The main common characteristics of non-formal activities is that they are not self-executing, they depend to a greater extent upon the citizens' initiative, their activism, whether and how citizens - the public - exercise their democratic rights. Since they depend on the resourcefulness of people, they vary country by country. Furthermore, there are non-formal public participation tools developing as a result of practices that go beyond legal requirements, beyond official legal procedures. These either emerge when legal regulation or law is being implemented, but without detailed implementation rules or guidelines as to how to apply them in practice, or they might develop complementary to regulations, supplementing them if all necessary areas are not covered. These so called non-formal practices may sometimes be institutionalized and become part of the legal system, as often happens, or sometimes they might remain in the realm of "good practices." It is sometimes difficult to make a distinction between strictly legal and non-formal instruments because they are strongly interrelated.
Non-formal public participation has a minimum of two preconditions. First, there is a need for active citizens and NGOs to make use of the possibilities provided by basic individual rights, and who try and use in practice not only the different avenues of participation provided or built upon, but also to try and go beyond that, promoting and initiating new ways of participation. Secondly, there is a need for authorities who accept that democracy has rules and principles that the public has the right to participate in the decisionmaking process, who are open to provide possibilities for participation, even if there are no legal obligations to do so.
In this part of the overview report we shall look at the tools, other than strictly legal, which are available for participation and how they are being used in practice of the CEE countries. We will also look at the opportunities provided for the public and NGOs to participate in and to have an insight into the decisionmaking process and the impact which can be made at the different levels of decisionmaking. Finally, because the human capacity for public participation and the ability to use the different tools is an essential condition for both the public and the authorities, we shall examine the non-formal support which is available and needed to build up capabilities and infrastructure in this field.
The educational and awareness raising tools tools, are used for environmental education and raising public awareness. They are quite similar, given the close nature of the two areas. NGOs use widely in all of the CEE countries the more traditional tools for this purpose, such as publishing newsletters, brochures, magazines, leaflets, organizing seminars, workshops, camps, competitions and exhibitions. These are well-known and have been relatively efficient in the past. The success of these instruments is sometimes difficult to measure in the short term, however. Educational activities and public awareness raising are more long-term investments, their results visible only after a few years. Therefore NGOs very often cooperate with schools and teachers using both the framework of the official school system and the out of school activities. The more modern versions of these instruments are combined educational activities (bike tours, visiting or travelling seminars) and the use of the increasingly popular electronic network in the form of newsletters and different campaigns which may be perhaps combined with some unusual event to attract the attention of the greater public. Environmental education and public awareness raising on issues related to public participation happen more in an indirect form, since the attention has only recently turned towards public participation. Few NGOs have programs promoting public participation, but their number is increasing.
There are many instruments which are used as "direct pressure tools", forcing the authorities to make or change a decision on some issue or to gain access to information necessary to solve a case, or just calling the attention of the public to a serious pollution problem or violation of environmental laws. Tools range from the more traditional forms, like sending a petition, a complaint, collecting signatures, to more radical methods including demonstrations and campaigns. The media is also used to publish articles or publicize a problem in a more radical, embarrassing way. The relatively new methods of exercising pressure are the action coalitions among national groups, organizing nation-wide action together with other interest groups who might support the cause of environmental and nature protection, or in cooperation with international NGOs, internationally active interest groups mobilizing public opinion abroad as well as at home. The latter two are seldom used in most of the CEE countries.
"Lobbying tools" are used for influencing the decisionmaking process through more indirect (softer) ways as compared to the group above. They range from the different forms of lobbying, organizing public hearings, consultations, round table discussions or forums, and the elaboration of initiatives and alternatives for environmental policy issues, to more sophisticated and organized forms like publicizing the results of independent research, establishing a full-time parliamentary lobbyist, preparing a green budget or elaborating suggestions for economic incentives. These methods require an expert with an NGO background or access to experts who know how and when it is best to present alternative suggestions. These methods are used with more success in those CEE countries where the NGO infrastructure or their cooperation with experts is better developed.
