Part I

Overview of the Institutional and Legal Framework and Practices of Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environment and Health Matters

Marianna Bolshakova - Grazyna Krzywkowska - Magda Toth Nagy

I. Introduction

The present overview was prepared based on country reports from 21 European countries including 10 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Yugoslavia; five countries in the Newly Independent States (NIS): Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine; as well as six Western European countries: Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the UK (England and Wales).

The reports focus mainly on those aspects which are specific to access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environment and health matters. For the purposes and scope of this document, specific focus areas have been defined for the analysis of environment and health matters (see Box 1). A definition of public and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is also given to clarify the use of these terms (see Box 2 and Annex A).

On the broader issue of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, a more extensive four-volume report was prepared and published in June 1998 for the Aarhus Ministerial Conference with the title "Doors to Democracy." That report contains a Europe-wide assessment, regional reports for CEE, NIS and Western Europe, and specific country reports on five NIS, 15 CEE and 11 Western European countries.1 The present overview relies on the findings of the "Doors to Democracy" report as a source for general background material regarding access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters. For the purposes of this overview, any mention of CEE, NIS or Western European countries refers to the 21 above enumerated countries; however, any relevant information which may be found in "Doors to Democracy" relating to countries not covered by the present report will be explicitly cited.

II. General Constitutional Rights

Constitutional rights providing a general legal basis for access to information, public participation or access to justice in environment and health matters exist in several countries either directly or indirectly. Many have constitutional provisions on "the right to a healthy environment," the right "to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment," or the right to a "good" or "liveable environment." Such provisions are more frequent in the constitutions of CEE and NIS countries, which have either new or recently amended constitutions (this is the case in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, Russia, and Belarus); however, some Western European countries, such as Portugal, also have a similar constitutional guarantee.

BOX 1

Focus Areas in Environment and Health

Environmental health has been defined as "the ecological balance that must exist between man and his environment in order to ensure his well-being."

The definition of environment and health used by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe is taken from the European Charter on Environment and Health of 1989 that defined environment and health as encompassing "both the direct and pathological effects of chemicals, radiation, and some biological agents, and the effects (often indirect) on health and well-being of the broad physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic environment, which includes housing, urban development, land use and transport."

More concretely, the following biological, physical and chemical factors and activities directly affect health and well-being in a working and community environment:

  • air pollution (by combustion by products, microorganisms, allergens, formaldehyde, asbestos fibers shredding, tobacco smoke, radon and its decay products, and mercury);

  • accidents (e.g. traffic, at work, at home and during leisure, and chemical);

  • noise;

  • toxic chemical substances (pesticides);

  • high temperatures and excessive humidity in the workplace;

  • repetitive or forceful motions, awkward postures, mechanical stresses and vibration;

  • ionizing and non-ionizing radiation;

  • water pollution and sewage;

  • food contamination by nitrates and nitrites, sodium chloride and phosphate, metals and metalloids and organic contaminants;

  • food additives such as antibiotics and growth hormones;

  • solid waste;

  • rodents and insects;

  • electromagnetic radiation (ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves, electric and magnetic fields, ionizing radiation).
Environmentalists can deal with these problems by, first, defining the source and nature of the threat to environment and health; second, assessing its reasons and its effects on the population; and third, applying control measures if they are needed. They must also anticipate the future problems and take diversity of the environment into consideration. They can succeed only when they work together with legislators, public health officials and the whole of society.

Some constitutions include even more specific provisions which can be linked directly to environment and health matters. For example, the constitution of Belarus contains a right to compensation for harm caused by the violation of the right to healthy environment (Article 46), and a right to health care which is assured by various measures, including provisions on environmental rehabilitation and protection (Article 45).2 Similarly, the Russian constitution includes a right of access to health information in addition to the right to health protection (Article 41).3

In Ukraine, in addition to placing an obligation on the state to ensure ecological safety and the support of ecological balance (Article 16, Article 43), each person and citizen has a right to a surrounding environment which is safe for life and health and to compensation for any damages caused by the lack thereof (Article 50).4

Many of the constitutions protect and guarantee health as a fundamental right, either for individuals and/or for the community. This is true in Italy, Portugal and Hungary, for example. The Portuguese constitution (Article 52, no. 3) even gives the right to citizens to use actio popularis in order to promote and secure the prevention and termination of infractions inter alia against public health, quality of environment or quality of life.5 In addition, the constitutions often contain general provisions on health protection, preservation of health, equal access to health care services and good, hygienic and safe working conditions, which are indirectly linked to environment and health issues. Poland's new constitution makes a direct link between health and environment by placing an obligation on the public authorities with the following statement: "Public authorities shall . . . prevent the negative health consequences of the degradation of the environment."6

Although there are not many reported cases in which these basic rights have been used in the courts, the link between environment and health is increasingly recognised in the countries surveyed. Most of the cases known to date were only indirectly linked with health damages caused by environmental activities and were aimed at preventing some kind of degradation in the environment or nature which might have negative short- or long-term impacts on health. For example, one case is related to the prevention of excessive cutting and devastation of small forests in Hungary by the new owners. This was not duly covered by the adopted Law on the Privatisation of Small Forests in 1995. The Constitutional Court declared the law unconstitutional and proposed amendments. In another case, citizens and NGOs were given legal standing - on the basis of their constitutional rights to healthy environment and in recognition of their interest in preventing actions potentially damaging the environment which might also damage health - to participate in a decision on a development plan of a small business and manufacturing zone in the hinterland of Lake Bled.7 Many such constitutional provisions could be used in the future for asserting similar basic rights for matters specific to environment and health.

In Italy, for example, the recent jurisprudence of courts, including the Constitutional Court, acknowledges the existence of a personal right to health as a subjective right, which is fully "justiciable" and has linked it with environment in a few cases. According to the Constitutional Court, "the right to health has to be included among the subjective rights directly protected by the Constitution" (Constitutional Court judgment No. 88/1979, Italian report). Building on this general legal basis, the High Court of Cassation affirmed the existence of a specific right to a healthy environment in judgment No. 5172/79.8 The High Court declared that health protection "assumes a social and security content, and therefore the right to health, rather (and more) than a mere right to life and physical safety, becomes a right to a healthy environment." In addition, the High Court also had an influence on the development of the term "unbearable emission (to one's property)" (ex art. 844), which has been used in actions against damaging activities. Although, this article links actions with property, it has been newly interpreted as a basis for giving more attention to a healthy environment. (See more in Access to Justice section, p. 37-43.)

In a few other countries, provisions exist that could also be used to make such a link. The Irish common law contains a notion of "right to bodily integrity," which might be interpreted in a "general environmental light."9 In the German constitution, there is a basic right vested "in anybody to life and freedom from physical harm," which might give a protection from encroachment by state authority action, though this does not entitle individuals to a healthy environment.10 The UK does not have a written constitution.

The UN ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters adopted in Aarhus in June 25, 1998 (hereafter: the Aarhus Convention) is the first international legal instrument which bases the access to information, public participation and access to justice rights provided by the convention on "the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being." The Aarhus Convention thus makes an obvious and strong link between individual rights and environmental well-being, which is also relevant from the environment and health point of view. It also includes a general obligation for the parties "to guarantee access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters" in order to contribute to the protection of this right.11 In doing so, it sets a new precedent in international environmental legislation.

BOX 2

Defining the Public and NGOs

According to one common usage, the term "NGO" refers to non-commercial public interest organisations, independent from government, whose primary purpose is to defend or promote a particular set of ideals (in this case, the ideals of protecting or promoting health and/or the environment). The existence of such groups generally depends upon the voluntary support of the general public or a membership base. They include environmental citizensÌ organisations (ECOs), consumer organisations and citizensÌ groups campaigning on health issues.

The term "NGO" is also used in a broader sense to encompass any organisation which is literally non-governmental. For the sake of clarity, participation of this broad range of bodies is better described as stakeholder participation. Stakeholders include a vast array of bodies with diverse needs, capacities, structures, motivations and degrees of political and financial leverage. As well as public interest NGOs, they include professional or trade associations, industrial federations, academic bodies, trade unions, and in some contexts even financial institutions. Local authorities, even though they are formally a manifestation of government, could also be considered to be stakeholders insofar as they are affected by, and are required to implement, governmental decisions rather than making them. (See Annex A for the full text.)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Although constitutional rights linking environment and health cannot be directly enforced, their existence can give a sound basis for citizens' rights and can be used as an underpinning legal argument in assuring certain access to information, public participation or access to justice rights in matters related to environment and health. Existence of such rights give a clear indication of a high level commitment to the protection of such rights. However, in most of the countries surveyed, constitutional provisions do not make a direct link between environment and health matters and citizensÌ rights. Also, such provisions do not substitute explicit rights for citizens to access to information, public participation or access to justice rights in matters related to environment and health, which should be set out in specific legislation on environment or health. Nevertheless, the Aarhus Convention is a significant step forward giving international legal recognition of such a link. The future implementation of such a general obligation will contribute to the establishment and harmonisation of such rights throughout the UN ECE region.

In the light of the above, the following is necessary.

III. Access to Environment and Health Information

A. Passive Provision of Information

The framework for access to environment and health information in many respects is the same as for accessing general or environmental information, although there are also additional special aspects of environment and health which sometimes are not covered by health legislation.

Legal protection for the right to access environment and health information is contained in:

There is a general constitutional right to information in Armenia, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Yugoslavia. Austria, Greece, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden also have a general access-to-information right based in their constitutions.12

The constitutional right to access to environmental information or information on the state or condition of the environment is provided in Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. Portugal has a constitutional provision on the right of access to administrative documents that also includes matters concerning environment and health, in as much as they are part of administrative procedures (V. Article 268/2).

