PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT IDENTIFIERS
1. Project name:
5. GEF Implementing Agency:
Building Environmental Citizenship to Support
UNDP
Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the Danube: A
Pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia
2. Country or countries in which the project is being
6. Country eligibility:
implemented:
Hungary, Slovenia
Eligible under para. 9(b) of GEF instrument.
3. GEF focal area(s):
7. Operational program/Short-term measure:
International Waters
This project falls under Operational Program 8,
which covers the Danube GEF program, as well as
other GEF operational programs, which call for
public participation through consultations,
involvement of local stakeholders and partnerships
among relevant stakeholders in addressing sources of
transboundary water pollution; it is specifically
directed to two demonstration sites: Hungary and
Slovenia.
4. Project linkage to national priorities, Strategic Action Plans, and programs:
The current project is closely linked both to the national environmental priorities of the pilot countries and to
key regional programs designed to reduce transboundary pollution of the Danube, including the Danube
Pollution Reduction Programme and the revised Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin. The
Strategic Action Plan recognizes the essentiality of public awareness and public participation in Danube
restoration activities and supports the development of public involvement mechanisms that will support the
objectives of the Plan. Further, Hungary and Slovenia, the two Danubian pilot project countries, have made
parallel commitments to implement public involvement programs in the Convention on Cooperation for the
Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube ("the Danube River Protection Convention"), their
National Environmental Action Plans, their Environmental Accession Strategies for integration with the
European Union, Agenda 21, the UN-ECE Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context, and the UN-ECE Convention on Access to Information and Public Participation in
Decisionmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters recently signed by the Danube countries (and
others) at Aarhus, Denmark ("Aarhus Convention"). The project's linkages with national and regional
efforts to restore the Danube are further described in Annex 2.
8. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement:
Slovenia: Emil Ferjancic, Head, International Relations, Ministry of the Environment, 27 September 1999
Hungary: Dr. Nando Vass, Deputy State Secretary, Ministry for Environment, 30 September 1999
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
9. Project rationale and objectives:
Indicators:
Goa l: to enhance opportunities for meaningful citizen
Existing arrangements for public involvement in CEE
awareness and participation in order to promote
countries whose actions are important to the success
effective implementation of the pollution reduction
of the SAP and Danube Pollution Reduction
goals of the Strategic Action Plan for the Danube and
Programme are inadequate and not linked to
the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme..
reducing point and non-point source discharges of
Objectives : to help Hungary and Slovenia
nutrients and toxics to the Danube with
operationalize information access and public
transboundary implications. Hungary and Slovenia
participation in a manner that advances the goals of
are two of the most advanced Danubian countries in
reducing toxics and nutrients discharges to the
CEE with respect to establishing mechanisms for
Danube River Basin. The activities conducted in
public access to environmental information . They
Hungary and Slovenia will serve as a pilot for future
have committed to serve as pilot countries in
efforts to operationalize public involvement in support developing legal, regulatory and institutional
measures for public involvement that can further
of pollution reduction in the Danube in other
measures for public involvement that can further
countries in the Danube River basin.
transboundary pollution reduction goals for the
Danube River Basin.
10. Project outcomes:
Indicators:
This project would develop effective and replicable
Needs Assessment prepared and disseminated to all
mechanisms for institutionalizing and
relevant actors
operationalizing environmental public participation
in two leading countries of Central Europe that are
Training provided in-region, in Western Europe, and
part of the Danube restoration process. By assisting
in United States for key environmental and water
Hungary and Slovenia in the development of practical
officials of pilot countries
and appropriate mechanisms to provide meaningful
public access to environmental information and
Mechanisms for public involvement in
increase public involvement in decisionmaking
decisionmaking to reduce transboundary pollution of
relating to transboundary pollution reduction in the
the Danube developed and field tested in pilot
Danube, the project will increase the overall
countries
effectiveness of and public support for programs to
reduce toxics and nutrients discharged to the Danube.
Where indicated by Needs Assessment, draft
The project will demonstrate the positive interaction
laws/regulations/policies prepared by pilot country
between increased public involvement and
participants and measures to improve practices and
transboundary pollution reduction goals and lead the
reform institutions in order to implement public
way for creating similar enabling institutional
involvement mechanisms developed through pilot
mechanisms to promote sustainable development in
project
the other countries in transition that are engaged in
the Danube process.
Final Report on lessons learned from pilot project
and recommending further action in pilot countries
and other Danube CEE countries prepared and
disseminated to all relevant actors
11. Project activities to achieve outcomes (including
Indicators:
cost in US$ or local currency of each activity):
Report on Needs Assessment and Case Study
Needs Assessment and Selection of Case Studies
Three capacity-building workshops completed for key
at a cost of US $105,134
officials of pilot countries
In-Region Training at a cost of US $ 238,861
Technical Assistance at a cost of US $199,650
Laws/regulations/policies drafted during the
Western European and U.S. Study Tour at a cost
technical assistance phase to facilitate public
of US $114,439
involvement in Danube efforts
Final Report on Results of Pilot Project and
Recommendations for Replication in Other CEE
Study tour completed by key officials and NGO
Danube Countries at a cost of US $61,918
representatives of pilot countries; Report on Study
Tour
Final Report completed/disseminated on lessons
learned and recommendations for replication in
other Danube CEE countries
12. Estimated budget (in US$):
PDF: 0
GEF: $750,000
Co-financing:$832,995
TOTAL: $1,582,995
INFORMATION ON INSTITUTION SUBMITTING PROJECT BRIEF
13. Information on project proposers:
2
The project has been developed jointly by the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
(the REC) in Szentendre, Hungary, Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C. (RFF) and The Center for
Environmental and Land Use Law at NYU School of Law in New York City (NYU). The project is an
outgrowth of ongoing 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. NYU and RFF have closely collaborated with REC on
environmental law and policy reform initiatives in the CEE region and have substantial expertise and
experience in assisting governments in Central/Eastern Europe and other regions in developing legal,
regulatory, institutional and practical measures for ensuring public involvement.
14. Information on proposed executing agency (if different from above):
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)
15. Date of initial submission of project concept:
November 11, 1998 (to UNDP)
INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:
16. Project identification number:
17. Implementing Agency contact person:
Christopher Briggs, RBEC-GEF Regional Coordinator, 1 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017
Tel. 212 906 5460, fax 212 906 5102, email: christopher.briggs@undp.org
18. Project linkage to Implementing Agency program(s):
The project supports the UNDP-GEF Danube Pollution Reduction Program, the anticipated GEF Regional
Danube project, and the GEF Black Sea Basin programmatic approach to reduction of transboundary
pollution in the Black Sea basin. Extensive consultations on project design were held with the UNDP-GEF
Danube project and the ICPDR Secretariat.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
The project's objective is to assist 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 global environmental objective is to demonstrate how
these measures can help Central and Eastern European countries in transition to achieve the important
global environmental goals of the Danube SAP and the Aarhus Convention, as well as parallel
commitments made by Hungary, Slovenia and other countries of the Danube River basin, notably in the
Danube River Protection Convention .
Background
The Danube SAP, developed under the auspices of UNDP/GEF and coordinated by the Danube Program
Coordination Unit ("PCU"), provides for a concerted region-wide attack on the deterioration of water
quality in the Danube River. Increased human activity and polluted effluents discharged into the Danube
have produced high loads of nutrients and toxins that, in turn, contribute to eutrophication in the Danube
and the Black Sea. 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
discharges from various industrial sources. Hungary and Slovenia discharge significant amounts of these
pollutants, which contribute to transboundary pollution of the Danube and ultimately, the Black Sea.
The SAP 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. 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 plan implementation activities.
3
Hungary and Slovenia each have a strong stake in the environmental health of the Danube River. Each is an
active participant in the SAP and supports the aims of the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, a
linked Danube restoration program. Each has a demonstrated commitment to increasing public
involvement in environmental decisionmaking. Each has recently signed the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UN-ECE)-sponsored Aarhus Convention by which they committed to institute
measures to ensure public access to environmental information and public participation in environmental
decisionmaking. Both countries are currently in the process of accession to the European Union, which
will require them to meet the standards for public involvement adopted by the EU. These commitments
connect with the growth in recent years of the environmental NGO sector in these countries. Citizen groups
and NGO organizations in both countries have participated in or are concerned about efforts to restore the
Danube.
The pilot project will develop effective and replicable mechanisms for institutionalizing and
operationalizing environmental public participation in Hungary and Slovenia in support of the goals of the
SAP and Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, as well as of parallel efforts to protect the Black Sea. In
coordination with the Danube PCU and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube
River (ICPDR), the project will integrate the mutually reinforcing goals of the SAP and the Aarhus
Convention to reduce discharges into the Danube that have national and transboundary effects.
2. CURRENT SITUATION
Hungary and Slovenia contribute significantly to transboundary pollution of the Danube and are committed
to play an active role in addressing the problem. Only about 28% of total Hungarian wastewater 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 and downstream into the Danube and
three sites located along the Tisza. 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. These discharges, stemming
from both point and non-point sources, contribute significantly to transboundary pollution in the Danube.
