time Frame and Project Scope.................................... 92
Section XII. Recommendations for Future Work....................................................... 95
A. Pilot Countries ......................................................................................................... 95
B. Follow-On Work in Other Danube Countries in the Region: Second Phase Project97
Annexes .......................................................................................................................... 102
3
Section I: Introduction
This Final Report documents the activities undertaken, results achieved, and lessons
learned in the GEF-funded project entitled Building Environmental Citizenship to
Support Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the Danube: A Pilot Project in Hungary
and Slovenia1 that commenced officially on April 1, 2000. The Project provided capacity
building and technical assistance to government officials and NGOs in Hungary and
Slovenia to enhance and operationalize public access to environmental information and
public participation in environmental decisionmaking in these countries in order to
advances the goals of reducing toxic and nutrient discharges to the Danube River Basin.
It was also designed to promote these countries' compliance with access to environmental
information obligations established by the Aarhus Convention and EU law.
This Pilot Project focused its efforts on Hungary and Slovenia, with the expectation that
its activities might subsequently be extended to other countries in the Danube region. Its
ultimate goal is to support and enhance implementation of the pollution reduction goals
of the Strategic Action Plan for the Danube ("SAP") and the Danube Pollution Reduction
Programme.
The Project was implemented by a partnership of three organizations: the Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe ("REC")2, the International
Environmental Legal Assistance Program of New York University School of Law
("NYU")3 and Resources for the Future ("RFF") 4 (henceforth referred to as "the Project
Implementation Team," or "PIT").5 The PIT management team from REC, NYU and
RFF brought a wealth of expertise and experience to provide the maximum level of
assistance to the client countries. The REC has been a leader in regional efforts to
increase environmental public participation since its founding in late 1989. The U.S.
partners have extensive experience working, and in some cases living, in the countries in
transition, and brought to the effort personal experience implementing U.S. information
access laws from the perspective of government, the public interest environmental
1 Henceforth "Building Environmental Citizenship", "The Pilot Project", or "The Project." The partnership
of the REC, NYU and RFF will henceforth be referred to as "The Partnership," "The PIT," "The
Implementation Team," or "The Project Implementation Team."
2 The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) is an international
organization, founded in 1990 and located in Budapest, that supports environmental reform in Central and
Eastern Europe. REC's main participants are: Magda Toth Nagy, Marianna Bolshakova and Steven Stec.
3 New York University School of Law's International Environmental Legal Assistance Program, is a
program of the Law School's Center on Environmental and Land Use Law. NYU's main participants are:
Jane Stewart, Professor Richard Stewart, and Isaac Flattau.
4 Resources for the Future is located in Washington, D.C. RFF's main participant is: Ruth Greenspan Bell.
5 The Project was funded as an eighteen month project. The REC has requested and received a no-cost
extension in order to extend the completion date of the project to October 31, 2001 and to keep the
financial books open until [insert date]. The request was based on the need for extra time to complete a
large number of project products and outputs, and scheduling the final meeting in early October, to assure
maximum attendance at the Project final meetings.
4
community and the private sector. This experience is highly relevant because many of
the Aarhus provisions are modeled on U.S. law and practices.6
Environmental, Legal and Institutional Background
The Danube has suffered extensive contamination by discharges of nutrients and toxics.
These discharges, including discharges from Hungary and Slovenia, have significant
transboundary impacts, including contamination of downstream reaches of the river and
the Black Sea.7 Fifty-eight percent of the total nitrogen and 68% of the total phosphorus
load of the Black Sea is delivered by the Danube, making the Danube a significant
contributor to Black Sea eutrophication. The sources of these high levels of nutrients and
toxins include chemical fertilizers and manure from intensive, large scale livestock and
other agricultural operations, municipal wastes, and industrial sources. Efforts to restore
the Danube are organized through several agreements among countries in the region,
including Hungary and Slovenia, all of which also recognize the need for public
engagement in the process of cleanup. These agreements recognize that the public's
understanding of the state of the Danube and public ability to participate in the clean-up
of the river through participation in environmental decision making and through various
remediation and prevention activities, are key to the long-term health of the river.
Experience in the United states, Western Europe, and elsewhere demonstrates that
enhancing public access to environmental information promotes, through a variety of
mechanisms, more effective environmental protection. Enhanced access to information
makes the public more informed and aware of environmental problems, leading them to
demand and support government measures to protect the environment. It promote public
participation in government environmental decision making and problem-solving, which
tends to produce stronger and better-implemented environmental programs. Public access
to environmental information promotes government accountability for program results. It
can help nurture public trust and acceptance of government decisions that will involve
burdens in meeting environmental goals. It can also enlist the public as part of the
solution to environmental problems by informing them and encouraging them regarding
changes in their conduct that will promote environmental goals.
The key role of public access to environmental information is reaffirmed in the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE)-sponsored Convention on Access
to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters, adopted at Aarhus, Denmark on June 25, 1998 (hereafter referred
to as the Aarhus Convention). Numerous countries in the Danube Region, including
Hungary and Slovenia, are parties to this agreement, which sets standards for public
6 An expert on European Union environmental law and the accession process, Jürgen Lefevre, was added
as a consultant, in view of the importance to Hungary and Slovenia of assuring that any new laws,
regulations and practices are consistent with EU requirements. Two in-region consultants, Dr. Sándor
Fülöp in Hungary, and Milada Mirkovic in Slovenia did basic research that assured that the Project efforts
were firmly grounded in Hungarian and Slovenian law and practice. They were also closely involved in the
preparation of a number of Project outputs.
7 Countries whose activities affect the health of the Danube include Bulgaria, Croatia, Yugoslavia, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Romania, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Moldova, Austria and Germany.
5
access to environmental information, for public participation in environmental decision
making, and for access to justice when the standards of the Convention have been
abridged. An upcoming European Union Directive on Access to Information will
incorporate the standards set by the Aarhus Convention. This Directive will impose new
and additional obligations for public access to information on EU member states and on
Danube countries, such as Hungary and Slovenia, that are seeking accession to the EU.
There is extensive experience in the United States and in a number of Western European
countries with laws requiring government to provide information (including
environmental information) to citizens. US laws and experience played an important role
in the development of the Aarhus Convention. Through workshops, study tours, and
other capacity-building measures, the project drew extensively on experience in the
United States and Western European countries, including in particular the Netherlands, in
order to assist Hungarian and Slovenia government officials in implementing effectively
their countries' access-to-information laws and programs, which are in an earlier stage of
development.
Project Objectives, Scope and Approach
The Danube countries, including Hungary and Slovenia, currently experience significant
barriers to effective pubic access to information, which in turn have impeded effective
public participation and support for measures to control transbounday pollution. These
barriers include the legacy of state secrecy and public passivity from prior undemocratic
regimes; inadequate laws, implementing regulations and guidance to public officials;
dysfunctional institutional arrangements; limited government experience, know-how, and
resources in providing public information; and limited NGO and public capacity and
experience in demanding and obtaining information. The overall goal of the project was
to assist Hungary and Slovenia and other regional countries in overcoming these barriers
and thereby promote effective public support for and involvement in reduction of toxic
and nutrient discharges to the Danube River with transboundary effects.
The pilot project was designed to identify these barriers, develop practical and effective
measures to overcome them through capacity building activities, including training and
technical assistance, and evaluate the success and replicability of this approach. It was
anticipated that if the activities and outcomes of the pilot project in Hungary and Slovenia
were successful in producing measures that will improve public access to environmental
information in these countries and were replicable, other countries in the region facing
similar constraints to public involvement might benefit from a follow-on project
informed by lessons learned through the pilot effort.
Hungary and Slovenia were chosen as the participant countries in the pilot project
because they experience barriers to effective public access to environmental information
that are similar to those throughout the region. They have also made substantial
commitments to regional efforts to restore the Danube, have acknowledged the important
role that non-governmental actors and the public generally must play in these efforts
including through participation in environmental decisionmaking, and have demonstrated
6
strong interest in implementing the Aarhus Convention and Danube commitments and in
adopting current and proposed EU Directives on access to information as well as the EU
Water Framework Directive. They were accordingly considered good cases to test the
pilot project's potential usefulness in other Danube Basin countries.
The decision to focus initially on these countries in this effort was validated over the
course of the 18-month Project. The government and NGO participants from both
countries demonstrated outstanding initiative and commitment. Their efforts, assisted
through the capacity building activities of the pilot project, produced measures and built
expertise that will increase public access to environmental information in their countries
and provide a good model for other countries in the region facing similar challenges.
The project adopted an approach that was country-driven, highly practical, and designed
to identify and test elements that might be both effective in the Hungary and Slovenia and
replicable and applicable to other countries in the Danube Basin. Using this approach, the
project systematically identified barriers to effective public access to environmental
information in these countries and developed practical and effective measures that are
both tailored to the needs of each pilot country and replicable. These measures will serve
as useful models to other CEE countries in the Danube Basin that are facing similar
barriers to public involvement. Participation of NGOs and many other key stakeholders at
all stages of project implementation helped assure that the measures to improve public
access to environmental information developed through the project are responsive to the
concerns and needs of a variety of actors whose participation is crucial to the success of
Danube restoration efforts. Moreover, because in-region participants took substantial
responsibility for devising these significant new measures, the PIT is optimistic that they
will produce sustainable gains in public involvement in efforts to achieve the important
environmental goals of the Danube SAP.
Project Assessment of Needs, Identification of Objectives, and Activities
The first operational step in the project was to analyze existing laws, institutions,
practices, and attitudes regarding public access to environmental information in Hungary
and Slovenia and identify barriers to effective implementation. These steps were
accomplished through a needs assessment undertaken with government officials and
NGO representatives. The Needs Assessments presented detailed analysis of the laws
and practices in Hungary and Slovenia and identified the specific legal, institutional, and
practical barriers to public access to environmental information in each country. The
barriers that were identified included: inadequate legal and institutional frameworks for
public participation; inadequate guidance and training for public employees
implementing existing laws and requirements; inappropriate or unworkable laws
governing confidential business information and official and state secrets; and limited
practical experience government officials in providing, and NGOs in asking for and
obtaining, environmental information from their governments.
The Needs Assessments also disclosed that the manifestations of these common barriers
differed in some respects in the two countries. For example, the Needs Assessment for
7
Hungary found that the country's basic laws governing public access to environmental
information are basically sound and do not require amendment at this time; the main legal
barrier in Hungary is the lack of guidance to public officials on how to implement the
requirements established by these laws. The Needs Assessment for Slovenia identified
gaps in that country's present Environmental Protection Act (EPA), as well as the lack of
guidance to government officials on implementation of the EPA, as the main legal
barriers to public involvement that needed to be addressed.
The Project participants also reviewed two potential case studies and selected one for
each country that provided concrete examples of situations that further illuminated the
barriers to public access to environmental information and helped draw the connection
between such access (or its absence) and opportunities for public involvement in reducing
discharges of toxic and nutrient pollution to the Danube River. The case study selected
for Hungary was a cluster of "hot spots" along a stretch of the Tisza River (which flows
into the Danube River), which that had been impacted by a cyanide spill originating in
Romania. The case study selected for Slovenia was a large pulp and paper mill near the
border with Croatia that is a major source of discharges of nutrients and toxic pollutants
to the Danube River.
Based on the needs assessments and case studies, and the priorities identified by the
participants, the PIT worked with the participants to refine and particularize the project
activities to address and remedy the barriers to effective public access to information
identified in the pilot countries. These included capacity-building workshops in both
countries, in-region plenary meetings, a 2 _-week Study Tour in the U.S. and the
Netherlands, and on-going technical assistance in the preparation of measures to improve
public access to environmental information.
Quite significantly, the participants also themselves devised and implemented capacity
building activities not originally contemplated in the Project Document, but that were
consistent with the Project's objectives and indeed contributed greatly to the Project's
overall success. These participant-initiated activities included: roundtable discussions
with high-level government officials in Slovenia designed to gain consensus and support
for reform measures being developed through the Pilot Project; meetings of NGOs and
government officials in Hungary to discuss how to improve information provision, and a
"mini" study tour of key Slovenian participants to Hungary to learn from successes of
Hungary's Public Information Office in providing environmental information to the
public.
As an essential part of these training and technical assistance activities, the project
produced a large number of written resource materials, which are appended to this
Report. They included the following:
· A highly user-friendly Practices Manual containing reference information from the
United States and Europe (with special emphasis on the Netherlands), and promising
practices being developed in the countries of the former Soviet bloc;
· Extensive materials prepared for and provided to participants in the Study Tour on
public access to water-related environmental information in the U.S. and the
8
Netherlands, including documents detailing the legal framework for providing public
access to environmental information; how such information is made publicly
available in the U.S.; how citizen requests for environmental information are tracked
and responded to; what systems government environmental agencies use to facilitate
information access; how confidential business information is handled; and how NGOs
use publicly available sources of water-related information to participate in efforts to
reduce harmful discharges to water bodies;
· A model to help countries prepare guidance for government employees as they
manage their responsibilities for responding to citizen requests for environmental
information, illustrating how to provide answers to commonly asked questions, and
offering specific procedures for accepting, logging, routing and responding to
information requests, and sample letters and forms to facilitate responses and reduce
government work-load;
· A model to help NGOs in each country prepare citizens guides to encourage and
facilitate citizen requests for environmental information;
· Analytic materials in the form of a Technical Assistance Option Paper providing
information about various means for treating claims of confidential business
information; and
· Responses to issues and specific questions posed by the Project Hungarian and
Slovenian consultants and Project participants during preparation of project measures.
Project Outputs and Results, Lessons Learned, Conclusions and Recommendations
Outputs
The Project produced the following output and results:
Output 1, "Identified the legal, institutional, and practical barriers to public
access to environmental information to support public involvement in Hungary and
Slovenia in furtherance of Danube pollution reduction goals" was completed at the outset
of the Project through the Needs Assessments and Case Study Analyses, described in
Section IX of this Report.
Output 2, " Improved capability of Hungarian and Slovenian public authorities
to provide public access to environmental information and related opportunities for
public participation," was accomplished through numerous training and technical
assistance building activities of the Project described in Section IX.
Output 3, "Appropriate legal, regulatory, and policy recommendations in
support of public access to environmental information identified, drafted and under
consideration for adoption by policy makers in Hungary and Slovenia," was
accomplished through preparation of an extensive Handbook for public officials in
Hungary, Guidelines for public officials in Slovenia, and important new measures to
improve public involvement that are now under consideration and anticipated to be
adopted by the respective governments of the pilot countries.
9
Output 4, "Key Government and Non-Governmental stakeholders trained in
development of well-functioning public access to environmental information and public
involvement programs" was completed through the Project training activities described in
Section IX, all of which included key government officials and NGOs from both
countries. In addition, NGOs participants undertook to produce a guide for citizens that
will help other NGOs and members of the public to successfully obtain water-related
environmental information that can be used to inform their participation in support of
Danube restoration and other environmental protection goals.
Output 5, "Lessons learned materials developed and recommendations made
and disseminated concerning replicable elements of pilot program," is found in Sections
XI and XII of this Report, along with steps taken to assure their region-wide
dissemination.
Measures Developed to Improve Public Access to Environmental Information
In addition to building capacity for implementing public access to environmental
information in Hungary and Slovenia, the Project resulted in the development of three
new effective and concrete measures for improving public involvement in the pilot
countries:
§ A Hungarian Handbook providing guidance for Hungarian government
employees responsible for responding to requests for Danube, and other water-
related and environmental information and public participation in environmental
and water-related decision-making;
§ Guidelines for implementing existing legislation on public access to water-related
and environmental information in Slovenia;
§ A Citizen's Guide to public access to water-related and environmental
information in Hungary prepared by NGOs;
The guidelines for public officials will help the government employees in both countries
who actually receive requests for environmental information relevant to Danube
restoration (and other environmental initiatives) to understand their specific obligations to
provide this information, thereby increasing the flow of vital information to the public
and enabling public participation. The Citizens Guide in Hungary will improve NGO
and citizen's ability to obtain Danube and water-related environmental information by
providing guidance to citizens on their rights to such information, as well as practical
information on how to make a valid request, to which governmental agency such requests
should be directed, rights appeal of denials of information requests, and the other related
issues.
These measures, as well as all of the written resource materials produced through the
project, as well as other information on the project and links to relevant web sites have
been posted on the new Website,
http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/DanubeInformation/Outputs.html
created to help disseminate the results of the project.
10
Other Results
Other Project results include the transfer of knowledge and lessons learned from the Pilot
Project to other countries in CEE, and the development of a PDF-B/Concept document
proposing that a follow-on effort modeled on the Pilot Project be conducted in other
Danube countries in the region. This new initiative would build upon and extend the
capacity built and lessons learned through the Pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia to
the wider region.
Lessons Learned and Conclusions
Major lessons learned through the Pilot Project include the following:
1. The approach developed and used in the Pilot Project--"country-driven"; "bottom-up"
and practical; and replicable elsewhere, but tailored to participating country needs--has
been instrumental in the Project's achievement of its goals.
2. Identifying options gleaned from "good practices" in the U.S. and other countries with
well functioning regimes for providing public access to environmental information has
been a highly effective capacity building strategy, and has provided useful models on
which to base effective public involvement measures in the pilot countries and other
countries in the region.
3. The Project methodology--to begin by identifying the significant barriers to public
access to environmental information, to build government and NGO capacity through
training and on-going technical assistance activities, and to identify and develop
measures to overcome the identified barriers--is sound and replicable region-wide.
4. Needs assessments and case study analyses are very useful tools for identifying the
barriers to public access to environmental information; they provide a good starting
point for developing measures to overcome these barriers.
5. The core activities of the Project--in-region meetings, an in-depth study tour and on-
going technical assistance activities-- were highly effective and essential to improving
the capability of participants and developing effective measures to increase public
access to environmental information and related opportunities for public
participation;
6. Participant-initiated activities that built on the Project's planned capacity-building
program, expanded the effectiveness of that program and contributed substantially to
achievement of the Project's objectives; this kind of initiative also contributes to the
sustainability of project results.
7. The measures developed through the Pilot Project to increase public
involvement--guidelines for government officials and a citizens guide--will help to
11
address barriers to public access to environmental information identifed in Hungary
and Slovenia that hinder public participation
8. Because many other countries in transition in the Danube River Basin face similar
barriers to public involvement, the measures to improve public access to
environmental information developed for the pilot countries provide good models for
other Danube countries that are committed to increase public involvement in support
of reducing pollutant discharges to the Danube with transboundary implications.
9. Including NGOs and other key stakeholders in Danube restoration in all phases of the
Project is essential to developing measures to improve public involvement that are
effective and sustainable.
Based on these conclusions and lessons learned, the project recommends that a follow-on
project be conducted in other Danube countries in transition, using the model developed
through the pilot project as adapted to the needs of the new participating countries; a
PDF-B/Concept document for the follow-on project that we recommend is appended to
this Report.
Organization of Report
This Final Report is comprised of twelve sections. Section II provides background on the
sources discharges to the Danube with transboundary implications, the role of the pilot
countries in generating and addressing these pollution sources, and how improving public
access to environmental information is a crucial step towards increasing public
involvement in support of the goals of the Danube SAP. Section III describes the
Project's objectives. Section IV explains the approach and methodology employed in the
Pilot Project to enable it to achieve its stated objectives. Section V provides a narrative
description of inputs to the Project. Section VI details how finances were managed over
the course of the Project. Section VII describes how the Project was managed. Section
VIII discusses the barriers to public access to environmental information that were
identified in Hungary and Slovenia through the needs assessments process conducted
under the Project. Section IX provides a detailed description of the activities conducted
by the Project to achieve its objectives and produce anticipated outputs. Section X
describes the outputs produced and results achieved by the Project. Section XI details the
lessons that have been learned from the Pilot Project and the conclusions drawn from
these lessons by the PIT. Section XII contains the PIT's recommendations for future
work in the pilot countries and in other countries in transition in the wider Danube River
Basin, based on the results achieved by and lessons learned from the Pilot Project.
12
Section II. Environmental, Legal and Institutional Background and Overview
This section provides an overview of the environmental, legal and institutional background of
the problem of transboundary pollution in the Danube and the programs that have developed
to address this problem; the means by which measures to enhance public access to
environmental information in Danube countries promote stronger and more effective steps to
prevent such pollution; and relevant laws and institutions providing for public access to
information in Hungary and Slovenia and elsewhere.
A. Danube Pollution and International Restoration Efforts
Hungary and Slovenia contribute significantly to the pollution of the Danube River and
are committed to playing an active role in finding solutions to this transboundary
problem. Increased human activity and resulting polluted effluents discharged into the
Danube by these countries and their neighbors have produced high loads of nutrients and
toxins. The sources of these high levels of nutrients and toxins include point and non-
point pollution -- chemical fertilizers and manure from intensive, large-scale livestock
and other agricultural operations, municipal wastes, and discharges from various
industrial sources.
Only about 28% of total Hungarian wastewater currently receives adequate treatment,
and less than half of total Slovenian wastewater is adequately treated. The majority of
untreated domestic effluent in Hungary is released from Budapest downstream into the
Danube, and from three sites located along the Tisza River. While not itself a riparian
Danube country, Slovenia is drained by major Danube tributaries, the Drava and the
Sava, and over half of its land area and 80% of the total Slovenian population is in the
Danube catchment area. Portions of both the Drava and the Sava are seriously
contaminated with pollutants, including heavy metals and agricultural wastes.
Not only do these discharges damage the Danube, they also have a profound impact on
the Black Sea. A survey of total nitrogen and total phosphorous in the Black Sea reveals
that the Danube River delivers 58% of the total nitrogen and 68% of the total
phosphorous load. Nutrients characterized by total nitrogen and total phosphorous are of
special concern since they are directly responsible for significant water quality problems
in the form of eutrophication. Thus, efforts to reduce nutrients and toxins loading in
Hungary and Slovenia will have a substantial impact not only on the success of the joint
effort to clean the Danube, but also on parallel efforts to restore the Black Sea.
The effort to restore the Danube was organized under the auspices of UNDP/GEF and the
European Union's Phare and Tacis programmes, and coordinated by the Danube Program
Coordination Unit ("PCU"). The Strategic Action Plan (SAP), organized under these
flags, provides for a concerted region-wide attack on the deterioration of water quality in
the Danube River. In view of their strong stake in the environmental health of the Danube
River, Hungary and Slovenia are both active participants in the SAP and support the aims
of the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, a linked Danube restoration program.
13
The SAP identifies a variety of tools to achieve the goal of ecological restoration and
conservation. One important element of the plan is public participation and awareness
raising to stimulate SAP success through interest group participation and changes in
consumer behavior. The SAP recognizes that a large number of non-governmental actors
must be mobilized in order to reach the goals set out in the Plan. To this end, the GEF
has supported the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) and other regional activities to
assure the participation of NGOs in planning and implementation activities.
In addition to their engagement in the SAP, Hungary and Slovenia have each
demonstrated additional significant commitment to increasing public involvement in
environmental decision making. Both countries have signed and Hungary has ratified the
Aarhus Convention, in which they committed to institute measures to ensure public
access to environmental information and public participation in environmental decision
making.
In addition, both countries are currently in the process of accession to the European
Union, which will require them to meet EU standards for public involvement identical to
the Aarhus Convention.
The commitments made by the governments of Hungary and Slovenia intersect with the
interests of the non-governmental (NGO) sector in both countries. Citizen groups and
NGO organizations in both countries have participated in or are concerned about efforts
to restore the Danube, and some are organized around specific issues, such as the cyanide
contamination of the Tisza from upstream mining in Romania. The NGO community has
also been deeply engaged in the process to adopt the Aarhus Convention.
B. Drawing the Connection Between Access to Environmental Information and
Pollution Reduction in the Danube
Effective laws, institutions, and practices that to ensure and encourage public access to
environmental information are an essential component of effective environmental
protection. Public access to information is an essential foundation for public engagement
and participation in environmental decision making and implementation and for public
support for effective environmental protection measures, which, in turn, are necessary for
ensuring effective progress toward the SAP's Danube pollution reduction goals.
The Danube process as articulated in the SAP has been very successful in terms of
identifying common problems and coordinating regional planning for improving water
quality and reducing pollution discharges. Its current challenge is to achieve
implementation successes by actually pollution discharges to the Danube, a task even
more difficult than the planning process.
The SAP identifies a variety of tools to achieve the goal of ecological restoration and
conservation of the Danube. One important tool is public participation and awareness
raising to stimulate SAP success through interest group participation and changes in
public and private behaviors that impact the Danube. The SAP recognizes that a large
14
number of non-governmental actors must be mobilized in order to reach the goals set out
in the Plan, and identifies public participation in environmental decision making and in
the myriad activities to reduce pollution as a means toward this end. Access to
environmental information is also the first pillar of the Aarhus Convention, which
recognizes such access as the essential prerequisite to effective public participation in
government decisions for environmental protection.
There are a number of vital linkages between public access to environmental information
and effective environmental protection measures, including measures to reduce
transboundary pollution in the Danube.
First, citizens must have information about, be aware of environmental problems in order
to create public demand for and support for environmental protection efforts.
