Hungary

Sustainable Communities Program in Mosonmagyarovar and Satoraljaujhely

Peter Nizak

Basic Information

Arrangement

For the Hungarian project the "Comparative Risk Methodology," developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency in order to set environmental priorities, has been adapted according to local knowledge and opinion. When setting priorities, economical changes, local values, history, and culture are taken into account. This method helps merge the views of both experts and the public. It was used to develop local environmental action plans in two cities: Mosonmagyarovar and Satoraljaujhely. They were selected according to these criteria:

committed local government and citizens to undertake the project;
existence of environmental problems with potential to be solved at the local community level;
environmental problems commonly existing in other cities of comparable size;
presence of local NGO(s) or public groups interested in local environmental protection;
partisan influences within the local government should be well balanced.

This 18-month project was initiated by the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) in Vermont, USA; and the Independent Ecological Center (IEC) in Budapest served as an in-country project coordinator.

Project Goals and Objectives

ISC launched the Community Action Project in order to demonstrate community-based, environmental decisionmaking and action in Hungary, and to demonstrate the application of comparative risk assessment methodology as a basis for prioritizing environmental protection at municipal level. Objectives of the project were the following:

develop local environmental action plans which are based on wide consensus;
adapt the risk assessment process to the political, economic and social realities of CEE countries;
increase replicability of the methodology by developing training materials tested and proved in Hungary;
improve skills of Hungarian, government officials, social and technical professionals, NGOs, and citizens in techniques of collaborative decisionmaking, environmental analysis, conflict resolution, public participation, strategic planning and program implementation;
continue to attract national attention on sustainable communities through the national and professional media;
draw the attention of the national government to community sustainable development projects.

A. Local Environmental Action Plan for Mosonmagyarovar

Municipal Profile

Mosonmagyarovar lies in the northwest corner of Hungary, close to the Austrian-Slovak border. The city is on the main highway between Budapest and Vienna, and consequently suffers from traffic congestion and air pollution from automobile emissions. The city has 30,000 inhabitants.

The town economy is primarily industrial and agricultural; tourism is increasing, due to mineral baths and proximity to an important wildlife area. There is a coal-fired power plant, six manufacturing plants, and a regional landfill.

The protected natural area "Szigetköz" lies nearby (between the Moson Channel and the Danube). The Szigetköz is characterized by many small stream channels, islands and wetlands that are home to numerous species, wild plants and animals, including migratory birds, wild boar and various species of deer. This area has been affected by the construction of the Gabcikovo Hydroelectric Project on the Danube, and is in danger of losing its precious water supply when the flow of the Danube is diverted. Under the Szigetkoz is "the largest aquifer in Central Europe", also endangered by the dam project.

Many organizations offered to join the program; a strong and well-known local environmental NGO helped with the project coordination. This organization - Mosonmagyarovar Environmental Association - worked on different programs such as an environmental education program in local elementary schools, nature protection program, river clean up program, etc. They worked with many volunteers. The most famous and important action was a successful protest against the import of Austrian waste. Because the Agricultural University is in Mosonmagyarovar, several researchers work in this NGO. An independent newspaper is published by the Association, which is a useful tool for information dissemination and public involvement.

LEAP Development

The project was carried out in four phases:

Phase 1 (March-April 1992): Project organization and initial training

Representatives of the ISC, IEC and the local municipalities signed the agreements in March 1992. This contract described clearly the role and responsibility of the partners:

local governments will officially recognize and support the project;
citizen committees will accomplish the work on environmental problems evaluation and strategies selection;
the IEC will provide organizational and technical assistance to the project through a project director;
local residents will be consulted at every phase of the process.

ISC provided financial assistance to develop environmental action plans, trainers, and a study tour. The local governments were to manage the program, provide office space and a local coordinator. The local governments also provided additional financial assistance. IEC coordinated the project, and created publicity.

Two committees, composed of 30-40 volunteers - approved by mayors - with a broad range of interests, were at the core of the project. Commitment to serve voluntarily on the committees was set at 18 months.

The Policy Committee (PC) representing the community residents served as a link between the project and the public. Membership in the PC reflected a wide range of interests: citizens, farmers, industry, managers, workers, parents, teachers, doctors, representatives of NGOs, and other interest groups. An effort was made to include residents who did not identify themselves as environmentalists; experienced public activists. The principal role of the Policy Committees was to manage effective public participation and pass information gathered from the public; representing a non-technical viewpoint on environmental problems. Members were trained in community organization, public participation techniques, meeting facilitation and leadership development.