These discharges to the Danube also have a profound impact on the Black Sea. A survey of total nitrogen
and total phosphorous in the Black Sea reveals that 58% of the total nitrogen and 68% of the total
phosphorous load is brought by the Danube River. 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 SAP, but also on parallel efforts to restore the
Black Sea.
Hungary and Slovenia have agreed to involve a variety of governmental and non-governmental actors in
reducing transboundary pollution of the Danube. However, meaningful public involvement is still an
elusive goal. The obstacles which must be overcome are rooted in unique domestic issues in each country.
Difficulties operationalizing international and domestic commitments to citizen access to environmental
information include inadequate legal and institutional frameworks for public participation; inadequate
guidance to and training for public employees implementing the existing laws and requirements;
inadequate or unworkable laws governing confidential business information, official and state secrets; and
limited practical experience with establishing and maintaining cost-effective systems for assembling and
disseminating relevant environmental information to NGOs and the public.
Moreover, the pilot countries' efforts to establish public involvement programs to date have focused largely
on securing public involvement in addressing domestic environmental problems. Far less attention has
been given to the development of public involvement measures that can also work to produce
transboundary benefits.
The pilot project will help build capacity in the governments of Hungary and Slovenia to establish the
legal, institutional, social and practical infrastructure that is a prerequisite to informed and meaningful
public participation to support efforts to protect the Danube from nutrient and toxic discharges with
transboundary implications. The development of this infrastructure will also reinforce the role of non-
4
governmental actors and enable them to be actively and constructively involved in efforts to reduce these
discharges. The results of the pilot project are expected to lead the way for creating similar enabling
conditions for sustainable development in the other countries in transition that are engaged in the Danube
process.
At the end of the 18-month pilot project the following specific outcomes are expected :
· Assessment of legal, institutional and practical barriers to and opportunities for implementation of
public involvement measures in Hungary and Slovenia that will lead to reductions in discharges of
point and non-point discharges of transboundary nutrient and toxic pollutants to the Danube River
pollution;
· Identification of "best practice" legal, institutional and practical options in the EU and elsewhere and
development of specific national legislation, regulations and/or policies, for addressing these barriers
and seizing these opportunities, through capacity developed in training workshops, field study, and
technical assistance activities;
· Field testing of specific, replicable public involvement measures to address actual point and non-point
discharges of pollutants to the Danube in Hungary and Slovenia through a case study that will
concretely demonstrate how public involvement measures can further the goals of the SAP;
· Recommendations for follow-up actions to ensure the transfer of pilot project lessons learned and
replicable elements to other Danube countries in CEE, thus leveraging potentially greater reductions in
point and non-point transboundary pollution throughout the Danube region;
· Strengthened inter-governmental and government-to-NGO cooperation and partnerships to enable joint
learning on viable approaches to public participation in the context of control and prevention of point
and non-point transboundary water pollution;
ACTIVITIES AND FINANCIAL INPUTS NEEDED TO ENABLE CHANGES (INCREMENTAL)
In order to increase opportunities in Hungary and Slovenia for public involvement in support of the
Danube SAP and Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, the pilot project will conduct an 18-month
capacity building and technical assistance program for key Hungarian and Slovenian government officials
and NGOs. The program will begin with an assessment of the barriers to, and opportunities for,
operationalizing public involvement in support of reducing discharges of nutrients, toxins and other
transboundary pollutants to the Danube. The project will build capacity through seminars, workshops,
technical assistance activities and a study tour in an EU country and the United States, using a case study
approach. The participants will identify and develop new institutions and mechanisms to promote public
involvement in support of reducing transboundary pollution in the Danube, including drafting legislation,
administrative regulations, and other specific measures to implement this objective. Case studies will
assure that the workshops and technical assistance are practical and meet the needs of officials who seek to
address transboundary discharges.
In-region teams, consisting of 3-4 key government officials and an NGO lawyer from each of the two pilot
countries, will work with the project proposers to ensure that each element of the pilot program is
consistent with the circumstances in and goals of the pilot countries and will meet the needs of the
participants. In addition, to ensure consistency with the pilot countries' efforts towards EU accession, an
EU legal expert will be engaged by the project, the project will consult and coordinate with EU accession
units in each pilot country, and participants will visit an EU country during the study tour. In addition,
REC will apply its own substantial expertise on EU approximation to the pilot project.
In order to achieve project objectives and based on the priorities identified by UNDP and the consultation
with Hungarian and Slovenian project participants held in Szentendre, Hungary in November 1998 and
March 1999, the following specific activities will be implemented:
Needs Assessment and Selection of Case Study at a cost of US $105,134
The project will commence with a needs assessment that will identify legal, institutional, programmatic,
and practical barriers to as well as opportunities for public access to information and public participation
that will support the transboundary pollution reduction goals of the SAP. The needs assessment will draw
5
upon and supplement existing research and analysis conducted by REC and NGOs, as well as by the
Hungarian and Slovenian governments, with respect to the implementation of the Aarhus Convention.
Existing analyses do not focus on the adequacy of public involvement measures in Slovenia and Hungary
to reduce transboundary pollution of the Danube. The needs assessment will focus on additional public
involvement measures that are needed to achieve transboundary results.
The needs assessment will also identify one or more case studies in both Hungary and Slovenia involving
sources of transboundary nutrients and/or toxic substances discharged to the Danube as the focus of the
training and technical assistance activities of the project. These case studies will focus on "hot spots"
identified through the Danube GEF Program and thus will provide a concrete set of circumstances in
response to which public involvement measures will be developed and "field tested." Because agricultural
sources are significant contributors to transboundary nutrient pollution, the project will carefully consider
using a case study which addresses agricultural point and non-point source pollution, such as Slovenian
pig-farms.
In-Region Training at a cost of US $238,861
Seminars and workshops to build capacity and develop specific measures :
The project will conduct seminars and workshops for water and environment ministry officials of Hungary
and Slovenia to build capacity in and develop specific legal and institutional mechanisms for establishing
and maintaining effective public participation and access to environmental information that will support the
goal of reducing nutrient and toxins discharges to the Danube. The training will involve the participants in
drafting legislation, administrative regulations, and other specific measures to implement this objective.
The training will be conducted through a series of three in-region workshops during the 18-month period.
Using the case study approach, the workshops will bring into focus specific and concrete opportunities for
public access to information and public participation that can reduce discharges with transboundary
impacts. The specific issues to be addressed could include: (1) how to balance the need for protection of
confidential or government secret information with the goal of providing public access to relevant
information; (2) overcoming practical barriers to making data available to members of the public in a
timely fashion; (3) public involvement mechanisms that can augment government enforcement capacity; (4)
legal and institutional mechanisms for ensuring public involvement.
The options and strategies presented at the workshops will draw upon relevant experience from the CEE
region, Western Europe and the United States. Public involvement measures have been particularly
successfully in reducing nutrient and toxic discharges in the United States. The workshops will be
conducted with members of the in-region teams and other government officials from each country who have
responsibility for controlling pollution of the Danube and for implementing public involvement programs.
Representatives from business and from NGOs will also be invited to participate. These capacity building
efforts and workshops will be tailored to the practical needs of participants and the circumstances in the
two pilot countries, and will include the full involvement of in-regional experts, as well as international
and EU expertise. Careful planning for and conducting of training sessions, preparation of useful analyses
and other written materials for participants, as well as the provision of technical assistance throughout the
project (as described below), are labor-intensive activities which will engage the full energies of REC,
NYU, and RFF personnel, and of the in-region and EU law consultants engaged by the project, throughout
the 18-month period.
Technical Assistance at a cost of US$ 199,650
Technical Assistance to Improve Legal and Institutional Framework
The project will also provide ongoing technical assistance to officials with environmental responsibilities
to strengthen the institutional and legal framework for environmental public involvement in Hungary and
Slovenia. Technical Assistance activities will be directly linked to the other project activities and
coordinated with them.1
1 A more comprehensive discussion of the training and technical assistance components of the project is
provided in Annex 2.
6
The aim of the Technical Assistance is both to support and draw on the results in the workshops by
providing assistance in developing legislation, regulation, and/or policies in Hungary and Slovenia that
address key issues, based on the priorities identified in the needs assessment, the case study or studies
selected for the pilot project, and the potential for replicability of this project element in other CEE/Danube
countries. The technical assistance will be supported and coordinated by REC, NYU and RFF, but will
involve a collaborative effort of all parties, in particular the country partners and NGOs. An electronic
group address system has been established to facilitate the exchange of information. Interdisciplinary
research, identification of best practices, and other assistance from project participants and international
experts will feed into the collaborative process of assistance.
