The post-decision monitoring and enforcement by the public of international level decisions is not provided for in legislation, but theoretically can be realized in practice even taking into account that government does not inform the public about possibilities to report to international organs about non-compliance with the international rules by Armenia.
Taking into consideration the present public participation situation in international decisionmaking, the following recommendations can be suggested to improve it. At first, a law on environmental expertise should be adopted (Armenia has no such law, though in 1995 the Law on EIA had been enacted but it covers only expertise concerning planned activity). The processes under this law should be transparent and should establish the opportunity for international environmental expertise. Secondly, a law on access to information should be adopted to make it possible to enforce the provision of Article 24 (a right to access to information). Third should be the establishment of a REC in the Trans-Caucasus region for cooperation between neighbor countries in environmental issues.
| 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) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Adequate notification (right to be informed) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Access to information (right to access to information) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
The obstacles to public participation on the level of national laws and regulations include: the absence of legal regulation of the access to drafting materials, the absence of the requirement to obligatory consideration of the comments of the public on drafts. Moreover, there are no remedies to guarantee access to participation in the work of parliament and the government for those persons or NGOs making their comments on the draft of laws (regulations). The legislation of Armenia does not give the right to legislative initiative to the public. The public has no legal remedies to influence lawmaking (even the right to recall a deputy is not provided by law). However there are some examples when public opinion in the lawmaking process is taken into account. We can mention a case concerning the draft law on ecological education, when the educational commission of the National Assembly sent the draft to the EPAC and other NGOs and their comments were taken into account. As a result, this draft became part of the subsequently adopted law on education. Another example is the examination and evaluation of the draft Law On Animal Kingdom and draft Law On Plant Kingdom, sent by Ministry of Nature Protection to the NGOs for comments. But these are isolated incidents with no legal bases.
Public participation in the preparation and approval of national laws and regulations can be improved by the establishment of a system of free provision of information about the drafting process and drafts. In this phase it can be performed by means of mass media. More intensive introduction of public hearings (not only in EIA) in the activity of the National Assembly and government would contribute to a better realization of public participation rights.
| 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) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Comments are seriously taken into account (right to be heard) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Adequate notification (right to be informed) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Access to information (right to access to information) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
As the obstacles, we can mention imperfections of some legal acts. For instance, the Law On Principles of Nature Protection (1991), Article 11 Section 4, provides citizens the right to participate in discussions of drafts of laws and programs of nature protection, but it does not provide legal remedies to enforce that provision.
The author thinks that all important drafts of national policies and strategies should be published not only in newspapers, but also in the Guide the Republic of Armenia (an official magazine where laws and regulations are published). And this publication should indicate an invitation for the public to participate in the discussion.
| TABLE 6: Preparation and Approval of National Strategies and Policies | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Adequate notification (right to be informed) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Access to information (right to access to information) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
It can be recommended to make it obligatory to publish all important drafts of local governments in local newspapers and to provide the possibilities for the public to participate in decisionmaking on that level, including mandatory procedures of public hearings, obligation of local governments to take into account public opinions while discussing an issue that shall be introduced in legislation and access to information for the public.
| TABLE 7: Preparation and Approval of Regional/Local Rules and Regulations, 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 | 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) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Access to information (right to access to information) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
The situation of public participation in the preparation and approval of local policies, strategies and plans does not differ much from the situation with public participation in local rules decisionmaking, and the main problems and recommendations of the previous two schemes are fully applicable to this one.
Obstacles also include: the lack of information about the decisionmaking process in this sphere, absence in legislation for provisions regarding public hearings in approval of territorial plans and land use. The public becomes aware only when rights of particular citizens are violated.
City and territorial general development plans must be accessible to the public. This can be done by means of mass media, with indications of how the public can get information about the plans.
At the same time, several negative aspects should be mentioned. The Law on EIA does not provide the possibility for a public expertise, detailed procedure for public hearing, and the results of a public hearing are not binding.
The author thinks a law on environmental expertise should be passed, because the Law on EIA covers only issues concerning planned activity. This law must provide restriction to take any action (deeds providing land transfer for construction, etc.) without affirmative judgment of the Ministry of Nature Protection. It can be recommended to expand the legal sphere of EIA in Armenia by the incorporation of the possibilities and procedures of international EIA in the legislation.
| TABLE 8: 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) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 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) | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Access to information (right to access to information) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| TABLE 9: 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) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Access to information (right to access to information) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |