Chapter 6: Estonia

(continued)

MAPPING AND EVALUATION OF OPPORTUNITIES

The charts are used to illustrate key decisionmaking processes in international and national law-making, national policy-making, territorial plans, EIA/siting/permitting and local/regional policies. There is no systematic public participation framework in management of environmental funds.

Definition of the Levels of Public Participation

Decisionmaking is Transparent

The public has a general right to access information, in order to be able to follow the decisionmaking process. Various government agencies are responsible for providing the information upon request, under various terms (time limits, exemptions, right to appeal, etc.), without individuals having to state their interest. The citizens themselves are responsible for seeking information and their sources, but authorities might also actively provide information about the decisionmaking process. The citizens have a right to appeal if their right of access to information is violated.

Adequate Notification

Citizens (the public) have the right to obtain information on decisions concerning specific activities, projects, policies, programs, and plans on a national, regional and local level (see the different types of decisions) upon request. The different government authorities are obliged to actively provide information to the public/NGOs concerned or affected. There are different conditions indicating how adequate notification should be carried out (including such factors as time limits, content of notification, active and passive obligation of the authorities, etc.). Public authorities are obliged to give the people concerned free access to all relevant information for examination, upon request, as soon as it becomes available. The information flow should be continuous throughout the decisionmaking process. In most countries, citizens have a right to appeal if their right to access to information is violated.

Comments are Seriously Taken into Consideration

The concerned or affected public has the right to provide comments or proposals in written format or at a public hearing on the proposed activity or decision. The public authorities gathering the comments/suggestions have a legal or political commitment to take them into consideration in the decisionmaking process. There is legal obligation or political commitment to analyze and take a due account of the outcome of public participation. The public authority shall make accessible the text of the decision along with the reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, which also reflects to what extent the comments have been taken into account. In most counties, the concerned/affected public has a right to appeal if this right is violated.

Decisionmaking Power is Shared

Interested citizens or NGOs have the right to participate in decisionmaking and all parties have the same rights. The decision can be the direct result of joint decisionmaking, but also can be made by a third independent party, based on the result of joint decisionmaking. In most cases citizens have a right to appeal.

Control of Decisionmaking

The public has the right to decide directly on the issue in question. The power of decisionmaking is transferred to the citizens. All citizens have the (same) right to vote in the decisionmaking process. The decision is made by a simple majority of votes. The result of the decisionmaking process is legally binding. (For example: referendum on a local or national level, right to initiate law-making or rule-making etc.) In most counties citizens have the right to appeal if their right is violated.

International Decisionmaking

Most international agreements are initiated by international organizations such as the UN Economic Commission for Europe or western governments, which are, as a rule, concerned about the involvement of the public and NGOs in the decisionmaking process. With the support of international organizations, Estonian environmental NGOs have become quite actively involved in the discussions about international agreements adopted by the Estonian government.

TABLE 4: International Decisionmaking
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	3	4	4	3	3	3	4
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	3	4	4	4	4	4	4
Access to information (right to access to information)	4	4	4	4	4	4	4

Preparation and Approval of National Laws and Regulations

The only example from the latest period is the drafting process of the new EIA Law. NGO representatives were invited at the beginning but their comments were not easily accepted. Inviting NGO representatives into ad hoc law drafting groups has occurred during earlier years as well. There is a possibility to get information, on personal initiative, but there are no lists of NGOs who are regularly informed about the new draft bills.

TABLE 5: Preparation and Approval of National Laws and Regulations
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Access to information (right to access to information)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

Preparation and Approval of National Policies, Strategies, Programs and Plans

Table 6 is designed using the elaboration process of the National Environmental Plan as the basis. Here, the influence of NGOs is very high as an NGO representative was invited to act as the project coordinator and assistant manager of the process

TABLE 6: Preparation and Approval of National Policies, Strategies, Programs and Plans
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	2	2	2	2	2	2
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	1	2	2	2	2	3	3
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	2	3	3	3	3	3	3
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	2	3	3	3	3	3	3
Access to information (right to access to information)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

Preparation and Approval of Regional/Local Rules and Regulations

Influencing local rules and regulations has been both negative and positive. Still, only a few positive examples could be brought from Tallinn and Tartu. Mostly this practice has not yet gained strength. There is a big opportunity to develop public participation in this respect.