Specific tasks to ensure provision of relevant information and public involvement in decision-making
relating to discharges of point and non-point transboundary pollutants under this activity could include the
discussion, development, and drafting of:
· Public access to information legislation
· Related legal/regulatory measures
· Improved practices at local, district or national levels
· Institutional reform measures at local, district or national levels
· Strengthening the public information elements of existing multilateral mechanisms to address
transboundary pollution of the Danube
Western European and United States Study Tour at a cost of US $114,439
A study tour will be conducted in Month 12 of the pilot project. It will enable four Hungarian and four
Slovenian participants to consult directly with public participation and environmental information
specialists and water pollution control experts in the United States and the European Union, to review
legislative/regulatory/policy measures that have been drafted in the prior workshops and the technical
assistance, and to obtain practical knowledge and advice from U.S. and EU counterparts.
The U.S. portion of the study tour will take place in New York and Washington, D.C, based on successful
study tour models developed by NYU and RFF in close consultation with REC and the regional partners.2
The U.S. was also chosen for a major portion of the study tour since public involvement programs are
mature and well-functioning and have a strong track record of helping to combat point and non-point
source transboundary water pollution. The Aarhus Convention was in large part based on the U.S. model.
The U.S. portion of the study tour will give CEE participants an opportunity to learn first-hand from
individuals and organizations who have been closely involved in the success of public involvement
programs, including federal, state, inter-state, and local authorities, and at NGOs and business
organizations. The study tour sessions will focus on the kinds of systems, procedures, legal instruments,
and personnel that have made public involvement programs work effectively and how these programs can
help governments combat point and non-point source transboundary water pollution problems. This
portion of the study tour will include examples of successful U.S. programs to control interstate releases of
nutrients and toxins, such as coordinated efforts by five jurisdictions that impact the Chesapeake Bay.
The study tour will also include a European visit to ensure full consideration of current EU models and
best practices for provision of public access to information and public participation, including their
relevance to accession. Because the Netherlands has a well developed public access to information program,
it is being considered as a potential venue for the European portion of the study tour. It is anticipated that
an EU visit in the study tour will provide invaluable information about European practices in achieving the
goals of the Aarhus Convention.
Final Report on Results of Pilot Project and Recommendations for Replication in Other CEE
Danube Countries, at a cost of US $61,918
2 A portion of international travel costs has been co-financed by a grant from the Trust for Mutual
Understanding.
7
The pilot project Final Report will synthesize the lessons learned in Hungary and Slovenia and
disseminate them to leverage change both in these countries, and in other CEE countries that are
contributing to transboundary pollution of the Danube. It will identify successful, replicable elements of
the pilot program and recommend public involvement measures, including legislation, administrative
regulations, and institutional arrangements and strategies in support of point and non-point source
pollution reduction that could be applied to other Danube countries in the CEE region in future projects.
In particular, the project will outline and recommend additional training and technical assistance programs
that might serve as useful follow-on projects in such countries.
The Final Report will be disseminated to governments, NGOs, businesses and other stakeholders
throughout CEE through the network of independent experts convened by REC to monitor implementation
of the Aarhus Convention; the Danube PCU; the ICPDR; the network of NGOs participating in the
Danube SAP process; REC's Szentendre, Hungary headquarters and its local offices located throughout
Central and Eastern Europe; and through future Meetings of Signatories to the Aarhus Convention. The
REC will use a variety of tools such as the World-Wide Web to distribute information. Targets will
include NGOs, other civil-society organizations, water and environmental ministry officials and other
parties interested in the goals of the SAP, the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, and the Aarhus
Convention. A Pilot Project Advisory Committee will also assist in the dissemination of this information.
The Slovenian and Hungarian governments will ensure wide dissemination of the project results
domestically. NYU and RFF will disseminate the Report to their networks of government officials, NGOs,
academics, and others who might help promote the Danube restoration effort. Finally, UNDP will be
considered a resource in the dissemination of information. Support will be sought to translate the Final
Report into local languages in the region.
Activities
Locations
Index measurement
Outputs
Needs Assessment
Hungary, Slovenia
Report prepared on Needs
Identification of legal, institutional,
And Case Study Selection
Assessment and Case
practical and other barriers to and
Study
opportunities for public involvement
in Hungary and Slovenia that will
support Danube transboundary
pollution reduction goals
In-Region Capacity
Hungary, Slovenia
Three capacity building
Capacity built within appropriate
Building Training
workshops for
Hungarian and Slovenian ministries
approximately 25-30
to provide public access to relevant
participants, including
environmental information and
members of the project's
opportunities for public participation
in-region teams, other
in support of reducing discharges of
key Hungarian and
transboundary pollutants to Danube.
Slovenian government
and NGO representatives,
and representatives of
other Danubian countries
in CEE.
Technical Assistance
Hungary, Slovenia and
Draft Hungarian and
Key elements of institutional and
electronic connections to
Slovenian
legal framework for public
Washington, D.C., New
laws/regulations/practices
involvement identified; and key
York
and/or identify
legislation/regulations/practices
institutional changes
relevant to case study prepared or
needed to address key
drafted
obstacles to public
involvement in reducing
transboundary pollution
of Danube
8
Study Tour
Study tour completed by
Hungarian and Slovenian capacity
3 Hungarian and 3
developed through structured
Slovenian government
communications with counterparts
Europe
The Netherlands
officials and 1 Hungarian
and experience with well-functioning
and 1 Slovenian NGO
public involvement programs in EU
representative; Report on
and or local, regional, national
United States
New York,
Study Tour.
agencies in U.S.; networks
Washington, D.C.
established for information exchange
(With planning
and mutual learning among CEE and
conducted also in
U.S and EU counterparts.
Hungary,
Slovenia)
Final Report on Project
New York, Washington,
Final Report completed
Replicable elements of pilot program
Results and Dissemination
D.C., Hungary, Slovenia
and disseminated to all
that could leverage transboundary
relevant actors and
pollution reduction in other
interested parties
Danubian countries in transition
identified and disseminated; follow-
on training/technical assistance
programs recommended for
additional Danubian countries in
CEE; groundwork laid for future
efforts to operationalize public
involvement in support of Danube
SAP in these countries.
SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
The project will be designed and implemented in close partnership with key government officials and
ministries in Hungary and Slovenia, and leading environmental NGOs. A project planning task force has
already been formed; it includes key government officials and NGOs from Hungary and Slovenia, who
have already made commitments toward the success of the project. Inclusive efforts will be complemented
by substantial outreach toward other NGOs and other stakeholders. REC's strong working relationships
and collaborative programs with environmental officials throughout the CEE region, and its region-wide
local offices and contacts with NGOs, will also help to ensure that the progress achieved through the pilot
project is sustained over the long-term.
There is a risk that public involvement measures developed through the pilot project will encounter
political or other obstacles in one or both of the pilot countries that will prevent their adoption or
implementation. In addition, differences between the two pilot countries' laws, institutional arrangements,
and political and social realities may increase the challenges of developing common approaches to public
involvement. An additional project risk could be failure to receive adequate government commitment
beyond environment ministries. The pilot project will work to minimize these risks by carefully
considering from the outset the unique objectives and circumstances of each pilot country, and the
differences between them. Pilot country participants will include government representatives in addition to
those from the Hungarian and Slovenian environmental ministries, as well as such as regional or local
water management experts to increase the likelihood of follow-through after conclusion of the project.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
Stakeholder involvement is a key element of the success of this project, and indeed what the entire project
is all about. A major objective of this project is to build capacity in the governments of Hungary and
Slovenia to involve interested members of the public and NGOs in efforts to reduce discharges to the
Danube of point and non point source transboundary pollutants. The major stakeholders in the pilot
countries, including water and environment ministry officials of Hungary and Slovenia and NGOs and
representatives of municipal government and agricultural and industrial concerns that generate point and
9
non-point sources of pollution, will be involved at all relevant stages of project planning and
implementation and will play a central role in designing and carrying out the project activities.
The relevant officials from Hungary and Slovenia have already made significant commitments to the pilot
project. Two prominent environmental NGOs, EMLA in Hungary and Labeco in Slovenia, have also been
included in planning, and have indicated their strong interest in participating in the pilot project. In
addition, the pilot project will have close links to a concurrent, related project being managed by REC, in
which NGOs and other interested experts from throughout the CEE region and NIS countries have formed a
network to monitor implementation of the Aarhus Convention. In addition, there will be a regular link
with the DEF, whose representatives will be invited to the major project events and who will receive
regular information about the project results.
The project executing team will also closely coordinate and consult with the Danube PCU and ICPDR,
another major stakeholder. The proposed project has already benefited from input received from the PCU
on project design and implementation. Regular consultation and cooperation will guarantee that this
project is complementary to the projects and programs run by the ICPDR.
INCREMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT
The proposed project is complementary for purposes of incremental costs assessment. The project
complements and builds on baseline activities to promote public involvement in environmental protection
that are being conducted in the two pilot countries, Hungary and Slovenia. Without additional GEF
funding, the activities proposed by the project are unlikely to be conducted. The funding requested from
the GEF is additional, because no bilateral funding has been provided for the proposed project activities;
nor does the GEF Danube program currently include funding for the pilot project activities. The baseline is
estimated at U.S. $627,368. No change to the baseline is envisaged. The cost of the alternative to achieve
global environmental benefits is U.S.$2,210,363 , and the incremental cost requested from the GEF is
U.S.$750,000 (co-financing from non-GEF sources: U.S.$ 832,995).