Only a few countries have an established constitutional right to health information. In the Russian constitution there is a general right of access to health information connected to the rights and freedom of citizens (Article 24, 29). Several articles establish the right of an individual to have access to information to protect his or her own health.

Since environment and health matters are issues which are very complex and are subject to a number of different, sometimes overlapping areas, no country has a specific law regulating access to environment and health information as such. Several countries have general laws on access to information or environmental information which might or might not cover environment and health matters.

Among the CEE and NIS countries, only Hungary and Lithuania have general laws on access to information. The Law on the Protection of Personal Data and Disclosure of Data of Public Interest of Hungary (1992) provides a general framework for accessing any kind of public information in a uniform way, although it makes a distinction between "personal" and "public interest" data. Information related to environmental health matters may belong to both categories (see more under the next section, "Definition of Environmental and Health Information"). The Public Information Law of Lithuania (No. I/1418, 1996) contains regulations on general access, dissemination of information and the mass media.

In Western Europe, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the UK have adopted legislation on access to information in general or regulations on access to environmental information.13 The UK government issued a White Paper containing proposals for the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act ("Your Right to Know: Freedom of Information" Cm 3818). It is hoped this will result in a greater transparency in the field of environment and health information.14

Italy also adopted a decree on freedom of access to environmental information (no. 39/97) in 1997, finally implementing the Directive 90/313/EEC on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment. While the European Commission directive does not specifically cover the issues of human health or impact on human health, some EU countries in the legislation implementing the directive have attempted to cover to some extent the environment and health aspects in a more explicit way. The Italian decree of no. 39/97, for example, contains a list of activities about which information can be requested. This includes areas which have a relevance for environmental health. The UK government has issued a Regulation and a Guidance ("Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment - Guidance on the Implementation of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 in Great Britain") dealing with this matter.15 (See further details under discussion on a definition of environment and health information in the following pages.)

Slovakia and the Czech Republic have recently adopted new laws on access to environmental information which are meant to be harmonised with Directive 90/313/EEC. The laws contain a reference to health in as much as the state of the environment impacts on human health or society.16 This also shows that countries harmonising their laws with EU legislation and looking towards the future can use this opportunity to incorporate more progressive provisions than those contained in the EU directives before anticipated or upcoming amendments. These two countries, however, only went half-way through since they did not incorporate many of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention into their new laws.

In the NIS, several countries have laws that include different aspects of general access to information, such as Laws on Information (Ukraine), Law on Information, Informatisation and Information Protection (Russia) and Law on Informatisation (Belarus). In several CEE and NIS countries, in the absence of general information or specific environmental information laws, other laws on state secrets or statistics, or administrative laws dealing with petitions, complaints, etc. regulate access to information or apply (for example, in Belarus, the Law on State Secrets and Law on State Statistics; in Moldova, the Law on Presenting Petitions, 1994; in Armenia, the Law on Procedures for Consideration of Suggestions, Applications and Grievances of the Citizens, 1990).

Many CEE and NIS countries have health legislation containing different access to information rights in specific fields. For example, the Basic Law on Citizens' Health Protection (1993) in Russia provides for the right to information on the state of individualsÌ health, rights and obligations (Article 31). Citizens have the right to obtain regular, adequate and timely information about factors that contribute to the protection of their own health, or factors which adversely affect it, including sanitary-epidemiological information about the region in which they live, nutrition standards; and information about food, goods, works and services and their compliance with the established sanitary norms and standards. This information is provided either by the mass media or on request. Article 41 also establishes that officials conducting secret acts and creating circumstances which endanger the lives and health of the people are liable under criminal and civil law.17 There are similar provisions in several other countries.

Laws on the sanitary and epidemiological situation include provisions relating to information on environment and health in most CEE and NIS countries, giving certain rights of accessing information. For example, the Law on the Sanitary-Epidemiological Security of the Population (1992) in Armenia gives citizens the right to authentic, comprehensive information and notice on the sanitary and epidemiological situation of the environment (Article 10, paragraph 2). Enterprises, institutions, and organisations have broader rights to receive information from public authorities on the sanitary and epidemiological situation, environment, health conditions of the population and relevant sanitary regulations (Article 9, paragraph 1). A similar law exists in Russia (Law on Sanitary and Epidemiological Safety of Population, 1991) and in Belarus (Law on Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-Being of the Population, 1993). Several countries have laws on health care, labour safety, food safety, consumer protection, radiation and accidents, which might contain different provisions on access to environment and health information. Due to the Chernobyl catastrophe, there are specific laws in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia dealing with radioactive contamination and the social protection of citizens who suffered from the accident. In other countries there are laws on public health or occupational health and safety, food safety or major accident hazards.

In addition, provisions on access to environment and health related information may also be contained in environmental protection or environment-related laws, nature protection laws, EIA laws and laws on environmental expertise, as well as specific laws on air pollution, waste, hazardous waste, chemicals and dangerous substances, water pollution and nuclear safety.

There are several EU directives that have been implemented in the West, dealing with specific areas which have an impact on environment and health, including relevant provisions on access to certain categories of information which are related to environment and health matters. These are: Directive 84/360/EEC on Air Quality Related to Specific Polluting Agents, and Pollution Produced by Industrial Plants, which requires public authorities to ensure availability of information to the public on decisions concerning air pollution; Directive 82/501/EEC on Major Accident Hazards of Certain Industrial Activities (Seveso I), which contains a right for workers to be informed on matters concerning risks of certain industrial activities; Directive 83/337/EEC on the Protection of Workers from Risks Related to Exposure to Asbestos at Work; and Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact Assessment, which contains certain guarantees concerning the provision of information to those who have the right to participate in the procedures (such as the Major Accident Hazards of Certain Industrial Activities regulations).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The main problem is that due to the complexity of environment and health matters, there is no uniform regulation on access to environment and health information. Different aspects are covered by many different laws from different areas, but there are areas that may not be covered at all by rights to public access or may not be covered to the same degree. The provisions are often vague and broadly defined and do not contain specific procedures for their implementation. Though the environmental legislation generally provides a more regulated approach for access to information, especially in the Western and CEE countries, there is little or no public access to information laid down in major accident hazards, health and safety legislation. Access to information for the affected public or workers is usually better regulated in the countries in the survey, but often these regulations have not been enforced in some of the CEE and many of the NIS countries.

It is difficult for authorities, as well as citizens, to oversee and know what rights are established related to environment and health matters and which are the laws or regulations providing them such rights.

To this end there is a need for:

The Definition of "Environment and Health Information"

Among the reporting countries, no explicit definition of "environment and health information" or "information related to environment and health matters" exists.

In some countries, mainly in the West, where a definition of "environmental information" has been developed, it does not always cover or only partly covers environment and health aspects. For example, the EU Directive 90/313/EEC does not explicitly cover health aspects, nor do the regulations that implement it in some countries. There are differing views on whether the EU directiveÌs definition of "information relating to environment" includes some of the environment and health aspects. In Germany, for example, the definition provided by the Federal Environmental Information Act (UIG, 1994), based on the EU directive, is considered to cover general information on environment. It covers environment and health matters in respect to water, soil, air, fauna, flora and their habitats; activities producing environmental impact including noise; and activities and programmes aimed at environmental protection.18 At the same time, in the UK, Italy and Ireland, it has been considered unclear whether the EU directive adequately covers health aspects. The UK government felt the need to specify that the EU directive also addresses information related to human health: "The Regulations do not make explicit reference to information related to human health. Nevertheless, the environment clearly impacts on human health - directly or through the food chain - and to this extent information affecting the state of human health should be covered. This would be achieved indirectly insofar as humans respond to physical, chemical and biological agents delivered via the environmental media of water, air, land, etc."19

The definition of "information related to the environment" has not been extensively tested in courts, especially regarding how thoroughly it covers environment and health information.

The Italian Decree on Environmental Information (n. 39/97) includes a list of activities on which information can be requested under the category of "environmental information." These activities include the following: waste management in water or soil; air emission; consumption of water; traffic; production or consumption of energy; toxicological, epidemiological data; radioactive emissions; contaminated sites; building and road structures; and noise and vibrations.20

In Ireland, the Directive is implemented through the European Communities Act (1972) and Access to Information to the Environment Regulations (1998), which makes "information on the environment held by public authorities" available to any person. The legal position on the implementation of the EC directive through these regulations does not clearly define "environmental information." As the 1998 regulations do not provide statutory grounds for defining the subject matter, it may be necessary to interpret the 1998 regulations in the light of Directive 90/313. However, it is intended in principle that these regulations can be used to gain access to information on the environment whether or not environmental pollution has implications for human health.21 Despite all the uncertainties, the reporters preparing country surveys for this overview are not aware of any particular difficulties in obtaining information related to environment and health matters on the ground that such information is not covered by the definition.

In most of the NIS and CEE countries examined in this report there is no definition of "environmental information," and most legislation does not contain references to environment and health related matters. However, the new access to environmental information laws in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, adopted in the summer of 1998, already include a definition of "environmental information" which has some environment and health aspects. In the other CEE and NIS countries, the definition of "environmental health" can be deduced either from the definition of environment and/or from different laws.

In many of the reported countries environmental protection laws or health laws define some of the components or factors having an impact on health and environment. For example, the Estonian Law on EIA defines environmental impact as the direct influence of a planned activity on the state of human health and the environment.22 Similar links are established in the draft Environmental Protection Act of Poland and the Environmental Protection Laws of Montenegro, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Latvia, etc.