"Servicing tools" are specific tools which promote public participation activities or direct action of other NGOs, or can strengthen the efficiency of their actions. We also should also speak about specific tools which promote NGO capacity building and their public participation activities, direct action or can strengthen the efficiency of their actions. The establishment of hotlines, green telephones and information centers for citizens could be perhaps qualified as more traditional tools. Public advocacy and advisory centers providing advice, establishing coalitions with municipalities who need support, building up cooperation networks within the country and within the CEE region, and collaboration with Western experts can be mentioned as rather new developments here, among others. The whole area is very new for the NGOs and these methods are used in only a few countries to any great degree. However, in the last few years all CEE countries have shown interest and in all countries similar initiatives can be traced, on a very different scale.
"Complementary, semi-legal tools" are those unique and innovative non-formal public participation tools which can efficiently complement and build upon the legal possibilities and procedures for public participation. These methods are used in combination with legal instruments in a sophisticated way and they are aiming at improving their deficiencies. NGOs follow the legal procedure but try to supplement the process with their own initiatives. Development and application of alternative public participation procedures such as voluntary scoping, initiating and organizing public hearings on explaining the EIA documentation, can be mentioned here. These non-formal procedures prove to be ideal vehicles for giving efficient NGO and public input to an EIA process. Another such instrument is post-project monitoring when independent citizens' commission is established to control application of a permit for example. The experience of these efforts might provide important lessons which can be applied also by others in case of EIA systems. These instruments are seldom used in CEE even in those countries where there have been successful examples for their application. Nevertheless, with the progress of the use of EIA procedure, which has the most developed and concrete public participation procedures in most countries, the use of these tools hopefully will be more spread.
Of course, categorization of non-formal tools is somewhat artificial, as the most efficient results in solving a public participation issue can be reached by combining several tools, using comprehensive campaigns - protest actions, education and public awareness raising using the subtler methods of influence together with pressure when needed. Also, there are many instruments which are used for several purposes, for example media, environmental education and public awareness raising. The use of different tools varies depending on whether the NGOs are grassroots, action oriented or national level NGOs, and this should be considered when attempting to analyze development patterns in using the non-formal tools in the region.
There is a group of countries, the so called "middle -generation", which had some tradition in public participation even before the changes, but where initiatives were very much controlled by the state or state organized "quasi-NGOs." The countries of the former Yugoslavia belong in this category and to some extent, successor states of the Soviet Union. However, the latter tried their power of participation in the socio-political changes of the early 90s, when many new citizen groups were created, using not only the traditional, but also the more radical tools of public participation - protest meetings, actions, pickets and demonstrations. Most of the more sophisticated tools are not, as yet, being used, but some states, especially Slovenia, are progressing very fast.
Most of the tools mentioned above as traditional and more sophisticated are used by NGOs in the "development group", Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, and Slovenia to some extent - "the forerunners" of the region. Mainly due to their traditions of civil society and more openness even in former times, or geographic proximity to the West, their NGO communities have a fairly developed infrastructure. Citizen's groups use a wide range of different tools, in a rich combination, using the new methods first or even developing genuine CEE solutions. Yet, even if they lead in terms of using most of these methods, they also need improvements in terms of creativity and skills to use and develop new, more attractive, more efficient and more successful non-formal practices.
Non-formal tools can be successfully used for actions or activities initiated by citizens and NGOs to press for the solution of certain environmental problems or to call attention to them. To have a significant bearing on the outcome of a certain concrete environmental issue, the problem should be of strategic or of more local importance, or an environmental policy measure. There should be certain possibilities and channels where citizens and NGOs can get detailed information regarding significant environmental decisions and can intervene, present their viewpoints and give alternative suggestions. Without such opportunities, public participation, which should be a dialogue between the public and decision makers, becomes a monologue.
In most CEE countries there is no real possibility for proper public and NGO involvement in the decisionmaking process. There are no meetings in existence which could provide a regular forum for public participation at parliamentary level with respect to policy and law making. Forms of participation are based on ad hoc practice, which has relatively developed and sophisticated forms in countries such as Poland, Hungary, earlier Slovakia and the Czech Republic, but there are no guarantees for obligatory or regular use. It is easy to change them from one day to another. All sessions of the former Hungarian Parliamentary Committee used to be open but now attendance is by written invitation only in advance.