There is substantial co-financing for this pilot project. The ratio of co-financing to funding requested from
the GEF is approximately 1:1. Hungary and Slovenia will contribute significant in-kind contributions of
staff time, facilities, and equipment to facilitate the training and technical assistance portions of the project.
The three proposing organizations have already contributed substantial in-kind and out-of-pocket resources
in planning this project. A private U.S.-based foundation, the Trust for Mutual Understanding, has
committed to fund a portion of the international travel costs of the project.
10
INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX
Activity Number
Baseline
Alternative
Increment(Alt- Base)
1: Needs Assessment
and Selection of Case
Study
Global Benefits
Existing arrangements for
Link established between
Understanding of legal,
public access to
public access to
institutional, programmatic
environmental information
environmental information
and practical barriers to, and
and public participation in
and public participation in
identification of specific,
environmental
environmental
concrete opportunities for,
decisionmaking, are
decisionmaking, and benefits public access to information
inadequate and are
for reducing transboundary
and public participation in
insufficiently linked to
nutrient and toxic pollution
support of the goals of the
reducing transboundary
of the Danube
SAP
nutrient and toxics pollution
of the Danube
Domestic Benefits
No roadmap for
Roadmap for operationalizing Roadmap for operationalizing
operationalizing public
public participation in
public participation in
participation to reduce
support of SAP established
support of SAP Action plan
transboundary pollution of
for pilot countries; case study
available to pilot and non-
Danube; no case study.
selected.
pilot countries; pilot
countries committed to
developing and "field testing"
specific public involvement
measures through case study
selected for pilot project.
Costs
0
U.S.$216,056
(GEF) U.S.$105,134
(Non-GEF) U.S. $ 110,922
2. Training
Global Benefits
Public access to information
Public access to information
Capacity built and specific
and public participation
and public participation
legal/institutional measures
capacity building not
capacity building directly
developed to operationalize
associated with the specific
associated with specific
public involvement in
challenges of Danube-
challenges of Danube
support of Danube
transboundary nutrient and
transboundary nutrient and
transboundary nutrient and
toxic pollution reduction
toxic pollution reduction
toxic reduction
Domestic Benefits
Limited application of public
Direct application of public
Key government officials
access to information and
access to information and
trained to draft legal and
public participation skills to
public participation skills and institutional measures to
achieve Danube water benefits capacity building to achieve
operationalize public
Danube water benefits
involvement to achieve
Danube water benefits in
pilot countries.
Costs
$313,684
$767,996
(GEF) $238,861
(Non-GEF) $ 215,451
3. Technical Assistance
Global Benefits
Public access to information
Public access to information
Specific legal/institutional
and public participation
and public participation
measures drafted/prepared to
capacity building not
capacity building directly
operationalize public
incorporated into the
applied to the specific
involvement to achieve
mechanisms addressing point
challenges of point and non-
Danube water benefits in
and non-point source
point source transboundary
pilot countries.
transboundary nutrient and
nutrient and toxic pollution
toxic pollution reduction.
reduction.
11
Domestic Benefits
Absence of, or limited
Legislation and policy
Specific legal/institutional
legislation and policy
measures addressing public
measures drafted/prepared to
measures addressing public
access to information and
operationalize public
access to information and
public participation capacity
involvement to achieve
public participation capacity
building which incorporates
Danube water benefits in
building which incorporates
mechanisms addressing point
pilot countries.
mechanisms addressing point
and non-point source
and non-point source
transboundary pollution.
transboundary pollution.
Cost
$313,684
$726,550
(GEF) $199,650
(Non-GEF) $213,216
4. Study Tour
Global Benefits
Limited availability to
Relevant U.S. and EU
Relevant U.S. and EU
Danube/pilot country context
experience/knowledge
experience/knowledge gained
of relevant U.S. and EU
available for
on study tour incorporated
experience/knowledge on
developing/implementing
into
development/implementation
effective legal/institutional
development/implementation
of effective legal/institutional
measures for public
of effective legal/institutional
measures for public
involvement to reduce
measures to operationalize
involvement to reduce
discharges of nutrients and
public involvement in
discharges of nutrients and
toxic to Danube.
support of SAP and Danube
toxic to transboundary
Pollution Reduction
waters
Programme goals; U.S./CEE
counterparts network
established for long-term
information exchange.
Domestic Benefits
Limited opportunity for pilot
Opportunity for key pilot
Development/refinement of
country officials to obtain
country officials to obtain
effective domestic
first-hand
first-hand
legal/institutional public
knowledge/experience from
knowledge/experience directly involvement measures to
U.S and EU counterparts on
from U.S. and EU
reduce nutrient and toxic
successful public
counterparts on
discharges to Danube,
involvement measures/
development/implementation
through
programs that have achieved
of effective measures for
knowledge/experience gained
substantial reductions in
reducing nutrient and toxic
on study tour
nutrient and toxic discharges
discharges to Danube
to transboundary waters.
Costs
-0-
$261,142
(GEF) $114,439
(Non-GEF) $146,703
4: Final Report and
Dissemination of Results
of Pilot Project and
Recommendations for
Replication in other CEE
Danube Countries
Global Benefits
No targeted efforts and
Generation and dissemination Model/recommendations for
results/recommendations for
of results/recommendations
operationalizing public
integrating and disseminating
specifically targeted to
participation in support of
public access to information
operationalizing public
transboundary pollution
and public participation
involvement in support of
reduction goals of SAP and
capacity building with the
transboundary pollution
Danube Pollution Reduction
specific issues and problems
reduction goals of SAP and
Programme developed for
of Danube-transboundary
Danube Pollution Reduction
future use in pilot and other
pollution reduction and the
Programme
CEE countries and widely
SAP and Danube Pollution
disseminated
Reduction Programme
Domestic Benefits
Efforts and plans for public
Concrete results and
Planning of follow-up and
12
involvement not targeted to
recommendations for follow-
future actions can build on
goals of reducing nutrient and
up and future actions to
results and recommendations
toxic discharges to the
operationalize public
of pilot project
Danube
involvement in support of
reducing nutrient and toxic
pollution of Danube
available for planning future
actions
Costs
-0-
$208,621
(GEF) $61,918
(Non-GEF) $146,703
Total Project:
Limited public involvement
Enlarged opportunities for
Model established and
Global Environmental
in support of reduction of
public involvement in
recommendations made for
Benefits
nutrient and toxic discharges
support of reduction of
actions to achieve similar
to Danube with
nutrient and toxic discharges
results in other Danubian
transboundary implications
to Danube with
countries in CEE.
due to lack of capacity/legal
transboundary implications
and institutional measures
promoting public awareness
and involvement
Limited public involvement
Potential for greater
Capacity built and concrete
Domestic Benefits
in support of reduction of
reductions in nutrient and
legal/institutional measures
nutrient and toxic discharges
toxic discharges with
developed in pilot countries
to Danube with
transboundary implications in to operationalize public
transboundary implications
pilot countries
involvement in support of
due to lack of capacity/legal
reducing transboundary
and institutional measures
nutrient and toxic discharges
promoting public awareness
to Danube
and involvement
Costs
$627,368
$2,210,363
(GEF) $750,000*
(Non-GEF) $832,995
INCLUDES INDEPENDENT EVALUATION ($25,000) AND UNDP ADMINISTRATION ($5,000)
13
PROJECT BUDGET
GEF Other
Project Total
Sources
Project Preparation
532,908
532,908
Personnel
108,844
667,689
1. Needs Assessment
90,877
2. In region Training
192,046
3. Technical Assistance
166,754
4. Study Tour
58,584
5. Dissemination
50,584
Subcontract
Training
80,341
145,360
225,701
Travel
8,312
21,500
29,812
Equipment
2,200
2,682
4,882
Independent Project Evaluation
25,000
25,000
Miscellaneous
75,302
21,701
97,003
Project Total (PDF+ Costs)
750,000
832,995
1,582,995
NOTE: Other Sources (TMU), $21,500 allocated under Travel, must be applied to International Travel
Costs only.
The budget has been allocated to the co-implementing agencies in the following manner:
New York University: $220,547 (29% of the total budget including TMU)
Resources for the Future: $206,335 (27% of the total budget including TMU)
Regional Environment Center: $314,617 (41% of the total budget including TMU)
Independent Evaluation: $25,000
UNDP Administration: $5,000
· Roles of the co-implementing agencies
Executing the training, technical assistance, study tour and other aspects of the project will demand a high
level of cooperation among and effort by each of the co-implementing agencies. Responsibility for
managing the administrative and organizational aspects of each of the project activities will be shared
according to each agency's experience, expertise and location. The three organizations will work together to
ensure that each project element meets the participants' needs and that the pilot project as a whole
accomplishes its stated goals.