The NIS environmental laws usually tend to cover information on the elements and state of the environment, measures to protect them, and, unlike Western countries, include aspects of human health. On the other hand, they do not cover important aspects such as information on policies, programmes, plans, legislation, or economic analyses used for environmental decision-making. They also fail to cover elements such as landscape, energy, noise, biological diversity, and GMOs.23 Some of the CEE countries have a more flexible approach, and, in addition to the above, they cover information on policies, programmes, plans, legislation, economic analyses used for environmental decision-making, (especially Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic). However, they also fail to cover some of the other elements. Recently, they were developing definitions similar to the EU directive.

Only a few NIS and CEE countries use the term "environmental health" in their health legislation, but they often establish a link between health and environment. The Act on the National Public Health and Medical Officer Service (XI, 1991) of Hungary is the only law which uses the term "environmental health" when defining one of the tasks of the service as "to examine the environment and health issues." Furthermore, this act also gives a detailed description of what areas this should cover.

Hungary's Act CLIV of 1997 on Health, subtitled "Environmental and Community Health," contains several articles dealing with different components of environment and health activities, health impairment caused by environmental factors, prevention of health impairment, investigation measures, etc. In Art. 45 it states: "The purpose of [activities pertaining to] environmental and community health is to examine effects injurious to health in the environment and reveal the opportunities of prevention." In the chapter "Prevention based on individual risk factors" it states: "In order to prevent health impairment stemming from environmental risk created by any activity in communities, the goal of public health activities is to search for the causing factors, stop them, regularly control them and eliminate the consequences."24

The Law on Public Health of Estonia (1995) defines the living environment as the total of factors of natural, artificial and social environment which influence or may influence peopleÌs health.

Among the NIS countries, several health laws contain references to the information on the state of environment and the populationÌs health, on the epidemiological situation, on acting sanitary rules and regulations, on measures taken to provide sanitary-epidemiological safety and the results of these measures, on the quality of produced goods including meals, and quality of drinking water. For example, the Russian Federation Law on Sanitary-Epidemiologi-cal Safety of the Population (Art. 5, part 3), states, "citizens have the right to request information from business and governmental bodies."25 Similarly, the Ukrainian Law on the Fundamentals of Legislation of Ukraine on Health Care contains several references to health and environment: the protection of people from negative ecological influences, the security for sanitary well-being, the creation of favourable conditions for healthy working, living and rest conditions, etc. (1992, Art. 25-32). Also, the Law on Health Care and the Law on Sanitary-Epidemiological Well-Being of the Population of Belarus contain elements related to environment and health.26

The definition of "environmental health" or "environment and health matters" is essential for the definition of "environment and health information." The "health and environment" notion encompasses the health consequences of interactions between human populations and a whole range of factors in their physical - man and non-man made - and social environment.27 The scope of this definition may be understood differently from country to country and within countries themselves, as differing perspectives emerge from public authorities, the private sector and the public. This might often lead to confusion and numerous difficulties when individuals and NGOs need to have access to certain types or categories of information related to environment and health matters. The difficulty in defining "health and environment" might also cause problems in court cases. Similarly, there might occur problems of interpretation for public authorities which have certain obligations or public responsibilities in the field of providing access to or disseminating information on environment and health matters to the public. Therefore, there is a need for a better and clearer focus in the meaning of "environment and health information" in the countries as part of their legal systems.28

In this respect, the Aarhus Convention, which is the most comprehensive international legal instrument on access to information and public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, might give useful guidance. The convention contains a link between "environment and health" (in Art. 1, Objective) and it even covers several aspects of environment and health matters in its information pillar. The convention includes in the definition of "environmental information" a qualified but explicit reference to human health and safety, and conditions of human life. The definition of "environmental information" includes "any information, in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form, on:

However, since the Aarhus Convention was not developed with a health focus, it is unclear what kind of "information related to environment and health" is exactly covered by this definition, and it would be useful to clarify the scope of such information. It would be also desirable to make clear that this scope includes at least the same understanding regarding information on environment and health as used in the definition of "environmental health" by the WHO Regional Office for Europe. This definition of "environmental health" which has been used by the WHO Regional Office for Europe underpinning the European Charter on Environment and Health adopted in Frankfurt in December 1989, includes the following factors: "both the direct and pathological effects of chemicals, radiation, and some biological agents, and the effects (often indirect) on health and well-being of the broad physical, psychological, social and aesthetic environment, which includes housing, urban development, land use and transport."30

There are countries which use a broad approach to all information and make a distinction in definition of "data of public interest" or "personal data." In Hungary, for example, "data of public interest" means any information under processing of authorities performing functions of state or local self-government, except for personal data and information which is subject to exceptions specified under the Act of Protection of Personal Data and Disclosure of Data of Public Interest (Act. No. LXIII of 1992, Art. 2, paragraph 3). "Personal Data" means any data relating to a specified natural person (hereafter called data subject) and any conclusion drawn from such data with respect to him or her. As long as the subject of the data can be identified by the data, the information in question falls under this category (Art. 2 paragraph 1). Here, everything is considered "data" or "information of public interest" if it is not protected as "personal data" or by other exemptions. "Environmental information" or "environment and health information" is considered to be information of public interest and therefore it belongs to the public domain. Such information should be publicly accessible unless covered by well-defined exemptions, but "personal data" should be always protected under Hungarian law. In most countries, the definition of "personal data" includes part of the health information regarding the individualÌs health. (See more later under exemptions, p. 25-26.)

Conclusions and Recommendations

The general access to information approach provides a good solution by establishing the presumption of openness and proposing the same approach for all information of public interest, which as a rule should be made accessible to the public. It is also possible to cover the definition of environment and health matters by specific environmental and health legislation. However, the same principles of openness should apply also for the specific legislation. To this end there is a need to:

Conditions of Obtaining Information on Environmental Health Matters

Who is to Provide Information?

In most of the countries surveyed, all public authorities are obliged to provide information related to environment and health matters upon request unless the requested information falls under the exempted information. Legislative and judicial bodies, or bodies acting in a legislative and judicial capacity, are generally excluded.31 This is the case in those countries where there are general freedom of information laws in place, and usually all public authorities or agencies financed by public funding have regulations concerning general access to information.

In some countries this obligation is defined for "public authorities likely to hold information relating to environmental health," such as in the UK.32 The situation is similar in countries where there are environmental information laws in place. In some countries this has been interpreted narrowly, and therefore it has not always been possible to obtain information which is relevant from environmental and health point of view from the authorities or agencies of different sectors, such as energy, transport, construction, agriculture, etc.33

This obligation should also apply to persons or bodies providing public services, fulfiling public functions, or having public responsibilities "in relation to the environment." In the EU countries, this is a requirement under the EU directive.34 However, this does not always apply to all public services with environment and health implications carried out by privatized bodies. For example, in England and Wales, water and sewerage companies refuse to accept that they are bound to supply information to the public and have denied many requests for information. There have been no judicial decisions on whether these bodies are bound by legislation owing to the lack of an affordable appeals mechanism. The proposed Freedom of Information Act is expected to oblige private companies carrying out public services to supply the information relating to their public service functions and not covered by an exemption.35

The right of access to information is protected in all countries in the survey without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile, and the requester does not have to show or prove an interest. Usually, the same procedure applies to all requesters as in the case of environmental information. In many NIS and CEE countries, there are no specific procedures providing access to information, or information related to environmental or environment and health matters. In these cases, the administrative laws or the laws on submitting petitions or complaints apply.

In most countries of this survey, private bodies or businesses are not obliged to provide information related to environment and health matters to the public, except in case of accident or emergency. Other environment and health related information from these bodies or enterprises is accessible to the public only through public authorities based on either reporting requirements or voluntary supply. Usually this information is not easily accessible to the public through the public authorities and part of the information, which has been voluntarily supplied, might fall under exemptions, especially in the EU countries (see exemptions, p. 25-26).

It is a general obligation and normal practice to supply information to workers or trade unions on environment and health related matters, especially concerning workplace or health safety issues. There have been numerous examples though, especially before the 1990s in some NIS and CEE countries, when these obligations were not kept and workers were not informed about hazards.

Environment and Health Care Professionals

Environment and health professionals may have specific information related to environment and health matters which is not open to the public, such as medical records of patients, medical reports for employment or insurance purposes, public health and epidemiological reports and studies, etc. They are obliged by their professional tasks to keep this information confidential. However, they are required to give information to health authorities if they obtain information which is relevant to public environment and health protection or they are obliged to provide certain environmental information to higher administrative authorities in case or suspicion of contagious diseases. In most countries they can only be requested to provide information to the public if they are answering lawful requests in their capacity as employees of agencies covered by relevant legislation.36

In some countries (for example Montenegro and Albania) there are different institutes dealing with environment and health related matters, and these institutes share the information among themselves or with public authorities, but they are not obliged to share it with the public directly.

In all countries, the records relating to private individuals are personal information and are not made available to others. There is access, though, for specialised health professionals to personal records, with limited conditions. The public can only get access to certain specific information through the public authorities or experts in the form of different publications or studies.

Sometimes it is difficult to access information held by private bodies. For example, though public health and epidemiological studies and reports are important and relevant for the public, access depends on whether the body producing the document is fully or partially funded or contracted by a public body.