At the same time, practice shows that except for Albania, Romania, FYR Macedonia and Lithuania, NGOs use these existing ad hoc channels quite extensively. In many countries the sessions of the Environmental Committee are open, and NGOs or Parliamentary Committees sometimes organize public meetings on environmental policy issues, draft environmental legislation, many of the NGOs try to lobby with Members of Parliament (MPs) for certain issues or work for different parties as experts. This way, NGOs can make an impact through commenting draft legislation, policy issues, or any important environmental problem. However, their influence is only indirect, and it depends on the goodwill of enlightened MPs whether they use it or not. There is no guarantee that their opinion will be heard and considered. In other countries the possibilities are there, but NGOs are not aware of them or do not use the existing possibilities or channels enough (Slovenia, Croatia). Finally, in countries where there is no tradition of open parliamentary work or lobbying, the NGO or the view of the public gets no attention from MPs or might not even be known (Romania, Albania, FYR Macedonia).
In all countries NGOs try to comment on environmental laws and major environmental policies at the parliamentary level, but in some countries they do not have access, even in an ad hoc way, to these processes. They can only use indirect lobbying from outside parliament, often they work with the government officials responsible for the drafting (Romania, Albania, FYR Macedonia, Bulgaria, Lithuania) but have very limited success due to the indifference towards public input.
One way of exerting influence on decisionmaking is lobbying politicians and MPs. In some countries, cooperation between NGOs and political parties is almost non-existent (as in Albania, FYR Macedonia), because there are no such traditions. In some countries NGOs prefer to have a non-governmental and non-political status in society avoiding even simple communication with political parties, while in others there is a strong trend to work with MPs, and to influence policy and law makers. In some CEE countries, groups of NGOs have transformed into political parties, or established election coalitions an election campaigns. In Bulgaria and Slovenia success was achieved relatively early, but in Hungary and the Czech Republic, they failed. The proper and balanced relationship between political parties and the NGO community has been one of the most delicate and highly debated issues of many CEE countries and has often led to serious conflict within the environmental movement.
There are, however, many ad hoc forms that NGOs use in CEE participate in the activities of parliament, mainly using them for lobbying and getting information. These include open sessions of parliament and parliamentary environmental committees, ad hoc meetings with NGOs to discuss policy and strategy documents, and "on the spot" meetings with NGOs to discuss a local or regional problems. Most of the examples of good practice occur in Poland and Hungary (earlier in Slovakia and Czech Republic), where parliamentarians seem to be more open towards the NGO community and use their expertise via invitations to ad hoc expert committees to comment on reports and supply policy suggestions and draft laws. There are instances when parliamentary committees commission NGOs to write reports, appraisals and prepare draft laws for presentation in parliament (Poland, Hungary, Slovenia). NGOs have also been invited to comment on strategic environmental programs in some countries, but this is not usual. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia new laws and policies are now being prepared mostly without public input as compared to the previous practice. The NGOs are trying, unsuccessfully, to make an impact from the outside. The influence of NGO input is strongly limited by the lack of interest and openness of policy and law makers to environmental issues in many countries.
In a few countries (Poland, Czech Republic), there are unique possibilities provided for a permanent "green lobbyist" with access to the Parliament and to all meetings of the Parliamentary Special Committee on the Constitution (Poland) which in principle is not always open to the public. Groups of MPs consult regularly with NGOs on policy initiatives or draft laws (Poland, Hungary) and parliamentary hearings on special environmental problems have been organized which have been open to NGO participation (Poland, Hungary, earlier Czech Republic). There has been a strong green presence in the Parliament for a long time in Slovenia and the Committee on Environment is still open to cooperate with NGOs. However, in Bulgaria after similar case a few years ago, the relationship between the NGOs and the Parliament and even the green MPs, is tense due to the amendment of the EIA regulation. The Hungarian Parliament is a unique example of providing financial assistance to all NGOs including environmental groups.However, there is a huge competition among the politically oriented and other NGOs and the decisionmaking does not seem to be based on clear criteria and transparent rules communicated to the public.
Sometimes the ad hoc forums turn out to be formal because they are not well prepared, participants are not invited according to a specific subject, the comments are not observed and considered. The meeting is only used "to let out the steam", instead of the intention of having a real dialogue. With the progress of the democratic changes, however, openness and transparency of the parliamentary work will sooner or later require more attention from the policy and law makers towards the public and NGOs who are potential electors with whom relationship might mean loss or winning of votes.
