Regional Overview: Central and Eastern Europe

Access to Public Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking

Aside from constitutional rights, every CEE country has provisions guaranteeing the right to participation in decisionmaking either in environmental protection laws or in the administrative laws or codes. However, these are usually general, declarative provisions that often do not give specific rights or do not contain concrete procedures for participation in the different types of decisions. Although the situation varies from country to country, the general trend shows that the strongest tools for citizen participation are the EIA and local referendums. The situation regarding public participation in lawmaking and rulemaking, policies, programs and plans, especially on the national level, is rather mixed.

Public Control of Decisionmaking (Direct Democracy)

The right to referendum gives the public a right to veto (or censure where the referenda are nonbinding) parliamentary decisions or actions. The right to referendum on the national level is provided for the citizens of every CEE country except the Czech Republic. In Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Latvia, citizens cannot directly initiate a referendum; only parliament or the president can. In the other countries, a referendum can be initiated by the president, the prime minister, a minimum number of MPs or by a minimum number of citizens (for example, in Slovenia and Slovakia, 40,000; in Lithuania, 50,000; in Hungary, 50,000, although parliament has no discretionary power to decide in the issue if the referendum is initiated by at least 100,000 citizens).

In principle, it is possible to call a national referendum on environmental issues in every country, but so far there are only two such examples known. An unsuccessful attempt was undertaken in Slovenia to call for a referendum to close the nuclear power plant of Krsko in 1995. The initiators failed to collect the sufficient number of signatures for a mandatory binding referendum. The second case is in Hungary, where a referendum has been initiated on whether to build a dam on the Danube in cooperation with the Slovak government. Organizers were to collect the necessary signatures.

Referenda on environmental issues are more often initiated on the local level. The right to local referendum is granted to the citizens of all CEE countries except Albania, Estonia and Lithuania. In Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania, a local referendum can be called only by a motion of the mayor. In Slovakia, a local referendum is only binding for the local government if it deals with division or merging of villages. In the Czech Republic, a binding referendum cannot be initiated if the municipal council has already made a decision on the issue at stake or if the issue is being dealt with under the administrative procedure.

Examples of local environmental referenda come mainly from Hungary, Slovakia and Poland. The local referenda have been used primarily in cases of plans to build incinerators, hazardous or toxic waste disposal facilities, nuclear waste storage facilities, planned dam construction, etc. In Poland, many of these referenda failed because not enough people participated. For a referendum to succeed there, the law requires at least 30 percent of eligible residents to cast a vote, a threshold that many people believe is too high. In Hungary, however, most of the cases so far have been successful.

Legislative Initiative

The right to initiative gives the citizens the power to propose legislation or the invalidation of laws, rules or regulations to parliament or to local governments. This right to public initiative or control over lawmaking or rulemaking exists in every CEE country except the Czech Republic. However, such a right is not given directly to citizens in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia or Slovakia. In these countries, the right of initiative must be exercised through a member of parliament or through the state or local government (or in Slovakia also through the Committees of the National Council). In Estonia, signatures were collected in 1995 to include a direct right to initiative in the constitution, but not enough signatures were collected.

In other countries, the right to force parliament to consider a matter belongs to a minimum number of citizens - in Albania, 20,000 voters; in Latvia, 10 percent of the electorate; in Lithuania 50,000 voters; in Slovenia, 5,000 voters. In Romania, a minimum of 250,000 voters have the power to propose legislation, but this is subject to geographic distribution. Specifically, the petitioners must come from at least one quarter of the nation, with at least 10,000 petitioners from each county. In Hungary, 10,000 citizens can initiate discussion of a topic, and a group of 50,000 can initiate a discussion that does not allow any discretionary power to parliament (i.e. parliament must discuss the specific case). In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 30,000 signatures are needed, although in Montenegro 6,000 voters are enough to initiate lawmaking.

