The construction of the highway Dragoman-Kapitan Andreevo in Bulgaria near the Serbian border is financed by the EBRD. The initial plan (from 1990) was to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment report. However, at the time there were no public participation facilities in this procedure. As the main investor, the EBRD persisted in an EIA-procedure including a public discussion. This resulted in an alternative plan after consulting the public. More or less the same occurred with plans for a highway in Bulgaria from Plovdiv to the Turkish boundary. In this case, the World Bank was the main investor. From the very beginning, the bank commissioned an environmental impact assessment and public participation. The subsequent public discussion was significant. After that, new plans were drafted which will also be subject to public discussion. |
The EBRD and the World Bank have been under heavy pressure to operate more openly. Both have adopted formal rules which attempt to respond to these pressures. Dissatisfaction with these attempts remains high, however. The EIB has received less attention and, perhaps as a consequence, has taken no action to improve access to information and public participation. The last section of this chapter examines how the guidelines or procedures on public participation of these institutions are implemented in practice and what NGOs can do to influence their activities.
A point which applies generally concerns the role of the Board of Directors of these institutions: Countries, in particular those contributing to the capital of a bank, generally have an official government representative on the Board. A particular member of the Board may have specific responsibility for one or more countries in which the bank finances projects or for projects of a particular kind. When contacting a bank, it can be useful to direct comments to the particular members of the Board who represent your own country or who have responsibility for the country where a project is to take place.
The EBRD is also required by its mandate "to promote, in the full range of its activities, environmentally sound and sustainable development." The EBRD has recently adopted revised Environmental Procedures. Under these Procedures, project sponsors must, at a minimum, ensure that all national requirements for public consultation are met. The EBRD also identifies its public consultation requirements to a project sponsor at an early stage. This includes the obligation to make certain environmental information public, including the EIA information described below. Other mechanisms for public consultation which may be used or required are technical meetings with experts, meetings with community leaders, public meetings, press and other media briefings, and correspondence (see Box 32).
Although there are EIA and public participation requirements in the EBRD operations, these do not give procedural guarantees for NGOs to participate in banking procedures concerning projects which make a significant environmental impact. This was made perfectly clear in the case of the Mohovce nuclear plant in the Slovak Republic. Apart from experiences of some Polish and Hungarian NGOs, many NGOs fall victim to the attitude of the bank. On the other hand, it shows how counter productive the bank's operations are in this respect, and how important international cooperation of NGOs can be. In 1994, as a result of the EIA procedure of the EBRD, the Slovak government advertised in Poland (and other countries) about the project and the possibilities of obtaining EIA documentation. Since the Polish government seemed to be unwilling to take any position in this respect, the most respected NGO, de Polish Ecological Club, decided to make an independent survey about the project. The counter assessment was made public via press conferences and various other activities. As a result, huge pressure was exerted by the public and parliament, forcing the Polish government, in spite of initial reluctance, to officially forward reservations concerning the project to the Slovak government. The critical review of Polish independent experts were translated into English and presented to the EBRD. Representatives of the Polish NGOs (as well as NGOs from other countries) were not allowed to participate in the EBRD meeting concerning the project, but the independent review made by independent experts and NGOs were said to have an important impact on the EBRD's decision not to support the project. It can be noted that the use of nonformal instruments, namely reviews made by independent experts, has a great impact on the public and on the official authorities. Furthermore, it can be concluded that in the absence of the use of the ESPOO Convention, the procedures of the EBRD appeared to be very successful. Without it, the Polish NGOs would not have received a copy of the EIA documentation and would not have been able to make the case public and, as a result, force the Polish government to take an official position. (For more details see the Mohovce case in Poland.) |
The discussion which follows is based on a memorandum describing the EBRD's Policy on Public Access and Disclosure of Information. The Bank published a public statement and a guide to the information disclosure policy in June 1996.
The new policy is based on a presumption in favor of disclosure. Information will be made available in the absence of a compelling reason for confidentiality. Information that is not confidential will be available to individuals or organizations of any member country. Reasonable charges may be made to recover the cost of supplying information.