For example, the three agencies will jointly conduct the in-region plenary and training sessions, in
coordination with other experts retained by the project. REC will provide logistical support for and will
host these meetings and training sessions at its conference facilities in Hungary and Slovenia. RFF and
NYU will develop study materials and law and policy analyses to support these meetings and training
sessions and will share responsibility with REC for performing other preparatory and follow-up tasks
relating to these meetings/training sessions. Expert consultants will be retained for training in EU
legislation and models for policy changes in Hungary and Slovenia.
Similarly, as part of the technical assistance program, REC, NYU and RFF, in coordination with the
expert consultants, will do on-site consultation with ministry officials to assist with law drafting and
formulation of institutional and policy options for public involvement. In addition, at their home bases in
the U.S., NYU and RFF will conduct legal, institutional and policyrelated research and prepare options
14
papers needed to support these law drafting and policy/institutional development efforts in the pilot
countries.
Preparation for and implementation of the study tour will also be coordinated among the three agencies.
NYU will administer and host the New York leg of the study tour, RFF will administer and host the
Washington, D.C. leg of the study tour, and REC will administer the E.U. portion of the study tour in
conjunction with Dutch experts.
A similar sharing of responsibility among the co-implementing agencies has been built into the other
project activities, as well. This division of labor is reflected in the budget allocation to each agency. (See
Project Budget, above.)
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
DURATION OF PROJECT (IN MONTHS):
ACTIVITIES
PROJECT-MONTHS
Completion of project activities
1.Needs Assessment/Case Study
Months 2-5
Selection
Months 3, 8, 14
2. In-Region Training
3. Technical Assistance
Months 3-16
4. Study Tour
Month 12
5. Final Report and Recommendations
Months 16-18
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
·
Stakeholder identification
Key stakeholders in the pilot project are:
a) Governments of Hungary and Slovenia and other governments throughout CEE that have
signed the SAP and the Aarhus Convention;
b) CEE, Danube-country-based organizations that support environmental and civil society goals.
These include environmental, women and youth groups, private sector groups, political
parties, labor and academic organizations (including, but not limited to the independent
network of experts convened by REC who are monitoring implementation of the Aarhus
Convention, and NGOs participating in the SAP process, e.g., through the DEF);
c) local communities in the pilot countries who will benefit from or could be potentially
affected by the project activities;
d) farmers and agricultural entities, including large-scale livestock operations, industrial
dischargers and municipal dischargers;
e) all persons interested in the outcome of project activities who are involved throughout project
implementation;
f) The Danube PCU and ICPDR
·
Information dissemination and consultation
The project proposers (REC, NYU, and RFF) have consulted with Hungarian and Slovenian government
and NGO participants in the pilot project and the Danube PCU to ensure that the design of the project
meets their needs. Ongoing consultation with stakeholders is also incorporated directly into the project
activities, including through four plenary meetings (three of which are linked to the in-region capacity
building workshops). These plenary sessions will convene a broad cross-section of interested stakeholders,
including local government officials, NGOs, private sector representatives, and representatives from other
CEE/Danube countries. Additional consultations during project implementation will take place with
UNDP/GEF and the Danube PCU and ICPDR. In addition, through a Pilot Project Advisory Committee,
the project executing team will reach out to solicit the views of a broader group of interested parties.
Key project documents, including the Needs Assessment and final Report and Recommendations, and
other relevant information learned through the pilot project, will be disseminated as set out above in the
description of project activities.
15
·
Participation in training activities
The training activities are being designed to maximize public participation. There will be 35 participants
attending the plenary sessions and 30 participants in the training sessions. Approximately two-thirds of the
participants will be government officials. The remainder of the participants will be composed of national
and regional NGOs, representatives of the private sector, and stakeholders from the region. (See below for a
more detailed explanation of stakeholder participation.)
The plenary sessions will focus on a comparative analysis of the legislation, institutional frameworks and
practical measures in Hungary and Slovenia in light of experience in the E.U. and U.S. implementing
successful public involvement programs designed to reduce transboundary releases of pollutants. The goal
of the plenary sessions is to identify and develop recommendations for addressing priority issues. The
participants invited to join the plenary sessions will generally be stakeholders involved in the development
and promulgation of environmental, water and agricultural legislation and policies that are relevant to
nutrient and toxic releases to transboundary waters.
The specific focus of the plenary sessions will depend on the stakeholders' identification of priority issues.
However, three broad subjects are likely to be addressed in these sessions: (1) gaps in existing measures in
Hungary and Slovenia that impede public involvement in efforts to reduce releases of transboundary
pollutants to the Danube; (2) E.U., U.S. and Western European domestic environmental legislation,
institutions and policies, as well as "best practices" from other CEE countries, that might serve as models
for more effective public involvement measures in the two pilot countries; and (3) obligations undertaken
by the pilot countries under relevant international environmental instruments, including the Aarhus
Convention.
Each aspect of the capacity building workshops will be designed in conjunction with the regional and local
NGOs and the government officials in order to ensure that key issues are properly identified and addressed.
Case studies which address hot-spot coastal issues will be chosen and developed in co-operation with all of
the main stakeholders. For example, one case study being considered is the problem of nitrate run-off from
hog farms. The workshop activities will focus on the practical issues involved in addressing the case
studies, which will be used as a framework for analysis and problem-solving. The results and lessons
learned from the case studies will be presented in the final report, which will be disseminated to a wide
audience of government officials, private parties, and NGOs.
The training program is an iterative process. The results, recommendations and key issues arising out of
the training activities will direct the focus of the technical assistance and study tour. In addition, lessons
learned through the training program will also inform the process of evaluating elements that might be
replicated or modified in follow-on projects in other Danubian countries in CEE and the recommendations
in the final report.
·
Stakeholder participation
As the principal target stakeholders for the project, government officials of the pilot countries will be
involved in every aspect of the project. The choice of case studies, the focus of the plenary meetings and
training sessions, and the direction of the technical assistance will be primarily guided by the key issues
that are identified by key Hungarian and Slovenian government officials participating in the project.
Government officials of the pilot countries who will be invited to participate in the project will include
national level officials of environmental, water and agricultural ministries, as well as regional, municipal
and local level officials with relevant experience or a significant connection to the case study. The
workshops will address the day-to-day obstacles these stakeholders face in the practical tasks related to
access to environmental information and public participation in environmental decision-making.
Additionally, government officials from other CEE countries will also be included in the plenary meetings
and training sessions to ensure that the project will yield lessons applicable or useful to these countries.
As both expert consultants to the project and representatives of the NGO community, EMLA (Hungary)
and Labeco (Slovenia) will play a significant role in preparing the needs assessment, choosing an
appropriate case study, identifying legislative, institutional and policy measures that can provide
meaningful public access to environmental information, and helping to shape the recommendations
16
contained in the project's final report. As environmental law experts, these NGOs will serve as
indispensable resources in the analysis of Hungarian and Slovenian legislation and of the legal implications
for the pilot countries of the Aarhus Convention and harmonization of national laws for accession to the
European Union; they will prepare country-specific legal analyses and other written materials for, and will
present their expertise and experience at, the plenary meetings and training sessions. As key stakeholders
and likely users of environmental information systems in the pilot countries, and as organizations closely
linked to the region's broader NGO community, these NGO experts will help ensure that the pilot
project's outputs are disseminated to, and relevant to the concerns of, interested citizens and NGO
organizations both in the pilot countries and other Danube countries in CEE. Other NGOs of the pilot
countries, regional NGOs, such the Danube Environmental Forum, consumer interest organizations, and
environmental NGOs from other CEE countries along the Danube will also be invited to attend
appropriate plenary sessions and/or training workshops to ensure that the project is closely coordinated
with other ongoing public involvement efforts and programs to protect the Danube.
In order to gain the perspective of private sector entities that will be users of or affected by public
involvement programs and to broaden the scope of public participation in the project, members of the pilot
countries' private sector will be invited to participate in plenary sessions and key training workshops.
Participants from the private sector may include representatives from key industrial and agricultural
dischargers to the Danube, chambers of commerce, and industry and farmers' associations. Private sector
participants may also include industrial or agricultural industry representatives from other countries where
successful water discharge reduction programs have been implemented.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
An Annual Project Report (APR) will be prepared for the pilot project. In addition, a Tripartite Review
will be conducted with UNDP, the executing agency and the participating governments. The project will
also participate in the GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR). Finally, an independent (external)
evaluation will be conducted upon completion of the pilot project. These measures will ensure that the
project is monitored and evaluated in accordance with relevant UNDP and GEF procedures.