In Poland, the constitution (Article 118) allows any group of 100,000 eligible voters to present to the Sejm (Parliament) a bill (i.e. draft law) with a justification estimating costs of its implementation. However, 500,000 signatures are needed to have these proposals officially considered and addressed by the special parliamentary constitutional commission. In Slovenia, similar to other countries, the requirements for such an initiative include presentation of an estimation of the status quo, reasons for the adoption of the proposed law, goals and principles of the proposed law, an estimation of financial burden to the national budget, and other eventual consequences which would be provoked by the adoption of the proposed law.

There have been very few direct legislative initiatives concerning environmental issues so far in the region. The only known example happened in Poland in 1994, when environmental NGOs started to prepare environmental provisions for the new constitution and planned to collect the 500,000 signatures necessary to officially bind the constitutional commission to consider these provisions. The NGOs failed to get the required number of signatures, but the goal was informally achieved because the commission not only considered but also approved throughout 1995-96 most of the proposals in this respect.

However, there have been several examples of NGOs submitting draft laws or initiating drafting (see the section below on Public Participation in Lawmaking). For example, in Macedonia, NGOs exercised their power of legislative initiative under the constitution in 1996 and submitted a draft law to ban smoking in public places. The draft was passed to the floor of Parliament and was adopted with a few changes.

On the local level, citizens have direct or indirect initiative rights in all the above-mentioned countries except Lithuania. On the local level there is usually an additional condition: only those residents who have a right to vote in the given municipality can participate in a people's initiative in the area. The citizens can request through their initiative the issuance or the invalidation of a general rule or other decisions within the jurisdiction of the municipal council or other municipal bodies on the basis of the request of at least 5 or 10 percent of the voters of the municipality. The exact percentage can be determined by each municipality by its statutes or its own local ordinances. The local council or the official body to which the local initiative is addressed is obliged to discuss or decide on the matter. In some countries, municipal statutes set time limits for when the decision must be made. For example, in Slovenia this time limit may not exceed three months.

There are other tools for public initiative on the local level: the local assembly and local subscription. The local assemblies in some countries can be convened to discuss or decide certain environmental matters, not only at the request of the mayor or the municipal council, but also upon the demand of a certain percentage of the electorate of the municipality. The percentage is usually defined in the local statutes. In addition to this, in Bulgaria, the local subscription can also help to initiate discussion on environmental matters by allowing citizens to initiate inclusion of certain topics on the agenda of the local council.

Public Participation in Lawmaking and Rulemaking

In addition to these general rules, the Hungarian Act on Environmental Protection requires all the ministries to send the legislative plans connected with environmental protection in advance to the Ministry of Environment, which must publish it at the beginning of each year in the ministries' official journal. The Ministry of Environment passed a decree requiring public involvement in lawmaking and rulemaking as well as in drafting policies, plans and programs. Based on this, the Ministry of Environment notifies NGOs about the legislative plans and sends information and notification to those who wish to be informed. The ministry also sends this information to those who indicate their interest to participate in the consultations or discussions of drafts, or want to submit comments or suggestions. These so called "lobby lists" are open-ended but only include NGOs.

A similar practice exists in Poland. There are informal lists of people consulted at the Environment Ministry and regional environmental administrations (though they are not always the most up-to-date lists), and any NGO interested in an issue may in practice request to be put on such lists.

For NGOs which are affected or interested, Hungarian laws include participation rights, and there is a possibility for input at the stage of preparation of laws but not at the stage of decisionmaking, which is reserved for parliament. NGO comments generally are taken into consideration but not always seriously. As a result of the laws, since 1995 there has been massive public participation in Hungary in practically all of the substantial environmental regulations which followed the basic framework law, the Environmental Protection Act (Kvtv, 1995).

There is usually uncertainty, though, about what counts as "environmental," and other ministries (e.g. public health, water management, agriculture, industry, etc.) are quite reluctant to acknowledge that some of their legislation also should undergo the public participation processes prescribed for environmental legislation. It also happens frequently that the information about the drafting comes only at the last minute, or there is not enough information provided in time for the participation. These are major problems experienced in all CEE countries. A good example of this is the case of the draft Act on the Privatization of Small Forests in Hungary, where NGOs had no alternative but to turn to the Constitutional Committee of the Parliament to halt the legislation process. Their action ended with success before the final vote on the draft. With the help of the "green" MPs, the NGOs were able to convince the Constitutional Committee that the new proposal would have been against the constitution, so the bill was revoked (for more details, see the Hungarian report).