Exemptions

Exemptions are usually the same as in the case of environmental information: national defence, public security, international relations, commercial or business confidentiality, ongoing court proceedings or criminal and other investigations and the protection of personal privacy.37

In the EU countries, the EU Directive 90/313/EEC constitutes the basis for the definition of exemptions. In the UK, following criticism of inconsistencies between the Environmental Information Regulations (1992) and the EC Directive, the Environmental Information (Amendment) Regulations (1998) were brought into force to ensure that the former correctly transposes the list of exemptions contained in the latter. There is also a non-statutory Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition of 1997), which applies in circumstances where the information requested does not fall within other legislation. This sets out 15 different exemptions, including some that are additional to the EU directive (for example information relating to incomplete analysis, research or statistics, where disclosure could be misleading, etc.) and broadens the basis for limiting access. In the UK and Wales the proposed Freedom of Information Act will reduce the list of exemptions.38 In Ireland, under the Freedom of Information Act (1997), there is a list of 12 categories that fall under exemptions, some of them are broadly defined and rather vague. The exemptions may be prescribed as mandatory or discretionary.39 In Germany, among other exceptions, entitlement to access to information is excluded in case of conflicting interests concerning a commercial business secret or intellectual property. Before decision-making, the public authority has to provide for a public hearing of those who might be affected by the disclosure, especially in case of business secret.40

Few countries have a "public interest test" which requires them to take into account the public interest when the decision is made about the disclosure of information. Among the Western countries included in the survey, only Ireland provides for public participation in defining exempt categories as a good practice. In the UK, the present legislation does not contain a public interest test, but the proposed FoI Act is expected to introduce it. In Sweden, there is no explicit public interest test because the general rule is that all information is open to the public.41

In almost all of the NIS and CEE countries there are provisions which require that certain types of "public interest information" should be in the public domain. Herein lies a potential "public interest test" to weigh whether the public interests or the protected interests are more important. Although this is not explicitly called a "public interest test," it can still provide legal protection to information in the public domain, including information on environment and health. For example, information on the environment and health should be public except if it falls under exemption categories, according to the Environmental Protection Law of Montenegro. In Hungary, as mentioned in the previous section, the term "data of public interest" exists, and "environmental and health" information should fall under this category.

In the NIS countries, there are provisions in the Law on State Secrets which declare that information which would endanger the safety and health of citizens cannot be classified as a state secret and cannot be withheld. This is the case for example in Belarus.42 A similar provision exists in Armenia and Ukraine. In addition, in Ukraine, information about the pollution of natural environment and products harmful for health cannot be commercial secrets. Information about the level of radioactive pollution in the territories where citizens live or work, about the level of pollution in foodstuffs, and about all requirements and conditions of observance of radiation safety also fall under this category. Civic bodies have a right to check the reliability of information provided (Law on Status and Social Security of Citizens who Suffered from the Chernobyl Catastrophe Art. 8).43 According to Russian legislation, information related to environment and health must always be provided. There is a criminal responsibility established for keeping health and environmental information secret (Art. 140 of the Criminal Code). However, despite strong regulations, in practice citizens have numerous complaints that information is not accessible to the general public.44 In Russia it is possible to appeal to a special official to gain access to secret information. In this case, the decision and the answer must be made in three months. After this period it is possible to appeal the decision in court.

One of the major problems regarding access to environment and health information is that often a conflict is seen between the access to "public interest information" and access to "personal data." In fact, the two interests need to be balanced, so protection of "personal data" should never prevent disclosure of "public interest" data or information. However, protection of "personal data" is often used as an excuse for not providing data or information of "public interest."

There is a certain type of information which is crucial to access from the point of view of environment and health related information. Information which is very important for environment and health matters includes epidemiological and toxicological data, information on environmental conditions and public health requiring access to medical records of particular patient populations and studies carried out by state or state-sponsored bodies (i.e. epidemiological studies performed by health boards or contracted out to research or university hospitals and state records such as registers of deaths and still births). This type of information usually is not directly accessible for the public or NGOs. Generally, "personal data" or private administrative matters are only accessible for those whose legal interest is involved. For receiving environment and health information containing "personal data," others need explicit statutory authorisation (e.g. Slovenia). Such authorisation is only given to certain authorised research laboratories, institutes (such as the Institute for the Protection of Health), or experts. There is no statute authorising access for the public or NGOs to such data. This oversight makes the assessment of certain environmental and health damages difficult.

As a rule, information which is crucial for environment and health matters, such as epidemiological and toxicological data, should in principle always be made accessible to the public unless covered by well-defined exemptions provided by law. In order to provide the maximum degree of public access to such data without infringing personal privacy, such data should be structured so that, while possible identification of the person should be avoided, the substance of the information should be supplied. In such cases, provision should also be made for privileged access to exempt data to be granted to qualified researchers nominated by members of the concerned public, with this access being covered by confidentiality agreements.

Another problem is that sometimes citizens do not have proper access to their own personal health information or data. Even nowadays there are closed military areas, nuclear sites, etc. where citizens have no right to get access to their personal health data, for example in Russia.45 As a rule, individuals must always have the right of access to information on their own health. Concerning such a situation, ethical rules of medical professional associations should be followed and doctors should always respect human dignity within the course of dealing with the patient and his or her family.

Time Limits

The time limits for provision of information are usually the same as for environmental information. There is no specific deadline to deal with emergency or urgent requests; however, in matters of environment and health this might be important.

In most of the EU countries, the time limit to deliver the information is as soon as possible, but at latest within two months with a possible extension of one month, if granted extensions are provided for by law (EU Directive 90/313/EEC). In Ireland, there is a stricter time limit established by the Freedom of Information Act (1997), which calls for a notice of receipt of the request to be issued within two weeks and a decision to be made as soon as possible (but not later than four weeks after the receipt which may be extended by a maximum of another four weeks where considerations of volume do not permit a reasonable possibility of compliance with the normal period). Three types of responses can be issued by a competent authority: a grant of access, a partial grant and a refusal. However, environmental information is exempt from IrelandÌs Freedom of Information Act, being covered by the Access to Information on the Environment Regulation (1996), which ironically contains a higher time limit: one month with the possibility of extension by a further month.46 Sweden is a positive example from the West, where response to a request should be given immediately, and the information should be provided as soon as possible, within 24 hours.

In the NIS and CEE countries, information usually has to be provided within one month, but there are some countries, for example Hungary, Latvia, Serbia and Montenegro, which have better practices and the time limit is within 15 days. In these countries, there is no separate deadline for notification and for the provision of the information. However, there is a separate (shorter) deadline for refusal in some countries (e.g. in Hungary, seven days). The shorter deadline for refusal allows for an appeal to be filed in a reasonable period of time.

Charges

In EU countries and a few CEE countries charges are regulated. Fees may be charged for searching and copying, and they may be waived. Charges are reported as obstacles to access by Western reporters more with the environment and health information than with general access to environmental information. The reason for this may be found in the "unprocessed" nature of environment and health information, i.e. data which need to be analysed for environment and health implications.47

In most CEE and NIS countries, charges do not constitute a big problem in the public sector since they are not regulated. Information is often given free of charge. However, charges may constitute a problem in the case of information provided by private enterprises, who usually charge for their services. In some countries, charges create an obstacle mainly because of the unclear regulations.

Form of Information

The public may specify the form in which information is needed, but in many countries there is no legal obligation for the authorities to provide it in the requested format. In several countries, primarily in the West, there is a general presumption securing access in the form specified by the requester. In Sweden, the public has a right to specify the form, but, if this requires special arrangements by the agency, the request may be refused. In specific cases, charges may be assigned to cover the costs of information processing. In some countries, for example Russia and Romania, the public has the right of access, but, in practice, this is largely interpreted as a right to inspect, due to the costs of copying and mailing.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The conditions for obtaining information are not regulated in a specific manner concerning environment and health related matters, although there are countries which have specific regulations and procedures either in general or environmental laws. The specific nature of a definition of "environment and health information" referred to in the previous section often makes it difficult to access certain specific types of information, especially those related to personal privacy. It is often difficult to identify the authority which has the information because the information might be scattered around in many different agencies and institutions. Sometimes agencies refuse to give the information on the grounds that they do not hold it, and it is difficult to show the link between the information on environment and health information, since some authorities hold information which only partly contains such information or contains information with only implicit impact on environmental health. Furthermore, numerous exemptions cover information which is not directly accessible to the public due to the protection or balancing of different interests.

There is a need for a more institutionalised approach to dealing with the public access to environment and health information which helps to overcome the above mentioned problems. To this end, there is a need for:

B. Active Provision of Information on Environment and Health

Public authorities in Central and Eastern Europe dealing with the environment often have difficulties in deciding which ones among them are responsible for collection and active dissemination of specific kinds of information. Updating and managing data also creates confusion among public authorities. These problems apply to the active access to environment and health information as well. There are too many public institutions obliged to disseminate information. For example, in Poland there are many special bodies collecting and disseminating environment and health information or environmental information connected with health issues (one of them is the State Environmental Inspectorate). Unfortunately, their work often overlaps and is not well integrated. Similarly, Albanian and Slovenian environmental authorities have to collect and disseminate environment and health information.

The interpretation of what kind of relevant information should be actively disseminated can differ among different authorities. For example, there are different standards applied at the Ministry of Defence in the UK, which does not actively disseminate environment and health information, although its activities may affect the environment and health of the public.48

In NIS countries there are special governmental bodies dealing with information, collecting, updating and disseminating it actively. The Environmental Ministries have the same obligations on environmental information and environment and health information.

In most countries the obligation to disseminate environment and health information exists in emergency situations. For example, in the NIS countries of Armenia, Belarus and Ukraine there are special governmental departments and programmes dealing with the dissemination of "environmental information" in the case of an emergency. These were developed largely in response to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. In Italy, the Department of Civil Defense deals with emergency notification. In Germany, under paragraph 16 (a) II of the Chemical Act, the public has to be informed by health officials about the probability of illness caused by hazardous substances.

The obligation to actively disseminate health data can be claimed under the laws dealing with the sanitary security of the population in NIS and Central European countries, together with the laws regarding information on the dangers of drugs, tobacco, alcohol abuse and the means of transmission of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The active dissemination of emergency "environmental" and environment and health information is the obligation of designated public authorities in Western Europe, thanks to European Union legislation (see the Seveso Directive of June 24, 1982, on the Major Accident Hazards of Certain Industrial Activities, 82/501/EEC, Article 5 and Article 7). Besides emergency cases, the public has the right to demand active dissemination of environment and health information in the following Western countries covered by this report: Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and the UK.49 In the UK, the pending Freedom of Information Act would provide for active disclosure of information under paragraph 2.17.