Though there are some limited and in a few countries a bit more ad hoc ways through which NGOs can follow the activities of the Parliament, the voice of the public interest groups is not much heard, they are not very visible among the many other interest groups. They need to perform more efficiently and in a much more organized and professional way to be as successful in the presentation of their views, as the recently emerging business related pressure groups and the former but still influential big lobby groups such trade unions, agricultural or state owned industrial lobby.
In several countries the relationship of the government and the NGOs is characterized as "complicated", "bad", "negative", or "weak" in the country reports (Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania). Very few countries use positive when describing the relationship. Only in Poland does the relationship seem rather balanced. In six other countries (Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia and Albania ) it is not called either good or bad. In the Slovak and the Czech Republics, relations between NGOs and the government were much better under the previous governments which shows that the relationship does not depend on how far the democratic transition has progressed but more on the style of government, or it is strongly influenced by the political will of the governing bodies.
Governments in power generally are not very interested in NGO or public input in discussing environmental strategy or policy issues. As a result, many policy decisions are done ad hoc, or without democratic discussion. In some countries, for example there is strong pressure to reduce and limit the implementation of the up to date existing environmental and nature protection laws. Sometimes important amendments to environmental laws are prepared secretly, without any access to information or participation of the NGOs or public (attempt to change EIA by the Ministry of the Environment in the Czech Republic, amendment of the EIA regulation in Bulgaria). Therefore the relationship of environmental NGOs and governments in some countries can be characterized as strongly conflicting, being in open opposition to the government.
Very few countries have regular dialogue or a regular forum for discussion (Poland, Hungary), only in few countries NGOs participate in the advisory council for the Minister of Environment (Hungary), and in some, the MOE provides assistance or funding for NGOs (Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia and Czech Republic). It is again Poland, which has the richest spectrum of cooperation forms to assist the relatively open relationship between the government institutions and the NGOs, among which there are forms used by other countries as well. There is a special position in the Polish MOE for keeping contacts with the NGOs), and instruments used rarely by others such as: organizing special meetings (usually one a year) of NGO community with the Minister, providing free of charge newsletter with collection of press releases related to environmental activity of the Government (even most critical opinions are included), sponsoring EIA Commission Bulletin which up-dates and gives details on EIAs performed, "short-listing" NGOs in public tenders related to various public projects. The Ministry co-initiated and assisted in creation of the Service Office of Environmental Movement (SOEM).
NGOs are invited on ad hoc basis to participate in some governmental bodies, committees and meetings that discuss the strategic environmental issues and policy documents,or draft legislation. These meetings have covered as well the Environmental Action Program for CEE and the National Environmental Action Plan. In some countries the national environmental strategy or policy documents are also discussed in the presence of some (few) NGO representatives, but these meetings have mostly the character of giving information than gaining feedback, suggestions from the NGOs. Usually the invitation is for a small group of NGOs and it is not always clear why they are the ones who are invited. Neither the possibility, nor the results are widely known by the other NGOs or public.
There have been also a few positive examples, when NGOs have been requested to draft a specific law or regulation, their expertise was used and their initiatives were supported by the MOE. In Hungary, NGO role was substantial in preparing a consensus based environmental protection law and many suggestions of NGOs were adopted. The cooperation is also very intensive and relatively good with NGOs in two Baltic countries, Latvia and Estonia. There are consultations on major environmental decisions and even it is reported regarding what position the country representative should take in international cooperation projects, or meetings regarding public participation. But even where the relationship is characterized as responsive and co-operative, on the level of problem solving of the single issues and on the level of the individual contact, the NGOs lack a systematic, policy oriented attitude toward the NGO community in order to allow them a guaranteed, more efficient public participation in the environmental decisionmaking process to overcome the danger of client dependent and (only) personalized relations.
There is no public involvement in the preparation of materials or draft documents. In very few countries (Slovenia) public hearings are organized on such strategic programs (national strategy on economic development), or meetings to discuss sometimes projects based on international financial assistance programs. In some countries the use of non-formal instruments is predominantly related to development and investment plans on state as well as on local level, on major polluting and environmental issues but it is not so evident considering environmental policy documents, drafting or legislation or its implementations (Slovenia), while in others there is a strong input on national level environmental policy issues, draft laws as well. In very few countries are such events reported by the media.