The Technical Committee (TC) included local experts in environmental health, public health, natural sciences, economics, pollution control and related fields. They collected and analyzed technical and scientific data for the Policy Committee and collaborated on the problem ranking.

Committee members learned skills during the course of the project in numerous areas, including:

group decisionmaking;
public participation techniques;
comparative risk analysis;
workplan preparation and development;
project implementation, and financing strategies.

The initial training introduced participants to the goals of the projects and comparative risk methodology. Emphasis was put on collaboration of the participants, and the adaptation of the project to the needs and conditions of communities.

Committee members, representatives of the Ministry for the Environment, environmental NGOs, other service organizations and neighboring towns and villages participated.

Phase 2 (April-December 1992): Identification of local environmental problems and their causes, and priority-setting.

This was carried out in two steps:

1. Local environmental problems identification

Committees created the preliminary environmental problem lists by using brain storming techniques; the PC collected information from the public through surveys.

Several obstacles emerged during data collection:

lack of data: there is no central environmental data system in Hungary; agencies have insufficient data related to emissions - most figures are provided by polluters themselves.
time factor: the summer period is inappropriate for data collection (both committee members and survey respondents are on vacation for long periods).

The major environmental problems primarily identified by the TC were air pollution from the traffic (the through traffic Vienna-Budapest crosses the city), red sludge from the Alumina factory, solid waste, and drinking water pollution.

The PC conducted a public survey based on information disseminated by the regional newspaper, and distributed questionnaires (schoolchildren were requested to involve their parents). The merged list included nine problems: Air pollution; communal waste; noise; condition of city parks; pollution of surface waters; insufficient green areas; radioactive infection; the general traffic system. A feeling of "helplessness" was also put on the list as an aggregated special problem, indicating a lack of adequate information and inability to problem solve, especially emergency cases.

Both committees visited together the problem areas (the sewage farm, the red sludge tailings, the local dumping ground and the Lajta river) and the TC presented the results.

2. Priority setting

Comparative risk assessment methodology has been used by the USEPA at the national level in the United States. The system can also be applied to smaller cities (20-50 thousand inhabitants). These types of cities have "one society," where people know each other; local experts can be found, and local action can be realistic.

Since the method is based on public participation, problems should be explained in a clear way so that people with no scientific background can understand why a certain problem is dangerous and to what extent the public is affected, etc.

The priorities set up in the risk analyses are then integrated with other non-risk factors (ability of the municipality to solve a problem, legal requirements, financial resources) and public preferences to develop an action plan addressing high-risk problem areas. Risks are compared according to the importance to the community.

When reliable data is missing, simple methods can be used (watching trees shedding their leaves earlier, or leaves changing their color in the growth season). Risks associated with each problems area are analyzed (based on data or best estimates). Clearly stated assumptions, data gaps, and limitations are an important part of this process.

Identified problems were broken down according to their relative risks of affecting three categories: human health, ecosystems, and quality of life.

The human health risk assessment estimated the magnitude of health risk.
Ecological risk assessment analyzed non-chemical or physical impacts on ecosystems.
The quality of life analysis was composed of two parts: social impact (negative impacts to peoples' sense of community, the loss of places of natural beauty, the loss of cultural values due to the disturbance of traditional practices or sacred places, and loss of concern with the well-being of future generations, inequity of impact on different groups in society), and economic damage (monetary losses resulting from diminished recreational opportunities, a drop in tourism due to environmental degradation or the loss of wildlife, damage to crops or forest yields, impaired productivity and hospitalization costs of people affected by pollution).

The ecological component of the process was conceptually similar to the human health risk methodology, but differed in two important ways. First, ecological risk assessment evaluated the negative impact on a myriad of species' interactions and processes instead of assessing impacts on a single species only. Second, it evaluated non-chemical stresses.

Mosonmagyarovar committees faced serious difficulties with insufficient data collection. Following a public hearing and with the help of the ISC and IEC, the following ranking was created:

Air pollution from traffic
Water pollution
Industrial water pollution
Water pollution from communal sewage
Red sludge
Dust
Import surface water pollution
Galvanic sludge
Oil holders and sewage sludge water

Phase 3 (December 1992-May 1993): Identification of various strategies for actions and setting up the entire environmental action plan.