Regarding the failure of a state official to provide the information available to him or her, he or she can be subject to special administrative procedures in most countries.

The information is usually disseminated by publishing governmental environment and health reports, which are sometimes even subject to Parliamentary adoption.50 In Hungary, the annual report has to be submitted to the government.51 Such reports often contain data on environmental health, but their publication is often delayed or is limited to only one per year, or even one in a two-year period, though the Ministry of Health in Armenia succeeds in publishing a report on the sanitary status of the country every month. In Bulgaria, the Ministry of Health has the obligation to make health data publicly available through the media (see Article 12 (e) of the Regulation for the Application of the Act on Public Health).52

The issue of labelling is considered a part of active dissemination of environment and health information because proper labelling is a powerful means of informing the public about environment and health risks and hazards connected with specific products. Labelling is often addressed in legal provisions; for example, the Bulgarian Environmental Protection Act, Article 14, provides for specific rules on labelling.53 Similarly, in Moldova, there is an Inter-ministerial Commission on Quality of Goods and Protection of Consumers Rights dealing with labelling and sanitary safety of products.

Unlike traditional publishing, electronic media could provide the public with more up-to-date and instantly accessible information. There is no legal obligation to disseminate "environmental information" via electronic networks or in a different electronic form, but it is often done throughout Europe. Selected information on environment and health is available on environmental ministries, web pages in most countries except Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro. Moreover, electronic forms of information and printed reports can be disseminated - and not only during open meetings or press conferences.

The legally ensured flow of "environmental information" between the private and public sector is also important. The private sector has an obligation to inform the public of an environmental danger only in the case of emergency. The means of information dissemination from the private sector differ with regard to different issues, such as air quality and water quality, and they are far from being coherent in the CEE countries.

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) and other similar registers are new in the Eastern hemisphere and only a few countries are currently planning to establish them. These include the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia.54 Poland has a PRTR-type register of air pollution including emissions and fines. However, this information was not publicly disseminated until the recent changes in the environmental framework law in 1997. There is a UK Chemical Release Inventory and corresponding provisions on the accreditation of businesses under European Community Eco-Management and Audit Regulations (according to EC Regulation 1836/93). In Ireland, such systems, "with respect to environmental information relating to health aspects, registers, files and databases held by the EPA potentially constitute the richest source of health-related environmental information, bearing in mind that chemicals and other substances which are controlled by the EPAÌs Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licensing system (see Part IV of the EPA Act, 1992) are among those with the greatest potential for detrimental impact on human health."55

Concerning the new issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Hungary recently adopted the Law No. XVII of 1998. Article 12 of this law provides for the obligation of labelling genetically modified products, products containing genetically modified material or originating from genetically modified organisms. Such information should be included in the quality certification of these products. The law also provides for registration of data on genetically modified organisms as "public interest information," which should be accessible in the public domain.

The Aarhus Convention contains several obligations on collecting, updating and actively disseminating environmental information, which also covers information related to environment and health matters (Article 5). These provisions should apply for active dissemination of information related to environment and health and in addition they can also provide a good basis to build upon to develop similar or integrated systems to cover information related to environment and health not covered by the convention.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Although active information dissemination is of crucial importance in environment and health matters, apart from emergency situations, when it is generally an obligation to spread information actively, active information dissemination is not properly regulated - and the practice varies among surveyed nations. There are various ways and means of actively disseminating information on environment and health, such as state of the environment reports, health data reporting systems, labelling, environmental auditing, PRTRs, etc. In addition, there are various public authorities and institutions dealing with the collection and dissemination of certain information related to environment and health matters. On one hand, there are overlaps among the activities of the different authorities and institutions; on the other hand there might be important omissions and inefficiencies that might result in an inadequate flow of information or information might not reach the public properly. There is a lack of a coordinated and integrated approach to deal with all the complexities of the information related to environment and health matters, which makes it difficult to guarantee the efficient collection, use and dissemination of such information.

To change this situation it is necessary to:

IV. Public Participation in Decision-making Related to Environment and Health Matters

Law- and Policy-making

In general, there is little difference between public participation in law and policy-making processes related to environment and health matters and those of environmental matters. Decisions on environment and health are covered by environmental legislation in as much as the environment and health issues are part of environmental decision-making; thus they provide for some participation opportunities also in matters which are related to environment and health. Law-making on health usually is a more closed process from a public-participation point of view.

There are, however, several possibilities to influence the process of law- or policy-making.

Right to Initiative

In some countries the public has a right of legislative initiative. Usually signatures of a certain percentage of the electorate or a certain number of citizens is required for the draft to be submitted to parliament, (for example 10 percent of the electorate in Latvia56 (Law on Referendum and Legislative Initiative, 1994) or 5,000 citizens in Slovenia57 (Law on Referendum and Public Initiative, 1994).

Drafts also can be submitted to the members of parliament or respective minister. However, as practice shows, the most effective way is to propose a draft to the ministry dealing with the issue and allow the normal governmental procedure regarding draft laws to function. In fact, in some countries indirect initiative (through the member of parliament or minister) is the only possibility to initiate the law (Bosnia and Herzegovina58 and the UK).

As a rule, local initiatives are the most successful. No example of a local initiative, however, was reported which related directly to environment and health matters.

Referenda

The referendum is one of the most important instruments of direct democracy. However, efficiency of referenda from the point of view of public participation in decision-making is very much dependent on whether the process can be initiated by citizens or only by parliament or government (municipal authorities on the local level). In many of the CEE countries, citizens have the right to initiate referenda. However, there are some countries where it is usually up to the government or parliament to decide whether direct expression of public opinion on certain issues is needed (e.g. Albania,59 Belarus,60 Bosnia and Herzegovina,61 Romania,62 Portugal63 and the UK). In most of the Western European countries, some CEE and most of the NIS countries surveyed, citizens can initiate referenda by collecting signatures of a certain percentage of the electorate. Either way the result of a referendum is binding and is of highest legal authority (e.g. Italy,64 Moldova,65 Ukraine, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia).

Practice shows, however, that local referenda are the most successful. This is possibly due to the greater attention paid by municipalities to the opinions of the residents, particularly with regard to the issues which might be related to environmental and health matters. However, most cases reported have been cases which are only indirectly linked with environment and health matters (such as referenda on building an incinerator, waste disposal sites, dams, highways, etc.)

Law-making

As compared to the possibilities to participate in the drafting of legislation and rule-making on environmental issues, possibilities for involvement in drafting laws on environment and health related matters are more informal. NGOs use mainly political channels to lobby for amendments or changes during the drafting process. An interesting example of good practices comes from Hungary, where NGOs participated informally in the drafting of the Consumer Protection Act and the Act on Gene Technology, and their comments were incorporated into the final draft. The recently adopted Act on Gene Technology also contains legal provisions for public participation: the Committee of Gene Technology, the major advisory body giving an opinion to the Authority of Gene Technology on the requests for permits, will include among its members four representatives of environmental NGOs and two representatives of health NGOs. The NGO representatives will be elected and delegated by the NGO movement and they will have the same rights as other members of the committee.

Policy-making

Similarly to policy making on environmental issues, there is very little practice of, and practically no legal requirements for, public involvement in environment and health related policy making. In Portugal,66 some NGOs are represented on the Social and Economic Council, though with no voting right. In other countries, like Sweden, openness of the committeeÌs sessions allow for more transparency and participation. In most of the cases, governmental or other bodies preparing and implementing policy decisions have complete discretion over the involvement of the public in the preparation of policy, and later into a policyÌs implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

In some of the NIS countries there is a right of citizens to participate in the development of draft laws, discuss and comment on drafts, and provide expertise during debates, for example the plans on provision of sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population (Law of Ukraine on Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-being).

One of the recent experiences of policy-making related to environment and health lies in the area of the National Environmental Health Actions Plans (NEHAPs) and Local Environmental Health Action Plans (LEHAPs) preparation. Practice shows that, in many countries non-governmental organisations or the public at large have been involved in the preparation of these action plans, although the level of involvement has varied. Such involvement is more successful on the local level in the LEHAP process, where the public has greater possibilities to submit its comments and ideas. Moreover, due to the small territory and familiar relations between authorities, individuals and NGOs, comments are given due consideration.

On the national level, especially in the CEE countries, the public has the opportunity to provide comments on the plan only in the final stages of the preparation process, i.e. when the government has already prepared a final draft. In most of the countries surveyed, public comments were documented and many of them incorporated into draft plans, but consistent consideration of public comments exists only in a few countries. In other CEE countries, there was no public involvement in the process and the governments tend to distribute plans, or even information about the proposals, only after the legislation has been approved.67

Another problem of the process on the national level is, according to the interviews done in preparation of Part III of this report, the comparatively passive reaction of the public. In some of the countries many of the NGOs invited to the public hearings or discussions did not appear, and those who participated in the work of the working groups have not been very active. On the local level, however, most of the NGOs and many citizens are actively involved in the process.

Public representation in decision-making bodies, especially those such as working groups preparing draft decisions on environment and health issues, committees on implementation and similar bodies, is not uncommon. In most countries, citizens invited to participate in the work of such bodies are either independent experts or members of professional organisations. In the UK, individuals and NGOs are often asked to participate in governmental advisory boards or to provide expert services to the Parliamentary Committees. This is the case with NGOs in matters related to the environment in some CEE countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. In many countries (e.g. Germany68 and Ukraine) labour organisations or trade unions are involved in the work of commissions on workplace safety. In most of the other cases, NGOs working in the related field do not have a vote on the decision.