In other countries of the region, there are no legal requirements for public involvement. In Poland, the Consultation and Referendum Act (1987), which provided for a detailed general legal framework for public comment and notice procedure, was abolished by the Referendum Act (1995). In practice, the old procedures are being followed, and in fact there is progress even in using consultations. Public participation in lawmaking has been a common practice since 1995, and comments are usually are taken into account but not always seriously. Also, consultation is required by certain specific statutes in case of legal acts related to nature protection and environment protection with bodies which include NGO representatives. (See more in the report on Poland)

Several other countries have also developed a positive practice in involving NGOs. Such good practices are characteristic in Albania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia, where NGOs not only are invited to comment or participate in expert or drafting committees of the government or in consultations in parliament, but on several occasions the NGOs have initiated drafting of laws. Since 1995, such involvement has become regular practice in these countries, although the circle of NGOs invited varies and they are not all invited in all cases. Usually, NGOs can ask to be added to the list of those who get information and can participate in the discussions, but the ministries decide at their discretion.

Among the good examples, in Albania, in 1995, a group of NGOs drafted the first environmental law on biodiversity, and submitted it to the Committee of Environmental Protection. NGOs developed a proposal in 1997 which was finalized with a draft law on the conservation of caves. Similar initiatives were taken in a draft law on the conservation and management of a protected area in the north of Albania, and on the protection and conservation of transboundary watercourses. In Slovakia, such involvement happened in the case of the EIA Act, the Nature Protection Act and the Act on Access to Environmental Information. In the Czech Republic, NGOs provided input for the building code and in the preparation of the Access to Environmental Information Law. In the latter case, the NGO involvement was substantial.

NGOs in Albania, Slovenia and Romania have informally initiated a cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Environment to provide information and to involve them in the preparation of laws and rules. In several countries (e.g. Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria), NGOs are invited on an ad hoc and individual basis to participate in consultation or discussions of draft laws and rules.

Contrary to lawmaking, the drafting of regulations and lower-level governmental decrees usually happens in a more closed way, and there is no consistent practice of informal involvement in these countries.

In this regard, the CEE countries - with the exception of Hungary, which is a unique positive example - show a similar picture to most Western European countries, where there is not yet any legal requirement for public involvement. In fact, the practice of many CEE countries is better than that of many Western European countries, but it still falls short of the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. According to the Convention, governments would have a legal obligation to "promote effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while options are still open during the preparation by public authorities of executive regulations and other generally applicable binding rules that may have a significant effect on the environment." The Convention also recommends a concrete procedure and an obligation to take into account the result of the public participation "as far as possible."

The implementation of the Aarhus Convention will mean putting into law the present good practices, or where there are no such practices in place, establishing legal obligations to ensure such practices. The exception is Hungary, where the present legal framework and practice is already more progressive than the provisions of the Convention because they include the possibility for input during the parliamentary phase.

Public Participation in Policies, Programs and Plans

Except for Hungary, where the Environment Protection Act and ministerial decree mentioned above provide for general rights for participation of NGOs concerning national programs, policies and plans, the CEE countries have no legal requirement to include the public, or they have only general provisions. For example, in Slovenia the law allows for the possibility of engaging experts, organizations, and institutions other than governmental bodies, but such cooperation is not obligatory, nor it is mandatory for officials to take into account the comments received.

In Hungary, the General Act for Environmental Protection (Kvtv) provides NGOs a number of guarantees that their comments will be heard in the discussion of the draft polices, programs and plans. According to the law, the "organizations shall have the right, by representing the interests of their members, [1] to cooperate in drawing up regional development plans and environmental protection programs affecting their area of operation or activities; [2] to participate in the environmental licensing procedure; and [3] to give their opinion on the state bills and local government draft by-laws." Generally, the Hungarian law uses the "anybody" approach, so these rights apply to everyone.