The Bank will, however, not disclose information which it determines to be confidential or sensitive. In particular, confidentiality will protect proprietary and other commercially sensitive information, as well as information subject to confidentiality to take account of legal constraints. The Bank has stated that disclosure of information will be permitted to the extent that it will not harm the Bank's interests or those of its members, clients, co-financing institutions or staff or will not violate agreements with third parties. This suggests that non-disclosure could potentially be a frequent practice. Moreover, the Bank does not disclose sensitive or confidential information without consultation and approval of its clients (both in the public and the private sector), thereby placing in the hands of the clients significant power to restrict disclosure.
As of Sept. 1, 1996, a Project Summary Document (PSD) will be prepared for each EBRD project and made available to the public before the Bank's Board considers a project. As relevant, a PSD will include a summary of environmental issues. For private sector projects, PSDs will be released at least 30 days prior to Board consideration. For public sector projects, PSDs will be released as soon as possible after initial review by the Bank's management ("typically four-five months before Board consideration") and at least by 60 days prior to Board consideration. Notably, PSDs will not contain any sensitive or confidential information and will be made available only with the consent of the client and any co-financing institution. No PSD will be produced for projects considered to be confidential in their entirety.
Also as of Sept. 1, 1996, after a public sector project has been approved by the Bank's Board, an edited version of the Board report will be available upon request unless exceptional issues of confidentiality are concerned. Additional, non-confidential factual technical information on public sector projects may be provided on request after Bank consultation with the government concerned and any co-financier.
The Bank maintains a publications program which offers information on the Bank's organization, operational strategy, sectoral policy papers, summary country strategies and project fact sheets and other matters. Environments in Transition is the EBRD's environmental bulletin. The Bank's Environmental Policy and Procedures and Disclosure of Information Policy are also available on request. The Bank intends shortly to establish an Internet site where documents will be posted for the public to browse and, in many cases, download. Requests for documents will be handled by the Bank's Communications Department. Efforts will also be made to improve the availability of documents via the EBRD's Country Offices. Country Offices presently exist in Albania, Latvia (for the Baltic States), Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
The Bank's Environmental Procedures require varying degrees of environmental information and analysis, depending on the expected environmental significance of a project.
The Environmental Procedures require the preparation of an EIA for all projects with potentially significant environmental impacts not readily identified and quantified, and for which remedial measures cannot easily be prescribed. These projects are known as "A" level operations.
The sponsor of an "A" level project must notify the public of a proposed project. The EBRD rules leave it to the project sponsor to determine the "affected" public. The project sponsor must prepare an EIA and executive summary (in the local language) available to the public, in accordance with relevant national legislation. This information must be made available sufficiently in advance of the Bank's Final Review to allow the public time to comment. For private sector projects, the EIA must be released at least 60 days before Board consideration; for public sector projects, at least 120 days. Private sector projects may, in exceptional cases, obtain a waiver or modification of these requirements.
Projects with potentially significant environmental impacts, which can be readily identified and quantified, and for which preventive and remedial measures can be prescribed without much difficulty, are considered to be "B" level projects. This category of projects requires the preparation of an environmental analysis (EA). There is no requirement that the project sponsor give public notification of the proposal. For public sector projects, the EA is attached as an annex to the PSD. For private sector projects, the EA will be summarized in the PSD. The Bank has no formal notification or scoping requirements for "B" level projects. Instead, environmental information must be released by the project sponsor in accordance with national legislation. In cases where the Bank has agreed on remedial measures with a project sponsor to address problems due to past operations, a statement on the measures to be taken will generally also be made available to the affected public.
"C" level projects are those with no potentially significant environmental impact. The Bank normally sets no environmental information disclosure requirements for such projects.
In part in response to public pressure, the World Bank has gone further than other multi-lateral lending institutions in developing policies for access to information and public participation (see Box 33). In 1994, its revised Directive on Disclosure of Information took effect and a public information center was established. The World Bank has also begun a series of public outreach activities, and created an Independent Inspection Panel. This Panel is intended to consider complaints from an affected party (but not a single individual) in borrowing countries regarding alleged violations of Bank policies. The World Bank has also established environmental assessment requirements for its projects which require consultation with and the provision of information to affected groups.