Another way for the public to participate in the decision-making bodies is the practice of parliaments seeking consultation with experts. However, here public comments are not taken into account as much as in the EIA procedure due to the lack of strong legal obligations.

Notification of a decision-making process and the procedures for participation in such cases are more of a tradition in Western Europe (in Sweden, for example, any NGO can be put on the list and regularly informed on specific issues) and in some CEE countries (e.g. Hungary and Poland). In most of the NIS and some of the CEE countries, there is very little practice and almost no regulation regarding public notification concerning policy-making.

Specific Decisions

In many of the countries surveyed, there are some possibilities for the public, and in particular for non-governmental groups, to take part in the decision-making - not only in law- and policy-making but also on different specific types of decisions (such as EIA, permitting, etc.).

As far as the possibility to comment on specific decisions, the EIA and permitting procedures are most advanced with regard to notification. These two procedures clearly establish the requirement for notification, set time schedules and provide for public hearings and public review of documents. Therefore, in almost all the countries, EIA and permitting procedures allow for the most effective public participation.

Most of the countries concerned (excluding Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia) have specific laws and regulations with regard to EIA. Countries with EU membership, as well as some of the CEE countries within the EU accession process, have adapted their laws and regulations to the EU Directive on EIA (85/337/EEC).

The problem with the environment and health issues lies in the definition of their scope. Whether or not the issues of environment and health impact are within the particular scope of an EIA differs from country to country and from project to project. Unfortunately, in most countries the normal practice does not necessarily include the environment and health impacts. Usually, only those health impacts constituting obvious and immediate danger are considered in the EIA procedure. Identification of potential impacts on health is one of the reasons public involvement and participation in the scoping stage of the EIA is especially important.

The other public involvement in the EIA process is related to the review of the documents and the submission of comments. Here, both CEE and Western European regions are rather successful. The NIS countries exhibit certain successful practices but lack formal requirements. In many countries, national legislation lacks the requirement of taking due account of public comments. This, however, will be a requirement under the new Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice on Environmental Matters.

As the emissions by industries are most likely to have direct impact on the health of the population, the permitting process seems to have significant importance among different environment and health related decisions. Therefore, adequate public participation in this process is very important. However, everywhere throughout Europe, permitting remains a rather closed process with limited participation. One common feature here is that only those potentially affected by the permit decision are notified, have access to information and are able to comment upon and appeal the decision. In some countries (e.g. Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia) a rather broad understanding of "affected/interested" allows participation of non-governmental groups whose interests include environmental and/or health protection. There is also some positive experience with regard to notification and public participation in the permitting process that has been developed in the UK: permit applications have to be published through the local media and the public is given time to comment. However, as such comments require extensive technical knowledge, the possibility of participation is limited to those with advanced technical background. Slovenia has a similar provision in the permitting regulations, but it only applies to large projects.

One instance where the public comments have to be taken into account - and which, in a way, amounts to decision-making - are the opinions of public inspectors on workplace safety in enterprises. The institute of the "public inspectorate" is one of the old institutions created by the Soviet regime in a way of formal public "participation." Though almost forgotten today, it still exists in some of the NIS countries (e.g. Ukraine) and can be used by public volunteers delegated by NGOs.

Participation in workplace-safety related decision-making is also possible through special organisations or trade unions. For example, the Russian Federation Law on Health Protection and Law on Sanitary-Epidemiological Safety not only allows such organisations to make proposals and comments but also to participate in monitoring of workplace safety and occupational health management measures and to appeal the decisions to a higher authority or the court.69

Another type of participation that is specific to environment and health issues is the work of consumer protection organisations in dealing with the safety and quality of products. In some countries, such organisations can submit proposals to relevant authorities calling for the termination of certain activities in case of non-compliance with standards.

The Role of the Aarhus Convention

The Aarhus Convention is not simply limited to purely environmental issues but has a significant relevance for matters of environmental health as well. Even though the issues of environmental health are not the main issues of the convention focus, it nevertheless refers to them directly in the text of the document (e.g. in Art. 1, on an individualÌs right to live in the environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, as well as in the definition of environmental information). This in its turn indicates the relevance of the health issues to those of environment. The convention can be interpreted as applying not only exclusively to the environmental matters but to relevant issues covered by the convention and related to environmental ones, such as environment and health matters.

Therefore, the provisions of the convention dealing with the issues of public involvement in the decision-making process (Art. 6, 7 and 8) are relevant also to the decision-making on environment and health matters, and hence set a specific legal framework for public involvement. If the majority of requirements included in these provisions are implemented to full extent on the national level, many of the existing problems with the lack of public participation will be solved.

However, it is worthwhile to remember that the Convention is not a maximum but rather a minimum standard. There are some issues which have been left outside its framework and need to be addressed in the future (for example, legal guarantees for public involvement in decision-making related to the genetically modified organisms).

Capacity Building and Training

Special training for environment and health professionals exists in Sweden (a four-year programme for environmental health officers). There are also training programmes on how to handle information and make it accessible as well as on how to deal with media. Similarly, special projects on public participation have been carried out.

In Ukraine, Territorial State Inspectors of Work Safety are required to systematically train public inspectors, organise seminars and exchanges of working experience and provide practical and methodological assistance as needed (Decree in Public Work Safety Inspectors, 1998).

No specific training on public participation in environment and health issues exist, in the UK. There are, however, some NGO training programmes on environmental issues.

In other countries, the training of officials on issues of access to information and public participation is not established as a governmental programme. Most of the projects on training or capacity building in this regard have been organised or initiated by NGOs.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The difference between opportunities provided by law for public participation in environmental and environment and health related decision-making is mainly due to the specific institutions and types of decisions characteristic of the environment and health sphere. Generally, there are more opportunities for public participation in environmental decision-making than in decisions on environment and health matters. Usually, public participation principles and mechanisms are used more often and more efficiently on the local than national level. The importance of decision-making on certain projects on the local level demands greater involvement for people living in the area to be able to influence decisions with potential influence on their health.

The direct forms of democracy, such as citizens' right of legislative initiative and referenda exist in several countries, but in a number of countries these rights belong exclusively to the government or members of parliament. At the same time, NGOs and members of the public always have the opportunity to lobby indirectly through their MPs or through the ministerial officials.

Participation in law- and policy-making is often limited by the absence of early notification, due consideration of public comments and openness of the process. This is especially true in case of policy decisions, which are traditionally exempt in many countries from the public domain and where the degree of public participation sometimes depends solely on the discretion of a particular body or official. However, some good practices have been shown by the process of NEHAPs and LEHAPs in a few European countries, where citizens not only were asked for comments but in some cases were notified at a very early stage and were asked to participate in the preparation process.

One of the main problems regarding public participation in decision-making on specific issues or projects is the lack of a legal requirement to give due consideration to public comments. Another problem is that the complicated character of technical information limits the number of those who are able to comment. The absence of early notification prevents the public from proposing ideas and alternatives to the project and limits time given for consideration. However, there are some countries where the information is disseminated on governmental initiative in the early phase, and formal requirements of notification exist.

There is more tradition of early notification in the countries of Western Europe. This may be one of the reasons for the more active involvement of the public.

The Aarhus Convention goes beyond the requirements of the national legislation of many countries as well as those of the EU directive concerning public involvement in EIA; therefore its implementation provides a good basis for harmonisation across the UN ECE region. Bringing precisely defined environment and health issues into the scope of EIA would cover also those significant issues which are not necessarily included in the scope of the Aarhus Convention.

Effective exploitation of different public institutions, such as associations of citizens, NGOs, professional organisations and public inspectorates, may result in better representation of the public interest. Also, special programmes are needed for training professionals in the sphere of both environment and health and public participation. A linkage of such programmes for governmental officials and NGOs would be beneficial for better understanding and cooperation in the future. The most important aspects of environment and health matters and public participation should be introduced in the education systems in order to raise public awareness and increase the activism of the public.

Based on this, there is a need to:

V. Access to Justice in Environmental Health Matters

Constitutional Rights and Their Enforceability

Access to justice is crucial for public involvement in environment and health issues because it guarantees recourse to courts if the rights to access to information or public participation in decision-making or the right to environment and health are denied. When these rights are provided for in the constitution, the public may claim them before a constitutional court if legal standing is established.

Many countries have the constitutional right to a "healthy" or "good" environment. Countries surveyed from the CEE and NIS regions that have this right are Belarus, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Montenegro and Serbia. Article 46 of the Constitution of Belarus, for example, explicitly provides the right to obtain compensation in the case of harm occurring from the violation of the right to healthy environment. Similarly, among Western European countries, Portugal has an explicit constitutional right to access to justice in environmental cases, as provided in Article 52.

When the constitutions provide the right to information or the right to request information, the right to information on health issues connected with environment is implied in them. Therefore, in cases of denial of access to information or public participation in decision making, the right of access to justice is recognised by constitutions or administrative codes in Central and Eastern European countries, NIS and Western European countries. The Constitution of Belarus states that citizens have a general right to legal standing, including in international courts. The Constitution of Moldova, in Article 20, states that: "Every person has a right to effective remedy by the competent courts in the case of the violation of his rights, freedoms and lawful interests." The right to a favourable environment can be claimed, together with Article 37, in the case when access to environment and health information or public participation in decision making is denied in Moldova. The establishment of such a right is important for the existence of civil society; however, the right is not often claimed.