Second, experience shows that meaningful public participation in environmental decision
making and problem solving generally results in stronger and more effective
environmental programs. Such participation can only occur on the basis of full, accurate
and up-to-date information. Informed participation is effective participation. Without
access to environmental information, the public is severely hampered in its ability to
understand and engage in the process of environmental protection, and specifically to be
part of the complex process of reducing pollution discharges to the Danube River Basin.
Access to government-held environmental information provides the public with the tools
to be part of the process, whether the goal is law drafting, problem identification, or the
very specific task of implementing measures to reduce damaging discharges that end up
in the Danube. Access to information helps the public understand the government's
rationale for the decisions it makes, and provides an avenue for the public to present other
data, evidence and options that the government may be unaware of.
Third, public access to information is essential promote government accountability by
facilitating public review and oversight of performance of government in implementing
measures to advance environmental protection. The public must have information in
order to determine what measures the government is undertaking, the degree to which
those measures are being implemented (including polluter compliance with regulatory
requirements), and the ultimate impact on environmental quality.
Fourth, public access to information can help support public trust and acceptance and
support for government decisions that will involve burdens in meeting environmental
goals. Through the process of developing trust, effective public access to information
about how government makes its decisions and establishes rules can help reinforce the
legitimacy of the decision making process and thereby encourage genuine
implementation and compliance. Environmental decision processes inevitably end up
with compromises, if not winners and losers in the public debate. It is essential that
everyone, nevertheless, goes along. There is strong evidence that the public is more
likely to do this with complete understanding of the bases for government decision
making, resting in turn on access to information. Experience in the western democracies
has shown that it is easier to recruit foot-soldiers into the war on pollution if they have
trust and confidence in the rules and requirements they are asked to implement.
15
Information plays an important role in informed participation in the process of law
creation, and in the process of building the necessary foundation of public good will,
respect and confidence in the decision system.
Fifth, information can help to enlist the public as part of the solution to environmental
problems by informing and encouraging them regarding change in their conduct so as to
advance environmental protection goals and address the challenge of actually reducing
pollution. This requires awareness of the effects of their actions on environmental quality
and how they can play a part in improvement. This task also demands participation by a
broad swath of society not just governments and government officials, but also factory
managers and employees, farmers and ordinary citizens who knowingly or unknowingly
engage in activities that pollute the Danube. It is as important to change the behavior of
the many individuals who, for example, pour waste oil into storm sewers after they
change the oil in their cars and farm vehicles in the numerous villages in the Danube
watershed, as it is to encourage plant managers to install and use wastewater treatment
techniques. Without adequate access to information held by the government, it is almost
impossible for people to become involved in the actions and decisions that impact the
Danube or to understand enough to change their own behavior.
All of these mechanisms for linking public access to environmental information and
strengthened environmental protection measures are fully applicable in Hungary,
Slovenia, and other Danube countries. Promoting such mechanisms through more
effective access to environmental information laws, institutions and practices in these
countries can help reduce transboundary pollution in the Danube. Improved public
access to information about water quality in the Danube and its tributaries; about the
various pollution discharges that impair the quality of these waters; about the means for
reducing these pollution discharges; about regulatory compliance; and about government
decisions and programs to reduce discharges and their success in doing so can all
contribute substantially, through these several mechanisms, to accomplishing this
objective.
Over the past decade, understanding what public access to information can contribute to
the success of Danube restoration programs has steadily developed in Central and Eastern
Europe. The purpose of this Project was to develop institutions and practices that would
increase the effectiveness of citizens and citizen groups engaged in the process of Danube
cleanup.
C. Public Access to Information--Existing Laws, Institutions, and Practices
Hungary
The fundamental right to information is found in the Hungarian Constitution, Article 61,
Par.(1) that provides all persons with the right to obtain and disseminate facts and
information of public interest. However, the constitutional language is not operative on
its own and requires implementing laws. These are found in two places. First, Act LIII.
of 1995 on Environmental Protection (hereinafter: Kvtv.), Article 12., Paragraph (1)
declares that "everyone shall have the right to acquire knowledge about facts and
16
information on the environment, thus, in particular, about the state of the environment,
the level of environmental pollution, the environmental protection activities as well as the
impacts of the environment on human health."
Second, and perhaps more important, Hungary has a so-called "horizontal" freedom of
information act that makes all kinds of public interest information available to the public,
not limited to environmental information, Act LXIII. on the Protection of Personal Data
and on the Publicity of Public Interest Data (hereinafter: Atv.). This general act
eliminates any need for debate about what is "environmental" data or information. Atv.
Article 19, Paragraph (3) unconditionally establishes the right of anyone (including
foreigners, stateless persons and natural and legal persons) to obtain access to public
interest data. The Hungarian law distinguishes between data and information; the latter is
data put into context or subject to some level of analysis. The Hungarian government is
required by fairly detailed laws and regulations to collect a great deal of water-specific
environmental data and information. The Hungarian requirements are considerably less
specific about the processing and dissemination of that data.
Hungary's access to information practices are somewhat more developed than those
found in Slovenia. The Budapest headquarters of the Environment Ministry has a Public
Information Office8, which is open to the public on workdays. Moreover, the Hungarian
government has, in the recent past, funded an NGO network to assist persons in their
requests for information. The main ambient environmental data is on computers, and has
been published in brochures and in a periodical called "data about the state of our
country.". If the Public Information Office does not have the information to respond to a
request, it has been known to contact other offices of the Ministry of Environment or
independent institutes to obtain the information.
Nevertheless, as set forth more fully in Section VIII, the analysis performed for this
project found many deficiencies in Hungary's implementation of its laws for public
access to environmental information. Availability is by no means not automatic. The
system seems to work best for people making requests who know the sources well, and
have the skills to cope with bureaucratic obstacles. Those who have the best chance to
obtain information are people who have some direct personal connections to the
authorities possessing the given information. Moreover, applicants are often asked,
contrary to law, to demonstrate a need for the information or prove a right to it. The
Public Information Office is not widely known by the public. While on the level of
Ministry of Environment there are specialized persons to serve the public environmental
information requests, on local and regional levels (at the inspectorates) there is no one
official who is charged with this work; responding to information requests is an extra
responsibility for otherwise extremely overwhelmed environmental protection personnel.
These offices also lack adequate hardware and software.
Slovenia
8 The primary responsibility of the Office is to provide environmental information on request; it also
produces a limited number of leaflets for active dissemination. The Office can be accessed by e-mail, but
the home page of the Ministry is not interactive yet.
17
The right of the public to have access to information is found in the Slovenian
Constitution, Art. 39 (2).9 As in Hungary, the constitutional right is not self-
implementing, but needs further elaboration in law. The constitutional provision also
limits information to a person who has a legal interest, a standard that is contrary to the
Aarhus Convention and evolving EU standards. The right of access to information is
also subject to other limitations such as restrictions on the availability of state, official,
and military secrets.
Unlike Hungary, Slovenia does not have a general access to information law. Instead,
information rights are provided sector by sector. The environment is a pioneer sector in
this regard. The legal rights to access to environmental including water information is
found in the Environmental Protection Act (hereinafter termed the EPA)10, a framework
environmental law from 1993. EPA, Article 14, contains general language that
environmental information is to be open to the public (the law does not explicitly speak
about the right to access to information), and contains a broad but vague definition of
environmental information. It also sets our several basic rules concerning access to
environmental information upon request. Its provisions concerning public accessibility
of information concerning pollution caused by private persons are particularly unclear.
The EPA defines environmental information as data concerning (1) the state and changes
of the environment, and (2) the procedures and activities of public authorities, namely
bodies of the State and local authorities, the parties involved in the delivery of public
services and holders of public authorizations relating to the environment (hereinafter
termed public authorities).11 But there is confusion in Slovenian law between the use of
term "data" in the EPA and "information" as used in the Constitution, and no regulation
existed at the time of the Needs Assessment to clarify these terms or their relationships.
One common interpretation is that information is processed, aggregated data and that data
refers to raw, unprocessed data.
According to the EPA, Art. 14 (1) and (2) obligates public authorities to
(1) "inform the public" i.e. disseminate environmental information, and to
(2) provide environmental data/information upon the request.
The law sets out a general obligation on the part of public authorities to inform the public
and disseminate environmental information, including annual environmental reports
prepared by the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) concerning the state and changes of
the environment in the country, ecological influences on the health of the population,
environmental damage, rehabilitation programs, environmental research and the
introduction of new technologies, financial transactions and activities of public
authorities in the field of environmental protection, etc.
The EPA has one provision requiring public authorities to provide environmental data on
request, within one month of the request and at price which may not exceed the material
9 The 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Art. 39(2); published in the Official Gazette of the RS,
No. 33/91-I.
10 The EPA is published in the Official Gazette of the RS, No. 32/93, 44/95, 1/96, 9/99, 56/99, and 22/00.
11 The EPA, Art. 14 (1).
18
costs of provided information. It does not require any interest to be stated or proved by a
person seeking environmental information.
Slovenia does not have well developed institutional arrangements to respond to
information requests. Practice falls short of even the unsatisfactory requirements
currently contained in Slovenian law. For example, despite clear law, in practice,
officials tend to ask the public to justify requests for information. Thus, not only do the
laws need to be clarified, and a number of necessary enabling regulations must be
written, but institutions be developed and training must be provided. The current
discretion left to public officials and employees who must respond to requests is too
broad and leads to unjustified rejections. Slovenia also has not made practical
arrangements for dissemination on request; unlike Hungary, there is no Public
Information Office, and Slovenia lacks personnel trained to prove environmental
information upon request. It is difficult to obtain water-related data because of poor
information- low and co-operation between responsible public authorities, particularly
between the state and local authorities. Finally, Slovenia needs to consider procedures
for waiver of costs for NGOs, and the need to establish record keeping concerning
information requests.
Danube Programs for Public Participation
The Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Danube River Basin identifies a variety of tools
to achieve the goal of ecological restoration and conservation. One is public participation
and awareness raising to stimulate SAP success through interest group participation and
changes in consumer behavior (see e.g., Part II, Chapter 4, Paragraph 61), as well as other
provisions that illustrate a strong awareness of the connection between the participation
of a wide variety of actors and Action Plan success). The SAP does not set out details or
standards by which this goal is to be reached. The SAP recognizes that a large number of
non-governmental actors must be mobilized in order to reach the goals set out in the Plan.
To this end, the GEF has supported the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) and other
regional activities to assure the participation of NGOs in planning and implementation
activities. Similarly, as noted earlier in this Report, the other agreements to restore the
Danube also recognize the need for public engagement.
To our knowledge, this project is the first that works to set into place the specific
requirements and institutions to make public participation operational within the Danube
Basin countries, such that the public participation goals of the SAP and other Danube
agreements can be reached.
Aarhus Convention
The Aarhus Convention sets international standards for ensuring public access to
environmental information and public participation in environmental decision making.
The Convention contains a number of provisions that promote and facilitate the public's
right to access information. It obligates each country to take necessary minimum
legislative, regulatory and other measures in support of this goal. Although the
Convention contains three sets of obligations, the one of specific concern to this project is
19
the obligation to facilitate public access to environmental information. The Convention
explicitly recognizes the close connection between access to information and the
possibility for the public to participate in decision-making.
The elements of the access to information obligation are set out in Article 4 of the
Convention. These include who may ask for information, the form in which information
may be requested, the timing of responses, legitimate reasons for denying requests, rules
concerning redaction of information, and other important details.
Since the Aarhus language is general in nature, and contains general directives to
countries to undertake activities in fulfillment of its obligations, each country must
undertake to elaborate the Convention though domestic law and through the kinds of
practical and institutional provisions that were addressed in this project, in order to make
the Convention's requirements effective. The burden of implementation i.e. of
establishing adequate laws, regulations and procedures to achieve the Aarhus goals -- is
placed on each ratifying country. Thus, the Aarhus Convention creates an obligation in
each member country to take necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures to
establish a framework for implementation of the Convention.
Hungary has ratified the Aarhus Convention, and Slovenia is considered likely to do so in
the near future. Through the process of ratification, the requirements contained in the
Aarhus Convention will become obligations within these countries, according to each
country's rules governing the adoption of international conventions.
EU Accession
The European Union is a party to the Aarhus Convention, and is currently translating the
requirements contained in that Convention into a Directive that will be applicable to all
its member states. Hungary and Slovenia are currently in the process of accession to the
European Union, which will require them to meet the standards for public access to
information involvement adopted by the EU.
USA/European Experience
The United States and particular countries of Europe have long-standing experience with
laws requiring governments to provide information (including environmental
information) upon request. Chief among the European countries with high-functioning
provisions is the Netherlands, which was visited in the project's study tour.
The need for the government to set rules on transparency on the way it fulfils its tasks is
established in the Dutch Constitution, Article 110. Like Hungary and Slovenia, the
Constitution does not contain a right to information in itself and the government is
obliged to adopt further legislation.
Netherlands has a general ("horizontal") Freedom of Access to Government Information
Act, Web openbaarheid van bestuur12, which was adopted in 1991. That law consolidated
12 http://www.minbzk.nl/pdf/eo/goed/public_access_government_info_10-91.pdf
20
earlier legislation, and set out basic provisions for access to all types of information held
by government authorities. There are also a number of specific provisions on access to
government information in sectoral legislation. In the field of the environment the most
important are the Wet milieubeheer (Environmental Management Act - EMA) and the
Wet milieugevaarlijke stoffen (Dangerous Substances Act). The access to information
provisions laid down in Chapter 19 of the Environmental Management Act mainly apply
to information held by the government in the process of environmental permitting,
whereas the provisions in the Dangerous Substances Act apply mainly in the context of
dangerous substances.13
All Dutch ministries, including the Ministry of Housing, Land-use Planning and the
Environment, have adopted regulations for the internal application of the WOB, mostly
based on a 1992model regulation.14 The regulation sets out the procedures and
responsibilities for providing information held by the ministry. It also contains a registry
of all institutions, services and companies operating under the responsibility of the
ministry, including their name, addresses and their information points. The regulation
designates each ministry's Public Information and External Relations Directorate as its
central point with responsibilities to collect and provide information. The Secretary-
General of each Ministry (3rd in the ministry's hierarchy) acts when substantial questions
arise.
By all accounts, the Dutch system works well, and provides useful models for its
European neighbors.
The United States also has a comprehensive, "horizontal" Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) that dates from 1966, granting the public a right to information that had
previously been "shielded unnecessarily from public view." There is no specific act for
environmental law.
13 The Dutch Act applies to all `documents' held by `government authorities,' including `written pieces or
other materials that contain information'. "Government authorities" is also broadly defined to include
ministries, provinces, municipalities, water boards as well as other government authorities working under
their authority. No person need state an interest as a requirement for submitting a request for information
and information must be provided unless one of the exemptions applies. If the request for information is
filed with the wrong authority, this authority will refer the applicant to the authority who has the
information or, in case of a written request, automatically forward the request, while notifying the
applicant. Replies to written requests for information are given in writing. Oral requests for information are
replied to orally, unless a written answer is requested.
The government authority has to decide as soon as possible on the request for information, but no more
than two weeks, with a possible two weeks extension under limited circumstances. Dutch administrative
courts have interpreted the obligation to decide "as soon as possible" to mean that the information needs to
be provided as soon as it is available. Authorities can thus not `sit' on the information to await the end of
the two-week deadline. In general the authority will try to provide the information in the form requested by
the participant, unless this request is unreasonable, too laborious or too costly.
14 Modelregeling ter uitvoering van de Wet openbaarheid van bestuur, behorende bij het besluit van de
Minister-president van 8 April 1992, nr. 92M001858, houdende vaststelling van de Aanwijzingen inzake
openbaarheid van bestuur (Stcrt. 1992, 84).
21
The presumption of the law is in favor of disclosure. The law also contains nine specific
exemptions from disclosure, to recognize that certain information involving national
security, business confidentiality and privacy interests simply may prove too harmful for
public disclosure. The nine exemptions set up concrete, workable standards for
determining whether particular material may be withheld or must be disclosed. These
exemptions have been elaborated by practice and the courts. There are strict review
procedures within government agencies, when a denial is made and government officials
who deny information are required to justify their decisions. Congress also included in
the Act the right of individuals whose information requests are denied to appeal the
decision to a United States District Court.
The details of U.S. implementation of FOIA are too complex to be summarized here, and
can be found in the project's Practices Manual, Annex ____. The effort to implement
FOIA was the subject of 10 days of the project's study tour.
22
Section III. Project Objectives
Building Environmental Citizenship to Support Transboundary Pollution Reduction in
the Danube: A Pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia had two interrelated objectives:
§ The Objective in the Pilot Countries was to assist Hungary and Slovenia in
developing the legal, institutional and practical infrastructure necessary to
operationalize public access to environmental information and related public
participation in support of efforts to reduce transboundary pollution stemming from
discharges to the Danube River.
§ The Global Environmental Objective was to demonstrate how the measures
developed in Hungary and Slovenia can help other CEE countries in the Danube
River Basin achieve the important global environmental goals of the Danube SAP,
the Aarhus Convention, and the Danube River Protection Convention to which the
pilot countries, and many others, have committed.
A. Objectives in Pilot Countries
The Project's main objective has been to enable Hungary and Slovenia, two key
participants in the Danube Strategic Action Plan (SAP), to operationalize and
institutionalize public access to environmental information and public participation
measures in support of reducing transboundary pollution from the discharge of nutrients
and toxics into the Danube River. The Project aimed to assist Hungary and Slovenia in
developing effective and practical legal, institutional and practical measures to overcome
existing barriers to, and seize opportunities to improve, public involvement, through a
variety of capacity-building activities.
Within the scope of this objective, the Project sought to build capacity in the
governmental and non-governmental sectors of Hungary and Slovenia to establish the
legal, institutional, social and practical infrastructure that is a prerequisite to informed
and meaningful public participation in support of efforts to protect the Danube from
nutrient and toxic discharges with transboundary implications.
Specifically, the project has sought to:
Identify the legal, institutional and practical barriers to and opportunities
for implementation of public access to environmental information.
No previous assessment in Slovenia or Hungary had looked specifically at public access
to environmental information in the context of discharges to the Danube with
transboundary effects. Hence an important early goal was to provide an up-to-date and
comprehensive water-body focused assessment of the legal, institutional and practical
barriers to obtaining environmental information. This was envisioned as an important
starting point for all subsequent activities because it would identify the set of conditions
that need to be addressed in order to improve public access to environmental information
and thereby enable the participating countries to identify potential solutions.
23
Build capacity in the governments of the two pilot countries to establish the
legal, institutional, and practical infrastructure that is a prerequisite to
increasing informed and meaningful public participation to support efforts
to protect the Danube from these discharges, and thereby also reinforce the
role of non-governmental actors and enable them to actively and
constructively be involved in reducing these discharges.
Building Environmental Citizenship was designed to build capacity in government
officials, in partnership with NGOs, to implement access to environmental information
and related public participation commitments embodied in the Aarhus Convention and
related Danube-based commitments. The Project identified and tested necessary
elements to achieve this goal. The Project sought to establish significant legal,
institutional and practical reforms, and to foster changes in attitudes and the information
culture in Hungary and Slovenia. The Project goal was to ensure that commitments
assumed under the Aarhus Convention and the regional agreements would result in
changes on the ground in the pilot countries that would enable citizens and NGOs to
successfully obtain the water-related information they need to meaningfully participate in
Danube restoration efforts.
In service of these objectives, the pilot project additionally sought to highlight the key
role that access to environmental information plays in well functioning environmental
protection regimes. Accordingly, the Pilot Project aimed to increase the awareness of
government officials of the environmental protection benefits of providing public access
to environmental information, as well as to enhance NGOs awareness of the significant
role individuals and NGOs can and must play in reducing pollution.
Identify good practices legal, institutional and practical options for
improving public access to water-related environmental information
and develop national legislation, regulation or policies to address the
barriers and seize the opportunities
The project set out to identify "good practice" legal, institutional and practical options
from the European Union, the United States and countries in transition in order to provide
an array of measures that might serve as models for overcoming the barriers to public
access to water-related environmental information in Hungary and Slovenia. The United
States has 35 years of experience implementing public access to information
requirements, and has much to share in terms of successes and failures, procedures and
institutions to make such systems work. Similarly, some European countries such as
Netherlands have lengthy experience.
Field- test specific, replicable public involvement measures to address
discharges to the Danube through a case study that demonstrates how
such measures can further the goals of the Danube SAP
24
The pilot project envisioned using a case study example in each country to provide
concrete illustrations of the challenges each country faced and how these hinder public
involvement in discharge reduction, and to help identify practical solutions. Using real-
life examples was also intended to provide a "reality check" to test the viability and
effectiveness of the measures developed for Hungary and Slovenia.
Strengthen inter-governmental and government-to-NGO cooperation
and partnerships to enable joint learning on viable appoaches to
public involvement in the context of control and prevention of point
and non-point sources of transboundary water pollution.
Forging an NGO-government partnership to develop a viable public involvement regime
was an additional goal of the pilot project. This kind of partnership is needed in order to
develop public involvement measures that are realistic and practical and serve the needs
of both government and citizens. The project sought to foster this cooperative
relationship through team-building activities that brought together government officials
from different agencies at different levels of government, and local and national-level
NGOs to develop solutions together. A related goal in Hungary, identified through the
Needs Assessment, was to strengthen the role of NGOs as active partners in
environmental protection by providing guidance on their rights to environmental
information and how and where to obtain information relevant to Danube protection.
B. Global Objective
At the "global" environment level, the project's objective was to demonstrate how the
capacity-building activities undertaken and information access measures developed
through the pilot project can help the pilot countries and other countries in political and
economic transition in the Danube River Basin to achieve the important global pollution
reduction goals of the Danube SAP and related Danube commitments and of the Aarhus
Convention.
First, the project aimed to develop effective and replicable measures to improve public
access to environmental information and public participation in support of reducing
discharges to the Danube that have transboundary effects. Second, it sought to develop
and test capacity building and technical assistance activities, including written resource
materials produced for the project, that can be adapted to the needs of the pilot countries
and other Danube countries that face similar barriers to public access to environmental
information and are committed to overcoming them. A third objective was to actively
promote transfer of knowledge and lessons learned from pilot project to other Danube
basin countries. Finally, the project aimed to identify replicable elements of the pilot
project and develop recommendations for follow-on actions in the region to improve
public involvement in environmental decision making in support of reduction of pollutant
discharges to Danube with transboundary implications. In furtherance of the last
objectives, this final report contains recommendations for further work in the region to
improve public involvement in environmental decision making in support of reduction of
pollutant discharges to Danube with transboundary implications.
25
Section IV. Project Approach and Methodology
Both Hungary and Slovenia had made formal international commitments to public access
to environmental information and public participation commitments in the context of the
Aarhus Convention, the various Danube agreements and the EU accession process. The
Project took a country-driven approach to solidify these commitments through practical,
domestic implementation efforts and expanded understanding. The approach stressed the
importance of providing interested government and NGO partners in each country with
opportunities and options to empower and strengthen domestic interest in and will to
achieve information access. It also tapped the experience and knowledge base within
each country to assure the relevance of the options provided. The Project worked to
widen the circle of committed persons and organizations in each country. Throughout,
the project stressed the importance of information for the effective engagement of non-
governmental sector in environmental decision making and in actual remediation efforts.
The Project aimed over the 18 month effort to assure that ownership and commitment for
achieving the goals of the project would shift from the PIT to Hungarians and Slovenians
in government and the non-governmental world, in order that work would continue when
the project itself formally ended. As detailed in the Section XII "Conclusions and
Recommendations," we believe the methodology was successful and that this goal was
achieved.
Approach
The project took a "country driven" approach, recognizing that its goal of increasing public
opportunities for access to environmental information on transboundary pollution in the
Danube in Hungary and Slovenia would succeed if the project gradually developed a
committed core group of people representing a broad range of skills and points of view. The
PIT believed that change could be achieved if, by the time the project was formally
completed, dedicated in-country teams were ready to continue to carry through the goals and
objectives of the project in other words, to continue the process of effecting change. The
Project was developed so that the "hand off" to local partners evolved and grew out of the
Project activities.
In order to implement this approach Project participants from the client countries were
encouraged to assume a lead role in the development of Project outputs. These
participants were clearly in the best position to understand the challenges in their
respective countries to effect public access to environmental information and related
public participation, and the steps that must be taken to embrace positive change. The
role of the PIT, in addition to overall project planning, was to provide guidance, context,
experience and information, all of which could be harnessed in support of country-
specific goals. The PIT provided options and proven experience from Western Europe
and the United States, but worked collaboratively with the participants to examine what
would work and what adjustments were necessary for Hungarian and Slovenian domestic
success.
26
The PIT paid careful attention to the opinions, ideas and needs of the Project participants.
The PIT, rather than controlling their agenda, provided for them a framework for
effecting change through capacity building and technical assistance. This approach was
greatly aided and facilitated by the two countries' own strong aspirations to enter the
European Union, since Aarhus and Water Framework Directive implementation were two
among numerous requirements they will have to meet.
One indication of the success of this approach was communicated in the Ig, Slovenia
final meetings. A key project participant explained how the project had significantly
expanded her understanding of how to be successful in her job, which involved the
collection and management of water-related data in Hungary. She no longer saw herself
in the narrow role of government data collector and manager; rather, she expressed a
broader understanding of how her efforts fit into developing a wider constituency for and
understanding of the environmental decisionmaking process and Danube pollution
reduction.