TABLE 7: Preparation and Approval of Regional/Local Rules and Regulations
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	1	2	2	2	2	2	2
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Access to information (right to access to information)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2

Preparation and Approval of Regional/Local Policies

In this instance, the example of drafting local Agenda 21 in Kuressaare (Island Saaremaa) and in Narva (NE Estonia) could be examined. The first case was very positive, the second less so. The table illustrates the possibilities according to the Saaremaa example, where the local Green Movement was involved from the beginning of the process. This case (now marked only with a two or a three) could be repeated in other counties as well and might reach four.

TABLE 8: Preparation and Approval of Regional/Local Policies (including Territorial Plans, Spatial/Local Land-Use Plans)
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	1	2	2	2	2	2	2
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	1	3	3	3	3	3	3
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	2	3	3	3	3	3	3
Access to information (right to access to information)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

EIA

A study by SEI-Tallinn has shown that 70 percent of the EIA procedures are going on without public participation. The biggest barriers for the public have been the speed of the procedure, insufficient work by lobby groups and insufficient access to information. The latest draft Law on EIA and Auditing contains the shortest list yet of activities which should be assessed. The list became shorter with every revision of the draft. Analyzing the public that participated in public hearings on the drinking water problems of the Kurtna Lakes in North East Estonia, it emerged that organizers had underestimated the interest of local governments while environmental NGOs played the smallest role as the "interested public."

TABLE 9: Environmental Impact Assessment
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Access to information (right to access to information)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

Siting

There are few examples of public involvement in siting of environmentally hazardous objects in Estonia. Local governments today decide on siting environmental hazardous objects and it is expected that there will be more cases in the near future of involving the public in decisionmaking on siting. One example in 1997 was the siting of an enterprise on recycling hazardous waste in the town of Sillamae, where a group of activists successfully prevented the local government from locating the hazardous waste site.

TABLE 10: Siting
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Access to information (right to access to information)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

Permitting

Permitting is definitely not a field where public participation has developed much. The relevant legislation is being redrafted at the moment. The only cases which can be cited are rare instances of informing the public about the time and place where the new applications for new water permits are exhibited. As yet there has been no practice of commenting on those nor taking those comments into account yet. But in this respect changes will come soon, since the Ministry is elaborating the new order and discussing it with the county environmental boards as well as the bigger enterprises already. The numbers in the table depict the current situation.

TABLE 11: Permitting
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	2	2	1	1	1	1	1
Access to information (right to access to information)	2	2	2	1	1	1	1

Management of Environmental Funds

The only exception to the total inaccessibility of the Environmental Funds Board for NGO representatives is the Local Advisory Board (LAB) of REC Estonia, which currently includes one NGO representative. This NGO representative has the right to be informed from the start (new applications are sent to him for comments), he is invited to discuss the applications and his decisions are seriously taken into account. The decisionmaking right is still retained solely by the local REC representative.

TABLE 12: Management of Environmental Funds
	Initiation of DM (problem/ proposal)	Defining the scope, issues and stakeholders (pre-decision scoping)	Defining the scope of DM (impacts and alternatives)	Evaluation of the alternatives	Selection of the alternative (DM about the selected alternative)	Execution of the selected alternative	Post-decision monitoring & enforcement (feedback/ adjustment)
Phases of Decisionmaking LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Control of decisionmaking (right to decide)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Decisionmaking power is shared (right to joint decisionmaking)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Adequate notification (right to be informed)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Access to information (right to access to information)	2	2	2	1	1	1	1

REC * PUBLICATIONS * DOORS TO DEMOCRACY - CEE * ESTONIA