There has been substantial NGO involvement in several countries in the elaboration and adoption of policy documents, such as the National Environmental Action Programs, and also in some of the national strategies on environmental issues (Poland, Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia). Although NGO experts have been included in the expert groups, the participation has not always been guaranteed because it is not required by law, and the comments of the NGOs have not always been taken seriously.

In a few countries (Hungary and Poland), some of the good practices of public participation have been institutionalized by regulations or legally based institutions, and partnership is accepted in some of the national level decisionmaking processes (i.e. national environmental strategies, policies, law drafting). The success of efforts greatly depends on the activism and initiative of NGOs.

In several countries, NGOs can participate in decisionmaking on environmental policy decisions through different representative bodies, such as the National Environmental Councils or Environmental Funds (see more about Environmental Funds below). Such National Environmental Councils exist, for example, in Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Bulgaria. These councils are consultative bodies for the government or the parliament, and they give opinions or advice on the most important environmental programs, draft laws and policy concepts having a major impact on the decisions of the government and parliament. In Hungary, environmental NGOs appoint seven of the 21 council members; the other members represent the business sector and the sciences. The Slovenian and Bulgarian councils include only one NGO member. Nevertheless, once on the councils or similar committees, the NGO members have the same voting rights as the other participants coming from the government, science or business sector. This partnership between NGOs and government is ongoing and has had positive results in several cases.

Environmental NGOs can also have representatives serve on the expert committees set up to distribute the funds collected from different product fees in Hungary (i.e. fees collected for fuels, tires, refrigerators, packaging material and accumulators), according to the MERP Decree No. 10/1995 (IX.28). National environmental, nature conservation and animal protection NGOs can also delegate a representative to the boards of trustees for the independent public broadcasting utilities (Media Act). There are few regional level decisionmaking bodies, but one important set of local bodies are the regional planning committees, which have NGO representatives in them, too. (See Hungarian report for more details.)

Strategic Assessment of Policies, Plans, Programs

Another example of innovative practice comes from Slovakia and the Czech Republic. There is no governmental regulation specifying the procedure of public participation in drafting the official strategies, policies, plans and programs in either country, but under the EIA Act it is required that certain governmental policies in the fields of energy, transport, mining, forestry, agriculture, tourism, waste management and water management have to undergo a binding environmental assessment process. In Slovakia, there is a legal requirement to prepare EIA for major policy or development decisions in the above-mentioned fields, and the authority responsible for preparing the proposal is required to inform the public two months before it is discussed in the Ministry of Environment and there should be a possibility for submitting comments. In the Czech Republic, this legal requirement requests the submission of the draft policy (and its environment assessment) for 60 days for public review before the decision is made by the MoE. The Law on Nature Protection also invites the local environmental civic associations (NGOs) to meetings where concepts, programs, plans and normative documents on the environment are discussed. The practice, however, is rather uneven because the legal requirement for public involvement is not always observed.

Since late 1997, the Czech Ministry of Environment has been more open to such initiatives and requested environmental assessments to be done for the proposed Energy Policy and the proposed Policy for Development of Road Infrastructure up to 2010, with substantial public participation opportunities included at an early stage. Public scoping hearings were initiated on a voluntary basis, and advisory committees with NGO representation were established that advise on the final scope of the strategic environmental assessment. Although it is still unclear what the outcome of these strategic environmental assessments will be (both assessments were to be ready in May 1998), the chosen procedure serves as a pilot project and an example for other CEE countries.

Local Environmental Action Plans

There is a specific possibility for participation at the local level in the development, adoption and implementation of Local Environmental Action Plans in several CEE countries. Using the survey of the status of their environment, local communities in small regions (centered with a medium-sized city of 30,000 to 50,000 residents) that run the LEAP project are able to set priorities in the protection of their immediate environment. Because the status survey is already a result of broad cooperation among local interest groups, residents, authorities, small and medium-sized industries, farmers, educators and scientists, not to mention the many stakeholders in priority setting, the list of priorities coming out of this process carries great political weight. In LEAP projects, the public usually participates directly and often. The LEAP priorities can easily become part of a local or regional action plan, which adds advantages in the process of applying for state or large private financial support. For the financing party, the well-developed and broadly supported plans guarantee accurate implementation and satisfactory results in practice. The preparation of LEAPs is a legal obligation for municipalities in several countries, including Hungary, Poland and FYR Macedonia.