The project also emphasized bottom-up and highly practical solutions to animate the
formal Aarhus and Danube commitments. The PIT's approach emphasized that the
activities of the Project must match the real needs of the country participants, and must
grapple with specific, unique issues and challenges related to the particular culture, legal
and information traditions and historical challenges of the particular countries. The
Project focused on practical, concrete objectives and outputs that would move the
countries from the somewhat abstract goals of their international and regional
environmental commitments to tangible outcomes.
The third leg of the project approach was the recognition that efforts in Hungary and
Slovenia were a pilot, testing approaches that might be used in the neighboring Danube
basin countries to achieve the same goals of information access and Danube clean-up.
Thus, the approach identified available options for addressing problems of common
interest to both pilot countries and potentially other Danube countries. At the same time,
all options were tailored to meet the specific needs and circumstances of each country.
Methodology
The first step in project methodology was problem identification. Local environmental
legal experts, acting in consultation with, and with guidance from, the PIT performed
analyses of existing Hungarian and Slovenian laws and practice for information access,
with specific emphasis on the accessibility of information about transboundary water
discharges. This step both assured a country-specific approach and set the stage for
appropriate "tailoring" of solutions to the particular needs and circumstances of each
country. The analysis also began the development of a shared understanding of the
purposes of the Project and the goals to be accomplished by the Project participants and
the PIT, and thereby began to develop consensus for moving forward with the
development of Project outputs.
27
Following the identification of the specific challenges and opportunities facing each
country, the project moved to the identification of options for addressing these problems.
This was achieved through use of comparative analysis and experience in different
countries that have had varying degrees of success in making environmental information
access a reality for their citizens. The experience included practices in the European
Union, with particular emphasis on the Netherlands and Italy, the United States where the
Freedom of Information Act has been in place for more than 30 years, and evolving
practices in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. In all countries, the PIT identified a
variety of good practices and potentially applicable measures. These examples were
made available to project participants through the development of a Practices Manual, an
intensive study tour in Netherlands and the United States, in the Project's many meetings
and workshops, and in electronic and telephonic exchanges between the PIT and the
project participants.
Case examples, identified by Hungarian and Slovenian experts and ratified by the project
participants, were designed to provide a grounded local "reality check" to the efforts in
each country. Before the first in-region meeting, the Hungarian and Slovenian NGO
consultants selected, in consultation with the PIT, two possible case examples to propose
to each country, to provide the context of real facts.15 The meeting participants
considered these options, and selected a single final case study example for each country
for use in the program from the options provided them to work with over the course of
the Project. For Hungary, the project participants chose pollution source "hotspots" on
the Tisza River, and a pulp and paper mill for Slovenia.
The case studies in the problem identification process grounded discussions in concrete
examples of how incomplete and/or ambiguous laws and procedures regarding public
access to environmental information created obstacles to the public's ability to learn
about their immediate environment and participate effectively in environmental decision
making and provided context for the practical outcomes that would be produced in the
course of the Project. The PIT anticipated that if the Project outputs identified solutions
in such real factual settings, there would be greater problem-solving motivation and the
solutions chosen would be more realistic and capable of implementation. A specific goal
was to avoid theoretical or academic instruments that sounded good on paper but were
not capable of adoption. The strengths and weaknesses of using case study examples and
how this technique might be modified in the proposed follow-on project are discussed in
Section X, Outputs and Results.
Capacity building to address common problems and promote shared learning was
designed to take place throughout the project. This was achieved through workshops
15 Two candidate case studies were identified for each country, involving sources of transboundary
nutrients or toxic substances discharged to the Danube. Project participants selected which case study was
most appropriate to illuminate their circumstances. For Hungary, the candidates were: illegal dumping of
nutrients in a wetlands area, and various toxic and nutrient "hotspot" pollution sources identified through
the Danube GEF Program on the Tisza River. For Slovenia, the candidates were a pig farm and a pulp and
paper factory. The Case Study Analyses are discussed in further detail in the "Outputs and Results" section
of the Final Report. Copies of the Analyses are available in the Appendix to the Final Report.
28
conducted in both countries, through an intensive study tour, and through extensive
personal communication between the PIT and Hungarian and Slovenian participants. As
noted elsewhere in this Report, the PIT adjusted its methodology early in the project. On
the basis of the first workshop in Szentendre, the PIT decided that country-specific needs
could be more effectively addressed, and a broader group of participants engaged, by
instituting separate in-country workshops conducted in national language, rather than
combined workshops. This arrangement allowed more active and deeper participation.
The Study Tour, discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this Report, also served the goal
of capacity building.
Technical assistance was a specific means of achieving capacity building, and a core
element of the project methodology. Technical assistance was provided on an on-going
basis to address both common and country-specific problems and consistent in part of
continuous communication between PIT and participants throughout project. Technical
assistance was an important method of communication between formal activities to
assure participants of maximal support and assistance, and to keep the PIT in touch with
needs of participants. In addition to conference calls that provided responses to specific
questions or interactively examined options, the technical assistance produced a written
work product in the form of an options paper on the significant issue of the treatment of
confidential business information. Other written work products include the Practices
Manual and models for providing guidance to public officials and citizens. In addition,
on several occasions, specific project participants sought guidance from the PIT on
specific issues of concern. Through interactive e-mail communication, the PIT provided
experience, options and examples to resolve the specific issues raised. Copies of those
communications are contained in the appendix.
Stakeholder and Public Involvement
The project put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of non-governmental actors as
the key end users of environmental information. NGOs were viewed as essential
members of country teams and government partners in improving public access to
environmental information. They were directly involved in all project activities. The
research that led to problem identification was conducted by NGO environmental law
experts. In Hungary, as noted elsewhere, the choice of the Tisza River cyanide spill as a
case example led directly to the involvement of the Tisza Klub, and the selection of
Szolnok (a city directly impacted by the spill) for the location of the first Hungarian-
language workshop. Both local and international NGOs played a particularly large role
in the Hungarian part of the project, including both transboundary NGOs such as WWF
International (Baia Mare Public Participation Project) and more local NGOs such as the
Tisza Klub and the Hungarian Eco-Counseling Association. NGOs took the lead in the
development of a significant Project output, the Hungarian Citizens Guide.
At the same time that emphasis was placed on NGOs, the PIT recognized that access to
information concerning the Danube must involve a more diverse set of stakeholders, all
of whom share concern and responsibility for water discharges and Danube clean-up.
Thus, the project included water and environment ministry personnel at the national and
29
municipal levels, people representing the interests and concerns of industry, and others,
such as the Data Protection Ombudsman of Hungary who essentially guard public rights
to information. Each of these groups were involved in project activities, such as in-
region meetings and capacity building workshops. The study tour included a balanced
group of government officials with responsibility for both data dissemination and water
data collection, as well as NGOs.
The involvement of all such stakeholders recognized that increasing public access to
environmental information held by the government increases opportunities for diverse
members of society to participate in environmental decision-making. Individuals and
groups with an interest in environmental information include community groups, interest
groups such as trade associations, people who are affected by pollution and industry.
Representatives of the Hungarian and Slovenian NGO community were included in all of
Building Environmental Citizenship's significant planning and development of activities
and outputs. Although they came to the project with strong motivations and interests,
their capacity to be involved in follow-on efforts has been enormously strengthened by
the very specific information they have received as part of the Project, which will
enhance their efforts to participate in future environmental decision making and problem
solving. As a result of the Project, tools are being put in place to increase their
participation in their countries' environmental decision making process, and the NGOs
have a significantly enhanced understanding of what must be done to make those tools
operational and effective.
30
Section V. Inputs
This section consists of narrative description supplemented by descriptive charts.
Information is provided on Project budget expenditures, staffing, subcontracting and co-
financing.
A. Original Budget and Final Expenditures by Year
The original Project budget planned to implement a majority of the activities in year 2000
(approximately 2/3 of the Project funding) and the remainder in 2001. Due to the later
start of the project in April 2000, some of the activities that incurred substantial
expenditures were realized in 2001. These included the capacity building workshops and
the Study Tour to the Netherlands and U.S. Therefore, expenditures in 2000 were 45.7 %
(US$254,921) of the amount initially budgeted (US$557,499). This amount is
approximately one third of the total budget, which is proportionate to the eight month
duration of the Project in 2000. For 2002, US$494,929 was allocated in the adjusted
yearly budget for the remaining 10 months. Spending on the different budgetlines were
proportionate to the timing and the tasks prescribed in the project.
B. Regional Coordination with Terms of Service for Project Staff and Consultants
The budget divided Project staff into two categories, National Professionals and In-
Country Training and Technical Assistance. National Professionals included the Project
Manager, Slovenia Program Director, Hungary Program Director, Capacity
Building/Training Expert, Aarhus Implementation Expert, Environmental Public
Participation Expert, Environmental Public Participation Expert, and Publication Officer.
The Project Manager (PM) had responsibility for the overall management and
coordination of the Project in Hungary and Slovenia and worked closely with the REC
Project staff and the subcontractors to implement the Project. As defined in the Project
Document terms of reference, the PM's responsibility was to supervise and coordinate
Project activities, and provide technical and expert input in collaboration with the partner
implementing organizations (RFF and NYU). It was also her role to ensure that
subcontracts were prepared in a timely manner, Project activities were planned and
implemented according to plans, and financial and other reports were submitted on a
regular and timely basis to UNDP-GEF. The PM represented the REC in the Project
Steering Committee. The PM's task was also to maintain regular contacts with UNDP,
the governments, NGOs and Project partners. While planning and overall supervision of
Project activities were conducted by the REC, the sub-contracting partners helped with
substantial advice and cooperation.
The REC staff included the Slovenian and Hungarian Program Directors who were
responsible for monitoring and coordinating the day to day operational management of
the Project in each country and for providing organizational support for country events.
A substantial portion of the Hungarian Program Director's tasks were actually carried out
by the PM; the Hungarian Director advised on contacts with communities, local
administration, government authorities and NGOs, and participated in events organized in
31
Hungary. The Hungarian Program Director also provided technical assistance by
recommending participants and facilitators for the events organized at the local level in
Hungary.
The Slovenian Program Director was a crucial staff position in the Project. She provided
assistance to the PM in planning, supervising and executing Project activities in Slovenia.
The Slovenian Program Director worked closely with the PM and the Project partners to
plan, organize and implement Project activities in Slovenia, including the capacity
building workshops and the management of Project related work between meetings. She
maintained continuous contact with the members of the Slovenian Project team and
facilitated contacts with governmental, NGO and other partners. She also assisted the
PM in preparing the financial reports.
Another key REC staff position was the Capacity Building/Training expert whose task
was to provide overall technical assistance to the development and delivery of the in-
region training/ capacity building program. This function was performed by the PM and
the Environmental Law Expert (ELPE).
At the October kick-off meeting the Project partners determined that the Project should
implement capacity building workshops rather than specialized training sessions, so the
expert's work was focused accordingly. Throughout Project implementation, the REC
experts frequently consulted with NYU and RFF on developing the capacity building
program and REC staff worked closely with the two implementing partner institutions.
Lessons drawn from the case study work were used to develop effective capacity building
workshops and materials such as the Hungarian Handbook and Citizen's Guide that were
designed to be used as long-term capacity building tools.
The ELPE's primary responsibilities were to provide expert assistance to the PM in
Project implementation on legal and practical access to environmental information and
public participation in environmental decision making. The ELPE also provided input on
the development and delivery of access to environmental information and public
participation related Project activities and materials including assessments, documents
and training materials. The ELPE took an active approach to managing sub-contracts in
this subject area. Additionally, the ELPE was responsible for organizing and
implementing the program for the Netherlands part of the study tour.
The position of Environmental Public Participation Expert (EPPE) was responsible for
providing expert assistance to the PM in implementing Project related activities on public
participation in environmental decision making related to transboundary pollution. The
EPPE's role was to provide input on the development and content of the public
participation related aspects of the needs assessments, guidance documents and training
materials as well as to consult with partner institutions on a regular basis. This role was
largely shared between the PM and ELPE because at the kick-off meeting it was
determined that the primary focus of the Project should be on public access to
environmental information and water-related information. Public participation topics
were integrated into Project activities as background issues. For example, in Hungary,
there was a request to include public participation dimensions as a separate section of the
32
Handbook prepared for public authorities. Public participation was extensively used as a
technique to promote broader public involvement in the discussion of the case study
materials, the design of the capacity building workshops, and the preparation of Project
documents such as the Hungarian Handbook and Citizen's Guide and the Slovenian
Guidelines. These materials were widely circulated for comments.
C. Percentage of Consultancy Contracts and Payments to Consultants on a
Country Basis
The Project contracted several organizations and individual consultants to provide the
necessary expertise and services.
Project Implementation Partners
The two organizations that were partners with REC in Project implementation, Resources
for the Future (RFF) and New York University School of Law, (NYU) were
subcontracted by REC. The two organizations' principal role was to provide expert
environmental legal and policy services and advice throughout Project implementation.
NYU's main role was to provide expert environmental law services and to be responsible
to REC and UNDP for the production of law related materials. NYU was also charged
with organizing and conducting the New York portion of U.S. Study Tour. In addition,
NYU worked closely and collaboratively with both REC and RFF to generate all of the
other outputs.
The main role of RFF was to provide expert advice on environmental policy and to be
responsible to REC and UNDP for the production of the policy and government-related
materials in Project documents. RFF took responsibility for organizing and conducting
the Washington D.C. portion of the U.S. Study Tour. RFF also focused on addressing
institutional and practical barriers that impede public access to environmental information
that empowers public involvement in Hungary and Slovenia for Danube pollution
reduction goals.
Chart No.1: Implementing Partners
Subcontract percentages of the implementing partner organizations Resources for the
Future (RFF), New York University School of Law (NYU) and the Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) (the executing agency).
Implementing Partners
RFF
28%
REC
42%
RFF
NYU
REC
33
Consultants
The following consultants were contracted for specific Project implementation tasks:
Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA)-Sándor Fülöp-Hungarian
Legal Consultant, Milada Mirkovic-Slovenian Legal Consultant, Foundation for
International Environmental Law Development (FIELD) (Jürgen Lefevre EU Law
Expert), and AIDEnvironment Dutch Study Tour Organizer.
Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA), Sándor Fülöp-Hungarian
Expert. The task of EMLA was to prepare the "needs assessment" on public access to
environmental and water-related information and to develop recommendations for case
study material to be used for illustrating existing problems and barriers in Hungary. In
addition to this, the legal expert was asked to participate in all Project meetings to ensure
that Project measures were consistent with Hungarian legislation and practices and the
requirements of EU accession. He was also asked to contribute to the presentation of
NGO perspectives. Under a separate contract, the Hungarian Law Expert prepared the
Handbook on public access to information, public participation in related decision-
making, and access to justice on environmental and water-related matters.
Milada Mirkovic, Slovenian Law Expert. The task of the Slovenian legal consultant was
to prepare the "needs assessment" on public access to environmental and water-related
information and to develop recommendations for case study material to be used for
illustrating existing problems and barriers in Slovenia. In addition to this, the legal expert
was asked to participate in all Project activities to ensure that the Project was consistent
with Slovenian legislation and practices and the requirements of EU accession. She was
also asked to contribute to the presentation of Slovenian NGO perspectives. Finally, the
Slovenian law expert prepared Guidelines on access to data on the state of the
environment and changes in the environment.
Foundation for International Environmental Law Development (FIELD), Jürgen Lefevre,
EU Law Consultant. The main tasks of the E.U. law consultant was to provide expert
advice and input on Project materials from the point of view of E.U. accession issues,
including EC law and procedure regarding accession requirements in the field of public
access to information and water-related information. He worked closely with NYU, RFF
and REC and provided comments on the needs assessments and case study materials. He
also contributed to other Project materials, including the Practices Manual, offering a
perspective based on E.U. legislation and examples of practices in E.U. countries.
AIDEnvironment Dutch Study Tour Organizer. The task of AIDEnvironment was to
assist REC in organizing the Nertherlands part of the Study Tour for eight CEE
participants and a REC representative. AIDEnvironment was responsible for making
suggestions for the Study Tour program, organizing the logistics, preparing a draft
34
agenda, arranging meetings with local authorities, government officials and NGOs, and
providing participants the necessary background materials.
Eco -Counselling Network (KOT Halozat), Hungary. The Eco Counselling Network was
contracted to prepare a Citizen's Guide to facilitate public access to environmental and
water-related information for citizens in Hungary. The experts were asked to prepare a
publication-ready Guide, including writing, editing, design and layout.
A description of the percentage of consultant contracts by each county involved in the
Project follows. The two charts below present the percentage of Project funds for
consultants that went to each country.
Chart No. 2: All Subcontracts by Country
Hungary-EMLA
Slovenia-Milada Mirkovic
Great Britain FIELD
Netherlands-AidEnvironment
USA-RFF, NYU
(The Eco-Counselling Network needs to be added to the chart.)
All subcontractors by countries
Hungary
Slovenia
5%
GB
2%
3%
Netherlands
USA
3%
Netherlands
GB
Hungary
Slovenia
USA
87%
Chart No. 3
Percentage of funds distributed between country consultants EMLA-Environmental
Management and Law Association (Hungary) and Milada Mirkovic (Slovenia).
35
Country Consultants
Slovenia
31%
Hungary
Slovenia
Hungary
69%
D. Support from UN Agencies and Parallel Support from the Donor Community
The Project partners received a $10,000 grant from the Trust for Mutual Understanding
(TMU), a New York based foundation, to support the participation of the U.S. partners in
the Project. Specifically, the TMU funds were awarded to contribute to the international
travel costs incurred by the U.S. partners.
E. Government Support
The Hungarian and Slovenian partners from government institutions supplied substantial
in-kind contributions to the Project. This contribution included the following:
· the time of the government experts who participated in all Project
meetings, including the October 2000 kick-off meeting and the January
February and June capacity building workshops in Hungary and Slovenia;
· the time of the government and NGO experts who participated in the
Netherlands and US study tour;
· the time of the Hungarian and Slovenian teams to advise and comment
on Project materials and activities, attendance at meetings with the
REC Project team, and the visit of the Slovenian team in Hungary;
· meeting facilities and administrative support provided by Hungarian
and Slovenian ministries.
In Hungary the following participating institutions contributed work time:
Ministry of Environmental Protection
Ministry of Waters and Transportation
Water Directorates
Environment Protection Agencies
36
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Economics
Ministry of Industry
Ombudsman`s Office
Figures in the table below are based on a calculation of the value of work days
contributed by Hungarian government participants to Project meetings.
Meeting
No. of
Days
Values in
Particip.
USD
October
14
3
8400
January
24
2
9600
June
25
2
10000
200 USD/Day Total
28000
USD
The charts below illustrate target group participation in capacity building events in
Hungary.
Chart No. 4: All Hungarian Capacity Building Events
NGOs
21%
Min.of Env.
EPA
Min.of Env.
Min.of Waters
14%
51%
Water Dir.
EPA
NGOs
Water Dir.
Min.of
7%
Waters
7%
Chart No. 5: June 2001 Hungary Meeting Participants
37
Bus.
Min.of Env.
Loc.auth.
8%
17%
3%
Min.of Env.
Min.of Waters
Min.of Waters
Other
3%
13%
Water Dir.
EPA
Water Dir.
NGOs
19%
NGOs
Other
29%
EPA
Loc.auth.
8%
Bus.
Levels of government contributions and stakeholder participation in Slovenia were
similar to that of Hungary. However, because Slovenia is a much smaller country, the
actual number of participating officials and other stakeholders tended to be somewhat
less.
38
Section VI. Financial Management
[to be supplied by REC]
39
Section VII. Project Management
A.
The Project Implementation Team
Building Environmental Citizenship to Support Transboundary Pollution Reduction in
the Danube: A Pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia was developed jointly by the
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe ("REC"; Szentendre,
Hungary), New York University School of Law ("NYU"), and Resources for the Future
("RFF"; Washington, D.C.).
The Partnership Organizations
REC served as the executing agency for the Project, with NYU and RFF as partners.
These three organizations make up the Project Implementation Team ("PIT"). The
members of the PIT shared responsibility for all aspects of the implementation of the
Project.
The Project was an outgrowth of on-going REC efforts since 1990 supporting
implementation of access to environmental information, public participation, and access
to justice requirements in Central Europe in order to promote environmental protection
and sustainable development. The key project participants at NYU and RFF have
collaborated closely with REC on environmental law and policy reform initiatives in
countries in economic and political transition for more than 10 years, and have substantial
expertise and experience in assisting governments there and in other regions in
developing legal, regulatory, institutional, and practical measures for ensuring public
involvement.
In-Region Participant Teams
The Project was designed and implemented in close partnership with key government
officials and ministries in Hungary and Slovenia, and leading environmental NGOs, who
formed country "teams". Members of these teams included water and environment
ministry officials of Hungary and Slovenia, NGOs from both countries, and
representatives of municipal government and agricultural and industrial concerns.
The country teams took a strong "ownership" role within the Project and were
instrumental in the Project's success. They demonstrated great initiative and, within the
framework provided by the PIT, were able to develop practical measures to address
barriers to access to environmental information in Hungary and Slovenia.
National and European Consultants
The PIT hired a Hungarian and a Slovenian environmental law expert as consultants to
collaborate with the Project participants in identifying barriers to access to environmental
information in Hungary and Slovenia, and to assist in the development of practical
measures to address these obstacles. The two consultants were Dr. Sándor Fülöp for
Hungary, and Milada Mirkovic for Slovenia, both NGO lawyers. Dr. Fülöp and Ms.
40
Mirkovic were instrumental in the preparation of the needs assessments and case study
analyses and the guidelines for public officials for Hungary and Slovenia. They
furthermore attended all in-region workshops, making presentations and working with the
Project participants in the identification of barriers to access to environmental
information and the development of solutions.
The PIT also engaged as a consultant Jürgen Lefevere, an expert on EU law, to assist the
Project participants with issues relating to harmonization with EC Directives, including
the Information Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Mr. Lefevere is a lawyer
for the Foundation on International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD), an
environmental NGO based in London. He drafted the section of the Practices Manual on
EU options and examples and attended three of the in-region meetings, answering
questions from the participants on EU legal standards. The involvement of Mr. Lefevere
was important to the Project, as both Hungary and Slovenia are preparing to accede to the
EU.
B.
Team Coordination
The PIT was in daily contact throughout the course of the Project by phone or email.
Each in-region meeting and the study tour were attended by at least one representative of
each member of the PIT. Formal meetings among the members of the PIT took place at
the commencement of the Project in April 2000 and at the end of the Project in October
2001, in New York City.
At both of these formal meetings, the members of the PIT met with representatives of
UNDP to brief them on the status of the Project. The members of the PIT were also in
communication with UNDP representatives via telephone and email at regular intervals
throughout the course of the Project.
The PIT maintained regular contact with the Project participants and consultants via
email and teleconferencing. In this manner, the members of the PIT were able to provide
on-going technical assistance, and all those involved in the development of Project
measures were able to communicate and coordinate with ease.
The PIT also interacted with the Project participants and consultants at the in-region
meetings that took place throughout the Project. The EU/US study tour provided perhaps
the most substantial opportunity for the PIT to build a strong professional relationship
with key participants from Hungary and Slovenia.
C.
The Project Steering Committee
A Project Steering Committee was established to serve as an advisory and consultative
body to facilitate effective Project implementation. The PSC facilitated inter-agency co-
ordination of the Project at the national level, providing avenues for maintaining
international linkages, and ensuring that the lessons learned from implementation of the
Project were integrated into their countries' overall environmental programs. The PSC
41
meetings were held two times during the life of the Project: at the beginning, at the end of
the first year, and to close the Project at the end of the 19 months. The Steering
Committee meetings also served as the Tri-Partite Reviews (TPR) of the project. The
PSC meetings were convened in Budapest (October 2000) and Ljubljana (October 2001),
and took place in conjunction with in-region workshops. The PSC was comprised of key
stakeholders from the Governments and relevant NGOs and was chaired by the REC.
Members included: UNDP-GEF's Chief Technical Advisor for International Waters or
his designate, former Executive REC Director, Jernej Stritih and Magdolna Toth Nagy,
head of the REC's Public Participation Program, Nandor Zoltai from Government of
Hungary, Nata_a Anderlic as a representative of the Government of Slovenia, Ruth
Greenspan Bell from RFF, and Jane Stewart and Isaac Flattau from NYU.
42
Section VIII. Identification of Barriers to Effective Access to Environmental
Information
A. Introduction
Barriers to public access to information in Hungary and Slovenia were identified through
a Needs Assessment conducted for each country by consultant NGO environmental law
experts from Hungary and Slovenia, based on a common outline prepared by the PIT to
ensure compatibility of findings and a coordinated approach. The consultants researched
the state of their respective countries' laws, institutions and practices regarding public
access to information. In addition to the legal review, they conducted empirical research
on practical barriers to access. For example, they conducted interviews with relevant
government environmental officials, water authorities and NGO representatives. Their
investigation included a review of legislation, implementing regulations, policies and
guidance, organization and staffing, and systems and procedures for information
gathering, information management and access. They also went to government
environmental and water offices and asked for specific information. Each investigator
tested how government offices actually respond to public requests for information.
