The problems addressed are primarily those related to huge industrial investments or development projects (nuclear power plants, hydro power plants, dams, oil terminals, motorway construction, navigation canal and port, etc.); effects of industrial activities; tourism; and pollution of rivers and lakes. These problems endanger not only human health but also protected areas, rare species and biodiversity. Many of these problems are closely associated with the transition of CEE countries to market economies. Along with the development plans and projects, another growing trend is the attempt to import toxic waste into these countries. Under the guise of development and job opportunities, these projects often end up creating an infrastructure for a future permanent market to receive and burn hazardous and toxic waste. Once the infrastructure is in place, it is easy to justify further importation of these materials.
Looking at these 13 cases, however, some lessons can be drawn from the efforts of the NGOs and communities.
To start, the most easily accessible option is almost always there: the rich variety of nonformal tools through which any NGO or citizen group can express an opinion (see case example from Estonia). Secondly, the most logical method is to "start at home," as discussed in Chapter 1, and use the legal public participation provisions provided in national legislation. If an EIA is required then this legal mechanism gives opportunities for public involvement in most countries (see case examples from Lithuania, Hungary and Czech Republic). It is also important to find out whether the legal requirements under national legislation are met . If not, starting action at a national level (as in the example from Bulgaria) is the logical next step. As in many of the examples, when it comes to challenging the decisions it is again possible through national legal mechanisms: administrative court, constitutional court, supreme court (see examples of Hungary, Czech Republic).
We could find relatively few examples when international legal instruments were used in the region (Ramsar Convention in the cases of Albania and Slovakia, HELCOM in the case of Lithuania). International conventions tended to be used more frequently as lobbying tools, as we can see in the case examples from FYR Macedonia and the Slovak Republic. Also, several interesting and creative combinations of nonformal tools were used for lobbying for national legislation or for harmonizing legislation with international standards, as in the cases of Latvia and Macedonia.
In some cases there are several legal opportunities or international conventions available, but they cannot be used fully because the signatory states have not yet started their implementation or because one of the neighbors has not yet signed the agreements. The Estonian example shows an interesting situation in which four international conventions have been signed or partly adopted by the neighbors but still none of them is applicable by the NGOs.
Several international conventions have not yet entered into force (i.e. ESPOO). Though signatories have committed themselves to comply with them, the conventions are not used in practice. The only possibility is to use them as legal arguments (see case example from Hungary).
The experience shows that NGOs need in-house legal experience and skills or legal assistance from outside experts if they want to use legal instruments, especially when using international legal tools.
It might sound obvious - though it is not always evident in the present practice of the CEE countries - that the solutions to transboundary, regional problems need the involvement and support of not only the local or national NGOs of one country but also the cooperation of NGOs in the neighboring country or countries. In some cases, the solution to the problem may be more successful if there is international attention or a coordinated effort with NGOs from another, maybe faraway, country from the CEE region or from the West. There may be good partners or experts who have experienced similar problems and who can advise, assist or just help publicize the problem in their countries, thus using the media or campaigns to put pressure on the government authority, investor or firm involved in the matter. In many cases we can see positive examples of bilateral or regional cooperation between NGOs in the CEE region (for example, the cooperation of Croatian, Hungarian, Slovenian and Austrian NGOs concerning the plans to build a dam on the Drava River; Estonian and Russian NGOs regarding Lake Peipsi; Polish, Czech, Slovak, Austrian and Hungarian NGOs regarding Mohovce; etc.). But there are also cases in which NGOs from the neighboring countries have not been in touch or have not been able to cooperate regarding a transboundary or potentially transboundary issue (Hungarian and Croatian NGOs regarding the hazardous waste incinerator planned near their border; Macedonia and Albania regarding the Ohrid Lake before the recent World Bank sponsored public awareness raising project).
Furthermore, some international problems require coordinated international or regional cooperation and efforts from the NGOs. The CEE Bankwatch, a network established in the CEE region to monitor the activities of multilateral funding institutions, is an example of such an effort (see Chapter 7).
Coalition-building (local, regional, national, international) among NGOs, as well as among the different stakeholders, is another crucial instrument in the success of the NGO actions.
Another important lesson for both NGOs and authorities is that support from the local population is always crucial. Without this - even if NGOs have an international cooperative effort - the outcome is highly uncertain and risky (see Krsko example from Slovenia).
When dealing with issues with transboundary and international aspects, some of the biggest problems NGOs experience are the lack of legal control on the national level, the lack of legislation and proper enforcement, the inconsistent behavior of the authorities and the lack of provision of information to citizens (see example from Bulgaria). In these cases NGOs have two options: either attempt to work together with the officials on the problem, trying to convince them about the necessity of taking actions, or take over the initiative and put pressure on authorities, take actions, provide information to the public, elaborate suggestions, monitor the development of the events, etc. This should not suggest, however, that the burden and responsibility for public participation should remain on the shoulders of NGOs. Nor should NGOs and the public assume that 100 percent of the responsibility for an open and democratic system is that of the authorities. Public participation is, as we have seen in the cooperative cases, a two-way street, a relationship of give and take.
Furthermore, perhaps the most often overlooked opportunity in these and many cases is the possibility for building relations with the private business sector. NGOs and businesses are often at odds over the perceived conflict between the environment and economic growth (see cases from FYR Macedonia and Romania). However, the case from Croatia also illustrates that the NGO-business relationship can be a mutually-beneficial one - an opportunity that deserves much more attention and effort from both sides. To build such strategic alliances requires a great deal of effort and planning.
Some of the prerequisites for successful cooperation between institutions of different sectors are as follows:
On the previous pages there are a few examples in which, as a result of joint effort, NGOs and governmental institutions became partners. As a result of sometimes long and difficult discussions, they came to an agreement regarding an investment project (Lithuania, oil terminal) or could prepare a locally agreed-upon sound resource management plan for a protected area (Albania, Karavasta Lagoon).
Sometimes, NGOs are successful in influencing national and international development projects and funding. There are cases in which development plans have already been approved by national governments, but without funding sources from the multilateral funding institutions, the plans cannot be realized. In such instances, the position of the funding institution is crucial to the future of protected areas or the environment of a given region; here NGOs could also have an impact on the final decision (see case example from the Slovak Republic).
There are differences in how the NGOs in the CEE countries are able to use the above-mentioned instruments. In countries where the national legal system is more developed and there is a tradition of using national legal tools, access to international legal instruments is also easier. However, the development of the legal system is not the only prerequisite. In the absence of these conditions, the proactive approach and attitude can help to spell out concerns. Another key issue is the ability to identify the problems, set priorities, plan and manage the activities well.
No two cases presented in this manual are alike. While this publication has been prepared for readers in the CEE region, it is clear that the local realities, cultures, histories, socio-economic situations and political systems are so varied that generalizations seem almost irrelevant. The lessons herein provide a useful set of guidelines - starting points at least - for NGOs and citizens to recognize the large variety of international instruments and tools for public participation that are available to them. While the nations of the region may be significantly different in reality, many of the international instruments explained in this manual are equally available to everyone across the European continent. But as the cases presented in Part II and the dimensions of public participation explained in Part I illustrate, the many options for public participation present not only opportunities but also responsibilities. It is now your responsibility to take these opportunities and use them to move beyond the boundaries that currently prevent public involvement in your community or country.