If there is no right to "healthy environment" in the constitution but there are basic human rights, the implied right to health could be argued. Many constitutions state the general right for protection of citizens' rights before the courts.70 The basic rights can be claimed before the court, however, only if a potential plaintiff has legal standing. For this reason the issue of legal standing is important in access to justice in environment and health cases. For example, in 1996, the Slovenian Constitutional Court heard the case on a development plan concerning the location of a small business and manufacturing zone on Lake Bled. The NGO Drustvo ekologov Slovenie and 25 individuals had been granted standing before the Constitutional Court based on Article 24 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court after the court recognised their legal interest derived from the constitutional right to a healthy environment.71

The Institution of the Ombudsman

A petition to an ombudsman is free of charge and there is no strict limit to initiate the case. Therefore, this strategy is sometimes preferred by citizens rather than initiating procedures before the administrative, civil, criminal courts and the Constitutional Court, to avoid state charges, court fees and time constraints present throughout court proceedings.

The institution of an ombudsman, originally Scandinavian, is also a part of the Polish, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Bosnian, Portuguese, English, Swedish, English and Welsh and other legal systems.72 In Poland for example, there are many petitions to an ombudsman regarding dumping sites, incineration plants and highway construction,73 as the location of these facilities may cause pollution, accidents and noise problems, which are within the focus areas of environment and health accepted for the purposes of the country reports.

In 1996, the Polish Ecological Club petitioned the ombudsman to initiate an appeal before the Supreme Court regarding an administrative decision on the location of highways after an original appeal by the Club to the administrative court had been refused. Unfortunately, in this case the ombudsman did not take the appeal to the Supreme Court.74

The Polish ombudsman can demand the initiation of a case before the court, including the Constitutional Court, in the interest of a petitioner or in the public interest.75 In Ireland, the ombudsman deals primarily with the way public authorities operate, including health authorities. In Ukraine, the institution of ombudsman is only beginning to be formed now.76

By contrast, the right to complain before the ombudsman if the access to environment and health information or public participation is denied is often exercised in Sweden.77

Legal Standing Against Government, Governmental Agencies and Polluters

As a rule, potential plaintiffs can claim standing before the court only when they are able to prove that the health damages to be claimed before the court were in fact caused by environmental and health risks, hazards or dangers to which the potential plaintiffs are or were subjected. Credibility of the evidence and its admissibility before the courts are great problems, especially in CEE and NIS countries, because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable data and the lack of clear rules regarding its admissibility. There were two interesting environment and health court cases in Hungary in which lawyers had to cope with these problems throughout the court proceedings. In the Mr. Daragitis case, health damage was claimed due to construction of a gas station which, it was argued, affected environmental pathways in such a way that the lead content in the blood of the plaintiff was significantly increased. On the basis of data presented by the plaintiffÌs lawyers on standards of lead content in blood, the judge ruled against the plaintiff, stating that the variations among the standards differed to such a great degree that it was impossible to determine which one was admissible before the court.78 Similarly, in the Chernobyl case, the plaintiff, a Hungarian truck driver sent to the Chernobyl area shortly after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, claimed health damages caused by radiation. In this case it was difficult to obtain the relevant health data, but once the data were available before the court, the judge ruled that an average of the data should be admissible, and on this basis the case was decided in favour of the plaintiff.79 Viewing these cases and examining other data, a group of experts on environment and health who participated in a meeting organised by the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe on May 16-17, 1998, recommended that courts should use the standards most favourable for the plaintiff, and a precautionary approach, in future environmental cases.80

These types of problems regarding evidence are not limited to the laws of the Eastern region. For example, a recent case against British Nuclear Fuels failed because the families living near the Sallafield, England, nuclear processing plant were unable to prove the causation between emissions from the plant and a high rate of child leukemia incidents.81 Nevertheless, the damages had been successfully claimed in another English case of an asbestos plant vs. two people who contracted asbestosis because of living in its neighbourhood. In Italy there is also a possibility for NGOs to stand before the court against polluters and claim health damages.82

Citizens of countries that have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome (1950) have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.83 The European Court of Human Rights derives the right to healthy environment from Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights, stating the right to respect for every individual's private and family life, home and correspondence.

In Armenia, every interested person has a legal standing to defend his/her/its rights. In Belarus, the general legal standing applies to cases concerning the denial of environment and health information or public participation. In Estonia, there is no standing before criminal and civil courts against the government. Standing is only granted for individuals and NGOs before the administrative courts and the National Court (which is both an arbitration and constitutional court). Interestingly, the standing of all individuals and NGOs in Estonia against polluters is possible before the administrative courts and civil courts but not the National Court.

In Latvia, the right to appeal administrative decisions which infringe upon rights or legal interests of physical persons or NGOs is given not only to Latvian citizens but to all inhabitants. Thus, this right applies to affected persons, regardless of their citizenship.

With regard to standing of NGOs in legal procedures, there are variations among countries concerning how this is provided. In Poland the role of NGOs in legal procedures is stated in three different codes, while in Italy such provisions are stated in a separate law (343/86, Article 18). The Polish codes provide that an NGO, or any other civic organisation, may take part in a civil or criminal case if its rights have been infringed; or it may be a party in an administrative procedure if it is an interested/affected entity. Additionally, there is the opportunity for Polish NGOs to petition the Constitutional Court if the rights it is protecting according to its by-laws are infringed. The NGO can be a subsidiary accuser in a criminal case against governmental agencies, according to Article 90 of the new Criminal Procedure Code; but such standing is not provided to Polish NGOs in cases against polluters. Similarly, in Romania, while every natural person has standing in administrative proceedings against government authorities or polluters, NGOs can only claim standing if they are interested or affected by the proceedings in question.

In the Russian Federation, the right to appeal inside a governmental agency is stated in the Law on Sanitary and Epidemiological Safety of the Population, Article 40. There is the possibility in Russia of the Public Attorney initiating a criminal case when there is a violation of criminal code provisions regarding health damages to, or endangerment of, physical persons or public health. Similarly, in Ukraine, Articles 55 and 64 of the Constitution provide the right for legal protection of citizens. Moreover, the citizens of Ukraine have the right to petition the authorities guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 34, and by the specific laws such as the Law on Consumer Rights Protection, Article 24.

In the pan-European context, standing before constitutional courts is often limited. For example, in Portugal there is no standing against governmental authorities before the Constitutional Court, while in Germany the right to petition the Constitutional Court in environment and health is possible but is limited to individuals, according to Article 103 GG (Basic Law) and § Bverf GG (Federal Constitutional Court Procedure Act).

Administrative Decision-making

Generally, legal entities or physical persons must establish the infringement of their own rights when claiming the denial of access to information or public participation, the infringement of the right to a healthy environment, or a violation of other rights provided by the law. This means that the administrative standing in decision-making and appeal of such a decision is limited to "affected" or "interested" persons or public. The right to participation in administrative decision-making and to appeal this decision is very important for access to justice in environmental health. In the case of the industrial permitting process - the licensing of products having an impact on health or urban planning - administrative decisions taken can have a direct impact on environmental health. A refusal to provide information concerning environment and health is subject to administrative procedure as well.

An administrative decision can be challenged on substantial grounds or because of procedural reasons. Many legal systems provide procedural grounds for challenging an administrative decision. These may be among others: the lack of the proper dating of the decision, lack of signature of an official issuing the decision, lack of proper justification and lack of citation of legal provision which is the basis for the administrative action.

The right to challenge an administrative decision before the higher administrative body or a special administrative court exists in the majority of the countries studied. It must be stressed that the majority of reporting countries provide the right to appeal before the court when the right of access to environment and health information is denied by a administrative decision on the basis of a lack of a legally binding definition of environment and health information.

In Albania, every natural person and every NGO may participate in administrative decision-making, but the right to challenge the administrative decision through administrative appeal is limited to interested/affected persons or legal entities. In Armenia, on the other hand, only an interested/affected person has the right to participate in the administrative decision-making process, but every person has the right to appeal an administrative decision. Meanwhile in Estonia every person and every legal entity has standing in administrative decision-making and administrative appeal, regardless of the existence of interest concerning the effect on rights or freedoms.

In Portugal, Ireland and Italy all subjects of law have standing in administrative decision-making and in administrative appeal. In these countries there is also general standing before special administrative courts. By contrast, in Germany, England and Wales only affected/interested parties have administrative standing to appeal an administrative decision.

Unfortunately, there is no possibility to participate in or appeal the administrative decision-making process in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.84 Nowadays, there is no legal recourse in Bosnia and Herzegovina against wrong-doing by an official dealing with environmental health, or in cases of failure to enforce legal acts.85

Injunctive Relief

The remedy of interim or permanent injunctive relief is important to ensure timely access to justice in environment and health cases in which - prior to the final verdict - serious and irreparable damages could occur. The Belarus legal system allows for a judicial decision or court decision against a polluter on the same date that the suit is argued before the court, without necessitating that all parties be informed of the procedure. This is an example of a practical interim relief. Such injunctive relief can be granted when an NGO requests it or at a judgeÌs initiative. The Hungarian and Slovenian legal systems provide for the exercise of injunctive relief in environmental cases.

Unfortunately, not every NGO can get injunctive relief against governmental health authorities in many CEE countries because this recourse is limited to only affected physical or legal entities, and granting it depends on a judgeÌs discretion. Furthermore, there is no remedy of injunctive relief in Albania, Bulgaria or Estonia.

In Poland, injunctive relief is a part of every court procedure, except those before the Constitutional Court, and it is used equally in environmental cases.86 In Romania, there is no possibility for an individual or an NGO to get an interim injunctive relief in administrative procedure, but there is an ordinance of the president of the court that can provide interim injunctive relief in civil cases. Injunctive relief is obtainable in the Russian Federation and in Ukraine; and in Armenia and Moldova there are court orders that work in a similar way. In Estonia, there is no injunctive relief in cases against governmental authorities and polluters.