Emphasis was placed on laws, procedures and practices for access to environmental
information relating to water bodies generally, and the Danube River in particular.
The Need Assessments found that, for a variety of reasons, both countries have a
relatively poor track record in responding appropriately and effectively to public requests
for information. The Need Assessment and the activities through which it was produced
are discussed in greater detail in Section VI.
The Needs Assessments was reviewed and discussed by the participants in the Project
Kick-off Meeting Szentendre, Hungary in October 2000; the participants included
Hungarian and Slovenian government officials involved in the protection of the
environment, water quality, transportation, and information systems, and representatives
of NGOs concerned with Danube River issues. Based on the Need Assessments and
plenary discussion, the project participants identified a number of specific challenges that
Hungary and Slovenia face in their effort to develop regimes that would allow citizens to
obtain environmental information on demand.
B. Barriers to Effective Information Access Common to Both Countries
The project identified a number of barriers to effective access to information that were
found in both Hungary and Slovenia and that appear to be common to the Danube region.
These stem in large part from the legacy of state socialist practices and attitudes and the
transitional state of the countries' governmental systems and economies. These common
barriers are discussed in this subsection. The project also identified some differences in
between Hungary and Slovenia in information access barriers; these are discussed in the
following subsection.
43
1. The Legacy of The Past
Despite different histories and politics, Hungary and Slovenia face common challenges
based on the legacy of the state socialist regimes that dominated those and other countries
in the region during the 45 years following World War II. These regimes were
characterized by official discretion largely unchecked by law, government secrecy, and
relative public passivity. Hungary and Slovenia have made great strides in breaking from
the patterns of the past, establishing democratic systems of government, and building
civil society. However, the culture of official discretion has not been entirely eliminated,
and the principles of open government and of public entitlement to government
information are still being established.
Hungary and Slovenia are countries with deep European roots that were cut off from pan-
European legal developments by the Iron Curtain and the Cold War. After World War
II, Hungary (as part of the Soviet bloc) and Slovenia (as part of Yugoslavia) were joined
to legal systems that have been characterized as "aspirational".16 In these countries, the
Party had absolute control over every aspect of society, including the development and
application of formal laws.17 The Party's decisions were made behind closed doors, in
extra-legal contexts that often elevated the Party's goals over the requirements of existing
laws. The Party placed a premium on full employment and maximizing economic
production, and its principal commitment was to self-preservation.
Hungary and Slovenia, like other countries of the region, often boasted impressive laws
and constitutions that formally provided for public participation in government decision-
making or set exacting standards for pollution discharges. But these laws were largely a
facade; they were not effectively implemented. Law played a different role in public life
and in the lives of individuals than it did in North America or Western Europe. A
common Soviet practice, for example, was to write broad declaratory constitutional
language or laws, either without specific implementing provisions or with secret,
unpublished regulations.18 What actually happened disregard of laws or arbitrary
application that fit the needs of the rulers not the governed -- undermined the legitimacy
16 The word "aspirational" has been used by various legal commentators; see e.g. Richard A. Posner, The
Problems of Jurisprudence, 8 (1990) (speaking of a set of norms that look good on paper but are not
enforced, because the courts are co-opted or "overawed" by other forces in the society). See also Maimon
Schwarzschild, Variations on an Enigma: Law in Practice and Law on the Books in the USSR, Book
Review, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 685 (1986); Ruth Greenspan Bell, Environmental Law Drafting in Central and
Eastern Europe, 22 ELR 10597, 10598 (Sept. 1992); and Elzbieta M. Zechenter, The Socio-Economic
Transformation of Poland: Privatization and the Future of Environmental Protection, 5 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L.
Rev. 99 (Winter 1993).
17 For a more thorough discussion of this in the context of Polish environmental law, see Daniel H. Cole,
Instituting Environmental Protection, From Red to Green in Poland, St. Martin's Press, Inc (New York
1998);
18 Schwarzschild at p. 691
44
of law.19 Also, the regimes followed the premise that the public had no legitimate
interest in or right to information held by the government.
This history is the source of many of the challenges, including a lingering culture of
official discretion and secrecy and the absence of a strong public constituency for
information access, that Hungary and Slovenia have faced in their resolution to put into
place effective, functioning laws, requirements and practices for public access to
environmental information. But the history illustrates, as well, as the opportunity that
institutions supporting government transparency provide for the development of their
new democracies.
2. Deficiencies in Existing Information Access Statutes and Implementing Laws
A major barrier to effective implementation of environmental information provision laws
in Hungary and Slovenia is the absence of fully operative or adequately detailed laws and
regulations to carry them into effect. Both countries have basic environmental
information provision laws in place, but these laws are often general, lacking the detail
necessary for them to take full effect, and have not been supplemented by regulations and
other measures necessary to implement the laws.
An example is the Hungarian Environmental Code, which stipulated six years ago that a
National Environmental System must be developed immediately. This system was
intended to serve as a clearinghouse for systematized environmental information, a key
step in providing that information to the public. Six years later, the government has yet
to implement this system. Slovenia faced parallel challenges with regard to inoperative
laws and regulations. The country's principal Environmental Protection Act ("EPA"),
that governs not only the provision of environmental information but its collection, needs
enabling regulations before its provisions will take effect. These regulations are
necessary to create the Integral Legal Environmental Protection Information System, to
establish rules governing agency record keeping, and to establish the office of the
Environmental Protection Officer. The mandated deadline for the Slovenian government
to ratify enabling regulations for the EPA elapsed six years ago
Also, the laws are often formulated in general or vague terms that fail to provide adequate
guidance to government officials about their obligations to provide information or to
citizens about their ability to access it. Many key terms in laws which affect the provision
of environmental information to the public remain unclear. These include the definition
of personal and private data and the definition of confidential business information. The
vagueness of these laws, and the failure to provide greater specificity through
implementing regulations, effectively gives vast discretion to officials who often exercise
it to deny or limit public access to information.
19 Reacting to this history, Václav Havel, President of the Czech Republic, has spoken eloquently about the
need for respect for law to "take root in human minds," such that "everyone should deem it an honour to
obey the law, not to break or circumvent it."
45
Problems of excessive official discretion also arise as a result of unresolved conflicts
between laws providing access to environmental information and those establishing
legitimate categories of secrets, including state secrets and legitimate business
information. The information access laws seem to provide for disclosure, while other
laws providing for secrecy seem to require non-disclosure. There is often no rule or other
arrangement for resolving such conflicts and setting bounds on exceptions to disclosure
for information that might qualify as state secrets or confidential business information.
As a result, officials have wide legal discretion to deny disclosure in many instances.
The Needs Assessments also identified substantial confusion about how to handle and
respond to inquiries that might involve sensitive or confidential business information.
3. Lack of Guidance to Officials on Implementation of Information Access Laws
However, both assessment recognized that improving laws will not by itself solve the
existing barriers to environmental information, although they will make the task
somewhat easier. A closely related problem is the lack of adequate guidance to officials
responsible for implementing laws for public access to information. Clarity about what
must be provided and in what circumstances is essential to a smoothly functioning
process that ensure prompt disclosure of information to which the public is entitled. But
the laws are too general to provide such guidance, and there are often no implementing
regulations or administrative guidance to ensure that officials provide information when
it is requested. In the absence of guidance, officials (in accordance with the lingering
culture of government secrecy) often deny information requests outright or impose
arbitrary limitations or other requirements. Also, the lack of guidance leads to
inconsistent treatment of information requests.
Lacking adequate legal or other guidance, Hungarian government officials often act as
though they have discretion to decide who is entitled to receive information, for example
inappropriately requiring a person requesting environmental information to present a
reason for wishing to obtain the information, and denying access to those "not interested
enough" in the subject matter to which the information relates.
In Slovenia, as well, officials are left to interpret the EPA in an ad hoc fashion. Among
the issues that must be interpreted by government officials in the absence of adequate
guidance are the nature of the legal interest (if any) that a requester must establish in
order to obtain information; the definitions of environmental data and information (and
thus what must be provided); and the applicability of rules of general administrative
procedure20
20 The Slovenian EPA specifies that public authorities must provide environmental information requested
by the public in "the prescribed manner less than one month of the request and at a price which does not
exceed the material costs of providing information." Since the EPA does not provide any other explanation
concerning the procedural rules in cases where environmental information is requested, there is some
debate as to what the wording "prescribed manner" means. Although the EPA does not explicitly reference
the Administrative Procedure law, some argue that the law should be consulted in determining the exact
meaning of this phrase. There has been no court decision providing commentary on the applicability of the
Administrative Procedure law to cases where environmental information is requested under the EPA, but
the question has been raised in public conversations held between NGOs and the Ministry of the
46
Without definitions, implementing rules and guidelines, officials in both countries have
had to exercise discretion to decide to whom information should be provided, when it
should be provided, and how it should be provided. In exercising their discretion, they
have tended to err on the side of caution and withhold information. To some extent, these
responses may reflect instincts that were widespread under the old regimes, an
assumption that information should be withheld, not disclosed. Furthermore, government
offices respond in inconsistent ways to similar requests, even when the requests have the
same legal basis. The Needs Assessments indicate that much of the information collected
by the governments is accessible only to those who have personal contacts within the
government ministries or extensive experience dealing with these agencies.
In sum, the problem of excessive, unguided official discretion is a major factor in both
countries' poor track record for responding effectively and consistently to information
requests.
4. Resource Constraints and Institutional Gaps
The Needs Assessments identified resource constraints in the form of insufficient
personnel and other capacity limitations, and associated institutional gaps as obstacles to
the development of effective access to environmental regimes in Hungary and Slovenia.21
There are not sufficient officials with designated responsibility for responding to
information requests. For example, in many situations there is no office or person
designated to respond to public requests or requests referred by other line agency (e/g/.
water ministry), no office or person designated to resolve claims of confidentiality, and
no office or person to track public requests and make sure that they are answered on time.
In Hungary there are specialized personnel to deal with public requests for environmental
information at the national level (the Ministry of the Environment), but at the local and
regional levels (the inspectorates) there is no one official who is charged with this
responsibility. Instead, it is the additional task of environmental protection officials who
are already extremely overworked. While there is hope that the environmental
inspectorates will gradually nominate and train additional personnel to handle requests,
this is not the case at the moment. Indeed, the inspectorates even lack sufficient
Environment. In 1999, in the process of adapting Slovenian legislation to EU legislation, the national
government determined that the Administrative Procedure law can apply to requests for information under
the EPA. Still, a court decision on this issue is pending.
21 As the Project was in no position to address resource constraints directly, the PIT and Project participants
worked to develop methods for achieving and refining new access to information rules and procedures
which would not be dependent upon significant further resources from the Hungarian and Slovenian
governments. For example, the PIT and Project participants identified as a major obstacle to information
access ambiguous laws and procedures. Two of the major Project outputs involve clarifications of these
laws and procedures and recommendations for more effective information access procedures. Still, as
resource constraints were identified in the course of the Project as a concern to the participants from both
countries, it is important to take note of them.
47
computer hardware and software for their existing staff, and are required to raise some of
the funding for their operations.22
Slovenia too suffers from inadequate resources for its current environmental information
provision regime. Government agencies do not have personnel designated only to reply
to information requests, and the officials who wind up with this responsibility are not
trained properly in the rules and procedures governing responses. Requests are typically
provided by overloaded officials working in unrelated departments, and sometimes by
officials working in public relations offices.23
5. Inadequate Training and Experience of Government Officials
Another capacity constraint identified by the Needs Assessments is that the government
officials responsible for responding to information requests lack adequate experience and
training and do not regard open government and information provision as important
objectives. Information access is a relatively new requirement in both Hungary and
Slovenia. In neither country do government officials have much practical experience
administering rules for public access to information. Government officials who have not
been accustomed to sharing information with the public (and in some cases even with
their colleagues) need training, supervision, guidance documents and other
implementation aids. Historically, hoarding information and parceling it out to achieve
personal rather than government goals was sometimes a source of power. There have
been allegations that, in some cases, government-held information has been
inappropriately sold. A more fundamental and pervasive problem is that many officials
may withhold information simply out of apathy, or because they do not believe that there
is any value in keeping lay members of the public informed, and believe that the only
non-governmental views that should be considered are those of scientists and experts.
Thus, remedial action and learning is required at both the legal and the practical level.
6. Technical System Needs
The Needs Assessment and on-going Project activities identified a number of critically
important technical and system needs for effective access to environmental information
in Hungary and Slovenia, and identified a set of solutions. In order to deal with existing
capacity constraints on information provisions, there is an urgent need to establish
comprehensive data and records management systems and systemized records
information requests and response procedures and practices, so that Ministires know what
information they hold and where it is located. Even where officials are favorable
disposed towards providing information to the public, the practical administrative
machinery for processing requests and providing information promptly and effectively is
22 According to some in the NGO community, however, the government spends "a huge amount" of money
to support the institutional basis for information requests; the money simply is not spent effectively.
23 It should be noted that administering the Freedom of Information Act information request response
mechanism in the U.S. is very resource intensive, both in terms of funding and personnel. In 1995, the
most recent year for which we have an estimate, a conservative estimate provided by a FOIA official put
the yearly cost of the system at $3.5 million. The real cost is probably much higher. The costs have
probably increased since 1995 with the additional duties imposed by the "E-FOIA" law.
48
often missing or seriously deficient. Without systems of records, even motivated public
officials following clear laws and rules will have difficulty responding to information
requests because they simply will not know where to find responsive documents, or
because they will be reluctant to commit the level of resources necessary to identify and
track down documents. In order to establish a smoothly running regime of public access
to information, it is also necessary to have standard-form response letters that can be
readily tailored to a specific request situation and other time-saving devices to help assure
speedy responses at the same time as they ease the burden on government employees.
A robust system supporting information access would also benefit from putting into place
systemized procedures to identify, mark, and separately store documents that contain
legitimately confidential data or information. Having such systems in place would
significant ease the burden of government employees, so that they would not, under
pressure, have to make judgments about which documents might legitimately contain
sensitive or confidential business information, at the time when requests are received.
Similarly, pre-sorting and characterizing documents is a way to provide protections for
government employees as well as for the particular sensitive documents, to avoid
situations in which government employees might unintentionally disclose sensitive
documents because of confusion and time pressure. There is currently only very weak
experience in Hungary and Slovenia with putting into place systems to identify and
separate out documents that contain sensitive information that may be withheld from
public disclosure and the need for setting up such procedures.24
7. Lack of Public and NGO Experience and Know-How in Obtaining Access to
Environmental Information.
Both individual citizens and environmental NGOs request information from the
government far less frequently than their counterparts in the U.S. or in Western European
Nations such as the Netherlands that have well-developed laws and administrative
regimes for pubic access to government information. There are probably many factors
that account for this difference. The fact that it is difficult, because of the barriers
summarized above, to actually obtain from government public information that has been
requested undoubtedly has a discouraging impact on requests. In particular, the lack of
clear rules about what information must be provided to the public, the lack of adequate
trained personnel with a pro-disclosure orientation, and the inadequacies in existing
machinery for processing requests and responding to them effectively and promptly
imposes severe handicaps that will tend to dissuade all but the most determined or
knowledgeable from making requests.25
24 Communications with project participants disclosed little real understanding of the impact of disclosure
of legitimately confidential business information.
25 The fact that few ordinary Hungarian and Slovenian citizens request information from government must
be placed in the perspective of experience in countries, such as the U.S. and the Netherlands. In both
countries, information access laws continue to be used more by the media, by industry seeking information
about competitors or in preparation for litigation and by the advocacy community (the various NGOs and
other organizations that seek stronger environmental regulation) than by individual so-called ordinary
citizens.
49
Also, for reasons associated with the characteristics of the Central European legal
systems and of legal and governmental culture, the still- developing state of civil society,
and the legacy of the past, members of the public in Hungary or Slovenia who are
dissatisfied with the performance of government and its failure to provide information on
request are less likely than their counterparts in the United States (or increasingly in parts
of Western Europe) to view the issue as a remediable failure of legal responsibility. Not
only must disappointed individuals and NGOs learn how to assert rights to information
and how to frame requests for information, they must also learn that they need not accept
a non-disclosure decision and find ways within the law to remedy disclosure failures, in
the same way that citizens suits in the United States hold officials "feet to the fire."26
However, citizens in the two countries are only beginning to consider the option of
asserting rights through legal procedures, and the existing legal system fails to provide
prompt and effective relief in the same way as do the courts of the common law systems.
One option that was explored in this Project and is discussed elsewhere in this Report is
the role that Ombudsmen play in this regard.
[Material on specific problems faced by NGOs to be supplied]
8. Lack of intra-governmental, governmental-NGO cooperation
[To be supplied]
9. Differences in Nature of Barriers in Hungary and Slovenia
[To be supplied]
Conclusions
Hungary and Slovenia face a substantial number of legal, institutional, and operational
barriers to ensuring effective public access to environmental information. Yet, these
countries have launched serious efforts to develop sound environmental information
access programs, which are still in an early stage of development. The Project disclosed
that challenges in Hungary and Slovenia cannot neatly be characterized as constrained
entirely by information and the experience of the past 50 years, and should be put into an
evolutionary perspective. 27 The Project and particularly the Study Tour disclosed
substantial similarities between the current situation in Hungary and Slovenia and the
early days of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the United States as well as early
experience in the Netherlands. For example, in the years immediately following the
passage of FOIA, U.S. government agencies similarly resisted providing information as
the law required. It was only after they were subjected to lawsuits that required them to
obey the law that they began to put procedures into place to assure adequate and timely
26 The civil law traditions typically lack courts with the power to direct governments to take actions.
27 The Hungarian and Slovenian Needs Assessments expressed concern about the small number of requests
currently being made in their respective countries.
50
responses.28. As experience developed in the United States, government agencies
improved their skills, overcame technical deficiencies, and became better at
implementing the law. EPA, which initially was subject to numerous law suits, now is
considered among the best of the U.S. federal agencies in processing and responding to
requests under FOIA.29 These findings fuel our optimism that the efforts over the past 19
months will result in significantly enhanced opportunities for the public to obtain
information in Hungary and Slovenia and to use that information to achieve a cleaner
Danube River.
28 For a brief discussion of the differences between common law and civil law courts and the respective powers
of judges in each system to remedy adjudicated wrongs, see Ruth Greenspan Bell and Susan A. Bromm,
"Lessons Learned in the Transfer of U.S.-Generated Environmental Compliance Tools: Compliance Schedules
for Poland," XXVII Environmental Law Reporter, News & Analysis (June, 1997).
29 For example, at least one of the U.S. EPA personnel selected to be visited by the study tour was chosen
in part because her experience dated from to the beginning of EPA's program; she was asked specifically
to think back to the earlier conditions when she spoke with the visitors.
51
Section IX. Project Activities
The Project activities were structured to progress in a logical fashion from the
identification of barriers and opportunities to public access to information, to the research
of options for responses, followed by the definition and implementation of specifically
tailored measures, and finally, evaluation and recommendations. Capacity building
activities were built in throughout this process to assure skill enhancement as was
technical assistance.
In the end, all of these activities met an important need: to ensure understanding of the
ground rules of information access and develop requisite expertise in knowing how to
make requests and how respond to and manage them. The two important target groups
for the Project were (1) members of the public -- individuals, "public interest" groups,
industry, NGOs, community groups and others -- who are in the category of people who
do or may request information; and (2) the personnel and officials in the various
Environmental and Water Ministries and offices whose files hold information of interest
to the public and who must learn to respond to requests for that information. The need
for guidance and procedures to follow was acute in Hungary and Slovenia, where
information access is still a new and relatively untested requirement and there are many
unsettled and unresolved questions of law and practice. People of good will in both
categories have few precedents to rely on, and have and will have many legitimate
questions as the number and sophistication of information requests increases.
Through the connected activities of capacity building and technical assistance, the Project
produced a number of working tools to improve the situation, which are detailed and
discussed below. Tools such as the Hungarian Handbook for government employees
will reduce the transaction costs of managing individual information requests by
providing guidance and answers, standardized forms and letters, so that they can manage
most ordinary requests without slowing the process to obtain answers or seek support
from their supervisors. Tools such as the Hungarian Citizens Guide will facilitate
the overall process by providing guidance and information to members of the public who
are contemplating making information requests.
Section A describes the first steps taken in both Hungary and Slovenia: the identification
of barriers to and opportunities for improving access to public information on water-
related environmental issues. This process began with comprehensive Needs
Assessments and identification of case studies as practical illustrations of the needs,
challenges and opportunities to develop public information regimes that are responsive to
the goal of enhancing public involvement in transboundary water pollution reduction.
Sections B and C elaborate on the specific capacity building activities implemented in the
Project. These included two plenary meetings (one to initiate activities, the other to wrap
up and evaluate) and two in-region workshops in each in country. Additionally, a
comprehensive study tour brought participants to the Netherlands, New York City, and
Washington, D.C. to learn about and observe access to public information procedures in
52
the E.U. and U.S. Finally, Sections E and F describe dissemination, outreach and
collaborations on the experiences, ideas and results produced by the Project.
All of the activities listed below were planned and attended by the PIT in consultation
with Project participants, and many of the meetings were attended by the Project's EU
consultant, Jürgen Lefevere, who commented on the EU-accession implications of all the
issues examined. It was the difficult and often very time consuming role of the PIT to
establish conditions in which the participants could openly debate and lead discussions,
leading to identification and resolution of specific matters of concern. Thus, the PIT
established agendas that would move the process forward, facilitated the discussions,
kept the discussions on track and offered contributions based upon their respective areas
of expertise. It was the PIT's role to assure continuity between the various Project
activities, and to keep the entire effort focused on achievable outcomes. The PIT
managed the written products of the Project even when initial drafting responsibility was
assigned to Project consultants and participants. The PIT kept track of all the issues
discussed, and worked throughout the meetings, study tour and other activities to plan
next steps for turning the discussions into a basis for the development of concrete Project
outputs.
A. Identify Barriers to and Opportunities for Improvement of Public Access to
Water-Related Environmental Information
1. Needs Assessments
In order to evaluate the existing legal, practical and institutional practices and
possibilities for public access to environmental information in the two countries,
independent experts in Hungary and Slovenia conducted research in the form of Needs
Assessments. This research identified gaps in the legal structures of each country, and
practical barriers to successful access to information and participation of the public in
decision-making and pollution control activities with regard to pollution reduction in the
Danube river basin.
The Needs Assessments informed a discussion on priority issues and Project focus that
was carried out during the Project kick-off meeting in October 2000. The Needs
Assessments have also been used as background in preparation of materials in the course
of on-going technical assistance.
The PIT provided guidance to the creation of the Needs Assessments by developing
outlines, in consultation with in-country experts. Both country assessments were based on
the same outline to ensure comparability of findings and coordinated approach. The PIT
reviewed numerous drafts of the Needs Assessments and provided feedback and ideas for
strengthening the analysis. Finally, the PIT created executive summaries of both Needs
Assessments.
The assessments examined the laws in each country governing access to information,
including general framework legislation information and framework environmental
53
legislation, as well as relevant provisions of the water laws and regulations. The topics
included information gathering, information management and access, specific provisions
on gathering, collecting and processing information and legal, institutional and practical
barriers to providing access to environmental information. Emphasis was put on laws
and data specifically related to the issues surrounding the Danube River Basin,
discharges into it and efforts at remediation.
In order to facilitate the identification of practical barriers to access to environmental
information and information gathering and management, each of the experts writing the
Needs Assessments conducted a series of interviews with relevant environmental
officials, water authorities, and NGOs. The results of the interviews are included in the
Needs Assessments themselves, and were instrumental in the identification of problems.
All of the materials were presented to the participants of the Project Kick-off meeting as
background material for discussion.
2. Case Study Analyses
The Hungarian and Slovenia expert consultants also investigated potential case studies
illustrating problems and opportunities related to broadening public access to
environment and water quality information. The purpose of the case studies was to
illustrate with concrete facts key barriers identified in the Needs Assessments and to give
emphasis and content to the priority issues. Potential case studies were evaluated for
their ability to illustrate two sets of issues, the actual status of and functioning of public
access to environmental information laws and institutions, and information issues
associated with harmful discharges to the Danube and its tributaries.
The two cases used in the Project were selected by the Project participants at the October
2000 kick-off meeting, based on the expert consultants' reports. The Hungarian
participants elected to focus on the river Tisza hotspots in light of the cyanide spill in
early 2000. This displayed access to information measures that can be used to help
prevent such accidents in the future, or at least diminish their consequences and impact,
and the public notification and information programs following the spill and how these
might be improved. One important consequence of selecting the Tisza case study was that
one of the Hungarian workshops was held on in the town of Szolnok, on the Tisza River.
As discussed in greater detail later, this workshop brought together a number of
representatives of the region's municipalities, environmental and water authorities, NGOs
and business, all of whom had suffered impacts (including, e.g. decreased tourism), as a
result of the cyanide spill.
