A New Organization
4.4 Conclusions
4.4.1 Model
Large organizations will always try to grow and expand their operations. Limiting the services a Model Three, International Organization's Coordination and Information Center can deliver will force decentralization and regional cooperation. This represents the key difference from a Model Two, Centralized Organization. A Model Two, Centralized Organization would remain a highly centralized operation - even if combined with Model One, National Organizations. Such a hybrid model would not facilitate capacity building in the National Organizations, which would become feeder organizations for the Centralized Organization. Model One, National Organizations lack a cohesive mechanism which would tie together the various National Organizations.
These models were presented to the NREC Advisory Group. The Advisory Group recommended unanimously Model Three, International Organization as the best model. We support this recommendation and believe that an International Organization would deliver the proposed services and achieve the goals of fostering regional cooperation and public participation.
Before commencing implementation in a country, the host country government must make an explicit commitment that a NREC will have complete autonomy and independence.
4.4.2 Location and Administrative Network
We suggest establishing one National Office in each of Ukraine, Russia and Moldova. Staff levels in the offices could vary. The needs analysis indicates the demand exists in these countries for a NREC. Of course, other countries and even other regions of the CIS could be considered. A mission to these countries, however, would be necessary to present the NREC concept and determine the interest in having a NREC deliver services to the country. This model and the services could be replicated elsewhere in the CIS. In subsequent years, additional National Offices could be opened in other countries. In particular, additional offices would need to be established in Russia; one office could not effectively serve all of Russia.
4.4.2.1 Coordination and Information Center / Head Office
The Coordination and Information Center could be located in a different region of the country than a National Office. Separating the offices would help differentiate the functions of these offices and limit the possibility of favoritism. The specific site for the Coordination and Information Center must be a city with good communication facilities and transportation infrastructure linking it with other regions of the CIS. Finally, the Coordination and Information Center should be in a location that is as politically neutral as possible. We suggest establishing the Coordination and Information Center in Ukraine. Within Ukraine, Odessa or Kiev afford possible sites for the Coordination and Information Center.
4.4.2.2 Ukraine
As noted above, we suggest establishing the Coordination and Information Center in Ukraine. The cities of Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov or Dnipropetrovsk afford possible locations for the Ukrainian National Office.
4.4.2.3 Russia
In Russia, we suggest establishing the first National Office in the European Region. In particular, Nizhnii Novgorod offers a natural location since it is the geographical and administrative center for the Volga region. We base this recommendation on the Russian substudy reports that indicate that the Nizhnii Novgorod Oblast Administration and the NGO community have good working relations. In light of the interest in working with regional and local authorities, such a favorable environment would prove conducive for establishing a NREC.
Establishing a National Office in Moscow would prove problematic. In light of the regional and horizontal mode of operation for a NREC, a National Office in Moscow could appear to replicate the traditional centralized approach. Moreover, operating an office in Moscow would prove very expensive. We recognize, however, the importance of maintaining at least a minimal presence in Moscow and propose two options. One or two people could work out of their homes. Another option would be for them to work in the office of a another service organization, with which a NREC would work closely. Under both scenarios, the staff people would be NREC employees.
4.4.2.4 Moldova
A significant demand exists in the Moldovan environmental community for the services that a NREC would deliver. The needs analysis showed the need in Moldova is the greatest among any of the countries studied. The NGOs want to participate in environmental decision-making and secure the independence of their operations.
The situation in Moldova, however, poses a challenge. The team experienced serious administrative and political problems in conducting the feasibility study in Moldova. Such problems could prove indicative of the problems a NREC would experience. Consequently, we recommend establishing a representative office in Chisniau on a provisional basis. At the end of the first year a decision would be made as to the status of this office.
REC * PUBLICATIONS * NEW REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERS * A NEW ORGANIZATION