Compared to international standards, some of the CEE countries have more specific rights, although they are limited to some areas. The CEE countries also have rather good practice and a few interesting examples of participation where the NGOs or representatives of the public are accepted as equal partners in the decisionmaking process. Even so, the provisions of the EU Directive on Strategic Assessment, which is not yet in force, would mean significant improvements for many of the CEE countries. The Sofia Guidelines recommends "to make special efforts to promote public participation in environmental policy-making," and the Aarhus Convention, in a rather general format, requires the public authorities to "make appropriate practical and/or other provisions" for participation "within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public." The public has to be identified by the authority. This approach however is different from the idea of local communities organizing initiatives from below to solve environmental problems and to develop a local environmental or development plan.

Public Participation in Spatial Planning

Spatial planning (land-use planning, urban planning, etc.) is a process for regulating the land use for the intended purpose of the territory. Spatial planning is traditionally well-developed in the CEE region since it played an important role in centrally planned economies. An important feature of the spatial planning in the region is the level of detail of land-use plans and their strong role in the decisionmaking process. It is still common in the region for land-use plans to severely limit property rights, and compliance with the spatial plan is one of the main factors in the siting procedure.

The first comprehensive land-use plans emerged in mid-1970s in what was then Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia. The spatial planning laws that evolved in the region since then have many elements in common: they all require identification of the issues, elaboration and review of alternatives, public participation, finalizing of the draft documents, and a final political decisionmaking process. The spatial planning laws in all 15 CEE countries before 1989 provided wide opportunities for public participation that were not observed in practice or were used for persuasion instead of for real participation to protect the interests of individuals. Since 1990, most of the CEE counties have adopted amendments to their spatial planning procedures, but they have not imposed dramatic changes in their public participation regimes.

Generally, spatial planning passes through four stages that enable public participation:

1. Preparation of the terms of reference for the spatial plan.
2. Development of alternatives to the spatial plan and their analysis.
3. Approval of the spatial plan.
4. Review of the spatial plan in courts.

The extent and quality of that participation can be evaluated separately in each stage.

Preparation of the Basic Terms of Reference for Spatial Plans

This initial stage is quite influential because land-use principles in the region typically set up the principles that guide the development of the spatial plan - these terms of reference (or local principles for land-use) - specify the preferred infrastructural development, desired economic activity and thresholds for use local environment. With the exception of Hungary, Poland and FYR of Macedonia, public participation at this stage occurs only sporadically; the local public usually is not notified effectively nor do citizens have special rights to influence the land-use principles.

An innovative exception to this can be found in Poland, where the Law on Physical Development (Article 18, Paragraph 2 [1994]) requires the commune board to "announce in the local press, by communique and in a manner which is commonly accepted in the locality, the initiation of the preparation of the local physical development plan, defining the form, place and deadline which shall be sooner than 21 days after the release of the communique, for submitting motions to the plan." Another interesting example can be found in FYR Macedonia, where the Law on Physical and Urban Planning (Article 18 [1995]) allows the interested users of the space to initiate a process leading toward adoption of land-use and urban plan.

Development and Analysis of Alternatives to the Spatial Plan

All 15 CEE countries allow public participation in the form of public review of proposed spatial plans. Public hearings are the standard technique for public participation. Such hearings must be held within the common 20 to 30 days of the public display of the spatial plan, and all public comments must be noted and analyzed for their relevance.

Due to the traditional role of the spatial plan in the region - to limit development activities in a given area, including limitation of the ownership rights - it is common for countries to distinguish between comments from affected persons (i.e. those whose ownership rights are affected) and comments from interested persons (i.e. comments from anyone else). In the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia, comments from affected persons must be analyzed with more attention paid to them.

Approval of the Spatial Plan

Approval of a local or regional spatial plan is the responsibility of the relevant level of self-government in all CEE countries. Given the general rules of openness of local governing bodies in the region (e.g. right to observe the sessions, right to submit written comments and natural opportunity to lobby local MPs that approve the plan), there is quite extensive opportunity for the public to be heard during the actual approval of the spatial plans.