The Slovenian participants decided to use the facts surrounding a pulp and paper mill
Krsko. The Mill is a major discharger to the Sava river, which in turn sends pollutants to
the Danube, and has been put under a compliance plan to reduce its discharges. In the
course of case study preparation, the Slovenian expert made several requests for
information to various relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Environment and
Water Management and local municipalities, with regard to the operation of and
discharges by the Krsko Paper Mill and the progress of the compliance plan. This
54
investigation indicated serious problems in existing arrangements for public access to
information.
B. In-Region Meetings and Capacity-Building Workshops
A principal goal of the Project was to increase understanding in both countries of what
tasks and institutions are necessary in order to establish and run functioning systems of
information access, and to enhance the capacity of governmental offices assigned to these
tasks. One important tool to achieve these goals was the convening of four in-region
capacity-building workshops and in-region plenary meetings.30
A Kick-Off meeting was held early October 2000 in Szentendre, Hungary. Four separate
capacity-building workshops were held in 2001. The first set of in-region capacity
building workshops took place in Szolnock, Hungary (on the Tisza River) on January 29
and 30 and Ljubljana, Slovenia on February 1 and 2, 2001. The second set of capacity
building workshops occurred in Ljubljana, Slovenia on June 11 and 12 and Dobogokõ,
Hungary on June 14 and 15, 2001. Representatives of all relevant government agencies
from Hungary and Slovenia and representatives of each country's NGO sector attended
the workshops and the EU/US Study Tour. Local experts hired by the Project as
consultants were also present at every workshop in their respective countries.
The agendas for these meetings are found in Annex ___. The meetings were conducted
in native language to facilitate fluid and frank communication.31 In addition, in early
September, 2001, the core Slovenian participants traveled to Budapest to visit the
Hungarian participants and their various Ministries and offices, again to share experience.
The first set of capacity building workshops was structured to refine the Hungarian and
Slovenian Project participants' understanding of the priority issues identified in the
October 2000 in-region meeting. The PIT and Project consultants used presentations and
organized discussions to ensure that the workshops would bring into focus specific and
concrete opportunities for public access to environmental information and resulting
30 Initially, the Project envisioned holding three training and capacity-building events. However, as a
result of what the PIT learned during the kick-off meeting and the early part of the project, this plan was
adjusted. Both the Hungarian and Slovenian participants recommended that the goals of the workshops
and meetings would be enhanced if they were conducted in national language and in each of the
participating countries (initially the PIT envisioned bringing Hungarians to Slovenia and visa versa, in
combined meetings). Their recommendations were consistent with what PIT representatives observed
during the kick-off meeting, namely that when the groups split up and met in native language smaller
sessions, a great deal was accomplished. The participants also thought that holding separate meetings in
each country would expand the number of potential participants in each country. Finally, although many
of the selected priority issues were similar for both Hungary and Slovenia, it was generally felt that specific
focus on national legislation and practice would be more useful. The PIT agreed with this reasoning and
adjusted the project schedule and plans accordingly. In addition, the PIT was pleased that the project
participants had made this recommendation, which also suggested a high degree of interest and
involvement in the project. Therefore, separate workshops were planned and executed for Hungary and
Slovenia. This change in plans also changed the number of the workshops.
31 The PIT used simultaneous translation. Informal communications were aided by a high level of English
facility among the project participants
55
public participation to reduce transboundary impacts on the Danube. These options and
strategies drew on relevant experience from the CEE region, the European Union and the
United States.
The second set of capacity building workshops focused on refinement of the measures
developed to address the identified priority issues. In Hungary, among other tasks,
workshop participants examined a draft of the Hungarian Handbook on Public Access to
Environmental and Water-related Information and Public Participation and provided
extensive feedback. The Slovenian workshop concentrated on necessary clarifications in
the Environmental Protection Act.
The Final Plenary Meeting provided an opportunity to review and refine Project results,
evaluate measures taken, and make recommendations for next steps in the two pilot
countries and for expanded efforts in the Danube basin.
1. Kick-Off Meeting, October 11-13, 2000
The initial in-region meeting was conducted with representatives from both countries
present, on October 11-13, 2000 in REC's Szentendre, Hungary headquarters. The
Agenda and List of Participants are found in Annex ___. The goal of the meeting was to
review the existing situation concerning public access to information in both countries,
to decide on the most significant issues and problems to address, and to set the agenda for
the balance of the Project.
Following the introduction of the Project, the Hungarian and Slovenian experts who
prepared the Needs Assessments and selected candidate case studies presented their
major findings, outlining the problems and gaps that they had identified in access to
environmental information and information related to releases of nutrients and toxics to
the Danube in their respective countries. Participants discussed and elaborated on the
issues presented; some added more information and facts to the reports.
The Hungarian and Slovenian consultants also each presented the two candidate case-
studies. After detailed discussion in small groups and in national languages, the
Hungarian participants decided to focus on the Tisza River example, while the Slovenian
group chose Krsko Paper Mill case.
The meeting participants then met in country-specific groups to determine, based upon
the case studies and Needs Assessments, the issues they felt were most pertinent and
which could be most successfully addressed through Project activities and outputs. When
both groups met in plenary afterward, the selected priority issues were shared. The
Hungarian priority issues included the clarification of vague legal terms governing the
provision of environmental information; defining exemptions for information that should
not be disclosed; the handling of non-disclosure decisions; and remedies for these
decisions. The key Slovenian issues included vague legal provisions and exemptions,
and the improvement of methods of managing and providing environmental data to the
public.
56
2. First Hungarian Capacity Building Meeting, January 30-31, 2000
The first Hungarian capacity building meeting event was held in the town of Szolnok on
river Tisza on January 30-31, 2001. The program of the workshop is found in Annex ___.
As with all the meetings and workshops, the agenda was developed by the PIT in
consultation with NGOs and government representatives to assure that it would cover the
very specific issues of Hungarian concern and interest.
In preparation for the workshop, the PIT distributed early drafts of the Practices Manual,
revisions of the Hungarian Needs assessment, the Tisza River case study example, and
documents concerning the Aarhus Convention.
The workshop brought together 52 specialists, NGOs and businesses, in addition to
members of the PIT from the REC, NYU, and RFF. The government officials came from
regional environmental inspectorates, water directorates, municipalities, health,
agricultural, plant and soil protection authorities, the Ministry of Environment and
Ministry of Transport and Water Management. These meetings were conducted in the
Hungarian language, with translation provided for non- Hungarian members of the PIT.
The meeting featured presentations on the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in
Hungary; and how data collection and information flow are conducted within the
Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Transport and Water Management. Each
presentation was followed by roundtable plenary discussion. Specific break-out sessions
examined how to handle exemptions, including commercial confidentiality; the public
interest test for making a valid information request; lawful procedures for denying access
to information, including appropriate grounds; and possible remedies in case of
inappropriate denials. Various good practice examples and models from the US, EU and
specific EU countries and former Soviet bloc countries were presented by the PIT
throughout the plenary and break-out sessions. Based on the discussions held and the
focus on information experience related to the cyanide spill on Tisza river and the
following redemption process, participants identified specific Hungarian challenges for
improving the system of accessing and providing information. Recommendations were
made for the improvement of the system and flow of environmental and water-related
information. The suggestions and comments of the participants were later reflected in the
PIT's revisions of the Practices Manual and in preparation of the Hungarian Handbook
for governmental officials, discussed in greater detail below.
3. First Slovenian Capacity Building Meeting, February 2, 2001
At the request of Slovenian participants at the Project Kick-off Meeting, the first
capacity-building program in Slovenia focused primarily on changes and improvements
in Slovenian legislation and institutional arrangements required to ensure adequate flow
and provision of environmental and water-related information. A one-day capacity
building workshop was held at the Ministry of Environment and Waters in Slovenia on
February 2, 2001.
57
The 32 participants present at the meeting represented the wide range of government,
NGO and private sector groups involved in the process of water and Danube-related
information. These included the Ministry of Environment and Waters and its agencies,
the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defense, Police, Legislative Drafting Service and the
Information Center of the Republic of Slovenia, Office of Statistics and Office of
Ombudsman as well as NGOs and independent legal experts.
As with the Hungarian capacity building meeting, the principal goal of the Slovenian
workshop was to agree upon the obstacles to information access identified in the needs
assessment and begin to develop solutions by clarifying and improving existing legal
regulations and institutional arrangements. The meeting agenda included an introduction
to the Project, a presentation of the standards established under the Aarhus Convention
for information access and a discussion of the findings from the needs assessment.
Among the issues that were discussed were procedures used to ensure public access to
environmental information; which categories of information should be considered as
exempt from disclosure; problems of accessibility of information concerning business
operations which cause a strain on the environment; and the improvement of practical
and institutional arrangements for ensuring publicly accessible environmental
information.
4. Second Hungarian Capacity-Building Meeting, June 14-15, 2001
The Second Hungarian national language capacity-building workshop was held on June
14-15, 2001 in Dobogokõ. It brought together 52 participants from the ministry of
Environment, Ministry of Transport and Water Management, Ministry of Justice,
Ministry of Industry, Environmental Inspectorates, Water Directorates, National Health
Office, the Office of Data protection Ombudsman, several municipal officers as well as
business associations and NGOs.
The high degree of participation and productivity during the meeting reflected both the
strong interest of the participants and the pre-meeting preparation. Many of the
participants had attended the earlier Hungarian workshop and the kick-off meeting; some
had clearly made efforts to become familiar with the Practices Manual. Among the
participants were several people who had attended the study tour, and were fully versed
in the ways that environmental information access is managed in Europe and in the
United States. Their knowledge and interest was reflected in their numerous
interventions. In addition, three of the study tour participants chaired sessions in the
workshop.
The agenda for the workshop was developed by the PIT with a high level of involvement
from the officials from the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transport and Waters
and NGOs. Before the meeting, the PIT circulated a draft of the Hungarian Handbook on
Public Access to Environmental and Water-related Information and Public Participation
58
prepared by the Hungarian Legal Consultant. The participants provided their comments
and suggestions concerning the draft, which will be revised accordingly.
The introduction to the workshop included several presentations on the status of
ratification and implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Hungary, public access to
information aspects of the EU Directives related to water management and quality control
and the current status of Danube River Basin projects. A representative from the
Environment Ministry was able to report that Hungary had ratified the Aarhus
Convention.
The Handbook for government officials was presented by Dr. Sándor Fülöp of the
Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA). In plenary and break-out
group discussions, the participants made several suggestions with regard to making the
Handbook more practical, specific and concise. It was generally felt that the Handbook
should provide clearer guidance on the practical application of certain rules and
procedures provided in the Hungarian legislation. These included the handling of the
exemptions, forms of requests for information, costs of supplying the information, record
management systems and consequences for the authorities when information provided is
not correct.
The workshop provided not only a valuable input into the preparation of the Handbook
for government officials, but also a venue for constructive dialogue between various
authorities and associations with regard to problems of access to information and
clarification of certain terms and procedures in use. The diverse range of participants
ensured that the recommendations which came out of the meeting represented the views
of different stakeholders in information provision and the Danube restoration process.
D. Second Slovenian Capacity-building Meeting, June 11-12, 2001
The workshop in Slovenia took place at the Ministry of Environment and Spatial
Planning in Ljubljana on June 11-12, 2001. A significant responsibility for organizing
the meeting was assumed by the main Slovenian Project participant, Nata_a Anderlic, a
key governmental official responsible for the Aarhus Convention ratification process in
Slovenia, and by the country office of the REC32.
The agenda of the workshop was proposed by the Slovenian Project participants,
supported by comments from the PIT. Approximately 30 experts from various ministries
and NGOs participated in the workshop. As with the Hungarian workshop, the PIT was
gratified to witness the level of commitment demonstrated by the Slovenians who had
attended the Project study tour. They were leaders at critical junctures in the plenary
discussions and contributed a number of ideas and thoughts which clearly reflected
lessons-learned from their time in the Netherlands and the U.S.
32 This is particularly significant because the country office of the REC has initiated a number of activities
to assure that the Project's goals are continued after it is officially ended. The country office has applied
for and received funding for efforts from the British Foreign Ministry, and is also thinking of other ways in
which it can work to continue the momentum achieved to date.
59
The main discussion at the workshop was focused on what reform is necessary to allow
individuals to seek and obtain environmental information from the Slovenian
government. It was agreed upon that Slovenia needed to address two significant
challenges to the efficient provision of environmental information in the country. The
first involves providing guidance on existing but ambiguous laws on how information
should be provided, to clarify matters in ways that will strengthen government officials'
ability to effectively provide environmental information on request from the public. The
second is legal reform necessary to bolster the effectiveness of Paragraph 3, Article 14 of
the Slovenian Environmental Protection Act, and to conform Slovenian requirement with
the Aarhus Convention, and the EU Directives on Water Framework and Aarhus
Convention requirements.
The meeting began and ended with plenary discussions. There were presentations on
plans regarding the implementation of certain international obligations and EU directives,
international trends regarding public access to environmental information and the
implementation of the Aarhus Convention. The PIT made presentations on practical
experiences, examples and options from western and CEE countries, keyed to the priority
issues that were the focus on the meeting.
During the introductory session, the main issues discussed involved the forthcoming
amendments of the EPA, presented from the government and NGO view point by _pela
Macek-Gu_tin and Milada Mirkovic, respectively.
First, it was decided that the Slovenian government and NGO participants would draft
guidelines for public officials explaining the implementation of existing but ambiguous
laws. The participants were to develop these guidelines in time for their consideration
during the final Project meeting in October 2001.
Second, since the aim of the meeting was to provide long-term advice to the management
of the Ministry, the conclusions of the meeting were summed up in a short report and
forwarded to the drafters of the amendments in the EPA. The amendments to the EPA
will be prepared by the end of this year, and will conform Slovenian law with respect to
the issues identified above and the relevant EU directives. The Project recommendations
have provided input into the drafting of these amendments.
E. Final Plenary Meeting, October 1-3, 2001
A Final Plenary Meeting was held in Ig, Slovenia from October 1 3, 2001. This
meeting afforded the opportunity for government and NGO representatives to present and
discuss evaluations and lessons learned throughout the entire Project. Draft
recommendations presented by the participants were based on the findings of the Project
activities and contained specific issues for consideration by policy-makers for next steps
regarding the improvement of legislative and institutional frameworks and practical
matters in each country. The meeting was also attended by NGO and government
official representatives from five other Danube Basin countries in political and economic
60
transition, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czech Republic, Ukraine and Bulgaria, and thus served
as a platform to launch ongoing knowledge sharing between the Pilot countries and the
rest of the region. 33
Next step recommendations focused on adoption of the Guidelines for clarifying the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and on future legislative change. Representatives of
the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, including Radovan Tavzes, the State
Secretary, responded very positively to the recommendations and stated that the Ministry
would accept them as expert guidance for the EPA reform process.
The Hungarian recommendations included the adoption and dissemination of the
Handbook for government officials and the Citizen's Guide for the public. In addition,
the Hungarian NGO representatives presented a broad range of measures that should be
considered for future development of public access to environmental information and
participation in decision making. These included the creation of a help desk with
computer access open to the public, the development of computing capacity through
upgrading of hardware, software and training, a focus on enforcement and
implementation of existing laws and the creation of a standardized central docket for
receiving information. The Ministry representatives stressed the need to expand
coordination among government ministries to include not only the Environment and
Water Ministries, but also information from Ministries covering agriculture, domestic
affairs, health, finance and justice. It was also suggested that there is a need to
institutionalize training in the field of information provision, perhaps by establishing a
professional career track within secondary education. In addition to data coordination
among the Hungarian Ministries, government officials indicated a need to develop
existing data bases and initiate technical data sharing at a regional level.
Both Slovenian and Hungarian participants discussed strategies for greater public
outreach and awareness about rights to Danube related information and the procedures to
access it. Suggestions on strengthening NGO networks, media contacts, and active civic
consultation were made. The participants also expressed a strong sense that considerable
momentum had been established through the Project that would lead to continued action
from both NGOs and government officials to develop public access to environmental
information on transboundary water pollution issues.
On the final day of the meeting, a core group of Hungarian and Slovenian participants
worked with the representatives from five other CEE Danube countries to develop initial
ideas on how the experiences and lessons of the Pilot Project could be replicated in their
countries, and how intra-regional coordination could be strengthened. (See discussion in
section E below).
F. Meetings and Exchanges Initiated by Hungarian and Slovenian Country Teams
33 Participation of representatives from these countries was supported by supplemental funding from the
New York foundation, Trust for Mutual Understanding.
61
Participants from both pilot countries, on their own initiative, conducted a number of
meetings as well as a "mini study tour" to further the work initiated through the pilot
project. Most of these activities were not organized by the PIT. Instead, they were
largely planned by project participants to further the goals of the Project. These
initiatives demonstrate the momentum generated by planned Project activities, the
capacity built during the Project, and the high level of commitment to this shared
enterprise displayed by participants of both pilot countries.
Meetings in Slovenia with High Level Officials to Discuss Guidelines for Public Officials
In March 2001, following the completion of the EU/US study tour, the Slovenian
government participants prepared a report for high-level government officials describing the
agenda and lessons learned from the tour. The report also contained observations and
suggestions for utilizing the study tour experience to effect positive change in Slovenia. The
principal suggestion from the report was that guidance (described earlier) be prepared to
address existing but ambiguous law in Slovenia regarding the provision of environmental
information to the public, and that recommendations be provided for amendments to the EPA
to put the law in conformity with the Aarhus Convention and the EU Directives on
information access and water framework.
This proposal was extremely important for two reasons. First, it addressed pressing obstacles
to the provision of environmental information in Slovenia, namely that officials were
hampered in their information provision efforts due to their inability to understand existing
law, and that parts of the EPA were inoperable due to the lack of amendments. Second,
included in the proposal was the suggestion that the NGO representative from the study tour,
Milada Mirkovic, play a strong role in the preparation of the guidelines and in the
development of recommendations. This suggestion fostered the type of NGO-government
cooperation that the PIT believes is so essential to practically addressing obstacles to access
to environmental information.
Following the preparation of the report, it was presented to high-level government
representatives over the course of three short meetings. These meetings took place in April
and May 2001 and were attended by the Slovenian State Secretary and Under-Secretary, and
two key study tour participants, Nata_a Anderlic of the Ministry of the Environment and
Milada Mirkovic, an NGO lawyer. A government official charged with ensuring that all new
Slovenian law and practice conform to EU standards was also part of the meetings. The
Slovenian officials agreed with the report's proposals.
Following these meetings, Ms. Anderlic and Ms. Mirkovic met repeatedly with the other
Slovenian study tour participants to develop strategy for ensuring that the government
officials would continue to support the development of the guidance and consider the
recommendations for amendments to the EPA.
Meetings in Hungary
[To be supplied by REC]
62
"Mini Study Tour" in Hungary for Slovenian Participants
In September 2000, key Slovenian Project participants traveled to Hungary for a two day
"mini study tour" to learn about Hungarian practices of providing environmental information
and share ideas and experiences with their counterparts. Like the EU/US study tour, the
Hungarian study tour was organized to provide both government and NGO perspective on
the provision of environmental information. Members of both the governmental and NGO
communities in Hungary made presentations to the Slovenian participants on Hungarian
methods of information provision. Much of the tour was devoted to discussions between the
Hungarians and Slovenians on strategies for providing information and overcoming obstacles
to information provision in their respective countries.
One of the most successful elements of the Hungarian study tour was that it provided the
Slovenian participants with a methodology for sensibly achieving certain of the
recommendations that had been made to the government for amendments to the EPA. For
example, one of the Slovenian recommendations involves the creation of a centralized office
in the Ministry of the Environment for handling information requests. On the tour, the
Slovenian participants had an opportunity to visit the Hungarian version of this office and
gain insight into how a comparable version might be organized in Slovenia. Suggestions for
accomplishing this were included in an internal report sent by Ms. Anderlic to the State
Secretary upon her return to Ljubljana.
G. Study Tour in the U.S. and the Netherlands, February-March, 2001
Following the first set of capacity building workshops, four Hungarian and four
Slovenian Project participants came together for the most intensive single activity of
Building Environmental Citizenship, the European Union/United States study tour.34
The agenda for the study tour was created to address the priority obstacles to access to
environmental information that had been identified in the early stages of the Project. As
this agenda was developed, the PIT began to identify Project participants who would best
be suited to, and who would most benefit from the study tour experience. The selection
of study tour participants happened in close consultation with the major Project partners
in both Hungary and Slovenia. While criteria for selection was suggested by the PIT, the
selection of the candidates was actually made by the respective country partners, the
Hungarian and Slovenian ministries and NGOs. It was suggested that among the three
government representatives, experts should be included who were involved in the
practical aspects of Aarhus implementation and water information collection and
dissemination. It was important that all participants, in addition to participation in the
study tour, be prepared to make an active contribution following the tour regarding
dissemination and use of the information gained and the lessons learned from the U.S.
and Dutch systems in order to improve the Hungarian and Slovenian situation.
34 For a more detailed discussion of the EU and U.S. study tour please see the "Outputs and Results"
section of the Final Repot. For detailed agendas of the EU and the U.S. study tour please see the Appendix
to the Final Report.
63
In the course of the tour, Project participants visited the Netherlands and the United
States to learn practical details of how the Dutch and American public gains access to
government-held environmental information. The tour allowed the Project participants to
learn about the challenges that two advanced countries with mature systems of
information access have encountered in implementing access to information laws and
procedures, the solutions that have been identified and the reasons why those solutions
work in those countries. It was not designed as a general introduction to information
access or to examine general principles. Rather, it was targeted and organized so that the
Hungarian and Slovenian participants could very specifically learn what they might
usefully adapt from the U.S. and Netherlands systems and experience into the respective
programs they had chosen to develop.
The study tour continued the Project's methodology of providing the participants with an
understanding of the practical realities of providing environmental information to the
public, in every stage of the process from when a request for information is received to
when a response is provided. In both the US and the Netherlands, the participants had an
opportunity to visit with and learn from those involved in every aspect of environmental
information collection, provision and use, from government managers of information, to
the NGO advocates for greater information provision, to the consumers of information.
The Netherlands was selected as an EU-representative Member-State with a mature
information access regime and considerable experience. In the Netherlands, the tour
participants met with representatives of numerous government agencies which play a role
in the collection and dissemination of environmental information, including the
Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, the Institute for Inland Water Management
and Waste Water Treatment and the Ministry of General Affairs. They had an
opportunity to learn from their Dutch counterparts about existing legislation on access to
information and methods for monitoring emissions and managing environmental
information. The participants also had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, where they were briefed on
internal activities with regard to ratification and implementation of the Aarhus
Convention in the Netherlands. As in the US, the Dutch portion of the tour included
interaction with NGOs involved in water pollution reduction and information
dissemination efforts.
In the United States, the study tour participants met with officials of the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, as well as corresponding state and local agencies in
New York City and Washington, D.C. Meetings with counterparts in these agencies
allowed the participants to engage in comprehensive and meaningful discussions about
the collection, recording, monitoring and dissemination of environmental information. A
portion of the tour was also devoted to a consideration of shared water bodies, including
the Hudson River and the Chesapeake Bay, to offer insight into how different States
share information and respond jointly to the interest of the public in receiving that
information. This subject matter was particularly pertinent to the Project as there are
numerous similarities between the intra-state issues faced in the US and transboundary
64
issues faced in Hungary and Slovenia with regard to water pollution. A major portion of
the study tour was also spent meeting with representatives of US NGOs whose mandate
is to reduce water pollution in the United States and who play an important role in
assisting the public in obtaining and using information about water bodies and water
discharges. These representatives were able to share methods and practices for assisting
the public in accessing environmental information from the government; this subject was
of particular interest to the Hungarian and Slovenian NGO representatives on the study
tour. During these meetings, it was stressed that only through cooperation between
NGOs and the government can effective pollution reduction be achieved, and that these
two groups must work together to ensure that the public understands and exercises its
rights to access environmental information.
The Study Tour disclosed a number of practical applications that the study tour
participants thought could be adapted for use in Hungary and Slovenia. For example, the
New York Regional Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency has
brochures to aid citizen understanding of the Freedom of Information Act (attached as
Appendix --). Many U.S. Government offices have web-sites to assist individuals seeking
information. In other instances, independent, non-governmental organizations have
created citizens guides. These guides help citizens and citizen groups understand the
basic ground rules for asking the government for information. They also offer
standardized or form letters to speed the process of writing requests and to assure that
information requests will not be rejected for procedural reasons, and offer advice on how
to respond to a denial or pursue an appeal, if necessary.35 The NGO country participants
in the Project expressed strong interest in preparing and distributing citizens guides to
achieve these same purposes and facilitate the opportunities of individuals to ask for
information about water discharges to the Danube River and River Basin, and this interest
led to the creation of the Hungarian Citizen's Guide.
The study tour proved to be a team building experience in which experts from Hungary
and Slovenia worked together and pooled their information toward a common goal.
Although each represented a different and distinct area of expertise for the development
of information access systems, they came together in a common framework and
developed important common understandings. The PIT was able to see the results of this
in the June 2001 in-region meetings, when the study tour participants in each of the
country meetings demonstrated their level of commitment and interest, sharing the ideas
and concepts gained in the Netherlands and the United States.