17
ANNEX 1: LOGFRAME ANALYSIS
The logical framework (logframe) matrix
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Programme or project summary
Indicators
Means of verification
External factors
(assumptions and risks)
Development objectives
To improve the performance and
The effectiveness of government Hungary and Slovenia develop
Assumes that public access to
impacts of water pollution
and civil society efforts to
specific proposals for legislation
information and related
prevention and control projects
improve the state of the
and administrative regulations,
improvements in public
and programs in the GEF
environment of Danube
orders, procedures and policies for
participation will contribute to
Danube international waters focal international waters increases
public access to information
reducing the level of discharge into
area through the
through facilitated public access
the Danube, and further assumes
institutionalization and
to information on nutrient and
that this belief is shared by relevant
operationalization of public
toxics discharges to the Danube
stakeholders. The assumption is
access to information and
and related improvements in
reasonable given that public
participation in national and
public participation.
participation is one of the ten basic
regional actions.
operational principles for the GEF.
The SAP identifies public
involvement as a key element in the
Plan's success; Hungary and
Slovenia have made international
and national commitments to foster
public participation through access
to information and endorse the
project as a means of leveraging
public access to information to
address transboundary pollution of
the Danube. Risks are presented by
existing institutional and legal
obstacles to public access to
information.
Immediate objectives
To enable two pilot countries
Hungarian and Slovenian
Drafts of specific proposals for
Assumes legal requirements,
and citizens of the Danube
partners identify and draft
legislation and administrative
administrative measures and
region to have informed and
specific proposals for
regulations, orders, procedures,
practical steps, are necessary and
effective public participation in
legislation and administrative
policies and processes to
effective to facilitate public access to
activities related to reduction of
regulations, orders, procedures,
implement public access to
information. A risk is that such
nutrients and toxics to Danube
practices and policies to
information to facilitate public
proposals are not feasible to develop
international waters, by
implement public access to
participation concerning on
and draft within the timeline of this
constructing and/or improving
information on nutrients and
nutrients and toxic discharges to
project. The project acknowledges
the legal and institutional
toxics discharges to the Danube
the Danube and to implement the
that the process of institution
architecture to facilitate public
and for implementing relevant
Aarhus Convention
building is a long one, with
access to environmental
parts of the Aarhus Convention
revision and learning-by-doing
information and thereby improve
inherent in the process. The project
public participation related to
is to support necessary early steps to
these areas.
develop legislation, procedures,
administrative policies and
processes, and practical steps
which will be implemented in-
country and revised over time in
light of practical in-country
experience
Outputs
Assessment of barriers to public
National implementing
Drafts of legislation and other
Assumption that Hungary and
access to environmental
provisions, practices and/or
national implementing
Slovenia are the two best pilot
information concerning releases
legal requirements are drafted
requirements
countries with the twin
of nutrients and toxics to the
qualifications of (1) being able to
Danube and related impacts on
Proposals to strengthen inter-
make substantive progress with the
effective public participation
governmental and government-
Drafts of proposed measures to
project and (2) being able to serve as
NGO-private sector cooperation
strengthen inter-governmental and
models for other CEE countries.
Identification of opportunities
and partnerships regarding
government-NGO-private sector
Hungary and Slovenia have signed
and development of proposals
public access to information for
cooperation and partnerships for
and ratified the Aarhus Convention
for replicable legislative and
transboundary water pollution
transboundary water pollution
and have made government
administrative measures and
and its control are drafted
control.
commitments to public access to
practical steps to implement
information and the necessary
public access to environmental
Research products from
Research products developed by
personnel and legal infrastructure to
information held by government
consultant institutions and
consulting institutions and
translate government commitment
bodies and opportunities for
experts that provide relevant
experts
into practice
field testing such measures
information and respond to
specific questions raised by
Survey of relevant parties as to
Assumption that the governments of
Identification of legal and
Hungarian and Slovenian
the magnitude and form of
the pilot countries act in good faith
institutional measures (laws,
partners concerning efforts to
increased communication
and want to facilitate public access
orders or other) necessary to
facilitate public access to
to information. The governments of
make obligations of the Aarhus
environmental information
Hungary and Slovenia have
Convention practicable through
demonstrated their commitment and
national legal mechanisms,
Increased communication
are the two possible pilot countries
institutional change and practices between government officials
that most alleviate risks related to
19
in the context of water pollution
and NGOs in pilot countries,
lack of meaningful government
control
other CEE countries, EU and
commitment and follow-through
US experts during and after the
effort
Creation of legal and
project and with relevant
institutional capacity for
international bodies or where
Assumption that environmental
Hungarian and Slovenian
appropriate with
information exists in an appropriate
governments effectively to
projects/programs such as the
form for effective public access and
provide environmental
ICPDR and others dealing with
use. If this is not the case,
information to the public, and in
Danube issues
strategies for packaging the
doing so, to serve as models for
information for the public will be
neighboring Danube countries in
identified and developed through the
transition
project
Development of government
measures and practical
arrangements that empower
NGOs to obtain environmental
information and provide models
using information to advance the
goals of reducing nutrients and
toxic releases to the Danube
Creation and facilitation of
access to practical
implementation experience and
models in the US and EU
regarding legal and institutional
mechanisms for public access to
environmental information to
facilitate public participation,
including access to experts at
government and non-
governmental institutions with
extended practical experience
implementing access to
environmental information
provisions
Provision of access to NYU's
20
Center on Environmental and
Land Use Law for specific
research on legal issues integral
to implementing public access to
information concerning releases
of nutrients and toxics
Provision of access to relevant
CEE experience and assessment,
publications and training
materials prepared by the REC
concerning access to information
Linkage with networks of
experts and NGOs in CEE,
Western European and US
Provision of access to relevant
EU and European experience and
best practices, particularly with
respect to EU accession issues
Activities
Conduct Needs Assessment to
Complete Needs Assessment
Periodic reports (including Needs
Assumption that Hungary and
identify country obligations,
Assessment and Final Report)
Slovenia provide best opportunities
current barriers to
Undertake intensive joint efforts distributed by RFF/NYU/REC to
for substantive progress and as a
implementation, and appropriate
using electronic communication all relevant organizations and
models for neighboring Danube
steps to achieve implementation,
(e-mails, phone and fax)
governments, and to other groups
countries, as countries that have
Months 2-5, all partners
between US and EU experts and and organizations, as well as on
signed and ratified the Aarhus
their CEE counterparts
file and available for others
Convention, made government
Conduct Study Tour to provide
commitments to public access to
thorough comparative
Draft proposals for legislation
UNDP and GEF presence at the
information and public participation
assessment of legal provisions
and administrative regulations,
workshops and study tour
in decision-making and have the
and institutional participatory
orders, practices, procedures and
necessary personnel and legal
models in Europe and in the US,
policies to implement public
Drafts of specific proposals and
infrastructure to translate
month 12, all partners
access to environmental
recommendations for legislation
government commitment into
information and relevant parts
and administrative regulations,
practice
Establish intensive electronic
of the Aarhus Convention, and
orders, policies and procedures
and other networking to provide
disseminate and discuss same
and practical steps to Hungary and Assumption that the governments of
technical assistance and to
with governments and civil
Slovenia to implement public
the pilot countries act in good faith
collect appropriate information,
society
access to environmental
and want to facilitate public access
21
review and examine specific
information and the Aarhus
to information and public
issues and questions, exchange
Complete and disseminate
Convention
participation. Hungary and Slovenia
experiences, jointly identify and
interim and final reports
have demonstrated their
draft where necessary solutions,
Electronic reports on websites of
commitment and are the two
and disseminate lessons learned
Develop recommendations for
partner institutions
possible pilot countries that most
among the project partners,
follow-up in other CEE
alleviate risks related to lack of
throughout project (18 months),
countries including training
Reports in REC's country-offices
meaningful government
all partners
programs and capacity building
commitment and follow-through
workshops
Periodic reports in relevant
effort
Conduct training and capacity
publications such as REC
building workshops and provide
Bulletins in English and in local
Assumption that environmental
appropriate training materials to
languages, Newsletter of the DEF,
information exists in an appropriate
draft specific legislative and
and other institutional methods of
form for effective public access and
administrative measures, develop
communication such as RFF
use if this is not the case,
positive practices, and otherwise
"Discussion Papers" and/or other
strategies for packaging the
develop the institutional capacity
RFF or NYU publications
information for the public will be
of governments and civil society
identified and developed through the
groups to strengthen
project
participation relevant to releases
of nutrients and toxics to the
Danube, Months 3, 8, 14, all
partners
Pilot country participants, RFF,
NYU and REC develop specific
recommendations for, and draft
where appropriate specific laws,
regulations, orders and/or
practices identified in Needs
Assessment to implement public
involvement and access to
environmental information in
order to institutionalize
appropriate releases of
information concerning nutrient
and toxic discharges to the
Danube, months 3-16, all
partners
Document and disseminate
22
information and experiences on
existing legal measures,
institutional arrangements, and
practices that promote and/or
secure public participation,
months 3-16, all partners
Recommendations formulated
including dissemination plan for
follow-up action to transfer
lessons learned and replicable
elements from the pilot project
to other Danube countries in the
CEE, months 16-18, all partners
Inputs
Funds to carry out the project
Disbursement of funds
Audit budget expenditures
Risk: Under-budget for travel and
tasks
according to schedule by GEF
other project tasks.