A notable limitation to this civic right to influence the adoption of spatial plans can be found in Slovakia, where the recent amendment to the Building Act (Act No. 229/1997) prevents local municipalities from adopting spatial plans that contradict the plans of state agencies.

Review of the Spatial Plan in Courts

Local spatial plans are usually adopted in the form of local decree or administrative decision. There is uniformity in the CEE region regarding the rights of affected parties to appeal spatial plans. There is no possibility to appeal a plan in Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Montenegro or FYR Macedonia. The public does have such a right to question spatial plans in court in Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Spatial planning is probably the most influential environmental decision process in the CEE region. The majority of spatial planning procedures have well-developed provisions for public participation that can be further enhanced by the development of proper notification campaigns and by inclusion of social impact assessment into the planning procedure (a notable example of such development is Hungary). The spatial planning documents would also largely benefit from undergoing proper and independent environmental assessment performed in the early stage of the planning procedure when alternatives to the proposed spatial plan are being evaluated. Such practice is already successfully performed in Poland.

Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment

Current EIA systems in the CEE region are predominantly modeled after the EU directive on environmental assessment of certain projects (85/337/EEC). This brings about certain uniform procedural features that unfortunately do not favor thorough public participation in EIA.

The quality of the public participation in the current EIA systems in CEE can be judged on the extent of participation in the following logical steps of the environmental assessment process:

• screening (i.e. decision about inclusion of the proposed activity under the EIA regime);
• scoping (i.e. definition of the impact and alternatives that should be covered by the EIA documents);
• review of the EIA documents;
• use of the EIA findings in the decision processes;
• post-EIA monitoring and enforcement.

The weakest aspect of the EIA-related public participation in Central and Eastern Europe is the current absence of scoping.

Screening

Screening in all CEE countries is based on formally defined screening lists (usually annexes to the EIA laws and regulations), which list activities that are subject to the EIA. Although some EIA systems do provide an opportunity for undertaking screening through initial environmental evaluation (Slovakia and Hungary), there is extremely limited public participation in this process. The public is usually notified only about the results of screening without having a right to appeal the screening decision. Due to the lack of public participation provisions in the revised EU EIA Directive (97/11 EEC), significant changes cannot be expected in public participation in the EIA screening in the region.

However, one innovative procedure is already in place in Bulgaria. Regulation No. 1 on EIA provides the opportunity for EIA to be initiated by a "motivated proposal from concerned natural or legal persons submitted to competent authorities" (Article 3/3/2). This widely formulated opportunity for public initiation of the EIA process is limited only by the extent of its practical application.

Scoping

All EIA systems throughout the CEE region (with the notable exception of Slovakia) do not provide opportunities for public scoping of the EIA documents. Certain forms of formalized scoping are applied in Hungary, Lithuania and Romania, yet these scoping systems do not provide adequate opportunities for public participation.

Although internal scoping of all EIA documents is a natural and logical part of the EIA process, this decision in most CEE countries is influenced only by the developer (who pays for the EIA documents) and, in rare cases of "good voluntary practice," also by the administration responsible for the particular EIA process (Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria). This closed scoping naturally does not provide opportunities for public participation.

The general absence of public scoping leads to inefficiency of public participation programs in EIA and is regarded as the weakest point of the EIA systems in the region. On a positive note, this weakness is being properly recognized and provisions for public scoping are being incorporated in the development of the new EIA laws in the region (such as in Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, and Estonia).

One example is the Slovak EIA Act (127/1994), which has an extensive list of projects for which developers must submit a "plan" (a quite detailed initial environmental review) which is submitted for three weeks of public inspection. Public comments are used for the screening decision (whether to initiate EIA) and the scoping decision. The scoping decision is very detailed, and it specifies:

• the impacts to be studied;
• alternatives to be worked out and evaluated in greater detail;
• interdependent activities of the proposal that will be jointly assessed;
• number of the copies of the EIA study, and
• the phased time table for the assessment process.