The German legal system provides for obtaining interim or permanent injunctive relief in all procedures except the criminal cases. In England, Wales and Ireland injunctive relief can be obtained in civil and judicial review procedures and in criminal proceedings.

Enforcement of Court Judgments and Laws

The decisions of the courts are enforced by law enforcement authorities and officials according to special laws on enforcement of court decisions. If a state official fails to enforce laws he/she can be a subject to an administrative disciplinary tribunal decision.

Time Limits, Cost of Access to Justice and Pro Bono Legal Assistance

Time limits, cost of access to justice and pro bono legal assistance are all factors which may constitute an obstacle for access to justice in Central and Eastern Europe.

Time limits apply both to deciding on an appeal and to lodging a complaint by the party. The short time limit in deciding on the appeal is good for the party, whereas the time limit for lodging an administrative decision appeal is often too short and may be a constraint to access to justice as well. The maximum time frame for an appeal of an administrative decision does not usually differ from general provisions and ranges from 30 to 60 days. For example, in Belarus the time limit for deciding on an appeal in administrative decision-making in environment and health is one month and this can be subject to extension of up to two months if the matter in question is complicated.87

Obtaining the final court decision in environment and health cases can take several years because of the evidence problems or the problem of overloaded courts in CEE and NIS countries.

In addition to the long time frame of the expert opinions, the cost of legal proceedings, lawyer fees, court fees, state charges and expert fees are a great obstacle in access to justice. The Armenian legal system has an interesting provision on state charges and court fees. In cases in which a judge grants an impoverished party an exemption from court fees or state charges without proper motivation, the judge must personally pay 1 percent of the state charge and court fee to the state budget for every day between the filing of a lawsuit and making the final decision on the case. By contrast, in Ukraine, according to the Decree of Cabinet of Ministers on State Charges, the plaintiffs in cases concerning damages to health, occupational health and consumer rights, are exempted from payment of any state or court fees.88

In CEE and NIS there are not enough legal advisory bodies or lawyers specialising in environmental health. However, there are environmental legal advisory services in many countries including Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine and Russia. These services might also offer help to citizens in cases related to environment and health. On the contrary, in Ireland there are 130 practising barristers in the field of health and safety; however, they may specialise only in occupational health.89 In England and Wales there are many organisations providing legal assistance in environmental health. The reporting organisations EarthRights and the Environmental Law Foundation have participated in cases of environmental pollution with a direct impact on health, noise disturbance and electromagnetic fields. On the other hand, the problems of the lack of legal expertise, pro bono lawyers available to all, and high court fees and other costs is a burning issue.

The Aarhus Convention provides a minimum legal framework for access to justice in environmental matters, including the assurance of an expeditious and inexpensive review by an independent and impartial body if access to information or public participation rights provided by the provisions of Article 4, 6 and, within certain circumstances, national law related to the environment are breached. The convention also provides for adequate, effective remedies, including injunctive relief, and requests the consideration of establishing appropriate assistance mechanisms to remove or reduce financial and other barriers in access to justice procedures. These provisions should be also applicable to access to justice in matters related to environment and health following the guidance of the convention. It should be considered how these access to justice mechanisms could be expanded to matters of environment and health not covered explicitly by the convention (for example public participation in decision-making on NEHAP/LEHAP processes).

Conclusion and Recommendations

There are some distinct differences in access to justice in environment and health among the legal systems of Eastern and Western Europe. Generally, constitutions and laws provide legal standing for individuals and NGOs, but this is sometimes limited to just those who are "affected" or "interested." This is particularly true in administrative appeal procedures. Additionally, there are problems regarding evidence in environment and health cases which often result in the practical denial of access to justice. The lack of evidence of causation or substantiation of interest are common factors which result in such a denial.

Moreover, access to environment and health information by an administration may be denied simply due to the lack of a legal definition of the type of information that could be claimed.

Furthermore, the issue of general legal standing in administrative decision-making and its administrative appeal is also of utmost significance. The right to petition the Constitutional Court is often granted only to individuals and not to NGOs Û even if they are interested or the rights of their members, for which their by-laws provide protection, have been infringed.

High fees and the lack of common availability of expert legal assistance pro bono are large constraints on access to justice in environment and health in many countries throughout the Central and Eastern European and NIS regions. Long delays on getting a final administrative decision or a court decision are further constraints on access to justice. However, short time limits for appealing them can also be regarded as a practical constraint.

Therefore, in light of these obstacles to access to justice in environment and health there is a need to:

Endnotes

1 Doors to Democracy: Current Trends and Practices in Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making, Vol. 1 Newly Independent States, Vol. 2 Central and Eastern Europe, Vol. 3 Western Europe, Vol. 4 A Pan- European Assessment; REC, EEB, Ecopravo. June 1998.

2 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environment and Health Matters." Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1999. (Substantiation document prepared for Third Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health.) Country Report on Belarus by Elena Krasney, p. 110.

3 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Russia by Olga Razbash, p. 277.

4 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ukraine by Zoriana Kozak, p. 306.

5 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Portugal by Jose Cunhal Sendim, p. 258.

6 Constitution of Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997 (Dziennik Ustaw No. 78, item 483), Art. 68, section 4.

7 See examples of cases from Hungary and Slovenia using the right to a healthy environment in Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 2 Central and Eastern Europe, Regional Overview, p. 13.

8 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Italy by Sara Fioravanti, p. 200.

9 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ireland by David Meehan, p. 183.

10 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Germany by Monika T. Neumann, p. 167.

11 Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); Aarhus, June 25, 1998. Article 1, Objective.

12 Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 3 Western Europe, p. 15.

13 Ibid.

14 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales by Vicky Philips, China Williams and Maria Adebowale, p. 331.

15 Ibid.

16 Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 2 Central and Eastern Europe; Czech Republic, p. 157; Slovakia, p. 354.

17 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Russia, p. 277.

18 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Germany," p. 171.

19 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales, p. 331.

20 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Italy, p.202.

21 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ireland, p. 188.

22 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Estonia by Maret Merisaar, p. 160.

23 Doors to Democracy÷, Vol. 4 A Pan-European Assessment; Chapter 1, Access to Environmental Information, by Jeremy Wates, p. 18.

24 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Hungary by Olga Kekesi, p. 182.

25 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Russia, p. 278.

26 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Belarus, p. 114.

27 WHO Program for the Promotion of Environmental Health (PEH).

28 See Box 1: "Focus Areas of Environmental Health" on page 14.

29 Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); Aarhus, June 25, 1998. Article 2, par. 3, on definitions, Annex E.

30 See Box 1: "Focus Areas of Environmental Health" on page 14.

31 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales, p. 154; Country Report on Ireland, p. 331; and Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 4: A Pan-European Assessment, Chapter 1, p. 18.

32 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales, p. 332.

33 Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 4: A Pan-European Assessment, Chapter 1, p. 19.

34 Directive 90/313/EEC on Freedom of Access to Information, Chapter 2/b.

35 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales, p. 332.

36 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Sweden by Kia Regner, p. 120.

37 Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 4: A Pan-European Assessment, page 22-26 for the general situation on exemptions in the different countries

38 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales, p. 333.

39 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ireland, p. 189.

40 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Germany, p. 167.

41 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Sweden, p. 299.

42 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Belarus, p. 117.

43 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ukraine, p. 310.

44 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Russia, p. 279.

45 Ibid., p. 280.

46 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ireland, p. 189.

47 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on England and Wales, p. 333.

48 Ibid., p. 335.

49 For example, the German Federal Access to Environmental Information Act, Art. 11; the Irish Act on Environmental Protection Agency of 1992 (Section 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67 and 70); and the Portuguese Framework Law on Environment Protection of 1987.

50 For example, the Slovenian annual national environmental report is adopted by the parliament. See Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 2 Central and Eastern Europe, Regional Overview, p. 33.

51 Ibid.

52 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Bulgaria by Alexander Kodjabashev, p. 143.

53 Ibid.

54 Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 2 Central and Eastern Europe, Regional Overview, p. 36.

55 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Ireland, p. 184.

56 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Latvia by Viktors Gorsanovs, p. 213.

57 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Slovenia by Barbara Vrecko, p. 293.

58 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina by Osman Slipicevic, p. 132.

59 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Albania by Adrian Vaso, p. 89.

60 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Belarus, p. 121.

61 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina, p. 132.

62 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Portugal, p. 259.

63 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Romania by Barna Bartha, p.267.

64 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina, p. 132.

65 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Moldova by Valeriy Lebedev and Illya Trombitsky, p. 229.

66 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Portugal, p. 259.

67 For more details, see Part III of the Substantiation Paper on Assessment of Good Practices on Access to Information and Public Participation in Decision-making in the NEHAP and LEHAP Processes.

68 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Italy, p. 204.

69 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Russia, p. 285.

70 Art. 60-62 of the Constitution of Belarus, cited in "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Belarus, p. 122. See also the right to dignity in Art. 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 4, 1997 (Dziennik Ustaw No. 78, item 48), cited in "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Poland by Tomasz Tatomir, p. 244.

71 Doors to Democracy..., Vol. 2 Central and Eastern Europe, p. 396.

72 There is the institution of the authorized person dealing with human rights in the Russian Federation, according to the Russian Federation Constitution, Art. 103, point d, as cited in "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Russia, p. 109. There was the complaint of residents of an Orenburg Oblast to the Chair of the Environmental Committee of the Federal Duma as well.

73 "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making...," Country Report on Poland, p. 256.

74 ibid.

75 Art. 14 of the Polish Ombudsman Act of July 15, 1987, published in Dziennik Ustaw, 1991, no. 109, item 471.

76 Law of Ukraine on the Representative of the Supreme Council of Ukraine on Human Rights, Register of the