H. Technical Assistance Activities
Another critical part of Building Environmental Citizenship's methodology was the
ongoing provision of technical assistance by the PIT and its consultants to the Project
participants as they engaged in the process of preparing the final Project outputs. These
capacity-building efforts included ongoing consultations (in person and by telephone and
e-mail), presentation of options for providing public access to environmental information
35 The web sites of a number of government and NGOs offices are also listed in the Project's Practices
Manual, making them easily accessible globally.
65
and the creation of the Practices Manual, and models to guide the creation of Handbooks
for government officials and Citizens Guides.
Consultations
Early in the Project, the PIT created an electronic "list-serve" to facilitate communication
among people in the region working on the project and on information access and
Danube River Basin issues. Through this list-serve, the PIT has had a quick and
inexpensive means to provide background information and to share experience. The list-
serve has proved an efficient and cost effective method of communication and has aided
in team building.
Throughout the course of the Project, the members of the PIT have been actively
available as a resource to the Project participants. They provided guidance on the
planning of Project meetings and the development of outputs, as well as written or oral
responses to specific questions regarding access to environmental information and public
participation regimes and options. The PIT provided a considerable amount of feedback,
comments, legal review, and edits on each of the documents produced by Project
participants, including the two Needs Assessments, the Hungarian Handbook and the
Slovenian Guidelines.
A typical example of the PIT's role as a resource involved a series of e-mails concerning
legal issues that arose as a Slovenian NGO representative to the Project was considering
how to formulate guidelines for the Slovenian government, a major Project output.
Through exchanges over the course of several days, the NGO and the PIT clarified the
problem. The PIT and the EU expert then provided options and discussion for resolution
of the problem. In another such example, the PIT and the NGO drafter of the Hungarian
Guidance exchanged extensive comments on his evolving draft, with the goal of
producing a final document that would be as useful and understandable as possible.
Several legal issues were identified and discussed, and there was considerable
communication that assured that the product reflected a wide recognition of the
government's need for balanced advice about how to proceed with its responsibilities.
Although the internet is an excellent means for implementing a Project that brings
together managers, consultants and participants from several different countries and time
zones, the PIT discovered that engaging in regular conference calls by telephone was
critical to maintaining effective communication among all Project players. Because of its
immediacy, telephone contact can overcome problems associated with misunderstandings
due to language differences and can promote more effective brainstorming and efficient
problem solving than email. Additionally, because this was a very human capital
intensive project, maintaining personal contacts via phone between international meetings
was important for supporting the quality of those relationships, and ultimately, the
smooth functioning of the Project.
Practices Manual and Options Memorandum
66
The Practices Manual is a unique compilation of practice examples from information
access regimes in the Netherlands, other parts of the European Union, the United States
and the countries of the former Soviet Bloc. The Practices Manual was a large
undertaking. As Hungary and Slovenia and now other countries begin to develop
appropriate laws and practical institutions for information access, the Practices Manual
allows experts in each country easy access to a variety of options for carrying out their
objectives, and allows them to gain an appreciation of why the policies and procedures
were established as they were. In furtherance of this, the Practices Manual is a
comprehensive document that includes options and examples for providing
environmental information to the public from a diverse range of legal traditions,
including the civil law countries of Netherlands, Italy, and the countries of the former
Soviet bloc, and the common law tradition of the US. The subject matters covered
include the management of confidential information; the active provision of
environmental information; appeals of non-disclosure decisions; records management;
charges for providing information; and separating disclosable and confidential
information. The Manual includes a comprehensive index to make the 78 page document
as user-friendly as possible.
The Practices Manual was created so that it could be used by the Project participants
throughout the course of the Project in the development of outputs. But it was also
anticipated that the Practices Manual would become a basic resource in any follow-on
efforts in the Danube River basin, and would be made available electronically to anyone
else who might be interested in examining implementation options.36 The wider
dissemination was accomplished on [date the practices manual goes on the web] by
putting the document on the project website and by simultaneously informing about 600
individuals and groups worldwide interested in environmental information access issues
about its availability.
In the further provision of technical assistance, the PIT prepared an options memorandum
in July/August 2001 on the critical issue of the treatment of confidential business
information by government agencies, for direct use in the preparation of the Hungarian
and Slovenian Project measures. This memorandum responded to the specific interest of
the Hungarian and Slovenian Project participants in refining their systems of protecting
sensitive commercial information from public disclosure. It includes explanations of why
certain commercial information may warrant protection; ways to balance the public's
right to know about pollution with privacy interests of industry; and lessons on these
issues from the US. The options memorandum is available on the Project's web site, as
well.
Model Guide for Officials and Model Citizens Handbook
36 At numerous points during the second half of the Project many Project participants, including those who
had not participated in the study tour, demonstrated through their active participation that they had studied
the Manual and the degree to which doing so had increased their understanding of information access laws
and procedures in other countries.
67
The PIT also created two model documents for the Hungarian and Slovenian participants
to use as they worked on their national versions of Guidance and a Citizen's Handbook.
These documents provide examples of the kind of practical question-and-answer format
that works best for providing pragmatic, sound advice for busy government personnel,
and for lay citizens who seek responses to their inquiries. The model Guidance also
contains 18 sample forms and letters to facilitate responses by busy government
employees. Sections in the model Guidance and Handbook where Hungarian and
Slovenian-specific information should be inserted are marked, in order to facilitate
adaptation and use of the models. This reflects the recognition that practice in the United
States and Netherlands can provide guidance to the Hungarian and Slovenian efforts, but
that ultimately the efforts must reflect national laws and policies. These models were also
placed on the Project's website.
The Model Guide for Government Employees
A "Model Guide for Government Employees, Concerning the Processing of Requests for
Environmental Information" was adapted from U.S. EPA's Freedom of Information Act
Manual (1992 Edition), formatted so that country-specific information can be inserted.
Examples from U.S. law and practice are provided to suggest and provide ideas and
guidance, and stimulate thought about various ways to handle specific challenges.
However, it is understood that each country must develop its own policies and laws to fit
its own needs. Each part of the Handbook that has information specific to U.S. practices
is highlighted in yellow, to alert the reader.
Many of the issues that are addressed in the Handbook require government decision
makers to make policy judgments specific to the needs of their own country and
circumstances. These will evolve over time with experience and practice in the art and
science of information access. We therefore recommend both in the document and in this
Final Report that the Handbook be considered a "living" document, and that sections be
amended and updated or deleted (and the U.S. information deleted) as specific country
policies and practices are formulated.
The Model Citizen's Guide
A "Model Citizen's Guide" for requesting environmental information from government
offices" was adapted from a document created by a United States NGO, the American
Civil Liberties Union, an organization concerned about individual rights and liberties.37
37 Their document is called A step-by-step Guide to Using the Freedom of Information Act ( November
1997) and was put on the web specifically to encourage the public to use the U.S. Freedom of Information
Act Consistent with its interest in encouraging all people to use the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, the
ACLU web site "freely grants" permission to create record or reference copies of pages of this web site for
research and study, and to download, print, and make copies of these materials for research, teaching, and
private study. Many of the materials on the site are designed to be printed and distributed locally for
purposes of activism, and may be distributed widely through noncommercial print reproduction as long as
they provide proper attribution. http://www.aclu.org/library/foia.html
68
The PIT's adaptation involved changing the orientation of the guide from an emphasis on
accessing information held by the U.S. government concerning individuals (e.g. Federal
Bureau of Investigation dossiers; information concerning public figures like Martin
Luther King, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy). The guide was re-worded to
emphasize its use to obtain environmental information, and specifically information
about discharges and other issues related to the Danube River and River Basin.
The Guide is prefaced with a quote from Hungarian Mihály Horváth, The Progress of
Democracy in our Country (1841), concerning the need in a free government for open
information, and provides a space for a similar quote from Slovenian history. The Guide
is formulated in a Question/Answer format in order to take individuals and citizens
through the entire process of information dissemination. An attempt was made to use
clear, understandable language, and to anticipate questions. Where local practice or
experience is lacking, examples are provided from the United States, highlighted in
yellow to be clear that these are U.S. and not Hungarian or Slovenian information. These
can easily be removed, and Hungarian or Slovenian-specific information inserted.
The Guide also contains two model request letters. One is a "bad" letter indicating where
substantial improvements can be made. The other is a "good" letter, showing how to
write a clear, understandable and non-refutable request letter. The Guide also discusses
the appeals process for incomplete responses or outright rejections, but it tries to provide
practical advice about how to go about evaluating government responses and deciding on
whether to pursue legal relief. A third model letter indicates the kinds of language to use
when requesting an appeal of an adverse or incomplete decision. Finally, the Guide
encourages citizen groups that use it to clearly identify themselves in the brochure.
I. Dissemination of Project Outputs and Results and Coordination With Other
GEF/Danube Programs
Website
In order to assure that project results and practical tools reach a wide audience of users,
the Pilot Project developed a website. The very substantial published results from the
Pilot Project are available at:
http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/DanubeInformation/Outputs.html.
To summarize, they include:
§ Needs Assessments for Hungary and Slovenia with detailed analysis of the laws and
practices in each country and identification of the specific challenges facing each
country;
§ Case study material for each country, with concrete examples of situations that draw
the connection between Danube pollution, resolution, and information access;
§ The Practices Manual including reference information from the United States, Europe
(with special emphasis on the Netherlands), and nascent practices in the countries of
the former Soviet bloc;
69
§ Hungarian guidance for government employees, specifically containing information
relevant to that country;
§ Citizens' guides prepared in Hungary and Slovenia;
§ Analytic materials providing options for the implementation of various aspects of
information access; and
§ Models to help countries prepare guidance for government employees responding to
citizen requests and to assist NGOs in preparing citizens' guides on requesting
environmental information;
§ Other materials prepared in the technical assistance phase.
Publication and Dissemination of the Practices Manual and Final Report
The Practices Manual was created so that it could be used by the Project participants as a
reference throughout the course of the Project. But, as noted, it was also anticipated that
the Practices Manual would become a basic resource in any follow-on efforts in the
Danube River basin, and would be made available electronically to anyone else who
might be interested in examining implementation options. The Final Report will be
widely disseminated to a network of government officials, governments, inter-
governmental organizations, NGOs, academicians and others able to promote the Danube
restoration effort. The Report will be available on the website, and an effort will be made
to distribute it to stakeholders and project managers in other river basin regions with an
interest in promoting public involvement in transboundary pollution reduction.
In addition to placing the document on the website, wider dissemination was
accomplished by the publication in order to provide printed copies to interested
government officials and NGOs in Slovenia and Hungary, as well as to their counterparts
throughout the Danube region.
Meetings with Other Danube Country Representatives
Dissemination of the Pilot Project activities and results has been especially targeted to the
other countries in transition in the Danube Basin. A major goal of the Pilot Project was
to test methodologies and develop activities and measures that could be replicated
throughout the region. To that end, in addition to the general dissemination efforts
described in this section, the PIT has taken several steps to ensure that there is a concrete
transfer of knowledge from the pilot countries to other countries in the region.
October 2001 Meeting
Government and NGO representatives from five additional Danube countries, Romania,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and Czech Republic, attended the final meeting of the
Pilot Project.38 In that meeting, the new participants learned about the Pilot Project and
observed discussions of results and recommendations for next steps in Hungary and
Slovenia. Members of the new group of countries participated in plenary discussions and
break-out groups with the Hungarian and Slovenian participants, during which they were
38 As noted, the participation of representatives from these countries was supported by supplemental
funding from the New York foundation, Trust for Mutual Understanding.
70
able to observe the two teams at work and ask questions. On the final day of the three-
day meeting, the new participants discussed their particular needs and problems and
received feedback and in-put from the pilot country participants.
The final day concluded with a brainstorming session with the core group of Hungarian
and Slovenian participants and the new group, sharing ideas on how to proceed with a
more broad-based follow-on project in the region. This session produced a number of
useful suggestions, including strategies to address the following:
· specific transboundary water-related information problems between two or more
countries, with Hungary and/or Slovenia taking the lead;
· sharing and adaptation of the Guidance materials developed in the Pilot Project;
· enhancing support for government agencies charged with collecting, sorting and
disseminating information;
· fostering more active information dissemination initiatives;
· expanding outreach efforts within countries using media, NGO network building, and
government public relations;
· deepening connections with regional water initiatives, including the EU, DEF, NATO
and other international initiatives.
Spring 2002 Meeting
The PIT is planning a second meeting to continue this knowledge sharing for the Spring
of 2002.39 Government and NGO representatives from the nine additional Danube
countries in transition (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Yugoslavia, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria and Ukraine) will be invited to engage a core
group of Pilot Project participants for several days of intensive information exchange and
brainstorming of follow-on activities. Based on the success of the October meeting, it is
anticipated that this meeting will significantly aid in dissemination of Pilot Project results
to other countries in the Danube region with an impact on Danube pollution. The
meeting is also expected to have considerable influence on the ongoing process of Aarhus
Convention implementation in the Danube region. This second knowledge sharing
meeting will be an important opportunity to continue the Pilot Project momentum of
promoting public involvement in transboundary water pollution reduction.
Outreach to GEF International Waters Program and Danube Regional Organizations
A number of linkages have been established between the project and other activities
related to the Danube river basin, as well as other initiatives on water or public
participation related activities.
GEF IW Meeting
In October 2000, the PIT traveled to Budapest to attend the GEF International Waters
Conference. At the conference, PIT members participated in several panel discussions.
39 The Trust for Mutual Understanding has provided partial funding for this second meeting.
71
Specifically, members of the PIT discussed the importance of public access to
environmental information and participation in environmental decision making as a
component of the protection of international waters, and how access to information can
help achieve the goals of GEF IW projects. They also shared information about the Pilot
Project with other participants and distributed a written description of the Project. The
members of the PIT received excellent feedback from the conference sessions, and
learned a great deal about possible synergies between this project and other GEF IW
projects.
IW/Learn and WRI
The PIT also actively engaged the International Waters community through participation
in the IW/Learn interactive website designed to promote dialogue and information
exchange. Members of the PIT acted as experts for IW/Learn's module on public
participation by sharing experiences from the Pilot Project and responding to submissions
from other International Waters participants. The PIT also participated actively in
meetings in Washington, D.C. and another on-line discussion concerning public access to
environmental information, hosted by the World Resources Institute. The PIT has used
these opportunities to provide specific information about the Pilot Project and electronic
citations to facilitate access to the Project's outputs.
Regional Organizations
Throughout the Pilot Project, the PIT has been in contact with the International
Commission of Protection of Danube River (ICPDR). The initial Project design
benefited from input and comments from the ICPDR, and we have kept the Commission
informed to avoid overlap with their planned activities. The results of the Project will be
shared with them and will be offered for use in the overall public access to information
strategy and practice of ICPDR.
Additionally, the PIT, through the REC, has participated in several regional meetings,
where it presented the experiences of the Pilot Project and exchanged information and
strategies with regard to stakeholder needs and involvement, and information
dissemination strategies and tools. These meetings included the River Basin Initiative
Design Workshop, held in the Netherlands in May 2000, and the International Danube
Conference organized by GLOBE in June 2001. At the GLOBE conference,
parliamentarians (MPs) and government experts from the Danube countries,
representatives of the Danube Commission, the ICPDR, the Council of Europe and
several international NGOs exchanged experiences about the recent developments in the
Danube River Basin, and the MPs developed a network for communication.
Finally, the PIT is disseminating Project results through relationships with WWF-
Hungary and WWF International, and in particular with their project related to the EU
Water Framework Directive. The WWF-Hungary representatives participated in the
project kick-off meetings as well as in other meetings held in Hungary and contributed
significantly with their experience in Danube matters to the project design and
72
implementation. The REC representative participated in the Workshop on Public
Participation in Implementation of the Water Framework organized by WWF and shared
the experiences learned during the project implementation.
F. Final Report
This Final Report is the culminating document of the Pilot Project. Conceived to serve as
a comprehensive review of all Project outputs, activities, and measures, it also serves as
an evaluation of the potential replicability of the Project approach and methodology and
activities for other CEE countries that impact the environmental health of the Danube
Basin/Black Sea. The Report will be distributed to key government officials, NGOs,
academicians and others in the region and in other river basin regions who can impact the
promotion of public involvement in the reduction of water pollution. It will also be
available on the Project website along with the other Project documents listed above in
Section E.
73
Section X. Project Outputs and Results
The Pilot Project successfully produced the outputs anticipated at its inception and thus
was able to accomplish its major objectives.
Output 1: Identified legal, institutional, and practical barriers to public
access to environmental information to support public involvement in
Hungary and Slovenia in furtherance of Danube pollution reduction
goals.
The Project successfully generated this output by identifying the significant legal,
institutional and practical barriers to public access to information relevant to reducing
discharges of nutrients and toxics to the Danube River, through Needs Assessments
conducted for Hungary and Slovenia. Key barriers identified in the Needs Assessments
were further illustrated through Case Study Analyses of actual situations in each country.
The case studies examined and illuminated difficulties in accessing information relevant
to reducing or preventing discharges of nutrients and toxic pollutants to the Danube in the
context of specific Danube "hot spots" identified through the GEF Danube program. The
barriers identified through the Needs Assessments and case study method are detailed in
Section VIII of this Report.
The successful completion of this output resulted in a clear understanding of the obstacles
that needed to be overcome in order to increase public access to environmental
information in the pilot countries and a firm basis on which Project participants could
begin to develop measures for addressing these obstacles. Completion of this output
further resulted in the production of two documents that can serve as models for
undertaking country-specific assessments of barriers to public access to water-related
environmental information in other countries in political and economic transition in the
Danube River Basin.
Output 2: Improved capability of Hungarian and Slovenian public
authorities to provide public access to environmental information and
related opportunities for public participation.
Throughout the course of the Project, the PIT engaged in a series of activities, described
in detail in Section IX, to build the capacity of the Project participants to address barriers
to access to environmental information as identified in the needs assessments. These
capacity building activities resulted in an increased understanding on the part of the
participants of how to develop and implement measures that will increase public access
to environmental information in support of the goals of Danube restoration efforts. In-
region meetings were a major component of capacity building. The meetings provided
the PIT with an opportunity to engage and work directly with the Project participants,
answering questions and providing options and recommendations for resolving the
identified obstacles to information access. These meetings accomplished an additional
goal: to encourage a team mentality among the participants from each country. This team
mentality also increased the participants ability to develop practical solutions, as it made
them more focused and provided them with a better framework for developing measures
74
to promote access to environmental information. Both the participants' understanding of
the issues involving information access and their team framework were reinforced
through the US/EU study tour, in which key participants had an opportunity to learn first-
hand about well-established access to information regimes and devise methods for
adapting them to meet the circumstances of their respective country situations.
Capacity building was also accomplished through written examples and options of good
practices for providing access to environmental information, provided by the PIT, and
keyed to the priority issues identified by the participants through the needs assessments
and early in-region meetings. These materials included the Practices Manual, the Options
Memorandum on Confidential Business Information, and the two model documents for
providing practical guidance to government officials and to the public. Capacity building
was also a result of the PIT's process of providing detailed and extensive comments on
the various written products produced by Hungarian and Slovenian Project participants;
the give and take surrounding the creation of the Needs Assessments and the various
country-specific documents was highly substantive and resulted in a mutual learning
experience for all involved. Finally, the extensive e-mail and telephone communications
concerning specific issues also had significant elements of capacity building.
During the course of the Project, significant improvement has been observed in the
knowledge and capability of the officials and NGOs who have been involved in the in-
country teams or participated in the Project activities, including the in-region capacity
building workshops and the Study Tour. The Project participants were quick to identify
priority problems and to identify and apply appropriate solutions to strengthen the
implementation of public access to environmental information regimes in their countries;
they also demonstrated a growing understanding of the solutions and practice
experienced in the other countries that were visited and examined, and of what would be
necessary to adapt that experience into their own countries. The Project participants
demonstrated their impressive motivation to initiate positive changes, whether in laws,
institutions or practices in each of their countries.
Output 3: Appropriate legal, regulatory, and policy recommendations in
support of public access to environmental information identified, drafted
and under consideration for adoption by policy makers in Hungary and
Slovenia.
The first stage toward developing recommendations through the Project was to provide
the participants with examples of good practices so that they could view first hand how
these practices work in real-time. This was accomplished, as described above, through
the in-region capacity building meetings and the EU/US study tour and the distribution of
various written materials, described above.
Legal and policy recommendations have been developed by the Project participants for
both Hungary and Slovenia. As described in detail in Section IX, these include for
Slovenia Guidelines for public officials clarifying current Slovenian legal requirements
on provision of environmental information to members of the public. The Slovenian
75
Guidelines have been finalized and will be adopted very quickly by the Ministry of the
Environment (a Ministry Official indicated that this would take place within three
months). The Guidelines clarify procedures for responding to public requests for
environmental information, institutional arrangements for providing information to the
public and practical issues involved in public access to environmental information (e.g.,
charges for providing information and deadlines for responding to requests), and resolve
definitional issues and establishing rules and procedures for handling confidential
business information. The Slovenian Project participants also prepared recommendations
for improving the law to meet the standards of the Aarhus Convention and EU Directives
on public access to environmental information and Water Framework requirements.
These recommendations will be used as the Slovenian Environmental Protection Act is
amended.
The Project participants in Hungary developed a very different set of Guidelines for
public officials. These Guidelines are extremely comprehensive. They describe the
standards required for access to environmental information in international law and the
status of law in Hungary, and attempt to clarify ambiguous law and procedures for
Hungarian public officials charged with providing environmental information. The
Hungarian NGO Project participants also developed a Citizen's Guide which will be
printed and distributed to the public, and which will inform citizens of their rights to
access environmental information and how to go about doing this most effectively.
Output 4: Key Government and Non-Governmental stakeholders trained in
development of well-functioning public access to environmental
information and public involvement programs.
As described above, the training of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in
the provision of environmental information has taken place throughout the process in the
in-region meetings, the study tour, the creation of Project documents and through the
provision of technical assistance and technical assistance materials.
Although they came from very different disciplines and equipped with a wide variety of
skills, all of the Project participants were trained together in methods of effective
information provision. The participant groups in all of the in-region meetings and the
study tour included representatives of numerous government agencies (including those in
charge of environmental protection, information and transport) and NGOs. Certain of the
in-region workshops included representatives of industry, including trade unions.
The PIT did not distinguish between government and non-governmental participants
when it provided technical assistance. As a result of this strategy, the governmental and
NGO Project participants formed close professional bonds that, in some cases, had not
existed before, and were able to work together to develop solutions to obstacles to access
to environmental information.
76
Output 5: Lessons learned, materials developed, and recommendations made
and disseminated concerning replicable elements of pilot program.
The lessons learned from the Pilot Project have been recorded in Section XI of this
Report.
Recommendations concerning replicable elements of the Pilot Project can be found in
Section XII of the Report.
At the final in-region plenary meeting held in Slovenia in October 2001, a good portion
of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of lessons learned from the Project. Moreover,
the meeting included governmental and NGO participants from other Danube countries
who exchanged ideas for utilizing the lessons learned from the Pilot Project in a more
broad-based follow-on effort.
Other Results
Other results of the Project include the beginning of a process to transfer of knowledge
and lessons learned from the Pilot Project to other similarly situated countries in the
Danube basin. As mentioned above, the final plenary meeting included participants from
other Danube countries and initiated a discussion of adapting the lessons learned from the
Pilot Project on a wider scale. However, throughout the course of the Project the
members of the PIT have made efforts to share the Project experiences with as wide an
audience as possible. Members of the PIT participated in the GEF/International Waters
conference held in Budapest in October 2000. Members of the PIT also served as experts
in the IW/Learn on-line dialogue on public participation, and attended meetings and
participated electronically in WRI's project on Aarhus indicators. The PIT has worked
hard to disseminate all of the materials produced through the Project via the Project web
site. These materials are, consequently, widely and easily available. A wide distribution
of the Final Report is planned.
The PIT has developed a PDF-B for a full-scale follow-on effort in 9 other Danube
countries, based upon the approach and methodology of the Pilot Project. The PDF-B is
pending GEF approval.
77
Section XI. Lessons Learned and Conclusions
A. Lessons Learned
1. The Project Approach and Methodology Were Appropriate for Achieving the
Stated Objectives
The Project Objectives
The Project's approach and methodology have proven effective in the achievement of the
Project's stated objectives. As further detailed in Section III of this Report, these objectives
included the following:
Ø To identify the most pressing legal, institutional, social and practical barriers to and
opportunities for implementation of public access to environmental information
Ø To build capacity to establish the legal, institutional, and practical infrastructure that is a
prerequisite to increasing informed and meaningful public participation to support efforts
to protect the Danube from discharges
Ø To identify good legal, institutional and practical options and practices for improving
public access to water-related environmental information, and developing concrete
measures to effect policies, legislation and regulations to address these barriers and seize
on opportunities
Ø To field test specific, replicable public involvement measures to address discharges to the
Danube through a case study that demonstrates how such measures can further the goals
of the SAP
Ø To recommend follow-up actions to ensure the transfer of lessons learned in the Pilot
Project and replicable elements to other Danube countries in CEE
Ø To strengthen inter-governmental and government-to NGO cooperation and partnerships
to enable joint learning on viable approaches to public involvement
The Project approach was appropriate for achieving the stated objectives
The approach adopted in the Pilot Project included three related aspects: "country-driven";
"bottom-up" and practical; and replicable elsewhere but tailored to participating country
needs. Each of these aspects contributed significantly to the achievement of the Project's
objectives.