and co-financing sources
Inspect conference facilities
Facilities to carry out the project
tasks
Conference facilities at NYU,
Review reports and project work
RFF and REC and at
product
Transportation facilities to carry
cooperating government bodies
out project tasks
will be used
Speak with experts involved
CEE, US and EU experts in
On-site demonstrations will
Speak with government, private
legal and practical requirements
take place in government
sector and NGO officials involved
for institutionalization and
facilities in the US, EU, and
and other stakeholders
implementation of public access
CEE
to environmental information to
Regular check-ins with RFF,
facilitate public participation
Involvement at appropriate
NYU and REC
with specific concentration on
times of EU legislation and EU
releases of nutrients and toxics
accession experts; records
to shared water bodies
specialists; lawyers from the
US EPA Office of General
Experts in workshop facilitation
Counsel and other institutions;
public interest groups and
Experts in identifying and
businesses that litigate public
preparing participants and host
access to information issues;
experts to achieve effective
representatives from
study tours that respond to the
headquarters and regional US
23
specific needs and requirements
EPA offices; congressional and
of the participants
legislative aides; Freedom of
Information Act Officers; and
EU expert consultant recruited to
organizations and people who
ensure compliance with EU
ask for and use environmental
accession issues and share
information obtained from
experience with relevant EU
government bodies
legislation
Involvement of key government
Staff with financial and
and NGO representatives from
management expertise at project
Hungary and Slovenia, as well
partner institutions
as other stakeholder
representatives
Involvement of RFF, NYU and
REC throughout the
preparation, implementation
and conclusion of the project
24
ANNEX 2: Integration of Stakeholder Input in the GEF MSP Project Brief, "Building
Environmental Citizenship to Support Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the Danube: A
Pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia."
This project brief benefited from the input of a number of stakeholders involved in the environmental
protection of the Danube, in addition to the ideas and assistance provided by Hungarian and Slovenian
government officials and NGOs who are at the same time Danube stakeholders and also participants in the
pilot project. The key Danube stakeholders whose input we sought and utilized in preparation of the final
project brief included Mr. Joachim Bendow, NDP/GEF Project Manager; Mr. Andy Garner,
Environmental Specialist, Danube Programme Coordination Unit; and Mr. Andrew Hudson, Principal
Technical Adviser, UNDP, International Waters. In addition, the partners for this project consulted
extensively with officials at the Hungarian and Slovenian Environment Ministries who will participate in
the project, as well as the Hungarian and Slovenian NGOs who will also be key participants. Hungarian
and Slovenian participants/stakeholders include Stefanija Novak, and Mateja Godejsa Simcic, Ministry of
the Environment, Slovenia; Nandor Zoltai and Judit Csoka, Ministry of the Environment, Hungary; and
Milada Mirkovic, Labeco (Slovenia), and Sandor Fulop, EMLA (Hungary), both prominent environmental
NGOs.
Following are five general issues raised by key stakeholders and the steps taken to address and integrate
these comments into the project design.
1. Importance of links between proposed project and existing institutions and activities in the
Danube region such as the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
(ICPDR), Danube Programme Coordination Unit (PCU), Danube Environmental Forum, and other
ongoing activities, and the inclusion of current information from the Danube Pollution Reduction
Programme.
This project will support and contribute to the success of the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme and
the revised Strategic Action Plan (SAP) in numerous ways. The links that we identified with the Danube
Programme in our preliminary project analysis were based on a review of available Transboundary Analysis
(such as the Causal Chain Analysis for the Middle and Lower Danube Countries, 5 March, 1999, based on
the results of the Trans-boundary Analysis Workshop held in Hernstein, Austria, 25-31 January, 1999 and
prepared as a contribution to the preparation of the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme and to the
revision of the SAP of the ICPDR). This country by country analysis of the Middle Danube region
indicates that the core problems are agricultural hot spots related to "unsustainable agricultural practices,"
discharges from "ecologically unfriendly industry," and for the municipal sector, "inadequate management
of municipal sewage and waste." The Lower Danube Region, which includes Romania and Bulgaria, also
presents core problems of the same nature -- agricultural hot spots based on un-sustainable agriculture, a
lack of pollution prevention and pollution abatement from industrial dischargers, and the inefficient
management of waste waters and solid waste by municipalities. These nutrient and toxics discharges and
the development of public access to information techniques and measures to help address them will be the
focus of our case studies and project efforts.
This project will build on other recent studies3 and workshops4 prepared in the framework of the Danube
Pollution Reduction Programme. Some of these reports are being or have only recently been finalized by
the Vienna unit. We will include into our research all these documents as broader context for our project.5
3 These include Transboundary Socio-Economic Analysis prepared in March 1, 1999; Effects of Water
Pollution in the Danube River Basin, March 4, 1999; Analysis of Financial Mechanisms, March 4, 1999;
the National Reviews of Hungary and Slovenia and the Danube Information System Planning Survey and
Inception Meeting Report, March 1999.
4 Including the Assessment of Information Needs and Evaluation of Existing and Proposed Information
Systems, Baden Workshop, March 1998).
5 In all of these materials there is little about access to information and public participation. In the survey
" Socio-Economic Analysis. Effects of Water Pollution in the Danube River Basin," there is a section on
"Adequacy of the legal and institutional framework for sound environmental management of water
resources and ecosystems" (pp. 6-1, 6-4) which contains a short analysis of the environmental and water
legislation of the Danube countries. It says: " Countries in which the legal framework for environmental
The project will build on additional specific linkages with relevant activities, institutions and actors in the
region by inviting representatives from the Danube Environmental Forum and the Slovenian and Hungarian
NGOs participating in the Forum to the workshops and training sessions, and disseminating the project
training materials, final reports, and other products to them (as well as to others). We can offer to present
the findings or the results of the project in the Danube Environmental Forum's workshops, where the REC
has a long-time cooperative link.
We are very aware of the important issue of non-point discharges in the context of public access to
environmental information in the Danube area. In response, the project will:
a) Identify and include representatives from agricultural ministries, farmers associations and/or other
relevant groups in the full process including workshops, capacity building, mention in final
report, and other involvement.
B) Include as part of the workshop/training conferences special sessions devoted to non-point sources
and the experience in the US and Western Europe, in the context of public access to environmental
information;
c) Include in the US study tour a visit to the Chesapeake, which has a big agricultural run-off
component, largely dealt with currently by public information techniques, and "hands-on" learning
about other practical, successful examples of the development and application of these techniques
to strengthen the protection of water quality.
d) Explore carefully the potential for using Danube "hot spots", such as pig farms in Slovenia, as a
possible case study to focus discussion on agricultural point and non-point sources. A case study
approach, developed with country partners in the course of the project, can provide concrete
examples within which to explore what laws, institutions, procedures, training and other
assistance will be necessary to make public access to information on releases of nutrients and
toxics a reality.
With the cooperation of the Danube PCU and/or the ICPDR, the project can identify information policies,
strategies and actions to improve the Danube Convention and help the ICPDR Information System increase
its transparency and legitimate stakeholder access to its documents and data banks. The Danube
Convention has information provisions more or less at the level of the current EU Directive on Freedom of
Information. The project can make recommendations to improve the Danube Convention to bring its
access to information provisions to the level of the Aarhus Convention standards. Although the Danube
governing bodies are not government bodies that have signed the Aarhus Convention, their member
countries have agreed to implement the Aarhus agreement. The project can provide the ICPDR and others
with advice on key issues such as what kinds of information should be available, in what form, to whom,
and on what basis documents and information can be declared secret or confidential. This issue can be
addressed from the point of view of national legislation, from international legal instruments including the
Aarhus Convention, the Danube Convention and the EU legislation, and comparisons will be developed
with other best practices (e.g., Aarhus and the US model).
The technical assistance parts of the project will be the vehicle for providing specific recommendations.
The results of case studies on access to information and public participation will also focus on how the
requirements of Aarhus Convention and other best practices models should be incorporated into the
national strategies and policies on pollution reduction in the two countries. Ultimately, these
recommendations could serve as a basis for making more general regional recommendations for basin-wide
strategies.
2. Relationship between this project and efforts to change Danube basin consumer behavior
management and water resources and ecosystems has to be considered as adequate and in consistence with
international requirements are Germany and Austria and with some reservations Hungary and Czech
Republic." The report details the essential deficits and problems which need improvement in other
countries. Also, this section enumerates the most relevant international and regional agreements and
mentions, among them, the Aarhus Convention.