After the ranking sessions, the committees received training in developing an Environmental Action Plan as a strategy to address the top priority problems. The first step was to design goals and strategies. First, committee members divided each problem into sub-problems, formulating them as goals. Possible strategies were examined under these criteria:

Cost Effectiveness (relative costs)
Total costs (total capital and operating costs associated with the project over its lifetime)
Economic benefits (economic savings and other benefits from the project)
Effectiveness (reduction of risk to human health, ecosystems, and quality of life)
Flexibility (possibility to accommodate changes in demographic, economic, environmental or legal circumstances)
Implementation time
Political/public acceptability (support from the public and/or municipal council)
Technical Feasibility

The development of the Action Plans was helped by a study tour to Vermont: the ISC provided examples of applicable solutions to each community's most serious environmental problem. The seminar contributed towards the further development of environmental action plans by examining the main topics: Solid waste management; (waste reduction and recycling); public participation and education; energy conservation; Burlington's city government structure; Vermont's land use permitting process. These were the objectives:

explore solutions to specific, top priority environmental problems.
provide examples of grass-roots efforts that rely on volunteers and limited funds
meet with people engaged in similar work: highlight the necessity of pursuing long term goals, despite short term obstacles
a vision of results of local environmental planning.

Phase 4 (May 1993-September 1993): Development of the Implementation Plan.

The air pollution problem, which was the first priority, was too great and the committees realized that the problem was not manageable at local level, therefore it was not included in the Implementation Plan.

Reports with data on identified problems prepared last summer did not provide enough information, therefore committees continued the data collection process. Because of time constraints, the committees and local administration had little opportunity to cooperate with each other, which made work much less efficient.

The water quality protection strategy included an improvement of its quality, cleaning up of the Lajta riverbed, creation of a pedestrian zone, and development of an educational program for elementary schools related to the project.

Taking all aspects - possibilities of municipality, costs, etc. - into account, committees decided to narrow the Implementation Plan down and spend grant money on water quality protection. The Implementation Plan was calculated to clean up the Lajta river bed and create a promenade along the riverside. The chief town architect provided assistance by integrating the Implementation Plan with the city Master Plan. The Master Plan is a basic comprehensive plan for city development covering all important areas; it includes a section related to environmental protection.

LEAP Implementation

Implementation of the remedy program for the Lajta river started in Fall 1993. The work included the following steps: dredging the river bed, cleaning the river bed and the river side, weeding of the river side, creation of a pedestrian zone on the river bank with benches, planting trees, and installing new street lights. In addition to this, an effort was made to explore illegal effluents to the river.

The committees published the abridged version of the Mosonmagyarovar Environmental Action Plan in comprehensible format for the public, with a summary of the whole planning process and all its problems.

Following the completion of the official part of the project, Mosonmagyarovar Environmental Protection Association organized the 1993 city-wide River Clean-up and Awareness Day, which has now become an annual event. On this day, litter is removed from the two rivers flowing through the city, experts monitor the water quality and publish results. Many public outreach activities such as publishing a civic newsletter, organizing fora at the town hall, excursions and River Days were undertaken during the project.

The implementation of the second priority problem has not yet started.

B. Local Environmental Action Plan for Satoraljaujhely

Municipal Profile

Satoraljaujhely is a city of 21 thousand inhabitants on the Slovakian border in the north-eastern part of Hungary. It has a special position among the cities in Hungary: Before the Trianon Agreement, the city was an economic, transport and cultural center of north-eastern part of Hungary (after World War I, half of the town became part of Czechoslovakia). From an environmental viewpoint, there are more advantages: the air and waters are relatively clean, forests largely intact, and the Baroque and traditional architecture was not replaced by concrete blocks. Until now, the city's environment has not suffered irreparable damage.

The major feature of the local economy is agriculture - Satoraljaujhely is in the famous Tokaji winemaking region of approximately 18,000 acres of vineyards, meat and dairy production. There is also a machine factory, a furniture plant, a textile plant and a tobacco plant. The regional hospital is situated there as well.

Environmental management is under the auspices of the Technical Department of the municipality (as a result of the project, local government employed an environmental engineer in charge of environmental management). At the beginning of the project, 40 different organizations offered to join the program, members of the Green party (political party in Hungary which was later dissolved), secondary school teachers and students, environmental engineers.

LEAP Development

The same ISC methodology for the LEAP development was used in Satoraljaujhely as in Mosonmagyarovar: changes can be found in the results of particular phases and steps. Therefore, only those changes are referred to here.

Phase 1 (March-April 1992): Project organization and initial training

This phase had the same features as in Mosonmagyarovar.

Phase 2 ( April-December 1992): Identification of local environmental problems and their causes, and priority-setting.