The World Bank is involved in many operations, among them the protection of Lake Ohrid on the border of the FYR Macedonia and Albania (see also box 14). For several decades this lake has been heavily polluted and natural assets have been severely deteriorated. At the same time, efforts have been made, especially on the Macedonian side, to protect the lake. Recently, there has been more concern in safeguarding the lake, restoring its ecological functions and natural assets, and supporting sustainable use. In this respect, it is remarkable that a growing bilateral cooperation between NGOs in both countries enforced scientific research, the official policies, and partly the interstate cooperation between Macedonia and Albania. In this context, the position of the World Bank is very important. In 1992, the Bank launched a special program for the protection of Lake Ohrid. In particular, the NGOs in Macedonia approached the Bank regarding access to information and involvement in the project. Due to these activities, a special public participation project was drafted and funds were made available for public awareness-raising. (See more details in the case example on the Lake Ohrid.) |
The World Bank's Disclosure of Information Policy establishes a presumption in favor of disclosure. This Policy also applies to documents prepared for projects financed or co-financed from trust funds under the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and administered by the World Bank.
1. Project Information Document (PID), which is intended to provide information while a project is still in preparation and environment-related documents. These include environmental data sheets, environmental assessments and analyses (unless in exceptional cases the borrowing government objects) and borrower governments' environmental action plans. Environmental assessments and analyses must be available in the borrowing country at a public place accessible to affected groups and local NGOs, and must be submitted to the Bank.
Information that is not available includes the following: proceedings of and documents prepared for the Board of Executive Directors; documents and information supplied with the express or implied understanding that they will not be disclosed without consent of the source; documents held jointly with other parties; both internal and other documents which are protected in the interest of preserving the integrity of the deliberative process, including exchange of views with member and other entities; certain financial information; information which may affect the personal privacy of staff; and information the disclosure of which would, because of its content, wording, or timing, be detrimental to the interests of the Bank. Obviously, the categories of exceptions provide a great deal of scope for denial of access to information.
2. Factual Technical Documents are created to provide more information in the preparatory stage of the project, if that is required. This material contain different types of documents like: site and soil investigation, design studies, prefeasability studies, description of institutional framework, technical studies related to EIA, project-related poverty analysis, etc.
3. Final Staff Appraisal Report (SAR) is a very detailed document referring to the project or non-project loan. It is publicly available (only after the loan is approved) from the Public Information Center in Washington, D.C. SAR is also available from resident missions in each country. It contains detailed information about the project, including: description of the sector, the rationale for Bank involvement, a description of goals and objectives of the project, implementation of the project, expected benefits, details about financial arrangements between the Bank and the borrowing institution, economic justification.
4. Summaries of Evaluation Report is a summary of a department responsible for evaluation of loans, after the completion of a project.
The above information is accessible from the Public Information Center (PIC) established to assist with access to World Bank documents. The Project Information Documents and a catalogue of Bank documents are made available to the public without special request. Factual Technical Documents are also available upon request. The PIDs are provided free of charge, in either electronic form or hard copy. A standard charge of US$15, or its equivalent, is made for all hard-copy documents other than PIDs, environmental data sheets. Field offices hold documents specific to the country in which they are located. Documents on the users' country are also provided free of charge.
| Project cycle | Documents available |
| Identification | none |
| Preparation | Environmental Data Sheets Project Information Documents |
| Detailed Design (Pre-appraisal) | Factual Technical Documents, Environmental Analyses, Environmental Assessments |
| Appraisal | Factual Technical Documents |
| Negotiation | none |
| Loan Approval and Credit Agreements | Final Staff Appraisal Report |
| Implementation | none |
| Supervision | none |
| Completion | Summaries of Project Evaluations |
| Source: A Citizen's Guide to the World Bank's Information Policy, September 1994, Washington, D.C. | |
Requests may be made to the PIC in Washington or through the World Bank's European offices (Paris and London), Tokyo office, or any field office. Field offices in Central and Eastern Europe exist in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Requests may also be made via the Internet.