26
The proposed project will fill the current gap between government-led efforts to work with the public, and
NGO and other advocacy efforts for environmental issues. Since the fall of communism, a number of
consumer behavior groups have been formed. This project will help strengthen the instruments available to
help them acquire data to inform their campaigns. Our project builds the infrastructure between the
government and public for this kind of interaction and complements the work of these other groups. Our
project will solidify its link with the advocacy movements by inviting NGO representatives from the
region that work on consumer behavior issues to the in-region training workshops. Also, the US study
tour will include visits to US NGO advocacy organizations whose work includes building consumer
awareness. If the GEF deems this issue of sufficient importance, we can also include it in the needs
assessment, and in recommendations in the final report, and include in-region workshop sessions on
consumer awareness led by members of these groups, including examining the role of government officials
in developing successful strategies for building consumer awareness.
3. Study Tour Comparing US and Western Europe Models: Link to European Union directives
and experiences
We anticipate that questions may be raised about the utility of a US study tour, in view of Hungary and
Slovenia's efforts to join the EU and to incorporate EU standards. This was a deliberate choice, made after
extensive consultation with our Hungarian and Slovenian NGO and government partners and what they
have told us that they need to learn, supplemented by the research and experience of the REC before,
during and after the Aarhus negotiation process.
The UN-ECE Aarhus Convention is based on US practices. The EU itself and most European countries
only have objectives in place or a limited model. Their actual access to information regimes are generally
weak, and most European countries have a lot of work yet to do to reach the Aarhus standards. The US
model, by contrast, reflects many years of practical experience operating access to information and public
involvement programs at all levels of government. The countries negotiating the Aarhus Convention
expressly modeled substantial parts of the agreement on U.S. legislation and practice because the U.S.
experience in this realm is perceived in Europe as being both successful and applicable to the circumstances
of both Western and Central/Eastern European countries For these reasons, we and our country partners
feel that a US study tour is an essential part of a capacity building pilot program.
We have always believed that EU and European input is an important element of the project, particularly
because of the accession and approximation process. EU legislation and good practices of EU countries,
along with good practices of CEE countries, and the US and international instruments will be used in our
work throughout the whole project, including discussions, technical assistance, training and
recommendations. Accordingly, a Western European stop, likely in the Netherlands, will be included in the
study tour along with the U.S. components. The analysis of best practices in a Western European context
will be an integral part of the project. EU perspectives will also be developed by the EU accession expert
as part of the international team working on the project.
In summary:
the US is the only country where the best practice models actually have been implemented.
the CEE countries, although they are interested in accession, are also interested in following a
model in practice which is close to the US, and is cost-effective; they are actually interested in
doing better than their Western European neighbors.
there is no fully developed Western European model of access to information-- EU Directive 313
lags behind the standards of the Aarhus Convention.
there are some good practices in some Western European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark,
some other Nordic countries), but none are as advanced or have the same level of actual
implementation experience as the US.
the EU itself has committed itself to implement the Aarhus Convention and is planning to revise
the Directive based on the Aarhus requirements, but it will take years before this will happen,
much less for useful practices to emerge.
4. Elements of the project, the study tour, and the technical assistance: assuring a full
understanding of the anticipated objectives, activities and outputs
27
This section of this Annex provides important details about the objectives and plan of the project study
tour, including what is involved in putting on a successful, substantive study tour of the kind that our
organizations have considerable experience in preparing, so we have done this in this appendix format.
We start by contrasting what we intend to accomplish with some of the poor models we have observed. In
too many ill-prepared study tours, visiting delegations are simply ushered into the offices of local officials
and NGOs without any advance preparation of either the participants or the hosts. The US institutions
have been on the receiving end of dozens of these ill-prepared study tours. The visitors stay for about 1
hour, but the substantive time is half that if translation is needed. Because the visits have not been
adequately prepared, more than half of the visit is used up trying to find out what the visitors really need
to learn. By then, there is not adequate time to be responsive to their needs, and sometimes the host is not
the appropriate person to provide the relevant information. Still other study tours we have heard about
have been organized in lecture form, so that there has not been an opportunity for the free exchange of ideas
and real learning among professionals.
In contrast, we intend to use study tour models similar to study tours our institutions have each designed
in previous projects. Ruth Bell of RFF created a four city study tour for Polish environmental enforcers in
the United States Environmental Protection Agency's compliance schedule project and for Russian
environmental law drafters in the environmental law support under the Freedom Support Act; Jane Stewart
planned two multiple-city study tours for Chinese environmental law drafters under two ADB contracts.
Our experience demonstrates that a successful study tour requires resource intensive efforts to (1) identify
the right people to meet with study tour participants; (2) personally prepare those people to understand the
needs of the visitors and to appropriately pitch their presentation so that it is meaningful for people who
come from different traditions, legal systems, institutional strengths and weaknesses, etc. (in her Polish
project, among other things, Ms. Bell wrote and provided memos explaining the differences between the
Polish and US legal system and the roles of judges in each system); and, (3) prepare the visitors so that
they understand the context of the discussions and how it connects with their own information needs and
experience; (4) provide the study tour participants, in advance, with background information and
documentation to enhance the value of the study tour sessions. All of these efforts demand a considerable
investment of professional time and are essential for the study tour and the entire project to serve as a
substantive learning experience.
We envision the study tour as an integrated part of an entire program to identify and develop the issues the
in-country participants want to examine and resolve. One important part is the networking that will take
place. REC, NYU and RFF will not only establish these connections and prepare the meetings so that
they are genuinely useful to the process, but will also expedite the electronic and other connections of
participants with resource groups in the US and Europe to support though the entire life of the project and
thereafter. In this project, we already have established and are using electronic communication among the
partners. This will become more sophisticated and deeper as the project progresses, as a kind of distance
learning. The LogFrame analysis in Annex 1 explains these elements in more detail.
The technical assistance, much of which takes place in the periods between workshops and study tours, is
also critical to the success of the project. In the technical assistance, RFF, NYU and REC will work with
the country partners and NGOs to develop legislation, regulations, practices and/or policies as appropriate,
and to address key obstacles to public access to information that have been identified in the needs
assessment and that will further public involvement in the actual situation presented in the case study.
This is an iterative, collaborative process that will take place on both sides of the Atlantic, including
interdisciplinary research, identification of best practices, and generation of written materials, and other
joint work involving REC, NYU, RFF and other international experts. As mentioned above, we have
already set up an electronic group address system. We will take maximum advantage of the opportunities
for electronic as well as personal connections in order to work on issues as they are identified.
Through the project, the participants in Hungary and Slovenia will have access to research and support at
the NYU legal clinic and to resources in Washington with RFF adding its expertise and acting as the
facilitator and expeditor. Before and especially after the study tour, connections will be made between the
Central European participants and a number of relevant groups in the US (federal and state government,
NGOs and others) and in Europe, who will provide ongoing advice, counsel and support. As much, if not
28
more, of the real work will take place during the technical assistance part of the project, between formal
group meetings.
5. Choice of Countries: We anticipate that some reviewers might ask why we have selected
Hungary and Slovenia, the most advanced Danube-basin countries in transition, rather than some
of their neighbors.
We think the project will be stronger if we work initially with Hungary and Slovenia. In selecting these
countries, we considered technical benchmarks such as: commitment and progress toward nutrient pollution
reduction; laws and institutions in place; government commitment to expanding public access to
information as well as to this project; government commitment to implementation of the Aarhus
Convention; and EU accession interest. Hungary and Slovenia have the basic building blocks in place and
can serve as effective, cost-efficient pilots, to develop lessons for the broader region. They have 1) the
commitment and interest in participating in the project; 2) existing legal framework and practices; 3)
planned steps to further develop these; and 4) commitment to implement the Aarhus Convention in
legislation and in practice. Al Duda's independent suggestion that we use these two countries seemed to
confirm to us that we were using the right criteria.
We have always thought that the countries that are having more difficulty with the economic, political and
bureaucratic transition should be part of the process and the eventual targets of assistance, but not the main
focus of this particular effort. This is why we have characterized this as a pilot or demonstration project.
Second tier countries within the Danube basin will be invited to certain sessions and we would hope to do
a second part of this project that includes those countries. However, we have not been able to identify
countries other than Hungary and Slovenia that are prepared to make a serious commitment to Aarhus
Convention implementation, in view of the criteria discussed above. Hungary and Slovenia are the two
Danube countries where there is a good chance that we can forge models that will be truly useful to their
neighbors.
We do think it is important to have representatives of the lesser developed Danube countries at meetings
and to transfer lessons to the other countries of the region. Our plans to do this include: (a) the other
countries will be involved in the project, (b) solid recommendations will be made in the Final Report, (c)
networks with US and other experts will be developed for all countries in the region, (d) a later project,
informed by our pilot effort, can work more intimately with the "behind" countries.
The Danube PCU suggested that the budget include additional training or workshops at the completion of
the project in various Danube countries. We agree that there should be more workshops after the pilot
project has been completed. We envision this as the next step for increasing public access/participation in
the Danube. We will set out specific recommendations for such training in the Final Report. This project
is a pilot designed for two countries with the expectation that future projects will be developed in other
Danube countries. Even before the completion of the project, we can and will, as noted above also invite
representatives from those other countries to our workshops.
29
30
31