Phase 2 was carried out in two steps:

1. Local environmental problems identification

The preliminary list of environmental problems was established according to the results of the opinion poll. The list contained these items: Solid waste; water pollution (including the lack of sewage system); air pollution; deterioration of wildlife and forests; radiation; rays; radon; traffic; organic waste from hospitals; galvanic sludge; agricultural chemicals; paint remains; noise; smoking in public areas;

2. Priority setting

The TC organized a field trip to introduce problems to the public: participants were given presentations by local experts (based on preliminary reports) on every problem area. Prior to this, the TC answered telephone questions on a local TV program. Public interest focused mainly on the issues of solid waste, galvanic sludge and water pollution. Public hearings were organized to consult citizens regarding the ranking. The final ranking was as follows:

Water pollution, solid waste
Air pollution from heating, air pollution from traffic
Galvanic sludge
Noise

Phase 3 ( December 1992-March 1993): Identification of various strategies for actions and setting up the entire environmental action plan.

This phase had the same features as in Mosonmagyarovar.

Phase 4 (March-September 1993): Development of the Implementation Plan.

The seminar delegation worked out a preliminary plan for a waste recycling program that was submitted to committees. During the work on the final recycling plan, the manager of the Satoraljaujhely Waste Management Ltd. was invited to cooperate. The Town Council appointed the secretary of the TC as the environmental manager of the town to manage the program implementation.

The Implementation Plan was a detailed part of the Action Plan focusing on a certain problem area.

This Implementation Plan for recycling defined five garbage categories that should be collected separately: glass, plastic, paper, aluminium and organic waste. The collected garbage would be transported by a special collection truck. A combined pre and post separation of garbage with important public participation would be used (citizens would pre-sort waste into given categories).

LEAP Implementation

The committees decided to launch the program in January 1994 in several waves - in different parts of the city - in order that practical experience gained in the starting phase can be used in subsequent phases. The program started in a "fashionable" part of Satoraljaujhely with five hundred family houses: this phase was covered by the ISC grant. The Town Council undertook the liability to gain necessary funds to promote the project in the town: the Parliamentary Environmental Committee and the Ministry of Environment were asked for their financial and professional support. As a follow up of this project, the local government wants to share gained experience through conferences and workshops to help other cities in Hungary launch similar projects.

The committees published the abridged version of the Satoraljaujhely Environmental Action Plan - in more "accessible" language for the public - with a summary of the whole planning process and all its problems.

After the "solid waste problem" project was tackled (the recycling project has continued since then), another top priority problem was addressed: water pollution. The Slovak-Hungarian Water Protection Conference convened in Satoraljaujhely in the summer of 1994 to begin the international cooperation needed for the effective solution of this transboundary problem. Participants calculated the Action Plan for the water pollution problem (this has not yet been implemented).

Public outreach activities included extensive use of local media, fora at the town hall, excursions, outreach to schools (Earth Day drawing competition) and others.

Conclusions

Achievements

Cooperation

The program was conducted under the auspices of municipality authorities with official recognition and support, and run by citizen volunteers. Public participation was high during the project in both towns; in Satoraljaujhely, a strong environmental NGO was established by the committee members in 1993.

Education

Training played an important role in the project since the concept of risk assessment and some techniques of public participation at local level were unknown. Training for committee members was held prior to each important phase of the project.

Training

After completing the follow-up of the program as well, a training program based on the above experience was developed. It includes an adapted (shortened) methodology focusing on the implementation phase as two-year programs are very difficult to manage in Hungary.

Replication

The IEC, with renewed funds, replicated the LEAP program in two subsequent towns, Baja and Szentendre. This time the original LEAP project was further adapted to the CEE conditions. As an introduction, group cohesion and communication skills were developed and a more intensive search for quality data was applied. In the case of a lack of data, the program relied on the communities' judgement. The program focused more heavily on the "relationship of ecology and economy."

Weaknesses

Skills

Problems arose particularly due to local authorities' and interest groups' inexperience with the decisionmaking process and mutual cooperation.

Involvement of businesses

Few local business representatives participated in the program: research indicates the reluctance to join the program was due to being identified as the "polluters."

Obstacles

Information

Precise data was often replaced by approximations, thus jeopardizing the whole process several times. Some stages selected in the original methodology - problem identification - setting priorities and analyzing data should be simplified and based on public opinion, focusing on the implementation of the process.

REC * PUBLICATIONS * DEVELOPING LOCAL AND REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLANS * HUNGARY