The public must be informed without needless delay about the scoping decision and the timetable for the assessment process.

Review of EIA Documents

Formal expert review and public review of the EIA document is an integral part of the EIA process. This review aims to ensure no significant impact has been overlooked within the course of assessment, and to identify potential public controversy connected with various possible decisions. The CEE countries, with their traditional emphasis on technical review of decision supporting documents, have developed this system of expert and civic EIA review in an appropriate manner that fully complies with relevant requirements of the EU directives (with the exception of Latvia and Montenegro).

However, the actual quality of the civic review is largely pre-determined by the quality of public notification about the beginning of the review phase. Public participation in this stage of assessment is especially limited by the fact that highly effective forms of public notification (information notice boards at the site of the development or paid advertisements in local media) are not legally required nor are they applied as a standard practice. Given the limited extent of public financial support for the NGO activities in the CEE region (caused by the absence of well-developed taxation laws), NGOs can rarely afford to spend enough resources to undertake a thorough review of the EIA documents. This also has an indirect effect on the quality and extent of NGO participation in the EIA reviews.

To fight this problem, Poland and Croatia have both established operational EIA commissions that undertake a preliminary review of the submitted EIA documents and provide answers to each obtained public submission.

In the Czech Republic, an increasing number of NGOs cope with inadequate public notification about opportunities to review the EIA documentation by using a process described as Parallel Public Participation. This process, organized by NGOs, provides in affected municipalities special public hearings to inform the local population about the content of the EIA Documentation and to obtain direct public comments on the proposed development. The format of such hearings follows the format of the official hearings organized by the competent authority, and comments obtained though the NGO procedures are officially submitted to the competent authority for their proper review.

Use of the EIA Findings in the Decision Processes

The CEE findings indicate that the EIA system tends to be largely ineffective unless there is a possibility for the legal review of the quality of the work performed through it. Because EIA results in an administrative decision in many countries (i.e. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), it is possible to review both the application of the procedure as well as the content of the document through the administrative review process. In countries where the EIA process is conceived as only a decision-support process (i.e. to provide documentation and not to issue decisions), the quality of the EIA related operations largely deteriorates. A notable example of such decline is the EIA process in the Czech Republic, which results only in issuance of a standpoint that cannot be formally reviewed.

Once again, the Bulgarian Regulation on EIA stands out as a positive example in the region. Article 14 (Paragraphs 10 and 11) stipulate that copies of the decision shall be presented to the natural and legal persons concerned and shall be made freely available to the public. Parties concerned may appeal the EIA decision before the respective district court under the terms and procedure of the Administrative Procedure Act within 14 days (or in some cases 30 days) after their notification of the decision.

In Lithuania the EIA Law provides an opportunity for natural and legal persons to appeal to the Ministry of Environment within 15 days after the public hearing on the full EIA was held.

Post-EIA Monitoring and Enforcement

Post-EIA monitoring is designed mainly to provide remedy for potential oversight of the EIA process. The EIA laws in Bulgaria and Romania provide novel ideas: They enable state authorities to limit the permit resulting from the EIA process to a certain period of time (e.g. 5 years). They then can initiate a new environmental permitting procedure for the already operating facility that needs to be prepared through environmental auditing and environmental impact assessment of future operation of that facility. This legal procedure is quite innovative and is currently the best post-EIA monitoring/enforcement practice worldwide. On the other hand, most of the EIA systems in the region require preparation of post-EIA monitoring plans as a part of the EIA documents, but the application of these requirements is rather limited.

In Romania, the Regulation on Economic and Social Activities Having an Environmental Impact states, "the validity of environmental agreement and permit shall be a maximum of five years" (Article 8). In addition, the "environmental permit may be revised if new elements occur, unknown at the date of issue, and in the case of their renewal, re-making of the report on the EIA study may also be requested" (Article 10).

Public Participation in Permitting

Permitting procedures are one of the most important decisionmaking processes in environmental issues. The decisions made within this procedure have major impacts on the state of the environment, and not only in the affected area. Permitting procedures apply to construction permits for facilities that have been assessed by EIA as well as facilities that have not and to operational permits, including air emission permits, water discharge permits, noise permits, etc.