In some countries many areas of high importance - even if public participation is possible, - are still not covered or covered not enough by NGOs. Such areas like: participation in the development of environmental strategy, reviewing of environmental policy documents, drafting legislation, implementation of legislation, EIA, permitting, licensing process, international environmental programs are out of most NGOs, (especially the grassroots) influence. In these countries, business and consultancy NGOs have more access and are involved into these processes. Especially, this is the case with projects financed by international financial institutions or assistance programs (EBRD, World Bank, PHARE, others), or transboundary issues which require from interested NGOs developed professional skills, good access to information, constant and more professional work. Most NGOs still face various difficulties to follow ongoing events in these areas and to deal with them properly. Just very few national and local grassroots NGOs try to be involved and to develop public participation practices in the areas above.
In the countries where there is a strong EIA regime NGO attempts to have input into preparation and assessment of new governmental policy on issues like highway development, energy development, transport policy, is usually ignored though NGOs prepare comments and alternative suggestions (the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).
There are also countries where NGOs are not able to make a significant impact on the government level because there is no openness, or because there are only very few expert level NGO groups which are capable to elaborate comprehensive policy options or well-based alternative positions on such issues. It happens that because of this latter reason, public participation is only formal (Romania, Bulgaria).
The government officials still need to discover the benefits of involving more regularly the public and NGOs in the decisionmaking process on significant environmental issues. There are many good examples which can be followed and which show that such cooperation can invite expertise on a much broader level with special input from those who have been working in specific fields of environmental protection, but who look at it with a different eye how these affect citizens. A publicly discussed and known environmental strategy or policy initiative can strengthen not only the position of a relatively weak environmental administration but also can mean a strong public support behind a policy line.
Still, this level is much easier to influence because local NGOs find informal way to approach the local officials or representatives, can be contacted and motivated easier. Usually, the meetings of the local councils in many countries are open to public and municipalities created their own commissions which often allow participation of nominated public figures, NGOs. These commissions give some possibilities for public participation, however they cannot be regarded as the best and adequate means for public participation-their work and capacity can be quite limited. They may produce their own internal newsletter which usually informs also about environmental issues - citizens, however, generally do not pay much interest to this type of public participation.
Cases of real public participation can be found in direct communication of municipality with the broad public in some countries. Even in countries where public participation is limited on the national level, local citizens and NGOs easily find ways to influence local environmental issues if they active enough.
The local government authorities in several countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland) have already started to realize more the importance of dialogue with their electoral constituency and the public. They can also feel more the public pressure coming from citizens and NGOs. Attempts to implement public participation beyond legal requirements can be found most on this level of governance in those countries where the local government and municipalities have relative independence and self- governing rights. NGO lobbying on the local level is directly related to the development and "maturity" of the local NGOs. Participation on the local level is hindered by the fact that in a few countries (Albania) there are only few, mostly recently established local NGOs who are not so active and do not have the practice of using non-formal methods.
Public and NGOs can use lobbying and other non-formal tools in working with elected bodies and officials relatively efficiently. There are many good examples of cooperation between NGOs and municipalities especially in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania where citizens and NGOs are involved in the development of local plans, in preparing environmental action plans or are involved in environmental projects where public participation is included. Sometimes the municipalities and the public, NGOs are on the same side of the barricade, protesting or opposing central development, investment plans and form action coalition, or even citizen association, NGOs, against local, regional or international (transboundary) projects. There have been such examples concerning plans for establishing, nuclear waste storage, nuclear power plants; or similar cases regarding the Gabcikovo dam, or water reservoir construction, etc. in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary. Official or semi-official meetings with local mayors, councillors and the public hearings with the state administration or private investors is also rather often organized.
Citizens are often involved directly (not only NGOs) in the preparation of local land-use plans or planning, building processes and their involvement is facilitated through the use of extensive non-formal public participation methods. There are exhibitions, meetings through which citizens can obtain detailed information about the various components of the proposed plans and can immediately provide feedback or submit complaints. This approach is especially used in practice in the Czech Republic. For example, in Brno and Plzen public participation programs were organized consisting of one months extensive interactive exhibitions. Sometimes local authorities organize seminars and meetings related to specific environmental issues and they invite representatives of NGOs. In Mures County, in Romania for example, the County Council organized three seminars this year on specific environmental issues (waste, river) and NGOs were also invited to participate.