It might be useful to follow the advice of World Bank Information Center when writing an information request.
Know What You Are Asking For. When requesting information from the World Bank, it is to your advantage to know exactly what you are asking for. Be as specific as possible. Give the name and dates and relevant country of all documents you are requesting. Remember that the Public Information Center does not take nonspecific requests for information: it only takes requests for specific documents. Information Requests Should Be in Writing. Even if you are visiting the Public Information Center, a branch office or a World Bank field office in your country, it is to your advantage to make your requests in writing. This will help create a "paper trail" that you can use if your requests are denied or misplaced. You may also send copies of your information requests to the Bank Information Center. Ask For A Written Explanation. Remember that the Bank's policy states there is a presumption in favor of disclosure in the absence of a compelling reason not to disclose. If your information request is denied, ask for a written explanation of why the request was denied and identification of the compelling reason to justify the rejection. Retroactivity. The policy is not retroactive. This means it does not apply to projects that were negotiated or approved before the new policy came to effect. Check the date the project was approved. If the approval date was before October 1, 1993, the documents will not be in the Public Information Center. However, don't be discouraged from requesting documents on older, ongoing projects. You may still be able to get them through the country offices. Be Persistent. When requesting information that is not available in the Public Information Center or other World Bank field offices, you must be persistent because these requests are handled on a case-by-case basis. If you donÕt receive a response to an information request, send another request or a follow-up letter. You may also want to copy your second request to the country director or regional vice president. You can also alert the Bank Information Center that you are having problems getting information. Source: A Citizens Guide to the World BankÕs Information Policy, by Lori Udall, Bank Information Center, September 1994, Washington, D.C. ( pages 8-9). |
Information on the environmental aspects of World Bank-supported activities can be found in several categories of environment-related documents.
Environmental data sheets summarize the principal environmental issues associated with a particular project and identify proposed actions to mitigate adverse impacts of the project. Environmental data sheets are available through the PIC.
The World Bank requires an EA for all projects that are likely to have significant adverse impacts that may be sensitive, irreversible or diverse (category "A"). The EA must be made available in the borrowing country at a public place accessible to affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations. Once the EA is available locally and submitted to the World Bank, it will also be available via the PIC.
An EA is required for category "B" projects. These are projects where the adverse environmental impacts are considered less significant, are generally not irreversible, are not as sensitive, numerous or diverse as for category "A" projects, and for which remedial measures can be more easily designed. The EA is attached as an annex to the Project Information Document (PID) and is publicly available through the PIC.
Finally, there are environmental action plans of borrower governments which describe the major environmental concerns of a country. These plans attempt to identify the principal causes of these environmental concerns and to state policies and measures to address them. Once the environmental plan has been submitted to the World Bank and the government involved has given its consent to the release of the plan, the plan is publicly available through the Public Information Center.
More details on these documents can be found in The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information (Washington, D.C., March 1994) from which the above information is drawn.
The EIB has no policy on access to information or public participation. A policy note on the EIB and the environment is in preparation and was expected to be presented folllowing the EIB's Board of Governors meeting in June 1996. The document will be made public subject to approval.
The EIB does issue a regularly updated list of projects approved for financing in CEE. Two independent reports of interest are Greening the European Investment Bank, WWF Discussion Paper (Marianne Wenning, December 1992) and Environmental Impact Review in the European Investment Bank: A Report on Current Practices (Carl Lankowski, May 1994). (See Appendix VI.)
There are formal requirements for public involvement, as we saw earlier concerning EBRD and the World Bank in the case of projects of "A" level, when an EIA is requested. This includes the request of notifying the public and allowing public comments in accordance with the relevant national legislation. There have been only sporadic examples so far when CEE NGOs were invited to discuss suggestions or future decisions for developing investments in certain sectors such as transport, energy, etc. There are a few cases when the position, lobbying or actions of NGOs had a positive impact on the decision process of the banks regarding certain projects, and the banks did not give funding to the projects in question. Examples are the withdrawal of EBRD funding the Mohovce nuclear power plant in the Slovak Republic (see case example) and the World Bank's decision not to finance the oil terminal construction in Butinge, Lithuania (see case example).