An important lesson of the Pilot Project is that initiatives in the region that seek to develop
measures to increase public access to environmental information and increase capacity are
most likely to be effective and sustainable if they are predicated on a country-driven
approach. This approach provides the necessary framework for participants to take the lead
in developing these measures and in shaping the capacity building activities that are needed
to support their development.
78
The Project successfully initiated this country-driven approach at the very outset of the
project by establishing country teams that included government officials at different levels of
government and from both water and environment agencies, as well as NGOs. These teams
represented a broad range of skills and points of view, and their diversity helped ensure that
measures including the guidelines for public officials, citizens guides and recommendations
for legislation ultimately developed through the project would be useful for-- and acceptable
to-- both citizens seeking and government officials responding to requests for environmental
information.
By following this approach from the start, the Project was able early on to develop a
consensus among the participants on the most pressing legal, institutional, social and
practical barriers to and opportunities for implementation of public access to
environmental information in their countries and a common starting point for work to
develop specific measures to address these. The Project's support for participant-led
project initiatives development also proved to be instrumental in enabling the participants
to utilize capacity built through the project to develop guidelines for public officials in
both countries, to develop recommendations for new legislation in Slovenia, and, in
Hungary, to produce a citizen's handbook. All of these new measures to improve public
access to environmental in support of Danube pollution reduction were conceived by the
participants and formulated to directly respond to the most significant barriers to public
access to environmental information identified by them during the needs assessment
phase of the project. The Pilot Project experience also underscores the importance of
working in a "bottom-up" and highly practical manner to develop measures that can
actually be implemented in the participating countries and that will meet the real needs of
the country participants. Measures developed through the project, such as the guidelines
for public officials, address a variety of very practical problems encountered by
government offcials who receive requests for information, including how to respond to
citizen requests for environmental information, what to do if the information requested
may reside with another agency, whether to charge citizens for providing the requested
information, and how to handle requests for potentially non-discloseable information.
Similarly, the citizens' guide in Hungary will give NGOs and members of the public
practical information on such issues as: how to excercize their rights to receive
environmental information, how to formulate requests for information, and where
information relating to Danube pollution can be found. Both the Project participants and
the PIT believe that establishing clear guidance on how to handle these and other legal
and practical questions will greatly improve the provision of environmental information
to citizens and facilitate their involvement in protecting the Danube.The Project's
approach of identifying options gleaned from "good practices" in the U.S and other
countries with experience and expertise in providing public access to environmental
information enabled the pilot project to develop models for potential measures to improve
public access to environmental information that could be used by both pilot countries, but
also tailored to meet each country's individual needs. The usefulness of these models to
participants was demonstrated through their substantial reliance on the Practices Manual
and the view expressed by many participants that activities such as the Study Tour greatly
improved their ability to identify options and develop measures for resolving problems
with access to information in their home countries. Thus, the PIT believes that an
79
important lesson of the pilot project is the effectiveness of exposure to "good practices"
in other countries to further the development of public involvement measures in CEE. In
addition, because many of the barriers to public access to environmental information are
shared in common by the two pilot countries and by many other countries in the Danube
region as well, the PIT sought to identify options to address barriers to access to
environmental information that would have potentially broad applicability. As a result,
the PIT believes that the measures developed in Hungary and Slovenia can serve as
useful models for other CEE countries in the Danube River Basin.
The Project methodology was appropriate for achieving the stated objectives
The application of a methodology that consistently supports the goals of the Project
approach is important to successful project implementation. The methodology utilized
throughout the Project complemented the Project approach described above. It was
conceived to make certain that the Project approach would meet the stated objectives,
both in Hungary and Slovenia, as well as in the greater Danube region, and in this was
successful. The successful implementation of the Pilot Project indicates that the
following four-tiered methodology is appropriate for this type of Project.
The first stage of the methodology involved problem identification through analysis of
existing Hungarian and Slovenian laws and practice for information access, with specific
emphasis on the accessibility of information about transboundary water discharges. This
problem identification was performed by local environmental legal experts and
consultation with Project participants to ensure the desired country-drivenness and
"tailoring" to the pilot countries' respective situations. As stated above, through this
country drivenness and tailoring, the Project objective that barriers to access to
environmental information specific to each country identified, and concrete measures for
addressing these barriers be developed, was achieved.
The second stage of the Project methodology involved the identification of options for
addressing the identified problems with access to environmental information in Hungary
and Slovenia. This was achieved through the use of comparative analysis and experience
in different countries (including the US, EU-Member-States and CEE nations) to assure
identification of a variety of good practices and potentially applicable measures. This
second phase of the methodology, which was accomplished in part through the
production of the Practices Manual, the in-region workshops and the EU/US study tour,
was essential for achieving the Project objective that measures be created to address the
barriers to access to environmental information.
The third stage of the Project's methodology was to use case studies to provide a
grounded local "reality check" to the efforts in each country. The PIT anticipated that if
the Project outputs identified solutions in such real factual settings, there would be a
greater problem-solving motivation and the solutions chosen would be more realistic and
capable of implementation. Consequently, the use of case studies also assisted in
meeting the Project objective of field testing specific, replicable public involvement
80
measures to address discharges to the Danube. Please see heading 7 below for a detailed
discussion of the lessons learned involving the use of case studies in this Project.
The final stage of the Project methodology was to use technical assistance as a means of
achieving capacity building. This technical assistance was provided on an on-going
basis, both in person at in-region meetings and during the study tour, and through written
materials such as the Practices Manual, Options Paper on Confidential Business
Information and Models for preparing guidelines for public officials and citizens. This
methodology helped to build capacity among the project participants, provide options for
improving access to environmental information and set the stage for the development of
concrete measures to address obstacles to information access in Hungary and Slovenia.
2. Stakeholder and Public Involvement Were Appropriate for Achieving the Stated
Objectives
An important lesson learned through the pilot project is that NGOs, as primary end-users of
environmental information and key actors in Danube restoration efforts, must be integrated
into all aspect of the capacity building effort and directly included in the process of
developing public access measures. Indeed the PIT believes that NGOs are one of the most
important stakeholders in any effort to in promote more effective access to environmental
information. Similarly, it is the public, again represented by NGOs, which is most effected
by water pollution and must play the greatest role in the restoration of the Danube. The
Project was careful to include NGOs in all Project planning, decision making and
development of measures to address obstacles to access to environmental decision making.
NGOs were heavily represented at all in-region Project meetings, were included in the
EU/US study tour, were in regular communication with the PIT during the planning of all
Project developments and played a strong role in the development of the Project measures.
Indeed, the Hungarian Citizen's Manual was prepared by a consortium of Hungarian NGOs
and reviewed and commented on the draft guidelines for public officials in both pilot
countries and the legislative recommendations in Slovenia.
The Pilot Project also confirmed that any effort to reduce transboundary pollution to a
major waterway requires broad-based cooperation and should include in all of its
activities diverse stakeholders with concern and responsibility for the protection of water,
and the Danube in particular. The PIT was careful to include in Project activities
representatives from diverse sections of society, including government ministers,
managers of other water restoration projects, NGOs and representatives of industry.
Officials from numerous government agencies from Hungary and Slovenia, including
those involved in communications, the environment, water and transport were
represented in every in-region Project meeting, attended the EU/US study tour and were
in regular communication with the PIT during all discussion regarding the planning of
Project activities and measures. The in-region meetings were attended as well by
representatives of industry, including trade union representatives. The use of diverse
stakeholders in the Project resulted in the identification of obstacles and the production of
measures that took into account the interests and needs of different sectors of society, all
of whom have a stake in the provision of environmental information and the restoration
81
of the Danube. This stakeholder and public involvement achieved the Project's objective
of strengthening inter-governmental and government-to NGO cooperation and
partnerships to enable joint learning on viable approaches to public involvement.
An important lesson from the Pilot Project that will be applicable to future efforts in the
region concerned overcoming logistical and structural barriers to early and effective
involvement of representatives from all levels of government ministries, industry and other
important stakeholders. Project participants observed that the demands of competing work
commitments and the full integration of high level government officials would be most
effectively managed with the engagement of stakeholder commitment through awareness
raising and work organization at the earliest possible stage, preferably before the initiation of
the Project itself. This could ensure that all interested stakeholders are fully engaged from
the very beginning of the Project, with core teams already in place. A preliminary pre-
Project development period in which all relevant stakeholders are identified, receive initial
training on the issues, and form committed teams would be a useful means to enhance the
effectiveness of stakeholder participation.
3. The Project activities were effective in producing the anticipated project outputs
The Project activities have been diverse and have taken place over the entire course of the
Project. They have been successful in the achievement of the Project's expected outputs.
These outputs include:
· identified legal, institutional, and practical barriers to public access to environmental
information to support public involvement in Hungary and Slovenia in furtherance of
Danube pollution reduction goals;
· improved capability of Hungarian and Slovenian public authorities to provide public
access to environmental information and related opportunities for public
participation;
· appropriate legal, regulatory, and policy recommendations in support of public access
to environmental information identified, drafted and under consideration for adoption
by policy makers in Hungary and Slovenia;
· key governmental and non-governmental stakeholders trained in the development of
well-functioning public access to environmental information and public involvement
programs;
· lessons learned materials developed and recommendations made and disseminated
concerning replicable elements of the pilot program.
Needs assessments and case study analyses are useful tools to identify obstacles and
opportunities
The Pilot Project found that the use of a country-driven needs assessment could produce a
thorough depiction of barriers to public access to environmental information and
opportunities to address those obstacles. Thus, the first Project output was accomplished
through the production of needs assessments and case study analyses for Hungary and
82
Slovenia by the Project's local consultants and in-region participants. The needs
assessments provided a comprehensive picture of the barriers to public access to
environmental information in Hungary and Slovenia, and presented opportunities for
besting these obstacles. The needs assessments provided a wide-ranging and firm basis
for all of the following Project activities. They furthermore began the process of
"distributing ownership" to the Project participants; by involving them in the preparation
of the needs assessments, the participants were given an opportunity to frame the scope
of the Project based upon their local expertise. They determined the most pressing
obstacles relating to access to environmental information, and so were in a position to
continue working with the Project to determine the most effective means of addressing
these problems.
In order to place the obstacles identified in the needs assessments in a more "real-world"
context, the Project consultants, in collaboration with the in-region participants, prepared
an analysis of case study examples, to demonstrate how the obstacles to information
access actually manifest themselves. A more detailed discussion of the usefulness and
role of the case studies in the Project can be found later in this Section.
In-region meetings, a study tour and technical assistance were useful activities to improve
capability to provide public access to environmental information and related
opportunities for public participation:
The second Project output, involving the improved capacity of Hungarian and Slovenian
public authorities to provide environmental information, was accomplished primarily
through the Project's in-region meetings and the EU/US study tour.
In-region meetings
The PIT found that the in-region meetings were a useful means to improve the capability
of the Project participants to encourage the more effective provision of environmental
information in their respective countries.
The chief goal of the in-region capacity building workshops was to build the skills of the
different stakeholders who were present in providing or accessing water-related
information. At each of the meetings the PIT provided technical assistance to the
participants, engaging and working directly with them, providing options and
recommendations for resolving the identified obstacles to information access and
answering questions. Throughout this process, the PIT encouraged the participants to
move towards the goal of determining specific methods for addressing the stated
obstacles to the provision of water-related information. These meetings were invaluable
to the development of the concrete measures for Hungary and Slovenia.
The in-region meetings were a team-building experience for the participants, as well; this
team mentality was invaluable to the successful achievement of the Project objectives. It
increased the participants' ability to devise practical solutions to obstacles to access to
83
environmental information and provided them with a better framework for developing
measures to promote access to environmental information.
The Study Tour
The Pilot Project demonstrated that study tours are a key component to the success of
capacity building efforts. The study tour to the U.S. and the E.U. strongly bolstered the
capability of the participants to address obstacles to access to environmental information
in their own countries. The participants were provided with an opportunity to take part in
a series of carefully crafted meetings with leading U.S. and E.U. environmental law
experts, government officials in charge of providing water pollution information to the
public, government experts in information systems creation and management and
environmental NGO representatives who rely on publicly available information to impact
environmental decision making and empower communities to play a role in that decision
making.
A well-crafted study tour should provide a basic understanding of the "nuts-and bolts" of
how access to information regimes are constructed and implemented - from laws to daily
practices. The Pilot Project carefully devised an intense schedule of meetings that gave
the study tour participants exposure to the managers, generators, and consumers of
environmental information, with a particular focus in the United States on information
about shared water bodies such as the Hudson River and the Chesapeake Bay.
Perspectives were gained from numerous government officials at the federal, regional,
state and local level, as well as from the non-governmental community, the press and
private industry. We looked at how records management systems and request tracking
systems are put into place and the significance of these very basic systems for
information dissemination. We examined the internal government process for managing
and responding to requests, and for assuring prompt, accurate replies, including
standardized forms. A further important issue for the tour participants was the
classification of confidential materials, and standardized processes to review such
information to avoid accidental releases. The study tour participants returned to their
countries with a large number of source documents, U.S. practice manuals and other
materials that are being used in their local efforts to put effective practices into place.
All of the study tour sessions featured a great deal of interaction among the participants,
the people making presentations and with the PIT. Time was also reserved throughout
the study tour for the participants to consider and discuss the lessons they had learned to
date, and to examine the transferability of those lessons to their respective home countries
in the context of reducing transboundary pollution to the Danube.
At the conclusion of the study tour, the PIT received very positive feedback about the
breadth and quality of the presentations. It was a consensus opinion of the group that
many of the lessons learned concerning Dutch and U.S. laws and practices for providing
water-related information to the public could be replicated in Hungary and Slovenia.
84
During the course of the Project a significant improvement was observed in the
knowledge and capability of the officials and NGOs who have been involved in the in-
country teams or participated in the in-region capacity building workshops and
particularly the study tour. These participants showed an enormous interest in identifying
priority problems and in identifying and applying various solutions regarding the
implementation of public access to environmental information regimes in their countries;
they also demonstrated a growing understanding of the solutions and experience of the
Western and other CEE countries. In each country, the study tour participants
demonstrated motivation and increased ability to initiate positive changes in the
legislation, institutions and practices of each of their countries.
Participant-initiated meetings
The PIT viewed independent initiative by the Project participants and the development of
"ownership" as a critical step towards planting the seeds of Project sustainability. Some
of the Project activities which most bear out the Project's approach and methodology, are
those which were conceived and conducted by the participants themselves with very little
help from the PIT. These activities included numerous meetings conducted by the
participants, among themselves and with senior government representatives from their
respective countries, to focus on the development of measures to address obstacles to
access to environmental information. These participant-initiated activities make evident
that the Project's approach and methodology effected a framework in which the
participants could build upon existing Project activities. The participants were able to
further refine their understanding of the obstacles faced by their countries and deliberate
on how these might be resolved on their own, but using the options and examples that
had been provided them by the PIT.
This initiative demonstrated by the Project participants within the framework of the
Project methodology was what the PIT had hoped to achieve from the commencement of
the Project.
The PIT learned that the appropriate role for the Implementation Team in these initiatives
involved the provision of technical assistance from the PIT and local consultants to the
Project participants. Numerous written materials were prepared to provide options and
good practice examples to the participants during these meetings, thus facilitating their
development of measures to address obstacles to access to environmental information.
Recommendations and concrete measures to support public access to environmental
information
The PIT determined that providing practice examples and options to the Project
participants was an invaluable means to assist them in the development of concrete
measures to address obstacles to access to environmental information. These
recommendations were made through the Practices Manual describing options and
examples for providing access to environmental information from the US, EU and CEE;
the US/EU study tour; the Option Paper on Confidential Business Information; Models
85
for official guidelines and citizen's guides; and presentations made during the Project's
in-region meetings.
The types of technical assistance that was provided to Hungary and Slovenia could serve
as useful models for similar measures in countries facing the same types of problems in
the rest of the Danube region. Using the technical assistance provided by the PIT, the
Project participants developed a series of practical measures in support of public access
to environmental information in Hungary and Slovenia. In Slovenia, these measures
included guidelines for public officials and an identification of gaps in existing
legislation. In Hungary, the Project prepared guidelines for public officials and a
citizen's manual drafted by NGOs to help citizens gain access to water-related
information in Hungary. All of these measures are under consideration for adoption by
policy makers in the pilot countries.
Improved Capability of Public Authorities and Related Opportunities for Public
Participation
The Pilot Project has demonstrated that the training activities and technical assistance
provided to participants can significantly improve these actors' capacity to develop
practical and effective measures to overcome obstacles to public access to environmental
information. A further lesson learned from the pilot project experience is the value of
shared learning in building capacity in both the government and NGO participants, and
improving dialogue between government and civil society representatives. Structuring
training sessions that combined government and NGO participants, representatives of
interests that are often in conflict, lead in the pilot project to increased dialogue and
understanding among these key actors, as well as a collaborative process of developing
solutions. The PIT believes that the relationships built through the project as well as the
participation of different stakeholders in producing project outputs are an essential part of
the capacity built through the project and will help ensure the sustainability of the
project's results.
The development of lessons-learned materials and the dissemination of recommendations
on the Project's replicability
Throughout the course of the Project, the PIT has been able to communicate the Project's
replicable achievements to date to a wide audience of stakeholders through a variety of
formal and informal project activities. The PIT launched the Project's website [when??]
and began posting important project materials on the site, as they were completed. At an
earlier stage of the Project, members of the PIT attended and made presentation on the
Project at the GEF International Waters Conference in Budapest, in October 2000.
Furthermore, over the course of the Project, PIT members have served as experts in the
IW/Learn module on public participation, and have maintained communication with the
Danube Secretariat and Danube Environmental Forum.
As the Project wound to an end, the PIT took numerous and effective steps to publicize
the lessons learned and recommendations with regard to the Project's replicability that
86
had been accrued over the course of 19 months. REC engaged in informal consultations
with representatives of the nine other Danube CEE countries (besides Hungary and
Slovenia). At the final plenary meeting in Ljubljana in October 2001, members of other
Danube Basin countries attended and discussed how the Pilot Project might be replicated
in their own countries. This meeting provided an opportunity for current project
participants to share their experiences with the representatives from the new Danube
countries and brainstorm as to how a follow-on effort might succeed.
Finally, all of the Project products (such the needs assessments) and the Project measures
(such as the guidelines for both countries and the Citizen's Manual for Hungary) have
been or are in the process of being disseminated via the internet or publication.
4. The Project Measures have Addressed Identified Obstacles to Public Access to
Environmental Information, and will be Applicable or Adaptable in other CEE
Danube Countries
What measures were developed to address obstacles?
Through the Project's approach and methodology, a number of concrete and practical
Project measures have been developed to increase public access to environmental
information, with the end result of reducing transboundary water pollution in the Danube.
These measures are described in detail in Section IX.
Hungarian measures:
The Hungarian participants agreed that two distinct guidance documents would be most
useful, one geared to those actively involved in the provision of environmental
information, and one to the public. These were intended to overcome the following
barriers to public access to environmental information in Hungary: [List to be supplied]
The decision to develop the guidance document for public officials was based upon the
general agreement that current Hungarian law meets the standards of the Aarhus
Convention and EU Directives on access to environmental information, and that it was
most important to develop measures which clarify for public officials how to implement
these existing laws in daily practice.
It is clearly of the utmost importance that all government agencies in Hungary interpret
existing access to environmental information laws and requirements in the same manner,
and uniform practices are necessary to assure implementation. The Project participants
agreed that the Handbook should contain guidance on issues such as the following: the
legal requirements governing public access to environmental information and guidance
on practical issues, such forms for responding to citizen requests for information,
procedures for tracking requests and responses, systems of records and methods of
records management . The resulting Handbook provides information and answers
practical questions for lawyers and non-lawyers alike to facilitate the provision of
87
environmental information to the public and public participation in decision making
regarding environmental and water-related matters.
The other output developed by NGO Hungarian participants is a Citizen's Guide, which
describes for the public their rights to access environmental information and how to do
this effectively. The Guide describes publicly accessible environmental and water-
related information and where the different types of information can be found by the
public.
Slovenian measures:
The measures to address obstacles to access to environmental information developed by
the pilot project participants for Slovenia are Guidelines for public officials on the
passive provision of environmental information and recommendations for new
legislation. The Guidelines clarify existing but ambiguous procedures for responding to
public requests for environmental information, institutional arrangements for providing
information to the public and practical issues involved in public access to environmental
information (e.g., charges for providing information and deadlines for responding to
requests), as well as resolving definitional issues and establishing rules and procedures
for handling confidential business information.
The Slovenian Guidelines offer instruction in the implementation of existing but
ambiguous access to environmental information laws in Slovenia found in Article 14 of
the EPA and general administrative procedure. However, the participants agreed that
changes in the EPA will be required to resolve gaps in existing legislation regarding the
provision of environmental information. These gaps include defining the competance of
the ministries to decide in the administrative procedure at the first instance about the
information request; which governmental officials will be responsible for resolving
appeals to denial of information requests or non-disclosure of information; the need to
eliminate any showing of public interest in order to make a valid request for information;
and the need for new procedural rules for dealings with information request.
Are these measures applicable to other Danube countries?
The measures developed by the Hungarian and Slovenian Project participants are
applicable to other Danube countries. They are the outcome of the Project's approach
and methodology, which as stated above, were designed to result in products that will be
replicable beyond the borders of Hungary and Slovenia.
While the measures developed in the course of the Pilot Project clearly are geared to the
unique circumstances of the countries for which they were written, the measures provide
models that can be used and adapted to address specific needs and problems in other
countries. Many of the barriers that were identified in Hungary and Slovenia through the
Pilot Project, and which are responded to through the measures, such as inadequate
legislation and guidance for government officials and lack of knowledge about rights by
citizens, are shared in common with other countries in the Danube region. Consequently,
88
the Hungarian and Slovenian Project measures will serve as effective models throughout
the Danube region, and demonstrate what can be achieved by following the approach and
methodology of the Pilot Project.
The PIT's confidence in the applicability and replicability of the Pilot Project's measures
in other CEE Danube countries has been reinforced by events at the October 2001
Project meeting in Slovenia. This meeting was attended not only by Pilot Project
participants from Hungary and Slovenia but by representatives of 5 other CEE Danube
countries, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czech Republic and Ukraine. These
participants were able to consider the measures created for Hungary and Slovenia and
were enthusiastic about the possibility to use them as a basis for creating similar
measures in their home countries as part of a follow-on effort. Furthermore, extremely
positive informal consultations have taken place between the REC and representatives of
the Danube CEE countries over the past few months, in which draft versions of the
measures were presented and discussed.
What steps did the Project take to promote the transfer of ideas?
To achieve its "global" objective of developing products which will be applicable or
adaptable to other Danube/CEE countries, the Project promoted the transfer of knowledge
and lessons-learned form the Pilot Project to other Danube countries in CEE and
developed recommendations for further work in the region to improve public
involvement in environmental decision making in support of reduction of pollutant
discharges to the Danube with transboundary implications.
Of course, the lessons learned from this Project as well as recommendations for future
work are included in this Final Report. The Final Report will be widely distributed.
Furthermore, at the final in-region plenary meeting held in Slovenia in October 2001, a
large amount of time was devoted to a discussion of lessons learned from the Project
among Pilot Project participants and representatives of other Danube countries which are
candidates for inclusion in a follow-on effort. The meeting provided the participants with
an opportunity to share experiences and exchange ideas for utilizing the lessons learned
from the Pilot Project in a more broad-based follow-on effort. The PIT has developed a
PDF-B for a full-scale follow-on effort in 9 other Danube countries, based upon the
approach and methodology of the Pilot Project. The PDF-B is pending GEF approval.
Moreover, throughout the course of the Project the members of the PIT have made efforts
to share the Project experiences with as wide an audience as possible. Members of each
organization of the PIT participated in the GEF/International Waters conference held in
Budapest in October 2000; representatives of NYU and RFF made a presentation on the
concept of the Pilot Project, which was very well received. Members of the PIT also
served as experts in the IW/Learn on-line dialogue on public participation. Furthermore,
the PIT has worked hard to disseminate all of the materials produced through the Project
via the Project web site. These materials are, consequently, widely and easily available.
89
5. Lessons-Learned on the Use of Case Studies
At the commencement of the Project, it was anticipated that case study examples would
be the best tool to ground Project discussions and problem solving in concrete facts, and
to reinforce the Project focus on discharges to the Danube. In the course of the Project,
the PIT gained important knowledge about the use of case examples. As discussed
below, the PIT would expect to continue to use case examples in future projects, but
would also consider modifying their use depending on the particular circumstances in
each country.
In the Pilot project, the case examples appeared to be a bit more useful in Hungary than
in Slovenia. The selection of the Hungarian case example proved to lead directly to the
decision of the PIT and their Hungarian colleagues to focus the first Hungarian workshop
on the Tisza River. As a result, the first Hungarian-language meeting was held in
Szolnock, one of the communities on the river that was most affected by the cyanide
spill.