Businesses, especially local CEE companies, are not interested in showing a green image. They don't see any specific reasons to provide information for public on environmental issues unless they are targeted by NGOs or the media and want to defend their "good" image. What is more characteristic is that business companies more often sponsor different NGO activities or events, or provide in-kind contribution.
Green labeling and green consumerism exists to some extent but it has not had much effect yet on consumption patterns. Green labeling is being used for some products in many countries. In certain CEE countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia) there is a governmental initiative to support the use a "green mark" for more environmentally friendly products. The major problem is that as there is no market for these values, usually they are much more expensive than other ones which limits both the production and the marketing. Green consumerism is still not very developed in CEE. There are no strong organizations of consumers oriented according to green values even in these countries, but sometimes there are a few successful lobbying efforts for some environmentally friendly solutions (recycling of glass bottles in the Czech Republic). However, there are green consumerist campaigns as part of public awareness raising about environmentally friendly products and methods of production initiated by NGOs, but this is a relatively new area of activity. The industrial sector is generally shows no interest in having public participation beyond the legal requirements and the Trade Unions are also devoting little attention to workplace environment conditions, environmental health problems controlling whether the enterprises,companies have compliance with legal standards or not.
In a few countries there are a regular weekly programs on national TVs and radios that cover the most important environmental issues, and some of them can be called "independent green media channels" (Hungary). Editors of these programs are usually relying on NGO tips on where to focus (Czech Republic, Poland). Access to media in this latter case is based mostly on personal contact between the NGOs, editors or journalists. Hungary is exceptional in the sense that there are several green programs (weekly, biweekly and even short daily ones) both on national TV and radio which have been established by NGOs or outstanding NGO personalities and allow an efficient use for this tool. There are several"green" journalists who are committed and closely linked with the NGO community and write about even the delicate issues. These provide a a very efficient and highly independent channel for communication with the public and the decisionmakers as well.
The difference in the use of the media as a channel for public participation can be detected in how skillfully and for what purpose the NGOs are using it. The radical NGOs usually use stronger and more surprising (Greenpeace-type) methods, but it also happens that the NGOs remain in the background do not show the direct link between the NGO and the information, because they are afraid of loosing their job, the source of information or they might suffer some kind of "retaliation" from the companies and the employers (Latvia). The use of media and other direct actions, non-formal and legal tools are used in a combination to reach the possible best effect.
However, the success of media campaigns or actions depends on how much the officials on different levels feel responsive to the "voice of public". Depending on the "power" of the media, the impact is different county by country. Usually, media actions aimed at the municipal level tend to be much more influential, since the local politicians feel more the need for popular support in their community. Therefore sometimes it is more difficult to get access to this level than to the national level. There is also a trend in the general media that it is more oriented on 'shows', "disasters" or "sensations" which sometimes can divert attention from the not so attractive but more serious, long-term environmental problems.
Several dailies have an environmental page. There are also hundreds of environmental magazines or newsletters prepared by NGOs, some of them on a highly professional level, but they are mostly spread among members and activists of environmental NGOs. In some countries NGOs try to make an impact on a broader public or some target groups within broader public through environmental education magazines for children even combine them with educational programs and camps (Hungary, Czech Republic). The media is used as the most efficient means for environmental education and public awareness raising and reaching the broadest possible public in Albania where the access to the electronic media is still relatively easy and cheap.
In some countries it is difficult to gain the attention of the media for environmental issues or even if they report about them, is not done in the proper style or mode and therefore the environmental concerns, views are marginalized. (Slovenia) Though there are publications, these are mostly scientific or popular science oriented, and the NGO publications are not regular or not professional enough. Authorities can equally make use of this channel for public participation purposes providing first of all information about different issues, making more transparent the process of their decisionmaking. It is not yet characteristic of all countries in CEE that officials responsible for the solution of environmental problems can live with all the possibilities given by the different type of media in a sophisticated and professional way. This is certainly an area which needs improvement.