These examples show that NGOs should not wait for the international financial institutions to come to the public and ask for their opinion; nor should they sit and wait for implementation of solutions suggested by the institutions. Public participation procedures of these institutions can provide a framework for activities and initiatives that NGOs or the public can fill out. The initiative should come from the NGOs and the public, and this way the NGO and the public can choose the technique of participation which is considered most appropriate.
Both the EBRD and World Bank environmental procedures contain regulations and restrictions concerning investments that can damage the environment. In some cases, the practice has shown that the use of the environmental guidelines contributed to a good decision or resulted in a solution of a more environmentally-friendly investment. Possibilities for public and NGO involvement are quite limited in these regulations. More procedures exist for internal use of bank staff concerning bank-financed projects and bank strategies. It is still very important that environmental NGOs lobby for the procedures to be implemented correctly in practice and ensure that the results are in compliance with what the procedures allow.
Both institutions expect projects to fulfill, as minimum standards, the national legal obligations of their own countries, which can be more or less strict than the obligations required by the banks. Therefore, the NGOs and the public also should be informed about the regulations of their own country and see to it that these are being implemented as a minimum.
The international financing institution itself. This is the most valuable source of information because the well-developed disclosure policy of these institutions and the various materials they prepare provide access to relevant information (see the lists above with available documents on page 60). Also, though it might sound strange, these financial institutions can sometimes provide NGOs with materials of valuable governmental or national importance which, for one reason or another, NGOs often can't get from the relevant governmental or national institutions. It is important to mention that the latest trend of the information disclosure policy of EBRD and World Bank is to encourage involvement of local or national NGOs rather than that of the international NGO movement. This new tendency is motivated by the fact that the local people and NGOs in the area might know best what impact a project or investment can have on a specific area. Government and governmental bodies and contracted institutions (see Chapter 1). Governmental institutions in many CEE countries are usually far less open than the international financing institutions. In some countries, even decent, normal, everyday relations are impossible between governmental institutions and NGOs. Yet, one should be aware that these implementing organizations play a fundamental role regarding the investments. Someone who wants to get information from them should keep in mind that it is necessary to be very insistent and to ask for the same information from several different levels. It is advisable to explain clearly why and how one is going to use the requested information. When an NGO is asking for specific documents that should be publicly available and the request is refused, it is always possible to refer to the national regulations concerning the disclosure of information or freedom of information under which the document should be made available. Scientific community. There are several scientific institutions or universities which have or might have information related to the project or problem (see Chapter 1). NGO community. There might be other NGOs in the home country, in neighboring countries or in other countries who work on similar issues or problems (especially if this is of transboundary character), and they might have experience or information they can offer to share. On the spot. It is possible to collect information on the site of the future project, for example by gathering data, making observations, talking to local people, monitoring changes in the area, etc. This also can be a very relevant source of information because it might allow an NGO to make its own evaluation and create an opinion on which the position of the NGO can be built. This way, one can compare the information obtained directly or independently with the information included in the documents, in the position of the international financing institution, or in that of the governmental institution; and their accuracy can be evaluated. However, to collect and elaborate information is a rather complicated process that requires time, human and financial resources and expertise from NGOs. |
1. Gather information from all sources available.
As mentioned before, accurate and timely information makes the real difference; this is what enables an NGO to take the most appropriate steps and helps the actions become effective. For a better understanding and more objectivity, it is also very important the input come from different sources.
2. Influence decisions or try to be involved in the process.
When an NGO decides to take concrete actions or steps to influence or modify a project or a non-project loan, the first thing to check is whether the project meets all the conditions set by the funding institution's internal regulations on public participation and environmental protection.
Every project financed by these institutions has to comply with both the legislation from the specific country where they make the loan and the institution's own internal regulation of public participation or environmental protection. If the project violates the internal regulations of the funding institution, the national legislation of the borrowing country or other international legislation (international environmental agreements, human rights convention, etc.), it is necessary to analyze and demonstrate the violation and to try to make a strong case with well-based arguments showing what is violated and how and then to lobby for changes.