In general the permitting process is governed by general administrative procedure. This procedure does not have a public character and usually is closed to the general public, although there are some exceptions. The right to participate in such procedure is given to a "party," who is usually any natural or legal person whose property rights or other legally protected rights or obligations could be affected by the activity. In a number of countries (including Montenegro and Slovenia), this is the only way to qualify as a party and thus to participate in the process. Other entities eligible in other countries to become a party include:

• Civic associations created during the EIA process, according EIA Law (Slovakia, Czech Republic)
• NGOs whose statutory goals are nature conservation and landscape protection (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic).

In Poland, civic associations have several special rights, such as the right to initiate proceedings, the right to participate in proceedings regarding a third party's rights, and the right be notified about proceedings.

In all countries, parties to a procedure are notified. In addition, there are some special provisions in some countries. In Slovakia, the authority should publicize the procedure when there is an "adequate reason" (e.g. linear constructions). In Romania, an applicant for a permit must notify the public about the application.

With regard to NGOs, authorities in Poland are supposed to notify NGOs that may be interested in a proceeding about the initiation of the proceeding. In the Czech Republic, NGOs whose statutory goals are nature conservation and landscape protection and who inform the authority about their interest in the matter must be notified in writing about the procedure.

When a permit relates to a project that requires EIA, authorities in Poland must notify in writing all environmental associations from the affected area.

Once a person (natural or legal) becomes a party to the procedure, that person enjoys all rights of being a party, including the right to inspect documents and to make copies, the right to object, etc. Other people have only the right to submit comments. In some cases, there can be a provision requiring public hearings (in case of water pollution permits in Poland) or the authority may decide to organize a hearing at its own initiative. Authorities are required to invite to the hearings all parties, experts, and individuals and organizations "whose participation is motivated by the issue."

Naturally, a party to a proceeding can appeal the final decision. In addition, there are provisions in several countries (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria and Romania) that allow a decision to be appealed by NGOs whose statutory goals correspond with the respective issue. This is especially important because citizens often react only to immediate threats and therefore they often cannot organize in time to became a party to the permitting procedure.

Public Participation in Management of Environmental Funds

Environmental funds have been established in several CEE countries, including among others Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. These funds are becoming important sources of money to pay for environmental remedies and other activities aimed at improving the environment in the respective countries. The funds are established on the national level as well as on the local or regional level. Representatives of environmental NGOs take part as members of the decisionmaking bodies that govern some of these funds. For example, in Bulgaria the National Ecological Trust Fund and the National Ecofund have been established, and both include an NGO representative on their boards.

In Hungary, in addition to the National Environmental Fund, a number of other environmental funds were established to collect and distribute different product fees. NGOs can have representatives serve on each expert committee set up to distribute the different product fees (i.e. fees collected for fuels, tires, refrigerators, packaging material and accumulators) according to the MERP Decree No. 10 (September 28, 1995; Article 12, Paragraph 2). Environmental NGOs gather each year and elect their representatives to the boards of these funds. (See also under section on Public Participation in Policies, Programs and Plan.)

Representatives of the public (i.e. NGOs, science groups, craft unions and trade unions) participate in committees dealing with environmental protection in other places, too. In Hungary, a representative of the NGOs participates in the committee that decides on tenders on the regulations of administering and investing the National Environmental Fund (Article 6, Paragraph 1, Decree No. 10, October, 1995). There are also local funds established by municipalities to support environmental activities on the territory of the municipality. In the Czech Republic, representatives of NGOs and experts can serve on the boards of these funds, too.

Environmental funds at the same time fulfil another important role. Boards of funds are decisionmaking bodies that enable authorities and representatives of the public to decide matters jointly. This is an important example of a working case where NGOs, expert representatives and authorities all share equal rights to decide. NGO participation in similar decisionmaking bodies is quite a unique opportunity for participation even by international comparison. Such participation usually is required and guaranteed by the legal provisions in the statutes of such functional regulatory bodies. This type of joint decisionmaking - when the NGOs are accepted as equal partners in the decisionmaking process - is still rare in the CEE countries.