Chapter 4: Russian Federation

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In such a universal area as the environment and nature protection, where the interests of all people are involved, each individual should be guaranteed the opportunity to express his/her opinion in the decisionmaking process; each individual must have the right to be heard (either at the public hearings, assemblies, or, in cases of high priority, via referendum, as provided in the RF Law on Environmental Protection).

There has been obvious progress in Russian legislation concerning all of the above issues. Legislation has recently been adopted on public participation, access to information, access to justice, and on ecological safety. Additional laws have been drafted or are in the process of being drafted, and are shortly to be considered by parliament. However, there still remain many gaps in the acting legislation, and some contradictions between the RF Constitution and the various provisions of different acting laws and regulations.

There are also a substantial number of examples of bad implementation and of officials ignoring relevant legal provisions, and this leads to irreversible damage for both the environment and for the health and lives of the people.

The number of areas covered by "state secrecy" has been increasing, and under newly adopted laws and regulations a broad discretion is given to officials to classify information.

Nature does not forgive when its laws are violated, and one of the main laws of nature is balance (sustainability). One can say that this Law of Nature protected by human and social relationships is embodied in those legal provisions which aim to balance the interests of all stakeholders in the environmental area.

The EIA procedure, which is only now starting to develop in Russia, allows for very early public involvement at the first stage of environmental decisionmaking. It also allows for objectively taking into account the rights and lawful interests of investors, as well as the rights of the population who could be affected by the planned activities.

From May 28 to 30, 1997, the international conference Environmental Decisions: Discussion, Preparation, Adoption took place in Moscow Oblast (Zvenigorod). At this event professional lawyers and other environmental specialists discussed issues such as the legal regulation of public participation and access to environmental information. All participants agreed that though there are many legal provisions on these issues, there is a lack of developed procedures for efficient implementation and a lack of any real guarantee of citizens' constitutional rights.

The detailed points raised at the conference were as follows:

• There is no clear definition of "environmental information," "public," "environmental decision" in current legislation. In future drafts there is a need to solve this problem in order to avoid conflicts of legal norms.
• There is no guarantee for the citizens' right to be heard, or the right to receive reasoned answers from the public authorities concerning comments given in the process of environmental decisionmaking.
• There is no procedure on access to environmental information in any specific legal act, and some existing legal provisions contradict one another.
• The problem of charges fixed in clear indexes is not solved.
• The issue of independent information sources needs to be solved in the near future.
• There is a need to provide detailed terms for access to information, the format of information, and access to "raw materials" which are the basis for environmental decisions.
• The procedure of cooperation between public authorities and the public in the process of decisionmaking must be more extensively developed (i.e. it is necessary to resolve the lack of ombudsmen).
• The legal immunity of "whistle-blowers" should also be reflected in acting legislation, i.e.. the rights of those who try, with all lawful means, to protect the environment and citizens environmental rights.
• Federal financing of environmental programs and law enforcement is needed, including funding in the area of public participation and access to environmental information. The annually diminishing federal budget in this area during the last few years is seen as a disturbing trend.
• There is a need for strict state and public control of federal and regional environmental funds expenses.
• It is necessary to develop a system of environmental insurance funds.
• Intensive education of decisionmakers in the area of public participation is greatly needed in order to change the traditions and mentality of public authorities to a better balance of interests.
• Environmental education is suggested for judges and prosecutors.
• Areas of secrecy should be diminished by the introduction of efficient procedures of public interest test.
• Possible creation of a system of specialized environmental courts is suggested.
• Procedural improvements for access to justice are required, such as privileges for court fees and for the obtaining of injunction relief; clear provisions for prompt enforcement of court decisions regarding environmental disputes. It is vital that the procedure of execution of court decisions is made more efficient, in order to avoid irreversible environmental damage.