The second step is to identify the possible environmental problems and damages the project or the non-project loan could cause, elaborate on these problems and present viable, alternative solutions or suggestions for modification. To provide viable alternative options with the same economic benefits as the original proposal is not easy, but it is possible. Some ways to reach this goal are described below. The key is to use the information, concrete data and facts gathered to prove why the project is unsustainable. Then the NGOs can lobby for the adoption of their proposals using the already-mentioned methods.
A well-elaborated case study is the best background for any further action. The best is if the case study is developed by local NGOs from the affected areas because involvement of local NGOs is always appreciated by the funding institutions. Besides, the local NGOs are the ones really affected by the project. Even if it is not possible for the study to be developed entirely by a local NGO, the local NGO's input is absolutely necessary. Usually a case study includes:
A case study might not necessarily be a very scientific way of confronting problems. Data and numbers are not always the most persuasive way of showing the difficulties. At the same time, one should be aware that this is material which is supposed to be read by official people; therefore, it requires "professional," or at least a "semiprofessional," approach.
2. Take steps toward implementation.
Once the case study (or other documents and facts to sustain your vision and opinion) is ready and viable alternative solutions are developed, the next step is to get the solutions implemented.
A few examples of what can be done:
Sometimes lobby work is inefficient, and one might have the unpleasant surprise to observe that the target people or institutions do not care. In this case, try to organize campaigns, such as:
In general, the approach depends on the situation and the people involved. It is always better to have cooperation and dialogue and to talk to each other as partners; unfortunately, this is not always possible. Sometimes there is openness and receptivity from both sides and it is possible to talk about different alternatives and to reach a solution of common satisfaction. Sometimes, however, such initiatives meet closed doors on the official side, and there are also cases when NGOs only see funding institutions and the government officials as adversaries. Often both NGOs and the funding institutions (and their governmental partners) expect a zero-sum game and forget that successful cooperation or dialogue is only possible if the partners accept each other, listen to each other and take into consideration each other's viewpoint.
There are often cases when it is good to combine the two approaches and give emphasis to the NGO position with the help of different nonformal actions such as protests, demonstrations, petitions, etc. Of course, there is no absolute rule concerning which of these options should be followed. The question an NGO should always consider is which of these approaches are most effective in a given country or in a given situation. One thing is sure: To lobby without attracting the attention of those who need to listen is useless. If there is only action without a proper knowledge of the subject and without a "professional approach" to the problem, the NGO might not be taken seriously. Any support for NGO activities, should it be national or international, is more likely to come if the NGO can prove expertise in a certain field.
Another important strategic aspect is cooperation among NGOs themselves. Usually issues related to projects funded by international financing institutions are rather complex, so NGOs need special expertise, experience or financial resources. Therefore, smaller, local NGOs have a better chance to act successfully if they find coalition partners in the NGO community of their country or abroad. This way they can mobilize expertise and resources with the help of other organizations. Also, if an NGO acts alone its voice is not heard as well as if it has allies either in the country or in other CEE or Western countries. Monitoring activities, national-level actions and cooperative regional or international efforts dealing with the policies and projects of these institutions requires coordination on national, regional and international levels. The national-level NGO project ECOSENS in Romania and the CEE Bankwatch Network, a successful NGO network operating since 1995, demonstrate unique and positive examples of NGO cooperation on national and regional levels to monitor the activities of the international financial institutions (see Boxes 36 and 37).