Focusing on the Tisza illustrated in a vivid way the immediacy of the spill in its effect on
the environmental health and economic welfare of Szolnock, particularly tourism, and
provided authentic examples of the importance of providing environmental information
to the public in such crisis situations. Among the concerns expressed at the meeting by
Hungarian participants was the need for government officials to provide accurate and
timely information in the event of such accidents and there was discussion about how this
might best take place. But the Tisza case example also demonstrated the need for
sustained information access following an immediate crisis, as communities and
individuals begin to understand and sort out the long-term impacts on their lives and
economy. It illustrated how local NGOs and citizens use the information they obtain to
pursue remedial activities or to set into context the dimensions of particular injuries to the
river.
Moreover, the focus on the Tisza helped the Project and the PIT establish a close
connection with one of the most productive Hungarian NGO participants, Gabiella Varga
from the Tisza Klub. The Tisza Klub is one of the NGOs involved in the Baja Mare
Task Force that was established following the cyanide spill. The Tisza Klub has also
been active in the effort to preserve biological diversity on the river, and has consistently
reminded its constituency that "the Danube's long journey through Europe ends in the
Black Sea." Ms. Varga proved to be among the most engaged of the Project participants,
and took the lead in drafting the Hungarian's Citizen's Handbook on Access to
Environmental Information.
The concerns of some of the Tisza Klub's members also illustrated another constituency
for information access the business community. A very real concern of some Tisza
Klub members was the impact of the spill and of information and mis-information about
the effects of the spill on tourism in the Szolnock area. Thus, using the Tisza as a case
example proved to be productive in broadening the focus of information access to the
diverse interest groups that seek such information. It provided a vivid example of the
90
relationship between information and local and regional engagement. It connected
directly with very real issues driving both the Hungarian non-government community and
commercial interests. It reinforced the role of such actors in the Project and in the
process of instituting effective information access regimes in Hungary.
The case example as a vehicle for achieving the goals of the Project proved less
important in the case of the Slovenian participants. Early in the Project, indeed in the
latter parts of the kick-off meeting, the Slovenian participants took ownership of the
project. The Slovenian effort was soon driven by tactics and strategies of their own
devising, and was more directly targeted at the government process to incorporate and
achieve Aarhus and EU standards. It seemed that the Slovenians didn't need the case
example to create motivation or a constituency for action. This may reflect some
significant differences between Hungary and Slovenia. First, the Tisza spill case example
involved a unique, and frightening incident that galvanized public attention. As noted,
regional and local efforts had sprung up around the cyanide spill and continued to
motivate local action. The Slovenian case example lacked the same immediacy, and
involved an on-going pollution problem on which there has been incremental progress for
a number of years. There did not seem to be the same urgency or a strong constituency
focused on the issue. Second, Hungary is just a much bigger country than Slovenia with
more diverse sources of pollution and with a larger environmental NGO community.
In future projects, the PIT anticipates continuing to select case examples in all
participating countries. But we also intend to monitor the process carefully to assess the
importance of the case example in motivating country participants. In some cases, case
examples will facilitate the process. For example, we anticipate that case examples may
prove more important in some countries where environmental information access
competes for public attention with substantial domestic problems, or where
environmental protection has been more academic and theoretical and implementation
has been weak. Concrete case examples might turn out to be more relevant, as a means
to demonstrate the broader implications of information access to other issues of concern
in the countries. Moreover, the extended time period of the next project three years
contrasted with the current 18 months might allow additional time to make better use of
case studies for the purpose of examining implementation efforts.
The PIT learned that case studies don't always turn out to be consistent with a customer-
driven approach, and with the need to be flexible during the learning process. Thus, in
Hungary the case example provided a direct link with local NGOs and others and
strengthened the project and its outcomes. In Slovenia, the process was driven by other
needs. Thus, case studies can be a useful tool, but like other aspects of Pilot Project
development, should be used flexibly as dictated by the particular needs and
opportunities in every country.
6. A Difficult Time Frame
One of the primary obstacles faced by the PIT and Project participants was a very short
time frame to accomplish a very ambitious agenda.
91
The comprehensive identification of obstacles to access to environmental information for
two countries, the building of capacity among participants from diverse backgrounds, the
decision of what measures to develop to address these obstacles, and the provision of
technical assistance to assist in their development is extremely time intensive.
Consequently, both the PIT and the Project participants were faced with serious time
constraints. The fact that the Project was able to complete its goals within this timeframe
is a testament, above all, to the dedication of the Project participants, who quickly took a
strong ownership role within the Project and provided enormous momentum.
Still, at the end of 19 months, it is clear that if the PIT had more time there is certainly
more that could be done to build upon our existing results, including further field testing
of the measures developed and wider capacity building exercises. We strongly believe
that an optimum time frame for a legal assistance Project such as this, and particularly
one that involves more than two countries, is 3 years. Additionally, the implementation
of a preliminary project development phase that allows the PIT to develop stakeholder
commitment, raise initial public awareness, and engage in comprehensive background
research would greatly add to the efficiency and efficacy of a larger project. The
opportunity to carry out this critical groundwork would allow the PIT, project
participants, and consultants to hit the ground running with a backbone of team
development, baseline information, and coordination mechanisms firmly in place.
7. The Relationship between Time Frame and Project Scope
Given the time frame of the Pilot Project, the members of the PIT and the participants
were pleased with the scope of the Project. However, had there been a longer time frame
the scope of the Project would most likely have been expanded.
One example of how the Project's scope might have been expanded had there been a
longer time frame involves our primary focus on the passive provision of environmental
information to the public. In developing the capacity of governments to provide access to
environmental information, it is clearly necessary to take a systematic approach.
Consequently, although the PIT and Project participants were aware that methods of
providing environmental information actively are not effective (and in some cases do not
exist) in Hungary and Slovenia, it was deemed necessary to focus in this Project on
rectifying obstacles to passive provision, because passive provision is the first, basic step
to a fully functioning information provision regime. More effective passive information
provision was viewed as the beginning of a tiered process, with the end result being a
complete and effective regime for access to environmental information. The Project was
able to begin building the capacity of the Project participants in the provision of active
information during the study tour and in the Practices Manual. But that was only a first
step, as the majority of time was spent dealing with the myriad issues relating to passive
information provision.
92
Conclusions
The approach, methodology and activities developed in the Pilot Project were appropriate
for meeting its objectives
The PIT is confident that the approach and methodology and activities developed and
tested in the Pilot Project are sound and appropriate for replication in other CEE Danube
countries. This framework was a definitive success in Hungary and Slovenia: obstacles
to access to environmental information were comprehensively identified, capacity of
diverse stakeholders was built, and measures were developed to tangibly and practically
address these obstacles.
In terms of the involvement of the Project participants and the building of their capacity
to address obstacles to access to environmental information, the expectations held by the
PIT at the beginning of the Project were met. The participants took a strong ownership
role within the Project, determined what measures would most benefit their respective
countries and, with technical assistance from the PIT, developed measures that can be
used as models for countries throughout the Danube region.
The Project approach and methodology and activities have been proven effective in the
pilot countries, and will be appropriate and applicable for use in other CEE Danube
countries
Based upon reaction from the Pilot Project participants and careful scrutiny of the measures
developed in Hungary and Slovenia, we can confidently state that the Project's approach and
methodology has been effective.
As many countries in the Danube region face similar obstacles to access to environmental
information as Hungary and Slovenia, the PIT can furthermore state that this approach and
methodology, as well as the measures developed in the course of the Project for Hungary and
Slovenia, provide us with models for a similar project in other CEE Danube countries. In this
follow-on effort, we will be able to rely not just upon the PIT's experience in managing this
Project and the concrete measures that were developed, but on the invaluable experience of
Pilot Project participants who will work with us in future efforts to impart their learning to
colleagues from the wider Danube region.
The success of the Pilot Project in addressing barriers to public access to environmental
information demonstrates that the Project can and should be expanded to other countries
in the region facing similar barriers to public access to information on transboundary
pollution to the Danube
The Pilot Project has been successful in providing concrete and practical measures to
address identified obstacles to access to environmental information in Hungary and
Slovenia.
93
The lessons that have been learned, the professional relationships that have been
developed, and the measures that have been created, while in some sense specific to the
Pilot Project, were all envisioned as the basis for a broader effort. Consequently, they are
all replicable and applicable to the Danube region as a whole. While a great deal was
accomplished for Hungary and Slovenia through this Project, much of its potential relies
upon its replicability in other Danube countries.
94
Section XII. Recommendations for Future Work
Recommendations for future work in Hungary and Slovenia are as follows:
A. Pilot Countries
Assure through various measures that work continues on these important tasks in the pilot
countries
The PIT is confident that the completion of this Project will not mean the end of work on
the important steps that have been initiated to promote public access to information in
Hungary and Slovenia. In Slovenia, the government has indicated that it will, within the
next three months, adopt the guidelines suggested as a result of the Project. In a longer
time frame, the government with recommendations from this Project will draft a series of
amendments that are needed in order to address gaps and inconsistencies that represent
barriers to public access to environmental information, as well as to bring them into line
with the Aarhus Convention, and the two relevant EU Directives concerning information
and water. The REC's country office has already requested and received funding from a
British source to assure that these important activities are continued.
Efforts to develop effective public access to information programs will continue in
Hungary, as well. There, as indicated before, the Citizen's Guide will be published and
1000 copies distributed; it was also be available electronically. The Guide for
government actors is going through final revisions, to reflect the comments and
suggestions made during the comment period. The author has promised a response to
each comment and suggestion. Moreover, the author is strongly of the belief that this
document is only in its first edition. Over the next few years, Hungarian experience will
increase and there will be more practical experience to share. Future editions of the
Handbook will be increasingly more specific.
In addition, this Project takes place within the larger context of both the Aarhus
implementation process and the Danube process. The REC is an active participant in all
of these efforts and has assured its PIT partners that it will continue to pursue and
monitor these issues. The PIT partnership will also continue to use every means
available to assure that a wide range of groups and individuals are aware of and use the
various Project outputs that are on the web, and REC will also distribute printed copies of
many of these, including the Practices Manual and the Hungarian Citizen's Guide.
Finally, the members of the PIT have made individual and institutional commitments to
make sure that this work is continued, including in the form of the PDF-B submitted
recently to GEF, that would incorporate participation of key actors inthe first Project into
the second.
Engage key Pilot Project participants in transfer of knowledge to others Danube
Countries
95
The PIT recommends that key pilot project participants from government and the NGO
sector be given an opportunity to share their knowledge and experience directly with the
counterparts throughout the region. .
The current Hungarian and Slovenian participants are eager to share their expertise with
colleagues in the neighboring countries and will be a unique and valuable resource in that
effort. There is now a core group of participants from Hungary and Slovenia who have
gained substantial experience, confidence and skills, and who are well positioned to take
a leading role in follow-on capacity building efforts in other Danube countries. These
leaders can be instrumental in advancing the goals of Danube restoration by sharing the
knowledge and experience they gained through the Pilot Project as well as the specific
measures they developed to overcome obstacles to public access to environmental
information. The pilot countries represent two of the Danube Basin countries in
transition that have made the greatest progress toward EU accession, but they share a
common experience, legal traditions and background with their neighbors. The expertise
and enthusiasm of the Hungarian and Slovenian participants should be harnessed and
disseminated to the wider Danube community.
As described below, we recommend a follow-on project be launched in other Danube
countries in political and economic transition that are similarly committed to improving
public involvement in efforts to reduce discharges to the Danube of pollutants with
transboundary implications. We envision key participants who have been trained through
the Pilot Project to play a crucial role in transferring their knowledge and experience and
the lessons learned to the surrounding, less advanced Danube countries for whom the
implementation of such concepts and ideas are more novel.
This knowledge sharing effort was effectively initiated in October 2001, when
governmental and NGO representatives from Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria,
Yugoslavia, and Ukraine, countries that, among others, we recommend be considered for
inclusion in a second-phase, region-wide project, attended the final meeting of the Pilot
Project in Slovenia.40 At that meeting, the participants had the opportunity to learn about
the Pilot Project and observe the final discussions reviewing the project and making
recommendations for future action. On the final day of the meeting, the participants from
the five new countries were invited to discuss their needs and interests for developing
public involvement measures in Danube clean-up efforts, and received input and
feedback from Pilot Project participants.
In the Spring of 2002, all of the new Danube Basin countries slated for participation in a
follow-on project will be invited to participate in a second knowledge-sharing meeting in
the region that will help lay the groundwork for the follow-on work that we recommend
be undertaken in a second phase project for countries in the wider region. The PIT has
already created an expanded e-mail connection including the new countries, and will
begin in other ways to develop a team as a bridge into the second phase project. It is
expected that these meetings and the expanded email network will facilitate an ongoing
40 The Trust for Mutual Understanding, not GEF funding provided support for the participation of the new
Danube countries.
96
dialogue that will both enhance continued implementation of Pilot Project measures and
further the dissemination of its results to other countries in the region.
B. Follow-On Work in Other Danube Countries in the Region: Second Phase
Project
As detailed below, based on experience and lessons learned in the Pilot Project, the need
for capacity building in implementing public involvement throughout the region, and the
commitment and interest of other Danube Basin countries in improving public
involvement and restoration of the Danube, REC, RFF and NYU recommend that GEF
consider funding a follow-on project that would include many or all of the Danube River
Basin countries. Our proposal to prepare a second-phase project to be conducted in other
Danube countries in CEE is detailed in a PDF-B/Concept that is appended to this Report
and summarized below.41
Building Environmental Citizenship, conducted in Hungary and Slovenia, was designed
to serve as a pilot for future efforts to operationalize public involvement in support of
pollution reduction in the Danube in other countries in the Danube River Basin. The
strong results achieved and lessons learned in the pilot project demonstrate that the
methodology and approach of the Pilot Project, and its capacity building program, are
effective in generating measures for increased public access to environmental
information. These results and lessons learned further show that the template developed
for this capacity building project in Hungary and Slovenia is replicable and applicable to
other Danube countries in CEE that are committed to improving their public involvement
programs. The PIT therefore believes that conducting a follow-on program based on the
pilot project model and encompassing a larger group of countries in the region would be
an effective way to stimulate progress throughout the region to increase public
involvement in support of the goals of the GEF Danube program.
A follow-on effort would enable the GEF to reap benefits of its investment in the pilot
project, throughout the region. This effort can take direct advantage of the resources
gained through the pilot in Hungary and Slovenia. These include:
· Hungarian and Slovenian information access experts who have significantly
enhanced their skills and are equipped and committed to help train their
counterparts in other Danube countries;
· A tested and effective template for building government and NGO capacity to
increase public involvement through improved public access to environmental
information;
· A set of effective measures in Hungary and Slovenia for increasing public
access to information (including clear guidelines for government officials,
recommendations for legal reforms and guidance to citizens) that can serve as
models for other countries;
41 The PDF-B/Concept is pending approval by the GEF.
97
· Extensive written resource materials on access to information "good
practices" throughout the West that can be used or readily adapted for use in
the wider region;
· And the PIT's experience and expertise in successfully conducting this kind of
project.
Thus, the basic resources needed for a second-phase project in other countries in the
region are already in place, and a cost-effective follow-on project to serve the other
Danube countries can be expeditiously prepared and launched.
The Need for a Second-Phase Project in Other Countries in the Danube Basin
Like Hungary and Slovenia, the other nine GEF-eligible countries in the Danube River
Basin -- Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Moldova,
Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina-- contribute to Danube pollution and ultimately to
water quality problems in the Black Sea. Although specific needs and circumstances vary
among these countries, all of them are committed to reducing discharges to the Danube
with transboundary implications through their involvement in the GEF Danube
program;42 indeed, it will take concerted action by all of these nations in order to
substantially reduce the transboundary impacts of these discharges. As recognized in the
Danube SAP, public involvement can play a significant role in achieving this goal.
These countries share common commitments to the public involvement goals of the
Danube SAP. Many have also signed the Aarhus Convention. A number of these
countries aspire to membership in the European Union, which will also require
demonstrated commitments to public access to environmental information and to water
body protection.
Like the pilot countries, the other Danube Basin countries face significant barriers to
improving public involvement because they are in transition to market economies and
emerging from a similar legacy of government secrecy and non-democratic decision
making. These barriers generally include: inadequate laws or implementing regulations
and policies; deficient institutional arrangements; lack of clear guidance to public
officials; lack of training and experience in implementing public involvement programs;
inadequate capacity in the NGO sector; and insufficient resources. A number of these
countries face even greater obstacles to implementing public involvement than did the
pilot countries, including the recent effects of war and severe economic distress.
Significant outside assistance in building capacity for public involvement will be needed
to help these countries overcome these obstacles to such involvement, and to develop
well functioning public access to information and public participation regimes. As
42 Like the pilot countries, many of the other Danube countries have made commitments to Danube
restoration and public involvement, respectively, by signing the Aarhus Convention and one or more of the
following: the Danube SAP, the Danube River Protection Convention, the GEF Partnership On Nutrient
Reduction for the Danube/Black Sea Basin, and (most recently) the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants.
98
detailed further below, four of these Danube countries have already endorsed the concept
of a follow-on project government officials, and NGOs from other countries have
indicated their interest in participating in it. These expressions of support from a
significant number of countries throughout the region for a follow-on effort modeled on
the pilot project further confirm the need to launch a capacity building project that will
serve a wider group of Danube countries.
A Follow-on Project in Other Danube Basin Countries Would be Country-Driven
Government officials and NGOs in many other Danube countries in CEE have expressed
readiness and strong interest in participating in a follow-on effort to build capacity for
public involvement in their countries. The governments of Romania, Bulgaria,
Yugoslavia and Croatia have endorsed the PDF B/Concept described above, [and
several others have indicated a desire to participate to be confirmed]. The responses of
the government and NGO representatives from Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Yugoslavia,
and Czech Republic in the October 2001 meeting were also extremely positive. These
participants expressed a very strong interest in participating in the capacity building
program developed through the pilot project, as adapted to their needs. Representatives
of all five countries attending this meeting all indicated that a needs assessment followed
by specifically targeted activities similar to those developed in the pilot countries would
have a significant impact on moving their countries toward effective public involvement
in Danube pollution reduction efforts.
Recommendations for a Second-Phase Project
The PIT recommends that a second-phase project be prepared expeditiously with support
from the GEF, country contributions, and other co-financing. The PIT has begun to lay
the groundwork for preparing such a project through a travel grant from the Trust for
Mutual Understanding to support initiation of discussions with potential participants at
two in-region meetings; this Report describes the first of these meetings, which was held
in early October in Ljubliana in conjunction with the final plenary meeting of the pilot
project.
However, preparation of a Full Project Brief for consideration by the GEF will require far
more extensive in-region consultations and further financial support. To this end, the PIT
has prepared a PDF-B/Concept document, which has been submitted to UNDP/GEF for
consideration.
The PDF-B/Concept document details the 8-month preparation process that the PIT
recommends be conducted to prepare a Full Project that will serve the needs of a larger
and more diverse group of participating countries throughout the region.
The ultimate objective of the project preparation process would be to develop a Full
Project brief that is grounded in a thorough understanding of the legal, institutional, and
practical realities, priorities and needs of each of the candidate countries. Additionally,
feedback from Pilot Project participants in the project's final plenary meeting has
99
underscored the importance of fostering the awareness and involvement of stakeholders,
especially high level government officials, prior to initiating project activities, so that
their concerns and perspectives can be fully integrated from the beginning of a second
phase project. Accordingly, the project development period would be used to develop
effective working relationships among all stakeholders and a shared vision of the
project's objectives and potential outcomes. The project preparation activities envisioned
by the PIT are further detailed in the PDF-B, which is appended to this Report. 43
The PIT recommends that the Full Project prepared using PDF-B funds be modeled on
the pilot project but adapted to the needs of a larger and more diverse group of potential
participating countries of the region. The project we recommend would thus start from a
needs assessment in each participating country, identify options and develop practical
measures for addressing barriers in each country, and conduct capacity building activities
found to be effective in achieving the objectives of the pilot project. These activities are
anticipated to include in-region capacity building workshops, on-going technical
assistance activities and study tours, flexible tools found helpful and effective in the pilot
project that can be tailored to the needs of the new participants .
Because the recommended follow-on project will involve a larger group of countries with
more widely varying economic and political circumstances than Hungary and Slovenia,
it may be necessary and appropriate in some countries to modify the intensity of certain
project activities or to scale up or down country-specific objectives and outputs. Using
the country-driven, very practical approach that was one key to the success of the pilot
project, the PIT anticipates that the measures developed by countries participating in the
follow-on project will vary according to the needs of the participating countries and may
in some cases be significantly less ambitious or extensive than those developed by the
pilot countries. Successful components of the pilot project will be replicated and adapted
to the particular circumstances of the participating countries, consistent with the
"tailoring" approach developed for the pilot project.
43Specifically, the PIT recommends that the PDF phase involve two regional plenary meetings that will
bring stakeholders together to identify the needs, issues, challenges and opportunities for addressing public
access to information and participation in environmental decision-making in transboundary water pollution
reduction efforts. The plenary meetings should also facilitate the development of strategies,
methodologies, and mechanisms for coordination, information sharing, and identification of types of
country-specific activities that may have region-wide application and the timing of those activities.
Additionally, the PIT strongly considers that a critical project development component should be
investigatory missions to the countries participating in the follow-on phase for in-depth information
gathering and consultations with government officials, NGOs, and other stakeholders. Preliminary travel to
the countries should focus on obtaining comprehensive information on the specific circumstances of each
country, establishment of working relationships with key contacts, and outreach to representatives of broad
groups of stakeholders. Finally, the PIT recommends that two New York meetings be held to work with
UNDP on development of the Full Project; the first at the kick-off stage of the PDF, and the second to
finalize the content of the Full Project brief.
This process will enable the PIT, in close consultation with stakeholders and in collaboration with UNDP,
to develop a Full Project that effectively adapts the lessons learned from the Pilot Project into the context of
the nine additional Danube countries.
100
Experience in the pilot project with highly successful, as well as less effective project
elements and other lessons learned will be taken into account in designing the new
project. For example, based on the overwhelming success and usefulness to participants
in the pilot project of the U.S./Netherlands study tour, we anticipate that the study tour
for the full project might be expanded to include visits to one or both of the Pilot Project
countries, and if appropriate, a visit to a regional water authority such as the Rhine
Commission. In addition, written materials generated through the Pilot Project, such as
the study tour materials, the Practices Manual, and other materials found on the Website,
as well as the specific measures developed for Hungary and Slovenia in the Guidelines
and Citizens' Guides, can contribute significantly to the capacity building objectives of
the project; these should be used as resources and models in the follow-on effort, and
adapted as necessary to the needs of the new participants.
Section XI, Lessons Learned, discusses in depth how case studies were used in the pilot
project and what the PIT learned from that experience. The PIT expects to continue to
select case examples in all participating countries in future projects. The PIT will
monitor the process carefully to assess the importance of the case example in motivating
country participants. Where case examples facilitate the Project's goals, they will be
used, for example where they provide demonstrable assistance in making the issues of the
Project concrete, understandable and real. The PIT will also experiment to see whether
the role of case examples can be enhanced in a Project that is longer than 18 months, and
whether in that longer period, field testing can be a realistic goal.
Based on the pilot project experience, the PIT believes that involving NGOs and a wide
range of other stakeholders is an essential element of a follow-on project in the region.
The PIT recommends that the Full Project engage key government officials (from water,
environment, agriculture and other ministries and/or legislators), NGOs, industry
representatives, journalists, and academicians. The Full Project should also expand
outreach to the relevant inter-governmental organizations and intra-regional NGOs, such
as the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and the
Danube Environmental Forum (DEF). These regional level entities can serve as a
conduit for promoting information sharing and raising region-wide commitment to public
access to information and participation in decision-making in transboundary pollution
issues. It is also recommended that the experiences of the Full Project be shared with
river basin initiatives in other regions through GEF International Waters coordinating
mechanisms, such as international meetings and the IW Learn website, as well as through
other active dissemination efforts.
101
Annexes
A.
Project Documentation
Ø Needs Assessment for Hungary
Ø Needs Assessment for Slovenia
Ø Case Study Analysis for Hungary: The Szamos-Tisza Cyanide Pollution
Ø Case Study Analysis for Slovenia: The Pulp and Paper Mill Vipap Videm Krsko
Ø Practice Examples and Lessons from US, EU and CEE: Public Access to
Environmental Information and Data
Ø Models for the Preparation of Government and Citizen Guidance
Ø Option Paper on Confidential Business Information
Ø Hungarian Guidelines for Public Officials
Ø Hungarian Citizen's Guide
Ø Slovenia Guidelines for Public Officials
Ø Slovenian Recommendations for Amendments to the Environmental Protection Act
Ø Reports of the Participants on the In-Region Meetings and the EU/US Study Tour
Ø Agendas for the Project's In-Region Meetings
Ø Agendas for the Netherlands, New York and Washington, D.C. legs of the EU/US
Study Tour
Ø Technical Assistance Materials Prepared for the Study Tour Participants
Ø Other Materials Received by the Participants during the EU/US Study Tour
Ø PDF-B/Concept Document for Follow-On Effort in the Danube Region
Ø Hard Copy of the Project Internet Home Page
B.
Bibliography
102