Starting in July 1995, the environmental NGO ECOSENS ran a one-year project for monitoring the activities of the World Bank in Romania entitled "Ecological Control of World Bank Investments in Romania." The World Bank has played a fundamental role since 1989 in financing many projects of national importance in Romania, namely projects related to infrastructure, including the energy sector and transportation. The ECOSENS project was funded by Milieukontakt Oost Europa (Netherlands) and by Euronature (Germany). The goals of the project were to create a viable mechanism to monitor the investments of the Word Bank and other international financing institutions in Romania and to gather and disseminate information to NGOs interested in the activities of the World Bank and to others who want to take action related to these investments. The initial idea of involving 30 Romanian NGOs in national-scale projects proved not to be the best way of dealing with these issues. Many of the Romanian NGOs are more concerned with their local community problems than with national-level strategies and actions. ECOSENS chose to work on the problems of the transport sector, which receives funding from the World Bank and other international financing institutions (IFIs) and which has an impact on the local level that also can be seen as a national problem. A draft case study on "Involvement of IFIs on the transport sector in Romania" has been prepared and will be finalized in February 1997. Two seminars were organized, both of them focusing on transportation. During the second one, which took place July 5-7, 1996, at Sinaia, Romania, two working groups were set up: one working on national railroad problems, the other dealing with a case example of a road rehabilitation project funded by the World Bank and EBRD. The latter can be used as a case study of similar investments in road transport financed by international funding institutions in general. The workshops were attended not only by NGOs but also by representatives of the World Bank and EBRD, the National Railroad Company and even the mass media. As a result, a concrete proposal for collaboration was adopted and it was also decided that all the institutions present should cooperate on common projects. The representatives of the World Bank and EBRD shared NGOs' concerns, and promised to encourage NGOs to suggest amendments or new proposals to their projects. They also offered assistance in lobbying the government to accept loans for such projects. Although this might be just a formal commitment, it was evaluated by ECOSENS as an important step forward. The project also aimed at familiarizing the NGO community in Romania with the activities of the World Bank and other IFIs and at showing the NGOs why monitoring work is required. This was almost an unknown subject for many NGOs. ECOSENS prepared an information bulletin called "InfoBANK," which was published every other month. It contained basic facts on the World Bank, data about the projects the Bank finances and comments and suggestions for how these projects could be improved. During the one-year period, many useful contacts were created with the World Bank and EBRD staff in the Bucharest office and in the Washington, D.C. head office, including the executive director responsible for Romania. ECOSENS intends to continue its actions even after the project is over and plans to extend its activities over other IFIs active in Romania. Creation of a group involved in monitoring actions is planned. Concrete results in reducing road traffic and more investment in railroads also are expected. There is a need to integrate national actions into regional context; therefore, ECOSENS will continue its further involvement in CEE Bankwatch Network. |
CEE Bankwatch Network, established in 1995, is a relatively new initiative. At the beginning of its activities it included eight countries from the region: Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Romania. The main aims of the network are to monitor the activities of international financing institutions in the region, to provide more environmentally friendly alternative solutions for IFI investments and to raise awareness and encourage public participation in the process. The idea of creating such a network at the regional level is rooted in the recognition that all the countries in the CEE region have been confronted with similar problems during their transition to a market economy. The major development projects financed by IFIs, as well as the policies of these institutions toward these countries, have much in common and are strongly related to the CEE governments' aspirations to integrate into the EU structures. The secretariat of the network is based at the Polish Ecological Club in Poland, and there is a national coordinator from every CEE member country who is, at the same time, a member of a partner NGO from that respective country. The regional activities are coordinated by a regional coordinator from the secretariat. There are two meetings a year, at which strategies of the network are discussed. Good e-mail communication ensures links among all members. The activities of the network are funded by the REC, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Since the beginning, the network has focused on two main issues considered common for all countries: transportation and energy. For better results, national coordinators focus mainly on problems concerning their own countries. Regarding transportation, the network continually promoted more sustainable ways of transport, such as investments in the railway system, and opposed implementation of the EU's TENs (Trans European Networks) project in CEE. The project is financed by EBRD and World Bank loans. In the beginning of 1997, the network plans to release national blueprints on transportation in eight countries (translated to local languages) and a regional blueprint on the same issue (in English). These blueprints are important background materials for NGOs working on transportation issues and also will be a very important step for the future activities of the network. Meetings with IFI officials, letters to the staff members and gathering international support were other activities undertaken by the network to lobby for sustainable means of transport. Concerning the energy issue, the network opposes nuclear power, considering it the most environmentally-unfriendly way of producing energy. Since EBRD has a special interest in this sector, the network organized a meeting with EBRD senior staff and, through letters and presentations at different conferences and seminars, advocated the financing of alternative sources of energy in CEE. As a result of a recent expansion, the network plans to have representatives from most of the CEE countries. |